Item No. 4 COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

MINUTE of MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 2 September 2013 at 10 a.m. ------

Present: - Councillors A. Nicol (Chairman), J. Brown, J. Campbell, A. Cranston, V. Davidson, J. Fullarton, I. Gillespie, D. Moffat. S. Mountford, B. White. Apology:- Councillor S. Bell. In Attendance:- Development Standards Manager, Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager, Principal Roads Planning Officer, Managing Solicitor – Commercial Services, Democratic Services Team Leader, Democratic Services Officer (Mrs F Henderson).

MINUTE 1. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 5 August 2013.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

BUILT HERITAGE AND DESIGN 2. With reference to paragraph 2 of the Minute of 3 June 2013, the Principal Officer (Built Heritage and Design), Mr Mark Douglas was present at the meeting to provide Members with further information with regard to the remit of the Built Heritage and Design section. It was explained that the service was primarily charged with the protection, enhancement and promotion (PEP) of the considerable built and natural heritage assets of the Scottish Borders together with integrated countryside access. There was 1 FTE Specialist (Architect/Planner) and the service was divided into three areas: Protect - Maintain and Develop the Listed Building Records as part of the HER (Historic Environment Record); Specialist advice to the planning process; Specialist advice on council properties; Enhance - Develop and implement major heritage led regeneration projects; Maintain and develop Buildings at Risk database and encourage re-use of buildings and Promote - Co-ordinate Doors Open Day in the Scottish Borders and Co-ordinate biennial Scottish Borders Design Awards. The listed Building categories were explained and Members were advised that there were approximately 47,000 Listed Buildings in as a whole, with some 3,022 listed Buildings within Scottish Borders. In comparing List Buildings with other Local Authorities, Scottish Borders was rated 6th and in terms of population the Borders were ranked 2nd in Scotland. There were approximately 650 conservation areas within Scotland and 43 conservation areas in the Scottish Borders.

3. In terms of specialist planning advice, there were typically 180-200 formal consultations a year and 100-150 informal or pre-application applications. Internal consultations on works to Listed Buildings, development in Conservation Areas and design issues, for example one-off new build was given and advice would be given on the extent of a listing, in particular “curtilage” and the need for LBC. Scottish Borders Council had both a “Joint Working Agreement” and an approved “Removal of Duty to Notify” scheme in operation, since 2010 because the council had an appropriately qualified and experienced officer in post – removing the need to consult Historic Scotland on most applications for category B listed buildings – in 2012-13 this resulted in only 11 of 61 applications being referred to Edinburgh. Advice was sought from the Section on Windfarms and the setting of heritage assets and Input into SPGs and Planning Briefs for specific sites.

1 Item No. 4 MEMBER Councillor Ballantyne joined the meeting during the above presentation.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 4. Councillors Davidson declared a non pecuniary interest in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct in respect of planning application 13/00786/FUL and Councillor Cranston in respect of planning application 13/00780/FUL and left the meeting during their consideration.

APPLICATIONS 5. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

DECISION DEALT with the applications as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

MEMBER Councillor Cranston left the meeting prior to consideration of the next item.

APPEALS AND REVIEWS 6. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews.

DECISION NOTED that:-

(a) An appeal had been received in respect of the formation of underbuilding for Pigeon loft and sitting of articulated trailer on land south of 24 Lamberton Holding – 13/00034/UNDEV;

(b) Scottish Ministers had dismissed appeals in respect of the following:-

(i) the formation of two dwellinghouses with one detached garage and formation of access on Land South of Thornbank, Broughton – 10/00507/FUL; and

(ii) erection of 28 holiday lodges with proposed access and land treatment on land North West of Whitmuir Hall, Selkirk – 10/01123/FUL

(c) there remained 7 appeals outstanding in respect of the following:-

Blackburn, Grantshouse, Duns Creag an Airidh Farm, Edinburgh Road, (Corsbie Moor), Westruther Penmanshiel, Grantshouse Gilston Farm, Heriot Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk Horn Burn Wind Farm

(d) review requests had been received in respect of the following:-

(i) Erection of dwellinghouse on Land North East of Buxton House, Eastfield, Selkirk – 12/01191/PPP;

(ii) Erection of wind turbine 67.9m high to tip and formation of new access track Land North West of Helenslea, Primsidemill, Yetholm;

(iii) Change of use, alterations and extension to form children’s play centre, community resource and installation of boundary fence and gates 2 Item No. 4 No 1 Works, Hillview Trading Estate, Guards Road,

(e) the Local Review Body had overturned the Appointed Officers decision to approve the following:-

(i) Erection of Dwellinghouse on Land South of Easter Lilliesleaf House, Back Road, Lilliesleaf - 13/00104/PPP; and

(ii) Variation of condition No 2 of planning consent 12/01378/FUL to omit hipped roof and replace with gable wall Former Brydons Dairy, Scott Street, - 13/00394/FUL

(f) the Local Review Body had upheld the Appointed Officers decision to refuse the following:-

(i) Erection of Farmhouse on Land North West of Lynedale, West Linton - 12/00943/FUL

(ii) Erection of two dwellinghouses on Land North of 5 Edrom Newton Steading, Duns - 12/01385/FUL

(iii) Erection of Dwellinghouse on Land South West of Creag an Airidh, Venlaw, Edinburgh Road, Peebles - 12/01546/PPP

(g) there remained 3 appeals outstanding in respect of the following:-

x Bleachfield Road, Selkirk x Paddockmyre, Coldingham x 2 Crown Crescent, Earlston x

The meeting concluded at 12.15 p.m.

3 Item No. 4 APPENDIX

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Name and Address Nature of Development Location

13/00624/FUL William Morrison Variation of planning Mart Street Supermarket Plc condition No.6 of Hawick c/o GVA Grimley Ltd planning consent 205 St Vincent Street R025/92 relating to Glasgow delivery hours G2 5SG

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Permission is granted for a temporary period of 12 months from the date of this consent and, unless application is made and consent is granted, the permission shall lapse at the expiration of the period granted. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and to enable the Planning Authority to monitor and review the matter at the end of the limited trial period.

2. Permission is granted during the temporary period of 12 months for deliveries to the supermarket to be between the hours of 05:00 to 23:00 Monday to Friday. Any deliveries made on Saturday and Sunday to be between the hours of 07:00 and 22:00. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents

3. No deliveries within the extended time period set out in condition 1 shall commence until a Quiet Delivery Scheme is submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.

13/00445/FUL New Earth Solutions Erection of advanced Land South of Easter (Scottish Borders) Ltd thermal treatment plant Langlee Recycling c/o Axis and associated ancillary Centre, Galashiels Camellia House Infrastructure and 76 Water Lane landscaping Wilmslow SK9 5BB

Decision : Approved subject to confirmation from SEPA that they are content with air quality information requirements and the following conditions and informative note:-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006

2. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the plans approved under this permission (unless modified in pursuance of any of the conditions in this schedule) concurrently with or following implementation of the development approved under 10/00165/AMC (i.e. those elements not amended by this development), including the provision of the approved access, road, parking, water supply and foul drainage infrastructure. It shall not be developed independently of 10/00165/AMC Reason: To ensure the development is adequately serviced by infrastructure to be developed for the unaltered elements of the originally consented development

3. No development shall commence until the following is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, notwithstanding any references made to these works within the plans approved under this consent: 4 Item No. 4

I. External lighting scheme II. Surface water drainage and maintenance scheme III. Boundary treatment scheme IV. Scheme of finished floor and ground levels (including sectional drawings)

Works shall only be carried out in accordance with the details approved under this condition and no further lighting, drainage, boundary treatments or ground/floor level changes shall subsequently be made without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that these elements, which were satisfactorily addressed under the schedule of conditions imposed on the original permission are updated to suit the revised development approved under this consent in a manner which is appropriate in terms of visual impact and that surface water is treated in a sustainable and environmentally acceptable manner

4. The external finishes of the approved development shall accord with the following, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority:

I. ATC and energy recovery buildings (metal cladding, roof and walls) RAL 6003 (or equivalent) II. biofilter building (canvas roof and walls) and water tanks RAL 6006 (or equivalent) III. chimney stack, gas tanks, flare, buffer, booster and biofilter chimney RAL 7026 (or equivalent)

All finishes shall be matt surfaced. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development

5. Soft landscaping within the application site shall be implemented and maintained in the same manner as approved under application reference 10/00165/AMC (as agreed under Condition 2), adjusted only to suit the layout approved under this permission Reason: To integrate the development suitably with the originally permitted scheme and surroundings

6. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the following measures agreed with/approved by the Planning Authority with respect to the specified conditions under application reference 10/00165/AMC:

I. Archaeological evaluation recommendations agreed under Condition 6 II. Site waste management plan agreed under Condition 10 III. Ground remediation strategy agreed under Condition 11 IV. Species and habitat mitigation plan agreed under Condition 12

Reason: To ensure that measures to mitigate effects on archaeological interests and ecology, to reduce construction waste and to ensure any potential contamination is addressed are implemented as approved under the original permission

Informatives

Off site planting requirements, and planting within the unaltered original development site, as required under application reference 10/00165/AMC, remain an obligation on the developer of that site and are not affected by this consent. The Planning Authority, however, notes and accepts the recommendation at 5.2.8 of the Environmental Statement with respect to replacement of Ash trees and agrees this as an amendment to the maintenance scheme agreed under Condition 2 of that consent.

13/00786/FUL Philiphaugh Community Re-development of Land South of 7 Philip School existing park including View, Stuart Davison installation of play park, Bannerfield, Architecture Design Studio formation of MUGA pitch Selkirk 9 Tower Street and associated Selkirk landscaping TD7 4LR

5 Item No. 4 Decision: Approved subject to receipt of written confirmation from Scottish Natural Heritage that their objection is withdrawn, and subject to the following conditions and informative notes:

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2. The banks of the and Long Phillip Burn should be fenced off during construction works, to a minimum of 10m from the bank of the watercourse, in accordance with a scheme of details first submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, prior to the commencement of any development operations. The scheme so approved shall provide for the separating the river and its banks from the building/landscaping operations and providing an undeveloped buffer strip which retains the existing natural vegetation. No work should be carried out on the watercourses themselves or their banks and the fence required by this permission shall be removed upon completion of construction works. Reason: In the interests of the protection of the Long Phillip Burn and the Ettrick Water and their banks from building operations, and to protect the Catchment Special Area of Conservation.

3. Prior to the commencement of development, a method statement outlining steps to prevent the Contamination of the Long Phillip Burn and Ettrick Water with silt, building material or debris during construction works or after their completion is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. There should be no storage of materials or equipment on any areas that are vulnerable to flooding, the areas for such storage to be agreed in advance and in writing with the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: There is the potential for significant adverse impact on the River Tweed Catchment Special Area of Conservation through siltation and other pollution.

4. Details of any Surface Water Drainage required to serve any part of this development are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development, and in the interests of the protection of the Long Phillip Burn and the Ettrick Water.

5. Construction works only to be carried out between the hours of one hour after dawn and one hour before dusk and when off site, any temporary exposed open pipes or cavities are to be capped or covered to prevent otters gaining access. Reason: In order to avoid impacts on European Protected species (otter).

6. Prior to the commencement of development, full technical details of the MUGA pitch, play equipment, fencing, seating, benches, and any other street furniture or structures, including colour finish, materials and details on foundations are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development, and in the interests of visual amenity.

7. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of soft landscaping works, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall include:

i. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas ii. detailed level information setting out existing and proposed ground levels for the proposed play mound and any altered ground levels within the site iii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density iv. a programme for completion and subsequent maintenance.

6 Item No. 4 Reason: To maintain effective control over the development and to ensure the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.

8. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development, and shall be maintained thereafter and replaced as may be necessary for a period of two years from the date of completion of the planting, seeding or turfing. Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping is carried out as approved.

9. Details on how the proposed equipment is to be secured and anchored to the ground shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the equipment does not become removed from its location and float away during a large flood event.

Informative

1. This consent does not convey any approval for any form of Lighting to either the pitch or the play areas.

2. Attention is drawn to the enclosed Environment Alliance document entitled “Pollution Prevention Guidelines no. 5 for Works and maintenance in or near water.”

Attention is drawn to the enclosed consultation responses received during the processing of this application.

13/00855/FUL Scottish Borders Council Single Storey Chirnside Primary & c/o Ray Cherry extension to form School 13/00856/LBC Council HQ classrooms, internal Berwick Road Bowden Road and external Chirnside Newtown alterations TD6 0SA

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions, for the following reason:

The proposed development complies with Policy G1, H2 and BE1, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, Policy 1B, as contained within the SESPlan 2013, and Historic Scotland Guidance for Managing Change in the Historic Environment (Extensions), 2010. The proposal is considered appropriate for such a location and it is not considered that it will impact upon the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. It is not considered that the proposal would harm the visual amenities or residential amenities of the wider area. Listed Building Consent application will require notification to Historic Scotland, before issue of consent notice.

Conditions:

13/00855/FUL

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 Prior to construction of the extension hereby approved, a scaled drawing illustrating the details of the junction of the new roof at both ends shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter, works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the A Listed Building.

7 Item No. 4

13/00856/LBC

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2 Prior to construction of the extension hereby approved, a scaled drawing illustrating the details of the junction of the new roof at both ends shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter, works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the A Listed Building.

VOTE Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Brown, moved approval of the application.

Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Davidson, moved as an amendment that an informative be added with regard to the outside drainage.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 8 Votes Amendment - 2 Votes The Motion was accordingly carried.

13/00780/FUL Scottish Borders Council Erection of Bandstand Wilton Lodge Park Council HQ Wilton Park Road Newtown St Boswells Hawick TD6 0SA

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2. No development to commence until a detailed, scaled drawing showing the exact finished design, size and external decoration of the bandstand has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved drawing. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area.

3. No development to commence until samples of stone proposed for the plinth, the floor finish and the roofing material and the colour finish to the cast ironwork have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved drawing. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

4. Following construction and prior to the use of the bandstand for performances, a noise management plan for the use of the bandstand shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This plan shall include information on times of use of the bandstand, use of amplification and frequency of use. Once approved, the operation of the bandstand shall only be conducted in accordance with the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent residential properties.

5. Details on how the bandstand is to be secured/anchored to the base/ground to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 8 Item No. 4

Reason: To ensure that the bandstand does not become removed from its location and float away during a large flood event.

9 Item No. 5(a)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

7 OCTOBER 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 11/01175/FUL OFFICER: Carlos Clarke WARD: Galashiels and District PROPOSAL: Erection of 9 No wind turbines 100m high to tip and associated infrastructure SITE: Land North West And West Of Allanshaws Farmhouse (Shawpark) Galashiels APPLICANT: J G Shanks & Son AGENT: Green Cat Renewables

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site comprises grazing and moorland located approximately 2km east of Stow and 5km south-west of (from turbines), on the south side of the B6362 which links the two settlements. Access to the site would be taken from this road by means of upgrading tracks and providing additional tracks. The turbines would be located alongside the ridge of Sell Moor in a north-south alignment, a hillside which flanks Stow and reaches 423m above ordnance datum.

Long Park wind farm (sometimes referred to as Halkburn), which comprises 15 turbines at 100 metres in height and 4 turbines at 110 metres in height, is located just the other side of a minor road from the southern-most proposed turbine.

The nearest residential properties/groups include Allanshaws (830-920m); Muirhouse (1.4km) Wooplaw (1.53km); and, Cruachan (1.58km) (figures from Environmental Statement)

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application seeks full planning consent for 9 turbines, described as 100m in height to blade tip in the application submission, though the submitted drawings and Environmental Statement vary the turbines’ specifications between 98.14m and 99.5m to tip. The submission does make it clear that 100m is the ‘maximum applied for’ and thus this department has assessed the application on this basis. The submissions includes an upgraded road leading from the B6362, new access tracks leading to the turbines (and associated hardstandings) and a substation.

The application states that the development would be set up as a 100% community owned wind farm, with residents from local settlements given priority to join a co- operative and invest in the development.

PLANNING HISTORY

This site forms part of a larger site for which a more extensive wind farm development was proposed in 2004. That application (04/00350/FUL) comprised 19

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(a) turbines, each 115m high. The application was refused by the Council in August 2005 for the reason noted below, and the decision was not appealed:

The proposed development would be contrary to Policies I20 and N13 of the Structure Plan, Policies 83 and 84 of the Ettrick and Local Plan and Policies BE3 and D4 of the Consultative Draft Local Plan in that it would have a detrimental impact on landscape character, countryside amenity and on the setting of a site in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. Policy I20 of the Structure Plan in that it would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to the detriment of landscape character and countryside amenity. Policies N14, N15 and N17 of the Structure Plan, Policies 52 and 53 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan and Policies BE1 and BE3 of the Consultative Draft Local Plan in that it would have adverse impacts on archaeological and cultural heritage interests. Policy 118 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan in that it would have a detrimental impact on the existing network of rights of way and the existing recreational uses within the area.

Long Park wind farm was originally subject to a planning application (04/00317/FUL) submitted in 2004 and refused by the Council in August 2005. The decision was appealed and the (then) Scottish Executive upheld the appeal in June 2006. Consent was then granted, following the conclusion of a legal agreement, in July 2008.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

In response to both the original application and further environmental information, a total of 142 representations have been received, of which 115 are in support of the application, and 27 contain objections. (There may be a small number of cases where households are potentially represented by more than one submission). The original submissions can be viewed on Public Access. The following is only a basic summary of the key issues raised:

Supporting comments

x The development is suitable according to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and is well outwith protective buffers. x The A7/A68 corridor is the best location for wind farms, and this site has some of the highest wind speeds and is one of the most efficient sites x There would be local community benefits x The site is far enough from houses with respect to noise and shadow flicker x The site has low ecological sensitivity, with no migratory birds, landscape, ecological or historic designations x The development would contribute to Scottish Government targets x There would be no adverse effects on hillwalking x Long Park shows there would be no significant impacts x If there is to be one more wind farm then it should be this one, which has smaller turbines than the others

Objections

x Adverse cumulative effects with existing wind farms, including proposals in the system such as Muircleugh, Girthgate and Long Park extension. Lauderdale has had enough. This would have similar effects to the previous application but with more cumulative impacts

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(a)

x Adverse tourism impacts and impacts on local economy, with limited economic benefits x Landscape and visual impacts, particularly visibility from the Southern Upland Way, other walking routes, and several iconic viewpoints, including Eildon Hills, Scott’s View, , Twin Law Cairns, Trimontium, and there would be adverse views from A697 x The development would dominate and tower over Stow x It would appear as a long thin extension to a reasonably compact group, extending along a prominent ridge x Impacts on Lauder Common would be wholly unacceptable, changing the character of the Common Riding as the mid point of the ride out would almost literally be under the end turbine x Shadow flicker x Noise effects (there are unresolved complaints associated with Long Park). Cumulative assessment with Muircleuch and Girthgate is required x Question whether all three properties at Allanshaws have a financial interest x Access and traffic x Tree loss x Wildlife effects x There is important base-rich flush habitat to the north-east. Though turbines avoid this area, it should be subject to protection x Ministry of Defence rules should be adhered to

APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The original application was accompanied by:

x Environmental Statement (ES) and Non-Technical Summary x Pre-Application Consultation Report

In response to issues raised by this department, the applicant’s agents submitted further information in the form of Supplementary EIA Information in June 2013 (SEI). This information was made subject to a further round of advertisement and consultation, though the application proposals remain completely unchanged from the original submission.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SESplan 2013

1B The Spatial Strategy: Development Principles 10 Sustainable Energy Technologies

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

G1 Quality Standards for New Development BE1 Listed Buildings BE2 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments BE3 Gardens and Designed Landscapes BE4 Conservation Areas NE1 International Nature Conservation Sites NE2 National Nature Conservation Sites NE3 Local Biodiversity NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(a)

NE5 Development Affecting the Water Environment NE6 River Engineering Works EP1 National Scenic Areas EP5 Air Quality H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Inf2 Protection of Access Routes Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Inf11 Developments that generate Travel Demand D4 Renewable Energy Development

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy 2010 Draft Scottish Planning Policy 2013 National Planning Framework 2 2009 National Planning Framework 3 Main Issues Report 2013 1/2011 Planning and Noise 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (S) Regulations 2011 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment 2013 Specific Advice Sheet Onshore Wind Turbines July 2013 Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011 PAN 50 Controlling the effects of surface mineral workings 1996 PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008 PAN 61 Planning and sustainable urban drainage systems 2001

SBC Guidance

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Local Landscape Designations 2012 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy 2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees and Development 2008 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Biodiversity 2005

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Ecology Officer: Was not satisfied with the ecological assessment carried out under the EI but does not object.

Ecology The desk top appraisal has not included or made reference to a report of the biological records from The Wildlife Information Centre

Bats- it is not clear that the bat surveys have met the requirements of the recent Bat Conservation Trust guidelines particularly with regard to static surveys. Even with more intensive survey effort consistent with recent BCT guidelines it is unlikely that a significant impact on bats would be identified. With respect to the SEI, welcomes the intention to micro-site turbines 1, 5 and 8 to ensure compliance with recommended stand off distances for bats (Natural Technical Information Note TIN051). This requirement should be included as a planning condition.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(a)

Badger- It is surprising that no evidence of any badger signs were found. The EIA undertaken for the earlier Sell Moor wind farm application which included the Shaw Park site identifies a sett and some badger activity although not extensive within the Shaw Park application boundary. A checking survey for badgers will be required prior to the commencement of works.

Vole- No evidence of water vole activity was recorded. Notes there are records of water vole activity on the Lauder burn which is much closer to the site than records included in the EIA.

Mammal surveys have only been carried out up to 50m outside of the site boundary.

Ornithology The results are poorly presented, no maps showing registrations or territories have been included, making interpretation of the results more difficult. It is not clear which areas have been surveyed and the extent of the survey boundary. The results shown in table 3.3.5 are not necessarily reflected in the text e.g. lapwing and curlew (p47). No assessment of cumulative impacts on birds has been included with respect to the consented Long Park wind farm and Toddleburn wind farm, the Section 36 Rowantree wind farm, Corsbie Moor and Blawearie (scoping stage), all within 10km of this proposal.

Felling It is not clear whether the woodland plantations within the site are to be retained or felled. If they are to be felled, the woodland lost must be compensated for adopting the Forestry Commission Scotland and Scottish Government Policy on the Control of Woodland Removal and Scottish Borders Woodland Strategy policy. It is preferable that proposals for compensatory planting are agreed in principle prior to determination.

Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan Very little mitigation is proposed in the EIA and no detail is provided. The developers should incorporate measures that are required to deliver ecological enhancements as well as measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for negative ecological impacts.

Notes the letter of objection which identifies an area of neutral-base rich flush at the north end of the site containing nationally scarce mosses and the eyebright Euphrasia micrantha. Measures should be included to ensure that this area is protected from development and is maintained and enhanced under the Habitat Management and Enhancement plan.

Whilst the submitted EIA is deficient, it is unlikely that further assessment will identify ecological grounds for a refusal of this planning application. If the application is approved recommends conditions be imposed (as noted in original comments).

Landscape Architect: Allanshaws Farm lies within the area described in the Borders Landscape Assessment (BLA) as Landscape type 2LC - Lauder Common character area, an upland plateau grassland landscape type within the Southern Uplands, bounded by the valleys of and the Leader. It is characterised by being a ’large scale rolling plateau topography with gentle slopes and smooth relief…dominated by coarse grassland with localised patches of heather moorland and scattered small coniferous plantations and shelterbelts.’ It has ‘low density settlement with dispersed farm buildings and open panoramic views’ The BLA goes on to say that ‘on the plateau top the landscape is open, large scale and exposed in character with distant and panoramic views often gained over adjoining landscape

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(a) types. The infrequency of field boundaries, lack of enclosure at road edges and high level uniformity of the landcover and large scale of the landform all contribute to an impression of some remoteness’ Visually ‘smooth relief and scarcity of woodland cover leads to a high degree of intervisibility within the unit…. In the south Lauder Common merges with undulating grassland and intervisibility between the types is high.’ The BLA describes its external intervisibility as intermediate (Locally high from plateau margins)

It is a characteristic of Lauder Common that its open unenclosed, large scale moorland qualities, with easy walks and expansive views is in contrast to the adjoining more settled and enclosed river valley landscape types of Stow and the Gala Water to the west, Lauder and the Leader to the east and, to a lesser extent, the East Gala undulating grassland landscape type within an upland fringe landscape. This contrast allied to panoramic views to the south contributes to the appeal of Lauder Common to walkers as well as those taking in the views.

Identifies errors/omissions: The ZTVs do not show fully the zone of influence, as they are shown calculated from the centre of the development rather than from the outermost turbines as requested at the scoping stage. No account has been taken of the Revised Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland and the addition of Bowland to the inventory. From a good proportion of the Bowland Designed Landscape a varying number of turbines will be visible and no assessment of the visual effect on the Designed Landscape has been made. Several other Designed Landscapes of national importance have been excluded, although these are outwith the 5km range so the effects are unlikely to be significant.

Consideration as to whether the proposed development complies Local Plan Policy D4 is noted as follows:

1) This wind farm development is within the ‘preferred area’ outwith environmental designations, therefore this criterion is satisfied.

2) The site is wholly within an Upland type landscape as defined by the Borders Landscape Assessment. It is, however, close to and has an effect on the adjoining Upland Fringe Landscape Character Area of East Gala so could be considered as only partially an upland type landscape. This criterion is therefore only partially satisfied.

3) The topography of the surrounding area offers very little containment and, with the row of turbines dominating the ridge that runs along the west edge of the Common before dropping away to the Gala Water valley, local screening is almost negligible. There are panoramic views to the south and south east and well over 75 % of the area within the 5km range of the turbines has uninterrupted views. The development would be visible, from much of the immediate area, from the eastern side of the Leader valley and from the upland areas of the Moorfoot Hills Special Area of Conservation on the west side of the Gala Water valley, as skyline features. Therefore, this criterion is not satisfied.

4) There are some visual effects on users of the A7 - Borders Historic Route, over an approximately 2km stretch within the 5km range (3-4km distance from the nearest turbine). Over the same stretch of the Gala Water valley there will be a visual effect on users of the reinstated railway line which will be an alternative tourist route into the central Borders. The B6362 is not a major tourist route but is an important route connecting the A7 to the A68 as well as providing access to Lauder Common from both east and west. Viewpoint 03 shows how significant

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5(a)

the visual impact of the turbines will be on users of the Common. Concludes that this criterion is not satisfied.

5(i) There are serious issues about the fragility of the area to change. The ‘impression of remoteness’ of this upland plateau, while being a managed habitat used for grazing sheep and cattle and with pylons crossing it, when viewed from within and without the area, would be compromised by the introduction of 9 turbines of a height of almost 100m along the ridge that separates Lauder Common from the Gala Water valley and in close proximity to several important receptors including the B6362 road and viewpoints and cultural sites on Lauder Common including both the Lauder Common cairn and the Cathpair ancient monument immediately to the north. External intervisibility is high, particularly to and from the south where South Lauder Common merges with the undulating grassland of the East Gala landscape character area. The distinctive nature of the Common relating to openness, wildness and a sense of space would be compromised and diminished. Concludes that the landscape character of Lauder Common would be damaged and this criterion is not satisfied.

5(ii) The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) identifies the ‘effects’ on a number of ‘sensitive receptors’ as follows: x there will be a high magnitude of change, leading to a high level of effect on three residential receptors (Cathpair, Allanshaws and Allanshaws Cottage) x there will be a high magnitude of change leading to a high level of impact on the settlement of Stow (VP 14- Old Stage Road,) x there will be a high magnitude of change, leading to a high level of effect on two separate viewpoints on the Southern Upland Way (SUW) - VP 19 - Chester Hill (an iconic viewpoint within Scottish Borders) approximately 3.7km from the nearest turbine and VP6 - North Fordswell, 4.7km from the turbines. The cumulative impact of the development together with the existing Long Park wind farm, when viewed from these viewpoints on the SUW is significant as the linear nature of the proposal effectively extends it along much of the horizon to the west. x There will be a high magnitude of change, leading to a high level of effect on receptors on B6362 and on the wider Common plateau, many of whom have come to the Lauder Common plateau for recreation and to take in the views. The Lauder Common Riding ride out traverses the Common, before accessing the cairn which is located on rising ground 1½ km to the north east. x Walkers along the Girthgate, the historic path between Soutra Aisle to the north and Melrose to the South and approximately 1km from to the turbines at its nearest point. These receptors are within 5km of the turbines. Considers that this criterion is not fully satisfied. x No account has been taken of the Revised Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland (Revised November 2010) and the inclusion of Bowland in the inventory.

5(iii) and (ix) The cumulative visual effect of the layout of proposed turbines at Shawpark together with neighbouring Long Park wind farm is amply demonstrated in the photomontages, particularly from Viewpoints 2, 3, 6,13 and 19. Not only is the linear layout in marked contrast to the clustered layout of the adjacent Long Park wind farm but this layout has the result of significantly increasing the cumulative visual effects when seen from the surrounding landscape.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(a)

Toddleburn wind farm lies within 10km of the application site there will be some level of coincident cumulative effect within the 5km range. Considers that criterion (iii) has not been adequately satisfied.

This development would also increase the potential for sequential cumulative impact, especially from the A697 and A68 route receptors and the long distance footpaths such as SUW and Girthgate and the old right of way from Clovenfords to Stow, increasing the areas where wind turbines would be encountered and because of the linear nature of Shawpark the extent of the development will significantly increase the perceived visual impact. Considers that criterion (ix) has not been adequately satisfied.

The proposal to erect 9no 99.5m turbines on the western edge of, and at the highest elevation on the Lauder Common plateau, would produce a range of adverse landscape and visual effects, and considers that, given the relative ‘remoteness’ of Lauder Common and its importance as an amenity for local communities, the impact on the Common is unacceptable. The high degree of visibility within the 5 km range makes its impact significant. Considers that, on landscape grounds, there are sufficient grounds to oppose the development.

Conclusion

Given the significant adverse effects noted above, concludes that Policy D4 is not satisfied and therefore the application should be refused.

Following the subsequent submission of the SEI and additional visual information provided within it, advises that:

x Viewpoint from the A7 north of Stow: The given coordinates do not correspond to any of the photographs with wirelines, so is therefore unable to consider the assessment. However, given the series of wireline views that are provided, which show the proposed turbines strung out in a row along the skyline above Stow as one approaches from the north, does not think the magnitude can be described as 'low' even allowing for some screening vegetation in places. There is a clear impact on views from the A7.

x Approach to the west of Stow: Can find no table assessing this viewpoint in the Supplementary EIA Information. However, there are a series of wirelines. There has been no attempt to represent the actual views that would be seen. Also, some of the photos do not correspond well to the associated wireline.

x Concludes that, even allowing for the limited quality of the additional information provided, this additional information reinforces the understanding that the proposed works would be dominating and intrusive at various points on the approach to Stow either on the main A7 road or the minor road that runs down the west side of the Gala Water valley. Remains strongly of the view that this application is unacceptable in landscape and visual terms.

x Suggests that consideration be given to approving the one southernmost turbine, T1, which relates visually to Long Park on its own

Access Officer: There are three Rights of Way on this area. All Rights of Way and promoted routes should remain open and free from obstruction before, during and after construction. Due to the proximity of the wind farm to adjacent paths and in

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(a)

regard to the cumulative effects of wind farms on the Southern Upland Way, developer contributions are requested both within the requirements of national and local policy. A nominal sum of £1000 per unit, totalling £9000, is sought to contribute towards maintenance of the Southern Upland Way and the wider path network and for the promotion and marketing of the Southern Upland Way.

Archaeology Officer: In response to the original application, advised that, unfortunately, the cultural heritage chapter in the accompanying ES is inadequate and so was unable to provide an appropriate consultation. The ES failed to take into account a range of issues (listed in detail in his comments).

In response to further information submitted since his original comments (in the SEI), has advised that he is satisfied with the results. In terms of indirect impacts, does not feel there will be any setting issues with respect to the Scheduled settlement on Lauder Common (Cathpair hut circles). Notes that Historic Scotland have suggested there will be impacts to the setting of Cathpair, but not such to warrant objection and he agrees with this assessment

In terms of direct impacts, is in slight disagreement with the findings in the SEI. Feels the archaeological potential for the site is higher than what has been suggested. Has identified a possible prehistoric enclosure cropmark in our 2007 APs at NT 48236 43069. This is located within or very near to the access track and the southernmost turbine. This new site, coupled with the discovery of cord rig during the recent survey suggests that there is a moderate to high potential of encountering prehistoric archaeology during ground works within the development area. Also feels that there's a moderate potential of encountering buried evidence of the Girthgate.

With this in mind, suggests that it's appropriate to seek a condition for a watching brief on all wind farm infrastructure. If anything is encountered during this, then the archaeologist will need to be afforded sufficient time to investigate. An alternative to this would be a phased geophysical survey of the infrastructure footprint followed by targeted evaluation of any possible archaeological anomalies that appear in the results

Environmental Health Service: Originally advised of standards that should apply i.e. x Noise levels from the combined effects of the wind turbines at any noise sensitive premises (in existence at the time of the permission) where the proprietor or the occupier of the property has no financial interest in the development shall not exceed an external free field level LA90, 10min level of the greater of 35dB(A) or 5dB(A), at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s, above the agreed prevailing background noise level during amenity hours, and 43dB(A) during night hours.

x For properties (in existence at the time of the permission) when proprietor or the occupier has a financial interest in the development the above levels should not exceed the greater of 45dB(A) or 5dB(A), at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s, above the agreed prevailing background noise level at all times.

x Any tonal elements in the noise spectra shall be assessed using the joint Nordic Method and the tone level shall not exceed 2dB above the ‘Masking Threshold for Tones in Noise’.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(a)

x All the above limits shall include the cumulative noise from any other turbines in the vicinity.

x No development shall commence until a scheme for the ongoing monitoring of noise and tonal levels has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning authority.

x Noise measurements shall be taken using the methodology contained in ETSU-R-97.

Subsequent to the above comments, and following submission of the Supplementary EIA Information, the EHS have further advised that the application should not progress until the following issues have been addressed.

The applicant has provided conflicting information. The applicant has provided a map to illustrate the contour line for L90 35dB(A) indicating the cumulative noise from Long Park and Shaw Park. Within this contour line there are at least 5 properties (noted some have financial interest), yet the conclusion is that cumulative noise at each noise sensitive receptor will be less than 35 dB(A). The property at Muirhouse is deemed to be “just outside” this contour line. The term “just outside” needs to be quantified. The applicant needs to provide further details on how the contour line was derived, background monitoring carried out, length of survey, details of monitoring locations etc. Also how any assessment carried out meets the requirements set out in ETSU.

The applicant needs to provide detailed information regarding cumulative noise from all existing and proposed wind turbines at all noise sensitive receptors (this includes those with financial interest).

Strongly recommend that the applicant liaise with the EHS regarding monitoring points if further monitoring is to be carried out. The applicant also needs to address the issue of tone from the turbines and wind sheer.

For clarification Scottish Borders Council will always seek to impose noise limits at the lower end of the ETSU scale.

The applicant has addressed the issue of construction noise satisfactorily. Do not foresee any noise issues arising from this phase of the development if the steps laid in the SEI are followed.

Roads Planning Service: The proposed route seems fine, and the large vehicles are turning round at the A68 Leaderfoot roundabout which again is fine. The cattle grid protection is standard, though have seen a metal plate used. Only real issue is the detail of the improvement to the junction as it leaves the public road, as it is a bit sparse.

Statutory Consultees

Scottish Natural Heritage:

Landscape/Visual Impacts: Have serious concerns regarding the landscape and visual effects arising from the siting and design of this wind farm in this location. Key concerns are:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(a)

1) The very poor design relationship of the proposal to the neighbouring existing wind farm at Long Park;

2) The significant and adverse landscape and visual impacts as experienced from the village of Stow/ Stagehall, and the adverse effects on the wider landscape setting of the village;

3) The adverse landscape and visual impacts resulting from both the turbines and the ancillary engineering works (tracks and crane pads) as will be experienced by receptors at Lauder Common;

4) The visual prominence of the proposal itself within the local and regional context and the range of landscape and visual effects that will ensue;

5) The potentially adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts arising from this development in combination with other wind farm developments within the plateau grassland landscape type;

SNH do not think that the current proposal can be reduced or modified to adequately address the principle matters raised in their response. (The details of these concerns are provided in full in SNH’s original comments, available on Public Access)

Ecology and Ornithology: The studies carried out to inform ES are sufficiently comprehensive, and show the nature conservation interest of the land required for this development proposal to be low, which is as anticipated. Agree with the conclusions

Transport Scotland: No comments received.

Scottish Government (Environmental Quality Division): No comments regarding air quality and noise. Recommends that suitable conditions are formulated based on the background noise constraints derived.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Disruption to peatland and wetlands: In their original comments they recommended that a detailed peat management scheme (including peat depth survey) should be included as part of the environmental management plan. The Supplementary EIA Information outlines that this will be undertaken based on the finalised turbine and access locations, including micro-siting, before any construction works are carried out. SEPA still recommend that this is included with the EMP which should be required by condition. By adopting an approach of minimising disruption to peatland, the volume of excavated peat can be minimised and the commonly experienced difficulties in dealing with surplus peat reduced. The generation of surplus peat is a difficult area which needs to be addressed from the outset given the limited scope for re-use. It is therefore essential that the scope for minimising the extraction of peat is explored and alternative options identified that minimise risk in terms of carbon release, human health and environmental impact. Early discussion of proposals with SEPA is essential, and an overall approach of minimisation of peatland disruption should be adopted.

With regard to wetlands note that a Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been carried out for the whole site. This has identified the presence of ‘marshy grassland’ within the site. The ‘marshy grassland’ typology is often associated with groundwater dependent

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(a)

terrestrial ecosystems. It is important that any direct or indirect impacts to these habitats are minimised. Are satisfied that the location of the turbines and associated infrastructure avoids the area of ‘marshy grassland’. Notwithstanding, there is still a chance that the proposed works on site may have an impact on the wetland. Details of appropriate mitigation measures should therefore be included in the environmental management plan.

Engineering activities in the water environment: Understand that three watercourse crossings are proposed as part of the development. No details of the proposed design of these crossings have been provided in the ES. The applicant should be advised that authorisation will be required for these and for any cable crossings of watercourses under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR). While they are satisfied that the proposed works are capable of authorisation in principle, recommend that the applicant contact a member of their local operations team as soon as possible to discuss the detail of any future application under CAR.

Environmental management and pollution prevention: Are satisfied with the general mitigation principles and pollution prevention measures set out in the ES. Note that a commitment has been made in the ES to agree a groundwater protection plan for the site and all operations with SEPA prior to the commencement of construction activities on site. Some of proposed measures relate to works which may be regulated by SEPA however, many of the works will not be and need to be covered by condition. Therefore, request that a condition is attached to the consent requiring the submission of a full site environmental management plan (EMP).

Private water supplies: The Supplementary EIA Information includes details on private water supplies. However, they all, but one, appear to be located outwith the buffer distances of (i) 100m from roads, tracks and trenches or (ii) 250m from borrow pits and foundations and therefore they have no further comments with respect to these. One spring (4) appears to be within 100m of the access track, shown to be located approximately 25m from the proposed access track. Therefore, strongly recommend that either a precautionary approach is taken with the route or location of engineering operations avoiding this buffer area, or further information and investigations will be required if the route of the access track remains unchanged. If the applicant decides to submit further information, then they should provide one of the following:

• A quantitative hydrogeological assessment to demonstrate that the risks to groundwater abstractions are not significant.

• Where the impact is on a water supply, a demonstration that the applicant has agreed with the owner of the abstraction to provide an alterative supply.

Historic Scotland: Content there shall be no direct impacts on assets within their statutory remit. Consider that there shall be an adverse impact on the setting of Cathpair hut circles and field system. However, consider that the significance of the impact is not such that it warrants an objection.

Lauderdale Community Council: In 2005, SBC turned down previous applications at Halkburn and Sell Moor. Both would “have a detrimental effect on landscape character and countryside amenity and..would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to the detriment of landscape character and countryside amenity”. Additionally Sell Moor would have adverse effects on archaeological and cultural heritage interests and detrimental impact on the rights of way network and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(a) recreational use. The developer appeal on Halkburn was allowed despite SBC’s continuing objection and the wind farm known as Long Park stated operation in 2009. In February this year (2011) an application for two turbines at Muircleugh was recommended for refusal and was withdrawn. The proposed Shaw Park wind farm lies on a higher part of the original Sell Moor site, effectively contiguous with Long Park and approximately 2km from the Muircleugh site. Although there are now fewer turbines proposed and somewhat smaller, all objections to the three earlier proposals apply. In addition, the cumulative impact would be much worse than in 2004 and pre- application sites at Girthgate and Cathpair should also be taken into consideration. Community benefit is not to be considered a planning issue. Nor should involvement of local investors be relevant. The Community Council object to the proposal.

Gordon and Westruther Community Council: No comments received

Stow Community Council: A public meeting was held. Two thirds of those entitled to vote objected to the wind farm. The reasons for the objections were the cumulative effect of Shaw Park, taken in conjunction with existing wind farms on the general amenity of the area. Residents were also concerned at the effect of nine turbines on the environment of Lauder Common. The Community Council are lodging objection on behalf of those present.

