APPENDIX B
Summary of Representations
Berwickshire Housing Market Area Central Housing Market Area Northern Housing Market Area General comments Internal consultation responses Berwickshire Housing Market Area
Ayton - AAYTO004: Page 1 onwards Coldstream - ACOLD009: Page 3 - ACOLD011: Page 3 onwards - ACOLD008: Page 5 Duns - MDUNS005: Page 2 & Page 10 onwards Gordon - AGORD004: Page 2 & Page 12 Greenlaw - AGREE008: Page 13 onwards - AGREE007: Page 14 Reston - AREST004: Page 15 onwards - AREST003: Page 16 onwards S ET T L EM EN T S ITEN AM E& CO N TRIBU TO R CO M M EN T SU M M ARYO FREPRESEN TATION PRO PO SEDRESPO N SE RECO M M EN DATION S ITECO DE T YP E
Ayton Land North of Edwin Thompson Object to the Disagree with the proposed indicative The proposed site lies within Ayton and the It is recommended that High Street on behalf of the proposed site site capacity for 6 units and state it surrounding area is characteristically lower Land North of High (AAYTO004) land owner RH & capacity should be increased to 12 units, taking density, with bungalows evident. Each site Street, Ayton DH Allan into account the following must be assessed on its own merits, taking (AAYTO004) is included considerations; into consideration the context of the site. within the Finalised Supplementary The site is located within the Ayton In this instance, it is considered that a site Guidance on Housing. village boundary, characterised by capacity for 6 units is more in keeping with pockets of varying housing densities the character of Ayton. and a mixture of house styles; 12 units would be in keeping with the However, it should be noted that the site mixture of densities within Ayton and capacity contained within the Housing SG is would be 17 units per ha. The sites only indicative. A site layout, with an within Ayton vary from 7-31 units per increased site capacity, could be tested ha; through the submission of a planning Planning consent was previously application, whilst ensuring compliance with granted for 5 units in 2006, within the relevant LDP policies. part of this site. It seems at odds for planning permission to have been granted on the site at a density of 24 units per ha, in comparison to now recommending 8 units per ha; Large garden type developments within Ayton are not in demand; Most of the other preferred or alternative sites include densities of 17-20 units per ha; 12 units is a more appropriate number, to deal with the housing shortfall, in comparison to 6 units. Ayton Land North of Smith and Object to the The contributor states that the site is Appendix 2, as contained within the LDP, It is recommended that High Street Garratt on behalf inclusion of covered by existing development policies, provides a windfall assumption, which is Land North of High (AAYTO004) of Millar Land North of therefore including the site within the SG included within the overall potential Street, Ayton Partnership and High Street does not increase the availability and contribution towards the housing (AAYTO004) is included David Wilson (AAYTO004) choice of available sites. requirement (up to 2025). within the Finalised 1 Homes within the Supplementary Housing SG, Objects to the inclusion of the site on the The Scottish Borders is rural in character and Guidance on Housing. stating that it grounds that it is capable of being a large proportion of the windfall is covered by developed in accordance with existing assumption is provided for by housing in the existing planning policies and the inclusion within countryside approvals. development the Housing SG would not help the policies Council in meeting the requirements of The LDP provides development the SG. opportunities within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development opportunities within settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities. Ayton Land North of SEPA Support Support the development requirement to Comments are noted. It is recommended that High Street consider the adjacent watercourse in the Land North of High (AAYTO004) detailed design of the site. Street, Ayton (AAYTO004) is included within the Finalised Supplementary Guidance on Housing. Ayton 1. Land North Edwin Thompson Object to the Disagree with the distribution of sites The Housing SG seeks to identify an It is recommended that Gordon of High Street on behalf of distribution of contained within the SG, to deal with the additional 916 housing units, to meet the Land North of High Duns (AAYTO004) several land housing sites housing shortfall. There has been an identified shortfall. It was considered that in Street, Ayton owners; within the unfair allocation for Berwickshire, which order to distribute the shortfall of housing, (AAYTO004) is included 2. Land at Eden Borders, should be increased to comply with (3.5) broadly within the SDA’s and surrounding within the Finalised Road 1. RH & DH Hall specifically as contained within the SG. area, the population projections for each Supplementary (AGORD004) (AAYTO004) Berwickshire SDA and surrounding area were assessed. Guidance on Housing. The SG states it will look to provide These projections were used as a guide for 3. South of 2. Miles Browne additional sites broadly in line with the allocating sites. However, it should be noted It is recommended that Earlsmeadow: (AGORD004) population projections; 20% that the LDP does not specify a distribution Land at Eden Road, Phase 1 Berwickshire, 60% Central and 20% for the additional 916 units. Gordon (AGORD004) & (MDUNS005) 3. G W Thomson Northern HMA. The allocations within the South of Earlsmeadow: and Sons SG are split approximately; 15% It is acknowledged that 100 units are Phase 1, Duns (MDUNS005) Berwickshire, 15% Northern and 70% included as the preferred site Hillview North (MDUNS005) are not Central. 1: Phase 1 (ACOLD011), in Coldstream. included within the Policy HD4, contained within the LDP states Finalised Supplementary The majority of the Berwickshire that, ‘The longer term housing and mixed Guidance on Housing. allocation is within Coldstream for 100 use sites identified in the plan will be 2 units and this does not show an even considered first, but that will not preclude distribution throughout Berwickshire. looking beyond those in the event that the shortfall cannot be met from those sites’. ACOLD011 forms part of an identified longer term housing site within the LDP. The site ACOLD011 was considered acceptable for housing as part of the SG process.
Sites in Ayton & Reston, in Berwickshire, are also contained within the SG. Coldstream 1. Hillview Scott Hobbs Object to the 1. Welcome the SG and support the 1. Comments are noted. It is recommended that North 1 Planning on exclusion of findings in relation to the overall site as Hillview North 1: Phase (ACOLD009) behalf of the Hillview North outlined at ACOLD009. Recognise the SBC 2. The Council note the support for the 1, Coldstream land owner 1 (ACOLD009) position that the 200 unit capacity of inclusion of the overall Hill View North site (ACOLD011) is included 2. Hillview Lennel Estate from the ACOLD009 may be beyond the housing ACOLD009 within the Housing SG. However, within the Finalised North 1: Phase Housing SG land requirement as outlined in the SG. the purpose of the Housing SG is to ensure Supplementary 1 (ACOLD011) and propose that the Council maintains a 5 year effective Guidance on Housing. the site is A Development Framework (DF) has been housing land supply, for the LDP period. The taken forward prepared in relation to the overall site, submission indicates that Phase 1 will be It is recommended that opposed to considering a hybrid approach between effective within the LDP period, however Hillview North 1, only Hillview ACOLD009 and ACOLD011, which allows Phase 2 delivery will be up to 2035. Coldstream (ACOLD009) North 1: Phase a longer term approach to be taken to Therefore, Phase 2 will not be effective is not included within 1 (ACOLD011) the site, providing certainty going within the LDP period. However, the site will the Finalised forward. The DF concludes that the remain identified within the LDP for longer Supplementary Council’s estimated capacity for term housing development. Guidance on Housing. ACOLD011 is 200 units, and that these can be satisfactorily accommodated 3. Comments are noted. within the landscape setting of Coldstream, whilst enabling potential future access to additional housing land to the west and facilitating the ongoing expansion of the business land to the east. The DF includes 2 phases, with each phase accommodating 100 units, including all the site requirements contained within the SG. The DF provides a site layout, incorporating ACOLD009, ACOLD011 and the longer term site to the west. 3 2. The land owner seeks inclusion of the overall Hill View North ACOLD009 site within the SG, albeit accompanied by a clear statement to the effect that it will be developed over 2 phases. Phase 1 should relate to the current LDP period, while Phase 2 to the period 2035. This has the advantage of providing certainty for the Council, the Estate and the tenant farmer over the long term future of the land.
3. No disputing the effectiveness of the overall site, which is in a single ownership, and highly marketable. Services are available and there are no constraints to the site being brought forward for development, subject to detailed planning permission being secured. Coldstream Hillview North Ferguson Object to the Question the deliverability of the site The Council note the comments. It is recommended that 1: Phase 1 Planning deliverability over the LDP lifespan, as it was allocated Hillview North 1: Phase (ACOLD011) on behalf of of Hillview for ‘longer term’ development within the Policy HD4: Meeting the Housing Land 1, Coldstream Roxburghe North 1: Phase LDP. Requirement/Further Housing Land (ACOLD011) is included Estates 1 (ACOLD011) Safeguarding, states that ‘The longer term within the Finalised housing and mixed use sites identified in the Supplementary plan will be considered first, but that will not Guidance on Housing. preclude looking beyond those in the event that the shortfall cannot be met from those sites considered to have acceptable impacts’.
The owner of ACOLD011 has submitted supporting documentation (Development Framework), as part of the consultation process. There are 3 housing allocations within Coldstream and 1 is actively being developed at present. 4 It is considered that releasing (Phase 1) of the longer term housing site for 100 units, will be a sufficient contribution towards the housing shortfall, as part of the Housing SG. This would retain the northern part of the longer term site for future housing. It is considered that (Phase 1) of the site will be effective within the plan period. Coldstream 1. Land at Savills on behalf Object to the S upportinclusionofACO L D008 Comments are noted. It is recommended that Ladies Field of the land exclusion of Land at Ladies Field, (ACOLD008) owner Land at Ladies 1. ACOLD008 should be brought forward ACO L D008 Coldstream (ACOLD008) Field as a preferred housing site, contributing In 2007 Scottish Borders Council (SBC) is not included within 2. Hillview (ACOLD008) to the effective housing land supply and commissioned an independent landscape the Finalised North 1: Phase from the requirement for Berwickshire, instead of consultant to carry out a Landscape Capacity Supplementary 1 (ACOLD011) Housing SG ACOLD011. ACOLD011 is unlikely to be Study within the Scottish Borders with a Guidance on Housing. and propose it developed in the time frame. view to identifying areas which may be replaces the suitable for housing development. With It is recommended that preferred 2. The clients are in discussions with the regards to Coldstream, land to the north of Hillview North 1: Phase housing Council in regard to the provision of a the town was identified. With regards to the 1, Coldstream allocation cemetery within Coldstream, which could site in question the study stated that (ACOLD011) is included Hillview North be located on part of the Ladies Field site. development within the ‘Wooded Policies within the Finalised 1: Phase 1 The cemetery could be relevant to this and Pasture’ character area is constrained Supplementary (ACOLD011) representation because the installation by the elevated location of the open field, its Guidance on Housing. of services for the cemetery could detachment from the settlement and the significantly enhance the marketability role which the rising ground and substantial and effectiveness of a housing site. woodlands play in creating a sense of containment for the settlement edge. These 3. The reference to the woodland on the policy woodlands also contribute to the eastern boundary of the site, being a wider setting of the town, and the River strong and natural boundary to Tweed, as well as for The Lees, and provide Coldstream is inaccurate, for a number of a well-used recreational resource for the reasons; settlement. In addition, it complements the policies associated with Belmont House on a) The settlement boundary extends the eastern side of the town, as together west of the site on the other side of they frame the town and its distinctive the road, encompassing the health topographical location. and dental facility in this location. As a result built development of ACOLD008 was previously considered for 5 Coldstream extends to the north and inclusion as part of the Local Plan west of this site; Amendment (LPA). The site was subject to b) A‘Welcome to Coldstream’ sign is Examination by the Reporter and was not located a significant distance north taken forward as part of the LPA. The site and west of the site; was again considered for inclusion as part of c) There is a pavement and street the Local Development Plan (LDP) process. It lighting extending a significant was concluded that the site was separated distance west of the site; from Coldstream by means of very mature d) The 30mph speed limit is located a and substantial tree belt, and not significant distance west of the site; appropriate for development, as it extends e) There are three houses to the north beyond the mature woodland which finished of the site and a further dwelling on the boundary to the settlement and would the same side of the road to the west affect the woodland policy setting. of the site. Therefore there is already a precedent for residential It is noted that the clients are in separate development in the locale. discussions with the Council, regarding the provision of a cemetery on part of the site. It 4. There are no known biodiversity is acknowledged that the issue of a new issues/considerations associated with the cemetery needs to be addressed as a matter site, which would preclude development. of urgency. Any proposal for housing and/or cemetery would require to be tested 5. The proposal would not affect the through the development management policies/other woodland in the vicinity of process and would need to be in compliance the site. The development could be with the LDP process, specifically Policy incorporated at the site, which would not PMD4: Development Outwith Development extend development along Kelso Road, Boundaries. which the Landscape Capacity Study identifies as damaging the sense of An independent study has identified the site arrival into Coldstream. The development in question as the preferred location for a would not be visible from the western new cemetery. The landowners have stated approach to Coldstream, due to the they will only allow a cemetery on the land, woodland on the western side of the site, if they are allowed an element of housing. and as a result development does not affect the factors raised by the Landscape Previous submissions in respect of the LDP Capacity Study. Views into the site are have resulted in the site not being limited due to existing mature trees considered appropriate for a housing above the banks of the River Tweed. The allocation. It is not considered the proposed Landscape Study also identifies that the cemetery as part of the overall package is site performs very well in terms of sufficient grounds. 6 sustainability criteria, a key element of placemaking considerations. ACO L D011
6. Landscape concerns are addressed It should be noted that ACOLD011 is already within their EDAW report from 2009, identified within the LDP as an area for they see no counter evidence to the longer term housing development. Policy findings of this document within the HD4 states that ‘The longer term housing Council’s assessment. and mixed use sites identified in the plan will be considered first’. 7. The client states that the field has never been used for agriculture and so The site assessment concluded that there would be no net loss in productive ACOLD011 integrates well into the land if the site was developed. The settlement and appropriate landscaping and presence of the River Tweed SSSI is not planting. There is good infrastructure, considered relevant. connectivity opportunities, including road access from the adjacent employment 8. See no evidence as to potential allocation. It is considered that phase 1 of archaeological issues, however, this could the overall longer term allocation would be be confirmed in due course and would effective with the remainder of the site not preclude development. The client has retained for future development. no knowledge of a Reporter having visited the site. The owner of ACOLD011 has submitted supporting documentation and a 9. It is highly unlikely that the Development Framework for the site, combination of the allocated sites would supporting its effectiveness. come forward to deliver 60-100 units. They are aware that a number of allocations in Coldstream have not come forward over an extended period of time.
10. There is already an existing FRA and Transport Study for Ladies Field. A Masterplan is not required as a DF has already been produced. Major services can be taken from the adjacent road. The access road would, in principle, be delivered through the siting of the cemetery, and this helps viability of development by removing a major 7 infrastructure cost. No landscape buffer is required for this site and there is no need to build pedestrian or cycle links.
11. M & J Ballantyne have expressed an interest in the Ladies Field site. As a result, the prospect of development at Ladies Field over the lifetime of the LDP is considerably higher than at ACOLD011.
12. The clients believe that Ladies Field is a highly effective and deliverable housing site that is ready to contribute towards the additional housing requirement over the next 5 years.
13. The site will not have an adverse landscape impact nor a significant impact on the setting of the southern part of Coldstream.
14. Ladies Field has a better relationship with Coldstream and as a result is more attractive place to live than ACOLD011. The marketing of Ladies Field would be easier and a more viable development would result.
S upportexclusionofACO L D011
15. Site requirements for ACOLD011 are onerous and question the level of development that could be achieved. The FRA may reduce the developable area for ACOLD011. Significant expense to produce a masterplan, build roads, plant landscape buffers and develop pedestrian and cycle links. These bring risks to the deliverability of the site and 8 its effectiveness.
16. There is no developer interest in ACOLD011, therefore the site is not effective or deliverable. Unclear who will market the site.
17. Ladies Field is located in better proximity, in comparison to ACOLD011 to; Duns Road, public transport, bus stop, health and dental services and ACOLD011 does not lend itself to walking or public transport links.
18. They do not believe that ACOLD011 is as effective as Ladies Field. In addition, they question whether 100 units can be delivered at ACOLD011 in the 5 year period. Coldstream Hillview North SEPA Support Support the requirement for Comments are noted. It is recommended that 1: Phase 1 investigation of any potential flood risk Hillview North 1: Phase (ACOLD011) within the site to be undertaken prior to 1, Coldstream development and mitigation where ACOLD011 is included required. within the Finalised Supplementary The site is smaller than the one we Guidance on Housing. commented on as part of the ‘Call for sites’. The area of flood risk concern was within the larger site, but not this one. Therefore, SEPA have no further flood risk comments. SEPA has no specific requirement for a FRA, however the Council may want to consider this matter as far as its interests are concerned. Coldstream Hillview North Scottish Natural Note SNH agree with the site requirement that Comments are noted. It is recommended that 1: Phase 1 Heritage boundary features should be protected. Hillview North 1: Phase (ACOLD011) However, query the requirement for The proposal includes a buffer protection 1, Coldstream landscape buffer areas along both the zone along the southern boundary, to ACOLD011 is included western and eastern boundaries and with protect and conserve the existing tree belt within the Finalised 9 the adjacent employment allocation. to the south. Supplementary Guidance on Housing. While this extension to the settlement A landscape buffer area is to be formed should be appropriately contained, the along the western boundary of the site, as existing woodland already separates and indicated within the SG. Another landscape somewhat isolates this allocation from buffer area is to be formed along the the existing settlement. Further changes eastern boundary, with the adjacent to boundaries should ensure that employment allocation. This will ensure a development appropriately relates to and natural finish to the boundaries of the site connects to the existing settlement and and that a buffer area is created between to the remainder of ACOLD009. the development site and the adjacent employment allocation.