Following submission of the SEI, the Community Council (jointly with Heriot Community Council), made further comments, which include the following:

x Local Community Councils have already objected and SNH noted five key concerns. Consider that these concerns remain. x The SEI has very little to say about visual impacts though it does attempt to address a few of the key criticisms x The SEI seeks to demonstrate that there is a distinction between lauder Common and Sell Moor. This is wholly implausible, the only division is a low stone wall. The turbines would be so close to the Common as to overwhelm the western end x When viewed from the east, the line of turbines extends Long Park considerably across the most prominent part of the skyline. As SNH notes, this reflects the very poor design of this wind farm x The SEI has nothing to say about Muircleugh or Girthgate, which is an extraordinary omission, nor anything about the extension to Long Park itself. There has been no attempt to update the cumulative impact assessment despite the changes noted above. x The Community Councils continue to maintain their objections and consider it has no merits whatsoever x Note that the MOD maintains its objection on grounds the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the Eskdalemuir array. They refer to Government appeal decisions on other schemes, whereby the appeals were dismissed in accordance with the MOD’s objections. Consider that as precisely the same conclusion would be reached here, all such current applications should be withdrawn as they are a waste of time, resources and money. (See original comments on Public Access for full quote)

Galashiels and Langlee Community Council: Support the principle of the generation of renewable energy in general terms but do not wish to comment on the more detailed issues such as the number of wind farms in the Borders region; the effects on tourism due to visibility; energy efficiency arguments; alternative energy sources to onshore wind farm production etc. The proposal appears to have a

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(a) negligible impact on ecology and ornithology in the area. It is difficult to comment on noise until the site becomes operational, but the ES considers this to be "not significant". Are aware of the breadth of feelings within the Borders about wind farm proliferation, but provided that this application complies with all the necessary planning requirements for SBC, and delivers on the detailed ES, they are not in a position to make adverse comments.

Melrose Community Council : No comments

Health and Safety Executive: No comments received

Scottish Water: There are no public water mains or waste water services in the vicinity of the site.

BAA Airport Safeguarding: Does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. No objection.

Ministry of Defence: Objected to the original application, for two reasons. The turbines will be 49km from, in line of sight to, and will cause unacceptable interference to the ATC radar at RAF Spadeadam Deadwater Fell. Also, this site is approximately 43km from the seismological recording station at Eskdalemuir and falls within its statutory safeguarded area. Following research jointly commissioned by DTI, BWEA and MOD, it has been confirmed that wind turbines of current design generate seismic noise which can interfere with the operational functionality of the array. In order to ensure the UK complies with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, a noise budget based on the findings of the research has been allocated by the MOD for a 50 km radius surrounding the array. The budget has been set at 0.336 nm rms. At present the reserved noise budget has been reached, so the MOD must object to this application.

Following discussions with the developer, the MOD advise that a proposal to provide a technical solution to the effects on RAF Spadeadam Deadwater Fell ATC Radar has been accepted, and a condition can be imposed (as per the draft noted in the MOD’s comments). This is despite the MOD being unaware of any proposed mitigation schemes which have been successfully implemented to date.

As regards Eskdalemuir, the MOD maintains their objection due to the unacceptable interference it would cause to the Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station.

If the developer can overcome the issues, all turbines will need fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point.

NERL (NATS En Route): Does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. No objection

Other Consultees

Joint Radio Company: Cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by Scottish Power. Foresee no potential problems based on the known intereference scenarios and the date provided.

Scotways: BE35 forms part of Girthgate, a medieval road promoted in their Heritage Paths project due to its historic interest. Two other routes (BE42 and BE47) are also affected. Their Heritage Paths project has concerns with the potential to change the recorded line of Girthgate and that the hill-top variant to the route lies in the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(a)

immediate vicinity of 7 of the 9 turbines. The Society reference Scottish Planning Policy with respect to non-designated sites. The ES does not appear to include any discussion on the impact of the development on recreational access. The three rights of way are either followed or crossed. The Society request that the routes remain free and clear from obstruction during and after development. Additionally, due to the historic significance of BE35, (Girthgate), suggest it inappropriate for the site access to follow any section of it. Also make reference to Welsh Guidance regarding siting of turbines from public routes. Object to the application.

Scottish Badgers: No comments received

RSPB: Supportive of the use of renewable energy, but believes that the locations of wind farms must be carefully selected to avoid negative impacts on habitats and species of conservation importance. Satisfied that the bird survey work as detailed in the ES has been carried out according to appropriate and recognised methodology in general, and for particular species or groups of species where dedicated techniques are required. Waders. The survey work recorded four Curlew (presumably two pairs) within the development area. Although these numbers are not significant at a regional or local level it would, nevertheless, be appropriate to undertake off-site measures to benefit this species including creation of new habitat and management of existing potential or suboptimal habitat. A Habitat Management Plan to benefit the species should, therefore, be drawn prior to commencement of development. In order to maintain net regional biodiversity interests, including wading birds, appropriate habitat improvement measures at suitable sites should be considered as part of a broader contribution to community/environmental enhancement. Wildfowl. One flight of Pink-footed Geese was reported. The proposed development is not of concern as far as this species or other wildfowl are concerned. Construction phase Any tree felling should be undertaken outwith the bird breeding season (April – July inclusive). Community fund and biodiversity enhancement Welcome the community benefits proposed by the developer. These represent a unique and valuable opportunity for improving the area for wildlife and nature conservation interests that will, in turn, strengthen the quality of life of local residents. Environmental projects should, therefore, be amongst the main beneficiaries of the community fund. The area is not of significant bird conservation interest. RSPB Scotland has, therefore, no objection to this development subject to a condition requiring a Habitat Management Plan.

Scotland Gas Networks: No gas mains in the area

Ofcom: No advice provided

Scottish Wildlife Trust: No comments received

Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland: No comments received

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Whether or not the proposed development complies with development plan policies relating to the development of a wind farm of this scale, having accounted for other material considerations.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(a)

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Principle

National Planning Policy, via the National Planning Framework 2 and Scottish Planning Policy identifies support for renewable energy in order to meet current targets but also identifies the need to consider landscape and visual impacts, and safeguard the cultural and national heritage. SPP also encourages support for community-based schemes provided their environmental impacts are acceptable. The Government’s Specific Advice Sheet Onshore Wind Turbines provides policy guidance related to wind farm developments that are material to this application.

The SESplan supersedes the Structure Plan. It is principally designed to guide the Local Development Plan. It ultimately promotes the renewable energy sector provided environmental impacts are accounted for. Its policies are not directly relevant to assessment of this application, but it is worth noting that Policy 1B expects Local Development Plans to ensure there are no significant adverse impacts on the integrity of designated sites, and that regard is to be had to improving the quality of life in local communities by conserving and enhancing the natural and built heritage to create more attractive and healthy places to live. The LDP is at too early a stage (not yet having advanced beyond the Main Issues stage at the time of writing this report), but the current adopted Local Plan seeks to achieve these objectives. Assessment of this application against the Local Plan will tally with the SESplan. Policy 10 also promotes ‘sustainable energy sources’. The SESplan expects LDPs to set a framework that meets national energy targets – 100% of electricity; 11% of heat; at least 30% of overall energy; and 500mw of community/locally owned schemes, all by 2020. The SESplan, however, makes it clear that account must be had of relevant economic, social, environmental and transport considerations. It also cautions that consideration of location, landscape, environmental quality and community impacts will be required of onshore developments and notes that concerns have been expressed regarding cumulative impacts. Ultimately the thrust is to support renewable energy, provided environmental impacts are adequately accounted for.

Thus, determination of this application against the current Local Plan (particularly Policy D4) and policy guidance (particularly the Council’s SPG Wind Energy), will reflect the requirements of the SESplan. The application must be determined on its own merits, albeit accounting for cumulative impacts. Exploration of alternative sites is not necessary, and the ES refers to the constraints that have led to the choice of site, and evolution of the design and scale of the scheme.

Landscape impacts

Policy D4 requires an assessment of landscape impacts, a requirement reinforced by the Council’s SPG. Policy G1 is also relevant as regards protection of the character of the surrounding area.

The site is not within a designated landscape, and is within an ‘area of search’ according to the former Structure Plan. It is not within the most sensitive zone in SNH’s locational guidance. D4 suggests that ‘Upland’ landscape types are more preferable than others. This site is within the Plateau Grassland Landscape Type (Lauder Common Landscape Character Area), which is an upland landscape type. It is however flanked by river valley types to east and west, and upland fringe to the south-east. It is within the relatively narrow southern extent of the landscape type, as opposed to more centrally within a broader landscape. The site itself is, therefore,

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5(a) considered more fragile to change than other parts of the landscape type, or larger scale upland settings.

Policy D4 provides broad support for locations where surrounding landform minimises visibility and where there is no interference with prominent skylines. The turbines would follow the slopes of Sell Moor. This particular hill is at a higher level than surrounding hills and taller than most by a very clear margin. The turbines would be above all locally surroundings hills. ZTVs suggest visibility will be high within the first 5km as a result. Surrounding hills do provide some containment to the north- west and south-west, but visibility is otherwise most substantial to the north-east, east and south-east. Ultimately, the site is located on a prominent hill, and turbines on it will theoretically be significantly exposed. The previous application for the larger scheme here in 2004 included a line of turbines in a similar position and was refused, in part, because of their likely visual dominance on the skyline. This proposal is less substantial, but occupies one of the most sensitive of local skylines and does not, by doing so, address the previous objections. The turbines would occupy a prominent ridge in a much more conspicuous manner than Long Park currently does, and will dominate (when visible) the appreciation of the setting of Stow when approaching from the north-west and from the west. This interference is objectionable and in conflict with Policy D4.

In terms of landscape character, the Council’s SPG identifies the site as falling within an area of intermediate constraints, and the site is not designated for its special landscape quality. The ES suggests the site can accommodate development and that its overall scale and character would not be diminished. However, the site’s key qualities can be attributed to its openness, large scale and its value as a hill backdrop to the setting of Stow.

The linear arrangement of large scale turbines along the back of its ridge will be a domineering, distracting feature, affecting the profile of the skyline. The turbines would effectively extend Long Park across the back of the skyline, behind the village and its Conservation Area, including the B Listed Stow Parish Church. It is notable that SNH “highlight the increased extent of wind farm development that will occur on the skyline, the added prominence of the Shaw Park turbines and the likely dominant effect that this combined development will have on the setting of the village, as experienced from this important approach (A7).”

To the north, the site extends towards the open, remote character of Lauder Common. Albeit significantly sized pylons detract from this character now, the area is otherwise open moorland punctuated occasionally by plantations. There is a distinct feeling of remoteness to it. The turbines here would step over the brow of Sell Moor, introducing significant man-made structures into the surroundings of the Common, exacerbating, rather than being justified by, the effect of the existing pylons. It is accepted that turbines fit better in remote, large scale locations. In this case, it is a concern that the turbines would detract from the character of the landscape so close to visual receptors on the B6362 and Lauder Common.

The design of the scheme reflects the form of the hill. Its simplicity reduces the potential for stacking, and suits this hillside better than a compact array. However, it means the turbines string out across the skyline in a very exposed manner. They would do so in a manner which strays from the arrangement established by Long Park. SNH draw particular attention to the contrast between the two schemes, and the extent to which Shaw Park would string out Long Park’s currently reasonably coherent layout. The ES considers that the linear design will not be readily apparent from surrounding viewpoints. However, it is evident in viewpoints (SNH refer to

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5(a) viewpoints, 6 7, 9, 10 and 13) and these viewpoints are, in themselves, only a snapshot of potential views of the wind farm.

Ultimately, this department shares concerns that the location and design of this development will detract from the landscape setting and contribution of the site, including its backdrop to Stow and relationship with Lauder Common.

In terms of other landscape designs, the nearest is the National Scenic Area to the south. The ES suggests no significant effects will occur. The wind farm would be clearly visible from the Eildon Hills and Scott’s View, though at a distance within a wider panorama. It is noted that SNH do not object in this regard. The view from the Eildons does, however, illustrate the development’s linear spread across the skyline. As regards other designations, it is not considered the scheme would significantly detract from their qualifying features.

Associated works

Tracks, turbine bases and laydown areas have the potential to scar the landscape and add to the intrusion of the wind farm, as SNH point out. The ES suggests there will be no significant effects from these works, though provides little justification for this. There is sufficient information on locations and routes, however, to make an informed judgement.

The junction and initial section of the road from the B6362 will comprise upgrading a tarmaced road. Subject to details of this, this is unlikely to significantly change the character of this area. A new section of track from this road will follow a field boundary, progress through fields, away from moorland and the B6362. There will be changes in ground levels to address, but this is not objectionable in principle. Beyond that the route will be less exposed as it follows field boundaries, the Girthgate route and runs alongside conifers. The tracks will cross the hillside though there should be no significant visibility from the west as they will sit below the brow of the hill. From the north and north-east they will be more visible, but woodland will screen the tracks to the first five. The impact of others will be more apparent, but need not significantly scar the landscape in themselves provided (as SNH says), treatment of gradients, and the extent of cut and fill required is established as being acceptable before a route is finalised, with the principal objective of minimising change to the landscape. They will, however, exacerbate the intrusion of the turbines into the open landscape. A condition can secure downgrading and restoration. Cables can be restricted to underground. Grid connections beyond the site are considered separately under the Electricity Act.

A substation is proposed to the south of the site ‘provisionally’ though the ES suggests this will be relatively small. The provisional siting is away from the exposed parts of the site. A condition can secure details of the building. In addition, three watercourse crossings are proposed, though the principle of these is agreeable due to their relatively limited landscape implications. Again, conditions can secure details.

The ES suggests a small compound near the site entrance will be required, but also compounds near each turbine. A single compound is preferable to a scattering of compounds across the site and selecting the least obtrusive location needs further consideration. A condition can address this. The effect of this and other construction activity would be considerable but temporary only and is not a determining issue.

Cumulative landscape impacts

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 5(a)

With respect to other wind farms, it is acknowledged that the baseline of wind farms within the planning system in the Borders is constantly changing. Indeed, it is this very fact which makes it quite impractical for this application, or any other, to continually be reassessed to account for every wind farm proposal that enters the system. The assessments made on behalf of the applicants, as well as the information available to this department, allow a firm conclusion to be drawn on the most likely significant cumulative effects.

This proposal will act as an extension to Long Park to an extent, and this aspect i.e. the principle of extending an existing wind farm, is ordinarily to be supported, since it reduces the spread of wind farms into other areas. This is a principal factor which the ES emphasises. However, in this case, the exposed location of the site, and the linear form of the development, will effectively extend Long Park in a very conspicuous fashion across the back of Sell Moor. Also, it will extend over the hillside onto the open, very visible moorland alongside the B6362, acting as an extension of wind farm activity towards existing wind farms to the north, effectively acting as a bridge that ultimately could lead to the corridor between the A68 and A7 becoming a wind farm landscape. Emerging developments proposed for this area include Rowantree, Muircleugh and Girthgate and demonstrate the pressure this landscape is under. This particular scheme would add to the existing baseline in a relatively small but very conspicuous manner. This cumulative impact would be unsympathetic to the landscape character of the site and its surroundings, particularly with respect to the setting of Stow and the openness of the Lauder Common and surrounding landscape.

Visual impacts

Policy D4 requires consideration of visual effects on high sensitivity receptors. This assessment focuses on the visual impact of the turbines. However, as in the above sections, there are concerns regarding the landscape intrusion of associated works including tracks, particularly with those most exposed to the north. The resulting visual effect of these will contribute to concerns regarding the visual effect of the turbines on the B6362 and Lauder Common area particularly (as noted below).

Roads and recreational routes

The ES has examined effects on the A7, A68, A697, B6362 and Southern Upland Way. It concludes that the wind farm will affect only a 2km section of the A7. From the A68, it considers visibility will be limited and from this and the A697, effects will not be significant. It does however, suggest there will be significant effects on the B6362 which, though not a major tourist route, does link the A68 and A7 across Lauder Common. It considers users of the Southern Upland way will experience significant effects.

In terms of the A7, like Long Park, visibility will be restricted to a relatively small, section between Galabank and the village when approaching the village from the north. It is acknowledged that drivers will be travelling at speed and the extent of exposure is relatively small and intermittent. The effect, however, is fairly direct and prominent and the exposure of the turbines across the skyline will be particularly damaging to the appreciation of this section of travel. The SEI includes further information on potential visibility on this section of the A7. It is not particularly well presented but does provide a clearer impression than the ES of the potential effect of the development on this section of the A7. Views from the Borders Railway route may also be possible on approach into the village, exacerbating the visual effect of the skyline breach.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 5(a)

Individual impacts on the A68 and A697 are not such a significant concern, given the extent of visibility and greater distances, including intervening landscape features such as pylons, buildings and plantations.

The B6362 is a minor road but an important link between Stow and Lauder, effectively between the A7 and A68, passing through the open landscape that includes Lauder Common. This area is valuable as a presentation to tourists and visitors of the openness and relative remoteness of this broad landscape. The effect of this development on the viewer’s appreciation would be significant as a result of a combination of its close proximity to the road and its march over Sell Moor. The landscape intrusion of turbines and tracks will detract from the character of the landscape in a manner which will damage the viewer’s appreciation of the landscape through which the road passes.

There will also be a range of minor roads affected, though the effects will generally not be as damaging as for the A7 and B6362, particularly where Long Park is heavily exposed already. However, of concern would be the exposure of the turbines above Sell Moor, behind Stow, when viewed from the minor road west of the village (Stagehall Road). The ZTV indicates potential visibility along a similar stretch to the A7. The SEI includes information designed to demonstrate the visual effect. Its presentation is not particularly precise and it does not allay this department’s concerns (and concerns shared by SNH) that this development would significantly affect appreciation of the skyline above the village on approach and passing on this route.

In terms of the Southern Upland Way, Long Park is already heavily exposed to the route, and the route also has exposure to other wind farms. The turbines would be outwith the buffer applied in our SPG Wind Energy, though compliance with buffers is a starting point for assessment. The development would be more exposed but would sit alongside Long Park when viewed from the route. Views are across rolling landscape, where pylons already interrupt views and any adverse visual effects from this development on the route are perhaps more significantly related to the emerging cumulative effect of wind farms across the skyline that would be exacerbated by this development, rather than its individual visual effects.

Effects on other national recreational routes may result, but these would not be of significant concern. The local route most significantly affected would be Girthgate albeit, its principal southerly aspect towards the Eildons will not be undermined. The turbines will have a significant impact along the nearby section, however, and visual effects on users of this route exacerbate concerns regarding the visual impact of the development on the enjoyment of Lauder Common.

Tourist attractions and landscape viewpoints

Our SPG Wind Energy lists a range of sensitive sites, and includes buffers designed to provide a safeguarding area around selected viewpoints. Again, the buffers are not breached by this development but, again, these buffers are a starting point. The SPG lists other sites that require consideration but are not protected by buffers.

The ES includes viewpoints such as the Eildon Hills and Scott’s View, though it is not comprehensive as regards all those in the SPG. It identifies no significant impacts on these two viewpoints, though considers the impact on Miegle Hill to be significant. These assessments are accepted. For other landscape viewpoints it is not considered that any unacceptable impacts would result by virtue of a range of

Planning and Building Standards Committee 20 Item No. 5(a) factors, notably distance, lack of visibility in cases, and the proximity of the development to Long Park, albeit spreading the impact of this development across the skyline is a concern in terms of cumulative spread (such as at Chester Hill). This includes accounting for viewpoints such as Tower and Hume Castle, each some 15 and 20km from the site.

Impacts on designated sites, including A listed Buildings and Gardens and Designed Landscapes, are considered in the cultural heritage section.

In terms of other sites not within the SPG, a key concern is the effect on users’ enjoyment of the Lauder Common. The annual Common Riding is of key cultural important to the town in particular. Quite how significantly turbines would affect appreciation of the event cannot be speculated, but the proximity of the development to the Common is a significant concern in terms of the visual effect of it on the openness and remoteness of this and the surrounding landscape, particularly turbines 6-9. The ES acknowledges the significance of the effect, but considers that the scale of the landscape can accommodate the turbines which will be seen as a cohesive element of Long Park. While the former point is true, the extension of turbines onto the northern and north-eastern slopes of Sell Moor will encroach a great deal more significantly than Long Park and it is this intrusion on the openness that is a concern. This is a concern shared by many, including local residents, Community Councils, our landscape architect and SNH.

Effects on other resources, such as a golf course, are less of a concern given the lesser sensitivity of users to turbines.

Settlements and residential properties

In terms of settlements, it need first be noted that 2km ‘buffers’ applied by government advice and our own SPG comprise guidance, and not a strict buffer between settlements and turbines. Effects must be examined before determining whether impacts are unacceptable or not.

The ES has examined effects on settlements and identifies the only significant effect as being on Stow, though considers effects on it will be changeable due to the close proximity of the settlement, topography and screening. It considers the development will be in keeping with Long Park and be seen as an extension to it.

Overall, it is agreed that the focus of attention should be on potential visual effects on Stow, only it falling within 5km (in terms of ‘settlements’ defined in the Local Plan). The SPG’s buffer applied to Stow is just grazed by the development. Potential visual effects on Stow is of key concern, and one particularly noted by SNH. In terms of visual exposure, the ZTV suggests the whole village will be potentially affected. In reality, the most significant views will probably be from the west side, where Sell Moor forms a backdrop to the village. From such views, the turbines would prove to be a very significant distraction from the settled pattern of the village. Approaches towards the village for local residents and visitors will also be affected when travelling from the A7 southbound, the minor road to the west, and potentially the railway route. Further into the village, the lower setting, trees and buildings will screen views, and only when leaving again on the routes towards and passed the turbines (including the B6362) would significant effects result again. Whatever scale of visibility is to be afforded to residents and visitors within and approaching the village, the proximity of the development to it, its location above the skyline backdrop, and the height of the turbines, will all contribute, when visible, to a very intrusive and overbearing visual

Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 Item No. 5(a) effect on the village. The effect will be unsympathetic and unacceptable in this department’s view.

In terms of residential receptors, it need first be established that loss of private view is not as material consideration. Where views are available, it need be established whether the development would have an overbearing impact on the amenity of the property. The ES carried out a detailed assessment of eight properties within 2km and predicts significant effects on two. Allanshaws (830m) and Allanshaws Cottage (920m). In all cases, however, it considers that views from main windows would be oblique with no property viewing all turbines.

The residential assessment is not particularly comprehensive, and it is worth noting the more general viewpoint assessment in the ES which includes significant effects anticipated for views from Cemetery Road, Cathpair and Old Stage Road, where residential properties are located. Ultimately, however, it is accepted that, where views are available to the properties identified in the ES, and a number of properties not so identified, effects will not be sufficiently overbearing or domineering to be determining factors in their own right. There is the potential for a number of residential properties and groupings to be affected and be afforded views of the turbines. However, having considered the location of the wind turbines relative to these (particularly where the turbines are beyond the ridge of Sell Moor when viewed); property aspects and orientation; and, localised screening afforded by trees, buildings and topography, it is not considered that effects on individual properties are unacceptable in themselves.

Cumulative visual effects

The ES considers that the development will fit into the cluster of wind farms in the area and would not lead to additional exposure of wind farms. It judges that there would be no significant increase in exposure to wind farms, and that the most significant effect would be on the northern areas of Lauder Common and within the Leader Water Valley, though it attributes ‘additional visibility’ to up to only six turbines contending that a majority of the development will be screened by topography. It includes a series of ZTVs and predicts cumulative effects at ten of the selected viewpoints. With the exception of viewpoints at Eildon Hills and Torsonce Hill, it considers that it is not until planned schemes at Rowantree and Girthgate/Cathpair are accounted for that significant effects would occur. Those in support of the application also point to the existence of Long Park and suggest this development be viewed as an extension to it and not a new development.

It is agreed that the proximity of the development to Long Park would potentially work heavily in the application’s favour. However, particular factors in this case (already noted above in terms of individual effects) count significantly against the resulting cumulative effect as being acceptable. These include the more significant exposure of Shaw Park relative to Long Park, effectively extending Long Park above the Sell Moor skyline, behind the A7 and Stow, and towards the B6362 and Lauder Common. The ‘extension’ would, at best, be an unsympathetic addition due to its linear form and greater exposure. The scheme would also more directly place large scale wind turbines alongside the moorland comprising Lauder Common, as opposed to more peripheral wind farms such as Long Park and Toddleburn. It would progress wind farm development towards the north, acting as a relatively small but significant ‘bridge’ between Long Park to the south, the existing wind farms (Toddleburn, Dun Law) and potentially emerging wind farms (including Rowantree and Girthgate) to the north. The result would be significant cumulative visual effects, including from the A7,

Planning and Building Standards Committee 22 Item No. 5(a)

B6362, Lauder Common, parts of the Southern Upland Way and A697, Stow and a range of visual receptors.

Cultural Heritage

Direct

The ES identifies three recorded finds within 500m of the turbines, comprising a sheepfold, the possible old route of the Girthgate, and a collection of prehistoric artefacts to the north end. It also acknowledges the known route of the Girthgate further east over which part of the access track will run. It notes that the proposal avoids the section of the Girthgate on the north side of the B6362, the impacts on which contributed to the refusal of the previous application for a larger scheme here. It suggests that the access track would form a small portion of the Girthgate, the exact route of which is unclear, and that the ‘old’ route of the Girthgate, which is where the turbines are proposed, has little physical evidence on site.

In response, Historic Scotland raised no concerns, but our archaeology officer sought a more comprehensive study. In response, a further assessment was carried out which identified six assets within a 1 km buffer. It identifies that the development would lead to removal of a small area of rig and furrow of local importance and be located on the possible old Girthgate route, no evidence for which could be found. Our archaeology officer considers that the site has more archaeological potential than the study suggests, but conditions that would require a watching brief, or a phased survey with targeted evaluations of possible anomalies that may appear in the results, would provide sufficient mitigation. As for the established route of the Girthgate over which part of the access track would run, a condition can require that a watching brief provide sufficient opportunity to record any buried evidence of the route.

Indirect

Scheduled Monuments

One Scheduled Monument has been identified within 2km, that being Cathpair to the north-east. The ES identified 39 more within 10km. While it is unclear from the ES as to the extent of exposure of these sites and indirect impacts on them, it is noted that Historic Scotland, in particular, have raised no concern. Attention has been focussed on impacts on Cathpair and both Historic Scotland and our archaeology officer appear to be content that impacts are not significant enough to warrant objection.

A Listed Buildings

The ES identified 13 A listed Buildings within 10km, though none within 5km. Its assessment focuses on two, and Lauder Church of Scotland. The ES is not clear or consistent in its demonstration of the extent of effects on other assets, though the effects on these two assets are of key interest. The latter is set within Lauder and its location would suggest there would be no significant effects as a result of limited visibility. Thirlestane Castle is to the east and the ES predicts visibility of six tips from the top. The impact is not likely to be significant and it is particularly noted that Historic Scotland raise no concerns.

Gardens and Designed Landscapes

Planning and Building Standards Committee 23 Item No. 5(a)

There is one GDL within 10km with potentially significant impacts and that is Thirlestane Castle. Potential impacts on Abbotsford GDL are mitigated by aspect, distance and limitations on view. The ES does not illustrate potential impacts on Thirlestane GDL particularly conclusively, and reports visibility as varying between no visibility and full visibility. Where theoretical visibility is present, woodland would provide screening and the intervening distance would mitigate. Though impacts on Thirlestane Castle were a concern with the 2004 application for the larger scheme here, this proposal is much reduced and it is noted that Historic Scotland raise no concern. It is also noted that Historic Scotland raise no concerns regarding other GDLs, including Bowland (circa 5km to the south-west, beyond Long Park itself). Potential impacts on GDLs are not considered sufficiently objectionable.

B, C Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

The ES does not examine effects on these assets, referring only to B Listed Buildings within 2km of which there are none. However, of concern to this department would be potential effects on the B Listed Stow Church and Stow Conservation Area. The SEI later concluded that effects on the latter would not be significant. Potential effects on Lauder Conservation Area are not a concern given distance, limited visibility and screening opportunities.

The Conservation Area is set into the heart of the village, and the spire of the Listed church provides a distinctive townscape feature. Appreciation of the setting of the village and church from the west is clear, with the spire providing a focal point and the village set deeply into the hillside. Siting commercial scale turbines just behind the ridge of Sell Moor will detract to a degree from the setting of these features and these impacts are considered objectionable. These impacts, however, more significantly contribute to more general concerns regarding the impact of the development on the setting of the village as a whole (as examined in the landscape/visual assessment)

Non-designated Landscapes

Indirect impacts on the Girthgate routes are not significant given the absence of evidence of the routes themselves. Providing part of the track over the established Girthgate would maintain its presence into the future.

The development has the potential to adversely affect the setting of Lauder Common, a key asset of local cultural and recreational value. Impacts on this asset are considered more fully as part of the landscape/visual assessment in this report since the key issue will be the effect of the development on its landscape character.

Cumulative impacts

The ES and SEI paid little attention to cumulative effects on cultural heritage assets. Ultimately, it is contended, on behalf of the applicants, that Shaw Park will be read as part of Long Park, rather than add cumulatively to it. It is noted that Historic Scotland raise no concerns with respect to Category A Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments or GDLs. As for other assets, the ‘extension’ of Long Park across Sell Moor is a concern with regards to the setting of the village and its Conservation Area and B Listed Church, again a matter explored more fully as part of the landscape/visual assessment.

Noise

Planning and Building Standards Committee 24 Item No. 5(a)

Policy D4 requires that noise impacts be considered.

Construction Noise

A key construction noise issue for wind farms tends to be related to workings to obtain stone for tracks, pads and foundations. This application, however, does not propose a borrow pit within the development and, though it refers to potential for Sell Moor Quarry as being a source of stone, to progress either would require a fresh planning application. Noise impacts from such works are not, therefore, evaluated as part of this application.

The SEI suggests that BS5228 would otherwise be complied with for predicted construction noise levels. Our Environmental Health Service are content. A condition can secure any necessary mitigation measures, including application of standard time limits for construction works, noise attenuation measures, site management controls and so on.

Operational Noise

In terms of operational noise, it is noted that the Scottish Government’s advice note, Onshore Wind Turbines specifically states that ETSU-R-97 should be used for the assessment of noise from wind farms “until such time as an update is available”. Our SPG also refers to the ETSU report. It is acknowledged that concerns tend to be raised over ETSU being outdated, and concerns can exist regarding health effects from stress caused by sleep deprivation, however, this is the accepted model for assessment of wind farms guided by these key advice notes. The Government’s advice note also refers to a report that there is no evidence of health effects arising from low frequency noise or ultrasound. It also refers to a report on aerodynamic modulation (fluctuating noise described as a thump as blades pass towers) where its findings were apparently inconclusive.

ETSU suggests that noise should be limited to 5dB(A) above background levels (or, in low noise environments, above a lower fixed level of 35-40dB(A)) and above a lower fixed night-time level of 43dB(A). An increase of the lower fixed limit to 45dB(A) is possible for both day and night-time periods for properties where the occupier has a financial interest in the development. There is no requirement to apply a limit of 35dB(A) for all surrounding properties as ETSU make this recommendation applicable only to single turbines or wind farms with a very large separation distance between it and neighbouring properties and applied only in the absence of any background noise surveys.

The ES included an assessment of operational noise effects and included both Long Park and Shaw Park cumulatively when making the assessment. Ultimately, it concludes that noise predictions at the nearest properties require no mitigation. The ES examined effects on these properties (Allanshaws (owned by the developer) and Wooplaw). For the former, applying the ETSU upper limit for properties linked to the development, no breach would be likely. For Wooplaw, however, a breach in daytime levels is predicted at 2.1dBA. The ES considers this negligible because the predictions for Shaw Park on its own are well under the limits, and appears to suggest that the background levels taken for this ES are lower than those taken to support Long Park itself due to wind conditions.

Initially, the Environmental Health Service recommended that conditions be applied to control noise levels. However, this department had concerns with the scope, evidence and findings of the noise assessment. The ES did not, in our view, clearly

Planning and Building Standards Committee 25 Item No. 5(a) demonstrate that this scheme, cumulatively with Long Park, can satisfy noise limits applied by ETSU.

The SEI then responded to some aspects of our concerns (including accounting for two additional properties at Allanshaws that are not financially linked to the development), but following further discussion with the EHS, it is still quite unclear that this scheme can meet ETSU limits. Whether this is because it has not been clearly evidenced and presented, or whether it is because it cannot achieve them, is not clear. Either way, it would not be possible to consider that this development is acceptable in terms of its potential noise implications.

The applicant’s agents have been advised of our EHS’s queries and this department awaits their response. Members will be updated of any response that may be received in time for the committee’s determination of the application.

For applications for wind farm developments submitted subsequent to this application, it is a matter for those applicants to demonstrate compliance with ETSU cumulatively with other wind farms, including Shaw Park where relevant.

Telecommunications and infrastructure

The site is within the safeguarding zone of the Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station. The MOD objected to the original submission. The ES suggested that this will be resolved with other planning appeal decisions elsewhere. That has not occurred and the principal factor in this is that, when consulted again on the application, the MOD have maintained their objection. The MOD’s objection is the principal consideration on this matter.

The ES recognises the potential of the development to interfere with television reception, and states that up to 54 homes may be affected. It notes that correctional measures could be formalised in a condition, and this is accepted. Interference with FM radio is also less likely than for televisions. Ofcom suggests that the lower frequency of FM radio means it is less liable to adverse effects than television receptions. Strong signal reflections can reduce FM reception quality, whereas digital radio is not so affected. Both FM and digital services can be affected where signals are blocked so they fall below a certain threshold. The potential for adverse effects is understood to be low.

In terms of radio communication links, consultations with relevant agencies were undertaken as part of the EIA, and this application, no issues have been raised. Similarly, no issues have been identified as part of the EIA or processing of this application with respect to potential impacts on phone communications.

Ecology

The site has no natural heritage designations, and the nearest is some 3km away. A habitat survey was carried out that identifies the site as predominantly improved grassland with wetter areas and rush fields, with mixed plantations and woodland through the site. It suggests no significant effects on habitat will result and that mitigation can be achieved by following best practice construction measures. The assessment is generally considered to be less than comprehensive, but the low value of the site is, nonetheless, recognised and conditions requiring construction method statements and environmental management overseen by an Ecological Clerk of Works, as well as similar requirements at the decommissioning stage, should limit any risk of adverse impacts to an acceptable degree. The scarce species of neutral

Planning and Building Standards Committee 26 Item No. 5(a) base rich flush will not be directly affected and can be safeguarded by these measures.

No evidence was recorded of badgers, albeit suitable habit is considered to exist. The result is considered to be surprising but rechecking surveys before works start would address this matter.

The ES included bat survey information, stating that no roosts were found in trees, though one small roost was found at Allanshaws farm. The ES considers there to be limited foraging opportunities, though linear features including woodland edges, tree lines and stone walls could be used as commuting routes. Recordings of commuting and foraging bats confirm this, though almost no bats were recorded in open fields or near turbine locations and any reduction of habitat as a result of the development would be minimal when compared with the overall foraging resource. The survey is not comprehensive, though a more conclusive survey would probably not change the outcome. The SEI later notes that, subject to control over micro-siting of turbines 1, 5 and 8, guidelines with respect to proximity of turbines to bat habitat features would be complied with and can be applied as conditions.

Hydrology and geology

The ES made no reference to peat. SEPA asked that its presence be established and, if found, that a detailed peat management scheme be developed that demonstrates avoidance and mitigation measures. Following further correspondence, SEPA appear content to address this by a condition, should consent be granted, albeit opportunities to avoid peat will be limited to micro-siting the works from the locations identified on the site plan.

In terms of hydrology, the ES includes assessment of risks to ground water, including private water supplies, and to watercourses, and considers surface water run-off.

The ES refers to 250m buffers to turbines and 100m to tracks to protect private water supplies. Despite this, the SEI identified that one supply would fall within the latter buffer. SEPA have advised that, while they have no concerns with impacts on water supplies where works are outwith the buffers (subject to pollution control measures being applied), the impact on the supply within the buffer requires relocation of the track, or a detailed assessment or scheme of alternative abstraction. This can be addressed by condition, though if the track needs rerouted outwith the application site boundary, this may need to be subject to a fresh application for this work.

The works themselves will include three watercourse crossings (two new and one upgraded track), one of which crosses the Allan Water. The details of the crossings will need to be to SEPA’s satisfaction and will be covered by CAR procedures. SEPA are content that they are capable of authorisation in principle.

The development avoids marshy grassland, though SEPA have asked for a management plan to include measures to protect marshy grassland habitat. The ES also refers to general mitigation measures to be applied during construction, including pollution prevention measures and drainage schemes. Neither SEPA nor SNH raise concerns overall, and it is considered that mitigation measures, including an environmental management plan, site drainage scheme and construction method statements can mitigate potential impacts during constriction.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 27 Item No. 5(a)

The operation phase will need to include/continue environmental control and surface water drainages measures, and a condition can secure details. Decommissioning will need to repeat exercises to minimise the risk of water pollution during the works.

Ornithology

Surveys were undertaken and the ES suggests that no birds with a collision risk were identified, no Black Grouse found and generally typical bird species were found, with no protected species found. As a result, no collision risk modelling was undertaken and the ES suggests that the loss of what is considered to be predominantly improved/rough grassland would result in no adverse effects on breeding or wintering birds and no mitigation is proposed.

Though the RSPB have no objection, and agree that the site has low bird conservation interest, habitat management and enhancement is recommended, particularly to benefit curlew. Our ecology officer has also asked for habitat management and enhancement. This will need further discussion with the applicants to establish if this needs a legal agreement or is capable of being controlled by condition. Tree felling will need undertaken outwith bird breeding seasons, though likely felling appears to be limited to where tracks would be formed adjacent woodland, and can be made subject to conditions designed to minimise tree loss and secure replacement planting. Ultimately, ornithological impacts are considered capable of mitigation.

Traffic

Construction traffic would likely be via the A68 through Lauder and onto the B6362. The ES refers to a new access from the B6362, though the submitted plan suggests access would be via an existing junction.

The ES suggests that the route can accommodate abnormal construction traffic without works or improvements. It suggests a legal agreement can address any improvements required, though this is a matter to be addressed outside this application. It also suggests that pre- and post-construction surveys of public roads will be undertaken to remedy any damage that may be caused.

The ES assessed the implications for the traffic network during construction whereby stone for construction would be sourced off-site (it recommends on-site sourcing, but this is not subject to this application). It effectively suggests that increases in HGVs through Lauder and on the B6362 could be significant. In addition, delays and distraction would most likely come from potential temporary closure of the B6362 during abnormal load deliveries. It recommends that a management plan to minimise impacts be developed. It is to be noted that the RPS has raised no concerns with respect to construction traffic routes to the site or access arrangements on the site itself, subject to details of the junction which can be secured by a suspensive condition. This is not expected to require significant works, but further information, including swept path analysis, will be needed.

Noise and vibration effects may result from increases in HGV activity, but a management plan can mitigate and, ultimately, any effects are temporary. Conditions can secure other mitigation measures, including those designed to reduce risk of dust or dirt nuisance. These measures can be repeated for the decommissioning phase.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 28 Item No. 5(a)

The RPS raises no concerns with respect to driver distraction or shadow throw as a result of the wind turbines.

Overall, the construction effects are temporary, raise no road safety concerns with the Roads Planning Service and can be managed to minimise disruption and disturbance. Traffic levels during operation of the wind farm would be relatively minor and there is no evidence to suggest the turbines will harm road safety.

Benefits

Environmental

The development will contribute to carbon, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emission savings according to the ES. It will also contribute to meeting the Government’s renewable energy targets, contributing in the region of 0.13% towards the Government’s 100% electricity from renewable sources target. Arguably a small, but incremental contribution. Also, as a ‘community’ wind farm it would also contribute some 4% towards the Government’s target with respect to achieving 500mw of community/locally-owned wind farms.

Economic

The ES refers to significant expenditure being applied to investing in the development, of which more than half would be typically spent in the locally, with contracts being placed with a number of local companies. The intention would be to give preference to local businesses. The community owned aspect of the wind farm is also a consideration. These aspects are, potentially, of benefit to local people and the local economy. However, the Planning Authority could not reasonably control these aspects i.e. who is given the opportunity to invest; what companies, whether local or not, would be contracted and so on. The weight to be given to this aspect must account for the uncertainties associated with financing and delivering a scheme of this kind and that such matters are not aspects the Planning Authority would reasonably be expected, or be capable, of controlling. Ultimately, benefits to the local economy will largely be limited to those companies involved in construction (including any incidental benefits, such as to local shops/guest houses during the construction phase), and those persons who have a direct financial interest in its construction and operation. The level of employment generated by this type of development in the long term would be, however, very low.

The application submission also makes reference to a community fund. This is immaterial to consideration of this application as it is not directly related to the planning merits of the development.

Shadow Flicker

The Council’s SPG and the Scottish Government’s advice note refer to shadow flicker as being a potential issue for properties within a 10x rotor diameter distance of a turbine and sited within 130 degrees north of it. The effect is only likely to impact on narrow openings. In this case, a distance of 710 metres would satisfy this guideline and the ES identifies no affected properties. A condition would be necessary to ensure no micro-siting fell within these distances.