Any proposals showing the buffer areas would need to be submitted and assessed at the time of any detailed planning application. Overall, it is considered that planting should be carried out on both the eastern and western boundaries, although this can be re-assessed at the planning application stage, pending the detailed site layout and positioning of the houses. Duns South of Edwin Thompson Object to 1. The development of MDUNS005 would 1. Comments are noted. It is recommended that Earlsmeadow: on behalf of the South of have the following benefits; South of Earlsmeadow: Phase 1 land owners G W Earlsmeadow: improvements to local infrastructure, 2. There are 6 housing allocations and 2 re- Phase 1, Duns (MDUNS005) Thomson and Phase 1 provision of an events area and open development allocations currently within (MDUNS005) is not Sons (MDUNS005) space, improved cycle path and footpath. Duns, as contained within the LDP. Each included in the Finalised being an settlement and HMA must be assessed in Supplementary alternative site 2. This site has been put forward as an their own context. In the case of Duns, it is Guidance on Housing. and state it alternative site rather than a preferred considered that there is sufficient housing should be a site, due to there being allocated sites land for the plan period and therefore site preferred site within Duns, which have not been MDUNS005 is not a preferred option within developed. However, this is the same in the SG. other settlements throughout the area, which have preferred sites in the SG. MDUNS005 should be considered as a preferred site within the SG. Duns South of Sports Scotland Note The site is located adjacent to what is Comments are noted. N/A Earlsmeadow: listed as a ‘playing field’ on the OS map. 10 Phase 1 While none of the land proposed to be (MDUNS005) allocated appears within the marked area, it is noted that a secondary access is proposed via Station Avenue which has the potential to impact on the playing field. Should a planning application be submitted that affects the playing field, then Sport Scotland would likely be a statutory consultee and base our response on the SPP criteria. Duns South of SEPA Support Support the requirement for a flood risk Comments are noted. It is recommended that Earlsmeadow: assessment. South of Earlsmeadow: Phase 1 If the site MDUNS005 was to be taken Phase 1, Duns (MDUNS005) Recommend stating in the developer forward for inclusion in the finalised Housing (MDUNS005) is not requirements that consideration will SG, the site requirement would be amended included in the Finalised need to be given to bridge and culvert to read; Supplementary structures within and adjacent to the site Guidance on Housing. which may exacerbate flood risk. ‘Flood risk assessment will be required to assess the risk from the small watercourse Require a modification to the developer and mitigation where necessary and requirement to investigate the possibility investigate the possibility of de-culverting’. of de-culverting. However, it should be noted that the site is not proposed for inclusion within the Finalised Housing SG. Duns South of Scottish Natural Note We note that our previous comments on Comments are noted. Acknowledge the final It is recommended that Earlsmeadow: Heritage retaining and connecting via existing point regarding the proposed site South of Earlsmeadow: Phase 1 paths in the north of the site have been requirement. Phase 1, Duns (MDUNS005) incorporated in the site requirements. (MDUNS005) is not If the site MDUNS005 was to be taken included in the Finalised We again highlight the potential for an forward for inclusion in the finalised Housing Supplementary important natural open space and green SG, the site requirement would be amended Guidance on Housing. network connection between the public to read; park and the schools to be created for the longer term. While the site ‘The long term maintenance of landscaped requirements draw attention to these areas and the wetland area must be issues, we advise that it would be addressed’. beneficial if the spatial extent and the design principles of the green network However, it should be noted that the site is 11 requirements for the northern part of the not proposed for inclusion within the site were set out in further detail. In this Finalised Housing SG. regard, we suggest there may be limited opportunities for housing development in the northern field, if wider strategic green network and educational outdoor learning benefits are to be realised on this site and over the longer term of future settlement growth.
The site requirements include ‘The long term maintenance of landscaped areas must be addressed’. It is unclear whether this applies to the requirement to create an attractive wetland feature and scattered woodland to define the site. Both of these will require long-term management. Gordon Land at Eden Edwin Thompson Object to the 1. The overall assessment for AGORD004 1. Comments are noted. If required, there It is recommended that Road on behalf of the exclusion of states that ‘Gordon is located within are longer term sites identified within the Land at Eden Road, (AGORD004) land owner Land at Eden close proximity to Earlston and Greenlaw LDP in the Berwickshire area, which could be Gordon (AGORD004) is Miles Browne Road where there are longer term brought forward. The conclusion of the not included in the (AGORD004) opportunities which could be brought Stage 1 RAG for AGORD004 states that if Finalised Supplementary from the forward for housing in the first instance’. necessary the longer term sites within Guidance on Housing. Housing SG However, there are no preferred or Earlston and Greenlaw could be looked at in alternative options put forward in either the first instance. Earlston or Greenlaw. Two of the longer term sites, (Coldstream 2. The assessment concludes that ‘The and Reston) are proposed within the proposal is for 20-25 units and it is not Finalised SG on Housing. Along with a considered that this would make a smaller infill allocation within Ayton, this is significant contribution towards the considered sufficient for the Berwickshire housing shortfall’. The contributor states HMA, for the plan period. Furthermore, that a larger site could have been put given the size of Gordon and the existing forward for Gordon but it would be likely undeveloped housing allocation, it is that the Council would deem this to be considered that there is sufficient housing too large a site for such a settlement’. within Gordon for the plan period.
2. The Council can only assess the site which 12 3. The site at Eden Road is a better site, was submitted as part of the ‘Call for Sites’ compared to the existing housing process. allocation BG09D, which has access issues. Eden Road is closer to service 3. The existing allocation BG09D forms part connections, has better access and is of the LDP and is not subject to review as closer to the main village amenity part of the Housing SG. The purpose of the services. Various road improvements are SG is solely to identify new housing required for BG09D, which will include opportunities, to meet the housing shortfall. works on land outwith the owner’s Furthermore, it is re-iterated that given the control, which may impact upon the site size of Gordon and the existing undeveloped being developed. Furthermore, housing allocation, it is considered that AGORD004 can be delivered within the there is sufficient housing land allocated in LDP period. Gordon for the LDP period. Greenlaw Halliburton Peter J A Leggate Object to 1. Confirm ownership of the field and 1) Comments are noted. It is recommended that Road (Land owner) Halliburton would be pleased to see it brought Halliburton Road, (AGREE008) Road forward for development. 2) Comments are noted. Greenlaw (AGREE008) is (AGREE008) not included in the not being a 2. Object that the site has been allocated AGREE008 was proposed as an alternative Finalised Supplementary preferred site as an alternative rather than a preferred site, given the number of existing Guidance on Housing. within the site. AGREE008 has a unique setting, undeveloped housing and mixed use Housing SG adjacent to and sharing access/servicing allocations currently within Greenlaw, requirements with an undeveloped contained within the LDP. affordable housing site AGREE004. It would make sense to see the allocation It should be noted that the existing AGREE004 and this site being developed allocations contained within the LDP are not at the same time. subject to review as part of the Housing SG process. The purpose of the SG is to identify The site is as strategically and equally new housing opportunities, to meet the well located as Ayton, Reston and identified housing shortfall. Coldstream. The 144 houses should be more equally apportioned. It is considered there is sufficient housing land in Greenlaw and the wider Berwickshire The houses in Reston are unlikely to be area to meet the identified housing shortfall developed until the train station is built and the site should remain a longer term and an additional 100 units in Coldstream opportunity. is more than generous.
Greenlaw is well placed and equally suited for development. Sites which have 13 already been allocated for housing in Greenlaw and Reston have in recent years not attracted new housing.
Request that AGREE008 is put forward as a preferred site within the Housing SG. Greenlaw Greenlaw Turley on behalf Object to the 1. The submission states that given the Comments are noted. There are already It is recommended that Poultry Farm of Amber Real exclusion of accepted shortfall in effective housing substantial housing allocations within Greenlaw Poultry Farm, (AGREE007) Estate Greenlaw land supply, SPP’s presumption in favour Greenlaw. Land take-up has been limited in Greenlaw (AGREE007) is Investments Ltd Poultry Farm of sustainable development which Greenlaw and it is not considered that there not included in the (AGREE007) contributes to meeting an effective five is justification to allocate further housing Finalised Supplementary from the year housing land supply, is a significant land at this point in time. Guidance on Housing. Housing SG material consideration in the and suggest it consideration of planning applications. The proposed site should not be assessed is included against the criteria contained within Policy 2. The site is previously developed PMD4. Policy HD4 sets out the requirement brownfield land, adjacent to the for the Housing SG to address the housing Greenlaw settlement boundary, which shortfall for the LDP period. Therefore, there would bring benefits in terms of is a mechanism in place, to identify the neighbouring amenity. required housing shortfall for the plan period. 3. The three existing allocated housing sites within the LDP (AGREE006, BG200 & Since the site was submitted for AGREE004) are all contained within the consideration as part of the Housing SG, a established housing land supply for 90 planning application was submitted and units, of which only 15 are deliverable refused for housing on the proposed site, for within the plan period. Concerns are the same reasons as stated above. raised as to the lack of progress within these sites and the inclusion within the It should be noted that the existing housing LDP. This site is deliverable and would allocations in Greenlaw, contained within make a short term contribution to the the LDP, are not subject to review, as part of effective housing land supply. The site is the Housing SG. wholly within the control of AREIL. The site is marketable and BNP Paribas agents There is nothing substantially new as part of have been engaged to carry out this submission, which would alter the marketing of the site. recommendation set out in the Draft Housing SG. 4. The re-development of the site will result in a number of construction related 14 jobs which will benefit the local economy.
5. Sufficient capacity in the local network to accommodate additional traffic generated from the site. There are no constraints in respect of flooding, WWTW or surface water run-off.
6. There would not be an ecological impact from developing the site.
7. The site would provide new housing, in keeping with the character of the area, more than the existing chicken processing facility. Greenlaw Halliburton SEPA Support Support the requirement to consider Comments are noted. However, it should be It is recommended that Road surface water runoff from the nearby noted that the site is not proposed for Halliburton Road, (AGREE008) hills and to provide mitigation where inclusion within the Finalised Housing SG. Greenlaw (AGREE008) is necessary. not included in the Finalised Supplementary Guidance on Housing. Reston Reston Long Grant & Susan Object 1. Their property backs directly onto the 1. The layout and design of any It is recommended that Term 2 Spence (amenity, proposed area, if new houses were built, development would be assessed as part of Reston Long Term 2, (AREST004) access, question how close they would be to any future planning application. The Reston (AREST004) is sewage, their boundary wall. allocation is merely concerned with the included in the Finalised drainage) principle of housing within the site. Supplementary 2. Query access, sewage and drainage Guidance on Housing. and the impact 38 units will have upon 2. Comments are noted. The Roads Planning this. Officer and Scottish Water were consulted as part of the Draft Housing SG and any 3. When there is open space elsewhere, comments have been taken on board and it is difficult to understand why it would where necessary incorporated into the site be a consideration to build new houses in requirements. a field which is enclosed on all 4 sides. 3. Comments are noted. The site is currently identified in the LDP for longer term housing. Policy HD4 in the LDP states that the longer term housing sites will be 15 considered in the first instance, for inclusion within the Housing SG. Reston Reston Long Joyce M McLean Object 1. The Church Field which is proposed for 1. The comments are noted. The layout and It is recommended that Term 2 (amenity of inclusion is surrounded on three sides by design of any development would be Reston Long Term 2, (AREST004) neighbouring private housing whose boundaries are all assessed as part of any future planning Reston (AREST004) is residents, close to the boundary of this field and on application. The Housing SG is merely included in the Finalised access, other the fourth side the field is right next to concerned with the principle of housing Supplementary suitable sites) the main railway station. The privacy of within the site. Guidance on Housing. all residents bounding this field would be intruded on if development was 2. The comments are noted. The Roads considered. Planning Officer, Lead Officer for Access & Transport and Transport Scotland were 2. The field is unsuitable due to access consulted as part of the Draft Housing SG restrictions from both Main Street and and any comments have been taken on The Orchard. It is a myth that the old board and where necessary incorporated Railway Station is to be re-opened as it is into the site requirements. now all privately owned. 3. The comments are noted. The former 3. There have been other sites granted Auction Mart site is already allocated for planning consent for development within mixed use development within the LDP and the village which remain undeveloped, has a pending planning application. Other which would be more suitable to be than the allocated mixed use and housing included, these are; sites, there are no other large extant sites within Reston, which currently contribute a) The former Auction Mart Site towards the established housing land b) The field to the left as you enter supply. the Village on the south side opposite the turning for Ladeside; c) Site beyond the primary school towards Greenhead to the north of the village. Reston Reston Long Mr J F Cockburn Object Prior to the 2003 re-design and improved Comments are noted. As part of the It is recommended that Term 1 (Flooding culvert beneath Chirnside Road, this consultation process SEPA and the Council’s Reston Long Term 1, (AREST003) grounds) ‘proposed’ site lay beneath several feet Flood Prevention Officer were consulted and Reston (AREST003) is of water during the floods of October any comments have been taken on board not included in the 2002. and where necessary incorporated into the Finalised Supplementary site requirements. It should be noted that Guidance on Housing. Consideration should therefore be given the site was included within the Draft 16 to an alternative site for housing. Housing SG, as an alternative housing site. However, the site is not proposed for inclusion within the Finalised Housing SG.
Reston 1. Reston Long Mrs J J McLean Note Welcome more houses within Reston. Comments are noted. It is recommended that Term 1 (Concerns Reston Long Term 2, (AREST003) regarding From previous planning projects within A Planning Brief has been prepared, which Reston (AREST004) is education Reston, it was envisaged that an overall includes sites (AREST003 & AREST004), included in the Finalised 2. Reston Long capacity) brief was to be provided for any large although it requires to be updated. Supplementary Term 2 future developments at Reston, to its Guidance on Housing. (AREST004) cost, has suffered from piecemeal Education advised that Reston Primary developments. School can accommodate the site AREST004. It is recommended that The release of AREST003 would trigger the Reston Long Term 1, Concerns raised regarding the future need to additional capacity. Reston (AREST003) is capacity of the Reston Primary School not included in the with the additional housing being Finalised Supplementary proposed, along with other sites and Guidance on Housing. consents. Reston Reston Long Reston and Object (Future 1. The site is a preferred option for the 1. Comments are noted. However, the site is It is recommended that Term 2 Auchencrow school siting of a replacement school for Reston. already identified for longer term housing Reston Long Term 2, (AREST004) Community provision, The existing school is constrained and is within the LDP SREST002. It should be noted Reston (AREST004) is Council flooding and not suitable to be extended. Any housing that Education advised that Reston Primary included in the Finalised visual amenity) would increase the burden on the school School can accommodate the site AREST004. Supplementary forcing new build. Guidance on Housing. 2. Comments are noted. As part of the 2. Raised concerns regarding flooding. consultation process, SEPA and the Council’s Flood Protection Officer were consulted and 3. Housing would have a negative impact any comments have been taken on board on resident’s visual amenity of the and where necessary incorporated into the surrounding area. site requirements.
3. Any planning application would need to be in compliance with Policy HD3: Protection of Residential Amenity. Reston Reston Long Reston and Object (Future 1. The site is adjacent to MREST001 Comments are noted. As part of the It is recommended that Term 1 Auchencrow school which is allocated for mixed use consultation process, SEPA, Council’s Flood Reston Long Term 1, (AREST003) Community provision, development and already has a planning Protection Officer and Council’s Landscape Reston (AREST003) is Council flooding and brief. Officer were consulted. Any comments were not included in the 17 visual amenity) taken on board and where necessary, Finalised Supplementary 2. Raised concerns regarding flooding. incorporated into the site requirements. Guidance on Housing.
3. Raised concerns regarding the retention of trees within the site, some of which have TPO’s.
4. Reference is made to the approved planning brief ‘Reston Auction Mart’, to which they consider outdated and no longer should be a consideration. Reston Reston Long John White Support Support the Council’s identification of Comments are noted. However, it is It is recommended that Term 2 Reston Long AREST004 in the Housing SG as a acknowledged that these relate to proposals Reston Long Term 2, (AREST004) Term 2 preferred site for housing. for a railway station and not specifically for Reston (AREST004) is (AREST004) as housing on AREST004. included in the Finalised a preferred site 1. Raised concerns regarding potential Supplementary future access to the Railway Station Guidance on Housing. through Mart Street.
2. Commented on the orientation of the potential Railway Station in a more linear arrangement. Reston 1. Reston Long Reston & Support the 1. Support the inclusion of AREST004 as a Comments are noted. It is recommended that Term 1 Berwick Farming inclusion of preferred site for development in the SG. Reston Long Term 2, (AREST003) Co Reston Long It is considered that 38 units is an Reston (AREST004) is Term 2 2. Acknowledge the Council’s reasons for acceptable site capacity for the site. included in the Finalised 2. Reston Long (AREST004) as supporting a smaller allocation at this However, it should be noted that the site Supplementary Term 2 a preferred time and support the identification of capacity is only indicative and a higher Guidance on Housing. (AREST004) housing site & AREST003 as an alternative option. density could be tested through the Reston Long submission of a planning application. It is recommended that Term 1 3. Do not support the indicative site Reston Long Term 1, (AREST003) as capacity for AREST004, or the site It is acknowledged that some concerns Reston (AREST003) is an alternative requirements, particularly in respect of relate to proposals for; a Railway Station, not included in the housing site the planning brief. Suggest increasing the education and potential developer Finalised Supplementary site capacity to 40 units. contributions. These points do not relate Guidance on Housing. Object to the specifically to the sites AREST003/AREST004. site capacity of 4. The approved planning brief is now out Reston Long of date. Term 2 18 (AREST004) 5. Raised concerns regarding the and raise potential future access to the Railway concerns Station through Mart Street and not via regarding The Orchard. education & access 6. Commented on the orientation of the potential Railway Station in a more linear arrangement.
7. Solution needs to be identified for the school capacity.
8. Developer contributions may be required towards the delivery of the Railway Station. Reston Reston Long Scottish Natural Note Query the overall benefits of the Comments are noted. It is recommended that Term 2 Heritage proposed structure planting along the Reston Long Term 2, (AREST004) southern boundary of this relativity small There is a suggested site requirement which Reston (AREST004) is and contained allocation. includes structure planting along the included within the southern boundary. However, taking on Finalised Supplementary The proposal does not appear to connect board the advice from SNH, the site Guidance on Housing. to existing habitats or provide a wider requirement for structure planting will not recreational linkage through the be taken forward into the Finalised SG on It is also recommended settlement. It may however overshadow Housing. Ultimately any landscaping that the site and reduce the amenity of the proposed proposal would be assessed at the time of requirement (bullet settlement. Advise that other forms of any planning application, as part of the point 9) is removed and open space, such as street trees or a wider proposals. It should be noted that the the map updated small pocket park incorporating surface landscaping can be re-assessed at the accordingly. water management may provide a planning application stage, dependent upon suitable alternative. the final site layout and house positioning.
With regards the small water course which may run through the site we would highlight the rounded ecological and placemaking benefits of opening culverts and managing such water above ground.
Would note that they are unclear from the brief as to the station parking 19 requirements and how these may influence site layout. Reston Reston Long Scottish Natural Note This site lies to the south of the allocation Comments are noted. It is recommended that Term 1 Heritage MREST001 and is included in the adopted Reston Long Term 1, (AREST003) development brief as site 2. The site is There is a suggested site requirement which Reston (AREST003) is identified as a longer term safeguarded includes structure planting along the not included in the site that is separated from the existing southern boundary. However, taking on Finalised Supplementary settlement by the former auction mart. If board the advice from SNH, the site Guidance on Housing. developed prior to re-development of requirement for structure planting will not the auction mart, this site may be be taken forward, should the site be perceived as physically and perceptually included within the Finalised SG on Housing. detached from Reston and opportunities Ultimately any landscaping proposal would for wider integration could be missed. be assessed at the time of any planning application, as part of the wider proposals. It As with allocation AREST004 we query should be noted that the landscaping can be the overall benefit of the structure re-assessed at the planning application planting proposed and suggest that the stage, dependent upon the final site layout open space that such a proposal would and house positioning. entail could be utilised to achieve other objectives, including water management However, it should be noted that the site is and useable or networked open space not proposed for inclusion within the and path provision. We again highlight Finalised Housing SG. the lack of specify on the parking element of the proposal. Reston Reston Long SEPA Support Support the requirement for a FRA, Comments are noted. It is recommended that Term 1 however require a modification to the Reston Long Term 1, (AREST003) text in the development requirement to If the site (AREST003) is taken forward for Reston (AREST003) is remove the word ‘potentially’ as there is inclusion in the Finalised Housing SG, amend not included in the a watercourse through the site. The the existing site requirement to read; Finalised Supplementary previous FRA has indicated a significant Guidance on Housing. risk and site will likely to heavily ‘A flood risk assessment is required to assess constrained and may not be able to the risk from the small watercourse which accommodate the housing number. flows through the site’.
However, it should be noted that the site is not proposed for inclusion within the Finalised Housing SG. Reston Reston Long SEPA Support Support the requirement for a FRA. Comments are noted. It is recommended that Term 2 However require a modification to the Reston Long Term 2, 20 (AREST004) developer requirement to investigate the Amend the existing site requirement to Reston (AREST004) is possibility of de-culverting. read; included within the Finalised Supplementary ‘A flood risk assessment is required to assess Guidance on Housing. the risk from the small watercourse which potentially flows through the site. It is also recommended Consideration should be given to whether that the site there are any culverted/bridges within or requirement (bullet nearby which may exacerbate flood risk. In point 2) be amended to addition, investigation of the possibility for include: de-culverting should also be undertaken’. ‘In addition, investigation of the possibility for de- culverting should also be undertaken’.
21 Central Housing Market Area
Ancrum - AANCR002: Page 1 onwards Bowden - ABOWD013: Page 35 onwards - ABOWD014: Page 36 onwards Charlesfield - ACHAR003: Page 152 onwards - MCHAR002: Page 152 onwards Darnick - ADARN003: Page 37 onwards Earlston - MEARL001: Page 39 onwards - MEARL002: Page 39 onwards - MEARL003: Page 39 onwards Ednam - AEDNA010: Page 43 onwards Galashiels - AGALA037: Page 50 onwards - AGALA033: Page 52 onwards - AGALA032: Page 52 onwards - AGALA029: Page 54 onwards - AGALA036: Page 56 onwards - RGALA005: Page 57 onwards Gattonside - AGATT013: Page 59 onwards - AGATT016: Page 61 onwards Hawick - AHAWI025: Page 62 onwards - AHAWI026: Page 62 onwards - RHAWI011: Page 62 & 68 onwards - AHAWI027: Page 63 onwards Kelso - RKELS002: Page 69 onwards - AKELS028: Page 72 onwards - AKELS026: Page 75 onwards - AKELS025: Page 78 onwards Melrose - AMELR012: Page 80 onwards Newstead - ANEWS006: Page 83 onwards - ANEWS005: Page 101 onwards Newtown St Boswells - ANEWT009: Page 119 onwards Selkirk - MSELK002: Page 62 & 128 onwards - ASELK033: Page 121 onwards - ASELK041: Page 138 onwards - ASELK040: Page 150 onwards Tweedbank - MTWEE002: Page 153 onwards
SETTLEMENT SITE NAME & SITE CONTRIBUTOR COMMENT SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RESPONSE RECOMMENDATION CODE TYPE REPRESENTATION
Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Ilona McDowell and Note The contributors are happy 1. Policy HD1 - Affordable It is recommended that (AANCR002) John Ferguson new houses are planned. In and Special Needs Housing Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum principal they are not against within the adopted Local (AANCR002) is not the creation of new housing Development Plan 2016 included within the in Ancrum, on the proposed states that developments Finalised Supplementary site. such as Dick’s Croft II Guidance on Housing. (AANCR002) must provide The contributor raises the 25% affordable housing following concerns: within the total number of units. Affordable housing is 1. Will the dwellings really provided for a range of cater for those who most users and various tenures. need accommodation, and will there be sufficient social 2. The draft Housing housing and small units for Supplementary Guidance single people, for disabled only identifies sites for and/elderly folks? future development along with some key site 2. The access by road to the requirements to be taken area is going to pose into consideration when the problems, and we cannot see site is developed. Further how entry could be affected details such as site access from either our lane or the and landscaping will be lane between the field and confirmed if a planning the Duke's Field application is submitted for development. Surely more the site, although the thought and consultation is Council’s Roads Planning needed? Team have not identified any unsurmountable issues 3. We are very glad to hear with development at this that an additional village location. green is proposed, as this does indicate that as 3. Comments noted. planners you recognise the need to create more 4. Regarding additional land 1 community space at the for Ancrum Primary School same time as building houses this is something that would for sale. Actually, Ancrum need to be discussed doesn't need another village between the landowner and green, but we believe the the Council’s Estates village would welcome a Department. communal space for outdoor activity, which is safe, 5. Obviously this is attractive and in keeping something the Council with Council biodiversity would not wish to see principles. within the village however if the land is outwith the 4. The area identified for ownership of the Council or public access is adjacent to the applicant there is "Doctor's Lane", immediately limited action that can be opposite the school. Ancrum taken. If a planning school is widely considered application were to be an excellent example of a submitted for the site in the small village school. The future any approval would children and teachers use all include conditions to ensure the outdoor space they have satisfactory use and to full advantage, gardening development on land within in planters, playing and the applicant’s control. learning in the playground. But they have no garden or 6. Comments noted. green space at all. Would it be possible to discuss how 7a. Comments noted. the contractors could gift some land within the 7b. The Council are legally development to the school? required to notify all properties within 20 metres 5. How can the planning of the site. As part of the department or other council draft Housing SG agents assure us that if this consultation we extended goes ahead it will not this to include all properties duplicate a major problem of within a 25 metre boundary. the "Duke's Field" - namely Should a planning the neglected land at the application be submitted for northern border, or Duke's the site there would be 2 Path, which is claimed by further consultation at that neither the Council nor the stage. Duke's Field residents, and which has consequently become the shame of the village?
6. The contributor states that as an Ancrum resident they would welcome proportionate growth in the population, especially if this boosted the school and local business such as the shop.
7. Further to the above points the contributor states: a) The village badly needs before and after school care facilities for children at Ancrum school and/or nursery provision. If the SBC wants the excellent Ancrum School to survive, they will prioritise this anyway, but especially when considering new developments.
b) The consultation should be widened as early as possible. Not only do all of us residents within the locality of the Ancrum Community Council deserve to have our concerns respected, but you and the developers really should get the benefit of our enthusiasm, creativity and love of our village. 3 Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Scottish Natural Note The contributor states the Should the site be taken It is recommended that (AANCR002) Heritage site requirements should forward into the finalised Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum more clearly state that this Housing SG the site (AANCR002) is not site is within the Teviot requirement (bullet point 8) included within the Valleys Special Landscape should be amended to read: Finalised Supplementary Area (SLA). As currently Guidance on Housing. written, it appears that the The site is adjacent to the site is adjacent to the SLA. Conservation Area and This underplays the need for also within the Teviot careful consideration of site Valleys Special Landscape layout and design, boundary Area. Careful treatments and landscape consideration should be and visual impact given to site layout and assessment. design, boundary treatments and landscape and visual impact assessment Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Dr J G Paterson Object 1. The contributor raises 1. Comments noted. It is recommended that (AANCR002) concerns regarding air Ancrum is located within Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum pollution and the associated the Central Strategic (AANCR002) is not effects. The contributor Development Area as included within the considers it illogical and defined within the Strategic Finalised Supplementary indefensible to create new Development Plan Guidance on Housing. housing in areas remote from (SESplan). The Central local centres of employment Strategic Development Area or from the communities on is where growth will be or near to the Borders focused due to the Railway route. This would concentration of strategic also minimise road travel employment sites and commuting distances to access to the A68 and Edinburgh and the associated Borders Railway. environmental impact. 2. The site design and layout 2. The contributor states the will be decided at the nature, scale and location of planning application stage. the proposed development Any application submitted would result in further gross for the site must adhere to imbalance in the housing the Local Development Plan stock provision and erode policies and the Council’s 4 the village character. The Placemaking and Design Duke’s Field development SPG. The SPG clearly states resulted in years of new development must disruption in the village. The seek to uphold and enhance houses were architecturally the local character and inappropriate in design and sense of place. density. 3. Comments noted. The 3. It seems improbable that draft housing SG has gone the existing village through an extensive infrastructure could consultation process accommodate a including the Council’s development of this scale Education Asset Strategy within significant investment. Officer who monitors school The school may not be able rolls and when/if a new to accommodate additional school or school extension is children. It is unlikely water required. Regarding this site and drainage have sufficient the Asset Strategy Officer capacity to deal with 60 stated if the site was to be additional units. Any works developed an extension to would cause significant the Primary School may be disruption to the village. required. This will be addressed at the planning 4. The narrow bridge over application stage once final the Ale Water has already housing numbers are been deemed structurally confirmed. The consultation compromised with essential also included various key works postponed. The bridge agencies including Scottish represents a traffic Water and any required constriction which would infrastructure upgrades will worsen if additional housing also be taken into on the scale proposed was consideration at the built. The contributor states planning application stage. this would be a damaging Where appropriate the development in the wrong comments received during place that would not the consultation process represent value for money to have been included within either the local authority or the site requirements. private developers. 5 4. Comments noted. The Council’s Traffic and Road Safety Team have no objections relating to the use of the Ale Water Bridge for access to the village should the site be developed. As stated above any required infrastructure upgrades will be taken into consideration at the planning application stage. The Council’s Roads Planning Team have been consulted throughout the Housing SG process. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Gerard and Sally Object 1. The contributor 1. Comments noted. It is recommended that (AANCR002) Henry appreciates that an increase Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum in the population of the 2. Regarding the (AANCR002) is not village may have some development at Duke’s included within the potential benefits for the Field, Ancrum, the site was Finalised Supplementary Church, the School, the Shop allocated within the Guidance on Housing. and the Pub however there adopted Consolidated Local are other aspects which need Plan 2011. The site was to be taken into account. allocated with an indicative site capacity of 40 units 2. The contributor raises within the adopted Local concerns regarding the scale Plan. The indicative and dimension of the capacities included within proposed site. It is just over the Local Plan are based on 11 years since the village was the site area and the subjected to its last impact anticipated density of from housing development development however from consents given in 2005. these should only be In 2005 a letter from the regarded as a guide and the Planning Office stated that capacity could change at the 29 new homes were planning application stage. envisaged, In 2011 consent This was the case with the was given to 40 new homes. site at Duke’s Field where 6 However following the indicative capacity representations from increased by nine units developers, the number of through the planning consents was increased to 49 application process with a houses, a 69% increase on final approved capacity of the original concept of 29. 49 units. Any play park The original scale of the provision would be development expanded to confirmed by the Councils’ please the developers, but it Neighbourhood Services should be remembered that Team. last time a new playpark was also promised but for 3. Any application reasons that were never fully submitted for the site must made public, disgracefully it adhere to the Local was claimed, the developers Development Plan policies were allowed to renege on and the Council’s this. Placemaking and Design SPG. The SPG clearly states 3. There are not many new development must ‘Ancrums’ around. Centred seek to uphold and enhance around its village green, for a the local character and start it has significant cultural sense of place. and historic claims. It is partly in a Conservation Area, 4. Comments noted. close to the likely battle site of Ancrum Moor in 1545 – it 5. Comments noted. The has significance in Borders Council’s Traffic and Road history. There is still a Safety Team have no thriving village store, an objections relating to the active and well-supported use of the Ale Water Bridge Church with a regularly used for access to the village Village Hall opposite. Further should the site be down the street is a high developed. class pub, and opposite the Village Green on which 6. Any required children play and village infrastructure upgrades will events take place. Adjacent is be taken into consideration a Bowling Green and a not at the planning application altogether satisfactory stage. The site has gone 7 children’s playground whilst through an extensive at the western end is the consultation process where caring and successful village comments were received Primary School. Traditional from various key agencies villages have largely including Scottish Water. disappeared from the Where appropriate these Borders. If the Borders are comments have been not to become a poorer included within the site place, the need to preserve requirements. something which has become increasingly rare and 7. Comments noted. Should this increasingly valuable the site be developed all must be recognised and must health and safety be protected. Otherwise, requirements will need to when every village looks like be adhered to. every other village populated by those commuting to 8. Comments noted. Any Edinburgh, will the planners required infrastructure be hailed for meeting their upgrades will be taken into numerical targets and consideration at the justifying the railway link or planning application stage. remembered for destroying The Council’s Roads the essence of the Borders? Planning Team has been Bury the village under a consulted throughout the swathe of new houses and Housing SG process. In something irreplaceable will relation to the site they be lost forever. Ancrum its provided the following nature and character will comments: have been swapped by The existing roads bounding overwhelming housing the site will need to be development. Impossible to widened to cater for two recreate villages such as way flows along with Ancrum must be allowed to footways as appropriate expand gradually through and street lighting and nature sustainable growth speed limits will have to and gradual integration of extend accordingly. increase population. Pedestrian linkage to the footpath along the north 4. Any development phase western edge of the new 8 needs sensitive handling. Myrescroft development The previous experience was should also be incorporated not well handled and was a into any proposal. most unhappy one. A total of four companies of builders Vehicular access is were involved, with a history acceptable from all existing of company bankruptcy, roads adjacent to the site builders disappearing off site and a strong street frontage leaving incomplete or onto these roads is substandard houses and recommended. delays in completion. 9. Comments noted. Should 5. Plant and materials an application be submitted required for this work will for the site this process have to come over the bridge would involve consultation linking the village with the with the Council’s Asset A68. The bridge is already Strategy Officer who would limited to one-way use. Is it advise on any education strong enough to withstand requirements relating to the the impact of the prolonged site. heavy traffic usage it will face over this period? 10. The Council are legally required to notify all 6. The contributors are lead properties within 20 metres to believe the sewage system of the site. As part of the is already at or nearing draft Housing SG maximum capacity, If this is consultation we extended the case, there will have to this to include all properties be additional work in the within a 25 metre boundary. area on the far side of the Should a planning road and outwith the application be submitted for hatched area on the plan and the site there would be not listed in your site further consultation at that requirements. stage.
7. The impact of noise and disruption will naturally last for well over ten years and some of it inevitably will be 9 in close proximity to the School. The safety of the children due to the proximity of heavy plant will need careful provision. If additional facilities are provided such as pre-school nursery then safe access across Doctor’s Road must be provided.
8. As the road from the Village Green through to the School is very narrow, it is assumed that the main access onto the site will be from the Ancrum-Denholm back road. Currently those approaching the school from the Myrescroft direction have to walk their children up a very narrow road with no footpaths and have to flatten themselves against the hedge when vehicles pass. This needs attention. Also when it comes to upgrading the private road known variously as Doctor’s Road, careful provision will be required not impede access as this road is a cul- de-sac serving seven houses and in continual use.
9. The suggestion of creating a Play Area, albeit close to an Electricity Sub-Station, is to be welcomed providing safe 10 access for the children can be established. The small numbers at the School at present render the school vulnerable, Whilst there are enough children in the village of appropriate age to safeguard its future the problem faced by parents is the lack of nursery/pre- school facilities. Provisions made and enforced through the planning consents for such a facility to be created adjoining the school needs to be included.
10. The contributors state the letter dated 5th December was send to properties within 20 metres of the site. The contributors suggest that the consultation exercise is flawed ad should be re-run and extended in its scope. The contributors make reference to neighbours who have not received a consultation letter and ask how many others have failed to be notified? Should this proposal be taken further, then the consultation and opportunity to make representation must be open to everyone in the village. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Judith and Joseph Object 1. The contributor raises 1. Comments noted. The It is recommended that (AANCR002) Coulson concerns regarding no site requirements have Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum 11 mention of the restrictions been produced following (AANCR002) is not that were placed on the extensive consultation with included within the previous development have key agencies and relevant Finalised Supplementary not been included in the site consultees. It is a number of Guidance on Housing. requirements. years since the previous site was allocated and any site 2. The contributor also requirements or conditions highlights the map included relevant to the earlier site within the neighbour may not be appropriate to notification letter does not this site. show the completed Duke’s Field development or the 2. The base mapping used new house on Doctor’s Row. for the neighbour notification letters is the 3. The contributor refers to most recently available data bullet point two of the site that is available. The base requirements and states that mapping is not live however if previous regulations and it is updated regularly to the wishes of the residents in reflect recently completed the village are relevant then units. vehicular access from all existing adjacent roads 3. Comments noted. The should not be considered Council’s Roads Planning acceptable. No vehicular or Team has been consulted pedestrian access to The throughout the Housing SG Wynd was considered process. In relation to the possible previously. site they provided the Pedestrian linkage to the following comments: footpath along the north western edge of the new The existing roads bounding Myrescroft development is the site will need to be easily possible, the existing widened to cater for two roadway from the school to way flows along with the village centre is too footways as appropriate narrow to permit footway and street lighting and construction and the speed limits will have to consequent increase in extend accordingly. vehicular traffic would lead Pedestrian linkage to the to problems of safety. The footpath along the north 12 contributor refers to bullet western edge of the new point four of the site Myrescroft development requirements in relation to should also be incorporated widening of roads with into any proposal. footways. The contributor states whilst it may be Vehicular access is possible to the north and acceptable from all existing south of the field, if The roads adjacent to the site Wynd is to be protected, and a strong street frontage then this cannot happen onto these roads is along the length of this side recommended. of the field. If roads need to be widened how will the It should be noted that the existing hedgerows be site requirements also retained? Whilst they can be stated the need to retain replanted some are of great existing hedgerows where age. possible and also states existing hedgerows are to 4. The proposed play area is be supplemented with new suggested next to an existing planting to retain the sites electricity substation which it rural setting. is presumed would be relocated and a new position 4. Comments noted. Siting would need to be identified. of any new play facility on The contributor also states the site would be detailed at that the previous the planning application development was to have a stage. Regarding the new children’s play area but previous Duke’s Field despite the best efforts of development it should be the Community Council and noted since the original residents this did not application was submitted happen. for the site, policy regarding the provision of play 5. The contributor states the facilities has changed previous development was significantly. In 2005, new handled inefficiently by the play facilities in residential Council as the developer was developments were not made to carry out agreed adopted by the Council as a construction as originally set matter of course and 13 out. Therefore any future without any financial scheme would require closer recompense. Often these monitoring to ensure the were small in terms of scale developer was fulfilling the and potentially resulted in wishes. the duplication of play equipment on a variety of sites within a relatively small geographical area. However this outcome was not considered to be in the best interest of any stakeholders.