Safety

Planning and Building Standards Committee 29 Item No. 5(a)

Scottish Government guidance, Onshore Wind Turbines, notes that the wind energy industry operates to strict international, European and British standards. Site operations tend to have rigorous systems in place and the control room can detect icing of blades. Danger to houses or animal life from falling parts or ice throw is rare and appropriate lightning protection measures are incorporated, albeit warning signage is suggested as being useful. It will be the responsibility of the developers and operators to ensure the development complies with safety standards and legislation as regards construction and operation.

There is no Scottish planning policy guidance that requires set back distances from turbines to public routes in order to account for safety. Planning considerations in this regard are relevant only as far as being sure that the design and layout of the scheme has accommodated the safety obligations the developer must first apply. Determination of this application does not override the applicant’s obligations to ensure the development is constructed and operated safely. In this case, no specific issues have been raised in this regard by other parties, and the turbines appear to be outwith blade-tip/falling distance to public routes.

Aviation

The ES refers to consultation with key aviation agencies which generated no comments. As part of this planning application, consultation was undertaken with relevant consultees and no adverse comments have been received from NATS En Route or BAA Airports. The Ministry of Defence initially raised an objection with respect to the potential impact of the development on radar at RAF Spadeadam. However, they have accepted a condition that achieves a technical solution, would address the issue. It is not clear quite how achievable this is, but the MOD appear to be wiling to consider it. The condition proposed by the MOD appears to be capable of being imposed should consent be issued. As also requested by the MOD, lighting would be required of turbines and a condition can require this.

Rights of way

The development would affect three designated access routes – upgrading the existing farm road to the north-east; the new track would cross a route south of Muircleugh Stell; and, a small section of the new track would be formed on the existing Girthgate route. Both our access officer and Scotways seek that routes remain free from obstruction at all times. Scotways, in particular, note that the Girthgate is a historic route and are concerned with the effects that forming a new track would have on its historic significance.

Any construction works affecting access routes will be temporary, and the weight to be given to effects on access is limited as a result. A scheme can be designed which would maintain access during construction, including temporary links where necessary.

In terms of effects on the historic significance of the Girthgate, these are considered as part of the Cultural Heritage section. The section affected is relatively small.

Long term access measures, including enhancements to existing routes, can be detailed as part of a long term access strategy, and a condition to cover this would be sufficient. This would be sufficient mitigation for effects on the existing access routes. Financial payments to the Council would only be justified for such work if these were to fund any works the Council’s access team may be prepared to undertake to implement any agreed enhancements.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 30 Item No. 5(a)

CONCLUSION

This development would accord with planning policy, particularly Policy D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan, with respect to a range of environmental impacts, subject to mitigation measures being required by condition and, potentially, legal agreement. It will also potentially provide a community-based renewable energy development which could benefit the local economy.

However, it will also have a number of unacceptable impacts. These include impacts on Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station. It has also not been sufficiently demonstrated that the development can comply with ETSU guidance with respect to noise implications. In addition, the location of the site, and the linear form of the development, will lead to landscape and visual implications which would be significantly adverse, not just in themselves, but cumulatively with other wind farms. These impacts would lead to conflict with the development plan. These conflicts are not outweighed by any other material considerations and cannot be acceptably mitigated by conditions.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is refused for the following reasons:

1. The development would interfere with the operational functionality of the Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station, contrary to Policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

2. It has not been demonstrated that the development is capable of complying with ETSU-R-97 guidance with respect to noise implications, contrary to Policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

3. The development would both individually and cumulatively with other wind farms, unacceptably impact on landscape character, particularly with respect to the landscape setting of Stow (which includes its Conservation Area and B Listed Stow Parish Church) and the landscape incorporating Lauder Common contrary to Policies G1, BE1, BE4 and D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

4. The development would have unacceptable visual impacts, both individually and cumulatively with other wind farms, on a range of receptors, particularly the village of Stow and users of the A7, Stagehall Road, B6362 and Lauder Common, Southern Upland Way and A697, contrary to Policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

DRAWING NUMBERS

Site Layout with Preferred Access APP-001 Turbine Elevation APP-002

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Planning and Building Standards Committee 31 Item No. 5(a)

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Carlos Clarke Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 32 Item No. 5(a)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 33 Item No. 5 (b)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

7 OCTOBER 2013

APPLICATION FOR CONSENT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00722/S36

OFFICER: John Hiscox WARD: East /East Lothian PROPOSAL: To construct and operate an extension to existing windfarms comprising 11 turbines and associated works/infrastructure SITE: Crystal Rig ‘Phase 3’, Lammermuir, East Lothian APPLICANT: Fred Olsen Renewables Ltd AGENT: Natural Power Consultants Limited

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To advise the Scottish Government of the response from Scottish Borders Council on the application by Natural Power, to construct an 11-turbine extension to the existing windfarm at Crystal Rig in the East Lammermuir Hills, approximately 10km south of Dunbar.

2.0 PROCEDURE

2.1 Scottish Borders Council (SBC) is a consultee as a ‘relevant authority’. Although all of the turbines and new infrastructure would be sited within East Lothian, the application site includes land in the Borders in its mid-southern section. The operational Crystal Rig wind farm (Phases 1, 1a, 2 and 2a) is partially within the Borders. Crystal Rig in its entirety straddles the border with East Lothian.

2.2 The views of SBC will be provided to the Energy Consents and Deployment Unit at Scottish Government (ECDU), the body responsible for processing onshore Section 36 planning applications. In this instance, the application is required to be determined via Section 36 because it is an extension to a wind farm of more than 50MW. The ECDU advertises the application and carries out direct consultation with other interested bodies. There is, therefore, no need for Scottish Borders Council to undertake a tandem process although consultation has taken place with relevant officers within the Council.

2.3 It should be noted that if permission is granted, the local authority (rather than the ECDU) would become the relevant enforcement authority responsible for monitoring compliance with the terms of an approval and any conditions imposed thereon. In this case, it would principally be East Lothian Council (ELC). However, it is feasible that SBC may have a role to play in contributing towards condition monitoring if effects straddle the administrative border.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION:

3.1 The application site is situated generally on the northern fringe of the existing Crystal Rig Wind Farm, approximately 10km to the south of Dunbar. 11 turbines with mixed heights of 100m, 110m and 125m are proposed. The layout is shown clearly within the submitted Environmental statement (ES).

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5 (b)

3.2 The existing Crystal Rig wind farm consists of 85 turbines with associated infrastructure. Its total generating capacity is 226.5 MW. The maximum tip height of turbines within the existing phases is 125m. Just to the east of the Crystal Rig wind farm is Aikengall I wind farm, a separate, but adjacent development comprising 15 large turbines. Planning permission was recently granted at appeal for a further wind farm Wester Dodd (or Aikengall II) to the south and south-east of Aikengall I, which would comprise 19 large turbines (145m to tip).

3.3 Those sections of the existing wind farm in Scottish Borders are within the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area (SLA), as designated in the Supplementary Planning Guidance from 2012 ‘Local Landscape Designations’. On the East Lothian side, the remainder of the wind farm is within a designated Area of Great Landscape Value.

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

4.1 The development would comprise:

- 11 wind turbines (2 x 100m tip height, 5 x 110m and 4 x 125m) generating up to 33MW, each with an external transformer unit – precise model not known but to relate to existing turbines - site tracks - foundations - crane pads - borrow pits (4 potential borrow pit locations are shown in the site plan) - underground electricity cables - one anemometry mast - temporary construction and storage compounds - associated works and infrastructure

4.2 The development would make use of the existing onsite control building and substation, as well as some of the access tracks, including the principal access from the public road network, which approaches from the north (within East Lothian – see Figure 2 ‘Site Layout’ within the NTS).

4.3 It is intended that the lifespan of the development would be 25 years. At the end of this period it is intended that the development would be decommissioned and dismantled in a manner agreed in detail with relevant agencies and bodies, which would include SBC, ELC, SEPA and SNH. Paragraph 5.6 of the NTS gives a summary of the developer’s decommissioning intentions. It should be noted that this phase, if consented, would potentially outlive earlier phases of Crystal Rig which have similar intended lifespans but were developed at different times.

4.4 No additional off-site grid connection is required – the existing infrastructure is considered to have capacity to include the power generated by the additional 11 turbines.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY:

5.1 12/01363/FUL – Formation of new access road – Approved Dec 2012

12/00546/FUL – Extension to electricity substation compound – Approved July 2012

08/01595/FUL – Reinstatement of site compound - Approved December 2008

07/02019/MIN, 07/02020/MIN & 07/02021/MIN – Formation of borrow pits – Approved December 2007

02/01513/MIN – Continuation of mineral workings – Approved November 2002

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5 (b)

02/00618/FUL – Variation of condition no. 8 on previous consent ref. 01/00269/FUL – Modifications to scheme – Approved June 2002

01/00269/FUL – Wind Farm comprising 28 turbines and associated works/development – Approved 10/9/01

5.2 There are no other planning applications for later phases submitted directly to SBC. Each additional phase (1a, 2 and 2a) would have been Section 36 developments, determined by Scottish Government as planning authority but with SBC as a consultee.

6.0 APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

6.1 The submissions to the ECDU are accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) resulting from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The ES comprises the following:

x Design and Access Statement x Pre-Application Consultation Report x Volume 1 ‘Written Statement’ x Volume 2A ‘Landscape and Visual Assessment – Assessment, Figures and Appendices’ x Volume 2B ‘Landscape and Visual Assessment – Visualisations 1-33’ x Volume 3 ‘Appendices’ x Volume 4 ‘Non Technical Summary’

7.0 REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

7.1 Third party representations are submitted to the ECDU and it is for that authority to take these into consideration when assessing the proposed development on behalf of Scottish Ministers.

8.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

8.1 Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011:

Principle 1 – Sustainability Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4 – Flooding Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy NE1 – International Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy NE5 – Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development

SESplan Strategic Development Plan June 2013:

Policy 10 - Sustainable Energy Technologies

8.2 The current East Lothian planning policy constitutes SESplan and the East Lothian Local Plan 2008.

9.0 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5 (b)

9.1 Adopted SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance and other documents:

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy 2007 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy 2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Local Landscape Designations 2012 Supplementary Planning Guidance for Biodiversity 2005

9.2 Scottish Government Planning Policy and Guidance:

Scottish Planning Policy 2010 National Planning Framework for Scotland (2) 2009 Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011

9.3 Scottish Government On-line Renewables Advice:

PAN 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (S) Regulations 2011 PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008 PAN 58 Environmental Impact Assessment 1999 PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation

9.4 SNH On line advice on renewables:

9.5 East Lothian Adopted Policy/Guidance:

Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Turbine Development in East Lothian (2005)

10.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

10.1 Landscape Architect:

No objection - describes the effects of the development as being very limited and acceptable from a Borders perspective as the additional landscape impacts caused by the turbines would be experienced in the context of, and in good relation to, existing wind energy development.

10.2 Archaeology Officer:

No objection – no direct effects within Borders and no indirect impacts of major significance on Borders heritage assets.

10.3 Ecology Officer:

No response to date.

10.4 Roads Planning Manager:

No objection, principally due to access route using public road network within East Lothian.

10.5 Access Officer:

No response to date.

10.6 Environmental Health Officer:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5 (b)

No objection – recommends condition relating to noise limits that has been constructed via joint working with the noise specialist at East Lothian Council, and the developer’s noise experts. Confirms that developer presented information is satisfactory and will enable acceptable limits to be met.

11.0 OTHER IMPORTANT CONSULTATION RESPONSES (SUBMITTED TO SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT):

11.1 The Ministry of Defence has objected to the planning application. The objection relates to interference with the RAF Brizlee Wood Air Defence Radar, 73km from the site. This objection is outstanding.

11.2 Halcrow Group Ltd has assessed the ES in the context of peat stability at the request of the ECDU, and has found that the information within the ES requires improvement. This does not constitute an objection, but it identifies matters for the ECDU that are important and have not yet been fully addressed.

11.3 RSPB Scotland has identified a potential requirement to microsite several of the turbines due to the presence of deep peat.

11.4 The planning consultation response of SNH has identified a number of important issues relating to the application. It raises an objection in relation to the impact of the development on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation unless mitigation, proposed by SNH within the Annex to the consultation reply, is provided.

It identifies a need to consider the relationship of the development to certain habitat/vegetation types (blanket bog specifically mentioned) that might require revisions to the scheme.

In relation to landscape and visual impacts, SNH identifies issues of cumulative impacts and the siting and design relationship of the proposed turbines to the existing Crystal Rig and Aikengall developments. Principally, SNH requires visual impacts to be improved or lessened by making adjustments to the scheme. The ‘infilling’ effect this development would cause, in particular when the scheme is viewed from East Lothian, is described. The concerns are expressed in a wider strategic context because of the way existing wind farms are being extended incrementally, bringing turbines to more prominent positions (towards the edges of the Lammermuir Hills, in this instance).

SNH acknowledges that the development has been designed to reasonably accord with good principles of wind farm design, despite the effects of infilling and pushing development towards upland edges. It highlights the potential for the overall prominence of wind turbines to be increased by this addition, the principle of which is not encouraged. Recommendations are made in relation to a reduction in turbine numbers, micro-siting of certain turbines and/or reducing the overall height of certain turbines.

The response also discusses the need for the new development to achieve consistency with existing developments by selecting appropriate turbines that blend well with existing machines.

11.5 There is an objection submitted by Scotways (Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society) that relates to the perceived adverse impacts that would be caused to the public access network. In particular, cumulative effects of this phase with earlier wind farm development on the ‘Herring Road’ are described.

11.6 There is an objection by SEPA that requires submission of further information prior to determination, and conditions to be applied in the event of planning permission being granted. A summary of the issues would be as follows:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5 (b)

x 50m Micrositing requirement by developer would have the potential to adversely affect SEPA interests – greater certainty required (Micrositing proposal unacceptable) x conditions relating to nature of water crossings required via condition x development in relation to watercourses could harm salmonid population by sedimentation (degradation to water environment) x study relating to invertebrates to be undertaken, to inform revised application x Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystems likely to be harmed – further information required prior to determination x further assessment of impacts to peat required/further study of peat environment

11.7 There is a range of other consultation responses, but none require to be covered in this report. Any issues raised within them are non-controversial, or supportive. Most relate to technical aspects of the development.

12.0 KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

12.1 The entire development would be sited within East Lothian. However, because of the cumulative and cross-border effects arising, it is necessary to assess the development in the light of Scottish Borders Planning Policy, in tandem with Scottish Government Policy, as well as taking cognisance of East Lothian Planning Policy and Guidance. The most pertinent SBC Policy remains at this time as Policy D4 of the 2011 Local Plan.

12.2 This policy framework provides a suitable background against which to consider the following topics in particular, which are most relevant to this Report in a Borders context:

x planning policy principle – is the site appropriate in broad planning terms for wind energy development? x are the landscape effects/impacts acceptable and not in conflict with relevant, more focussed policies? x are the visual effects/impacts in relation to the public realm, assets within it and private amenity acceptable? x what is the significance of the environmental impacts arising from the development, in relation to: o protection of residential amenity eg. noise, shadow flicker? o biodiversity, including habitat? o flood risk and the water environment?

13.0 ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy Principle:

13.1 The current national, regional and local policy positions identify on-shore wind energy development as playing an important role in the delivery of sustainable renewable energy. Local Policy in particular identifies true upland landscape areas as those that may be suited to wind energy development. The principle of extending an existing wind farm by a reasonable, proportionate amount is acceptable and logical. It can negate the need for the introduction of associated infrastructure including new grid connections, roads and landscaping. It accords with the ‘cluster and space’ approach to placement of wind farms in a broad sense, because it would augment land/landscape already occupied and characterised by turbines.

13.2 It would be difficult to reason against the land use principle of introducing additional turbines to augment the existing development, if all site specific environmental impacts are acceptable, tolerable or capable of mitigation.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5 (b)

13.3 Taking into consideration the existing baseline, which includes the 85 turbines in Crystal Rig’s earlier phases, and a total of 34 turbines built or approved at Aikengall I and II, the addition of 11 turbines equates to approximately an 11% increase in turbine number. This is, in broad terms, considered a proportionate level of expansion.

Landscape Impacts:

13.4 It can be concluded that the main focus in landscape terms is the significance of additional impacts the extension would cause in relation to those already being exoerienced.

13.5 The proposed wind farm extension comes with inevitable landscape impacts, in particular because it has the potential to add increased emphasis to the massing of all the turbines within the Crystal Rig and Aikengall clusters. The eastern section of the proposed Crystal Rig 3 wind farm effectively infills a gap in the landscape between existing wind farms to the east, west and south. It would have the effect, as can be seen via site layout drawings and in photomontages/visualisations, of bringing together existing wind farm phases so that they are less distinguishable as individual developments. The additional turbines would push development towards the fringes of the Lammermuir Hills on the East Lothian (north) side and add to overall wind farm prominence. Characterisation of the landscape by wind turbines would be exacerbated. This can be seen, for example, in montages and wireline drawings from Viewpoints 22 and 31 at Dunbar and Dunbar Harbour respectively. The landscape is recognised on both sides of the Borders as having special qualities, hence the designations as Special Landscape Area and Area of Great Landscape Value. It is important to ensure that the development is not prejudicial to these special qualities.

13.6 The consultation response of SNH identifies concern about the intensification of landscape impacts, primarily when viewed from East Lothian. Design rationale relating to the spacing and separation of earlier phases of Crystal Rig and Aikengall is transcended by the cumulative picture resulting from this new phase. Examples of this can be seen in the visualisations from Viewpoint 10 (North Berwick Law) and Viewpoint 13 (West Mains) as well as those mentioned earlier at Dunbar. SNH has made pointed suggestions about the potential for improvements to be made so as to reduce landscape impacts. This approach is understood and endorsed (a joint site visit between officers of SNH, SBC and East Lothian occurred in July 2013, during which the exacerbated effects were debated and may in part have assisted SNH in its appraisal). However, it is not critical in a Borders context to seek these changes, as the effects from Borders are acceptable with the scheme in its current form. The range of visualisations representing the views form the Scottish Borders provide the basis for this opinion. One example is the view from the A1107 between Coldingham and Cockburnspath, as depicted in montages and wireline drawings from Viewpoint 19 (Cycle Route South of Dunbar).

13.7 It would be true to state that even at this current time, it can be difficult to distinguish between the Aikengall and Crystal Rig wind farms from some vantage points, especially when viewed more distantly. This likelihood of this happening would be increased as a result of the development proposed. However, the additional development would not cause such a level of harm, especially from a Borders perspective, that landscape impacts would be unacceptable.

Visual Impacts:

13.8 Some of the visual effects associated with the additional development relate to views from small settlements and approaches to the site, mostly on the East Lothian side. The sense that the site and its adjacent earlier phases are (and would be further) growing visually to add turbine prominence is acknowledged. Examples of this can be seen in the visualisations from Viewpoint 14 (Spott) and Viewpoint 15 (Pitcox to Halls Road).

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5 (b)

13.9 These effects are limited to some extent on the Borders side because there is already separation from settlements, approaches and residences outwith settlements by existing wind farms. On the East Lothian side, the effects are greater but still limited because although the turbines creep towards the Lammermuir Edge, this edge provides topographical intervention and visual separation between the uplands and the lowlands adjacent. The transitional areas in between are relatively narrow, and although these areas are sparsely ‘settled’, it is considered that the overall imposition caused via the augmented wind farm(s) would not be adverse, in terms of visual amenity.

13.10 In essence, the visual impacts experienced from the Borders are limited to a modest change to the view within existing panoramas, by virtue of the introduction of the additional turbines. Any intensification would be noticeable but not harmful, and not introduce any new, unacceptable visual components to the locale. For examples of this, see montages and wireline drawings from Viewpoint no. 4 (A6112 North of Preston) and no. 6 (Minor road by Dirrington Great Law).

13.11 As confirmed by the consultation responses of Historic Scotland and the SBC Archaeology Officer’s internal consultation reply, there are no significant adverse impacts on the setting of heritage assets.

13.12 The objection of Scotways in respect of the perceived conflict between the development and the public access network must be acknowledged. However, practically it is not a matter which should influence the SBC recommendation because although the effects of existing wind farms in the locality are already considered not to harmonise with the use of the network (in particular the Herring Road), the additional effects would add to, but not be the cause of the significant additional disharmony. The Scotways’ response describes the sensitivity of the network but refers to cumulative effects that are largely based on existing effects.

Residential Amenity impacts:

13.13 Taking into consideration the position of the 11 additional turbines and their relationship with existing development, it may be concluded straightforwardly that shadow flicker and residential visual amenity from close quarters would not be an issue in a Borders context. The issue of noise (cumulative) is less straightforward, but is resolvable as described in the internal consultation response by the SBC Environmental Health Officer. Satisfactory limits relating to cumulative noise generation can be provided. Cumulative noise is not considered to give rise to overriding concerns.

Biodiversity and Habitat impacts:

13.14 Although the SBC Ecology Officer has not submitted a consultation reply, there has been clear attention to biodiversity and habitat issues in the responses to the ECDU by RSPB Scotland, SNH and SEPA. This has identified various uncertainties and requirements to undertake further studies, and potentially the need to redesign the layout of the scheme. However, SBC would not wish to raise an objection in relation to this topic.

Flood Risk and Water Environment Impacts:

13.15 These impacts go hand in hand with biodiversity and habitat, which have been considered in detail by the bodies mentioned in the previous paragraph. It is highly likely that the current scheme will have to be modified to overcome current specialist concerns, or improved information relating to flood risk and the water environment being provided. Any such information, as per any provided relating to biodiversity and habitats, would be circulated to all relevant consultees including SBC. At this time, SBC would not wish to raise an objection in relation to this topic.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5 (b)

14.0 CONCLUSION:

14.1 The assessment of the application has been carried out primarily in terms of the development’s implications for the Scottish Borders. It is anticipated that East Lothian Council will consider the implications for its area, which may ultimately be more consequential than those for the Scottish Borders. Other statutory consultees/agencies will provide Scottish Government with specialist advice in relation to a variety of matters, some of which are not influential to SBC’s position.

14.2 The development proposal seeks to introduce further turbines into a landscape already occupied and characterised to a great extent by wind turbines and to maximise opportunities to add generating capacity that takes advantage of existing infrastructure. In the case of Crystal Rig, this would be the fifth extension to the original scheme. It would cause impacts that are significant, but none to the extent that they would promote an overriding reason for Scottish Borders Council to object to the development. Although there are matters that have been identified by other consultees that are important and require attention, those issues mainly pertinent to Borders impacts are acceptable. In particular, the landscape and visual impacts are agreeable.

15.0 RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

15.1 That the Council indicate to Scottish Government that it has no objections to the application for an 11-turbine extension to the existing Crystal Rig Wind Farm (Crystal Rig Phase 3).

15.2 That the following condition, relating to noise limitation, be applied to any planning consent issued for this development:

“Noise from the installation shall not exceed 35dBA L90,10 min up to wind speeds of 10 metres per second measured at 10m height, when assessed in free field conditions outside any noise sensitive premises having Planning Consent at the time of determining this Application. There should be no tonal character to the noise from the installation, audible within any noise sensitive premises.

Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445.

In the event of a justified noise complaint, the installation shall be shut down or limited in operation so as to ensure compliance with the above noise limit.

Noise measurements shall be taken using the methodology contained in ETSU-R-97.

The proposed turbines must not cause the predicated noise levels in Table 10.5 Assessment Locations and Predicated Turbine Noise Levels (L90) of the Environmental Statement to be exceeded.

Reason: to safeguard the amenity of occupiers and users of noise sensitive premises.”

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5 (b)

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation John Hiscox Planning Officer (Major/Wind Energy Developments)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(c)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

7 OCTOBER 2013

APPLICATION FOR CONSENT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 AND MARINE LICENCES UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE MARINE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2010

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00844/S36

OFFICER: John Hiscox WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: To construct and operate an offshore windfarm comprising of up to 213 turbines, substation platforms, interconnecting and export cables SITE: Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm, off Angus coast, Scotland APPLICANT: Inch Cape Offshore Limited AGENT: None

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To advise the Scottish Government of the response from Scottish Borders Council on the applications by Inch Cape Offshore Limited to construct and operate an off shore windfarm approximately 15-22km to the east of the Angus coastline. The nearest noteworthy settlements are Arbroath, Montrose, Carnoustie and St Andrews.

2.0 PROCEDURE

2.1 Scottish Borders Council is a consultee. Its views will be provided to Marine Scotland, the body responsible (on behalf of Scottish Government) for processing the applications. Marine Scotland advertises the application and carries out direct consultation with other interested bodies. There is, therefore, no need for Scottish Borders Council to undertake a tandem process although consultation has taken place with relevant officers within the Council.

2.2 Unlike for shore windfarm development, it is Marine Scotland, rather than the planning authority, that is also the relevant enforcement authority responsible for monitoring compliance with the terms of an approval and any conditions imposed thereon.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION:

3.1 The site would occupy an area of approximately 150km2, in water between 40 and 57m deep in the , north-east of the Firth of Forth and east of St Andrews Bay. The actual distance between the site and Scottish Borders is approximately 55km or thereabouts (near Cockburnspath/Dunglass).

3.2 The nearest viewpoint to the Borders selected as part of the visualisation process is situated 50km from the site at Dunbar, in East Lothian. The visualisations (see Appendix 16F of the Environmental Statement, Viewpoint 25) identify the development in a cumulative context with other wind energy projects mentioned in Section 5 below.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(c)

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

4.1 The development would comprise:

- up to 213 wind generators (turbines) with a maximum blade tip height of 215m - 5 substation platforms to collect electricity for export - connecting cables (interconnecting and to enable connection to grid) - up to 3 meteorological masts (one of these already the subject of a separate planning application) - substation on-shore to facilitate connection to grid, at Cockenzie (East Lothian). This item to be considered in a separate application to East Lothian Council.

4.2 It is intended that the lifespan of the development would be 25-50 years, although the precise period has not yet been established. It would be managed from an on-shore site, but inevitably would require physical maintenance/management via marine transport.

4.3 The development would potentially produce 3000 Gigawatt hours of energy per annum.

4.4 It should be noted, as described in ‘Delivering the Project’ (Non-Technical Summary, Page 12) that the design of the development is not yet finalised. Although an assumption may be made that if the development is consented, it will be substantially based on the principles described in all submissions, factors may lead to change during and leading up to project delivery. These would include:

x requirement for further site investigation x continued design and economic optimisation x need to identify precise nature of development components x requirement to ‘microsite’ due to findings of more detailed surveys

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY:

5.1 In December 2012, the Planning and Building Standards Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services for a separate offshore wind farm named ‘Neart na Gaoithe’. The Head of Planning and Regulatory Services’ recommendation not to object to the development was agreed by the Committee. That development is situated approximately 10km south of the current proposal.

5.2 The Neart na Gaoithe proposal comprises 75-125 turbines with a maximum tip height of 197m. Planning permission and Licence(s) have not been granted to date on that site.

5.3 The projects described as Inch Cape, Neart na Gaoithe and ‘Firth of Forth’ (seen in cumulative graphical information within the Environmental Statement) all relate to earlier strategic work and consultation resulting from The Crown Estate’s invite in 2008 (at Scottish Government’s request) for potential developers to submit proposals for offshore wind farm sites within Scottish Territorial Waters.

6.0 APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

6.1 The submissions to Marine Scotland include an Environmental Statement (ES) resulting from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). SBC has been provided with the hard copies of the following elements from it:

x Non Technical Summary x Volume 3C ‘Figures’

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(c)

x Volume 3A Appendices 16F (‘Seascape and Landscape Visualisations’) and 17B (‘Cultural Heritage Visualisations’) x Volume 3B Appendice 16G (‘Seascape, Landscape and Visual Figures’)

7.0 REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

7.1 Third party representations are submitted to Marine Scotland and it is for that agency to take these into consideration when assessing the proposed development on behalf of Scottish Ministers.

8.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011:

Principle 1 – Sustainability Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy EP4 - Coastline Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development

SESplan Strategic Development Plan June 2013:

Policy 10 - Sustainable Energy Technologies

9.0 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Adopted SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance and other documents:

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy 2007 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy 2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Local Landscape Designations 2012 Supplementary Planning Guidance for Biodiversity 2005

Scottish Government Planning Policy and Guidance:

Scottish Planning Policy 2010 National Planning Framework for Scotland (2) 2009 Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011

Scottish Government On-line Renewables Advice: PAN 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (S) Regulations 2011 PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008 PAN 58 Environmental Impact Assessment 1999 PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation

‘Blue Seas, Green Energy – A Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy in Scottish Territorial Waters’.

SNH On line advice on renewables

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(c)

10.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Landscape Architect:

No response to date.

Archaeology Officer:

No objection.

Ecology Officer:

No response to date.

Roads Planning Manager:

No response to date.

11.0 KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

11.1 At 55km from the boundary of Scottish Borders, the potential effects when assessed against Scottish Borders development plan policy are likely to be limited. Scottish strategic policy and guidance, in particular within the SESplan Strategic Development Plan in a regional context, requires the potential benefits arising from providing sustainable renewable energy development to be weighed against the environmental impacts it will cause. Mitigation relating to such impacts must be taken into account.

11.2 The potential effects and impacts are likely to be experienced most appreciably in/from local authority areas which are closer to the Inch Cape site. Matters of relevance to Scottish Borders are highly likely to be limited to:

x visual impacts arising from the project, cumulatively with other wind farms in terms of landscape/seascape x visual impacts arising from the project, cumulatively with other wind farms in terms of cultural heritage x ecological/ornithological impacts arising from the project, cumulatively with other wind farms

12.0 ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy Principle:

12.1 Scottish Planning Policy broadly supports offshore wind as a form of sustainable renewable energy. Taking into consideration the location and nature of the site, and the nature of the development, the principle is acceptable in planning terms. Scottish Government and The Crown Estate have effectively promoted the locale as an area where offshore wind energy development might be pursued. Scottish Borders Council’s planning policy framework does not conflict with this.

Visual Impacts:

12.2 At such a distance, despite the size of the turbines and the spread across what might be described as a large expanse of sea, the effects of the wind farm by itself are likely to be

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(c)

negligible. From the fringes of Borders including parts of the Lammermuir Hills, St Abbs Head and elsewhere in the Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area, it would be possible to glimpse the Inch Cape Wind Farm. This does not present any overriding visual impact issues for the Borders, although it must be noted that these effects will be much greater from the point of view of other planning authorities closer to the site (Aberdeenshire, Fife, Angus). Visualisations within the ES demonstrate how prominent, even at 15-22km, the development might be. It would relate to sections of the Scottish coast known for their attractiveness and would be seen in this context regularly.

12.3 The visual effects of the cumulative picture with Inch Cape, with Neart na Gaoithe and with Firth of Forth give rise to a slightly greater level of concern. From a Borders point of view, there would be an element of sequential visual impact appreciable in a coastal context. Neart na Gaoithe would be observed in the foreground of Inch Cape, creating a sense of massing which would compete with views of the land/seascapes and introduce a strong industrial component to the ocean panorama. Firth of Forth is likely to be visible to the east and partially behind Neart na Gaoithe. There is a risk that this cumulatively formed new industrial component of the seascape would become the most noticeable feature in some views, in that it competes with the open character of the sea. It should be acknowledged that the generally distant views of the development would potentially diminish any such effects from a Borders point of view.

12.4 Any harm arising from visual effects must be balanced against the potential benefits caused by the construction of the development and the level of energy it would provide in contributing to Scottish Government’s targets for 100% renewable electricity by 2020. Certainly, in a Borders context, the impacts would be outweighed by the high level of benefit the development would give rise to, including economic growth in Scotland.

Natural Heritage:

12.5 It is inevitable, taking into account the sensitivities of the site within the broader marine context, that impacts would arise that affect:

x marine habitat x biodiversity dependent on the habitat

12.6 Survey information is provided within the ES in detail, and mitigation is proposed. Mitigation cannot prevent all harm, but can secure minimisation of long-term harm arising from development.

12.7 Natural heritage is considered in focus by Scottish Natural Heritage, by Marine Scotland and other agencies consulted during this particular planning process. Given the distance from Borders and the likelihood that all potential effects described in the ES will be scrutinised by specialist consultees, SBC need not provide a detailed analysis of the submissions in this context.

13.0 OTHER IMPORTANT CONSULTATION RESPONSES (SUBMITTED TO SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT/MARINE SCOTLAND):

13.1 RSPB Scotland is objecting to the development until such a time as further research relating to cumulative impacts on birds is available. This is a holding objection.

13.2 No other consultees which have submitted consultation responses to Marine Scotland have stated an objection. Several raise concerns in relation to impacts within the sea/seabed area and at the coast where the connections would be made. Most list potential mitigation or require further assessment/re-assessment in relation to certain issues.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(c)

13.3 A notable absent consultation response is that of Scottish Natural Heritage. Within this response it is anticipated that landscape/seascape and visual impacts, plus ecological impacts would be appraised and commented upon. Whilst the views of SNH would have assisted the assessment of the application, the Council is obliged, in any event, to come to its own conclusion as to the acceptability or otherwise of the development..

14.0 CONCLUSION:

14.1 The assessment of the application has been carried out in terms of the development’s implications for the Scottish Borders only. It is anticipated that other planning authorities consulted will consider the implications for their areas, which may ultimately be more consequential than those for the Scottish Borders. It will also be legitimate for Scottish Natural Heritage to consider the wider consequences for the east coast of Scotland of this development in association with the other proposed off shore windfarm developments.

14.2 In terms of impacts on the Scottish Borders, it is considered that the distance and location of the windfarm combine to limit any significant impact. Even cumulative visual and landscape impacts would be at worst moderate and would be minor or negligible from many receptors.

15.0 RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

15.1 That the Council indicate to Scottish Government that it has no objections to the application for an off-shore windfarm at Inch Cape Wind Farm.

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation John Hiscox Planning Officer (Major/Wind Energy Developments)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5 (d)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

7 OCTOBER 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00536/FUL OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Hawick and Hermitage PROPOSAL: Formation of access and road SITE: Land West of Wester Alemoor Roberton APPLICANT: SSE Renewables (UK) Ltd AGENT: None

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located to the north of the B711 to the north west of Roberton and 10km to the west of Hawick. The site comprises of open moorland with an access track and conifer plantation to the north west and Alemoor Reservoir to the south and east.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is to form an access onto the public road and a 140m stretch of access road would be formed linking the access with the existing forestry track to the north west. The initial 6m of the access would be surfaced with tarmac with the remainder surfaced in a granular surface, with a hard surfaced area to the east of the junction. The new access and road are required for the wind farm development at Langhope Rig. The existing forestry access track and junction on to the public road would be removed and the land returned to agriculture. A post and wire fence would be erected along the boundary of the new junction and road with the public road following completion of the wind turbine component deliveries.

PLANNING HISTORY

06/01236/FUL: Construction of wind farm comprising ten turbines and associated ancillary development comprising unit transformers, meteorological mast, access routes, substation, borrow pits, temporary site compounds and laydown area. Land at Langhope Rig West of Ashkirk. Refused by the Planning and Building Standards Committee on 2nd July 2007. Appeal allowed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals on 14th May 2008.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Ten representations have been received. These are available for Members to view on the Public Access System. The following planning issues have been raised:

x It is unsatisfactory that nearly 5 years after the date of the appeal notice on Langhope Rig that traffic issues for the scheme remain unresolved.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5 (d)

x The permission granted by the Reporter for Langhope Rig is limited to the site outlined in that application and it would be impossible to have the approval varied to include the area to which this application relates. This application is in reality a device designed to amend the original application by the back door and is an attempt to remedy the defects in the original application.

x It is the responsibility of SSE (as any other developer) to ensure the route chosen is viable.

x The Traffic Management Plan for Langhope Rig should not have been approved until the issue raised by this new application had been determined. The developer has failed to submit a proper and up to date Traffic Management Plan to Scottish Borders Council and members of the four local communities whose lives will be further inconvenienced should this new road be given approval.

x Local people have already had to endure considerable disruption as a result of work carried out on the route to Langhope Rig. This included a lengthy closure of Martins Bridge but also disruption and closure of parts of the B711 earlier in the year. Another closure of Martins Bridge later this month has just been announced.

x If the works proposed in this application are necessary SSE should have lodged this application in sufficient time for the disruption that it will cause to have coincided with earlier works. The proposal will cause further unacceptable disruption for local people.

x The plans indicate that the area covered by this application includes a section of the B711; SSE has no right to develop the public highway. The plans submitted are inaccurate by mistakenly including a section of the public highway and therefore the application should not have been validated. No applicant has the right to include the public highway within their proposed development.

x This application would result in a greater length of access tracks and an area of hard standing where vehicles and equipment would be parked until they depart for the site itself.

x The current access to the forestry is to be closed. While the new access point may be suitable for vehicles coming from Roberton it will make access from the opposite direction much more difficult and dangerous than the current access point.

x Proper consultation and notice to residents and the Community Council has not occurred.

x The application is for the creation of a stretch of new road off the B711. In considering this application the existence of consent for the Langhope Rig wind farm must be disregarded as this is a completely separate application.

x Permission for the construction of Langhope Rig wind farm expires on 27th August 2013 and was consented subject to conditions. Condition 15, states:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5 (d)

“Works required to the public road B711 and any minor works required to adjoining land shall be approved in writing by the Planning Authority and shall be carried out before the development of the wind farm is begun. Reason: in the interests of road safety.”

x The Langhope Rig wind farm may never be built if it is demonstrated that Condition 15 has not been satisfied before August 27th 2013. The development of the wind farm has clearly begun before the Planning Authority has approved in writing the works required to the public road B711 and any minor works to adjoining land. It has been established that work has already begun on the site as indicated in SBC letter dated 26 June 2013. It appears that the Reporter’s Condition 15 has not been properly discharged and cannot be properly discharged until all necessary road works, including any new access routes, are complete. If a new access road is required but has not been consented or constructed, work on this development should be halted immediately. The works to the B711 and adjoining land which are required for the development should have already been carried out. If the developers wanted to create a second access, as appears from this new application, they should have done so before starting the development or they should re-apply for planning permission for the wind farm and the roads problems could be addressed before planning permission is granted. The application should be dismissed as incompetent.

x Although the site itself is not situated in any areas formally designated for their special landscape character, the following designations would be likely to relate to the creation of this new road: the Tweed, Ettrick and Yarrow Confluences Special Landscape Area is situated approximately 6km to the north, the Uplands Special Landscape Area is situated approximately 7km to the northwest, the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area is situated 17km to the north-east and the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area is situated approximately 20km to the north-west.

x The application must be tested against the SES Plan. It is highly doubtful if this application will make any contribution to the quality of life in the local community by conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment to create more healthy and attractive places to live. The development could detract from the locality and its context as a place to live, work and visit. This is linked to the ability of the rural economy to sustain itself when threatened by development that seems to be adverse.

x The impact on the local road network of this development should be considered during the construction phase and by encouraging traffic to use a newly-built road when combined with forestry operations, increasing the volume of traffic both. The local road network is likely to be subjected to significant disruption during construction.

x The suitability of the local road network to accommodate increased volumes of traffic has already been questioned. The inadequacy of the current road network to accommodate the construction traffic and abnormal loads is causing concern, particularly among local residents and users of the road network. Some of the roads that would receive the construction traffic (including abnormal loads) are currently narrow, in poor condition and in need of a lot of work.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5 (d)

x Road safety. The B711 is a dangerous road due to the width, lack of maintenance with numerous pot holes and with an ever increasing traffic burden mainly from heavy traffic from Craik Forest.

x Concerns exist in relation to residential amenity impact, the effect on the road network during construction and impact on the viability of rural life. Residents have already been subjected to considerable inconvenience for several months during the closure of the bridge at Martinshouse, and this application would involve further road closures during the construction phase.

x This development of this road will increase traffic on the B711 minor road and add to the visual impact in relation to local through routes such as the B711 recreational route which includes Alemoor Loch, the Ashkirk to Roberton road and the William Ogilvie Cairn.

x Landscape and visual impact. This will be a further scar on the landscape; a beautiful country road has been altered enough. Trees will need to be felled and tar laid. A car park for lorries and equipment along the road will add to the mess. The access road will intrude on an even larger area of land than proposed under the original application for the wind farm. The proposal will visually impair the beautiful area around Alemoor. The proposal has a poorly designed appearance from a range of vantage points. The proposal would have a detrimental effect of the newly constructed road on a stunning and inspirational landscape which is one of the area's greatest assets and a significant driver of tourism.

x Visual and physical impact on cultural heritage (including possible archaeological impact).

x Ecological impact (natural heritage). The site and surrounding areas have some value in terms of habitat provision and use by several important protected species as well as many non-protected ones. Matters relating to the impact on protected bird species and their habitat have not been addressed. Further work may be necessary in relation to tree felling and black grouse habitat management/compensation. There is no apparent mitigation in relation to protection of various species of fauna by compensatory planting or habitat management and enhancement.

x Visual and noise impacts for users of public path network.

x Effects on the water environment (hydrology/hydrogeology). There is no information about floodwater run-off rate, drainage infrastructure, mitigation in relation to site hydrology, monitoring and maintenance of drainage and flooding. The development has the potential to interact with the floodwater environment. There also appears to be a lack of information relating to wetland and peatland.

x The application fails to deliver any discernible benefit; its disbenefits to the community are significant.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The following information has been submitted by the agent and is available for Members to view in full on the Public Access System:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5 (d)

x The proposal will allow for the safer transportation of wind turbine generator abnormal loads to the Langhope Rig wind farm from the B711 public road. This will be achieved by creating a new wider site entrance junction with increased sightlines on to the B711.

x A 140m length of new access track will be constructed which will join the previously consented, existing forestry track.

x The existing consented site entrance at Langhope Rig will not be suitable for wind turbine generator components to be delivered safely as the current access does not have the required swept path to allow turning of the wind turbine abnormal loads from the B711 into the site entrance. The current site entrance cannot be widened to accommodate this in such a way that it provides safe visibility splays bearing left and right on the B711.

x The proposal allows free passage of the wind farm components safely from the public road. The additional length of access track from the new site entrance will allow safe storage of the components off the public road and minimise congestion on the B711 whilst they wait transportation up to the wind farm site.

x A post and wire fence will be erected after the completion of wind turbine generator deliveries at the proposed site entrance to reduce the access point to a standard bellmouth width.

x The proposed works do not fall within the consented wind farm red line boundary. All construction activity will be undertaken within the parameters set out within the existing construction methodology in the Langhope Rig Environmental Statement.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SESplan 2013

Policy 1B: The Spatial Strategy: Development Principles

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy BE2: Archaeology Policy NE2: Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE3: Local Biodiversity Policy NE4: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf10: Transport Development Policy D4: Renewable Energy Development

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

None

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5 (d)

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service:

I shall have no objections to this proposal provided the following conditions are adhered to:

1. The visibility splays shown on drawing LN000016-1100240626 Rev. O must be provided prior to the junction becoming operational and must be retained in perpetuity thereafter. 2. The white lining of the junction must be as shown on drawing LN000016- 1100240626 Rev. O and must be completed prior to the access becoming operational. 3. The tarmac area shown on drawing LN000016-1100240626 Rev. O must be constructed to the specification shown below by a Council approved contractor. 4. After the delivery of the abnormal loads, the gravel area to the east of the access must be removed and reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in the interests of road safety. This is likely to involve the reinstatement of the grass verge. This work must be carried out within a month of the final abnormal load being delivered to site. This work must be carried out by a Council approved contractor. 5. Steps must be taken to ensure no surface water drains from the access on to the adjacent public road. 6. Any gates proposed must be erected at the northern end of the tarred section of the access and be hung so as to open into the site.

Archaeology Officer:

There is nothing of archaeological interest in the area of the proposed track.

Ecology Officer:

The realigned route passes through an area of coniferous plantation and is adjacent to Alemoor west reservoir. Tree felling will need to be compliant with the SG/FCS Policy on the Control of Woodland Removal. Compensatory planting could potentially secure multi-benefits for biodiversity, including Forest Habitat Network, black grouse and flood protection (natural flood management). The terms of the compensatory planting would need to be secured through an appropriate legal agreement with the developer. It is preferable that the area to be felled is agreed and the outline in principle of the compensatory planting scheme is agreed prior to determination.

Felling operations to be consistent with the requirements of FCS guidance for protected species including European Protected Species, badger, red squirrel and breeding birds (Forestry Commission Scotland - Guidance Notes: wildlife & forest operations).

Mitigation measures will be required to minimise impacts on adjacent wetland and freshwater habitats. The following planning condition is recommended:

x Prior to the commencement of works a Species and Habitats Mitigation Plan is to be submitted for the approval in writing by the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5 (d)

Planning Authority. Any works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Statutory Consultees

Upper Teviotdale & Borthwick Water Community Council:

No response.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether the proposal would be acceptable in terms of road safety.

x Whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area.

x Whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of residents of any neighbouring properties.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

SESplan Policy 1B requires that Local Development Plans will have regard to the need to improve the quality of life in local communities by conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment to create more healthy and attractive places to live and have regard to the need for high quality design, energy efficiency and the use of sustainable building materials.

Policy G1 of the Local Plan requires all development to be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit in with Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings. The policy contains a number of standards that would apply to all development.

This proposal is for formation of an access onto the B711 public road and the formation of an access road. The proposal is to form an access to serve the Langhope Rig wind farm development.

Representations have been submitted expressing concerns that the pre- commencement condition of the planning permission for the wind farm (condition 15) has not been complied with. Condition 15 requires the works to the public road (B711) and any works on adjoining land to be approved by the Planning Authority and carried out before development of the wind farm is begun. These concerns centre around the issue of work having commenced on the wind farm without the requirements of condition 15 being met and that the planning permission for the wind farm has lapsed.

In reality, the requirements of Condition 15 were met in that a scheme of works was approved and implemented, allowing the wider development to progress; what is now proposed is simply an alternative to that scheme. Indeed, it is purely an application for the creation of an access and can only be considered as such: If this access is

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5 (d) also acceptable in planning terms or does not, in its own right, raise any planning concerns, there can be no reason to refuse the application. It is not reasonable to assess need in such a case.

Although this current application relates to the wind farm development, it has to be assessed on its own merits and the issues regarding commencement of the wind farm development and compliance with conditions attached to that planning permission cannot be dealt with as part of this application. The wind farm was granted planning permission and that decision cannot be revisited here.

Access and Road Safety issues

Policy D4 of the Local Plan requires that traffic generation and access during construction is considered when assessing a wind farm proposal; developers must demonstrate that they have considered options for minimising the operational impact of the development. Policy Inf4 states that the Council will encourage improvements to the transport network that assist in removing barriers to development. Proposals for new roads or road improvements will be assessed against their impact on the natural and built environment including biodiversity, historic and archaeological value.

The originally approved proposal was to utilise an existing forestry track from the B711. However, the applicant advises that the existing access would not be suitable for wind turbine generator components to be delivered safely as the site access does not have the required swept path to allow the turning of the abnormal loads from the B711 into the site entrance. The applicant advises that the existing entrance cannot be widened to provide adequate visibility splays.

The Roads Planning Service has no objections to the proposal on road safety grounds subject to their requirements being met in terms of visibility splays, white lining, surfacing and surface water drainage. Although works are proposed to the public road, the Roads Planning Service has no objections to this provided that the works are carried out by a contractor approved by the Council. The Roads Planning Service does not feel that it is necessary to close the existing access as this would provide access to the wind farm or for forestry traffic approaching from the west.

The proposal would allow the abnormal loads associated with this wind turbine development to be safely delivered to the site. It would enable a junction to be formed that would meet the requirements of these abnormal loads by providing an access that is wide enough, appropriately surfaced with adequate visibility splays. This would improve road safety for the lorries delivering the wind turbine components and for other users of the road. The ability of the local road network to accommodate the traffic associated with the wind farm development is outwith the remit of this application.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

The site is not within any landscape designation, such as Special Landscape Area or National Scenic Area. Given the distance of the site from these designated areas and the small scale nature of the development it is considered that the proposal would not detrimentally affect the special qualities of these areas.

The proposal is for a small scale development. The access road would have a granular surface such as crushed stone, with the exception of the first 6m from the public road, which would be constructed of tarmac. The existing tree plantation would provide a degree of screening in the short term when viewed from the west. It

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5 (d) is considered that the impact on the landscape and on the visual amenities of the area would not be significant.

Policy NE4 of the Local Plan seeks to protect trees from development. Some tree felling would be required to enable the proposed access track to link into the existing track. The trees are within a large conifer plantation and a significant area of this commercial forestry has already been felled on both sides of the B711, including the application site. The loss of these additional trees would not have a significant impact on the landscape or on the biodiversity of the area.

Residential Amenity

Policy H2 of the Local Plan states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted.

There are no residential properties in the surrounding area close to the application site and so the proposed access and track would not affect residential amenities.

A number of representations have been received regarding the increase in traffic the wind farm will cause and the disruption to local residents of the works required to the local road network to allow turbines to be delivered to this site. Whilst this view is understandable, the disruption and noise caused by the works proposed as part of this current application would be short term and, importantly, would have already arisen as a result of the decision to allow the earlier appeal; vehicle numbers would not be altered by this alternative access.

Archaeology

Policy BE2 of the Local Plan requires a consideration of the impact of a proposal on Scheduled Ancient Monuments, nationally important sites not yet scheduled or any other archaeological or historic site.

The Council’s Archaeologist advises that there is nothing of archaeological interest in the area of the proposed track.

Ecology

Policy NE2 of the Local Plan requires a consideration of the impact of a proposal on national nature conservation sites. Policy NE3 states that the Council will seek to safeguard the integrity of habitats which are importance for the maintenance and enhancement of local biodiversity.

There is a Site of Special Scientific Interest on the opposite side of the B711, the Alemoor reservoir.

The Council’s Ecology Officer advises that the route passes through an area of coniferous plantation and is adjacent to Alemoor west reservoir. Tree felling will need to be compliant with the SG/FCS Policy on the Control of Woodland Removal. Felling operations should be consistent with the requirements of FCS guidance for protected species including European Protected Species, badger, red squirrel and breeding birds (Forestry Commission Scotland - Guidance Notes: wildlife & forest operations).

Mitigation measures will be required to minimise impacts on adjacent wetland and freshwater habitats. This can be controlled by a planning condition.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5 (d)

Other Issues

Concern has been expressed regarding the lack of public consultation in respect of this application. No local residents were neighbour notified of the application as there are no residential properties within 20m of the application site boundary. A small scale application of this nature does not require to be advertised in the local press. However the local Community Council was consulted on the application.

CONCLUSION

The proposal, subject to the imposition of planning conditions, is considered to comply with development plan policies and would not be detrimental to road safety or harm the visual amenities of the area or residential amenities.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2. The visibility splays shown on Drawing Number LN000016-1100240626 Rev. O to be provided prior to the junction becoming operational and must be retained in perpetuity thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

3. The white lining of the junction must be as shown on Drawing Number LN000016-1100240626 Rev. O and must be completed prior to the access becoming operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

4. The tarmac area shown on Drawing Number LN000016-1100240626 Rev. O must be constructed to the following specification by a Council approved contractor: a 40mm layer of 14mm size close graded bituminous surface course to BS 4987 laid on a 100mm layer of 28mm size dense base (roadbase) to the same BS laid on a 310mm layer of 100mm broken stone bottoming blinded with sub-base, type 1 or equal approved by a Council approved contractor. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

5. After the delivery of the last abnormal load, the gravel area to the east of the access to be removed and reinstated. The area to be soiled and seeded and the grass verge reinstated and the fence shown on Drawing Number LN000016-1100240626 Rev. O erected, unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. The work to be completed within one month of the final abnormal load being delivered to site by a Council approved contractor. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

6. Details of measures to ensure that no surface water flows from the access track on to the adjacent public road to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The measures then to be completed prior to the access becoming operational.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5 (d)

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

7. Any gates proposed must be erected at the northern end of the tarred section of the access and be hung so as to open into the site. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

8. Prior to the commencement of the development a Species and Habitats Mitigation Plan is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To protect and enhance existing habitats.

DRAWING NUMBERS

001 Site Plan 033 Location Plan LN000016-11002 Rev O Permanent Site Access Junction Arrangement

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5 (d)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(e)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

7th OCTOBER 2013

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN CONDITIONS

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00252/AMC OFFICER: Mr Andrew Evans WARD: Tweeddale East PROPOSAL: Approval of matters in all conditions of outline planning consent 04/01022/OUT SITE: Plot 3 Land South Of Caddonhaugh, Road, Clovenfords, Scottish Borders APPLICANT: Murray & Burrell Ltd AGENT: Ferguson Planning

CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

This application requires to be determined by the Planning and Building Standards Committee because the application is subject to an outstanding objection from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), on grounds of flood risk.

SITE DESCRIPTION

Clovenfords is located roughly 3 miles west of Galashiels at the junction of the A72 and the B710 roads. A recent modest scale housing estate by Murray and Burrell is located on the south western area of land from the southern junction of these roads, adjacent to the Caddon Water. The application site is to the south of this housing, and is an irregularly shaped, roughly triangular, area of land, located on the southern side of Clovenfords. The site measures 0.9 Hectares. The site is bound by Caddonfoot Road and the Meigle Burn to the east, existing housing at Caddonhaugh to the north, and the Caddon Water to the south west. The Caddon Water and Meigle Burn converge towards the southern end of the site.

The site was formerly developed as part of a rifle range. The site is currently largely overgrown with weeds and scrub, particularly along its southern and western extremities. An amount of soil and building materials have been deposited in the centre of the site, to the south of the access point. Much of the northern boundary of the site features mature shrubs and planting along a planted embankment, providing screening between the site and the recent housing to the north.

Several mature trees are located within the site, predominantly along the banks of the watercourses. The River Tweed is located 1.2 km to the south of the site, where the Caddon Water discharges into it. As tributaries of the Tweed, the Caddon Water and Meigle Burn carry Special Area of Conservation status.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(e)

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks approval of matters specified in conditions (AMC) imposed on an outline planning permission granted for the erection of housing on this site. The applicants have indicated that they wish all conditions to be considered.

The outline application on the site related to the erection of six dwellinghouses, to be located immediately behind the existing properties in Caddonhaugh, and was approved in 2012 following conclusion of a legal agreement. In terms of detailed house design however, the current AMC application only pertains to the detailed design for the dwelling on plot 3.

Details are also provided in terms of the proposed site access road, and an indicative plot layout is shown for 4 proposed plots to be located on a development “table” to be formed at the northern end of the application site. Details have been provided for the proposed formation of an area of compensatory flood storage along the south eastern side of the application site.

PLANNING HISTORY

Local Plan

In 2004, the site was proposed for inclusion within the development boundary of Clovenfords set out in the Consultative Draft Local Plan. Following subsequent objection from SEPA, the site, along with neighbouring land to the south west on the other side of the Caddon Water, were removed from the Second Stage Consultation on the Local Plan in 2005.

The site was however reintroduced into the plan by the Scottish Government Reporter following the Scottish Borders Local Plan Inquiry held in 2007, being included as an allocated housing site to assist in the meeting of Central Borders Housing Market Area targets in the proposed and then Adopted Scottish Borders Local Plan in 2008. The Scottish Government Reporter justified this decision as follows:

“...The only remaining concerns about the site are flood risk and the possible impact on the watercourse. The flood risk assessment has indicated that, with acceptable mitigation works, the new houses would not be at risk from a 1 in 200 year flood event (although the lower parts of the of the new back gardens would be affected); and that the up filling and related excavation could be achieved without affecting the performance of the floodplain for water storage or the watercourse habitat. For these reasons, the southern part of the site should remain undeveloped.

For these reasons, I conclude that this modest extension of the development boundary (to accommodate around 6 houses) would be acceptable…”

SEPA did not subsequently object to the adoption of the Local Plan in 2008, or to the adoption of the Consolidated Local Plan in 2011. The site remains allocated for housing in the current Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011, with the site name “Caddonhaugh” in the plan, and an indicative capacity of 6 dwellings.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(e)

Applications

04/01022/OUT - Residential development. This outline application was approved on 18th July 2012, subject to 20 planning conditions, informatives and a legal agreement. SEPA were a consultee on this application. SEPA initially objected to the application, but following a meeting between the Applicants, SEPA and the Council’s Planning and Flood Protection Officers, SEPA withdrew their objection, and the permission was issued subject to conditions and a legal agreement, following consideration at a subsequent Planning and Building Standards Committee meeting on 14th September 2009.

12/00672/FUL - Formation of access road and erection of dwellinghouse. This 2012 application was withdrawn prior to determination, following objection from SEPA on flood risk grounds. SEPA objected to the principle of development on the site, citing changes in the Flood Protection regimen following the inception of The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. The Council, as Planning Authority, did not agree with the position adopted by SEPA, which attached no weight to the extant outline consent on the site, or to its allocation as employment land in the Consolidated Local Plan. The Applicant chose to withdraw the application at this stage, and instead submit the current application for the Approval of Matters Specified in the outline permission.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

The application was publicised by means of the direct notification of 3 neighbouring properties. Further publicity has been afforded to the proposals by means of a notice in the Southern Reporter, and on the national planning notification website.

No representations have been received from the public.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicants have submitted the following details in addition to the submitted plans, elevations and specifications:

x Initial ecological reports x Updated ecological reports x A contaminated land risk assessment x A site investigation report x A Planning Statement x A statement from the potential purchaser of the plot subject to this application. x An email outlining the basic parameters of the Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) scheme for the site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SESplan Proposed Plan (2013)

Policy 15: Water and Flooding

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(e)

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4: Flooding Policy G7: Infill Development Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf3: Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf5: Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6: Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy NE1: International Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE3: Local Biodiversity Policy NE4: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy NE5: Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy NE6: River Engineering Works

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Guidance: x Designing Out Crime in the Scottish Borders (2007) x Trees and Development (2008) x Landscape and Development (2008) x Placemaking and Design (2010) x Guidance on Householder Developments (2006) (Containing privacy and day- lighting assessment criteria) x Biodiversity (2005)

Other: x Scottish Planning Policy 2010 x Draft Scottish Planning Policy 2013 x PAN 44 Fitting New Housing into the Landscape x PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems x PAN 67 Housing Quality x PAN 69 Planning & Flooding x Designing Streets x Designing Places x Planning Circular 3/2009: Notification to Ministers x Planning Circular 4/2009: Development Management Procedures x The Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: Have no objections to this proposal. The developer must gain Roads Construction Consent and ensure appropriate security is lodged with the Council before building work commences on the house.

Environmental Health: First Response: Advised that the above application appears to be proposing the redevelopment of land which was previous used as a rifle range. This land use is potentially contaminative and it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose. It was recommended that planning permission should be granted on condition that

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(e)

development is not be permitted to start until a site investigation and risk assessment has been carried out, submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority. Any requirement arising from this assessment for a remediation strategy and verification plan would become a condition of the planning consent, again to be submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority prior to development commencing.

Second Response: Confirmed that submissions were made in relation to the previous application (12/00672/FUL) and have been carried forward to this application (13/00252/AMC). The submitted report discounts the risks to future site users on the basis that site levels will be raised for flood mitigation measures across the site. The Contaminated Land Officer has proposed a condition and will provide further comment once the permission has been granted (or otherwise) and the Flood Officer / SEPA have confirmed that these measures (as considered in the reports conceptual site model) are appropriate..

Ecology Officer: First Response: Protected species surveys were undertaken. The submitted survey is out of date, an updated survey is required. I will comment further once this updated survey is submitted for the Planning Authorities consideration.

The applicant then submitted updated ecology surveys, on which the Council Ecology Officer was re-consulted.

Second Response: I am satisfied with the Otter and Bat Assessment carried out on 16 May 2013 by Findlay Ecology Services. Otters are using habitat both upstream and downstream of the survey area but the habitat on the development site did not offer good structural habitat for otters and there was no sign (paths or spraint) which would suggest that otter were using the site.

Three category 1 trees were found within a 3m border of the existing clearing which would require examination for bat roots by a qualified climber before the probability of roosts could be established or ruled out. The report recommends that other trees within 3m of the site should be soft felled in Autumn or Spring as a precaution to avoid periods when bats would be vulnerable. Any trees beyond 3m of the existing clearing would need to be checked by an ecologist for potential for bats roosts.

It is recommended that in order to protect bats, if further tree work is to be undertaken, the three category 1 trees within 3m of the site will be examined for bat roosts by a qualified climber and mitigation will be implemented as per (section 5) of the Findlay Ecology Services report May 2013. This should be consistent with planning condition 8.

For information, other trees within and beyond 3m of the development site will be felled in accordance with the recommendations of section 5 of the Findlay Ecology Services report May 2013.

Flood Protection Officer: The most recent response of the FPO is reproduced in full as follows:

Outline planning permission was sought for this site in 2004 under application number 04/01022/OUT. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was undertaken for this site with mitigation measures developed to potentially allow for development. The FRA including the proposal for land raising with associated compensatory storage was accepted in principle by SEPA in their letter dated 28th November 2006. This was on the basis that the Council agrees the detail of the land raising and compensatory storage areas. The Flood Authority subsequently agreed in principle

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(e)

to the land raising and compensatory storage proposals with the developer and their flood risk consultant on 13th August 2009. Outline planning permission was granted on 13th July 2012. Following on from outline consent an application was submitted (13/00252/AMC) for approval of matters in all conditions of outline planning consent. In relation to flood risk management the following condition had to be fulfilled.

v. flood mitigation measures including full details of the compensatory storage area, including location, volume and surface area and implementation of this compensatory measure.

On initial assessment of the information submitted, it was found that there was not sufficient information to discharge the condition. A request for further information was issued in my response dated 26th April 2013. Additional information was then supplied providing details of the land raising and compensatory storage proposals.

Subsequently, the applicant did submit the further information which I had requested. This led to my response dated 17th May 2013. In short my response stated that I was willing to discharge the condition on the basis that the proposals for the site were developed from a previously agreed FRA, which was undertaken in accordance with guideline current at that time (2005).

However it should be noted that I recommend discharge of the condition on the assumption that this was in relation to Plot 3 and should other plots within the site be put forward for development that a FRA with hydraulic modelling be developed in line with current best practice.

Following submission of this to the Planning Authority, I was notified by the planning officer that the wording of the condition to be discharged was such that it was in relation to the whole site and not one plot. I was then asked if my current position was still valid. On reviewing the site as a whole I came to the conclusion that to be confident that the flood risk has been fully addressed a FRA with hydraulic modelling would be required as detailed in my email to the planning officer dated 3rd September 2013

Since this latest response I have met with the developers and their representatives as well as the planning officer to discuss the application as a whole and review the Flood Authority’s stance based on the decisions and acceptance made previously in relation to the original FRA. I indicated to the applicant that based on the original FRA I was reasonably content that Plot 3 and the plot to the East were sufficiently above the 1 in 200 year flood level of the Caddon Water, hence my previous response to discharging the condition on this plot. I did state however that the applicant considers a more detailed assessment of the flood risk associated with the two Western plots to confirm that the proposed finished floor levels are appropriate.

Therefore on the basis of the above I am willing to recommend the discharge of the condition but would ask the Planning Authority to include an informative indicating that it would be in the interest of the applicant to undertake a more detailed assessment of the two Western Plots as a matter of good practice.

Statutory Consultees

Clovenfords & District Community Council: This site has been subject to flooding for many years. Some work has been ongoing in this area over the past 3 months but

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5(e)

is not yet finished. How effective this will be in improving the drainage on this site is at the time of writing unknown

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: We previously objected to this planning application as insufficient information had been submitted to satisfy us that condition 4 (v) of planning consent 04/01022/OUT had been addressed, that a safe development level could be achieved and that the risk of flooding elsewhere will not be increased.

Information has now been submitted to attempt to address this condition which we have reviewed. It is proposed to raise existing ground levels to create a raised development platform and provide compensatory storage to address the risk of flooding at the site. However, it has still not been demonstrated that satisfactory compensatory storage can be achieved for the reasons outlined in our response below. In order to determine appropriate development levels, the impact of the development on flood levels and the risk of flooding elsewhere and inform the design of adequate compensatory storage it would be necessary to undertake a detailed flood risk assessment with hydraulic modelling of the watercourses.

We therefore maintain our objection to this planning application on the grounds of a lack of information relating to flood risk and that it may place persons and buildings at flood risk contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and PAN 69. We may be in a position to reconsider this objection if the issues detailed in condition 4 (v) are adequately addressed.

We also recommend referral to our previous response, dated 16 April 2013, as comments are still applicable to this planning application (most notably Sections 1.1 - 1.4 and 1.7).

In our previous response, dated 16 April 2013, we noted that the principle of development had been established by planning permission 04/01022/OUT which is still extant. We wish to highlight however that if this application had been a renewal of planning permission we would be likely to object in principle due to the potential flood risk associated with this proposal. Since we commented on the previous application (04/01022/OUT) The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 now places a duty on Scottish Ministers, SEPA, Scottish Water and Local Authorities to exercise their flood related functions with a view to reducing overall flood risk and promote sustainable flood risk management. The cornerstone of sustainable flood management is the avoidance of flood risk in the first instance. SEPA and the planning authority should have regard to these new duties when providing flood risk advice and determining planning applications respectively.

Other Consultees

None.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining issues with this application are whether the detailed proposals comply with the requirements of the conditions of the outline consent and with planning policies and adopted guidance on design, flooding, impact on residential amenity and impacts on the adjoining watercourse and ecology.

Specific regard should be given to:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(e)

x Policy considerations, principally whether the details of the proposals comply with Scottish Borders Council Planning Policies, x Whether the proposals meet the requirements set out in the Outline Planning Permission to which this application relates; x The consultation replies received.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Background

The application seeks approval of matters specified in conditions in relation to the residential development approved in the earlier outline planning permission. The site is located within the Clovenfords Development Boundary set out in the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011, and is allocated for housing.

Outline Planning Permission exists for the erection of a house on this site – indeed consent exists for a maximum of 6 dwellings on the wider application site. That outline is the planning permission and this current “AMC” application seeks only to gain approval of details pursuant to that outline permission; it does not need to be tested against current development plan policies in order to re-establish the principle. Consideration should, however, be given to local plan polices in terms of the impacts of the specific detail being submitted.

The applicants have indicated that they seek to discharge all of the conditions of the consent via this application. Addressing the planning conditions of the outline planning permission in turn:

Condition 1 - Layout, siting, design, external appearance, access and landscaping

Condition 1 of the outline consent stated:

Approval of the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

The proposed access to the site is via an existing spur road between nos. 3 and 4 Caddonhaugh. The submitted plans indicate that the dwellinghouse for the plot will be one and a half storey. This is in keeping with what was suggested and agreed in principle at outline stage.

Policy G1 of the Local Plan applies, and sets out the various quality standards that the development should meet. Criterion 1 requires that the development is compatible and respects the character of the surrounding area, neighbouring uses and neighbouring built form. Policy G1 of the Local Plan requires all development to be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit in with Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings. The policy contains a number of standards that would apply to all development.

The submitted house and garage elevations relate to the proposed dwelling on plot 3 only, and are acceptable in terms of the general indicative appearance, form and scale of the dwelling house. The house would tie in, in terms of scale and form, quite

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(e)

well with similar designs constructed by the developer in the existing housing to the north, with some improvements in the detailing. Whilst the design standards adopted by the Council have improved in recent years, in this instance, the neighbouring built form is entirely provided by the recent housing to the north. This existing housing is of a broadly similar design to that now proposed, and in this context, the proposals can be accepted.

The existing dwellings at Caddonhaugh include a number of bungalows and 1½ storey dwellings with dormers. Slate has been suggested to the roof of the proposed dwelling, with zinc ridges, and this would be acceptable. The neighbouring dwellings to the north are in concrete tile. Given the location on the edge of the settlement, the use of slate in these new dwellings is much more appropriate than use of concrete tile, providing a higher quality finish to the southern edge of the settlement.

The applicants have suggested an off white smooth acrylic finish render to the walls. Wet dash render would however provide a more appropriate higher quality finish to the development. It would also be more appropriate given the fairly traditional detailing elsewhere on the proposed house (which features a 45 degree roof pitch with an overhang to the eaves, render bands around the windows, and traditional glazing pattern with vertical emphasis to the painted timber windows). The use of wet dash will therefore be ensured via planning condition. Indeed, a wording is suggested for a planning condition which would ensure submission of samples of the proposed materials, and thereafter ensure development across the housing site is carried out in consistent materials.

Approval of the application would only partially discharge this condition, and further submissions would require to be made in terms of the house designs for the remaining plots within the development. This will be relayed to the applicant in an informative note. The proposals as set out in this AMC submission however, are considered to comply with Policy G1 of the Local Plan. The proposed road layout and indicative ground levels are acceptable. In terms of character and appearance, taking into account the existing house designs to the north of the site, the proposed 1½ storey height and mass of the house is considered acceptable for the plot.

The proposed plot and road layout set out in the submission would provide an attractive, small scale residential development. Four plots are shown on the submitted flood scheme plans and layout plan, and the submissions for the position of the four plots are considered acceptable.

Amenity

Policy H2 of the Local Plan aims to protect the amenity of both existing established residential areas and proposed new housing developments. The policy applies principally to areas where the predominant use is residential and where the proposals affect the amenity of existing dwellings and proposed new housing developments. An informative note attached to the original outline permission had advised of the:

”need to take into consideration the relative relationships of proposed dwellings with those in existing development to the immediate north of the application site with particular regard given to the privacy of occupants of the existing development.”

In intervening years since the grant of outline planning permission, planting at the back of the housing at nos. 1, 2 and 3 Caddonhaugh has matured, to the extent that

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(e) it now provides a quite substantial landscaping buffer between the existing housing and the plot proposed in this application, and for that matter, the remainder of the site.

The dwellings at nos. 1, 2 and 3 Caddonhaugh are all bungalows, with only ground floor accommodation. The proposals will not result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking of neighbouring housing. In any case, the proposed dwelling on plot 3 would be located 43m from the nearest existing dwelling at No. 2 Caddonhaugh. This is more than double the 18m required by supplementary planning guidance for direct window to window overlooking. The finished floor level of the 4 proposed dwellings on the site would be 148.00, compared to a finished floor level of 147.48 for the nearest existing, neighbouring dwelling to the north (no.2 Caddonhaugh). This relationship and the proposed finished ground and floor levels set out in the submission are considered to be acceptable. In this case, the proposed dwellings are considered not to conflict with policy H2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011. The proposed dwelling on plot 3 would also be in accordance with the privacy and amenity standards set out in the adopted Householder Development SPG.

Conditions 2 & 3 – Timing of development

These conditions related to timing of the development, and do not require a submission in terms of the Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions process.

Condition 4 - Site layout, garages, phasing, SUDS, flooding etc.

Condition 4 required submission of various items with the reserved matters application. These included:

i. a site layout plan at a scale of 1:500 showing the position of all buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas (distinguishing, where appropriate, between private and public spaces), walls and fences and landscaping;

This has been presented in the form of the 1:500 drawing submitted with the application. In so far as it relates to the housing, roads, footpath and parking, the submitted plan is acceptable. Fencing and walling details have not been provided, and these will be picked up in a condition.

ii. plans and elevations of each house and garage type showing their dimensions and type and colour of external materials;

Detailed plans and elevations have been submitted for plot 3 and its garage only at this stage. They would be finished in an off white render with cast stone or granitstone base course, and slated roof. These details are acceptable, but a condition is considered necessary to secure agreement of samples. The site is on the edge of the settlement and use of high quality materials is desirable to create an acceptable standard of development, and help “ground” the development. Slate and wet dash render would be appropriate, and offer betterment over the existing; somewhat suburban concrete tile and dry render finishes found on the existing Caddonhaugh housing forming the current edge of the settlement.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(e)

iii. details of the phasing of development;

The submitted plan sets out 3 phases. This is acceptable, though all of the flood alleviation works will require to be implemented in advance of the occupation of any dwelling. This requirement will be ensured in a condition.

iv. details of existing and finished ground levels, and finished floor levels, in relation to a fixed datum, preferably ordnance datum.

The submitted plan sets out Finished Floor Levels (FFL) for the houses and spot heights across the site. These details are discussed earlier in this report, in the section dealing with condition 1 and amenity. These submitted FFL and spot height details are considered acceptable. These levels tie in with the levels set out in the submitted flood mitigation scheme.

v. flood mitigation measures including full details of the compensatory storage area, including location, volume and surface area and implementation of this compensatory measure.

The current AMC submission includes details on flood mitigation measures. These are discussed in more detail below. Members will note that the site is in a relatively low lying position just north of the confluence of the Meigle Burn and the Caddon Water. This specific issue requires detailed consideration by Members.

During the processing of the 2004 outline application on the site, SEPA had originally objected to the application on the basis of uncertainty regarding flood risk and foul drainage for the site. Following submission of a Flood Risk Assessment and the revision of plans for the area to be used for housing, and a meeting, the objection to the outline application was withdrawn.

The officer report on the outline application noted in relation to the proposed compensatory storage, that:

“There are a number of issues which still require clarification and possible remedial action. As this is an outline condition (sic) these further considerations can be dealt with at the reserved matters or full planning application stage.”

The applicants initially submitted a full planning application for the first proposed dwelling on the site in 2012. Despite SEPA having removed their objection to the outline application, and the site having been allocated for housing development in the adopted local plan, SEPA objected to a full application for a single dwelling on the site last year, citing the changed policy background following the introduction of new flooding legislation in 2009.

In an attempt to overcome SEPA’s opposition, the applicants withdrew the full application, and decided to submit an AMC (Approval of Matters specified in Conditions) application pursuant to the original outline consent.

Significant weight must be attached to the existence of the extant outline consent on the site, which has established the principle of development having been supported by an agreed flood risk assessment.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(e)

SEPA were consulted on this AMC application as a courtesy. Despite the principle of development not being subject to consideration, SEPA have maintained their opposition to the application, and requested submission of a Flood Risk Assessment which incorporates Hydraulic Modelling. This was not required or identified at outline stage, when an FRA was submitted and is not required by Condition 4 part (v). For an FRA with Hydraulic Modelling to be required at this juncture, it would have had to have been included in the wording of the relevant planning condition on the outline consent. It was not. It is therefore not appropriate to request such submission now. The question which can be asked on this application is solely whether or not the submissions meet the requirements identified at outline stage.

Members should note that the Flood Risk Management Act, whilst imposing several new obligations upon SEPA and Planning Authorities, does not convey any ability or requirement to retrospectively impose additional requirements upon an extant planning consent.

It is considered that the flood mitigation measures now proposed by the applicant are consistent with the details discussed and agreed by all parties, including SEPA at outline stage. Detailed plans for the proposed compensatory storage and associated levelling works have been prepared. These show:

x in three dimensions a representation of the proposed site table and revised site levels. Drawings 12/MAB/S/01/00/001-B and 005 show the location of the proposed flood mitigation compensatory storage area; x the volume of the proposed table and storage areas; and x the proposed levels and areas of the proposed development table and storage areas.

The drawings and the level information therein, can be read in conjunction with the submitted site plans and block plans by the applicant, and are based upon a topographic survey of the site.

The agent’s letter of April 20th 2013 confirms that the proposed compensatory storage area would be formed at the same time as the site table, with construction being completed prior to the commencement of work on any of the individual plots. The submitted drawings for the site compensatory works show the compensatory storage area being formed to the south of the planning application site. The proposed levels of reduction are highlighted on drawing 12/MAB/S/01/00/005 in orange shading.

Policies G4 (Flooding), NE5 (Development Affecting the Water Environment) and NE6 (River Engineering Works) of the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 are relevant to the consideration of the submitted details of the compensatory storage area and proposed ground works and river engineering works therein.

The supporting text of Policy G4 (Flooding) sets out that:

“A competent Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should include hydrological analysis, hydraulic analysis (as required) and associated survey data.”

In the case of this application, the proposed arrangements look to meet requirements of the condition imposed at outline stage, and have been developed from the applicants original FRA, which was considered acceptable by SEPA and the Council at the time of the determination of the outline application.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(e)

Policy NE5 (Development Affecting the Water Environment) sets out that decision making will be guided by an assessment of flooding risk, within the site and the wider river catchment. Policy NE6 sets out that river engineering work, whether “in-stream” or “on-bank” that would have a significant effect, upon water quality, quantity or flow rate, ecological status, riparian habitat, protected species or floodplains, whether up or downstream from the works will be refused.

In this instance, the proposed river engineering works are considered to be acceptable in planning policy terms, provided that the developer complies with the conditions of the consent.

The Council Flood Protection Officers have ultimately taken a pragmatic approach to the application. They consider that the flood mitigation measures proposed are consistent with the details discussed at outline stage and set out in the planning conditions of the outline permission. An FRA with Hydraulic Modelling is not considered a proportionate or legitimate requirement given the background and planning history to the application site. The approach taken by the Council Engineer is considered acceptable. It is considered that the requirements of condition 4 (part v) are being met by the applicant. In the circumstances, it is considered appropriate to discharge the condition. It will however be necessary to cover the implementation of these works by means of a condition imposed on this AMC approval. In this instance, it is considered that the submission can be accepted.

It is proposed that the application be notified to Scottish Ministers should Members resolve to approve the application. As discussed above, Members should note that SEPA were notified of this AMC application as a courtesy. As an application for approval of matters specified in condition, consultation with SEPA is not required under the requirements set out in legislation.

Returning to the other matters contained in condition 4 of the outline consent, part vi required submission of:

vi. An appropriate SUDS scheme

The applicants have engaged agents to design a Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) scheme; however this was not completed at the time of submission of this AMC application, as the applicants wished to avoid any unnecessary additional costs until the flooding issues on the site had been resolved. The agent, SAC, has however confirmed that the SUDS system for the houses would be on the basis of an individual filter drain for each house with a regulated outflow to the adjacent watercourse. The detailed design of the system would be as per the guidelines from CIRIA C 697 “The SUDS Manual” based on the impermeable area draining for each property.

These arrangements should be acceptable; however the detailed scheme had not yet been forthcoming at the time of the finalisation of this report, though its conclusion and submission in time for the meeting has been requested of the applicants. Members will be updated at the committee meeting as to whether the SUDS scheme has been forthcoming and whether or not this part of the condition can be discharged.

Assuming the required details are forthcoming in time for consideration at the Committee Meeting, members should be mindful of the guidance in Planning Advice Note 61 on Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems which advises that

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(e)

SUDS should aim to deal in an integrated way with the issues of water quantity, water quality and amenity. It works on the following principles: x managing surface water run-off on-site as near to source as possible; x slowing down run-off; x treating it naturally; and x releasing good quality surface water to watercourses or groundwater.

Consolidated Local Plan Policy Inf6 (Sustainable Urban Drainage) should also be borne in mind. It provides that surface water management must comply with current best practice on SUDS. Policy BE5 of the Local Plan also requires that there should be compliance with the current best practice on SUDS.

If an appropriate submission is not forthcoming by the time of the committee meeting, then this condition should not be discharged. The applicant would then however have to make a further submission on SUDS as part of the AMC process.

Condition 5 - Number of houses

Condition 5 limited the number of houses forming part of the development to six. The submission would deal with the erection of the first house, on plot 3. The proposed layout remains in accordance with this condition, with indicative levels at 4 plots provided across the site, under the threshold of 6 units set in the outline approval.

Condition 6 & 7 - Soft landscaping works

These conditions state:

6 No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of soft landscaping works, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall include (as appropriate): i. a landscaping plan at a scale of 1:200 indicating the position of existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be removed, those to be retained and, in the case of damage, proposals for their restoration ii. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas iii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density iv. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.

7 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and shall be maintained thereafter and replaced as may be necessary for a period of two years from the date of completion of the planting, seeding or turfing. Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping is carried out as approved.

Details have been provided in terms of condition 6, in the form of the submitted site layout plan dated 12.02.2013. The submitted details are acceptable, showing provision for the existing planting to be protected during construction works by a fence.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(e)

Condition 7 cannot be discharged at this point in time, as it required replanting as required for a period of 2 years after implementation of the landscaping works.

The submitted plan does not extend to cover the trees within the Compensatory Flood Storage area which will require to be felled. The felling of specific trees within the wider site are however afforded general protection and control by Condition 8, though the approval of the Compensatory Storage Scheme carries with it the tacit approval of the felling of certain trees on the banks of the affected land.

Conditions 8 & 9 – Trees (felling and protection)

These conditions state:

8 No trees within the application site shall be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The existing tree(s) represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained.

9 Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the trees to be retained on the site shall be protected by a chestnut paling fence 1.5 metres high, placed at a minimum radius of one metre beyond the crown spread of each tree, and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development: (a) No excavations, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut, or pipes or services laid in such a way as to cause damage or injury to the trees by interference with their root structure; (b) No fires shall be lit within the spread of the branches of the trees; (c) No materials or equipment shall be stored within the spread of the branches of the trees; (d) Any accidental damage to the trees shall be cleared back to undamaged wood and be treated with a preservative if appropriate; (e) Ground levels within the spread of the branches of the trees shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, or trenches excavated except in accordance with details shown on the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of preserving the health and vitality of existing trees on the development site, the loss of which would have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area.

The position of the tree protection fence is shown on the submitted plans. Again however, these conditions cannot be discharged at this point in time, as they regulate how the development will be undertaken on the site. However, in terms of the pre- commencement requirements, the submissions make provision for the retention of the existing trees and shrubbery along the northern boundary of the site, which provide screening between the site and the housing to the north.

As discussed above, Members will note that northern section of the proposed compensatory storage area (shown on cross section 4 on the submitted scheme, and located to the south of the proposed housing) will require the felling of trees in order to achieve the uniform reductions in the region of 60-80cm in ground level for the proposed compensatory storage levels. These trees are consequently not within the area identified for protective fencing and their removal, whilst unfortunate, is necessary to ensure appropriate flood protection of the site.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(e)

Condition 10 & 11 - Public open space

These conditions state:

10 No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of the public open space including the parking spaces has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that proper provision is made for recreational facilities within the site.

11 All works required for the provision of open space shall be completed prior to the occupation of the last house in the scheme in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as approved.

The applicant notes that Roads Construction Consent has been applied for. The only public open space within the plans is for a very small strip of land between the existing housing to the north of the site, and the proposed access road. The conditions cannot be discharged at this stage, as they regulate how the development will be undertaken on the site. No other public or play spaces are proposed, and it should be noted that the neighbouring housing site to the north is already home to a modest toddler play space, roughly 50m from the application site.

Condition 12 - Access roads and footpaths

This condition states:

12 No dwelling forming part of the development shall be occupied until the access roads and footpaths shown on the approved plans have been built to the specification of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that adequate access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles is provided and is at all times properly maintained.