There is a geographical test to be considered and there will be instances where there is no feasible option other than to provide a new play area as alternative solutions are inappropriate, usually because existing play areas are too far away. However, in this instance, the existing play facility at Ancrum was in close proximity to the area at Duke’s Field provisionally identified for the additional play facility. Following much discussion with the administrators it was agreed that a sum of £18,000, would be provided to enhance existing play facilities in the village.
5. Any application on the site would include various conditions and would also 14 be subject to a legal agreement. These mechanisms would help ensure the site was developed as approved by the Council. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Karen and Michael Object 1. The contributor raises 1. Comments noted. Any It is recommended that (AANCR002) Howe concerns about the capacity required infrastructure Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum of the existing infrastructure upgrades will be taken into (AANCR002) is not in the village. The contributor consideration should a included within the states there is already an future planning application Finalised Supplementary issue with traffic within the be submitted. The Council’s Guidance on Housing. village associated with the Roads Planning Team has Primary School. The been consulted throughout contributor highlights that the Housing SG process. In there are also access relation to the site they constraints with The Wynd provided the following and School Road. Historically comments: access has not been allowed The existing roads bounding from The Wynd and the site will need to be therefore the proposed widened to cater for two development will be way flows along with impractical. footways as appropriate and street lighting and 2. The contributor considers speed limits will have to the proposed allocation extend accordingly. would have a detrimental Pedestrian linkage to the impact on the character of footpath along the north the village. The existing western edge of the new properties adjacent to the Myrescroft development proposed development are should also be incorporated larger houses on large plots into any proposal. and any new development should not look to impose a Vehicular access is development that is not in acceptable from all existing keeping with this area of roads adjacent to the site Ancrum. and a strong street frontage onto these roads is 3. There has already been recommended. 15 recent development within the village which 2. The site design and layout encountered numerous will be decided at the problems with various planning application stage. developers being involved. Any application submitted This resulted in the for the site must adhere to development taking years to the Local Development Plan complete and was very policies and the Council’s disruptive to the community. Placemaking and Design The contributor considers SPG. The SPG clearly states the previous development at new development must Duke’s Field to have provided seek to uphold and enhance the range of housing the local character and required in Ancrum and that sense of place. better sites are available elsewhere in the Borders to 3. Comments noted. meet quotas. Development of any site may inevitably cause a degree of disruption. However this would not be a reason to prevent a site being developed. A full site assessment has been carried out for the site at Dick’s Croft II. The site was considered acceptable for development and the site was included as an alternative site within the draft Housing SG. However various other sites within the Borders have also been identified as preferred housing sites. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Martin Driver Object 1. The contributor 1. Comments noted. Should It is recommended that (AANCR002) understood that following this site be allocated within Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum the recent Dukes Field the finalised Housing SG and (AANCR002) is not development there would be a planning application be included within the no further house building in submitted in the future then Finalised Supplementary 16 Ancrum for the foreseeable any required infrastructure Guidance on Housing. future; that any additional upgrades will be taken into housing would incur the cost consideration at that stage. of upgrading the sewage The site has gone through works as the current facility an extensive consultation is now at capacity; shouldn’t process where comments this be accepted as a limit on were received from various further development – surely key agencies including this gem of an old village in Scottish Water. Where the valley of the River Teviot appropriate these is not to become a focus of comments have been ongoing mindless housing included within the site development? requirements.
2. The contributor also states 2. Comments noted. The that 60 units would Council are legally required significantly increase the to notify all properties population of the village and within 20 metres of the site. such a demographic As part of the draft Housing consequence would surely SG consultation we require each house in the extended this to include all village to be notified, not just properties within a 25 those within 25 metres of metre boundary. Should a the site. planning application be submitted for the site there 3. The contributor considers would be further the proposed consultation at that stage. disproportionate development would alter the 3. The site design and layout nature and charm of the will be decided at the village, seriously eroding the planning application stage. sense of identity, over- Any application submitted powering the conservation for the site must adhere to area radiating out from the the Local Development Plan village green. Widening roads policies and the Council’s would change the character Placemaking and Design of this old village which has SPG. The SPG clearly states seen more than its share of new development must housing development in seek to uphold and enhance 17 recent years. In my opinion, the local character and changes to the Ancrum Brig sense of place. would be nothing short of vandalism. 4. The Local Development Plan includes housing 4. The contributor also states allocations across the they are aware that there is a Borders. Some of these are still a lot of housing to go up yet to be developed, others elsewhere in the council area have planning consent and in connection with planning some are under permission that has already construction. As part of the been given. The contributor Local Development Plan questions why additional Examination a shortfall of flexibility is required by the 916 units was identified. council at this stage? This shortfall is being addressed through the Housing Supplementary Guidance (SG). Additional flexibility is required to provide a range and choice of housing sites for developers throughout the Borders. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Moira Leggat Object 1. The contributor states 1. Comments noted. Any It is recommended that (AANCR002) there is already an issue with required infrastructure Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum traffic within the village upgrades will be taken into (AANCR002) is not associated with the Primary consideration at the included within the School. The Wynd is a single planning application stage. Finalised Supplementary track road and the nearby The Council’s Roads Guidance on Housing. road is only single track with Planning Team has been a blind corner making it a consulted throughout the potential danger. The Housing SG process. In contributor would like the relation to the site they proposed development to provided the following resolve this problem. comments:
2. The contributor is The existing roads bounding concerned that the proposed the site will need to be development will affect the widened to cater for two 18 character of Ancrum. It is way flows along with only just three years since footways as appropriate the Duke’s Field and street lighting and development. That speed limits will have to development had a major extend accordingly. impact on Ancrum and Pedestrian linkage to the changed the character of the footpath along the north village appreciably. The western edge of the new contributor also makes Myrescroft development references to the previous should also be incorporated developers at Duke’s Field into any proposal. going into administration owing local tradesmen Vehicular access is significant sums of money. acceptable from all existing The contributor does not roads adjacent to the site want Ancrum to become and a strong street frontage characterless and destroying onto these roads is the village which already has recommended. a designated Conservation Area. 2. The site design and layout will be decided at the 3. The contributor states one planning application stage. must not stand in the way of Any application submitted progress – equally though we for the site must adhere to must protect something that the Local Development Plan is good, part of our history policies and the Council’s and culture and not stand Placemaking and Design idly by and silently watch its SPG. The SPG clearly states destruction. new development must seek to uphold and enhance the local character and sense of place.
3. Comments noted. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Mr and Mrs Hickey Object 1. The contributors state the 1. The site design and layout It is recommended that (AANCR002) area proposed would almost will be decided at the Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum double the curtilage of the planning application stage. (AANCR002) is not village. No indication is given Any application submitted included within the as to the types of houses that for the site must adhere to Finalised Supplementary 19 would be built. The the Local Development Plan Guidance on Housing. contributor also states that policies and the Council’s the demographic of the Placemaking and Design village would change SPG. The SPG clearly states significantly. new development must seek to uphold and enhance 2. The initial Dukes Field plan the local character and proposed in 2004 was for 29 sense of place. properties this number increased by over 65% by the 2. The indicative capacities time this was finally included within the draft completed. Were similar Housing SG are based on adaptions to be allowed, this the site area and the would effectively double the anticipated density of current number of properties development however added to the village. these should only be Employment opportunities in regarded as a guide and the the locality are limited; capacity could change at the therefore the properties planning application stage. would be bought by either commuters or by retired 3. Comments noted. The people. draft housing SG has gone through an extensive 3. One implication of such consultation process changes would be a possible including the Council’s increase in number of Education Asset Strategy children for the village first Officer who monitors school school. Whilst this would be rolls and when/if a new of benefit in maintain this school or school extension is rural school the building has required. Regarding this site little room to expand and the Asset Strategy Officer already has inadequate stated if the site was to be outdoor space. developed an extension to the Primary School may be 4. The contributor also states required. This will be that one consequence of an addressed at the planning additional 60 properties in application stage once final the village would be a very housing numbers are significant increase in traffic. confirmed. 20 The contributor makes reference to bullet points 2 4. Comments noted. Any and 4 of the site required infrastructure requirements within the upgrades will be taken into Supplementary Guidance and consideration at the states there are several planning application stage. issues relating to these The Council’s Roads statements. When the Planning Team has been permission was granted for consulted throughout the Dukesfield, one of the Housing SG process. In restrictions placed was that relation to the site they there could be no access on provided the following to the Wynd which is the comments: ancient village access track. The contributor assumes this The existing roads bounding same restriction should apply the site will need to be to the proposed new widened to cater for two development but it does not way flows along with appear to do so. Access from footways as appropriate Doctor’s Lane would lead to and street lighting and a marked increase in traffic speed limits will have to around the narrow corner by extend accordingly. the school. This is already a Pedestrian linkage to the problem with the properties footpath along the north on Causewayend. Then plan western edge of the new suggests that adjacent roads Myrescroft development could be widened and should also be incorporated pedestrian footways added. into any proposal. Whilst this could indeed be accomplished on the SW Vehicular access is boundary, there is no room acceptable from all existing to widen the cord of roads adjacent to the site Causewayend to improve and a strong street frontage access to Doctor’s lane and onto these roads is the Wynd and its hedgerow recommended. boundaries should remain protected. It should be noted that bullet point 7 of the site 5. With reference to the final requirements for Dick’s 21 site requirement the Croft II states: contributor states there is currently an electricity sub- Where possible existing station at the corner of hedgerows are to be Doctor Lane and the Wynd. retained and supplemented Security fencing has recently by new planting to relate been upgraded due to its the development to its rural proximity to the school; if the setting. area were to become an amenity/play space, there 5. Comments noted. Details would be further safety regarding the play area and implications. Creating of a associated safety issues will third amenity area, in be confirmed at the addition to the existing planning application stage. village green and play area would create corridors along 6. The lane referred to Causewayend, and the within the site requirements footpath along the north- is the lane that runs along western edge of the the northern site boundary Myrescroft development and in front of Ancrum Primary across to the Wynd. These School. roads are already dangerous for pedestrians and do not 7. The Council are legally lend themselves to being required to notify all widened. Even if they did this properties within 20 metres would merely increase the of the site. As part of the danger with the increase in draft Housing SG vehicular traffic. consultation we extended this to include all properties 6. The contributor makes within a 25 metre boundary. reference to the site Should a planning requirement which states application be submitted for “...housing fronting on to the the site there would be open space in this top further consultation at that corner, and continuing with stage. frontages on to the existing lane”. The contributor states this is unspecific in terms of the ‘lane’ to which it refers. 22 7. The contributor also states they find it concerning that notification of this proposal was only considered to be relevant to such a limited number of Ancrum residents when the implications affect the whole of the community. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Mr and Mrs R J Object 1. The contributor raises 1. Comments noted. Any It is recommended that (AANCR002) Owen concerns regarding the required infrastructure Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum safety of pedestrians and upgrades will be taken into (AANCR002) is not cyclists especially young consideration at the included within the children and elderly planning application stage. Finalised Supplementary residents. Within the village The Council’s Roads Guidance on Housing. there are a number of one- Planning Team has been track lanes including The consulted throughout the Wynd. The contributor states Housing SG process. In the proposed development relation to the site they will increase the volume of provided the following local traffic and make this comments: hazard even more dangerous. The existing roads bounding the site will need to be 2. Ancrum’s historic hedged widened to cater for two byway (known as The Wynd) way flows along with has been impacted by recent footways as appropriate development on its east side. and street lighting and Further development on its speed limits will have to western edge threatens its extend accordingly. integrity further. The Pedestrian linkage to the contributor states this footpath along the north proposal under values and western edge of the new ignores the heritage of the Myrescroft development village. should also be incorporated into any proposal. 3. There is a lack of pre- school/nursery provision in 2. Comments noted. The the village. This issue will be site has been through an 23 accentuated by the proposed extensive internal development. Previous consultation process which assurances by the Council included the Council’s Lead regarding facilities for Officer of Natural Heritage. children in relation to the The comments from the previous development were Natural Heritage Team have never implemented. been incorporated into the draft SG, bullet point 7 of 4. The previous development the site requirements was only completed three states: years ago. The integration of new residents is a Where possible existing challenging ongoing process hedgerows are to be within the village. The retained and contributor states integration supplemented by new of the first housing planting to relate the development has not been development to its rural given adequate time to occur setting. or stabilise. 3. Comments noted. 5. The contributor acknowledges the site is put 4. Comments noted. forward as an alternative site however goes on to state 5. Comments noted. A full that even the possibility has site assessment has been consequences. carried out for the site at Dick’s Croft II. The site was considered acceptable for development and the site was included as an alternative site within the draft Housing SG. However various other sites within the Borders have been identified as preferred housing sites. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Pat Driver Object 1. The contributor feels the 1. Comments noted. The It is recommended that (AANCR002) previous development at Council’s Traffic and Road Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum Duke’s Field has considerably Safety Team have no (AANCR002) is not 24 altered the feel of the village, objections relating to the included within the which is no longer a tight use of the Ale Water Bridge Finalised Supplementary community where people for access to the village Guidance on Housing. know each other. The should the site be contributor states that the developed. Any required character of the village infrastructure upgrades will would be further eroded if be taken into consideration the old bridge, off the A68, at the planning application had to be widened. There stage. The Council’s Roads has already been a significant Planning Team has been increase in the amount of consulted throughout the traffic and parked card in the Housing SG process. In village which would only relation to the site they increase with further provided the following development, heightening comments: the risk of accidents. The contributor also raises The existing roads bounding concerns that the village hall the site will need to be would not be big enough to widened to cater for two hold community events and way flows along with would require enlarging. footways as appropriate and street lighting and 2. The contributor requests speed limits will have to that the sense of the local extend accordingly. community in Ancrum is Pedestrian linkage to the preserved and its existing footpath along the north character retained by not western edge of the new swamping it with another Myrescroft development development. should also be incorporated into any proposal.
Vehicular access is acceptable from all existing roads adjacent to the site and a strong street frontage onto these roads is recommended.
2. The site design and layout 25 will be decided at the planning application stage. Any application submitted for the site must adhere to the Local Development Plan policies and the Council’s Placemaking and Design SPG. The SPG clearly states new development must seek to uphold and enhance the local character and sense of place. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Prof A M and Mrs M Object 1. The contributor considers 1. Comment notes. It is recommended that (AANCR002) Davison sixty additional houses with Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum impact the current nature of 2. Comments noted. Any (AANCR002) is not the village. There are no required infrastructure included within the proposals for additional upgrades will be taken into Finalised Supplementary employment nearby and consideration at the Guidance on Housing. therefore the housing would planning application stage. be used for commuters or The Council’s Roads those wishing to retire to the Planning Team has been rural community. Therefore consulted throughout the this will change the Housing SG process. In demographic of the village relation to the site they and turn it into a dormitory. provided the following comments: 2. The proposed The existing roads bounding development will result in an the site will need to be increase of traffic along widened to cater for two South Myrescroft which is way flows along with already congested. Also on- footways as appropriate street parking by residents and street lighting and results in the road being speed limits will have to single track. The contributor extend accordingly. raises concerns regarding a Pedestrian linkage to the narrow bridge along the footpath along the north A6400 which is single western edge of the new carriageway. The contributor Myrescroft development states Scottish Borders should also be incorporated 26 Council have advised the into any proposal. bridge requires attention at which point traffic will Vehicular access is require traffic to use the acceptable from all existing Denholm road or along the roads adjacent to the site A6400. Neither of these and a strong street frontage routes are suitable for onto these roads is increased traffic for any recommended. length of time. 3. Comments noted. As 3. The contributor raises stated above any required concerns about the capacity infrastructure upgrades will of the waste water be taken into consideration infrastructure in the village at the planning application which will require to be stage. The site has gone upgraded. through an extensive consultation process where 4. Ancrum is in an area of comments were received outstanding natural beauty from various key agencies which attracts visitors from including Scottish Water. far and wide. The previous Where appropriate these development at Dukes Field comments have been resulted in houses which in included within the site no way reflect the requirements. indigenous rural architecture of the village and therefore 4. The site design and layout detracting from the visual will be decided at the attraction of the area. There planning application stage. was also a lack of supervision Any application submitted by Scottish Borders Council for the site must adhere to during development of the the Local Development Plan site resulting in significant policies and the Council’s disruption for an Placemaking and Design unacceptable length of time, SPG. The SPG clearly states more houses than originally new development must planned and failure to seek to uphold and enhance provide an additional play the local character and area. sense of place.
27 5. The contributor makes The indicative capacities reference to the site included within the Local requirement for a village Development Plan are green and states this is a based on the site area and narrow lane with a blind the anticipated density of corner adjacent to the development however school. Therefore it would be these should only be inappropriate to increase regarded as a guide and the traffic without widening the capacity could change at the road. The contributor has planning application stage. concerns regarding traffic This was the case with the safety and trusts that the site at Duke’s Field where Director of Education has the indicative capacity been consulted on the increased by nine units proposal. through the planning application process with a final approved capacity of 49 units.