No submission is required with respects to this condition, which will not be discharged at this time.

Condition 13 – Submission of sewerage scheme and implementation

The condition states:

13 None of the dwellings shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water.

The applicant confirms that submissions have been made to Scottish Water in respect of a scheme for foul drainage. No further details have been forthcoming, and there is not sufficient detail to permit the discharge of this condition at this stage.

In any event, the condition cannot be discharged at this time, as it requires the approved works to be carried out on site.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5(e)

Condition 14 – Sustainable Energy condition

The condition states:

14 The proposed development shall incorporate measures to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, and the incorporation of sustainable building techniques and renewable energy technologies, in accordance with the scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure the development minimises any environmental impact

Longer serving elected members will recall that this planning condition was imposed on consents issued in previous years. The position with regards to the securing of sustainable, resource sensitive development has changed since this condition was imposed, with matters of energy efficiency and sustainable building now being covered through the updated building standards system rather than the planning system. As such, this condition can now be discharged without the submission of any further information.

Conditions 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 – Protection of River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Addressing each of these conditions in turn:

15 No development shall take place within 20m from the edge of the Caddon Water. Reason: In order to minimise any impact on the River Tweed SAC and prevent the need for bank protection work and preserving the natural vegetation of the river bank

The position of a “no development line” is shown on the 1:500 scale drawing, and will meet the requirements of this condition. The submission is acceptable in terms of this condition, but the condition will not be discharged at this time, as it places an ongoing requirement for the agreed requirements to be fulfilled.

16 No development approved by this permission shall take place on the site until a plan indicating the area to be fenced off to provide a buffer zone between the water course and the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This fencing should be a minimum of 10m from the bank of the Caddon Water Reason: In order to protect the River Tweed SAC

The position of this fence is also shown on the 1:500 scale drawing. The requirements of the condition will be met by implementation of the consent in line with this plan.

17 The fencing approved in condition 16 should be in place before the commencement of any development and retained until all the building work on the site has ceased. Reason: In order to protect the River Tweed SAC.

18 No material shall be deposited in the watercourses bounding the site during construction works or after their completion. Reason: Reason: In order to protect the River Tweed SAC

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5(e)

These conditions place an ongoing requirement upon how the development is carried out on site, and will not be discharged at this time. The conditions require no formal submission to the Planning Authority.

19 Prior to the commencement of any work on the site a construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority, following consultation with SEPA. The method statement shall include details of the protection of the river and its banks from building operations. Reason: In order to protect the River Tweed SAC.

A construction method statement has not been provided. The applicants have submitted an application to SEPA for works adjacent to a water course.

Condition 20 – Ecological Surveys

The condition states:

20 Prior to the commencement of any work on site an ecological survey shall be carried out. If the presence of bats/or otters is subsequently found within, or near to, the development footprint the applicant must contact SNH for advice on any action which should be taken. Reason: In order to protect European Protect Species (bats and otters).

An appropriate assessment , as requested by SNH was undertaken by the Council’s Ecologist at outline stage who was satisfied that if appropriate conditions were attached to any consent, the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC for the European qualifying interests.

It has been known since outline stage that the implementation of the Compensatory Flood Storage area would require felling of a section of trees at this part of the site.

The originally submitted ecological reports identify that these trees were not home to any roosting bats; however that survey dates from 2009. An updated species survey was undertaken and submitted to the Planning Authority with the AMC application. The 2013 ecological survey covered 200m upstream and downstream of the application site, and covered the area identified for compensatory flood storage, in which felling would also be required. 3 possible roost trees within the site were identified.

The Ecology Officer advises that she is satisfied with the Otter and Bat Assessment carried out on 16 May 2013 by Findlay Ecology Services, which confirms that Otters are using habitat both upstream and downstream of the survey area but the habitat on the development site did not offer good structural habitat for otters and there was no sign (paths or spraint) which would suggest that otter were using the site.

Three “category 1” trees were found within a 3m border of the existing clearing on the site which would require examination for bat roots by a qualified climber before the probability of roosts could be established or ruled out. This can be secured via planning condition.

The submitted report recommends that other trees within 3m of the site should be soft felled in Autumn or Spring as a precaution to avoid periods when bats would be vulnerable. Any trees beyond 3m of the existing clearing would need to be checked by an ecologist for potential for bats roosts. Again, the permission will be worded to reflect these requirements.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 5(e)

Contaminated Land Officer Comments

The comments of the Contaminated Land Officer are noted; however it would not be competent to add in a planning condition at this late stage, during the processing of this application for approval of matters specified in conditions. This application relates only to the discharge of conditions on the existing outline planning permission on the site. Essentially, the Contaminated Land Officer comments must be considered in the same manner by the Planning Authority as the SEPA comments on the application. A condition raising new matters cannot now be imposed.

The outline planning application did not include any planning condition relating to contaminated land. Whilst the applicants have, commendably, undertaken a Contaminated Land Risk Assessment for the site, this is not a requirement of the outline planning permission.

An applicant informative note is recommended to draw this issue to the attention of the developer, and promote further discussion with the Council Contaminated Land Officer.

Notification to Scottish Ministers

In the case of planning applications subject to an objection from a statutory consultee, such as SEPA, notification to Scottish Ministers is required. This is an application for consideration of matters specified in conditions, not a planning application. In the interests of certainty, it is nevertheless proposed to notify this AMC application to Scottish Ministers.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed dwelling and submitted details, subject to conditions, are of a high quality in accordance with sustainability principles and would be compatible with, and respect the character of the surrounding area, neighbouring uses and neighbouring built form in accordance with Adopted Local Plan Policies.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is approved subject to Notification to Scottish Ministers and subject to the following conditions and informative notes:

Conditions:

1. Prior to erection on site, further details of the materials and design of any fencing or walling to be erected are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development.

2. Further to the submitted materials specification, a detailed specification and sample of all external finishes of the houses of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the use of the finishes in the development. Thereafter, the external finishes of all of the houses and garages on the site shall be carried out in accordance with this

Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 5(e)

co-ordinated scheme of materials and colours approved by the Planning Authority. The co-ordinated scheme shall promote wet dashed render as the predominant finish to the walls of the houses and natural slate to the roofs of the houses. Reason: To ensure the development is of a satisfactory appearance in the interest of the amenity surrounding area.

3. The approved compensatory storage scheme and associated site levelling works set out in the approved plans 12/MAB/S/01/00/001-B, 12/MAB/S/01/00/002-A, 12/MAB/S/01/00/003, 12/MAB/S/01/00/004, 12/MAB/S/01/00/005 and 12/MAB/S/01/00/006 and in the agents letter of April 20th 2013 are to be implemented in their entirety prior to the commencement of construction of any of the dwellinghouses within the application site boundary. For the avoidance of doubt, groundworks to form the site development table at the northern end of the site can be carried out concurrently with the compensatory storage area works. Reason: In the interests of flood prevention.

4. Prior to the commencement of any development, a full planting and seeding specification of the surface landscaping to be carried out on the completed re- graded compensatory storage area is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the scheme is to be implemented during the first available planting season after the completion of leveling works on the compensatory area, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate appearance of the completed compensatory flood storage area.

5. Prior to commencement of development, the three “category 1” trees identified in the ecological report by Findlay Ecology Services are to be examined for bat roots by a qualified climber to establish the presence of bats. Thereafter, confirmation on the outcome of the checking will be lodged with the Planning Authority. If bats are present, mitigation will thereafter be implemented as per section 5 of the Findlay Ecology Services report of May 2013. Reason: In order to protect European Protect Species

Informatives

1. This consent conveys approval for the details of the dwellinghouse on plot no.3 only. Further submissions will be required in respect of the other plots subject to outline planning consent 04/01022/OUT.

2. Conditions [1(part), 2, 3, 4(vi), 5, 6(part), 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 19]* remain to be addressed, through further AMC submission and/or carrying out of obligations on site as appropriate. *to be amended as appropriate.

3. In terms of flooding, attention is drawn to the Consultation response of the Council Flood Protection Engineer. It is recommended that a more detailed flood risk assessment is undertaken with regard to the 2 westernmost plots, as a matter of good practice. Discussion with the engineer with regards to the finished floor levels of these plots is recommended.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 20 Item No. 5(e)

4. The developer is reminded of the need to gain Roads Construction Consent and ensure appropriate security is lodged with the Council before building work commences on the house.

5. Attention is drawn to the Consultation Response of the Contaminated Land Officer. For further advice, please contact the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer.

6. The trees within and beyond 3m of the development site to be felled should be felled in accordance with the recommendations of section 5 of the Findlay Ecology Services report May 2013.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Drawing Reference Location plan OS EXTRACT Site model – Proposed levels 12/MAB/S/01/00/001_B - ADDITIONAL Site model – Proposed flood compensation 12/MAB/S/01/00/002_A – ADDITIONAL Site model – Flood illustration 12/MAB/S/01/00/003 Site model – Flood Mitigation as existing 12/MAB/S/01/00/004 Site model – Flood Mitigation as proposed 12/MAB/S/01/00/005 Flood mitigation site sections - as proposed 12/MAB/S/01/00/006 Site plan – as proposed 12/MAB/S/01/00/006 Site layout - Planting protection 1:500 scale, “K. Ackerman” plan Garage plans Site layout 01 Road layout 03B Road sections 04 Site levels 09 Floor plans 21029-02 Elevations/section 21029-03 Elevations/section 21029-04 Stair details 21029-05 Design Statement Note of Materials/Colours

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Andrew Evans Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 Item No. 5(e)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 22 Item No. 5(f)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

7 OCTOBER 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBERS: 13/00948/FUL and 13/00949/FUL OFFICER: Stuart Herkes WARD: Leaderdale and Melrose PROPOSAL: Siting of temporary mobile home and Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage SITE: Land East Of Jeaniefield Farm and Land North West Of Jeaniefield Farmhouse APPLICANT: Mr Michael Carlisle AGENT: J E Hay NB Building Design

CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Planning Application 13/00949/FUL has been referred to the Planning and Building Standards Committee for determination under Section 43A(6) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Its referral is supported by five Members on the grounds that: “..it is considered that the determination of this application will benefit from a detailed analysis and discussion by Members and should therefore be determined by the Planning and Building Standards Committee”.

Planning Application 13/00948/FUL is not the subject of the same referral. However, given the close interconnection between this application and Planning Application 13/00949/FUL (they have been made by the same applicant and are supported by the same business case), it has been considered appropriate and in the interests of consistency, that the two applications should be determined at the same time.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is agricultural land within the holding of a recently established farm steading, New Jeaniefield, which is located 3 miles south of Lauder. The land slopes markedly upwards from east to west. Downslope, and to the immediate east of the site, is an established, existing agricultural steading, including a mobile home (permitted by planning permission 08/01649/FUL); an existing agricultural building (planning permission 08/01392/FUL) and associated farmyard; which is the site of a consented cattle court building (planning permission 12/00318/FUL). The farmyard itself lies to the immediate west of a minor public road, from which the site is accessible via an agricultural track.

The agricultural unit at New Jeaniefield is 58.85ha in extent, and includes land on its western extremities that is within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (Threepwood Moss). No part of the application site falls within the SSSI which is some way distant.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(f)

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The Applicant proposes, under Planning Application 13/00948/FUL, the retention of the existing mobile home within the farmyard at New Jeaniefield; and secondly, under Planning Application 13/00949/FUL, the erection of a new dwellinghouse with integral garage to the immediate west of the farmyard at New Jeaniefield.

The mobile home is already in situ, having been given planning permission for a temporary period in 2009 following an appeal to the Scottish Government. The permission has now expired, and the Applicant is seeking its retention in its present location for a further four years.

The proposed farmhouse would ascend the gradient of its site in three distinct sections, ‘stepping up’ the slope from east to west. While this building would be fairly traditional in its design, it would be more reminiscent of a row of farm cottages than a farmhouse. It would have slated roofs, timber-clad walls and timber-framed windows. First floor accommodation would be facilitated by dormers and there would be a masonry chimney, some 4m in height, on the rear elevation of the higher and most westerly section. Windows would not be traditional in their appearance, being predominantly casements with glazed panels.

The proposed new house would be accessed from the aforementioned farm access to the south. This would be upgraded to be accessible to residential traffic. Parking and access would be to the front (south) of the dwellinghouse. Tree planting is indicated to the north and west, with some to the east next to the proposed driveway and parking area. The residential boundary would be formed by a 2m high stob and horizontal boarded fence. An annotation on the site plan advises that "existing mobile home and generator shed to be removed upon house completion".

PLANNING HISTORY

Having acquired part of the holding of the former Jeaniefield Farm in December 2007, the Applicant applied for planning consent in 2008 for the erection of a farm building and for the siting of a temporary mobile home, both on land which was at that time, still part of a field.

Planning permission 08/01392/FUL was subsequently approved for the erection of the agricultural building (now in place), but Planning Application 08/01649/FUL for the temporary siting of the mobile home was refused by the Eildon Area Committee in accordance with the Planning Officer’s recommendation. It was determined that the business described in the supporting case was unlikely to be in a position, even in the long-term, to justify a permanent residential presence on-site. On this basis, it was accordingly not considered that the temporary mobile home itself was capable of support.

The Applicant’s subsequent appeal against the decision was sustained by the Scottish Government, which granted permission for the siting of the temporary mobile home, subject to planning conditions (1) that it only be inhabited by a person working mainly, or full-time, at New Jeaniefield farm, and (2) that it only be in situ up to 01 February 2013. In considering the Applicant’s supporting case, the Scottish Government Reporter observed, firstly, that “(the Appellant) cannot reasonably be expected to start stocking his holding without some form of residential supervision”, and secondly, that the provision of a mobile home to provide this supervision was “an accepted way of facilitating the establishment of a rural enterprise while maturing to its full labour requirement”.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(f)

Planning permission 12/00318/FUL consented a new cattle court building to be erected adjacent to the previously approved farm building.

Planning Application 12/00346/FUL for essentially the same proposed dwellinghouse as that currently being proposed by Planning Application 13/00949/FUL, and relying on much of the same supporting case as the latter, was refused at the beginning of this year on the grounds that:

“the proposed development is contrary in principle to … Adopted Local Plan Policy D2, in that it lies out with the Development Boundary, and (i) the site is not well-related to an existing rural building group, and (ii) the applicant has not demonstrated that there is an operational need for a new dwellinghouse to be located at the site to serve an agricultural business with a justifiable requirement for a full-time farm worker to be accommodated on-site on a permanent basis”.

Planning Application 13/00693/FUL for essentially the same proposed dwellinghouse as is currently being proposed by current Planning Application 13/00949/FUL; it was supported by essentially the same supporting financial and functional case as is now being provided in support of Planning Application 13/00949/FUL. This application was withdrawn prior to its determination in early August this year.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

No representations have been received in direct response to either of the current planning applications, but the Applicant has provided copies of 14 letters of support from 13 organisations or households, that had either been provided directly to him, or alternatively, had been submitted in response to, but after, the refusal of Planning Application 12/00346/FUL.

In addition to providing character references for the Applicant and/or testimony of the Applicant’s business activities, these responses identify the following grounds of support:

x Livestock (regardless of number) require constant attention and an employee living on site would be of paramount importance from an animal welfare point of view; x A permanent on-site presence is desirable on a day-to-day basis to oversee the management of the cattle herd; and essential during calving; x Consideration for supervision of the farm in winter weather x Forward budgeting and forecasting is difficult, and therefore not appropriately a basis for a planning decision; x Permanent house on site would have a better visual impact than the existing caravan/static home; x Site is located in close proximity to a building group (five other houses located at 100 yards) and is not an isolated development; x The size of the holding itself justifies the accommodation of a full-time worker on site; x The operation of an expanding farming business would boost the local economy.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(f)

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

In support of both Planning Application 13/00948/FUL and Planning Application 13/00949/FUL, the Applicant has presented a supporting case, which includes the following:

x Letter from Agricultural and Rural Development Consultant to the Applicant’s Agent, dated 06 May 2013; x Appraisal of the Applicant’s Business prepared by Agricultural and Rural Development Consultant; x Plan of the Applicant’s Agricultural Holding; x An itemised Stock Evaluation and Financial Forecasts going forward to 2016; x Financial Report prepared by FBR Land Agents and Rural Surveyors, dated March 2012; x Letters in support of the Applicant’s Proposal from John Swan Limited (x2); Greenside Veterinary Practice; D & J Waldie (Newmills); Premium Cattle Health Scheme Manager (SAC Services); Jonathan Pass (Springwood Lodge); Jordan Pow (No 3 Jeaniefield Steading, Blainslie); J G Runciman (Upper Blainslie); George L Hume (Narwein, Blainslie); Generate Breeding (RH Tait and Co); Doddie Weir (Bluecairn); W.A. Hall (New Blainslie); William Hyslop (Hazelhope); and Mr and Mrs R Wilkinson (Jeaniefield Farmhouse). The advice of these letters is detailed above in the previous section.

Additionally, the Chair of the Planning Committee has provided to the Planning Officer a copy of a document supplied directly to Members of the Committee by the Applicant. This is largely a summary consistent with the above noted supporting case.

Critical points noted in the above documents include the following advice:

x The Applicant’s farming business was originally established off-site in 1999. When he took over New Jeaniefield in 2007, there was no available existing dwellinghouse on site for a farm worker (the land having previously only been a part of a much larger holding centred on a farmhouse at Jeaniefield Farm, which itself had been sold off separately within another lot), hence the Applicant’s need for temporary accommodation (static home);

x The Applicant’s existing farming business relates to the rearing of a closed breeding herd of Simmental and Angus cattle. It is advised that this herd currently numbers 15 cows with followers, and is predicted to increase to 21 cows by Christmas 2013. (The document passed to the Chair contains a slightly confused/confusing note attributed to Christmas 2014, that there would be 21 cows and six heifers stored by that point in time, and 27 in total from March/April 2013).

x In addition to land accommodating the herd, some 24.29ha of the unit are at present, let for seasonal grazing. It is anticipated that this amount would be reduced in time as more land were required to accommodate an increasing herd of cattle;

x It is advised in the 2013 documentation that the Applicant’s goal is that the herd should be expanded from its current level to “50 cows and followers”, but beyond the forecasts that were previously provided in 2012 and which are appended, no clarification is given as to when this is to be achieved;

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(f)

x It is advised that as a consequence of being a closed herd, there is a requirement for 24 hour close supervision of the herd to meet welfare regulations, bio security requirements and that this is a condition of retaining QMS status;

x The advice that was prepared in 2013 relies heavily on financial information and advice that was first presented in 2012 in support of a previous planning application (12/00346/FUL). Accordingly there are some discrepancies between these details and more recent advice, including the inclusion within advice from last year of predictions for dates that have now come and gone. It is however acknowledged in the agent’s advice dating from 2013, and advised that the information still serves to describe how the Applicant intends to grow the business over the next few years;

x Appendix 2 from a document originally provided in 2012, describes Stock Valuation from “Y/E April 2013” to “Y/E April 2015”, and notably a forecast increase in the size of the herd from 16 cows with calves at foot at the start of “Y/E April 2013”, to “46 cows with calves at foot; 6 heifers with calves at foot; 6 bulling heifers; and 1 stock bull, by the end of “Y/E April 2015”;

x Appendices 2A and 3 advise of the involvement of some private income within the financial projections for the same years. No account is given within these figures as to how the proposed new dwellinghouse (or farm building) would be delivered;

x Section 5 of FBR’s report of March 2012 advises that for 2015, the operation would require the input of 1,711 hours of labour, which it advises equates to 32 hours per week over 52 weeks (without taking account of statutory and public holidays);

x In addition to farming, it is considered that concern should also be had to the Applicant’s responsibilities in terms of rural stewardship since part of the agricultural holding is within the SSSI of Threepwood Moss to the north and west of the site;

x An additional identified consideration, is the Applicant’s need for a base on site to more appropriately accommodate meetings with buyers;

x In information only provided in 2013, it is advised that the Applicant is occasionally assisted as and when necessary, by a paid employee;

x It is anticipated that the Applicant would be handing on the agricultural business at New Jeaniefield to his daughter, but further advised that the modest size of the unit, would be liable to make it appropriate to a new entrant to farming; and

x It is considered that the potential to tie the house to the agricultural unit by way of a Section 75 Agreement would ensure a low risk of the property falling out with “agricultural or rural occupation”.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(f)

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning:

Has not specifically responded in relation to Planning Application 13/00948/FUL (temporary mobile home), but has advised with respect to Planning Application 13/00949/FUL (dwellinghouse) that comments given at the time of Planning Application 12/00346/FUL still apply, namely that while there are no concerns with the proposed location of the new farmhouse, there are a number of roads issues regarding the construction make up of the existing junction with the public road, and the condition of the private track leading to the site.

Accordingly, it is advised that the application would not be supported unless both the junction onto the public road and the track leading to the site are upgraded to Roads' specifications (which are given in the consultation response provided). If approved, the upgrading work on the junction should be carried out by an approved contractor.

Environmental Health:

Initially responded to the consultation on Planning Application 13/00948/FUL (temporary mobile home), to seek clarification as to the existing drainage and water supply arrangements at the mobile home. In response to the Agent’s advice that water was from the certified private water supply, and toilet facilities were by chemical means (with additionally a septic tank to be formed on site), it was advised that Environmental Health were content with the information provided, and did not seek the attachment of any conditions or informatives in relation to this proposal.

With regard to Planning Application 13/00949/FUL (dwellinghouse), it has been advised that in light of information supplied by the Applicant at the time of the previous but withdrawn Planning Application 13/00693/FUL, Environmental Health was now content that its queries relating to the water supply had been appropriately addressed. However, a condition is sought in the event of approval to require that details for the provision of water supply for the development be provided for prior approval by the Planning Authority in consultation and agreement with SEPA. A specific condition is recommended.

Economic Development Section:

Has provided critical analysis on the supporting information submitted. Advises with respect to both Planning Applications that the supporting financial and functional case has been previously reviewed (at the time of Planning Application 13/00693/FUL), and in the absence of any new material, is content to maintain the comments it made in relation to the supporting case on the previous occasion.

With specific regard to the Planning Application 13/00948/FUL (temporary mobile home) however, it is advised that the retention of the mobile home would provide an opportunity for the Applicant to bring the business up to a level that might demonstrate a viable farming enterprise.

The Economic Development Section’s previous response provided at the time of Planning Application 13/00693/FUL, was largely an assessment of the Applicant’s supporting financial and functional case. Its main conclusions, which themselves

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5(f) largely reiterate advice given at the time of an even earlier refused Planning Application 12/00346/FUL, are as follows:

x Given the presence of livestock, and particularly calving cows, there may be an operational requirement for someone to be based at the farm for the supervision of these animals;

x Notwithstanding the identification of greater potential profitability for a sheep farming enterprise, it is considered that the acreage and land available at New Jeaniefield should still be capable of accommodating a viable cattle farming unit, and potentially one of sufficient size and scale to have a justifiable need for a dwellinghouse. However, taking account of the Applicant’s specific proposals, it is considered that the Applicant has not provided sufficient justification in terms of his business case;

x Taking account of advice provided by the Applicant at the time of planning applications submitted in 2008 (including that for the temporary mobile home), it is advised that there has been a decline both in the Applicant’s actual and envisaged farming operations during the intervening time. It is specifically noted that while the Applicant in 2008, envisaged that by 2010, there would be 150 to 170 cattle, and 350 to 400 lambs, stored on the farm, there are currently only 15 cows and calves, albeit predicted to rise to 20 by Christmas 2013. Going forward, it is noted that it was anticipated in the FBR report of March 2012, that there would be 24 suckler cows at April 2013, and 32 at April 2014, with no sheep purchased (albeit that land would continue to be let for seasonal sheep grazing);

x It is considered that the Applicant has not taken the opportunity to develop the business more substantially between 2008 and the present, and that the current level of operation is too insubstantial to allow Economic Development to fully support the application.

With specific regard to the advice provided by the applicant’s Agricultural and Rural Development Consultant, which was first provided at the time of Planning Application 13/00693/FUL, Economic Development has further advised:

x Advice that the labour input of an additional person (seemingly on a part-time, rather than full-time basis) is noted. However, while it is accepted that additional labour may be required on occasion, the requirement for a full half person would put a further cost implication on the business. This cost implication is not reflected in the forward financial figures, and is not accounted for within the standard labour requirements described in FBR’s report of March 2012; and

x Issue is taken with the advice that an agricultural unit complete with a new farmhouse at New Jeaniefield, would be liable to constitute a unit affordable to a new-start young farming entrant.

In establishing whether or not the projected figures were realistic, Economic Development had clarified at the time of 13/00693/FUL, and on the understanding that the Applicant would be buying in stock (rather than operating a ‘closed herd’ as is now understood to be the case, further to the Applicant’s most recent advice) as follows:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(f)

x FBR’s report, dated March 2012, anticipated that by 2015, there would be 46 suckler cows and progeny on the farm, in addition to other farming activity. At this level, a viable business capable of sustaining a full-time agricultural worker should be capable of being established. The level of growth projected to give this level of business, is considered realistic as it is being achieved through the purchasing of cows and calves, along with the retention of the farm’s own heifer calves. x However, the applicant’s Agricultural and Rural Development Consultant has now introduced a requirement for an additional part-time worker which is not accounted for within the March 2012 projections. Additionally, the level of actual farming activity that has been achieved to date, particularly when viewed relative to earlier projections, does not support or encourage the belief that the projections, both in terms of business and stock, would be attained. It is further observed that the level of investment that is being forecast to achieve these projections would in any event, include the erection of a second farm building and a substantial dwellinghouse, which it is anticipated the Applicant would struggle to provide out of the level of farming activity that is being forecast, let alone out of the current level of farming activity on the site.

In response to the document provided directly to Members in September at the time of the current application (13/00949/FUL), Economic Development has advised as follows:

x The time lines provided are useful although do not really add to the application, however they provide clarity on what has happened and plans for 2014 and 2015; x As far as recalled, this is the first time a closed herd has been mentioned, and Mr Carlisle has proposed to operate such a system from mid 2012. This policy would slow down the rate of growth of cow numbers as it relies on own bred numbers to grow the herd. However this policy does not assist with the business case and will only delay it; x This change of policy it would be expected, would further reinforce the case for renewing the mobile home application until the farm unit has sufficient stock to become viable (standard man days); x It is reiterated that sheep farming would have been more likely to have provided a more reliable income stream and provided some additional hours to the standard man day equation; x Previous comments that at the present time, the application details do not provide evidence of a viable unit, are maintained.

Landscape Section:

Advice has previously been given in relation to Planning Application 13/00693/FUL for broadly the same layout, and which the Applicant has responded to in an indicative form. This previous response identified concerns with the visibility from receptors on the Southern Upland Way and advised that the creation of any further soil heaps should be avoided on the site. With specific regard to the proposed residential property, a sympathetic landscaping scheme was sought, with hedge planting along the boundaries and the retention of existing dry stone walls being encouraged as appropriate boundary treatments. Structure native woodland planting to the north and west was encouraged as desirable, not only in relation to the residential property but also the farmyard more generally. Acceptance of the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(f) proposal was anticipated subject to the submission and agreement of a detailed landscape plan, incorporating improved boundary treatments and planting scheme.

Statutory Consultees

The Community Council: was consulted on both applications but has not yet responded.

Other Consultees

None

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

D2 Housing in the Countryside G1 Quality Standards for New Development G5 Developer Contributions G6 Developer Contributions related to Railway reinstatement H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Inf4 Parking Provision and Standards

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

SPG Developer Contributions 2011 SPG Landscape and Development 2008 SPG New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008 SPG Placemaking and Design 2010 SPG Trees and Development 2008

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether or not the Applicant has through his business case, demonstrated that there is an operational requirement (evidenced by sufficient financial justification and sufficient functional need) for a new dwellinghouse to be sited in an isolated rural location, to serve his specific agricultural business;

x If so, whether or not the specific dwellinghouse proposal would have any unacceptable impacts upon the amenity and/or environment of the site and/or surrounding area that would prevent it from being supported;

x If not, whether or not it would then be appropriate to afford the Applicant another opportunity (in addition to that already allowed at appeal in the case of Planning Consent 08/01649/FUL) to progress his business case to a more advanced stage, by allowing him to retain the existing mobile home on site for another temporary period.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Given that many of the planning issues relating to the temporary mobile residence proposed by Planning Application 13/00948/FUL overlap with the consideration of the dwellinghouse proposed by Planning Application 13/00949/FUL, it is considered that it is appropriate in the first instance at least, to focus on the assessment of the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(f) proposed dwellinghouse. The proposal to retain the temporary mobile home is considered in a single section, below.

Planning Principle

The proposed dwellinghouse would be located on an isolated rural site, away from any existing building group, and there is no suitable existing building capable of conversion to permanent residential use on site. Accordingly, a new dwellinghouse could not be supported in this location unless it were first demonstrated that there is an operational requirement for a new house to be sited in this location to serve a agricultural, or other rural, business for a full-time worker to be accommodated on- site on a permanent basis.

There is an established agricultural steading at the applicant’s holding, New Jeaniefield: The Applicant owns and manages an agricultural business, which involves the supervision and care of cattle at the site. However, the fact that the Applicant is presently rearing livestock at the site is not in itself considered to be sufficient justification in itself for supporting a permanent residential presence at the site. While the Applicant and supporters reasonably stress that a permanent residence would greatly facilitate and improve the care of the animals already within the farm’s supervision, there is a risk associated with establishing a new agricultural operation where there is presently no house. That risk remains with the Applicant, having made the decision to operate from this site. The Council’s Housing in the Countryside policy does not recognise the supervision of animals as justification in itself for supporting an isolated residential development in the countryside. The concern is instead with whether or not the Applicant’s specific agricultural operation is sufficiently established, large and well-developed enough as to be an operation that has both long-term viability and a demonstrable need for a full-time farm worker to be resident on site on a permanent basis.

The supporting case supplied by the Applicant has been reviewed, with input from the Council’s Economic Development Section, to determine whether or not there is sufficient financial justification and sufficient functional need for it to be accepted that there is a need for a permanent residence in relation to the Applicant’s specific agricultural operation. The conclusions of this assessment are detailed below.

Assessment of Applicant’s Business Case

Although it would have been helpful if the business case could have been updated to the present time (rather than rely on documents from last year which include obsolete advice and forecasts), it is accepted that given the inherent difficulties within forecasting stock levels and prices, this is not in itself a significant concern.

The information reasonably serves to describe the Applicant’s intended direction for the business going forward from this point. The current application however, lacks details that were provided at the time of Planning Application 12/00346/FUL with regard to the development and scale of the existing operation, which have not been included in the same, or updated, form within the Applicant’s current application; this is despite this information having been requested by the Planning Officer at the time of the earlier 12/00346/FUL application. Since this advice has not been provided anew, there is a lack in the context of the present planning application, of a clear and unambiguous description of the Applicant’s business operation, as it actually exists.

However, this is not considered to have prevented an accurate assessment of the business case: While the Applicant’s continued reliance on forecasts previously

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(f) submitted last year, the picture of the existing business is little changed from that considered at the time of the determination of Planning Application 12/00346/FUL.

Economic Development have provided a full analysis of the information submitted in support of the applicant’s case: They have advised that they are content that, in principle at least, the agricultural holding at New Jeaniefield is sufficient in its size and in the type of land available to it, for it to be capable of sustaining a viable farming business with a justifiable need for the permanent accommodation of a full- time farm worker. It is considered that greater investment in sheep farming would be more conducive to the business’ profitability, but they do not rule out the potential for sufficient growth to be achievable in relation to an enterprise specialising in cattle rearing as the Applicant proposes. Accordingly, it is accepted that there are no concerns in principle that the agricultural itself would not be able to accommodate a farming business with both long-term viability and a demonstrable need for a full-time farm worker in permanent residence.

The difficulty however, arises in relation to the assessment of the Applicant’s specific existing operation (as far as this is possible) and its business case going forward, and the extent to which the business could reliably be expected to grow as forecast.

Putting to one side Economic Development’s concerns that the existing business has not been able to achieve anything close to the levels that were forecast by the Applicant in 2008 (that is, at the time of Planning Application 08/01649/FUL for the mobile home), the current operation (centred on the supervision of 15 to 21 cows and followers) is patently modest in its size. As far as its existing level of business activity has been described, it is not considered that it would be capable of generating an income capable of supporting a full-time farm worker, or of generating sufficient hours of labour to occupy a farm worker on a full-time basis (this was also the conclusion at the time of the determination of Planning Application 12/00346/FUL at the start of this year). It is at present, of the size and scale of a part-time or hobby enterprise, and anyone taking on the current operation, would be liable to have recourse to use or generate additional sources of income.

Although Economic Development had been under the impression that the business would be augmented by the purchase of new stock in the initial years (as opposed to augmentation being entirely dependent upon reproduction within a closed herd), it has advised that the forecasts made in March 2012 in relation to the Applicant’s business are realistic for the level of investment identified, and that if the investment were to proceed in accordance with the business plan, this would be capable of delivering a farming business with both long-term viability and a demonstrable need for a full-time farm worker to be in permanent residence.

However, this advice is qualified by concerns, firstly, that no account has been taken within the March 2012 figures of an additional labour requirement, equivalent to an additional half a person (an additional expenditure now being identified in advice submitted in support of the current application, that was not identified at the time of 12/00346/FUL); secondly, that no account has been taken of the investment that would be required to deliver the new farm building and proposed dwellinghouse itself. Thirdly, Economic Development reasonably considers that it is necessary to assess the Applicant’s potential to achieve the business plan based on the business’ own performance to date. The substantial investment and corresponding growth forecast for forthcoming years is accordingly not easily reconciled with the modest size of the current operation, and the limited growth achieved since a farm worker has been able to be in permanent residence.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(f)

While it is understood that the dwellinghouse is perceived to be integral to the Applicant’s plans to grow the business going forward, it is nonetheless the case that it has up until now, shown little evidence of the forward momentum that would be expected in association with a business looking to expand its operations fairly rapidly, and to a scale that would sustain a full-time agricultural worker. Economic Development remains of the opinion (expressed at the time of previous applications) that more time is needed for the Applicant to demonstrate the viability of the business by actively progressing the business plan, to a more advanced stage.

In line with Economic Development's assessment, it is considered that the potential viability of the business would have been capable of being the subject of a more meaningful financial appraisal had the Applicant already been at a more advanced stage within his business plan than he is at present. This would have afforded an opportunity for him to have demonstrated the commitment of investment and the achievement of the momentum, both of which should be reasonably expected of an expanding business operation in justifying for a permanent residence. It is notable however, that the Applicant has not been able to do this despite having been resident on-site on a full-time basis in recent years, albeit in a temporarily sited mobile home.

The modest progress with the current business plan to date remains material to the assessment of the performance of the Applicant’s business. A further difficulty is the precarious relationship implicit within the supporting case between the growth of the farming business and the delivery of the proposed dwellinghouse. Rather than the farming business having demonstrated its own viability and momentum to date which would justify a house now, the Applicant’s case appears dependent upon a new dwellinghouse being required before the business can expand to that point; that would mean that viability could only be achieved at some more distant point in time. This presents an inherent risk that a house is constructed but the business does not expand to a level that would justify it; on the basis of the performance of the business to date, this appears uncertain at best.

In the consideration of whether or not any agricultural business has (or would have) a justified need for a permanent residence for its operator, there is no sure means of eliminating the risk that it may not go on to achieve its projections going forward. However, it is still incumbent upon the Planning Authority, in making a decision, to be satisfied that where a new dwellinghouse is supported, this is done so in relation to a business that is either (1) at least sufficiently large and well-established in the present, or (2) is sufficiently far along a trajectory of proven and improving performance up to the present, that it is reasonable to expect it to become an established operation with both long-term viability and a demonstrable need for on- site accommodation for a full-time farm worker.

The Applicant’s present business simply does not fit this profile. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the Applicant’s experience in farming and best intentions to grow the business along the lines indicated, it is reasoned that support for a new dwellinghouse in this case, would represent a significant risk that a dwellinghouse might be approved in an isolated location that ultimately did not serve a viable farming business. It would not be possible apply any safeguard that would require the Applicant to invest in the business in accordance with his own business plan in return for planning permission, particularly given the many variables that are liable to be outwith even the Applicant’s control. It would be more reasonable and straightforward to require the Applicant to demonstrate that the existing business has sufficient momentum through its actual, rather than projected, achievements (that is, real investment and growth in business). This would be more likely to provide sufficient reassurance that the business was actively growing and progressing

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(f) towards an appropriate size and scale of operation that would justify support for the dwellinghouse. To allow this to happen, accepted practice is to allow a mobile home until the business has been allowed to establish. This is, of course, the sequence of events that has already taken place at New Jeaniefield, without having yet made a compelling case.

Given the modest level of activity of the present operation, and the lack of any demonstration of any momentum going forward with the business plan, it is considered that support for the present dwellinghouse proposal would be inconsistent the aim of the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy, which is that any new isolated house in the countryside should be justified by an operational requirement. For this reason, it is considered that the proposal would not comply in principle with the requirements of Adopted Local Plan Policy D2, including Point 1 of Section E - Economic Requirement, and should be refused on this basis.

LAYOUT, DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING

In common with the position taken at the time of the determination of Planning Application 12/00693/FUL for a virtually identical proposal, and subject to further details being submitted to clarify the precise materials and finishes that would be used, it is considered that the proposed design of the dwellinghouse is acceptable. However, in the event of approval, it would be reasonable to require that the roofing material should be natural slate to ensure an appearance and character that is sympathetic to the rural setting of the site, particularly given that the site would be readily visible from the nearby public road.

Given the Applicant’s intention to develop the existing farmyard area, the proposed siting of the dwellinghouse is considered acceptable, and its elevation above the farmyard would be consistent with the prominence expected of a farmhouse. Notwithstanding this, and in the event of approval, it would however still be appropriate to require that finished floor and ground levels are agreed, prior to commencement of development to ensure that the building would not be raised to any height that would have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the wider landscape.

No provision has been made for landscaping within the proposal (landscaping is only shown indicatively), but this could reasonably be addressed by planning conditions, in the event of approval.

ACCESS AND PARKING

In the event of approval, Roads' concern that the existing access and junction be upgraded in accordance with its specification, could reasonably be made the subject of a planning condition. Similarly the provision and maintenance of appropriate parking and turning could also be required by planning condition.

OTHER MATTERS

Due to the distance of set-back from neighbouring properties, the proposed development would raise no concerns in terms of the acceptability of its impacts upon the amenity of any neighbouring residential properties.

In the event of approval, Environmental Health's concerns with regard to the water supply could appropriately be made the subject of an appropriately worded planning condition. It would also be appropriate to require that the water supply and both foul

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(f) and surface water drainage be functional, prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse.

The Applicant’s supporting information notes that part of the agricultural holding is included within the SSSI at Threepwood Moss, but this designation does not apply to the site.

If permission were to be granted, a Section 75 legal agreement would be required, firstly to tie the proposed dwellinghouse to the agricultural unit, and secondly, to secure the payment of development contributions towards the reinstatement of the Waverley rail link, and the upgrade of local education provision. Development contributions would be required for both Melrose Primary School and Earlston High School. It is also the case that a contribution would be required towards the reinstatement of the Borders Rail Link.

Also, in the event of approval, it would also be appropriate to require by condition that the dwellinghouse is only occupied by an existing or retired farm worker employed.

RETENTION OF TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME

Economic Development is of the view that retention of the temporary mobile home would afford the Applicant an opportunity to progress his current business plan to a more advanced stage. It is considered that this might then in time, allow the Applicant to present details that would address the concern to see a business plan with a clearer trajectory and forward momentum.

It is considered that this is a reasonable position and is largely consistent with the view that the Scottish Government Reporter took at the time of the appeal that allowed for the siting of the temporary mobile home in the first place. However, it is considered that two further points are relevant.

Firstly, the original position of the Planning Authority at the time of the determination of Planning Application 08/01649/FUL, was that the temporary siting of the mobile home should not be supported where the business plan itself was not seen to deliver a business capable of characterisation as an operation with both long-term viability and a demonstrable need for a full-time farm worker to be resident on site on a permanent basis. The point being that if the business plan would not ultimately deliver such a business, there was no logic in supporting the temporary building.

However, it is acknowledged that this position was ultimately rejected by the Reporter who took the view that the proposal could be accommodated in relation to the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy.

Secondly, and in line with the Reporter’s position, it is arguable that the Applicant has already been afforded a reasonable opportunity to develop the business through the permission to site the temporary building, but has not been able to do so to any meaningful extent. It is notable too that the business plan now being put forward is notably far more modest than the business plan the Reporter reviewed at the time of the appeal in 2009.

Economic Development’s conclusion with regard to the progress of the Applicant’s business plan, is that in the intervening period, “There has clearly been a decline in farming activity, both envisaged and actual”. An additional point for consideration is that the Applicant’s current business plan does seem to be predicated upon

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(f) significant investment being made in the business once the Applicant has secured planning consent for a new dwellinghouse, which, as noted above, suggests that the temporary mobile home is viewed by the Applicant as incidental rather than central to the achievement of the business plan going forward.

It is accepted that the intervening period has been a particularly difficult time economically, and therefore it is understandable that the Applicant was not able to realise the growth of operation that the 2008 business plan envisaged. It is accordingly not considered that the need to revise, even scale down, the business plan over time is in itself a reason not to support the retention of the mobile home.

However, it is considered that the decision in this case, should ultimately rest on an assessment of the Applicant’s current business plan, and whether or not the supporting case, as this now exists, justifies the retention of the temporary mobile home on site. To allow a continued retention would at least be consistent with Economic Development’s advice that the mobile home would afford a reasonable opportunity for the Applicant to progress his business plan to a more advanced stage, which it would seem may be possible. On balance, it is considered that an extension of the retention of the mobile home, perhaps for a more limited period of time (e.g. 2 years), would be a reasonable position, and would at least give the Applicant the opportunity to take his current business case forward. However, an informative could reasonably cover the point that any future application for its further retention would depend upon progress with the business plan, and that any future planning application should include appropriate information to allow for this assessment.

CONCLUSION

It is not considered that the Applicant has demonstrated that there is sufficient justification in terms of a direct operational requirement for a new isolated dwellinghouse to be situated in this location. While the Applicant's anticipated investments may be capable of establishing a viable farming business, a determining consideration is that the current levels of business activity are insufficient to demonstrate a functional requirement for a permanent residence on-site to accommodate a full-time farm worker, and concerns exist about the Applicant’s ability to realise the projections going forward in light of the business’ modest and inconsistent performance to date. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed development would not accord in principle with Adopted Local Plan Policy D2, and should therefore be refused on this basis.

Although some details would require further consideration, it is considered that the layout and design of the proposed residential property would otherwise have been acceptable, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions to regulate them. However, the potential for the development to otherwise have an acceptable character and appearance, does not address the fundamental policy concern with regard to the lack of a functional justification for a farmhouse to be located on the site in the first place. The application for the new dwellinghouse is therefore recommended for refusal.

It is considered that the Applicant will need to consider progressing his business case to a more advanced stage before re-applying for a new dwellinghouse. If demonstrated, this would provide the Planning Authority with greater reassurance at that time, that the business could grow in line with the business plan. It is considered that such a demonstration is a reasonable prerequisite for the Planning Authority’s support, and in line with this position, it is considered that it is only reasonable to

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(f) afford the Applicant the opportunity to do this, by allowing the retention of the temporary mobile home for at least an additional two years.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend that Planning Application 13/00949/FUL is refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed development is contrary in principle to Adopted Local Plan Policy D2, in that (i) it would represent sporadic and unjustified housing in the countryside beyond any Development Boundary, and poorly related to any existing rural building group, and (ii) the Applicant has not demonstrated that there is an operational need for a new dwellinghouse to be located at the site to serve an agricultural business with a justifiable requirement for a full-time farm worker to be accommodated on-site on a permanent basis.

I recommend that Planning Application 13/00948/FUL is approved subject to the following conditions and applicant informatives:

1. Approval is granted for a limited period of two years from the date of this consent (that is, to the calendar day) and, unless application is made and consent granted for its continuation, the mobile home hereby consented shall be removed from the site at the expiration of the period granted, and the site restored to its former condition (agricultural land). Reason: In order that the Council can monitor the effect of, and justification for, the development and because the development is of a temporary nature which would not require it to be sited, at this time, for a longer period than 2 years.

2. The development shall only be occupied by a person (and any dependents) while working (full time or mainly) the landholding now known as New Jeaniefield Farm. Reason: To ensure that the development is only used to provide accommodation for a farm worker employed or mainly employed on the agricultural holding at New Jeaniefield Farm.

Informatives

Please note that in the event that the operator seeks to apply to renew this planning permission, any subsequent planning application should be supported by information describing the development of the agricultural business at New Jeaniefield Farm in the period following the issue of this planning permission.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Ref Plan Type

Location Plan Site Plan

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5(f)

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Stuart Herkes Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5(f)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 5(g)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

7 OCTOBER 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00774/FUL OFFICER: Barry Fotheringham WARD: Kelso and District PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 Dwellinghouses (Renewal of Previous Consent 07/01064/OUT) SITE: Redundant Steading Buildings North East of Highridgehall Cottages, Kelso APPLICANT: Highridgehall Limited AGENT: Smith and Garratt

SITE DESCRIPTION

Highridgehall is situated to the north west of the A698 Kelso to Coldstream road and to the north of the minor public road to Ednam. It comprises of Highridgehall farmhouse to the south of the minor public road, a row of five cottages to the south west of the steading, Eden Hall and associated buildings to the north and a new dwelling to the south. There are three other dwellinghouses in this group, a converted steading and a large refrigerated potato store which is located between Eden Hall and Highridgehall steading.

The site is occupied by two large agricultural buildings currently used for storing and drying grain. There is a row of traditional stone agricultural buildings to the north (which have consent for conversion to dwellinghouses) and agricultural fields immediately to the east and west.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks consent for the erection of three dwellinghouses on the site. The application was initially submitted on the basis of four dwellinghouses but prevailing policy constraints would not support the erection of four new dwellings as an acceptable addition to the existing building group. The application was subsequently amended by the agent following discussions with the case officer.

The indicative site plan shows that the houses would be erected at right angles to the traditional steading building. The proposed dwellings would utilise the existing access from the public road that loops around the paddock to the south, serving the existing agricultural buildings.

PLANNING HISTORY

07/01064/OUT: Outline planning consent for the erection four dwellings on the current application site. Application approved subject to conditions, informative and legal agreement on 25 June 2010.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(g)

The following applications, while not relating to the current application site, are also relevant:

09/00953/REM: Erection of Dwellinghouse. Paddock North East of Highridgehall Farm, Kelso. Approved 4 September 2009.

08/00782/OUT: Erection of Dwellinghouse. Land North of Eden Hall Forest Lodge. Refused 18 June 2008.

07/02454/OUT: Erection of four dwellinghouses. Land South of Tumble Tud Highridgehall Kelso. Application refused 21 August 2008.

07/01244/REM: Erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage. Plot 1 Paddock North East of Highridgehall Farm Kelso. Approved 19th September 2007.

07/01066/OUT: Erection of two dwellinghouses. Land West of Tumble Tud Highridgehall Kelso. Application withdrawn on 31st March 2008.

07/01065/FUL: Change of use from agricultural buildings to form four dwellinghouses. Redundant Agricultural Buildings South West of Tumble Tud Highridgehall Kelso. Approved subject to conditions, informative and legal agreement 15 July 2010.

06/00014/FUL: Alterations and extensions to form dwellinghouse and erection of garage. Eden Hall Steading Kelso. Approved 19th April 2006.

05/01656/OUT: Erection of two dwellinghouses. Paddock North East of Highridgehall Farm Kelso. Approved 11th July 2006.

03/01571/FUL: Erection of dwellinghouse and double garage. Site at Highridgehall Kelso. Approved 5th March 2004.

97/0697/C: Erection of dwellinghouse. Site Adjacent to Highridgehall Kelso. Approved 11th September 1997.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

A total of six letters of objection have been received in connection with this application although one representation has been duplicated by the same household. In terms of the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, this would count as a single objection.

The principal grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: x The unclassified road that serves the proposed development is single track with several blind spots and only two passing places which could not sustain the increase in traffic. The road also leads to the local primary school in Ednam and has only one designated passing place over a two mile stretch. x The plan does not show clearly the proposed access to the site and it would appear that the existing access is not appropriate to serve additional dwellings. x The application is to knock down the redundant steading buildings and grain dryer but this building is not redundant and is in constant use for drying, storing grain and farm machinery. x Inadequate water supply

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(g) x Potential adverse impact on local wildlife. x Development of this site will result in a small rural group becoming a large modern development set in a rural area. x The existing building appears to be of an asbestos type material. This needs to be disposed of by an authorised company. x The proposed new dwellings, along with others built or granted approval in recent years, would change the nature and character of the community from a dispersed area with scattered dwellings and agricultural buildings to a more concentrated area with a core made up of newly built dwellings in central positions. x Approval of this development could lead to further development on adjacent plots which have been previously refused. x Development will lead a car based dormitory community. x The existing buildings are not redundant agricultural buildings. There are in regular seasonal use as a grain store. x It would be inappropriate to demolish useful buildings and replace them with dwellings unsuited to affordable housing and several miles from amenities. x Repeated applications will open the door for further development proposals which will lead to a creeping loss of the environment. x There should be no further development in this area as the permissions already granted may already have tipped the balance of the needs of people and the natural environment. x Increase in traffic and subsequent adverse effect on road safety. x Inadequate water supply. x Flooding on the minor road to Ednam. x The site is immediately adjacent to derelict steading buildings which may to be home to bats and barn owls whose environment would be disturbed and threatened by the proposed development. x These buildings were subject to a refused planning application concurrent with 07/1064 and we are concerned that success of the current application would subsequently lead to a renewal of that request. x Local water and sewage systems would be put under strain. x Adverse impact on the River Tweed and River Eden. x Light pollution x Increased traffic likely to arise directly from the proposed new dwellings, and any improvements undertaken to this road would further encourage dangerous through traffic. x The existing road is hazardous throughout and comprises just over 2 miles of single track road with only 2 purpose-built passing places, blind bends, and concealed entrances. No pedestrian footway, no street lighting and no road markings. x The exit to the A698 is already a hazard. x Detrimental impact on residential amenity. x Health issues

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

None received.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Developments

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(g)

Policy G5 – Development Contributions Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy H1 – Affordable Housing Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4 – Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy D2 – Housing in the Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance – Affordable Housing SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance – New Housing in the Borders Countryside SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance – Development Contributions SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance – Landscape and Development

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: No objections in principle to the renewal of the previous application. Comments made previously are still applicable and are copied below.

Further to previous comments, I have reconsidered this and the adjoining applications. I still have concerns regarding the public road network serving the site, given its geometry and accident history. However, provided a passing place per dwelling is provided on the public road between the site and Ednam, at locations to be agreed with my assistant, I will not object to the proposal. The passing places must be to my specification (Form DC1) and be constructed by a contractor on the Councils approved list. These passing places must be completed prior to any work commencing on the dwellings.

Communal parking for a minimum of 7 vehicles must be provided within the layout of the proposal. If the parking is to be dedicated to individual dwellings, I will require a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling and a minimum of two visitor spaces to be provided. All access must be provided via the eastern access shown on the submitted plan, which will have to be improved to my satisfaction. I shall require minimum visibility of 3m x 70m in either direction at the junction with the public road and this may involve land outwith the applicant’s control. The access must be widened over the initial 10m to allow two vehicles to pass and have 8m entry radii and this work must be carried out by a contractor on the Councils approved list and to my spec i.e. 40mm of 14mm size close graded bituminous surface course to BS 4987 laid on 60mm of 20mm size dense binder course (basecourse) to the same BS laid on 350mm of 100mm broken stone bottoming blinded with sub-base, type 1. The surface should be suitable for a family vehicle and allowance must be made for service vehicles.

Note: Form DC1 to be attached to any approval.

Providing the above points are satisfactorily addressed, I will not object to this application.

Education & Lifelong Learning: No reply.

Environmental Health: Given the location of this development the applicant should address the issue of noise from the construction of the dwellings. The applicant

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(g) should provide information to demonstrate compliance with BS5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites.

It is noted in the previous consent the following condition was applied:

The means of water supply and of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority with the first detailed planning application for this site. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

It is also noted in the previous consent that Scottish Water were consulted and stated that there was no mains sewer in the area and no know issues with the water supply at that time.

The applicant has not indicated on the application form how the dwelling will be serviced with drinking water.

Any house that does not have an adequate piped supply of wholesome water within the property will fail the tolerable standard as defined by Section 86 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.

If the dwelling is to be serviced by a private water supply the applicant will need to provide details to demonstrate that the supply will be adequate for the size of the dwelling and not affect supplies in the vicinity. In order to do this the application should provide the following information: 1. The type of supply i.e. borehole, spring, well etc 2. The location of the source by way of an 8 digit reference number. 3. Details of other properties on the supply (if the supply is an existing one) 4. Estimated volume of water that the supply will provide (details of flow test) 5. Evidence that this supply will not have a detrimental effect on supplies in the area 6. Details of any emergency tanks 7. Details of any laboratory tests carried out to ensure the water is wholesome.

If the dwelling is serviced by a public water supply then the applicant should provide written communication from Scottish Water indicating that the dwelling will be accepted on to their supply.

It is recommended that the following conditions are applied to this application:

1. No works should commence until that the applicant has provided evidence that the site will be serviced by a wholesome supply of drinking water of adequate volume. The supply should not have a detrimental affect on other private water supplies in the area.

2. Prior to the commencement of works the applicant should provide evidence to demonstrate compliance with BS5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites.

In terms of land contamination the information available from the current site owner covers a relatively short time period from 1997 to present. As agricultural land uses are potentially contaminative it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(g)

It is recommended that planning permission should be granted on condition that development is not be permitted to start until a site investigation and risk assessment has been carried out, submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority.

Any requirement arising from this assessment for a remediation strategy and verification plan would become a condition of the planning consent, again to be submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority prior to development commencing.

Ecology: The existing structures (modern, steel fabricated agricultural buildings) are unlikely to support bats and their roosts. There is potential for breeding birds to use the existing structures. Precautionary mitigation measures for breeding birds will be required. It is recommended that the following condition is added:

1. Demolition of the existing modern farm building shall be carried outside of the breeding bird season (breeding season March-September). No demolition works to commence during the breeding bird season without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Checking surveys and appropriate mitigation for breeding birds will be required if works are to commence during the breeding bird season.

Archaeology: No comments.

Social Work (Housing): Commuted sum in lieu of on site delivery.

Development Negotiator: There is already an existing S75 Legal Agreement in respect of the previous application 07/01064/OUT, 4 x new dwellinghouses. This is for an Affordable Housing commuted sum and was assessed in conjunction with application 07/01065/FUL I would consider it appropriate, in this instance, to likewise seek an AH commuted sum to assist with the provision of off-site affordable housing. However, the Housing Market Areas identified AH need and associated Commuted Sum values have changed since the last application was determined. On the basis of these changes, I am of the opinion that a commuted sum of £15,500 towards the provision of Affordable Housing in the Central Borders Housing Market would be appropriate.

Statutory Consultees

Ednam, Stichill and Berrymoss Community Council:

Other Consultees

None.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Whether the proposal complies with the Council’s housing in the countryside policies and whether an adequate access can be achieved.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

The application must be assessed against prevailing development plan policies, principally Policy D2 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. As this application is a

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5(g) renewal of an earlier permission (07/01064/OUT – now expired) consideration must be given to any change in policy or in circumstances that would warrant a different recommendation.

The presence of a building group at this location has clearly been established by the earlier grants of planning consent for the erection of additional dwellings. The current building group comprises of eleven dwelling units, namely Highridgehall Farmhouse, Highridgehall Farm Cottages, of which there are four, Hawkshead Cottage, Tumble Tud, Eden Hall Forest Lodge, Eden Hall, Eden Hall Steading and Newridge.

Under Policy D2 (A) – Building Groups of the Local Plan housing of up to a total of 2 additional dwellings or a 30% increase of the building group, whichever is the greater, associated with existing building groups may be approved provided that:

1. The site is well related to an existing group of at least 3 houses or buildings currently is residential use or capable of conversion to residential use. Where conversion is required to establish a cohesive group of at least 3 dwellings, no additional housing will be approved until such conversion has been implemented. 2. Any consent for new build granted under this part of this policy should not exceed 2 dwellings or a 30% increase in addition to the group during this local plan period. 3. The cumulative impact of new development on the character of the building group, and on the landscape and amenity of the surrounding area will be taken into account when determining new applications. Additional development within a group will be refused, if in conjunction with other developments in the area, it will cause unacceptable adverse impacts.

It is clear that the application site is well related to an established building group, being quite centrally located. The site is currently occupied by large scale agricultural buildings which are located within the identifiable limits of the group. There are strong man made boundaries to the east and west of the site and the south side of the side is defined by a partially developed paddock with minor public road beyond. To the north of the site are redundant traditional agricultural buildings with consent for conversion to dwellings, beyond which are additional agricultural buildings and outside agricultural storage. The building group is further defined by a strong woodland setting to the north and mature field boundaries to the south. The site is not within a previously undeveloped field, is located within the natural boundaries of the building group, and is well related to other residential properties nearby. In this case, the proposals satisfy criterion 1.

The original application sought permission for the erection of four dwellings on this site and was submitted on the basis that it would be treated as a renewal of the earlier permission. The principle of erecting dwellings on this site has clearly been established by the earlier grant of consent, however, as stated above, it is important to consider any shift in policy or change in circumstances since the earlier decision.

The previous application was approved under Policy H5 of Approved Structure Plan 2001 – 2011, Policy 7 of the Local Plan 1995 and Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan 2005 which allowed for a 100% increase in the size of an existing building group. Members will be aware that Consolidated Local Plan was adopted in February 2011 and that this introduced a shift in policy for new housing in the countryside. Since the original decision, updated policy will only support a maximum of 2 new dwellings or a 30% increase in the size of the building group. In this case, 3 new dwellings can be supported in principle based on the existing

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(g) number of dwelling units in the group (30% of 11). Criterion 2 can therefore be satisfied where this number is proposed, and the applicant’s agent has agreed to amend the proposal to three houses in order to meet policy requirements.

In assessing the suitability of any particular group to accommodate new dwellings, other factors outlined in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note on New Housing in the Borders Countryside also have to be taken into consideration. The proposed dwellings should be limited to the area contained by the sense of place and should be located a reasonable distance from existing properties, closely reflecting the spacing between existing dwellings. The scale and siting of development should reflect the character and amenity of the group and the site should not break into a previously undeveloped field. There are no intensive livestock units within 400m of the site and whilst there are working farm buildings to the north of the application site within the existing group, it is contended that the erection of 3 new dwellings will not result in an unacceptable level of conflict over and above the levels that already exist in this rural location.

It is therefore contended that the cumulative impact of this proposed development will not, subject to the approval of suitably designed dwellings, have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character of the group or the landscape setting. The proposals therefore comply with Criterion 3 of Policy D2 (A).

Access and parking

The Council’s Roads Planning Service has no objections to the current proposals and their comments made previously in respect of the original application remain applicable to the revised proposals. This would require the existing access to be upgraded, visibility splays to be achieved and on-site parking being provided. One passing place per dwelling must also be provided on the public road between the site and Ednam.

The Roads Planning Officer has also confirmed that the minimum number of communal car parking spaces to be provided within the site can be reduced from 7 to 6 based on the number of dwellings now proposed. Two parking paces per dwelling plus two visitor parking spaces must be provided if the proposed parking is dedicated to individual dwellings. However, as the application seeks permission in principle only, these matters can be covered at the detailed application stage.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

As this application seeks consent for planning permission in principle, no details of the siting, design or materials of the proposed dwellinghouses have been submitted. It is important that the development is in keeping with the character of the building group and in particular, relates to the steading building to the north in terms of layout, design and materials. In this case, a linked or courtyard style development would be preferred, and this reflected in the applicant’s submission. The siting, design and materials of the proposed dwellinghouses can be controlled by appropriately worded planning conditions. Given the Council’s adoption of supplementary guidance on Placemaking and Design since the earlier approval, it would be prudent to seek, by way of condition, a design statement to support the requirement for a high design quality in this case.

Given the location of the site within the building group, the dwellinghouse to the south and agricultural buildings to the north, it is considered that provided that the proposed

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(g) houses are of an appropriate design and materials, the proposal would not be prominent in the landscape or harmful to the visual amenities of the area.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

There are no archaeological implications associated with this site. The proposals therefore comply with Policy BE2 of the Local Plan.

Natural Heritage

The Council’s Ecology Officer confirms that the existing modern, steel fabricated agricultural buildings are unlikely to support bats and their roosts. However there is potential for breeding birds to use the existing structures and precautionary mitigation measures for breeding birds will be required. It is recommended that the following condition is added to any grant of planning permission:

1. Demolition of the existing modern farm building shall be carried outside of the breeding bird season (breeding season March-September). No demolition works to commence during the breeding bird season without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Checking surveys and appropriate mitigation for breeding birds will be required if works are to commence during the breeding bird season.

It should be noted that the 2007 decision included a planning condition and applicant informative requiring a landscape scheme be submitted with any detailed application for the site. This should include the enhancement of the local habitat network by the creation of native-thorn species rich extended hedgerows including hedge line trees to provide additional foraging areas for bats and habitat for farmland birds. This would enable the improvement and enhancement of existing planting and habitats. It would be appropriate to replicate this condition in any grant of approval for the current proposals.

Eden Water to the south of Highridgehall Farmhouse is a tributary of the River Tweed, which is a Special Area of Conservation. The proposed dwellinghouses would be some distance from Eden Water and River Tweed and would not affect the qualifying interests of the Special Area of Conservation.

Water and Drainage

The applicant has not indicated on the application form how the dwelling will be serviced with drinking water. The Council’s Environmental Health (EH) team has advised that written communication from Scottish Water indicating that the dwelling will be accepted on to their supply is required if the dwelling is serviced by a public water supply. However, if the dwelling is to be serviced by a private water supply the applicant will need to provide details to demonstrate that the supply will be adequate for the size of the dwelling and not affect supplies in the vicinity. It is noted that this is an area of concern expressed by third parties but the planning conditions recommended by EH would satisfactorily address this matter.

It is also noted that the original planning application for four dwellings attracted objections from SEPA on the grounds that insufficient information to assess the environmental impact of the proposals had been submitted. However, following the submission of additional supporting information, SEPA withdrew their objections to

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(g) this application, provided their other comments (concerning foul and surface water drainage) were accounted for in any decision made by the planning authority.

Members should be aware that SEPA no longer provide consultation advice on applications of this scale, except in the form of Standing Advice. In this case, the applicant proposes to connect foul drainage to a septic tank with discharge to a soakaway or water course and to discharge surface water drainage to a soakaway or water course.

SEPA advise that all developments in or adjacent to public sewered areas should connect to the public sewer. Outwith sewered areas, the principle of private foul drainage systems are generally acceptable although private waste water discharges should to be made to soakaways where ground conditions are suitable rather than discharges to watercourses. Waste water drainage systems should also be designed and located in accordance with the Building Standards Technical Handbooks. Should Members be minded to support this application, suitably worded planning conditions can be added cover the precise details of both surface and foul water drainage.

Developer Contributions

The Council’s Development Negotiator confirms that there is already an existing Section 75 Legal Agreement in respect of the previous application 07/01064/OUT relating to the erection of 4 new dwellinghouses. This Agreement covers an Affordable Housing commuted sum and was assessed in conjunction with application 07/01065/FUL for the change of use of the former steading buildings to dwellinghouses. The Council’s Development Negotiator considers it appropriate, in this instance, to seek a commuted sum to assist with the provision of off-site affordable housing. However, the Housing Market Area’s identified Affordable Housing need and associated Commuted Sum values have changed since the last application was determined. The initial application for 4 residential units in this location would generate a contribution requirement of £11,625 as an Affordable Housing Commuted sum for the Central Borders Housing Market Area. However, as the application has been amended to reflect the policy constraints restricting the proposed additions to this group to 30%, the contribution amount would equate to £7,750. This would be secured via a new legal agreement.

It is mentioned earlier in this report that the current proposals must be assessed against prevailing development policies and consideration given to any shift in policy or a change in circumstances that would warrant a different recommendation. There is now a requirement for development contributions towards Education and Lifelong Learning (E&LL) that was not part of the original planning application assessment. This contribution would assist with the provision new and improved school facilities within the relevant school catchment area, in this case Kelso High School and Ednam Primary School. The new school rate would be applied to the High School (3 x £3,956 = £11,868) and the primary school extension rate (3 x £2,813 = £8,439) would be applied to Ednam Primary School. This would give a total development contribution towards E&LL of £20,307. This would also be secured through a legal agreement.

Residential Amenity

It is noted from the third party representations that there is concern surrounding the potential adverse impact of the development on the residential amenity of

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(g) neighbouring dwellings, particularly as a result of additional vehicular traffic, light pollution and general residential amenity.

Policy H2 of the Local Plan aims to protect the amenity of both existing established residential areas and proposed new housing developments and while it is most applicable to development in residential areas within towns and villages, the basic principles can also be applied in rural locations such as this. To protect the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings the scale form and type of development must be appropriate for the area and the impact of the proposal must be assessed in terms of over looking and loss of privacy. The generation of traffic and noise as well as the level of visual impact are also relevant.

As discussed earlier in this report, Members will note that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of the Council’s policies for new housing in the countryside. The proposal is therefore considered to be of a scale, form and type of development appropriate for this building group. The proposed dwellings would be located to north of the existing dwelling known as Newridge, the closest non-associated building to the application site, and would not have an adverse effect on the neighbouring property as a result of over shadowing. As the application seeks planning permission in principle only it is not possible at this stage to assess whether or not the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of Newridge as a result of over looking or loss of privacy. However, it is considered that there is sufficient distance between the rear elevation of the existing dwelling and the application site, as well as sufficient space within the site to accommodate suitably designed dwellings that would not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring property.

It is accepted that there will be an increase in domestic traffic as a result of the proposed development but this will be off set by the reduction in agricultural traffic and seasonal heavy goods traffic. The Council’s Roads Planning section has no objections to this proposal, subject to a number of road improvements including the provision of passing places and junction/access improvements. It is contended that the anticipated level of domestic traffic will be no worse than the existing level of agricultural traffic and will not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of existing dwellings.

It is accepted that there will be a level of visual impact on the building group and the immediate neighbouring properties but it is contended that this would be a positive impact compared to the existing industrial scale agricultural buildings. Suitably designed dwellings closely reflecting the traditional design, style and form of the existing steading building would have a positive effect on the residential amenity of immediate area and would comply with the terms of Policy H2.

Members will note that Environmental Health (EH) is concerned about potential construction noise affecting neighbouring dwellings. The applicant submitted additional supporting information to EH stating that they will ensure compliance with BS5228:2009 relating to construction noise. The applicant believes that this can be covered by a condition. However, advice from EH states that evidence of compliance should be provided. It is therefore suggested that as a minimum, a noise management plan should be submitted and approved before the commencement of development.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(g)

Contaminated Land

Policy G2 of the Local Plan seeks to allow for development on contaminated or potentially contaminated sites but in a manner that ensures that the re-use and restoration of such sites is made possible without any risk to public health or to the environment. As the application site is in agricultural uses, and may be potentially contaminative it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose. It is recommended by Environmental Health that a planning condition is added to any grant of consent to ensure that development is not be permitted to start until a site investigation and risk assessment has been carried out, submitted to and agreed upon by the Planning Authority. Any requirement arising from this assessment for a remediation strategy and verification plan would become a condition of the planning consent, again to be submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority prior to development commencing.

CONCLUSION

The presence of a building group at Highridgehall has clearly been accepted by virtue of the earlier grant of planning permission on this site. The current application site is located within the identifiable limits of the building group and would be well related to existing properties within the group. The proposal would not exceed 30% of the existing building group and the erection of three dwellinghouses could easily be accommodated within the site without affecting the residential amenities of occupiers of existing properties. Provided that the design and materials of the development are carefully considered at the detailed application stage, the proposal would not be prominent in the landscape or harmful to the visual amenities of the area.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is approved subject to a legal agreement addressing contribution towards affordable housing and Education & Lifelong Learning, and the following conditions:

1. No development shall commence until the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2. Application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision shall be made to the Planning Authority before whichever is the latest of the following: (a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or (b) the expiration of six months from the date on which an earlier application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision notice was refused or dismissed following an appeal. Only one application may be submitted under paragraph (b) of this condition, where such an application is made later than three years after the date of this consent.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(g)

Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

3. No development shall commence until all matters specified in conditions have, where required, been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall only take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

5. The means of foul and surface water drainage to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The approved scheme to be completed before the first dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily serviced.

6. No development shall commence until evidence has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that the site will be serviced by a wholesome supply of drinking water of adequate volume. The supply should not have a detrimental effect on other private water supplies in the area. Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately serviced with water without a detrimental effect on the water supplies of surrounding properties.

7. A Design Statement for the site shall be submitted along with the first detailed or reserved matters application relating to this site for the approval of the Planning Authority. The development thereafter to be implemented in accordance with the approved Design Statement. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development which contributes appropriately to its setting.

8. The roofing material of the dwellings hereby approved shall be natural slate. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

9. The access to the site must be via the eastern access shown on the site location plan hereby approved. The access shall be improved to the specification of the Planning Authority before the first dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

10. One passing place per dwellinghouse shall be provided on the public road between the site and Ednam, at locations to be agreed with the Planning Authority. The passing places must be completed to the specification of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development on the dwellinghouses hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(g)

11. Communal parking for a minimum of 6 vehicles must be provided within the site before the dwellinghouses are occupied and thereafter retained in perpetuity. If the parking is to be dedicated to individual dwellinghouses, a minimum of two parking spaces per dwellinghouse, excluding garages, and a minimum of two visitor spaces shall be provided before the dwellinghouses are occupied and thereafter retained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to ensure adequate provision of parking spaces.

12. Demolition of the existing modern farm building shall be carried outside of the breeding bird season (breeding season March-September). No demolition works to commence during the breeding bird season without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Checking surveys and appropriate mitigation for breeding birds will be required if works are to commence during the breeding bird season. Reason: In order to protect breeding birds.

13. No development shall commence until evidence has been provided to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate compliance with BS5228:2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites. This should take the form of a noise management plan and should include details such as site operating times and how noise from construction equipment will be controlled. Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings.

14. No development shall commence on site until a detailed scheme to identify and assess potential contamination on site has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with the advice of relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination and must include:- a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model including (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c, d, and, e of this condition. and thereafter b) Where required by the desk study, undertaking a detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of risk such contamination presents. c) Remedial Strategy (if required) to treat/remove contamination to ensure that the site is fit for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works, and proposed validation plan). d) Submission of a Validation Report (should remedial action be required) by the developer which will validate and verify the completion of works to a satisfaction of the Council. e) Submission, if necessary, of monitoring statements at periods to be agreed with the Council for such time period as is considered appropriate by the Council. Written confirmation from the Council, that the scheme has been implemented completed and (if appropriate), monitoring measures are satisfactorily in place,

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(g)

shall be required by the Developer before any development hereby approved commences. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Council. Reason: To ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and, ecological systems arising from any identified land contamination have been adequately addressed.

Informatives

1. In respect of condition 1, the landscape scheme to include the enhancement of the local habitat network by the creation of native-thorn species rich extended hedgerows including hedge line trees to provide additional foraging areas for bats and habitat for farmland birds.

2. In respect of condition 5, the Planning Authority requires that drainage complies with sustainable urban drainage system guidance and principles (SUDS).

3. In respect of condition 7, the Design Statement should explain and illustrate the design principles and concepts of the proposal. It should include information on the scale, massing, height, design and external materials of the proposed dwellinghouses. A linked or courtyard style development is preferred that reflects the design and character of the steading buildings to the north.

4. In respect of condition 9, a minimum visibility of 3m x 70m in either direction at the junction with the public road is required. The access must be widened over the initial 10m to allow two vehicles to pass and have 8m entry radii and this work must be carried out by a contractor on the Councils approved list and to the following specification: 40mm of 14mm size close graded bituminous surface course to BS 4987 laid on 60mm of 20mm size dense binder course (basecourse) to the same BS laid on 350mm of 100mm broken stone bottoming blinded with sub-base, type 1. The surface should be suitable for a family vehicle and allowance must be made for service vehicles.

5. In respect of condition 10, the passing places must be to the specification of the Director of Technical Services (Form DC1 attached) and be constructed by a contractor on the Councils approved list (attached). The contractor must complete and return the relevant form (Form DC9 attached) for permission to work in the public road prior to work commencing on site.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Reference No Plan Type Schematic Layout Site Plan Location Plan

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(g)

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Barry Fotheringham Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5(g)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5 (h)

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

7 OCTOBER 2013

APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE A PLANNING OBLIGATION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER:13/00822/MOD75 OFFICER: Dorothy Amyes WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Discharge of planning obligation pursuant to planning permission reference T273/90 SITE: Land North West And West Of Deanfoot Road West Linton Scottish Borders APPLICANT: Sandy Perfect Trading Ltd AGENT: David P Jones

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application relates to two plots of land to north and south of Deanfoot Road, a total of 81.25 acres. The land is currently used as grazing land mainly for horses and also as a football pitch for the local West Linton football team

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

A Section 50 agreement is in place pursuant to a planning consent for the erection of an agricultural dwellinghouse granted in May 1991. The agreement restricts any further development on the two areas of land. The actual wording of the relevant section of the agreement is as follows:

Fourth Clause: The Proprietor binds and obliges himself that no further development will at any time be permitted upon the subjects.

This current application seeks to discharge this burden. An application for a new dwellinghouse and blacksmiths workshop on part of the site, adjacent to the property known as Greenlaw, was submitted at the same time as the current application by the same applicant (13/00823/FUL). The removal of the burden would be required to allow the proposed development to proceed if planning consent was to be granted. No decision has yet been taken on this application but it will be dealt with under delegated powers.

PLANNING HISTORY

T273/90 (Alt Reference 90/01744/OUT) - Planning consent granted for the erection of a new farmhouse subject to a section 50 Agreement restricting further development on the land holding.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5 (h)

Area of land on north side of Deanfoot Road

13/00823/FUL - Erection of replacement blacksmith's workshop and associated dwellinghouse – no decision taken. The application will be dealt with under delegated powers.

04/02481/FUL – Subdivision of Greenlaw to form two dwellinghouses – refused reason -The proposal would be contrary to H6 of the Approved Structure Plan 2001- 2011, Policy 8 of the Tweeddale Local Plan and the Council’s Policy on Housing in the Countryside in that it would constitute isolated housing development in the countryside outwith any recognised settlement or building group and the need for the house has not been adequately substantiated. Furthermore the proposal would not comply with the terms of the original Section 50 Agreement.

04/00644/FUL – Subdivision of Greenlaw to provide two dwellinghouse- refused May 2004 – reason The proposal would be contrary to Policy 8 of the Tweeddale Local Plan and the Council's Housing in the Countryside Policy in that it would constitute housing development in the countryside outwith any recognised settlement or building group.

04/02002/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse – Refused January 2005 and appeal dismissed Reason: The proposal would be contrary to Policy 7 of the Tweeddale Local Plan 1996 and Policy H5 of the Structure Plan 2001-2011 in that it would constitute housing development in the countryside outwith any recognised settlement or building group.

04/00435/FUL – erection of field shelter approved April 2004

03/00987/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse refused 03/00986/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse refused 03/00895/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse refused

01/00585/OUT - Erection of dwellinghouse, garage and associated office/store – refused in June 2001and appeal dismissed

99/00768/OUT – Erection of 3 dwellinghouses and formation of access approved October 1999 (only access within current application site).

98/00980/FUL – Erection of loose boxes and straw/hay store approved September 1998

97/00446/COU – Alterations to form dwellinghouse and erection of garage/workshop approved February 1998 (no buildings within current application site)

Area of land on south side of Deanfoot Road

11/01124/FUL - Change of use of land to form football pitch, parking area, access road and path and siting of 3 No portacabins for changing room facilities and meeting room – approved January 2012

10/01002/FUL - Erection of 49 affordable dwellinghouses with associated roads, footpaths and ancillary works – withdrawn

08/01617/FUL -Part change of use from agricultural storage shed to form 6 No stable boxes – approved December 2008

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5 (h)

05/01548/AGN – Erection of Agricultural shed – no objection 05/00224/FUL - Erection of farmhouse with guest house wing comprising six bedrooms – refused April 2005

04/00344/AGN – Erection of farm building - Objection

01/01741/OUT - Erection of dwellinghouse – refused

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

One letter of comment has been received in relation to both applications and notes issues in relation to change of use, business information and the history of the site.

The land covered by the legal agreement has been sold off into several parcels of land since the original application. There are no conditions or clauses in the legal agreement tying the land and the house together. This means that there are several ‘interested parties’ who are required to be notified of the proposed change to the legal agreement. At the time of writing this report no comments have been received from ‘interested parties’ but any received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

None

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy D1: Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside

Supplementary Planning Guidance – New Housing in the Borders Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Planning Circular 3/2012 – Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Legal Services No reply received

Community Council Conditional Supports the application provided workshop and dwelling house are legally linked (i.e. cannot be sold separately at some future date).

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Whether the proposal to remove the planning obligation is acceptable or whether it would lead to unacceptable development which could not be supported by the prevailing development plan policies.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5 (h)

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

The original planning obligation which dates back to 1990 was required to ensure that the land remained in agricultural use and that no further developments could take place outwith the settlement boundary.

However, as demonstrated from the planning history of the site, prevailing planning policies have been used to restrict housing developments with decisions often supported by the Scottish Government Appeals Unit, whilst allowing limited developments appropriate to a rural location. With regards to the more recent consent for the temporary use of part of the land for a football pitch and associated changing facilities, the applicants were advised that they would need to apply for the planning obligation to be varied or removed but no application has been forthcoming.

The current advice from the Scottish Government in Planning Circular 3/2012 is that there is a limited role for obligations in restricting the use of land or buildings.

‘Such restrictions have historically been used particularly in respect of housing in rural areas. Imposing restrictions on use are rarely appropriate and so should generally be avoided. They can be intrusive, resource-intensive, difficult to monitor and enforce and can introduce unnecessary burdens or constraints. In determining an application, it may be appropriate for the planning authority to consider the need for the development in that location, especially where there is the potential for adverse impacts. In these circumstances, it is reasonable for decision-makers to weigh the justification against the potential impacts.

Where the authority is satisfied that an adequate case has been made, it should not be necessary to use a planning obligation as a formal mechanism to restrict occupancy or use.’

It is no longer the practice of the Council to apply such restrictions through legal agreement. Given the advice above and the evidence from previous planning applications on the site that any future development can be controlled through detailed assessment of any application against the prevailing policies, in particular, Local Plan policies D1 – Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside and D2 – Housing in the Countryside, it is considered that it is appropriate to remove the existing burden from the land identified in the legal agreement.

However, it should be noted that the removal of this burden does not imply that the current application for a house and blacksmiths’ workshop will be supported. As noted elsewhere this will be assessed separately under delegated authority.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the request to discharge the planning obligation, as stated in Clause Four that no further development shall take place on the land identified in the legal agreement, is acceptable as there are sufficient planning controls in place to ensure that any inappropriate development on this land does not take place.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5 (h)

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES::

I recommend that the application to discharge the planning obligation is approved.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Location Plan

Approved by

Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s)

Name Designation Dorothy Amyes Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5 (h)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 ITEM 6

PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS

Briefing Note by Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

7th October 2013

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this briefing note is to give details of Appeals and Local Reviews which have been received and determined during the last month.

2 APPEALS RECEIVED

2.1 Planning Applications

Nil

2.2 Enforcements

Nil

3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

3.1.1 Reference: 11/00888/FUL Proposal: Erection of 9 No wind turbines 126.5m high to tip and associated infrastructure including hardstandings, anemometer mast, control building, temporary construction compound, laydown area, access tracks, electrical connections and borrow pit Site: Land South West of Hyndsidehill Farmhouse (Corsbie Moor), Westruther Appellant: E.ON Climate & Renewables

Reason for Refusal: 1. The proposed development would have a significantly adverse effect on local landscape character by virtue of its scale and, in particular, the height of the turbines, resulting in significant visibility across a range of sensitive receptors, including, but not exclusively, a number of residential properties and also road users on the A6089. The proposed development would unacceptably extend large scale wind farm development into a medium-scaled, settled landscape. These unacceptable effects would be contrary to Policies N9, I19 and I20 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policies G1 and D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. 2. The proposed development would have a Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 1 significantly adverse cumulative effect on the enjoyment of users of the northern and western sections (which pass the site) of the Southern Upland Way, in particular the northern section incorporating the Twin Law Cairns iconic viewpoint, when combined with simultaneous and successive views of existing wind farms along this section of the route. These unacceptable effects would be contrary to Policies I19 and I20 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policy D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011.

Grounds of Appeal: The appellants disagree that the scale of development is unacceptable in the landscape context and that its resulting visibility is unacceptable. They disagree with the Council's view that there would be significant effects on residential properties and the A6089, and consider the reason for refusal lacks clarity as regards residential impacts. They consider the landscape of a scale that can comfortably accommodate the scale of development proposed. 2. The appellants do not consider that effects on the Southern Upland Way or Twin Law Cairns are so adverse as to be unacceptable in terms of cumulative impact. They suggest that research points to walkers being more and not less tolerant than the average person to wind farm development. The intervening distance alone precludes significant visual effects. 3. They also consider that any significant effects are outweighed by the benefits of the development

Method of Appeal: Written Representations, Hearing & Site Visits

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Trevor A Croft, dismissed the Appeal, concluding that the scale of the proposal, particularly the height of the turbines, and its intrusion into an area devoid of commercial scale wind farm developments, makes it unacceptable. Cumulatively its relationship to existing turbines, taken again with its location in a predominantly undeveloped area, makes the cumulative impact unacceptable.