Regarding the previous Duke’s Field development it should be noted since the application was submitted for the site, policy regarding the provision of play facilities has changed significantly. In 2005, new play facilities in residential developments were adopted by the Council as a matter of course and without any financial recompense. Often these were small in terms of scale and potentially resulted in the duplication of play equipment on a variety of sites within a relatively small geographical area. 28 However this outcome was not considered to be in the best interest of any stakeholders.
There is a geographical test to be considered and there will be instances where there is no feasible option other than to provide a new play area as alternative solutions are inappropriate, usually because existing play areas are too far away. However, in this instance, the existing play facility in Ancrum was in close proximity to the area at Duke’s Field provisionally identified for the additional play facility. Following much discussion with the administrators it was agreed that a sum of £18,000, would be provided to enhance existing play facilities in the village.
5. Comments noted. The draft housing SG has gone through an internal consultation process which includes the Education Asset Strategy Officer who monitors school rolls and when/if a new school or school extension is required. The comments received have been 29 incorporated into the draft Housing SG. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Ferguson Planning Support 1. The contributor considers 1. Support noted. It is recommended that (AANCR002) on behalf of the site superior to a number Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum Roxburghe Estates of the preferred sites. The 2. Comments noted. (AANCR002) is not contributor refers to Scottish included within the Planning Policy which 3. It should be noted that Finalised Supplementary requires Councils to identify the site has not been Guidance on Housing. a generous supply of land for dismissed for development. housing within all market The site was considered areas and should maintain a acceptable for development 5 year supply of effective as part of the site housing land at all times. The assessment process. contributor considers the site Following this assessment will make an effective the site was included as an addition to the Council’s alternative site. This was current shortfall in housing due to a number of reasons land supply, particularly including the sites location given the limited constraints within a Special Landscape distinguished within the Area and also due to recent phase two assessment. development within the Therefore the site should be village. A fairly substantial allocated for residential extension to the village has development on the basis relatively recently been that it is effective and any completed at Duke’s Field constraints can be overcome and it is not considered in the plan period in order to desirable to allocate a bring forward development. further housing development so soon 2. The subject site seeks to afterwards. It is considered provide approximately 60 there are more preferable additional dwellings. This site within the Scottish proposed level of Borders which can address development will enable the the identified housing provision of 25% affordable shortfall. housing; Eildon Housing Association have committed 4. Comments noted. to the provision of this level of affordable housing on the 5. With reference to the 30 site. 300no units proposed at Lowood, the Scottish 3. The contributor challenges Government document why AANCR002 was entitled “Borders Railway - dismissed for development Maximising the Impact: A when it clearly represents a Blueprint for the Future” natural extension to Ancrum identifies the opportunities and one which will not the railway corridor offers in represent coalescence with terms of being a catalyst for Jedburgh. There are no site new housing developments, constraints and no businesses or visitor contamination issues. The destinations. It supports site is on the edge of an the potential of the line in existing settlement and is in triggering significant a sustainable location with economic benefits. The SG regular bus services. The site on Housing will become part will not have a major impact of the statutory on the local road network Development Plan and it is and is easily accessible to the therefore a key document village centre. The site is not to ensure implementation identified within the SEPA of the Blueprint. Lowood is flood maps. Mitigation within a highly accessible measure can be incorporated and sustainable location in relation to surface water given its location on land runoff. There are no immediately to the north of designated sites within or the Tweedbank Railway adjacent to the site with the terminus. The site is within closest designation being the the Central Borders Housing River Tweed SAC. There are Market Area which has a no significant biodiversity proven record of housing features which could market developer interest potentially be affected by the and consumer demand. The development of dwellings. In parkland and woodland terms of heritage the site is setting and its proximity to outwith the Conservation the scenic River Tweed Area with no adjacent listed make the site a highly buildings. The site can be attractive development screened with significant opportunity. Whilst it is boundary planting which will acknowledged there are 31 mitigate against any visual some site constraints to be impact. The contributor addressed and overcome, states there are no none of these are identified constraints associated with as being insurmountable, the site following initial and work on a masterplan discussions with Scottish has already commenced Water and Scottish Power which increases the and Energy Network (SPEN). effectiveness, promotion and delivery of the site. This 4. The contributor states that will investigate in close all sites should be assessed detail the constraints to be on their individual merits. mitigated. It is contended The site identified at Ancrum that Lowood is a prime site should be allocated as: with an extremely attractive It is deliverable within setting for market interest this Local Plan lifespan and should be included No allocation within this within the SG. area of Ancrum despite it being very popular for The following was the new homes conclusion of the Not within an area of assessment undertaken for Flood Risk the Draft Housing SG, this Sustainable location: remains pertinent: Highly accessible to Ancrum Village Centre, The submission of a Flood Bus services and local Risk Assessment would be education provision required to assess risk from Next to current built the River Tweed as well as form and thus easy surface water flooding access to utilities/ issues. Co-location issues infrastructure include potential for odour Does not represent from E Langlee landfill coalescence with (Pollution, Prevention and Jedburgh Control) and WML (Waste Management Licensing) 5. The site should not be exempt composting site at dismissed due to it Pavillion Farm. There is essentially being too moderate risk to biodiversity effective especially when and mitigation would be 32 allocating 300 units to required to ensure no another site that has not yet significant adverse effects demonstrated its ability to on the integrity of the River deliver the proposed level of Tweed SAC. Archaeological housing. It is important to investigation would be allocate housing in the required. This site is outwith Scottish Borders where there the Tweedbank settlement is a strong demand – which boundary however it there is in Ancrum. benefits from its close proximity to the station at Tweedbank and business and industrial sites as well as a range of services in Galashiels. The site is entirely enclosed by the River Tweed to the north and by the existing settlement of Tweedbank to the south. The development of the site would not result in settlement coalescence. It is considered that the site offers a strategic opportunity due to its immediate proximity to the railway terminus and its location within the Central Borders. Internally there are a number of constraints which would require to be sensitively addressed. Although lacking in designations, the estate shows clear indications of being a 'designed landscape' with an attractive meandering driveway leading from the gatehouse through parkland to the 33 main house and associated buildings. There is also a significant tree and woodland structure on the estate as well as a pond which is a notable feature. These issues will require careful consideration through the process of the aforesaid masterplan and a tree survey. A Transport Appraisal will be required, with the need for at least two key vehicular access points into the site and effective pedestrian/cycle connectivity. Site access must take cognisance of the possible extension of the Borders Railway and of the potential for a replacement for Lowood Bridge as identified in the Local Access and Transport Strategy. Potential contamination would require investigation/mitigation. A full Drainage Impact Assessment would be required. There is currently no capacity at the Waste Water Treatment Works to accommodate development. The site, with its close proximity to the existing business and industrial uses at 34 Tweedbank offers the opportunity for the extension of the Central Borders Business Park. A masterplan for the site is currently being prepared which will address relevant matters in more detail, including taking account of the existing planned landscape and the consideration of appropriate zoning and phasing. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Save Scott’s Support We note with great concern Support noted. It is recommended that (AANCR002) Countryside that 50% of the Preferred Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum Sites total numbers for the (AANCR002) is not whole Borders are within five included within the miles of Abbotsford House Finalised Supplementary and Scott’s Managed Guidance on Housing. Landscape; and nearly 40% no more than two miles distant. We therefore urge SBC, in order to take some pressure off this small middle portion of the central Borders, to use the identified Alternative Sites in Ancrum, Hawick and Kelso. Ancrum Dick’s Croft II Scottish Support The contributor supports the Comments noted. It is recommended that (AANCR002) Environmental requirement to consider Dick’s Croft II, Ancrum Protection Agency surface water mitigation (AANCR002) is not measures during the design included within the stage. Finalised Supplementary Guidance on Housing. Bowden Land to West of Smith & Garratt on Object to the non- Object to the non-allocation The site was considered as It is recommended that Bowden (ABOWD013) behalf of D Maxwell allocation of (ABOWD013) of the site. part of the Housing SG. An Land to West of Bowden within the Housing SG initial stage 1 RAG (ABOWD013) is not assessment was undertaken included within the which concluded that the Finalised Supplementary 35 site should not be taken Guidance on Housing. forward as part of the Housing SG. The conclusion of the assessment stated: Development of this site is considered to be unacceptable due to the potential adverse impact upon the NSA. Development would not integrate with the existing layout of the settlement at this prominent western approach. Access to services is limited in Bowden and increased car journeys would be necessary to reach services/employment. (Note: Agent wrongly refers to this site as ABOWD011 in his submission). Bowden Land to West of Smith & Garratt on Object to the non- Object to the non-allocation The site was considered as It is recommended that Bowden 2 behalf of D Maxwell allocation of (ABOWD014) of the site. part of the Housing SG. An Land to West of Bowden (ABOWD014) within the Housing SG. initial stage 1 RAG (ABOWD014) is not assessment was undertaken included within the which concluded that the Finalised Supplementary site should not be taken Guidance on Housing. forward as part of the Housing SG. The conclusion of the assessment stated: Development of this site is considered to be unacceptable due to the potential adverse impact upon the NSA. Development would not integrate with the existing layout of the settlement at this prominent western 36 approach. Access to services are limited in Bowden and increased car journeys would be necessary to reach services/employment. A smaller portion of this site was considered at Examination during the process of the Local Plan Amendment, the Reporter concluded: ‘the site is within the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area, and Scottish Natural Heritage has supported its exclusion on landscape grounds. The council makes a general statement about the availability of other more suitable sites, but this would be a matter for a future review of the local plan. In the meantime I find no justification for its inclusion in the finalised plan’. Darnick Bankend Edwin Thompson Objects to site not being 1. The contributor is 1. The Countryside Around It is recommended that (ADARN003) LLP on behalf of H included within Housing concerned that coalescence Towns policy seeks to Bankend (ADARN003) is Smith SG between Darnick and prevent coalescence not included within the Tweedbank has been between settlements within Finalised Supplementary identified. Development of the CAT policy area. Whilst Guidance on Housing. Bankhead field has scope to the policy does not preclude retain open space or create any development in the CAT tree planting as a means of area, the site in question is separation at the western considered to sit within one end of the field and need not of the more sensitive parts involve any building further of the policy area. Indeed, to the west of Darnick than the forerunner to the CAT the existing house at Darnlee policy (Policy EP3 – to the south of Waverley Prevention of Settlement 37 Road. Coalescence) was extended by the Reporter at the time 2. The contributor notes that of the Local Plan the site is not considered to examination to specifically relate to the settlement of include a stretch of Darnick, however it can also greenfield land between be argued that the site is a Darnick and the River natural extension and this is Tweed which included this echoed in the current local site, noting that this was an plan which indicates that any exceptionally sensitive area. further extension of Darnick The retention of open space would be expected to be to or tree planting would not the west. be sufficient to overcome the harm to the distinct 3. The contributor considers characters of Tweedbank the potential adverse and Darnick which would impacts on the Southern result from developing this Upland Way, the setting of site. Darnick, listed building in the vicinity and Eildon & 2. The site lies broadly to Leaderfoot National Scenic the north west of Darnick Area are all overstated and across Waverly Road, where could be addressed through the road briefly becomes a landscaping of the site. dual carriageway. Whilst there are other dwellings 4. The contributor considers and premises north of the proposal could provide a Waverly Road, the core of much needed site for good Darnick lies to the south of quality executive housing the road and is screened by with links to Tweedbank trees. The development of railway terminus, Melrose the site would not represent and the Central Borders a natural extension of the generally. village. There is an allocation in a secluded field to the west of Darnick within the LDP, but this does not establish any clear direction for the future development of the 38 settlement, and has little to no bearing on the suitability of the proposed site.
3. The initial site assessment concluded that development would be expected to result in only potentially adverse impacts on the constraints listed, and these potential impacts were not the basis for excluding the site.
4. The benefit of close proximity to Tweedbank Railway Station was considered as part of the wider Stage 1 RAG Assessment. Whilst this was considered to be an advantage for the site, other issues were considered to outweigh it. Earlston Georgefield Felsham Planning Object 1. The contributor supports 1. Comments noted. As part It is recommended that (MEARL001, and Development the adoption of a common of the draft Housing SG the the housing sites at MEARL002 & on behalf of Rural set of measures to address housing shortfall was Georgefield, Earlston MEARL003) Renaissance Ltd the obvious housing land updated to reflect allocated (MEARL001, MEARL002 & supply shortfall but believes sites and changes to site MEARL003) are not that the Council should go capacities. Therefore the SG included within the further than is required by was required to provide 811 Finalised Supplementary the Reporter and ensure that additional units. The total Guidance on Housing. sufficient sites are allocated site capacity of the to actually deliver the 916 preferred sites is 931 units. unit shortfall. This provides additional flexibility and allows for a 2. The contributor’s criticism range and choice of sites. of the Council is that in making its allocations for the 2. The sites included within 39 draft SPG there is a the draft Housing SG have requirement for more rigour been through a full site in assessment and review. assessment process The housing land audit including consultation with should be the starting point various key agencies and for assessment but it must be internal consultees. It up to date and accurate. The should be noted as part of contributor details various the Housing Examination as comments on the Council’s part of the Local Housing Land Audit approach Development Plan 2016 the and methodology. Reporter agreed with the methodology in determining 3. The contributor objects to housing land supply used in the non-inclusion of a the Scottish Borders housing site in Earlston. The Housing Land Audit. contributor states the site at Georgefield is allocated in 3. Comments noted. In the Local Plan for 250 units. relation to meeting the The contributor states the housing shortfall the area has been judged Reporter asked the Council suitable for development. to look at redevelopment Recognition should also be opportunities and longer given to the opportunity to term sites to help meet the bring forward land identified shortfall. Each of the longer for later phases earlier than term sites were assessed for currently envisaged due to potential development the need to maintain a five however it is not considered year land supply and address that the longer site at questions raised by sites not Georgefield is effective due coming forward as quickly as to infrastructure constraints anticipated. and therefore will not be developed within the Local 4. The contributor wishes to Development Plan period. It re-iterate the case in support should be noted there is of the allocation at Earlston already a healthy housing and to set out the argument land supply in the town and to ensure that this site is land take-up in recent years developed to its fullest has been limited. extent as a priority within the 40 Local Development Plan. The 4. Part of the site covers majority of the Earlston site two existing housing is already allocated. This allocations – AEARL010 and proposal seeks the allocation AEARL011 which have a of an additional area, outside total indicative site capacity the development boundary of 100 units. The reminder but extending the current of the site is identified in principles underlying the the LDP as a potential mixed current allocation. The use longer term site with no contributor sets out how the indicative capacity stated. It site would be developed over should be noted the longer nine phases with a total term sites identified are capacity of 796 units, 255 of subject to review as part of these units will be in the first Local Development Plan five year period. The site will process. also include a mixed use element. 5. The Central Borders Housing Market Area was 5. The contributor argues formed as part of the that the Central Borders Housing Market Area Housing Market Area is too Review undertaken for the large and needs to focus on Structure Plan Alteration in areas where there is known 2007. The Central Housing demand. Allocations need to Market Area functions well be in towns that are known in its current form. It also to be marketable and need includes the Central to be well located to the new Strategic Development Area Borders railway. as set out within the Strategic Development Plan 6. The site is within the (SESplan). Within Earlston primary development hub as there is a substantial defined by the SESplan housing land supply Development Strategy. The including recent allocations settlement form is typical of at the former High School a side valley settlement, site (AEARL002), East extending away from the Turfford (AEARL010) and River Leader and into a valley phase one of the land at side along a tributary Georgefield (AEARL011). (Turfford Burn). The Therefore it is considered 41 contributor believes that a there is no need to allocate case can be made to show further housing land within that the site can be Earlston and additional land satisfactorily developed. The at Georgefield should not be contributor goes on to detail brought forward until phase the assessment of the site one has been progressed. It against a number of Local should be noted that this Plan policies including Policy area of land was also G1, G5, G6, NE4 and Inf4. subject to the recent Local Development Plan 7. The contributor has Examination. The Reporter assessed the proposal shared the opinion of the against Scottish Planning Council that “the level of Policy, SESplan and Local potential development in Development Plan policies Earlston is adequate. Whilst has concluded that the site is it is reasonable to identify suitable for development and Georgefield East as a that it should be included in preferred area for future the list of development sites expansion, it is appropriate required to be prepared by to give priority to the the LDP Reporter. currently allocated sites. Additionally, it is clear that 8. The contributor states the further impact analysis is site can be delivered within a required for Georgefield five year timeframe, is free East”. from significant constraints and will not have a significant 6. Comments noted adverse effect on any natural although it should also be or built heritage interests or noted that these policies any national or international and subsequent criteria environmental designations. referred to by the The majority of the land is contributor are out of date already allocated and the and have been superseded. contributor seeks the allocation of an additional 27 7. Comments noted. acres and a revision to site capacity to maximise the 8. The site was submitted as potential of the site and part of the Call for Sites make the best use of the process and was assessed 42 site’s ability to contribute to under site codes MEARL001, the housing land supply in a MEARL002 and MEARL003 location that has already for mixed use development. been deemed to be The sites were assessed as acceptable. unacceptable as there are significant infrastructure constraints within Earlston in relation to wastewater treatment capacity. Scottish Water have a growth project being designed and built with completion in 2018 this will be enough to accommodate the current population with some extra capacity for limited growth, no further capacity will be available until post 2025. It should also be noted that part of the site is included within the 1:200 year flood risk area along the Turrford Burn which runs directly through the site. Ednam Cilftonhill IV Archie & Maggie Object 1. The contributors state the 1. The draft Housing SG It is recommended that (AEDNA010) Stewart allocation of houses in large aims to distribute the Cliftonhill IV, Ednam sites in a few locations rather shortfall of housing broadly (AEDNA010) is not than allowing development within the Strategic included within the throughout the Borders is Development Areas (SDA) Finalised Supplementary detrimental to the region. and surrounding area. The Guidance on Housing. This policy leads to the population of each SDA and stagnation of our villages surrounding area has been with young families forced to assessed to ensure a live in soulless commuter proportional distribution of housing estates depriving the housing sites across each of areas outwith the allocated the SDAs. The majority of area of services and income. sites included in the draft Housing SG are located in 2. There are six sites of over areas with nearby transport 43 50 houses accounting for 695 links and local services and houses or 75% of the facilities. allocation in Coldstream, Kelso, Tweedbank, Peebles 2. Comments noted. The and Selkirk. The draft Housing SG includes a development of these sites range of site sizes many of can realistically only be which are redevelopment carried out by the large opportunities. It should be national housing companies noted that many of the sites such as Persimmon, Barrett actively being developed in and Wimpey. At present the Scottish Borders are these companies seem to being developed jointly have little interest in building between a Registered Social quality homes in the Scottish Landlord and a Borders. local/regional mainstream developer. National 3. Within these large sites housebuilders have interest there is an allocation of 300 and/or a presence within houses at Lowood, site some larger towns in the MTWEE002, this site having Borders. so many constraints attached that it is not likely to ever be 3. The Scottish Government developed, nor should it be. document entitled “Borders Railway - Maximising the 4. The effect of allocating Impact: A Blueprint for the only a few large sites is that Future” identifies the these sites can only be opportunities the railway developed by large national corridor offers in terms of builders with any associated being a catalyst for new profits leaving the region. housing developments, Our villages are left to businesses or visitor stagnate with fewer destinations. It supports opportunities for young the potential of the line in families to return, and the triggering significant proceeds from the economic benefits. The SG development of the land on Housing will become part remains in a few hands of the statutory rather than being spread Development Plan and it is around the region. Large therefore a key document 44 sites have more constraints to ensure implementation and a large impact on the of the Blueprint. Lowood is environment together with within a highly accessible infrastructure problems. and sustainable location Large new build sites do not given its location on land have a sense of place which immediately to the north of runs contrary to the principle the Tweedbank Railway of placemaking as stated on terminus. The site is within page 9 of the consultation the Central Borders Housing document. Market Area which has a proven record of housing 5. If development was market developer interest allowed evenly throughout and consumer demand. The the area local building firms parkland and woodland and associated trades would setting and its proximity to prosper with the profits the scenic River Tweed remaining in the Borders. make the site a highly The proceeds of land attractive development development would be in opportunity. Whilst it is many more hands which in acknowledged there are turn would no doubt be some site constraints to be invested in farms and local addressed and overcome, services. Villages would be none of these are identified able to grow in a manner as being insurmountable, that is sustainable and and work on a masterplan accessible to young families. has already commenced which increases the 6. The contributors object to effectiveness, promotion the omission of Site and delivery of the site. This AEDNA010 from this will investigate in close guidance. This site has been detail the constraints to be identified in the Local mitigated. It is contended Development Plan as an area that Lowood is a prime site for future expansion. There with an extremely attractive have been two houses setting for market interest recently completed by local and should be included builders bringing young within the SG. families into the village, proving a market for village The following was the 45 housing. The allocation of conclusion of the sites such as this will help to assessment undertaken for attract young families back the Draft Housing SG, this to the area to live and work remains pertinent: bringing income and vibrancy into the community and The submission of a Flood generating income for the Risk Assessment would be area. required to assess risk from the River Tweed as well as surface water flooding issues. Co-location issues include potential for odour from E Langlee landfill (Pollution, Prevention and Control) and WML (Waste Management Licensing) exempt composting site at Pavillion Farm. There is moderate risk to biodiversity and mitigation would be required to ensure no significant adverse effects on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC. Archaeological investigation would be required. This site is outwith the Tweedbank settlement boundary however it benefits from its close proximity to the station at Tweedbank and business and industrial sites as well as a range of services in Galashiels. The site is entirely enclosed by the River Tweed to the north and by the existing settlement of Tweedbank to the south. The development 46 of the site would not result in settlement coalescence. It is considered that the site offers a strategic opportunity due to its immediate proximity to the railway terminus and its location within the Central Borders. Internally there are a number of constraints which would require to be sensitively addressed. Although lacking in designations, the estate shows clear indications of being a 'designed landscape' with an attractive meandering driveway leading from the gatehouse through parkland to the main house and associated buildings. There is also a significant tree and woodland structure on the estate as well as a pond which is a notable feature. These issues will require careful consideration through the process of the aforesaid masterplan and a tree survey. A Transport Appraisal will be required, with the need for at least two key vehicular access points into the site and effective pedestrian/cycle connectivity. Site access must take cognisance of the 47 possible extension of the Borders Railway and of the potential for a replacement for Lowood Bridge as identified in the Local Access and Transport Strategy. Potential contamination would require investigation/mitigation. A full Drainage Impact Assessment would be required. There is currently no capacity at the Waste Water Treatment Works to accommodate development. The site, with its close proximity to the existing business and industrial uses at Tweedbank offers the opportunity for the extension of the Central Borders Business Park. A masterplan for the site is currently being prepared which will address relevant matters in more detail, including taking account of the existing planned landscape and the consideration of appropriate zoning and phasing.