3.1.2 Reference: 11/01680/FUL Proposal: Erection of 7 No wind turbines up to 115m high to tip, transformers, access tracks, borrow pit, substation and control room, temporary construction compound, concrete batching area and other associated infrastructure, Site: Land North West of Gilston Farm, Heriot Appellant: RidgeWind Limited

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policies N9, N14, N15 and, I19, I20 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001-2018, and Policies G1, BE2 and D4 of the 2011 Scottish Borders Local Plan in that: (i) it would be located outwith the natural containment of the Lammermuir Hills and would introduce large turbines (100m -115m) into a medium scale landscape that is not capable of accommodating them successfully. The erection of these large scale turbines into this more transitional landscape accentuates their scale and dominance and creates an unacceptable landscape change and visual impact; (ii) the potential cumulative landscape and visual impact of the development with other approved schemes and those pending decision would give rise to a poorly planned, piecemeal form of wind energy development which would prejudice the integrity of nearby landscapes; (iii) the height and scale of the development would have a significant adverse impact on the local Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 2 landscape and, in particular on Fala Moor which has been designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value by Midlothian Council; (iv) due to the location and height of the proposed turbines, the development would potentially harm the local visual environment, and in particular the setting of at least one Scheduled Ancient Monument at Soutra Aisle; (v) due to the location of part of the development within an area of known archaeological interest it has not been demonstrated that the benefits of the proposal will clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site.

Grounds of Appeal: It is the Appellants belief that the proposed development is a well designed scheme on a well chosen site that does not result in significant effects, on its own or cumulatively, that warrant the refusal of planning permission. The scale and nature of the landscape is considered to be capable of accommodating the proposed development. The design has been carefully considered through an iterative design and constraints led process; and the end result is a sound design for a site which is considered to be well contained. The scheme would give rise to no unacceptable impacts in respect of archaeology and cultural heritage. The concerns of SBC are considered to be over stated and the views of Historic Scotland are supported. It is submitted that conditions can satisfactorily be used to address concerns that have been raised by statutory consultees. The proposed development is the type of development which is strongly supported by UK and Scottish Government policy. It is also strongly supported by SPP and NPF3 which provide the policy framework for the consideration of planning applications for renewable developments. It is acknowledged that the scheme gives rise to a number of significant impacts in respect of landscape. However, it is submitted that the contribution that the proposed development would make to targets is an important material consideration to add weight in support of the proposed development in the planning balance.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations & Site Visits

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Richard E Bowden, concluded that the scale, form and location of the development on the appeal site would represent a significant, detrimental change to the existing landscape character and visual amenity of the immediate locality and the wider area and would also result in unacceptable cumulative impacts. The appeal does not accord sufficiently with the governments policy set out in SPP and associated national guidance or with the development plan policy requirements, in particular those related to policy 10 of SESplan. Neither would it accord with all the criteria set out in policy D4 of the adopted local development plan concerning renewable energy proposals having regard to its requirement to take account of the social, economic and environmental context. The proposal would not satisfactorily accord with the detailed SNH guidance on the siting and design of wind turbines, including with regard to cumulative impacts. The reported also concluded that the economic case and related sustainability benefits put forward in support of the appeal proposal did not provide sufficient justification to override the outstanding concerns regarding likely adverse impacts and therefore dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission.

3.1.3 Reference: 12/01348/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind farm incorporating 10 turbines 115m high to tip, ancillary equipment and associated infrastructure Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 3 Site: Land South East of Reston Hill Farmhouse, (Horn Burn Wind Farm), Appellant: Energiekontor UK Ltd

Reason for Refusal: Appeal against non-determination of application

Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Appellant submits that the assessment of the proposal contained in the ES contained in their Statement of Appeal support the overall acceptability of the proposal and their contention that the Scheme is a well designed and sensitively sited proposal which does not give rise to any significant effects sufficient to warrant refusal, either on its own or cumulatively with other in-planning, consented or built schemes in the vicinity. 2. The scale, grain and nature of the landscape can accommodate the Scheme without giving rise to unacceptable character effects. The Scheme is well-designed, visually balanced and well sited. 3. Impacts on heritage assets have been thoroughly assessed and it has been concluded that there is no reason to refuse permission for the Scheme. The statutory consultee and Council’s Archaeology Officer have reached the same conclusion. 4. A proper analysis of the MOD objection demonstrates that it would be entirely possible for the Scheme to be consented and constructed and for the MOD to continue to operate Spadeadam range without any impact on their operations. 5. The conclusions reached by the Appellant’s witnesses and in the ES have been arrived at through the use of best practice methodologies and are the result of a thorough assessment of the impacts of the Scheme. The conclusion reached is that the impacts on each of the interests identified in the reason for refusal are acceptable, or can be appropriately mitigated by the use of conditions where appropriate. 6. The Scheme is precisely the kind of development which finds strong support in SPP. In carrying out the balancing exercise required in the determination of this Scheme it is submitted that to the extent that the Scheme gives rise to any significant effects, these are outweighed by the benefits of the Scheme, and in particular the significant contribution which the Scheme would make to national targets, which is an important material consideration weighing in favour of the Scheme.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations & Site Visit

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, David Russell, looked at all aspects of the appeal. He also looked at the landscape, visual & economic impacts of the wind farm on the surrounding area including the effect on Ministry of Defence radar performance. The reporter therefore dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission.

3.1.4 Reference: 12/01545/MOD75 Proposal: Modification of planning obligation pursuant to planning permission reference 02/00963/OUT Site: Creag an Airidh Venlaw Farm, Edinburgh Road, Peebles Appellant: Mr and Mrs G Goldstraw

Reason for Refusal: There is no justification to vary the clause on the Section 75 Agreement as the restriction remains necessary to prevent the land from being inappropriately developed and pressurised from adjoining settlement and building group boundaries - and to respect and reflect the unrestricted planning permission granted for the retirement farmhouse Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 4 previously granted on the land, safeguarding against repeated attempts for further dwellinghouses.

Grounds of Appeal: Clause 2(b) does not meet with all the policy tests contained within Planning Circular 3/2012. Provision 2(b) is considered to be unnecessary to prohibit further development on the farm, in order to make the development of Creag an Airidh acceptable in planning terms. Given the presence of a clear building group at Venlaw which comprises 5 dwellinghouses, the prohibition of construction of further dwellinghouse(s) with the Section 75 agreement is now considered to be unreasonable.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations & Site Visit

Reporter’s Decision: Sustained

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Philip G Hutchinson, allowed the appeal and determined that the planning obligation comprising the Minute of Agreement shall have effect subject to the deletion of Clause 2(b). Clause 2(b) did not pass all 5 tests in Paragraph 14 of Circular 3/2012 - Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements and therefore the reporter concluded that the appeal must succeed and the planning obligation should be modified to remove Clause 2(b).

3.2 Enforcements

Nil

4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING

4.1 There remained 4 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 19th September 2013. This relates to sites at:

x Blackburn, Grantshouse, Duns x Penmanshiel, Grantshouse x Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk x 24 Lamberton Holding

5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED

5.1 Reference: 11/01081/PPP Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Land South of Fieldview, Townhead Farm, Cockburnspath Appellant: Mr & Mrs W Russell

Reason for Refusal: The development proposed would conflict with Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011, and Policy H8 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018, in that: (i) agreement cannot be reached in relation to the limitation of future farm subdivision, which would be controlled via a Section 75 Legal Obligation temporarily tying the existing house at Fieldview with the land on which the application was based, the proposed new dwelling and the modern farmsteading adjacent to it at Old Cambus Townhead Farm; therefore (ii) the current proposal is not fully justified and would give rise to a high risk of sporadic new housing development in the countryside, compounding pre-existing disposal of other dwellings, buildings capable of conversion to Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 5 dwellings and dwelling 'plots' at Old Cambus Townhead Farm that may have provided opportunities to deliver the required agricultural workers' accommodation. Without the described limitations, the development would have the potential to repeat the precedent caused by the disposal/sale of the original farmhouse, requiring yet another dwelling to serve the agricultural operations of the farmholding, in the instance that the current applicants cease direct involvement in the farm operations.

5.2 Reference: 13/00428/PPP Proposal: Erection of ancillary accommodation Site: Land South East of The Roan Cottage, Lauder Appellant: Mrs Ann Toms

Reason for Refusal: 1. The proposal is contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy G1 in that an ancillary residential building sited as proposed, would be poorly related to the dwellinghouse at The Roan, and as such, would not be readily interpretable as an ancillary building augmenting residential accommodation within that property. Further, and regardless of its ancillary use, such a building would be liable to have the character of a separate residential property. In this way, it is considered that the proposal would not be compatible with, or respect, the character of the surrounding area, neighbouring uses and neighbouring built form at The Roan, or be of a scale that is appropriate to its surroundings. 2. The proposal is contrary to Approved Structure Plan Policies H7 and H8 and Adopted Local Plan Policy D2 in that the proposal would be liable to function as, and therefore be tantamount to, a residential property independent of, and separate from, the dwellinghouse at The Roan, and in a location where there is neither a recognised building group capable of augmentation nor any justification for a new dwellinghouse to service the operation of a business with a recognised need for a rural location and the accommodation of a worker (or retired worker) on-site.

5.3 Reference: 13/00454/FUL Proposal: Erection of 2 no wind turbines 34.4m high to tip and ancillary infrastructure Site: Land North East of Ayton Mains Farmhouse, Eyemouth Appellant: Mr David Henry Liddell Grainger

Reason for Refusal: 1. The proposed development would be contrary to South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan 2013, Policy 1B - The spatial strategy: Development principles, and Policy 10 - Sustainable energy technologies, and Policies D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, in that it would have a significant adverse effect on local landscape character due to the height, scale and location of the proposed turbine and the prominence of the site within the local landscape, which would result in an overbearing and visually intrusive structure that would be significantly visible across a range of sensitive receptors, National Cycle Route (NCN) 76 which includes views to the setting of Ayton Castle, the environs of Gunsgreen House, and a well used local Core Path 59. 2. The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1, BE1, and D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, in that it would have a significantly adverse impact upon the setting of the Category A listed building of Ayton Castle, as a consequence of the scale and proximity of the proposed turbine relative to the Castle, when viewed from NCN 76, and which would not be outweighed by any social or economic benefit to be derived from the location and operation of the proposed turbine. 3. The proposed development would be contrary to the Council’s draft SPG - Landscape and Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 6 Visual Guidance on Single and Small Groups of Wind Turbines in Berwickshire(April 2013). The height and scale of this turbine development is not appropriate to the prevailing Landscape Character Type (LCT) 30: Coastal Valley.

5.4 Reference: 13/00776/PPP Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Paddock and Redundant Stable North of Station House, Cowdenburn, Lamancha Appellant: Mr and Mrs S Corrigan

Reason for Refusal: The proposal for a dwellinghouse at this location is contrary to Scottish Borders Local Plan policy D2 Housing in the Countryside and Supplementary Planning Guidance New Housing in the Borders Countryside as the site is not located within a building group of three or more houses and there are no overriding economic needs or benefits to the local community that would justify approval.

6 REVIEWS DETERMINED

6.1 Reference: 13/00003/PPP Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Land North West of Paddockmyre, Coldingham Appellant: Mr and Mrs J White

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would be contrary to Policies H7 and H8 of Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policy D2 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, in that the proposed development would not relate sympathetically to an existing building group in a manner which is compliant with development plan policies and New Housing in the Borders Countryside Guidance Note 2008 and that, while the proposed business requires a rural location, the proposal has failed to demonstrate that there is a sufficient operational requirement for the business to require a dwelling house to ensure its efficient operation and that the business is sufficiently sustainable to support a permanent dwellinghouse.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld

6.2 Reference: 13/00186/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind turbine 67.9m high to tip and formation of new access track Site: Land North West of Helenslea, Primsidemill, Yetholm Appellant: Mr James Wauchope

Review against non-determination of Application.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Continued for Site Visit

6.3 Reference: 13/00227/FUL Proposal: Two storey extension to dwellinghouse Site: 2 Crown Crescent, Earlston Appellant: Mr & Mrs Colin Elliot Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 7 Reason for Refusal: The proposed extension would fail to comply with Policy H2 of the Adopted Local Plan 2011 and with the advice of the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Householder Developments (July 2006), in that it would have unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of two surrounding residential properties, more specifically in terms of: (i) its impact upon the amount of daylight that would be available to ground floor rooms lit by windows on the rear elevation of the dwellinghouses at both No 1 and No 3 Crown Crescent, which in the case of the latter would contribute to a cumulative impact on daylighting in conjunction with the existing offshoot at No 4; and (ii) its impact upon the amenity of ground floor and first floor rooms lit by windows on the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse at No 3 Crown Crescent as a consequence of the overbearing relationship that would arise from the West Elevation of the proposed extension being realised in such close proximity to the boundary with No 3 Crown Crescent, particularly in respect to its contribution to a cumulative impact that would be produced in association with the existing two-storey rear offshoot at No 4 Crown Crescent, which it would essentially mirror in projection, height and proximity to the east of No 3.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned

6.4 Reference: 13/00360/FUL Proposal: Change of use, alterations and extension to form children’s play centre, community resource and installation of boundary fence and gates Site: No 1 Works, Hillview Trading Estate, Guards Road, Coldstream Appellant: Mr Jon Standing

Reasons for Refusal: The proposed change of use would be contrary to Policy ED1 of the Consolidated Local Plan in that that change of use to form children's soft play centre would result in the loss of employment floor space and the alternative use has not been adequately justified. The proposed change of use would not offer significant benefits to the surrounding area and community that would outweigh the need to retain the site in employment use. Furthermore, the proposed use would not be compatible with neighbouring employment uses. 2. The proposals would be contrary to Policy Inf4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that the proposed change of use would not incorporate adequate provisions for on site car parking, leading to an unacceptable adverse impact on road and pedestrian safety.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld

6.5 Reference: 13/00388/FUL Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Land North East of Shawburn, Bleachfield Road, Selkirk Appellant: Mr and Mrs Grieve

Reasons for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to Policies G1 and G7 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011, and Policy N20 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2009 in that it would Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 8 represent an unacceptable form and scale of development on the site. Furthermore, the proposed development is contrary to policy guidance applicable to a single dwelling in an urban or rural location, set out in the Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking and Design. 2. The development of the site would be contrary to Policy I15 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2009 and Policy G4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that the site is at risk from flooding, the development proposals have not been subject to a Flood Risk Assessment, and it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that flood risk affecting the site can be mitigated.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned

6.6 Reference: 12/01191/PPP Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Land North East Of Buxton House, Eastfield, Selkirk Appellant: Mr Hugh Lovatt

Reasons for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policy H7 and H8 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that the application site does not constitute an appropriate addition to the building group at Buxton and the requirement for a dwellinghouse on medical grounds does not justify a departure from development plan policy. Furthermore, in the interests of road safety in that the existing vehicular access to the site is inadequate.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned

7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING

7.1 There remained 1 reviews previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 19th September 2013. This relates to sites at:

x Primsidemill, Yetholm x

Approved by

Brian Frater Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

Signature …………………………………..

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Wemyss Administrative Assistant 01835 824000 Ext 5409

Background Papers: None. Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 9 Previous Minute Reference: None.

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Tel. No. 01835 825431 Fax No. 01835 825071 Email: [email protected]

Planning & Building Standards Committee 7th October 2013 10 ITEM 7

PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2013/14

Report by Director of Environment and Infrastructure

PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS

7 OCTOBER 2013

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report proposes that Members approve the Planning Performance Framework 2013/14, attached as Appendix 1 to this report, for submission to Scottish Ministers.

1.2 The Planning Performance Framework provides a comprehensive and co- ordinated approach to performance assessment in the Planning Service. A draft version of the framework has already been sent to Scottish Ministers as the deadline for submissions was the end of September. Scottish Ministers have been advised that the finalised report will be forwarded once approval has been given by Members. The report was reported to the Environment & Infrastructure Committee on 3 October 2013, the outcome of which will be reported to the Committee.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 I recommend that the Planning and Building Standards Committee approves the Planning Performance Framework as detailed in Appendix 1 to this report.

Planning & Building Standards – 7 October 2013 1 3 PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2013/14 3.1 The Planning Performance Framework provides a comprehensive and co- ordinated approach to performance assessment across all 34 Local Planning Authorities and 4 Strategic Development Planning Authorities in Scotland. It introduces a balanced scorecard approach to performance, similar to that introduced to the Building Standards service, which will help the Planning Service demonstrate its achievements, successes, individuality and personality. Speed of decision making still features as an important factor but it is set within a wider supporting context of quality, workloads, resources, organisation and outcomes achieved on the ground.

3.2 The Council is required to submit its Planning Performance Framework to Scottish Ministers on an annual basis. This is the second Framework produced by the Planning Service and highlights the work being undertaken to improve the quality of development being built, how we are preserving and enhancing the environment and helping to create a prosperous Borders. It demonstrates how Scottish Borders Council is delivering sustainable economic growth and meeting the Scottish Government’s wider targets and objectives for planning and the environment. In addition, the framework sets out a clear strategy for continuous improvement within the service.

4 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Financial There are no direct costs attached to any of the recommendations contained in this report.

4.2 Risk and Mitigations There are reputational implications should the Council not deliver on the improvement objectives set out in the Framework. The Services ensures that it has effective monitoring and reporting on key performance indicators set out in the PPF to deliver on these objectives.

4.3 Equalities The approval of this report has no equalities implications

4.4 Acting Sustainably The implementation of the improvements outlines in the framework will assist the Council to deliver appropriate sustainable economic development and more streamlined processes and procedures.

4.5 Carbon Management The implementation of the improvements outlines in the framework will assist the Council to deliver appropriate sustainable economic development and more streamlined processes and procedures.

4.6 Rural Proofing Not applicable.

4.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation None.

Planning & Building Standards – 7 October 2013 2 5 CONSULTATION 5.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Strategic Policy, the Head of Audit and Risk, the HR Manager and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and any comments have been incorporated into the report.

Approved by

Head of Planning & Regulatory Services Signature ………………………

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Ian Aikman Major Applications, Review & Enforcement Manager TEL : 01835 826510

Background Papers: None Previous Minute Reference: None

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at Jacqueline Whitelaw, Environment and Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA, Tel 01835 825431, Fax 01835 825071, email [email protected].

Planning & Building Standards – 7 October 2013 3 Contents Page No.

Foreword

1. Introduction 2. National Headline Indicators 3. Defining and Measuring a High-Quality Planning Service

x Open for Business x High Quality Development on the Ground x Certainty x Communications, Engagement and Customer Service x Efficient and Effective Decision-Making x Effective Management Structure x Financial Management and Local Governance x Culture of Continuous Improvement

4. Supporting Evidence 5. Service Improvements 2012-13 6. Delivery of Service Improvement Actions 2011-12

APPENDIX I - Official Statistics APPENDIX II – Workforce and Financial Information

1 FOREWORD

Photo As the Chairman of the Planning & Building Standards Committee I am pleased to be able to submit the Council’s second Planning Performance Framework. The document reflects on the service’s performance in the past year and sets out a clear programme of continuous improvement in service delivery.

The Planning Performance Framework is a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to assessing the performance of the Council’s Planning Service. Whilst speed of decision making is still an important performance indicator, the Planning Performance Framework acknowledges that success is measured in a number of different ways.

The Framework highlights the work being undertaken to improve the quality of development being built in the Borders, how we are preserving and enhancing the environment and helping to create a prosperous Borders. It demonstrates how Scottish Borders is delivering sustainable economic growth and meeting the Scottish Government’s wider targets and objectives for planning and the environment

Councillor Alex Nicol

2 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Planning services in the Scottish Borders are delivered by a range of staff in the Planning & Regulatory Services division of the Environment & Infrastructure Department. The division has undergone structural re-organisation in recent years and now benefits from the skills and knowledge of a wide range of specialist staff that contribute to the planning process, being managed directly by the Head of Planning & Regulatory Services. This year the Built and Natural Heritage Team have been incorporated into the division and this has already had a positive impact contributing towards a more collaborative and co-ordinated approach to service delivery and responding to work pressures, such as renewable development.

1.2 The Planning Service aims to maintain and improve the quality of the built environment and natural heritage whilst facilitating desirable changes which meet the economic and social needs of the Scottish Borders. We believe that the achievements outlined in our Planning Performance Frameworks, show very clearly the positive and proactive approach adopted by the service to delivering on these objectives. The success of the planning service does not just relate to how quickly it processes planning applications or produces development plans but how it demonstrates commitment to continuous improvement and how effective it is in meeting its defined objectives and delivering quality outcomes on the ground.

2.0 NATIONAL HEADLINE INDICATORS

2.1 The following table sets out Scottish Borders Council's performance against the national headline indicators set out in the performance framework. As this is the second time data has been collected in this manner it allows a direct comparison to be made in terms of performance improvement.

3 NATIONAL HEADLINE INDICATORS

Key outcomes 2011-2012 2012 -2013

Development Planning: x age of local/strategic development plan(s) Requirement Scottish Borders Consolidated x SESplan (Approved 2013) less than 5 Years Structure Plan (Approved 2009) 3 months 3 years Scottish Borders Consolidated Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan (Adopted 2011) Local Plan (Adopted 2011) 2 years 1 year Yes, The Development Plan x development plan scheme: on track? (Y/N) Yes. Updated in June 2012 and Scheme was updated in April Main Issues Report for Local 2013 and the Local Development Development Plan published 2nd Plan remains on track with the April 2012 with consultation to 25 proposed Plan being presented to June 2012 the Council in Autumn 2013 Scottish Borders Finalised Scottish Borders Finalised Effective Land Supply and Delivery of Outputs Housing Land Audit 2011 Housing Land Audit 2012 (April 2012) (March 2013)

x effective housing land: years supply 5.9 or 6.9 years 7.6 or 6.3 years x effective housing land supply 4,108 units 3,816 units x housing approvals 296 units 214 approvals in 2012

Scottish Borders Council Scottish Borders Council Employment Land Audit 2012 Employment Land Audit 2011

x effective employment land supply 19.7 ha (Immediately available) 37.3ha (Immediately available)

4 x employment land take-up 0.69 ha 1.8ha N/A N/A x effective commercial floor space supply N/A N/A x commercial floor space delivered

Development Management Project Planning x percentage of applications subject to pre-application 49 % 77 % advice x number of major applications subject to processing 0 3 agreement or other project plan x percentage planned timescales met n/a Applications still to be determined Decision-making 93% x application approval rate 93.4% 93% x delegation rate 94%

Decision-making timescales Average number of weeks to decision: 79.1 61 x major developments 26.0 17 x local developments (non-householder) 9.1 10 x householder developments

Enforcement x time since enforcement charter published / reviewed 32 44* (months) Requirement: review every 2 years x number of breaches identified / resolved 228/52 133/103

2.2 The table illustrates that the service has an up to date Development Plan to guide and facilitate development and that we continue to review and refine this policy framework. We also have a sufficient effective housing and

5 employment land identified to provide for the region's needs. In terms of Development Management, there continues to be steady progress in processing times. The service has also committed significant resources to pre-application discussions with prospective applicants. This has had implications on the service's ability to make more significant improvement to processing times for applications. Actions to accelerate performance will be referred to elsewhere in this report. The Enforcement Team has also directed resources to dealing with outstanding cases and this has seen a significant rise in the number of cases resolved last year.

3.0 DEFINING AND MEASURING A HIGH-QUALITY PLANNING SERVICE

Open for Business

3.1 The Council’s adopted scheme of delegation results in 93% of applications being delegated to officers for determination. It is anticipated that recent regulatory changes, relating to Council interest applications, will further increase the level of delegation in the coming year. The improvements in processing of applications within statutory time limits reported in last year’s report have continued this year. Performance has improved particularly on householder applications from 77% to 82%, but we have also seen 2% increases in performance of both non-householder development and in all applications to 55 % and 64% respectively.

3.2 A major influence on the performance for non householder applications continues to be is the number of legal agreements that are required to secure financial contributions for infrastructure requirements such as educational facilities, affordable housing and reinstatement of the Waverley line. The Council’s development contributions policy means that Scottish Borders continues to enter into the highest number of legal agreements of any Scottish local authority, along with the City of Edinburgh Council. We are currently undertaking a review of how we manage the legal agreement process and have investigated best practice carried out by other local authorities. Changes that we are looking to introduce through 2013/14 involve:

x drafting of Heads of Agreement earlier in the application process to help minimise the time taken to release permission once the authority has indicated it is minded to approve the development; x investigating model legal agreements; x more effective tracking and monitoring of agreement progress, and

6 x introducing a deadline for conclusion of agreements following a minded to approve decision .

3.3 In response to submissions by local developers, who have been experiencing real difficulties in the current economic climate, we are undertaking a reassessment of our development contributions policy. In particular, we are examining the thresholds that trigger application of the policy and the implications of modifying them. It is anticipated that this work will be completed soon and a report presented to Council before the end of 2013.

3.4 A number of key changes to the operation of the Development Management Team were outlined in last year’s report that enabled the service to respond to the current economic and development pressures through allocation of officers and resources and project management of major applications. In addition, the Council was successful in obtaining funding from Scottish Government that provided finance to employ, for a 6 month period, an additional planning officer from within the Built and Natural Heritage team, to process small scale wind turbines proposals as well as providing for additional landscape resource and specialist noise assessment support. For the individual and his original team, this had the dual benefit of increasing the officer’s own skills and experience and enabling transferrable skills and planning experience back to the Built and Natural Heritage team. For the development management service, the additional resource enabled us to meet our project targets of delivering more efficient planning decisions and increasing capacity and enhancing knowledge and reducing the outstanding backlog of pre-application enquiries and planning applications. In addition to providing assistance in the consideration of application, the noise consultant is being used as a training resource for Environmental Health Staff. This will provide the added benefit of an enhanced skills base to the authority going forward. . 3.5 The Council continues to have a positive and pro-active approach to pre-application enquiries and handled 1014 written provisional enquiries last year. Overall, this means that 77% of the applications received last year have had formal written provisional enquiries. This has been a significant increase on the 49% reported last year. In the coming year we will examine the most efficient way to manage and prioritise provisional enquiries.

High Quality Development on the Ground

7 3.6 The Council is committed to ensuring high quality development is delivered on the ground and it continues to up date its suite of policies, supplementary planning guidance and planning briefs to guide the determination of planning applications. A total of five new guidance notes were published in 2012/13 including:

x Landscape and Visual Guidance on Single and Small Groups of Wind Turbines in Berwickshire, x Development Contributions, x Local Landscape Designations, x Replacement Windows and x Interim review of the Scottish Borders Woodland Strategy.

We have also identified an extensive list of Supplementary Planning Guidance that will be included the Local Development Plan with an identified programme for review and updating.

3.7 The Council has developed a strong monitoring system including regular reports and specific audits covering housing, employment land, vacant land, town centres, and rural communities. This is essential to maintain an up to date Development Plan, and also provides the backdrop to the Council duties related to Strategic Environmental Assessment. The technical support to the service functions has been further strengthened by the adoption of a departmental approach to the provision of a GIS service. This has been taken forward as part of a defined action plan aimed at promoting GIS across the department. This approach will be further embedded into corporate activities over the coming year. In addition, with recent changes to the service's structure we have even better access to cultural and heritage specialists, landscape architects and urban design skills to promote the creation of good quality development and well designed places.

3.8 The Council is only one of two local authorities to be chosen by the Scottish Government to undertake regional pilots for the Land use Strategy. Aberdeenshire and Scottish Borders will both seek to apply the National Land Use objectives at a regional scale, to seek a more integrated approach to land management and to achieve multiple benefits. The project which was announced in February 2013 will be completed by March 2015. The project outcomes will feed into the review of national strategy in 2016.

3.9 The publication of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking & Design, along with the Government’s Design series, was seen as a major step change in driving the quality agenda forward. One of

8 the key work streams identified in this year’s improvement work streams is to assess the success and influence of this guidance. This will involve a thorough examination of the projects as they are developing on the ground and one of the main case studies will be the development by Persimmon Homes at Easter Langlee. The lessons learned from this process will be co-ordinated by the Peer Review Group with the findings then being disseminated to all relevant staff through training sessions. The SPG was commended in a recent audit by the Scottish Government on the implementation of Designing Streets.

Photos of developments on site- x Dovecot road, Peebles . x Abbotsford (also subject to a Royal opening) x Heriot -Watt University residences x Fallago Rig windfarm

3.10 As demonstrated through the number of provisional enquires the service deals with, we continue to engage proactively with developers This has involved design workshops, master planning and collaborative working with responsive developers on a number of development sites and in particular with our engagement with the renewables industry.

3.11 The success and innovative approach of the Council’s Renewable and Biodiversity offset scheme, which received a commendation from the Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning last year, has been acknowledged further in the joint RSPB / RTPI publication “Planning Naturally” as a case study illustrating the principles of good spatial planning in the categories considering alternative options that are less damaging to the environment which contribute to sustainable development and delivering enhancing the natural environment. Our pioneering approach to biodiversity offsets is also profiled in "2020 Challenge for Scotland's Biodiversity" recently launched by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse. The monies realised through this mechanism have led to positive outcomes on the ground with Offset biodiversity works completed in Gala Water, underway on the Eddleston Water and those linked to Selkirk Flood Prevention Scheme. PHOTOS…

9 3.12 The Kelso THI is led by the Council and is now in Year 4 of the Initiative. All of the key milestones have been met with 37 restoration projects completed or on site and a further range of projects committed and being assessed. Phase 0ne of the major public realm works of £1.9m are completed with the resurfacing of the pavements in sandstone flags and stakeholder agreement reached on the interventions, all in line with aims of “Creating Places”. A contract for £700,000 has been let by the Council for the new business and Transport hub and this will remove an ugly gap site and enhance the streetscape whilst providing modern flexible business space and integration with public transport. This is complemented by the Education and Training programme with Year 2, the Abbey completed and further progress on Building Watch. The Council has secured a further conservation led regeneration scheme for Selkirk.

3.13 In terms of preserving built heritage, the Council has taken action to secure the future of Category A listed building at Sunnybrae, . We are pursuing a CPO and have allocated £152,000 in the capital programme to undertake an external restoration. This is one of a number of proactive measures within its prioritised Building at Risk Register and we are playing our part in meeting the Historic Scotland National Indicator of seeking to reduce the percentage of Category A listed buildings at risk. This year, also saw the completion of the remodelling of Market Square in Galashiels as part of its commitment to Spaces for Life. .

3.14 The Peebles - Shared Access Route is a six mile off-road path that follows the line of a former railway, providing good quality sustainable access between the two towns and the village of Cardrona. The project included the excavation and restoration of an old railway tunnel and the construction of a new bridge over the River Tweed along with the provision of a surfaced path that links the communities together and also provides safer off-road access to two world class mountain bike centres at Glentress and Innerleithen. The project was developed over a six year period with funding provided from a number of different sources including Europe (SRDP),Sustrans, Scottish Government and Scottish Borders Council. The route is currently very well used and it is hoped that it will attract more people to the area and encourage more people to become more active. The Scottish Government's Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse officially opened the route in August.

Photos………..

10 Photos

. Certainty

3.16 The Council has an up to date Development Plan and has produced a range of topic based Supplementary Planning Guidance, as well as site specific planning briefs. The Council has an up to date, clear and robust policy framework for the determination of planning applications and information and guidance available to applicants and interested parties alike. All of these documents are available on the Council’s web site. The Council is delivering on the Development Plan Action Plan and will be reporting the Proposed Local Development Plan to Council in the autumn of 2013. This, along with the SESplan Strategic Development Plan approved in June 2013 will provide the Development Plan for the next period.

3.17 Following its meeting on 26 January 2012, the Council agreed the Main Issues Report of the Local Development Plan as a basis for public consultation for a period of 12 weeks. The consultation also covered the Environmental Report on the content of the Main Issues Report. As part of the consultation there were a series of 9 drop-in exhibitions held across the council area. Some 278 representations were received covering around 1000 issues. The Environmental Report received positive responses from the three Consulting Authorities (SNH, SEPA, Historic Scotland). The Council considered a report on the responses to the Main Issues Report of the Local Development Plan at its meeting on 25 October 2012. A further report will be presented to the Council on 25 September 2013 to complete consideration of the representations and to consider the Proposed Local Development Plan.

3.18 The Service has maintained its high rate of success at Local Review with 73.7% of the appointed officer’s decisions being upheld in 2012/13 There has been a drop in the number of appeals to Directorate of Planning & Environmental Appeals and also a reduction in the Council’s success rate to with only 33.3% of its decisions being upheld. This is in contrast to previous years where the Council had always been in the upper quartile of success at appeal. Notwithstanding, the Council has displayed a consistency of decision making that is based on an up to date Development Plan and planning guidance. The Service’s willingness to engage in pre application consultation also helps to reduce uncertainty and stimulate confidence in the planning process.

11 3.18 The planning service continues to maintain and develop its collaborative working with external agencies through the Community Planning Partnership and involvement with SESPlan. In addition, the Service has strong links with the local housing network and all of the Social Registered Landlords in the Borders through involvement with the New Borders Alliance and internally with Housing Strategy Colleagues in the Housing and Planning Liaison Group. A tripartite forum has also been set up with Scottish Water and Scottish Environment Protection Agency to discuss on going development and infrastructure issues and to enable in put into the development planning process.

Communications, Engagement and Customer Service

3.19 The Planning Service took part in the BBC2 documentary “The Planners, and was featured in three of the episodes. Filming took place over a period of 6 months during which the documentary makers had access to staff and councillors through all stages of the decision making process. The cases included in the programmes related to the development of a poultry farm at Lamanacha and housing developments at Carolside, Earlston and in Foulden village. The programmes featured the work of the individual planning officers, the planning committee and the Local Review Body, as well as applicants and their agents and member of the public. The programmes were well balanced and illustrated how the planning service assesses applications and balances the various issues in coming to a decision. The service’s contribution to the programmes was positively received and reflected well on the openness, professionalism and integrity of the planning service in the Borders.

3.20 The Council’s Public Access portal continues to be well used and appreciated by customers. We have continued to promote the uptake of electronic submission of applications with agents and developers and the yearly average of applications now received on-line stands at 35.75%, with a peak of 44.2% in the third quarter.

3.21 Following on from last year’s major upgrade of the Council’s web site many of the areas for improvement outlined in the 2011 Pendleton review of Scottish planning authorities’ web sites have been addressed. In addition, the web site also gained three out of four stars in SOCITM’s (the Society of IT Managers) survey, narrowly missing out on a four star rating. SiteMorse.com have listed our web site as the best local authority website in Scotland and also ranked it third in the whole of the UK . Their survey examined the usability, accessibility, reliability and performance of all council sites. Only three years ago, the same study ranked the council's

12 previous website as 148th in the UK. The planning service continues to maintain a range of information on the planning pages including the On-Line Development Plan, windfarm data bases and plans, which have been added to the web site in response to customer requests. A numbers of on-line forms for general planning contacts, planning enforcement and pre-application enquiries and provides a range of information for customers.

3.22 The Council has a formal complaints procedure and has the facility for customers to complain using an on-line form. In terms of complaints reporting there were a total of 32 complaints about the wider planning service, of which seven were justified in full or in part. The majority of the justified complaints related to a delay in providing service and one related to an employee’s attitude. The Department has respond to the findings of these investigations by indentifying staff training needs and service improvements in business plans and the Planning Performance Framework.

3.23 The Council has an just completed a consultation on its new Planning and Building Standards Enforcement Charter that sets out the standards of service to be expected, and shows what happens at each stage in the process. It is anticipated that this will be formally adopted in autumn 2013. A Development Management Charter is also in preparation with an anticipated publication date early in the New Year

3.24 The Council has held an annual stakeholder forum since 2001. The format of the forum has been altered following feedback from stakeholders and now features a range of topic based forums throughout the year, when required. In 2013, the Stakeholder was a joint event with agents, developer and community Councils providing an update on recent organisational changes, the Local Development Plan, plus proposed changes to Building Standards and was the vehicles for the launch of the bi-annual design competition and the consultation on the new enforcement charter. In addition, a series of training session were held last year in local communities outlining Council policy on renewables and how communities should engage with both developers and the Council on planning applications.

3.25 The Council has now developed customer satisfaction survey and customer feedback forms on the web site and last year organised a Household Survey that went to all households in the Borders. In view of this corporate initiative, it was decided to defer the development of our own customer questionnaire in Planning & Regulatory Services so that to analyse whether we would get sufficient useful data from the corporate project.

13 Efficient and Effective Decision-Making

3.26 The Council has adopted a scheme of delegation that provides a high level of officer delegation with only 6% of applications being referred to the Planning & Building Standards Committee. The Planning & Building Standards Committee is held on a monthly basis sitting on the first Monday of each month during the day. A streamlined process is in place for Planning application reports which are not subject to the normal lead in time and consultation periods required for other forms of Committee report. This avoids unnecessary delays in their determination. The Local Review Body also meets on a monthly basis but has had to sit on several occasions on a particular month due to workload or the implications of further procedure, in the form of hearing sessions and site visits. A review is currently underway into the operation of both decision making bodies in terms of their composition and operation and this should be reported to the Council before the end of 2013. This is seeking to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the Committee and LRB and to ensure that a suitable pool of well trained members is available to serve on these bodies.

3.29 A key element of ensuring effective decision making is the provision of member training. This is undertaken before any members of the Planning Committee or Local Review Body can sit on these bodies and refresher training is provided as and when requested or required. There is an ongoing programme of member training and seminars in place to ensure that members are fully equipped to consider the planning application presented to them.

3.30 There is a dedicated Forward Planning team tasked with the delivery of Development Plans and Supplementary Guidance. All Development Plan documents are considered by full Council, and this process is assisted by the Development Plan Working Group consisting of key members and officers.

Effective Management Structure

3.31 The key elements of the restructuring of the Environment & Infrastructure Department was review was concluded last year however, further modifications have followed with Built and Natural Heritage now

14 under the Head of Planning & Regulatory Services. This has allowed further integration within the new Department with specialist officers in landscape, archaeology, ecology, built heritage and access through project management of major applications, Peer Review Group and joint project working. The Development Management and Building Standards teams are led by the same manager, bringing greater integration on all aspects of development proposals and assistance on enforcement matters. This has ensured a quick and effective response to development proposals, consistency of decision making and wider understanding of the cross linkages and relationships required to deliver planning objectives. The ability to use secondment officers within the service has been utilised to address work pressures and response to key projects. In addition, the making of ‘virtual’ contribution to SESplan; the Forward Planning team includes strategic transportation, research and information and GIS staff to support the process.

Financial Management and Local Governance

3.32 There are significant budget pressures facing the planning service due to wider Council funding efficiencies and in particular the continuing low levels of planning fee income. A stringent budget monitoring process has been put in place to monitor and report on budget pressures on a monthly basis. A close working relationship between budget holders and finance staff has been developed to address these issues while still delivering on the Council’s planning aspirations.

3.33 There are regular senior management meetings in the department to consider budget and efficiency measures to enable the services to be provided cost effectively.

3.34 There has been significant effort from officers to seek funding from agencies and engaging with various agencies or bodies to deliver projects and regeneration on the ground. This has involved officers working in a facilitatory role or in partnership with these groups. The largest example is Kelso THI but the award winning offset biodiversity programme has resulted in implementation agreements with Tweed Forum; Borders Forest Trust; Southern Upland Partnership and the Game Conservancy Council. Several key Buildings at Risk have been completed by external parties through financial partnership in the last year, most notably The Haining stableblock (Category A) and ( scheduled).

15 3.35 In terms of the Council’s direct action under enforcement legislation the Council has a robust procedure in place to recover of costs incurred.

3.36 The Council now has a highly development and effective contributions collection and spend systems in place. This is administered by the Development Negotiator and finance staff which feeds into the delivery of key service infrastructure, such as schools facilities, the Borders railway line and affordable housing

Culture of continuous improvement

3.37 The Planning Service continues to ensure that there is sufficient budget provision for staff training. A rationalisation and reorganisation of the departmental budget and training programme has been completed this year to ensure that we can assist officers to meet their Continuing Professional Development obligations, through attendance at courses and conferences, opportunities have been funded for staff to undertake longer term study. Staff training has also been supplemented by in house training sessions through a programme of lunch time seminars. Speakers provide an in sight into their area of expertise or to a particular project..

3.38 Member training continues to been provided in advance of sitting on the planning Committee and Local Review Body. This has been supplemented by refresher sessions and presentations have been made to Members at Committee on particular topics such a development contributions, natural and built heritage and affordable housing.

3.39 The Council’s own appraisal process has been reviewed and rolled out, and has been used in the planning service as a means of reinforcing the performance culture at all levels of the department. Using this process, staff have been given goals and projects to assist in the delivery of the aims set out in this Performance Framework, but also wider departmental and corporate objectives

4.0 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

4.1 Part 2 of this report was compiled drawing on evidence from the following sources:

16 x Scottish Borders Council Planning Performance Framework 2012/13 x Scottish Borders Housing Land Audit. x Scottish Borders Retail Audit and Footfall Survey. x Scottish Borders Employment Land Audit. x Scottish Borders Rural Facilities Audit. x Scottish Borders Vacant Land Audit. x E&I GIS Review. x Business Plans for service teams within Environment & Infrastructure Department. x Environment and Infrastructure Department budget x Uniform data management system. x Development Management Workload and Performance Briefing Notes. Monthly bulletin for Members. x Scottish Borders Council Web Site planning information pages & Public Access.

4.2 The documents and information mentioned above are available on line or by approach to Planning & Regulatory Services.