4. As stated above the draft Housing SG provides a range and choice of sites throughout the Scottish Borders. There are various 48 existing housing allocations within smaller settlements identified within the Local Development Plan, including Ednam.
5. Comments noted.
6. Comments noted. The site at Cliftonhil, Ednam has been an extensive site assessment process which has involved consultation with various stakeholders and key agencies. Sites at this location have also recently been subject to Examination as part of the Local Development Plan process. The Reporter stated "that further housing between the two plots (11/00750/PPP) and the village of Ednam would lead to an impression of ribbon development and any future review of housing land potential would no doubt take this into account. The Reporter then goes on to state ‘construction of some 30 houses on the land to the north-east of the War Memorial would widen the range of choice of housing at Ednam, including affordable housing. However, this consideration does not lead me to 49 conclude that the land should be allocated for development".
It should also be noted that there is an existing housing site within Ednam at West Mill which was allocated as part of the Local Plan Amendment. The site is undeveloped although the site is currently being marketed. Galashiels Former Castle Smith & Garratt Object to the inclusion of Object to the inclusion of this Appendix 2, as contained It is recommended that Warehouse site (AGALA037) within the site on grounds that, being within the LDP, provides a Former Castle Warehouse (AGALA037) Housing SG developable in accordance windfall assumption, which site (AGALA037) is with existing planning is included within the included within the policies, its inclusion would overall potential Finalised Supplementary not help the Council to meet contribution towards the Guidance on Housing. the requirements of the SG. housing requirement (up to 2025).
The Scottish Borders is rural in character and a large proportion of the windfall assumption is provided for by housing in the countryside approvals.
The LDP provides development opportunities within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development opportunities within 50 settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities. Galashiels Former Castle Scottish Support (Flooding) Support the requirement to Support noted. The first site It is recommended that Warehouse site Environmental investigate surface water requirement should be Former Castle Warehouse (AGALA037) Protection Agency flood risk as a small part of amended to read: site (AGALA037) is the site along the south included within the western boundary is included A small part of the site Finalised Supplementary within the 1:200 year surface along the south western Guidance on Housing. water flood risk area. This boundary is included within investigation of surface the 1:200 year surface It is also recommended water should acknowledge water flood risk area. This that the site requirement the steep slopes to the matter would require to be (bullet point 1) be north-east which could direct investigated. This amended to read: surface runoff towards the investigation of surface site. We support the water should acknowledge A small part of the site requirement to establish the the steep slopes to the along the south existence of a culverted north-east which could western boundary is watercourse and to ensure direct surface runoff included within the that no buildings are towards the site. Site 1:200 year surface constructed over an existing investigations would be water flood risk area. drain/lade that is to remain required to establish This matter would active. whether or not a culverted require to be watercourse exists. No investigated. This buildings should be investigation of surface constructed over an existing water should drain/lade that is to remain acknowledge the steep active. slopes to the north- east which could direct surface runoff towards the site. Site investigations would be required to establish whether or not a culverted watercourse exists. No buildings should be constructed over an existing drain/lade that is to 51 remain active Galashiels Huddersfield Street SNH Comments (AGALA033) Reference to the River Further to the advice of SNH It is recommended that (AGALA033) Tweed SAC should be it is recommended that a Huddersfield Street updated to clearly state the site requirement is added in (AGALA033) is not requirement for submission respect of the River Tweed included within the of information to support SAC, to read as follows: Finalised Supplementary Habitats Regulations Guidance on Housing. Appraisal. This will be In respect of the River required to identify what Tweed SAC, the mitigation, if any, is to be submission of delivered. information to support the Habitats Regulations Appraisal would be required to identify what mitigation, if any, is to be delivered. Galashiels Huddersfield Street Scottish Seek the removal of the Require the removal of this Given SEPA’s objection to It is recommended that (AGALA033) Environmental site (Flooding) site from the Supplementary the site on flooding grounds Huddersfield Street Protection Agency Guidance. Would repeat the it is contended the site is (AGALA033) is not report with the initial not included within this SG. included within the response to the 'call for sites' The site is currently subject Finalised Supplementary consultation in summer to a planning application Guidance on Housing. 2016. Require a modification and the flooding issue will to the text of the be addressed via that development requirement to process. remove the text 'flood risk issues to be discussed and agreed with SEPA'. The full detailed response submitted by SEPA is available for viewing if necessary. Galashiels Lintburn Street Scottish Comment (Flooding) Suggest a modification to the Comments noted. An It is recommended that (AGALA032) Environmental development requirements additional site requirement Lintburn Street Protection Agency to read "Investigation and has been added as follows: (AGALA032) is included mitigation measures may be within the Finalised required in relation to Investigation and Supplementary Guidance surface water run-off within mitigation measures may on Housing. the site" and to make contact be required in relation to 52 with the Council Flood surface water run-off It is also recommended Protection Officer. within the site". that the following site requirement be added:
Investigation and mitigation measures may be required in relation to surface water run-off within the site".
Contact should be made with the Council’s Flood Protection Officer. Galashiels Lintburn Street Smith & Garratt Object to the inclusion of Object to the inclusion of this Appendix 2, as contained It is recommended that (AGALA032) (AGALA032) within the site on grounds that, being within the LDP, provides a Lintburn Street Housing SG developable in accordance windfall assumption, which (AGALA032) is included with existing planning is included within the within the Finalised policies, its inclusion would overall potential Supplementary Guidance not help the Council to meet contribution towards the on Housing. the requirements of the SG. housing requirement (up to 2025).
The Scottish Borders is rural in character and a large proportion of the windfall assumption is provided for by housing in the countryside approvals.
The LDP provides development opportunities within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development 53 opportunities within settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities. Galashiels Netherbarns Nathaniel Lichfield Object to the non- Object to the exclusion of the The following was the It is recommended that (AGALA029) & Partners (NLP) on allocation of (AGALA029) site on the following conclusion of the Netherbarns (AGALA029) behalf of M&J within the Housing SG grounds: assessment undertaken to is not included within the Ballantyne Ltd No specific justification the original submission Finalised Supplementary has been provided for through the process of the Guidance on Housing. the ‘amber scoring’ of call for sites, it is considered the site within the RAG that this remains relevant to Assessment, however it the most recent submission: can be assumed by the comments within the This site was considered in Stage 2 Assessment that the Local Plan Inquiry and at both this and the the recent Local decision to exclude the Development Plan site as a preferred or Examination. The Reporter's alternative site, is based recommendation at both upon the Reporters’ the Inquiry and the comments. NLP strongly Examination was for the site object to this and to be removed from the consider that the findings Local Plan/LDP. of the Reporters can no longer be considered As part of the recent LDP valid as they were based Examination the Reporter upon past assessments of concurred with the specific development conclusions reached at the proposals, which were of previous Local Plan Inquiry. a higher density than The Reporter noted the lack those presently posed, of formal objection by and did not make Historic Scotland reference to any new and stated that cultural and developments, such as landscape considerations the Heritage Assessment. combine to provide an asset NLP consider the which should remain free of implementation of the the impact of the suggested landscaping strategy allocation and any would in fact further subsequent development of 54 enhance the setting of Netherbarns. The Reporter Abbotsford House. did not accept that the The land at Netherbarns woodland screening would is effective and free from adequately mitigate the constraints which could adverse impacts of the impact upon its viability. allocation on the setting of The Stage 2 Assessment the house or the designed proved the site to be landscape. favourable with consultees, who Additionally, the re-opening highlighted that the site of the railway link to has good access to local Galashiels is likely to services, facilities and increase the volume of employment due to the visitors to Abbotsford, public transport links and therefore further close proximity to major strengthening the need to roads. Additionally the protect the heritage of the site was found to be vicinity. acceptable in relation to the potential impact on It is acknowledged that this open space, archaeology, recent submission has re- biodiversity and emphasised why the education. The site is applicants consider that the supported through a proposal will have a minimal previous planning detrimental impact on the approval and has long setting of Abbotsford been supported by House. However given that Scottish Borders Council this case has twice been and its officers. The dismissed by Reporters, allocation of the site most recently with regards would make a valuable to the adopted 2016 Local contribution toward the Development Plan, it is clear delivery of new housing the concerns the Reporters in Galashiels, of which have with regards to the there is a recognised allocation of this site and shortfall to the tune of therefore it is not 916 units, although NLP considered there are any consider the true further grounds nor shortfall to be information provided which 55 significantly higher. will alter that stance. The development of Therefore the site is not Netherbarns presents an being taken forward into opportunity to realise the Housing Supplementary these benefits on a Guidance. sustainably located site. NLP consider that the site It is considered that the should be assessed Applicant/Agent would against the Stage 1 again need to consider the Assessment as ‘green’ as options available for opposed to ‘amber’, and woodland screening and the given the support shown impacts on Abbotsford by the Council and the House for this site to be consultees should be reassessed in the future. presented as a preferred or alternative site within the Draft Housing SG. Galashiels Rose Court Andrew T. Bramhall, Note (AGALA036) As the trustees of the former A site plan was requested This site could be (AGALA036) St. John’s Church manse in Hawthorn Road on but not submitted. In any considered during the land to the west of event, there would be an process of Local AGALA036. The property is opportunity to submit the Development Plan 2. currently on the market for site for consideration during sale. Would this property the process of Local and ground be of interest for Development Plan 2. In the future housing consideration meantime, the site is being adjacent to site located within the AGALA036? settlement boundary of Galashiels and could be considered for infill development without a formal housing allocation. Any such planning application would be considered primarily against Policy PMD5 – Infill Development of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016. Galashiels Rose Court Smith & Garratt Object to the inclusion of Object to the inclusion of this Appendix 2, as contained It is recommended that 56 (AGALA036) (AGALA036) within the site on grounds that, being within the LDP, provides a Rose Court (AGALA036) is Housing SG developable in accordance windfall assumption, which included within the with existing planning is included within the Finalised Supplementary policies, its inclusion would overall potential Guidance on Housing. not help the Council to meet contribution towards the the requirements of the SG. housing requirement (up to 2025).
The Scottish Borders is rural in character and a large proportion of the windfall assumption is provided for by housing in the countryside approvals.
The LDP provides development opportunities within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development opportunities within settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities. Galashiels Rose Court Scottish Support (Flooding) Support the requirement to Support noted. It is recommended that (AGALA036) Environmental consider potential surface Rose Court (AGALA036) is Protection Agency water runoff from nearby included within the hills along with appropriate Finalised Supplementary mitigation. Guidance on Housing. Galashiels Winston Road Ferguson Planning Object to the non- All sites should be assessed The south eastern half of It is recommended that (RGALA005) on behalf of allocation of (RGALA005) on their individual merits. the site is allocated within Winston Road (RGALA005) Amcows 59 Ltd within the Housing SG The site should be allocated the Scottish Borders Local is not included within the for housing to meet the 916 Development Plan 2016 for Finalised Supplementary housing shortfall for the redevelopment. The site Guidance on Housing. following reasons: requirements highlight that 57 It is deliverable within due to the nature of the this Local Plan lifespan. existing adjoining uses, it is The developer owns the not considered that this site land and has the finances could be developed for and resources to bring residential purposes. The forward the adjoining uses include the development within the former abattoir (forming plan period. part of RGALA005) and the 71 units can be delivered Electricity Sub Station to the outside the overhead north. The sewage works power line zone. are also located to the However the aim is south. For the reasons decommission these highlighted within the pylons and relay original site assessment it is underground in order to not considered that this site get a maximum is appropriate for a housing developable area. allocation, as follows: It is in a sustainable location, highly The location of the site is accessible to Galashiels acceptable in principle for Town Centre, bus residential development. services and Tweedbank However, a key issue is Train Station. potential conflict with It is a brownfield site and adjacent uses. These include relates well to the the substation site (noise, existing built up area, vibration,overhead lines), with existing residential sewage works (odours), properties to the west railway line and next to MGALA003, a (noise/vibration) and an mixed use development exclusion zone with gas opportunity. pipeline running on the It has very easy access to eastern boundary of the utilities/infrastructure. site. These are all issues The site is not at risk of which would require to be flooding from the River explored in great detail by Tweed. the developer. A Flood Risk Affordable housing will Assessment would be be provided on part if required. There is moderate not all of the site in biodiversity risk. Assessment 58 accordance with Policy and mitigation of impact on HD1. SAC required. Capacity of There are no issues with the site would depend upon access to the site. the wayleaves required for The site is considered OH powerlines and this may acceptable in principle take out parts of the site. for residential Environmentally there are development. few limits although existing It is highly important to trees within the site on the allocate housing in the south and near eastern side Scottish Borders where there should be retained to is a strong demand to live provide setting and and especially on brownfield minimise impacts on River land. For these reasons the Tweed adjoining. A subject site should be Transport Assessment would allocated as a ‘preferred be required. Contamination site’. would require to be investigated and mitigated. Ferguson Planning believes that there are numerous ‘preferred’ or ‘alternative’ sites indicated that are less superior than the subject site. Gattonside Gateside Meadow- Felsham Planning Object to the non- The proposal will meet the The following was the It is recommended that Castlefield and Development allocation of (AGATT013) aims and objectives of the conclusion of the Gateside Meadow- (AGATT013) on behalf of Rural within the Housing SG development plan by: assessment undertaken to Castlefield (AGATT013) is Renaissance Ltd Ensuring sufficient new the original submission not included within the housing land is available through the process of the Finalised Supplementary allowing for a phased call for sites, it is considered Guidance on Housing. approach to the release that this remains relevant to of housing land; the most recent submission: Meeting the economic prosperity and The site was identified as environmental quality constrained in the strategic objectives; Development and Locating development Landscape Capacity Study which minimises number for the following reasons: and length of car development across the 59 journeys by providing undulating slopes is new homes adjacent to a constrained by the more transport corridor; complex topography and The contribution to the often steep slopes which strategy and policies of would require earthworks; the Development Plan the area is highly open and and other national and relatively exposed because local policy objectives; of the broadly convex Delivering a proposal curvature of the hill flank; within a 5 year the slopes are very visible, timeframe, or within particularly from the south such timeframe that it and the Eildon Hills, from helps reduce the where they contribute to the pressure on the planning scenic quality of the authority to deliver it’s National Scenic Area; the already allocated sites; fields are a valuable The provision of choice agricultural resource. There across the housing are also considerable access market area; issues to be addressed and The design, quality and resolved. density of development that can be achieved; It should also be noted that The proposal will not this site formed part of the have a significant 2006 Local Plan Inquiry and adverse effect on any the recent Local natural or built heritage Development Plan interests or any national Examination for 150 units. or international The Reporter of the LDP environmental Examination agreed with designations; the findings of the previous The proposal can support Reporter who noted that, the existing services in "in view of its elevated the village; position and slope, The proposals can development would be contribute to the prominent when viewed facilitation of improved from the immediate vicinity facilities in the village and in more distant views and in neighbouring from the south, including villages; and the Eildon Hills. 60 There are no other Development of this significant environmental greenfield site would also dis-benefits or risks, for have an adverse effect on example flooding. the rural setting of this part of Gattonside. I am not There is a clear requirement satisfied that development for the Local Development at a low density would Plan to identify further satisfactorily resolve those housing land supply in the matters. That is a Central Borders Housing consideration to which I Market Area, and within the must attach great weight area identified as rest of given the likely impact on central housing market area. the Eildon and Leaderfoot Allocation of the subject site National Scenic Area". This to the full extent shown on position remains unchanged the attached plan will help to and therefore it is not meet the 5 year housing land considered appropriate to supply shortfall. allocate this site for Accordingly, it is requested housing. that Gattonside Mains be included in the list of allocated sites within the Local Development Plan. Gattonside Lower Gateside Ferguson Planning Request that the site All sites should be assessed The site has been through It is recommended that (AGATT016) on behalf of Moyle (AGATT016) be on their individual merits. the full site assessment Lower Gateside L & D (MLD) considered for allocation The reasons it is considered process which concluded (AGATT016) is not in the Housing SG that this site should be that it is doubtful and it is included within the allocated for housing to help considered there are more Finalised Supplementary meet the 916 housing appropriate sites within the Guidance on Housing. shortfall are as follows: Central SDA to meet the housing shortfall. The main It is deliverable within issues relate to access, this Local Plan lifespan. impact upon the settlement, No allocation within this impact upon the NSA and area of Gattonside the overall scale of the despite it being very proposal in relation to popular for new homes. Gattonside. Please refer to Not within an area of the full site assessment Flood Risk. contained within Appendix 61 Sustainable location – D – Stage 2 Database highly accessible to Report. Tweedbank railway station and industrial estate Melrose and Gattonside, and local education provision. Existing footpath provision runs past the site. Next to current built form and thus easy access to utilities/infrastructure. Does not represent coalescence with Melrose of Tweedbank.
It is stressed that it is highly important to allocate housing in the Scottish Borders where there is a strong demand to live. There is a clear high demand for homes in Gattonside and thus request that it is considered. Hawick 1. Leishman Place Smith and Garratt Object to the inclusion of; The contributor states that Appendix 2, as contained It is recommended that (AHAWI025) on behalf of Millar Leishman Place the site is covered by existing within the LDP, provides a Leishman Place Partnership and (AHAWI025), development policies, windfall assumption, which (AHAWI025), Henderson 2. Henderson Road David Wilson Henderson Road therefore including the site is included within the Road (AHAWI026), (AHAWI026) Homes (AHAWI026), within the SG does not overall potential Factory, Fairhurst Drive Factory, Fairhurst Drive increase the availability and contribution towards the (RHAWI011) & Heather 3. Factory, Fairhurst (RHAWI011) & Heather choice of available sites. housing requirement (up to Mill (MSELK002) are all Drive (RHAWI011) Mill (MSELK002) 2025). included within the Objects to the inclusion of Finalised Supplementary 4. Heather Mill within the Housing SG, the site on the grounds that The Scottish Borders is rural Guidance on Housing. (MSELK002) stating that it is covered it is capable of being in character and a large by existing development developed in accordance proportion of the windfall 62 policies with existing planning assumption is provided for policies and the inclusion by housing in the within the Housing SG would countryside approvals. not help the Council in meeting the requirements of The LDP provides the SG. development opportunities within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development opportunities within settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities. Hawick Burnfoot Phase 1 Scottish Notes 1. The contributor supports 1. Support noted. It is recommended that (AHAWI027) Environmental the requirement for a Flood Burnfoot Phase 1 Protection Agency Risk Assessment (FRA). 2. Comments noted. If the (AHAWI027) is not site was to be taken forward included within the 2. The contributor requires a for inclusion within the Finalised Supplementary modification to the Finalised Housing SG, the Guidance on Housing. developer requirement site requirement in respect stating that no built of flood risk would be development takes place on amended to read: top of culverted watercourses/ drains ‘A flood risk assessment is required to take cognisance of the possibility of a culverted water course within the site, the need for a sustainable drainage system and the wetland area to the south west. No built development should take place on top of culverted watercourses/ drains’. 63 However, it should be noted that the site is not proposed for inclusion within the Finalised Housing SG. Hawick Burnfoot Phase 1 Jane Mitchell Objects (Various) 1. The population is growing 1. Comments are noted. It is recommended that (AHAWI027) in Scotland and the world. The protection of Burnfoot Phase 1 Land is one of Scotland’s agricultural land is an aim of (AHAWI027) is not most valuable natural the planning system and included within the resources and it should be national policy affords Finalised Supplementary protected where possible. particular protection to land Guidance on Housing. Agriculture is one of the which is designated as most important industries in Prime Agricultural land by Scotland, and the Scottish the James Hutton Institute. Borders. The loss of land to The site in question is not development leads to a classified as such, and whilst reduction in the amount of planning seeks to protect food produced. The other agricultural land proposed area for where possible, the Council Employment and residential has a duty to find effective on the Eastern side of Hawick housing land. There is a is the most productive land limited amount of effective surrounding Hawick. The brownfield land within the Council and the Scottish Borders and it is inevitable Government should be that an element of assessing less productive greenfield land is required areas of land to develop to ensure an adequate instead of highly productive supply of effective land is land. I understand the need maintained. for development but planning should give greater 2. Comments are noted, consideration to the need for however this is not a future food supplies. material planning consideration. 2. The margins which farmers receive for their products are 3. The edge of Borders marginal, therefore the settlements are often contributor relies on characterised by agricultural economies of scale in order uses meeting residential 64 to ensure they make a profit. uses and whilst there is By reducing the productive potential for some degree area of the land farmed, this of conflict in these increases the costs of circumstances, on balance, production. The contributor the two uses are considered states that by constantly to be of acceptable nibbling away at the compatibility. productive area there is a severe danger that their 4. There are many places in farming enterprise will the Borders where fields run become unsustainable. next to towns without fire breaks and this is not 3. Farming arable land next considered to be a reason to to housing areas becomes preclude development. exceedingly difficult as can be demonstrated at the field 5. MHAW1001 is allocated adjacent to Burnfoot. The for mixed use. Sites contributor states that they proposed for mixed use are constantly battling with could be developed for a vandalism, especially at variety of uses subject to harvest time. other LDP policies, including housing. This site was 4. There is a huge fire risk considered at the initial created with the stage 1 assessment stage, development of residential but it was concluded that housing at the proposed the site should not be taken area. The road currently forward as part of the provides a fire break both for Housing SG. The conclusion the town from the fields and of the assessment is as vice versa. If a fire was to follows: break out in the proposed area without a break such as This site is allocated for the road there is a huge risk mixed use within the that a fire could spread, all Scottish Borders LDP. There the way to Appletreehall. are several allocated sites in the vicinity, including housing sites, and in 5. The town already owns particular, a longer term MHAW1001 which with the housing site [SHAWI003]. correct infrastructure would 65 be suitable for housing. There is insufficient capacity There is no infrastructure in for all of these sites to be the proposed SHAW1003. allocated for housing at this time, and this site is 6. Is it really safe having considered less appropriate children crossing major roads than the longer term in order to get to school and housing site at Burnfoot. other amenities. This site cannot be considered further at this 7. Why is there not more time. housing proposed at zEL49 where the amenities are 6. The Council would much easier to access? consider the need to improve pedestrian crossings at the time of any 8. If the proposed extension future planning application. to the Scottish Borders This would ensure any railway to Hawick is granted improvements were this is most likely to run to commensurate with the the Southern side of the scale of development town, it would make more proposed and the sense for housing to be anticipated vehicle and increased around this area in pedestrian flows identified order to make it more through the accompanying accessible for more people. Transport Assessment, which is a requirement of 9. Loss of land to development of the site. development reduces biodiversity. The land at 7. Site zEL49 is safeguarded Burnhead is currently employment land. This land involved in an Agri- is protected to secure the Environment Scheme supply of employment land. supported by the Scottish Government which aims to 8. There has been no protect and enhance decision on whether to Scotland’s natural heritage extend the Borders Railway, and mitigate and adapt to or on the route any climate change. extension may take.
66 10. Hawick already has a 9. The Council’s Ecology large unemployment rate Officer was consulted as due to business decline such part of the Council’s initial as the closure of several assessment of the site and textile companies recently advised that there were no e.g. Allflex. Further housing significant known only exacerbates this. biodiversity issues on the site. Nevertheless the draft SG set out a requirement that any impact on ecology must be assessed and that mitigation be required as appropriate.
10. Hawick sits within the Central Strategic Development Area as defined within the Strategic Development Plan (SESplan) and sits within the Central Housing Market Area. The Central Strategic Development Area is where growth will be focused due to the concentration of strategic employment sites and good transport links. The site is considered to have good access to employment opportunities within the Hawick and Central Borders area. It is not agreed that further housing in Hawick will exacerbate unemployment issues. Hawick Burnfoot Phase 1 SNH Support 1. The site lies adjacent to 1. If the site was to be taken It is recommended that (AHAWI027) business and employment forward for inclusion in the Burnfoot Phase 1 allocation BHAWI001. A Finalised Housing SG, the (AHAWI027) is not 67 planning brief is required for site requirement relating to included within the both sites and the the need for a planning Finalised Supplementary contributor recommends brief, would be amended to Guidance on Housing. that a brief that sets out read: requirements for both sites is prepared. This would support ‘A planning brief is required a coordinated, strategic covering both AHAWI027 & approach to development BHAWI001 sites to ensure a here from the outset. This co-ordinated and strategic should include connectivity approach to development. between the sites, which is The brief should address not explicitly set out in the connectivity between the current site requirements in two sites and reflect the the draft Supplementary principles of Designing Guidance and the LDP. Streets’.
2. The contributor welcomes 2. Support noted. the requirement that design and layout should aim to However, it should be noted enhance biodiversity value of that the site is not proposed the site. Viewed in its wider for inclusion within the context, appropriate habitat Finalised Housing SG. networks within this site could provide links between existing habitats on sites to the west and east, bridging an existing gap. Hawick Burnfoot Phase 1 Save Scott’s Support the inclusion of The contributor urges SBC to Support for this site is It is recommended that (AHAWI027) Countryside the site take pressure off sites within noted, however it is Burnfoot Phase 1 5 miles of Abbotsford House concluded that there are (AHAWI027) is not and Scott’s Managed more appropriate sites included within the Landscape and use identified available and this site will Finalised Supplementary Alternative sites including not therefore go forward for Guidance on Housing. this site in Hawick. allocation. Hawick Fairhurst Drive Ferguson Planning Note This site has most recently The majority of the site has It is recommended that (RHAWI011) on behalf of been in use as employment not been in active Fairhurst Drive Roxburghe Estates and the Economic employment use for many (RHAWI011) is included Development team have years, is derelict and within the Finalised suggested that the site be adversely affecting the Supplementary Guidance 68 retained for continued amenity of the local area, on Housing. employment use rather than which is partly residential in lose it to housing character. The site is not development. They feel that allocated for employment the site needs to be use but rather is allocated considered in association for redevelopment. The with the Borders railway principle of supporting non- extension to Hawick as the employment uses on the route could possibly impact site is therefore already on its southern edge. The established. Comments Council assert that there is from the Council’s Economic sufficient available Development team in employment land within the relation to the Borders Hawick area, however as Railway relate to potential stated within the adopted for the route of any LDP “The town remains in extension to impact on the need of regeneration and the site’s southern edge. This Council’s Economic has been addressed by the Development team is first site requirement which working in partnership with requires a buffer zone to be the community to maximise formed to the south of the the town’s potential and site. create new jobs.” This would suggest that the Economic Development team have an active insight in the employment prospects within the town and more weight should be placed on their objection to housing development on this site. Hawick Fairhurst Drive Scottish Supports The contributor supports the Support noted. It is recommended that (RHAWI011) Environmental requirement to consider Fairhurst Drive Protection Agency surface water runoff from (RHAWI011) is included the nearby hills at design within the Finalised stage. Supplementary Guidance on Housing. Kelso Former Kelso High Ferguson Planning Note The contributor is not Comments noted. There is It is recommended that School (RKELS002) on behalf of opposed to the principle of currently a Concept Design the Former Kelso High 69 Roxburghe Estates redevelopment of this Report being undertaken for School, Kelso (RKELS002) brownfield site; however the site. It should be noted is included within the they question the level of the site capacity is indicative Finalised Supplementary capacity being proposed. and this may change once a Guidance on Housing. SEPA have indicated that planning application is there may be flooding issues submitted for the site. The adjacent to the site which site requirements included requires further within the draft Housing investigation. The Landscape Supplementary Guidance Officer also comments that a also state that a tree survey feasibility study is required to is required to influence the consider the development design and layout of the options based on the site. significant constraints imposed by the listed buildings, restricted access and potential tree retention. The capacity of the site for development cannot be determined until study has been undertaken. Kelso Former Kelso High Sports Scotland Note The contributor notes that Comments noted. It is recommended that School (RKELS002) this is a school site which is the Former Kelso High to be replaced with a new School, Kelso (RKELS002) school including sports is included within the facilities developed in Finalised Supplementary consultation with Guidance on Housing. sportscotland. Nevertheless, as the last use of part of the site appears to be an outdoor sports facility, we would be a statutory consultee under the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and would determine our position on any proposal against the above mentioned SPP 70 criteria. Kelso Former Kelso High Historic Object The contributor recommends Comments noted. Following It is recommended that School (RKELS002) Environment that the Council reword the further discussions with the the Former Kelso High Scotland requirement relating to the Council’s Built Heritage School, Kelso (RKELS002) listed building to ensure that Principal Officer and Historic is included within the the demolition criteria Environment Scotland it has Finalised Supplementary provided are only applicable been agreed that should the Guidance on Housing. to buildings on site which are site be taken forward into not considered to be listed the finalised Housing SG the It is also recommended (including those buildings site requirement (bullet that the site requirement listed by curtilage). point 5) should be amended (bullet point 5) be to read: amended to read:
The presumption is for The presumption is for retention of the B-listed retention of the B-listed building. The removal of building. The removal less significant parts of of less significant parts the complex will likely of the complex will be acceptable. Any likely be proposal for substantial acceptable. Any or total demolition of proposal for substantial the listed building will or total demolition of need to demonstrate the listed building will that one of the need to demonstrate demolition tests within that one of the the Historic Environment demolition tests within Scotland Policy the Historic Statement can be met. Environment Scotland Policy Statement can be met. Kelso Former Kelso High Smith & Garratt on Object The SG includes a number of Appendix 2, as contained It is recommended that School (RKELS002) behalf of the Millar small sites within settlement within the LDP, provides a the Former Kelso High Partnership and boundaries. These appear to windfall assumption, which School, Kelso (RKELS002) David Wilson be covered by existing is included within the is included within the Homes development policies, adding overall potential Finalised Supplementary these to the SG, does not contribution towards the Guidance on Housing. increase the availability and housing requirement (up to choice of available sites, 2025). which includes RKELS002. 71 Object to the inclusion of this The Scottish Borders is rural site on the grounds of, being in character and a large developable in accordance proportion of the windfall with existing planning assumption is provided for policies, their inclusion by housing in the would not help the Council to countryside approvals. meet the requirement of the SG. The LDP provides development opportunities within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development opportunities within settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities. Kelso Former Kelso High Scottish Support The contributor supports the Comments noted. It is recommended that School (RKELS002) Environmental requirement for investigation the Former Kelso High Protection Agency and mitigation measures in School, Kelso (RKELS002) relation to surface water run- is included within the off within the site. Finalised Supplementary Guidance on Housing. Kelso Hendersyde - Phase 2 Scottish Natural Note 1. The contributor notes that 1. Comments noted. Should It is recommended that (AKELS028) Heritage the site requirements include the site be taken forward Hendersyde - Phase 2, assessment of impact on the into the finalised Housing Kelso (AKELS028) is not River Tweed SAC. Due to the SG the site requirement included within the distance from the SAC and referring to the River Tweed Finalised Supplementary the intervening landform and SAC should be removed. Guidance on Housing. use, including intervening walls along the A698, we do 2. Bullet point seven of the not consider there to be a site requirements makes pathway between the SAC reference to the need for and this site. This structure planning along the requirement could therefore north-eastern and north- be removed. western boundaries. 72 However should the site be 2. This site and AKELS002 taken forward into the (SBC assume the contributor finalised Housing SG the site means AKELS022) are open requirement (bullet point 7) and, due to this lack of should be amended to read: containment, careful consideration of boundary New structure planting treatments will be required. is required along the Establishment of new north-eastern and structure planting along the north-western north-eastern and north- boundaries to provide western boundaries would new visual containment generally accord with the and shelter and existing settlement edges, screening of views from which are characterised by the north. Careful woodland belts. consideration will be Nevertheless, careful required to ensure that consideration will be an appropriate gateway required to ensure that an to the settlement is appropriate gateway to the established. Structure settlement is established. We planting should consider that this could be integrate with existing achieved more effectively if woodland and walled this site was included in the area adjoining the planning brief for AKELS022 cemetery site. A as well as a joint masterplan management scheme for these sites. for planting is required
There is already an approved planning brief for Hendersyde – Phase 1 (AKELS022) therefore this site cannot be included within it. However a separate planning brief could be produced for the site if deemed necessary in due course. Kelso Hendersyde - Phase 2 Smith & Garratt on Support The contributors support the Support noted. It is recommended that 73 (AKELS028) behalf of the Millar allocation of AKELS028 for Hendersyde - Phase 2, Partnership and residential development. However, it is considered Kelso (AKELS028) is not David Wilson Phase 1 of the site is under that there are more included within the Homes option to a national appropriate sites to meet Finalised Supplementary housebuilder. Marketing the housing land shortfall. Guidance on Housing. testing undertaken in the autumn shows good demand but at weak prices, so development is unlikely to start until perceived risks such as Brexit and IndyRef2 have settled down, when it does being progress should be quick. The contributors believe it is entirely appropriate to list this is in the SG but would prefer to see the site identified as a preferred not an alternative site. Kelso Hendersyde - Phase 2 Save Scott’s Support We note with great concern Support noted. It is recommended that (AKELS028) Countryside that 50% of the preferred Hendersyde - Phase 2, sites total numbers for the However, it is considered Kelso (AKELS028) is not whole Borders are within five that there are more included within the miles of Abbotsford House appropriate sites to meet Finalised Supplementary and Scott’s Managed the housing land shortfall. Guidance on Housing. Landscape; and nearly 40% no more than two miles distant. We therefore urge SBC, in order to take some pressure off this small middle portion of the central Borders, to use the identified alternative sites in Ancrum, Hawick and Kelso. Kelso Hendersyde - Phase 2 Scottish Support The contributor supports the Comments noted. It is recommended that (AKELS028) Environmental requirement stating that Hendersyde - Phase 2, Protection Agency investigation and mitigation Kelso (AKELS028) is not measures may be required in included within the 74 relation to surface water run- Finalised Supplementary off within the site. Guidance on Housing. Kelso Nethershot - Phase 2 Scottish Natural Note 1. The contributor welcomes 1. Comments noted. The It is recommended that (AKELS026) Heritage the requirement that this site final masterplan for the site Nethershot - Phase 2 should be masterplanned will take cognisance of the (AKELS026) is included alongside earlier points raised and will be within the Finalised development phases at subject to public Supplementary Guidance Nethershot. While we are consultation. on Housing. unsighted as to the content or merits of these earlier 2. Comments noted. Should It is also recommended masterplans, as discussed in the site be allocated within that the final site our comments on the site the finalised Housing SG the requirement should be sift, it is important that a final site requirement amended to read: coordinated, strategic should be amended to read: approach to development Pedestrian and cycle here is achieved from the Pedestrian and cycle links from the site to outset. In particular we links from the site to the the new adjoining highlight the need to ensure new adjoining High High School site are appropriate design School site are required. required. The National consistency and connections The National Cycle Cycle Network Route 1 between the landscape Network Route 1 runs runs along the frameworks of development along the northern northern boundary of areas and an appropriate boundary of the site and the site and continuity and connection of appropriately designed appropriately designed the proposed routes for active travel active travel walking and cycling. connections to the connections to the Delivering successful co- network should be network should be ordination may require incorporated into the incorporated into the greater detail on the site site design. site design. requirements for these issues. 3. Comments noted.