5.0 SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS 2013-14

5.1 The Planning Service has identified a number of key service and performance improvement measures for 2012/13 and these are set out below:

x Deliver on Development Management Improvement Plan work streams: 1. pre-application enquiries 2. legal agreements 3. Processing Agreements 4. Performance workshop with staff

x How to improve stakeholder engagement x Developer Contribution thresholds x Design review and evaluation of Placemaking and Design Guidance

17 x Evaluate progress with windfarm applications x Examine compliance issues with landscaping x Evaluate RDN with Historic Scotland x Deliver programme of new and up dated SPG's

6.0 DELIVERY OF IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS 2012-13

6.1 There are a number of areas for service improvement identified in the first PPF that involve on-going actions, whose implementation will be subject to continuous monitoring and assessment. The specific commitments made in the PPF last year, along with the actions taken and progress made, are set out below:

Committed improvements and actions Complete? 1. Deliver the Local Development Plan. The Proposed Local Development Plan will be presented to full Council in the Autumn of 2013. The On-going timescales set out in the Development Plan Scheme have been met. The final adoption of the Plan will be influenced by progress on the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Housing required by SESPlan.

2. Promote the continued regeneration of built heritage in the Scottish Borders through the delivery of a Townscape Heritage Initiative for Selkirk. Yes The bid has been successful for a Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme (CARS) and £795,000 secured from Historic Scotland towards a Common Fund of £1,010,000 plus capital monies of £350,000from SBC. A project manager has been appointed and the Scheme will run from October 2013 to March 2018.

3. Produce a third iteration of the Development Management Improvement Plan to drive forward performance and design quality. Partially/On-going Work has commenced and has been on-going throughout the year in terms of protocols, linked to work on legal agreements processes and identification of various work streams and projects relating to design quality review, pre-application enquiries, stakeholder/customer engagement, web site development, development of processing agreements

18 4. Widen the role of the Peer Review Group of senior officers to introduce a review process to analyse completed developments and roll out of design training for staff On-going The Peer Group continues to act as a vehicle for design assessment and feedback to officers. The Group draws in officers from various specialists areas when required. It will be the forum to take forward the various works streams that are flowing from the Development Management Improvement Plan.

5. Improve the processing of major applications through better project management and the further develop in-house Project Teams and the use of processing agreements. Investigate options for the more efficient conclusion of legal agreements. On-going As part of the ongoing work streams linked to the Development Management Improvement Plan we are examining how to best use processing agreements. Although no agreements have been reported in this year's figures we have been in discussions with a number of developer and a number of agreements have been entered into out with the reporting period for this PPF.

6. Continue to run Stakeholder Forum based on a number of topic or audience specific forums throughout the year. We will introduce customer questionnaires to obtain further Yes feedback on service provision. A well attended Stakeholder Forum with agents/developers and Community Council held on ...... it addressed changes to the service giving information on its expanded remit and services, information on Building Standard changes and the launch of the consultation on the Joint Planning Building Standards Enforcement Charter and the bi-annual design awards.

7. Publish a Development Management Charter and updated Enforcement Charter to set out clearly how the Service will manage the planning process and investigate and resolve Partially/On-going planning breaches. The draft Enforcement Charter has been produced and was launched for a formal consultation following its discussion at the Stakeholder Forum in. It is anticipated that it will be presented for approval by the Planning & Building Standards Committee in autumn 2013. A Development Management Charter is also in preparation with an anticipated publication date early in the New Year. 8. Continue to produce new and up dated a range of topic based and site specific On-going Supplementary Planning Guidance. A total of five new guidance notes were published in 2012/13 including Landscape and Visual Guidance on Single and Small Groups of Wind Turbines in Berwickshire, Development

19 Contributions, Local Landscape Designations, Replacement Windows and Scottish Borders Woodland Strategy

20 APPENDIX I - PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK - OFFICIAL STATISTICS

Decision-making timescales Average timescale (weeks) Total number of Category decisions 2012-2013 2011-2012 2012-2013

Major developments 10 79.1 60.8

Local developments (non- 557 26.0 25.3 householder) x Local: less than 2 months 48.8 (%) 7.4 7.3 x Local: more than 2 months 51.2 (%) 42.5 42.4

Householder developments 414 9.1 10.1 x Local: less than 2 months 81.6 (%) 7.1 7.3 x Local: more than 2 months 18.4 %) 15.4 22.2

Housing developments Major 2 71.4 59.4 Local housing developments 190 49.1 51.0 x Local: less than 2 months 24.7 (%) 7.5 7.9 x Local: more than 2 months 75.3 (%) 61.7 65.2

21 Business and industry Major 0 4.7 n/a Local business and industry 50 14.5 8.8 x Local: less than 2 months 70.0 (%) 7.1 6.9 x Local: more than 2 months 30.0 (%) 29.7 13.2

EIA developments Major 6 - 65.8

Local 0 - -

Other consents* 256 11.9 9.8

86 100.2 99.0 Planning/legal agreements**

Local Reviews 19 13.4 8.4

Decision-making: local reviews and appeals Original decision upheld Total Type number of 2011-2012 2012-2013 decisions No. % No. %

Local reviews 19 30 63 14 73.7

Appeals to Scottish 6 10 71 2 33.3 Ministers

22 Enforcement activity 2011- 2012-2013 2012

Cases taken up 240 173

Breaches identified 228 133

Cases resolved 52 103

Notices served*** 5 1

Reports to Procurator 0 0 Fiscal

Prosecutions 0 0

.

23 Appendix II - WORKFORCE AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Planning & Regulatory Services is part of the Environment & Infrastructure Department of Scottish Borders Council. The Planning & Regulatory Service consists of five business teams each led by a business manager who report to the Head of Service, Mr Brian Frater. The business teams are Forward Planning, Development Standards, Regulatory Services, Built and Natural Heritage and Major Applications, Review & Enforcement. The structure for the service is set out in the following diagram. insert new diagram

Planning & Regulatory Services has responsibility for more than just planning matters. The elements that are more directly aligned to the Planning Service consist of Development Management, Forward Planning and Major Applications, Review and Enforcement services have a professional staff compliment of … The individual teams below their managers consist of:

ƒ Development Management: 11 professional planning officers. 10 of the officers work in 4 area teams with each Team led by a Principal Officer. The remaining professional planning officer focuses on processing commercial renewable energy development throughout the Scottish Borders.

ƒ Forward Planning: 2 principals, 1 research planner, 4 professional planners and 3 GIS specialists. In addition, to the development planning function there is a responsibility for transport strategy and departmental GIS.

ƒ Major Applications, Review & Enforcement: 5 professional officers dealing with planning and building enforcement and providing an Ecological Clerk of Works for the Waverley railway project. The manager project manages major planning applications in a matrix management arrangement with Development Management staff and is the planning advisor to the Local Review Body.

24 x Built and Natural Heritage: 19 professional officers across a range of environmental fields. Whilst the relatively large access team feeds into the forward planning and development management processes , the main inputs of up to 50% of time, come from landscape ( 2FTE’s) and a number of single FTE’s, to cover built heritage and design; urban design ; trees; archaeology and ecology

x Regulatory Services: 3 Principal Officers, 13 professional environmental health officers plus 2 officers dealing with health and safety and a contaminated land officer. In addition, the Trading Standards services has a total of 13 professional officers dealing with fair trade, safety, animal health and enforcement.

The total Planning Services budget for 2012/132 (excluding Trading Standards and Environmental Health) is:

Expenditure £1,435,350 Income £972,024 to be up dated Net £463,362

These figures do not include the costs for administrative support staff, which is shared across the winder Environment & Infrastructure Department. Only partial figures for the costs incurred by the enforcement service are set out as they are funded through a joint provision in the Building Standards budget. The costs incurred for developing Transport Strategy and interaction with Heritage and Design projects are also excluded from the figures.

25 ITEM [insert Item No. ]

PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2013/14

Report by Director of Environment and Infrastructure

PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS

7 OCTOBER 2013

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report proposes that Members approve the Planning Performance Framework 2013/14, attached as Appendix 1 to this report, for submission to Scottish Ministers.

1.2 The Planning Performance Framework provides a comprehensive and co- ordinated approach to performance assessment in the Planning Service. A draft version of the framework has already been sent to Scottish Ministers as the deadline for submissions was the end of September. Scottish Ministers have been advised that the finalised report will be forwarded once approval has been given by Members. The report was reported to the Environment & Infrastructure Committee on 3 October 2013, the outcome of which will be reported to the Committee.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 I recommend that the Planning and Building Standards Committee approves the Planning Performance Framework as detailed in Appendix 1 to this report.

Planning & Building Standards – 7 October 2013 1 3 PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2013/14 3.1 The Planning Performance Framework provides a comprehensive and co- ordinated approach to performance assessment across all 34 Local Planning Authorities and 4 Strategic Development Planning Authorities in Scotland. It introduces a balanced scorecard approach to performance, similar to that introduced to the Building Standards service, which will help the Planning Service demonstrate its achievements, successes, individuality and personality. Speed of decision making still features as an important factor but it is set within a wider supporting context of quality, workloads, resources, organisation and outcomes achieved on the ground.

3.2 The Council is required to submit its Planning Performance Framework to Scottish Ministers on an annual basis. This is the second Framework produced by the Planning Service and highlights the work being undertaken to improve the quality of development being built, how we are preserving and enhancing the environment and helping to create a prosperous Borders. It demonstrates how Scottish Borders Council is delivering sustainable economic growth and meeting the Scottish Government’s wider targets and objectives for planning and the environment. In addition, the framework sets out a clear strategy for continuous improvement within the service.

4 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Financial There are no direct costs attached to any of the recommendations contained in this report.

4.2 Risk and Mitigations There are reputational implications should the Council not deliver on the improvement objectives set out in the Framework. The Services ensures that it has effective monitoring and reporting on key performance indicators set out in the PPF to deliver on these objectives.

4.3 Equalities The approval of this report has no equalities implications

4.4 Acting Sustainably The implementation of the improvements outlines in the framework will assist the Council to deliver appropriate sustainable economic development and more streamlined processes and procedures.

4.5 Carbon Management The implementation of the improvements outlines in the framework will assist the Council to deliver appropriate sustainable economic development and more streamlined processes and procedures.

4.6 Rural Proofing Not applicable.

4.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation None.

Planning & Building Standards – 7 October 2013 2 5 CONSULTATION 5.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Strategic Policy, the Head of Audit and Risk, the HR Manager and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and any comments have been incorporated into the report.

Approved by

Head of Planning & Regulatory Services Signature ………………………

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Ian Aikman Major Applications, Review & Enforcement Manager TEL : 01835 826510

Background Papers: None Previous Minute Reference: None

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at Jacqueline Whitelaw, Environment and Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA, Tel 01835 825431, Fax 01835 825071, email [email protected].

Planning & Building Standards – 7 October 2013 3 Contents Page No.

Foreword

1. Introduction 2. National Headline Indicators 3. Defining and Measuring a High-Quality Planning Service

x Open for Business x High Quality Development on the Ground x Certainty x Communications, Engagement and Customer Service x Efficient and Effective Decision-Making x Effective Management Structure x Financial Management and Local Governance x Culture of Continuous Improvement

4. Supporting Evidence 5. Service Improvements 2012-13 6. Delivery of Service Improvement Actions 2011-12

APPENDIX I - Official Statistics APPENDIX II – Workforce and Financial Information

1 FOREWORD

Photo As the Chairman of the Planning & Building Standards Committee I am pleased to be able to submit the Council’s second Planning Performance Framework. The document reflects on the service’s performance in the past year and sets out a clear programme of continuous improvement in service delivery.

The Planning Performance Framework is a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to assessing the performance of the Council’s Planning Service. Whilst speed of decision making is still an important performance indicator, the Planning Performance Framework acknowledges that success is measured in a number of different ways.

The Framework highlights the work being undertaken to improve the quality of development being built in the Borders, how we are preserving and enhancing the environment and helping to create a prosperous Borders. It demonstrates how Scottish Borders is delivering sustainable economic growth and meeting the Scottish Government’s wider targets and objectives for planning and the environment

Councillor Alex Nicol

2 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Planning services in the Scottish Borders are delivered by a range of staff in the Planning & Regulatory Services division of the Environment & Infrastructure Department. The division has undergone structural re-organisation in recent years and now benefits from the skills and knowledge of a wide range of specialist staff that contribute to the planning process, being managed directly by the Head of Planning & Regulatory Services. This year the Built and Natural Heritage Team have been incorporated into the division and this has already had a positive impact contributing towards a more collaborative and co-ordinated approach to service delivery and responding to work pressures, such as renewable development.

1.2 The Planning Service aims to maintain and improve the quality of the built environment and natural heritage whilst facilitating desirable changes which meet the economic and social needs of the Scottish Borders. We believe that the achievements outlined in our Planning Performance Frameworks, show very clearly the positive and proactive approach adopted by the service to delivering on these objectives. The success of the planning service does not just relate to how quickly it processes planning applications or produces development plans but how it demonstrates commitment to continuous improvement and how effective it is in meeting its defined objectives and delivering quality outcomes on the ground.

2.0 NATIONAL HEADLINE INDICATORS

2.1 The following table sets out Scottish Borders Council's performance against the national headline indicators set out in the performance framework. As this is the second time data has been collected in this manner it allows a direct comparison to be made in terms of performance improvement.

3 NATIONAL HEADLINE INDICATORS

Key outcomes 2011-2012 2012 -2013

Development Planning: x age of local/strategic development plan(s) Requirement Scottish Borders Consolidated x SESplan (Approved 2013) less than 5 Years Structure Plan (Approved 2009) 3 months 3 years Scottish Borders Consolidated Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan (Adopted 2011) Local Plan (Adopted 2011) 2 years 1 year Yes, The Development Plan x development plan scheme: on track? (Y/N) Yes. Updated in June 2012 and Scheme was updated in April Main Issues Report for Local 2013 and the Local Development Development Plan published 2nd Plan remains on track with the April 2012 with consultation to 25 proposed Plan being presented to June 2012 the Council in Autumn 2013 Scottish Borders Finalised Scottish Borders Finalised Effective Land Supply and Delivery of Outputs Housing Land Audit 2011 Housing Land Audit 2012 (April 2012) (March 2013)

x effective housing land: years supply 5.9 or 6.9 years 7.6 or 6.3 years x effective housing land supply 4,108 units 3,816 units x housing approvals 296 units 214 approvals in 2012

Scottish Borders Council Scottish Borders Council Employment Land Audit 2012 Employment Land Audit 2011

x effective employment land supply 19.7 ha (Immediately available) 37.3ha (Immediately available)

4 x employment land take-up 0.69 ha 1.8ha N/A N/A x effective commercial floor space supply N/A N/A x commercial floor space delivered

Development Management Project Planning x percentage of applications subject to pre-application 49 % 77 % advice x number of major applications subject to processing 0 3 agreement or other project plan x percentage planned timescales met n/a Applications still to be determined Decision-making 93% x application approval rate 93.4% 93% x delegation rate 94%

Decision-making timescales Average number of weeks to decision: 79.1 61 x major developments 26.0 17 x local developments (non-householder) 9.1 10 x householder developments

Enforcement x time since enforcement charter published / reviewed 32 44* (months) Requirement: review every 2 years x number of breaches identified / resolved 228/52 133/103

2.2 The table illustrates that the service has an up to date Development Plan to guide and facilitate development and that we continue to review and refine this policy framework. We also have a sufficient effective housing and

5 employment land identified to provide for the region's needs. In terms of Development Management, there continues to be steady progress in processing times. The service has also committed significant resources to pre-application discussions with prospective applicants. This has had implications on the service's ability to make more significant improvement to processing times for applications. Actions to accelerate performance will be referred to elsewhere in this report. The Enforcement Team has also directed resources to dealing with outstanding cases and this has seen a significant rise in the number of cases resolved last year.

3.0 DEFINING AND MEASURING A HIGH-QUALITY PLANNING SERVICE

Open for Business

3.1 The Council’s adopted scheme of delegation results in 93% of applications being delegated to officers for determination. It is anticipated that recent regulatory changes, relating to Council interest applications, will further increase the level of delegation in the coming year. The improvements in processing of applications within statutory time limits reported in last year’s report have continued this year. Performance has improved particularly on householder applications from 77% to 82%, but we have also seen 2% increases in performance of both non-householder development and in all applications to 55 % and 64% respectively.

3.2 A major influence on the performance for non householder applications continues to be is the number of legal agreements that are required to secure financial contributions for infrastructure requirements such as educational facilities, affordable housing and reinstatement of the Waverley line. The Council’s development contributions policy means that Scottish Borders continues to enter into the highest number of legal agreements of any Scottish local authority, along with the City of Edinburgh Council. We are currently undertaking a review of how we manage the legal agreement process and have investigated best practice carried out by other local authorities. Changes that we are looking to introduce through 2013/14 involve:

x drafting of Heads of Agreement earlier in the application process to help minimise the time taken to release permission once the authority has indicated it is minded to approve the development; x investigating model legal agreements; x more effective tracking and monitoring of agreement progress, and

6 x introducing a deadline for conclusion of agreements following a minded to approve decision .

3.3 In response to submissions by local developers, who have been experiencing real difficulties in the current economic climate, we are undertaking a reassessment of our development contributions policy. In particular, we are examining the thresholds that trigger application of the policy and the implications of modifying them. It is anticipated that this work will be completed soon and a report presented to Council before the end of 2013.

3.4 A number of key changes to the operation of the Development Management Team were outlined in last year’s report that enabled the service to respond to the current economic and development pressures through allocation of officers and resources and project management of major applications. In addition, the Council was successful in obtaining funding from Scottish Government that provided finance to employ, for a 6 month period, an additional planning officer from within the Built and Natural Heritage team, to process small scale wind turbines proposals as well as providing for additional landscape resource and specialist noise assessment support. For the individual and his original team, this had the dual benefit of increasing the officer’s own skills and experience and enabling transferrable skills and planning experience back to the Built and Natural Heritage team. For the development management service, the additional resource enabled us to meet our project targets of delivering more efficient planning decisions and increasing capacity and enhancing knowledge and reducing the outstanding backlog of pre-application enquiries and planning applications. In addition to providing assistance in the consideration of application, the noise consultant is being used as a training resource for Environmental Health Staff. This will provide the added benefit of an enhanced skills base to the authority going forward. . 3.5 The Council continues to have a positive and pro-active approach to pre-application enquiries and handled 1014 written provisional enquiries last year. Overall, this means that 77% of the applications received last year have had formal written provisional enquiries. This has been a significant increase on the 49% reported last year. In the coming year we will examine the most efficient way to manage and prioritise provisional enquiries.

High Quality Development on the Ground

7 3.6 The Council is committed to ensuring high quality development is delivered on the ground and it continues to up date its suite of policies, supplementary planning guidance and planning briefs to guide the determination of planning applications. A total of five new guidance notes were published in 2012/13 including:

x Landscape and Visual Guidance on Single and Small Groups of Wind Turbines in Berwickshire, x Development Contributions, x Local Landscape Designations, x Replacement Windows and x Interim review of the Scottish Borders Woodland Strategy.

We have also identified an extensive list of Supplementary Planning Guidance that will be included the Local Development Plan with an identified programme for review and updating.

3.7 The Council has developed a strong monitoring system including regular reports and specific audits covering housing, employment land, vacant land, town centres, and rural communities. This is essential to maintain an up to date Development Plan, and also provides the backdrop to the Council duties related to Strategic Environmental Assessment. The technical support to the service functions has been further strengthened by the adoption of a departmental approach to the provision of a GIS service. This has been taken forward as part of a defined action plan aimed at promoting GIS across the department. This approach will be further embedded into corporate activities over the coming year. In addition, with recent changes to the service's structure we have even better access to cultural and heritage specialists, landscape architects and urban design skills to promote the creation of good quality development and well designed places.

3.8 The Council is only one of two local authorities to be chosen by the Scottish Government to undertake regional pilots for the Land use Strategy. Aberdeenshire and Scottish Borders will both seek to apply the National Land Use objectives at a regional scale, to seek a more integrated approach to land management and to achieve multiple benefits. The project which was announced in February 2013 will be completed by March 2015. The project outcomes will feed into the review of national strategy in 2016.

3.9 The publication of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking & Design, along with the Government’s Design series, was seen as a major step change in driving the quality agenda forward. One of

8 the key work streams identified in this year’s improvement work streams is to assess the success and influence of this guidance. This will involve a thorough examination of the projects as they are developing on the ground and one of the main case studies will be the development by Persimmon Homes at Easter Langlee. The lessons learned from this process will be co-ordinated by the Peer Review Group with the findings then being disseminated to all relevant staff through training sessions. The SPG was commended in a recent audit by the Scottish Government on the implementation of Designing Streets.

Photos of developments on site- x Dovecot road, Peebles . x Abbotsford (also subject to a Royal opening) x Heriot -Watt University residences x Fallago Rig windfarm

3.10 As demonstrated through the number of provisional enquires the service deals with, we continue to engage proactively with developers This has involved design workshops, master planning and collaborative working with responsive developers on a number of development sites and in particular with our engagement with the renewables industry.

3.11 The success and innovative approach of the Council’s Renewable and Biodiversity offset scheme, which received a commendation from the Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning last year, has been acknowledged further in the joint RSPB / RTPI publication “Planning Naturally” as a case study illustrating the principles of good spatial planning in the categories considering alternative options that are less damaging to the environment which contribute to sustainable development and delivering enhancing the natural environment. Our pioneering approach to biodiversity offsets is also profiled in "2020 Challenge for Scotland's Biodiversity" recently launched by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse. The monies realised through this mechanism have led to positive outcomes on the ground with Offset biodiversity works completed in Gala Water, underway on the Eddleston Water and those linked to Selkirk Flood Prevention Scheme. PHOTOS…

9 3.12 The Kelso THI is led by the Council and is now in Year 4 of the Initiative. All of the key milestones have been met with 37 restoration projects completed or on site and a further range of projects committed and being assessed. Phase 0ne of the major public realm works of £1.9m are completed with the resurfacing of the pavements in sandstone flags and stakeholder agreement reached on the interventions, all in line with aims of “Creating Places”. A contract for £700,000 has been let by the Council for the new business and Transport hub and this will remove an ugly gap site and enhance the streetscape whilst providing modern flexible business space and integration with public transport. This is complemented by the Education and Training programme with Year 2, the Abbey completed and further progress on Building Watch. The Council has secured a further conservation led regeneration scheme for Selkirk.

3.13 In terms of preserving built heritage, the Council has taken action to secure the future of Category A listed building at Sunnybrae, Walkerburn. We are pursuing a CPO and have allocated £152,000 in the capital programme to undertake an external restoration. This is one of a number of proactive measures within its prioritised Building at Risk Register and we are playing our part in meeting the Historic Scotland National Indicator of seeking to reduce the percentage of Category A listed buildings at risk. This year, also saw the completion of the remodelling of Market Square in Galashiels as part of its commitment to Spaces for Life. .

3.14 The Peebles - Innerleithen Shared Access Route is a six mile off-road path that follows the line of a former railway, providing good quality sustainable access between the two towns and the village of Cardrona. The project included the excavation and restoration of an old railway tunnel and the construction of a new bridge over the River Tweed along with the provision of a surfaced path that links the communities together and also provides safer off-road access to two world class mountain bike centres at Glentress and Innerleithen. The project was developed over a six year period with funding provided from a number of different sources including Europe (SRDP),Sustrans, Scottish Government and Scottish Borders Council. The route is currently very well used and it is hoped that it will attract more people to the area and encourage more people to become more active. The Scottish Government's Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse officially opened the route in August.

Photos………..

10 Photos

. Certainty

3.16 The Council has an up to date Development Plan and has produced a range of topic based Supplementary Planning Guidance, as well as site specific planning briefs. The Council has an up to date, clear and robust policy framework for the determination of planning applications and information and guidance available to applicants and interested parties alike. All of these documents are available on the Council’s web site. The Council is delivering on the Development Plan Action Plan and will be reporting the Proposed Local Development Plan to Council in the autumn of 2013. This, along with the SESplan Strategic Development Plan approved in June 2013 will provide the Development Plan for the next period.

3.17 Following its meeting on 26 January 2012, the Council agreed the Main Issues Report of the Local Development Plan as a basis for public consultation for a period of 12 weeks. The consultation also covered the Environmental Report on the content of the Main Issues Report. As part of the consultation there were a series of 9 drop-in exhibitions held across the council area. Some 278 representations were received covering around 1000 issues. The Environmental Report received positive responses from the three Consulting Authorities (SNH, SEPA, Historic Scotland). The Council considered a report on the responses to the Main Issues Report of the Local Development Plan at its meeting on 25 October 2012. A further report will be presented to the Council on 25 September 2013 to complete consideration of the representations and to consider the Proposed Local Development Plan.

3.18 The Service has maintained its high rate of success at Local Review with 73.7% of the appointed officer’s decisions being upheld in 2012/13 There has been a drop in the number of appeals to Directorate of Planning & Environmental Appeals and also a reduction in the Council’s success rate to with only 33.3% of its decisions being upheld. This is in contrast to previous years where the Council had always been in the upper quartile of success at appeal. Notwithstanding, the Council has displayed a consistency of decision making that is based on an up to date Development Plan and planning guidance. The Service’s willingness to engage in pre application consultation also helps to reduce uncertainty and stimulate confidence in the planning process.

11 3.18 The planning service continues to maintain and develop its collaborative working with external agencies through the Community Planning Partnership and involvement with SESPlan. In addition, the Service has strong links with the local housing network and all of the Social Registered Landlords in the Borders through involvement with the New Borders Alliance and internally with Housing Strategy Colleagues in the Housing and Planning Liaison Group. A tripartite forum has also been set up with Scottish Water and Scottish Environment Protection Agency to discuss on going development and infrastructure issues and to enable in put into the development planning process.

Communications, Engagement and Customer Service

3.19 The Planning Service took part in the BBC2 documentary “The Planners, and was featured in three of the episodes. Filming took place over a period of 6 months during which the documentary makers had access to staff and councillors through all stages of the decision making process. The cases included in the programmes related to the development of a poultry farm at Lamanacha and housing developments at Carolside, Earlston and in Foulden village. The programmes featured the work of the individual planning officers, the planning committee and the Local Review Body, as well as applicants and their agents and member of the public. The programmes were well balanced and illustrated how the planning service assesses applications and balances the various issues in coming to a decision. The service’s contribution to the programmes was positively received and reflected well on the openness, professionalism and integrity of the planning service in the Borders.

3.20 The Council’s Public Access portal continues to be well used and appreciated by customers. We have continued to promote the uptake of electronic submission of applications with agents and developers and the yearly average of applications now received on-line stands at 35.75%, with a peak of 44.2% in the third quarter.

3.21 Following on from last year’s major upgrade of the Council’s web site many of the areas for improvement outlined in the 2011 Pendleton review of Scottish planning authorities’ web sites have been addressed. In addition, the web site also gained three out of four stars in SOCITM’s (the Society of IT Managers) survey, narrowly missing out on a four star rating. SiteMorse.com have listed our web site as the best local authority website in Scotland and also ranked it third in the whole of the UK . Their survey examined the usability, accessibility, reliability and performance of all council sites. Only three years ago, the same study ranked the council's

12 previous website as 148th in the UK. The planning service continues to maintain a range of information on the planning pages including the On-Line Development Plan, windfarm data bases and plans, which have been added to the web site in response to customer requests. A numbers of on-line forms for general planning contacts, planning enforcement and pre-application enquiries and provides a range of information for customers.

3.22 The Council has a formal complaints procedure and has the facility for customers to complain using an on-line form. In terms of complaints reporting there were a total of 32 complaints about the wider planning service, of which seven were justified in full or in part. The majority of the justified complaints related to a delay in providing service and one related to an employee’s attitude. The Department has respond to the findings of these investigations by indentifying staff training needs and service improvements in business plans and the Planning Performance Framework.

3.23 The Council has an just completed a consultation on its new Planning and Building Standards Enforcement Charter that sets out the standards of service to be expected, and shows what happens at each stage in the process. It is anticipated that this will be formally adopted in autumn 2013. A Development Management Charter is also in preparation with an anticipated publication date early in the New Year

3.24 The Council has held an annual stakeholder forum since 2001. The format of the forum has been altered following feedback from stakeholders and now features a range of topic based forums throughout the year, when required. In 2013, the Stakeholder was a joint event with agents, developer and community Councils providing an update on recent organisational changes, the Local Development Plan, plus proposed changes to Building Standards and was the vehicles for the launch of the bi-annual design competition and the consultation on the new enforcement charter. In addition, a series of training session were held last year in local communities outlining Council policy on renewables and how communities should engage with both developers and the Council on planning applications.

3.25 The Council has now developed customer satisfaction survey and customer feedback forms on the web site and last year organised a Household Survey that went to all households in the Borders. In view of this corporate initiative, it was decided to defer the development of our own customer questionnaire in Planning & Regulatory Services so that to analyse whether we would get sufficient useful data from the corporate project.

13 Efficient and Effective Decision-Making

3.26 The Council has adopted a scheme of delegation that provides a high level of officer delegation with only 6% of applications being referred to the Planning & Building Standards Committee. The Planning & Building Standards Committee is held on a monthly basis sitting on the first Monday of each month during the day. A streamlined process is in place for Planning application reports which are not subject to the normal lead in time and consultation periods required for other forms of Committee report. This avoids unnecessary delays in their determination. The Local Review Body also meets on a monthly basis but has had to sit on several occasions on a particular month due to workload or the implications of further procedure, in the form of hearing sessions and site visits. A review is currently underway into the operation of both decision making bodies in terms of their composition and operation and this should be reported to the Council before the end of 2013. This is seeking to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the Committee and LRB and to ensure that a suitable pool of well trained members is available to serve on these bodies.

3.29 A key element of ensuring effective decision making is the provision of member training. This is undertaken before any members of the Planning Committee or Local Review Body can sit on these bodies and refresher training is provided as and when requested or required. There is an ongoing programme of member training and seminars in place to ensure that members are fully equipped to consider the planning application presented to them.

3.30 There is a dedicated Forward Planning team tasked with the delivery of Development Plans and Supplementary Guidance. All Development Plan documents are considered by full Council, and this process is assisted by the Development Plan Working Group consisting of key members and officers.

Effective Management Structure

3.31 The key elements of the restructuring of the Environment & Infrastructure Department was review was concluded last year however, further modifications have followed with Built and Natural Heritage now

14 under the Head of Planning & Regulatory Services. This has allowed further integration within the new Department with specialist officers in landscape, archaeology, ecology, built heritage and access through project management of major applications, Peer Review Group and joint project working. The Development Management and Building Standards teams are led by the same manager, bringing greater integration on all aspects of development proposals and assistance on enforcement matters. This has ensured a quick and effective response to development proposals, consistency of decision making and wider understanding of the cross linkages and relationships required to deliver planning objectives. The ability to use secondment officers within the service has been utilised to address work pressures and response to key projects. In addition, the making of ‘virtual’ contribution to SESplan; the Forward Planning team includes strategic transportation, research and information and GIS staff to support the process.

Financial Management and Local Governance

3.32 There are significant budget pressures facing the planning service due to wider Council funding efficiencies and in particular the continuing low levels of planning fee income. A stringent budget monitoring process has been put in place to monitor and report on budget pressures on a monthly basis. A close working relationship between budget holders and finance staff has been developed to address these issues while still delivering on the Council’s planning aspirations.

3.33 There are regular senior management meetings in the department to consider budget and efficiency measures to enable the services to be provided cost effectively.

3.34 There has been significant effort from officers to seek funding from agencies and engaging with various agencies or bodies to deliver projects and regeneration on the ground. This has involved officers working in a facilitatory role or in partnership with these groups. The largest example is Kelso THI but the award winning offset biodiversity programme has resulted in implementation agreements with Tweed Forum; Borders Forest Trust; Southern Upland Partnership and the Game Conservancy Council. Several key Buildings at Risk have been completed by external parties through financial partnership in the last year, most notably The Haining stableblock (Category A) and Fatlips Castle ( scheduled).

15 3.35 In terms of the Council’s direct action under enforcement legislation the Council has a robust procedure in place to recover of costs incurred.

3.36 The Council now has a highly development and effective contributions collection and spend systems in place. This is administered by the Development Negotiator and finance staff which feeds into the delivery of key service infrastructure, such as schools facilities, the Borders railway line and affordable housing

Culture of continuous improvement

3.37 The Planning Service continues to ensure that there is sufficient budget provision for staff training. A rationalisation and reorganisation of the departmental budget and training programme has been completed this year to ensure that we can assist officers to meet their Continuing Professional Development obligations, through attendance at courses and conferences, opportunities have been funded for staff to undertake longer term study. Staff training has also been supplemented by in house training sessions through a programme of lunch time seminars. Speakers provide an in sight into their area of expertise or to a particular project..

3.38 Member training continues to been provided in advance of sitting on the planning Committee and Local Review Body. This has been supplemented by refresher sessions and presentations have been made to Members at Committee on particular topics such a development contributions, natural and built heritage and affordable housing.

3.39 The Council’s own appraisal process has been reviewed and rolled out, and has been used in the planning service as a means of reinforcing the performance culture at all levels of the department. Using this process, staff have been given goals and projects to assist in the delivery of the aims set out in this Performance Framework, but also wider departmental and corporate objectives

4.0 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

4.1 Part 2 of this report was compiled drawing on evidence from the following sources:

16 x Scottish Borders Council Planning Performance Framework 2012/13 x Scottish Borders Housing Land Audit. x Scottish Borders Retail Audit and Footfall Survey. x Scottish Borders Employment Land Audit. x Scottish Borders Rural Facilities Audit. x Scottish Borders Vacant Land Audit. x E&I GIS Review. x Business Plans for service teams within Environment & Infrastructure Department. x Environment and Infrastructure Department budget x Uniform data management system. x Development Management Workload and Performance Briefing Notes. Monthly bulletin for Members. x Scottish Borders Council Web Site planning information pages & Public Access.

4.2 The documents and information mentioned above are available on line or by approach to Planning & Regulatory Services.

5.0 SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS 2013-14

5.1 The Planning Service has identified a number of key service and performance improvement measures for 2012/13 and these are set out below:

x Deliver on Development Management Improvement Plan work streams: 1. pre-application enquiries 2. legal agreements 3. Processing Agreements 4. Performance workshop with staff

x How to improve stakeholder engagement x Developer Contribution thresholds x Design review and evaluation of Placemaking and Design Guidance

17 x Evaluate progress with windfarm applications x Examine compliance issues with landscaping x Evaluate RDN with Historic Scotland x Deliver programme of new and up dated SPG's

6.0 DELIVERY OF IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS 2012-13

6.1 There are a number of areas for service improvement identified in the first PPF that involve on-going actions, whose implementation will be subject to continuous monitoring and assessment. The specific commitments made in the PPF last year, along with the actions taken and progress made, are set out below:

Committed improvements and actions Complete? 1. Deliver the Local Development Plan. The Proposed Local Development Plan will be presented to full Council in the Autumn of 2013. The On-going timescales set out in the Development Plan Scheme have been met. The final adoption of the Plan will be influenced by progress on the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Housing required by SESPlan.

2. Promote the continued regeneration of built heritage in the Scottish Borders through the delivery of a Townscape Heritage Initiative for Selkirk. Yes The bid has been successful for a Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme (CARS) and £795,000 secured from Historic Scotland towards a Common Fund of £1,010,000 plus capital monies of £350,000from SBC. A project manager has been appointed and the Scheme will run from October 2013 to March 2018.

3. Produce a third iteration of the Development Management Improvement Plan to drive forward performance and design quality. Partially/On-going Work has commenced and has been on-going throughout the year in terms of protocols, linked to work on legal agreements processes and identification of various work streams and projects relating to design quality review, pre-application enquiries, stakeholder/customer engagement, web site development, development of processing agreements

18 4. Widen the role of the Peer Review Group of senior officers to introduce a review process to analyse completed developments and roll out of design training for staff On-going The Peer Group continues to act as a vehicle for design assessment and feedback to officers. The Group draws in officers from various specialists areas when required. It will be the forum to take forward the various works streams that are flowing from the Development Management Improvement Plan.

5. Improve the processing of major applications through better project management and the further develop in-house Project Teams and the use of processing agreements. Investigate options for the more efficient conclusion of legal agreements. On-going As part of the ongoing work streams linked to the Development Management Improvement Plan we are examining how to best use processing agreements. Although no agreements have been reported in this year's figures we have been in discussions with a number of developer and a number of agreements have been entered into out with the reporting period for this PPF.

6. Continue to run Stakeholder Forum based on a number of topic or audience specific forums throughout the year. We will introduce customer questionnaires to obtain further Yes feedback on service provision. A well attended Stakeholder Forum with agents/developers and Community Council held on ...... it addressed changes to the service giving information on its expanded remit and services, information on Building Standard changes and the launch of the consultation on the Joint Planning Building Standards Enforcement Charter and the bi-annual design awards.

7. Publish a Development Management Charter and updated Enforcement Charter to set out clearly how the Service will manage the planning process and investigate and resolve Partially/On-going planning breaches. The draft Enforcement Charter has been produced and was launched for a formal consultation following its discussion at the Stakeholder Forum in. It is anticipated that it will be presented for approval by the Planning & Building Standards Committee in autumn 2013. A Development Management Charter is also in preparation with an anticipated publication date early in the New Year. 8. Continue to produce new and up dated a range of topic based and site specific On-going Supplementary Planning Guidance. A total of five new guidance notes were published in 2012/13 including Landscape and Visual Guidance on Single and Small Groups of Wind Turbines in Berwickshire, Development

19 Contributions, Local Landscape Designations, Replacement Windows and Scottish Borders Woodland Strategy

20 APPENDIX I - PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK - OFFICIAL STATISTICS

Decision-making timescales Average timescale (weeks) Total number of Category decisions 2012-2013 2011-2012 2012-2013

Major developments 10 79.1 60.8

Local developments (non- 557 26.0 25.3 householder) x Local: less than 2 months 48.8 (%) 7.4 7.3 x Local: more than 2 months 51.2 (%) 42.5 42.4

Householder developments 414 9.1 10.1 x Local: less than 2 months 81.6 (%) 7.1 7.3 x Local: more than 2 months 18.4 %) 15.4 22.2

Housing developments Major 2 71.4 59.4 Local housing developments 190 49.1 51.0 x Local: less than 2 months 24.7 (%) 7.5 7.9 x Local: more than 2 months 75.3 (%) 61.7 65.2

21 Business and industry Major 0 4.7 n/a Local business and industry 50 14.5 8.8 x Local: less than 2 months 70.0 (%) 7.1 6.9 x Local: more than 2 months 30.0 (%) 29.7 13.2

EIA developments Major 6 - 65.8

Local 0 - -

Other consents* 256 11.9 9.8

86 100.2 99.0 Planning/legal agreements**

Local Reviews 19 13.4 8.4

Decision-making: local reviews and appeals Original decision upheld Total Type number of 2011-2012 2012-2013 decisions No. % No. %

Local reviews 19 30 63 14 73.7

Appeals to Scottish 6 10 71 2 33.3 Ministers

22 Enforcement activity 2011- 2012-2013 2012

Cases taken up 240 173

Breaches identified 228 133

Cases resolved 52 103

Notices served*** 5 1

Reports to Procurator 0 0 Fiscal

Prosecutions 0 0

.

23 Appendix II - WORKFORCE AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Planning & Regulatory Services is part of the Environment & Infrastructure Department of Scottish Borders Council. The Planning & Regulatory Service consists of five business teams each led by a business manager who report to the Head of Service, Mr Brian Frater. The business teams are Forward Planning, Development Standards, Regulatory Services, Built and Natural Heritage and Major Applications, Review & Enforcement. The structure for the service is set out in the following diagram. insert new diagram

Planning & Regulatory Services has responsibility for more than just planning matters. The elements that are more directly aligned to the Planning Service consist of Development Management, Forward Planning and Major Applications, Review and Enforcement services have a professional staff compliment of … The individual teams below their managers consist of:

ƒ Development Management: 11 professional planning officers. 10 of the officers work in 4 area teams with each Team led by a Principal Officer. The remaining professional planning officer focuses on processing commercial renewable energy development throughout the Scottish Borders.

ƒ Forward Planning: 2 principals, 1 research planner, 4 professional planners and 3 GIS specialists. In addition, to the development planning function there is a responsibility for transport strategy and departmental GIS.

ƒ Major Applications, Review & Enforcement: 5 professional officers dealing with planning and building enforcement and providing an Ecological Clerk of Works for the Waverley railway project. The manager project manages major planning applications in a matrix management arrangement with Development Management staff and is the planning advisor to the Local Review Body.

24 x Built and Natural Heritage: 19 professional officers across a range of environmental fields. Whilst the relatively large access team feeds into the forward planning and development management processes , the main inputs of up to 50% of time, come from landscape ( 2FTE’s) and a number of single FTE’s, to cover built heritage and design; urban design ; trees; archaeology and ecology

x Regulatory Services: 3 Principal Officers, 13 professional environmental health officers plus 2 officers dealing with health and safety and a contaminated land officer. In addition, the Trading Standards services has a total of 13 professional officers dealing with fair trade, safety, animal health and enforcement.

The total Planning Services budget for 2012/132 (excluding Trading Standards and Environmental Health) is:

Expenditure £1,435,350 Income £972,024 to be up dated Net £463,362

These figures do not include the costs for administrative support staff, which is shared across the winder Environment & Infrastructure Department. Only partial figures for the costs incurred by the enforcement service are set out as they are funded through a joint provision in the Building Standards budget. The costs incurred for developing Transport Strategy and interaction with Heritage and Design projects are also excluded from the figures.

25