2. While we welcome the site requirements to include pedestrian and cycle links from the site to the new adjoining High School site, there is no reference to the National Cycle Network 75 (NCN) Route 1, which runs along the north boundary of the site. We advise that appropriately designed active travel connections to the NCN should also be sought.
3. As the site requirements identify the minor public road here as a potential access point, any transport assessment and design for a reconfigured road should include provision to maintain this as a safe route for cyclists and pedestrians. Kelso Nethershot - Phase 2 Scottish Support The contributor supports the Comments noted. It is recommended that (AKELS026) Environmental requirement to investigate Nethershot - Phase 2, Protection Agency and mitigate surface water Kelso (AKELS026) is run-off from the site. included within the Finalised Supplementary Guidance on Housing. Kelso Nethershot - Phase 2 Clarendon Planning Support 1. The contributor supports 1. Support noted. It is recommended that (AKELS026) and Development the allocation and reaffirms Nethershot - Phase 2, Ltd & Aitken the deliverability of the site 2. Comments noted. Kelso (AKELS026) is Turnbull Architects within the Local included within the Ltd on behalf of Development Plan up to Finalised Supplementary Lord Ralph Kerr, 2025. The contributor Guidance on Housing. The Ferniehirst provides the background of Trust & Roxburghe the site and states there is Estates scope for approximately 100 dwellings on the site including 25% affordable. Anticipated phasing shows the site could potentially be completed by 2021/22. The contributor goes on to detail the process of producing the Supplementary Guidance 76 (SG) and state they support the aims and objectives of the SG. The contributor also supports the Council’s assessment and consultation of the land at Nethershot.
2. The contributor provides additional points that further support the land being allocated for future housing. These include that the site is in the ownership of a willing sellers and discussions are currently being held with housing developers regarding future development of the site. The site is free of constraints and can be developed. The development would be privately funded which would allow for any infrastructure improvements that are required. Kelso is a highly marketable location within the Borders. The site could be programmed for completion within the LDP period based on the estimated capacity of 100 units. The further assessment of the site clearly confirms it is an effective housing site and can make a significant contribution to the housing land supply. The contributor has also submitted an indicative masterplan for the site and the previously 77 approved site to the south east (AKELS021). Kelso Tweed Court KA and EM Nisbet 1. The contributors have no 1. Comments noted. It is recommended that (AKELS025) objections in principle. Tweed Court, Kelso However as the information 2. Any planning application (AKELS025) is included available is minimal the submitted for the site would within the Finalised contributors reserve the right need to meet the site Supplementary Guidance to raise concerns once more requirements contained on Housing. detailed plans become within the finalised SG. One available. The contributors of the site requirements for state the 20 units on the site AKELS025 states: does seem rather a lot. A tree survey is required 2. In relation to the mature to influence the design trees on the site, our main and layout of site. The concern is whoever takes existing trees within the over the site may not site are to be retained maintain the trees to an wherever possible, acceptable level. Therefore subject to the outcome we request that the removal of the survey to confirm of the trees be factored in to condition. any planning application. The contributors understand from the Supplementary Guidance there are no Tree Preservation Orders in place. Kelso Tweed Court Lorraine & Note The contributors raise Comments noted. Any It is recommended that (AKELS025) Raymond Elliot concerns regarding parking issues relating to parking Tweed Court, Kelso provision for any new will be addressed at the (AKELS025) is included development at Tweed planning application stage. within the Finalised Court. The contributors Supplementary Guidance highlight an existing issue on Housing. with parking at the location which is restricting access to resident’s driveways. Kelso Tweed Court Mr and Mrs Ritchie Note The contributors raise Comments noted. Any It is recommended that (AKELS025) concerns regarding parking issues relating to parking Tweed Court, Kelso provision for any new will be addressed at the (AKELS025) is included development at Tweed planning application stage. within the Finalised 78 Court. The contributors Supplementary Guidance highlight an existing issue on Housing. with parking at the location which is restricting access to resident’s driveways. Kelso Tweed Court Mr and Mrs Tinline Note The contributors have no Comments noted. It is recommended that (AKELS025) objections in principle to the Tweed Court, Kelso building of these houses. If (AKELS025) is included the proposal moved to the within the Finalised planning stage the Supplementary Guidance contributors would comment on Housing. in more detail about the design of the houses and the protection of the mature trees and bushes that form a natural boundary that gives both side of the road some privacy. Kelso Tweed Court Mrs S Todd Note The contributor has no Comments noted. It is recommended that (AKELS025) objections in principle to the Tweed Court, Kelso building of these houses. If (AKELS025) is included the proposal moved to the within the Finalised planning stage the Supplementary Guidance contributor would comment on Housing. in more detail about the design of the houses and the protection of the mature trees and bushes that form a natural boundary that gives both side of the road some privacy. Kelso Tweed Court Smith & Garratt on Object The SG includes a number of Appendix 2, as contained It is recommended that (AKELS025) behalf of the Millar small sites within settlement within the LDP, provides a Tweed Court, Kelso Partnership and boundaries. These appear to windfall assumption, which (AKELS025) is included David Wilson be covered by existing is included within the within the Finalised Homes development policies, adding overall potential Supplementary Guidance these to the SG, does not contribution towards the on Housing. increase the availability and housing requirement (up to choice of available sites, 2025). 79 which includes AKELS025. Object to the inclusion of this The Scottish Borders is rural site on the grounds of, being in character and a large developable in accordance proportion of the windfall with existing planning assumption is provided for policies, their inclusion by housing in the would not help the Council to countryside approvals. meet the requirement of the SG. The LDP provides development opportunities within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development opportunities within settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities.
It should be noted that due to the involvement of a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) it is considered the site is an appropriate and effective site to be included within the SG. Melrose Bleachfield Ferguson Planning Objects to the site not 1. The contributor states that 1. Comments noted. The It is recommended that (AMELR012) on behalf of JS being included there has been strong site was rejected at the site Bleachfield, Melrose Crawford Estates demand shown for 48 houses initial stage 1 site (AMELR012) is not together with a potential assessment stage primarily included within the care home for this site. The due to the unacceptable Finalised Supplementary contributor also notes that harm to the distinct Guidance on Housing. there has been no housing identities of Melrose and allocated in this area of Darnick that the Melrose despite it being development would result highly popular for new in, and which Countryside 80 homes and will be evidently Around Towns policy seeks delivered over the lifespan of to maintain. The potential the local plan. It is important effectiveness of the site is that land allocations are not in question. made in sustainable and sought after locations to live. 2. Sensitivity within the CAT Large land allocations in policy area varies, areas that are not in demand particularly in relation to will not address the housing coalescence, and this was shortfall within the specified reflected in the assessment time period. The contributor of sites within the CAT stresses that it is highly policy area. The area important to allocate between Darnick and housing in the Scottish Melrose is amongst the Borders where there is a most sensitive within the strong demand to live. There CAT area and this was the is a clear high demand for basis for excluding this site. homes in Melrose and the Prevention of coalescence site should be allocated as a seeks to help retain the ‘preferred site’. The site is individual identity of deliverable in full within this settlements. The Local Plan lifespan. assessment in relation to this site stated: 2. The site actually represents a natural The site is located extension to Melrose and will within one of the most no way lead to urban sensitive parts of the coalescence to Darnick given CAT policy area, where the existing fields that run coalescence between between the settlements. Darnick and Melrose is The contributor questions of key concern. The why site AMELR012 was proposal cannot be dismissed so early in the considered further due assessment as the site to the unacceptable represents a natural harm to the distinct extension to Melrose. identities of these settlements the 3. The site represents a proposed development logical northern rounding off would result in. 81 of the Melrose development 3. Comments noted. boundary. The houses to the However, the site was south of the site along High fundamentally dropped Cross Avenue would remain from inclusion within the SG the closest built form to due to the CAT policy which Darnick. The separation sought to prevent between the Darnick and coalescence between the Melrose development settlements of Darnick and boundaries would remain Melrose. It should be noted with hedging along the site that a portion of the boundary providing a northern extent of the site defensible boundary which does sit within SEPA’s one in would be enhanced and 200 year river flood event further fields between it and area. Issues regarding the the nearest Darnick house. 300no units referred to at The site is low lying and Lowood are addressed considerable distance from elsewhere in this table. the River Tweed and Eildon hills. It is next to built form 4. Comments noted. The and would not significantly sites referred to are impact on these sensitive discussed elsewhere in this areas in terms of visual table. impact. Again the current and proposed hedging along the site boundary would lessen the visual impact. To dismiss this allocation based on the site being within the CAT area is questionable, especially when allocating 300 units to another CAT site nearby which is disjointed from the nearby settlement and has significant deliverability issues to address. There are no potential constraints associated with the site and no contamination issues. 82 There are no flooding concerns with the site. The site is on the edge of the urban settlement and therefore is in a sustainable location close to Tweedbank Train Station and regular bus services and also close to all existing utilities. The site will not have a major impact on the local road network and is highly accessible to Melrose Town Centre and thus assist in enhancing the use and vitality and viability of the town centre.
4. The contributor lists a number of ‘preferred’ or ‘alternative’ sites which the contributor considers less superior than the subject site. Newstead Newstead North Lynda Marwood Notes The contributor states that Comments noted. It is recommended that (ANEWS006) they do not object to Newstead North thoughtful planning and (ANEWS006) is not acknowledges that there are included within the many excellent housing Finalised Supplementary schemes around the UK. The Guidance on Housing. contributor hopes the Council manages to satisfy Scottish Government but hopes this site does not come to fruition. The contributor is enthusiastic about the Borders Railway but is concerned the area may be spoiled by hundreds of newly built houses that 83 aren’t sympathetic and in keeping with the local towns and villages that make this area very special indeed. Newstead Newstead North Save Scott’s Notes This site is largely screened, Comments relating to the It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Countryside from viewpoints across the site being largely screened Newstead North Tweed at the level of the from the north are noted. (ANEWS006) is not B6360, by the present tree included within the screen between the site and With regards to viewpoints Finalised Supplementary the river. However, from from more elevated Guidance on Housing. more aerial viewpoints to the positions, it is accepted that north and more especially any development on the from the south i.e. the site has the potential to be Eildons, it would produce an visible from such locations, enlargement towards the but the planning and river of the main body of this sustainability benefits of otherwise linear village in the developing this largely National Scenic Area. The contained site on the edge contributors therefore urge of an established settlement that, in the event of it would be considered to needing to be used, the outweigh any adverse house numbers should be impacts of this nature. reduced and positioned mainly between the existing Site capacities are indicative developments, leaving the only and the site layout and land along the tree belt as design will considered extended gardens or should any planning additional tree-planting. application be submitted. It is not considered necessary or beneficial to preclude the erection of dwelling houses in the northern portion of the site through the Housing SG process. Newstead Newstead North SNH Notes The site requirements state It is agreed that managing It is recommended that (ANEWS006) that existing trees on site this woodland could benefit Newstead North should be protected. The the setting of the site and (ANEWS006) is not contributor suggests that would help in achieving an included within the there are also opportunities acceptable site layout and it Finalised Supplementary 84 to review management of is noted that the Guidance on Housing. the adjacent woodland to developer’s submission enhance its role in setting of identifies this land as being the site and in its role in within the ownership of the delivering further path developer. If the site were connectivity through the site to go forward for allocation and to the River Tweed. it is proposed that an additional site requirement be added to read as follows:
‘The opportunity to review management of the adjacent woodland to enhance its role in the setting of the site and in its potential role in delivering further path connectivity through the site and to the River Tweed should be considered and explored through the planning application process’ Newstead Newstead North Elizabeth Ellis Notes The part of the field where If the site were to go It is recommended that (ANEWS006) (trees) “war memorial” is wrongly forward for allocation any Newstead North marked is bounded by future planning application (ANEWS006) is not mature trees which should submitted would need to included within the be preserved. comply with the site Finalised Supplementary requirements contained Guidance on Housing. within the finalised SG. One such requirement states that the site layout should ensure protection of healthy trees on the site, and that no trees on the site should be removed without the prior agreement of the Council’s Landscape section.
The Draft SG uses OS 85 basemapping and any basemapping errors are outwith the Council’s control. Newstead Newstead North James Hubbocks Objects The contributor The Council assessed a total It is recommended that (ANEWS006) acknowledges there is a need of 165 sites in the Newstead North for housing in Scotland but production of the Draft (ANEWS006) is not suggests there are better Housing SG. The Newstead included within the sites available. The North site emerged as an Finalised Supplementary contributor believes the site ‘alternative’ site from that Guidance on Housing. is totally unsuitable for process. Following the housing. public consultation, the Council has concluded that the site is not deliverable, and that there are better sites available. Newstead Newstead North Lisa Cowan Objects The contributors object to If the site was to be It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Charles Cowan (Built Heritage) any adverse impact on included in the SG this Newstead North Eileen Clark Newstead and Newstead’s matter would be addressed (ANEWS006) is not Peter Wood historic built heritage, noting at the planning application included within the Mrs N Ramage that Newstead is the oldest stage. Finalised Supplementary inhabited village in Scotland. Guidance on Housing.
Newstead Newstead North Lisa Cowan & Objects The honour of being the Newstead’s heritage is It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Charles Cowan longest inhabited settlement reflected in its Conservation Newstead North in Scotland should be Area status and the (ANEWS006) is not reflected in the preservation Trimontium is designated a included within the of the village’s green spaces, Scheduled Monument. If Finalised Supplementary especially as the field is the site was to be included Guidance on Housing. adjacent to the site of within the SG a site Trimontium. requirement would state that the “design and layout of the site should take account of the Conservation Area and any adverse impacts upon any Scheduled Monuments in the vicinity”. Newstead Newstead North Sandra Brown Objects The contributors question The planning authority has It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Isobel King (Land Ownership) the ownership of the site. sought supporting Newstead North 86 Lisa Cowan documentation from the (ANEWS006) is not Charles Cowan & agent to confirm land included within the Sandra Duncan ownership of the site. To Finalised Supplementary date this information has Guidance on Housing. not been received. Newstead Newstead North Isobel King Objects Development on this site It is not anticipated that the It is recommended that (ANEWS006) (Light Pollution) would destroy the rural development of this site for Newstead North environment of a historically housing should result in (ANEWS006) is not important village and would unacceptable light pollution. included within the cause light pollution to the Finalised Supplementary surrounding habitation. Such Guidance on Housing. lights would be visible from the Gattonside side of the river and in likelihood, from Scott’s View. Newstead Newstead North Lynda Marwood Objects The land is used for grazing The land is not recognised It is recommended that (ANEWS006) (Loss of farmland) sheep and cows and the as being of prime Newstead North farmer has used these fields agricultural value and there (ANEWS006) is not for many years. It would be a are no planning grounds to included within the loss to local farming. prevent an alternative use Finalised Supplementary of the site. Guidance on Housing. Newstead Newstead North Lisa Cowan & Objects The land is an ancient The land is not recognised It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Charles Cowan (Loss of farmland) pasture which has been as being of prime Newstead North traditionally used for farming agricultural value and there (ANEWS006) is not for hundreds of years. are no planning grounds to included within the prevent an alternative use Finalised Supplementary of the site. Guidance on Housing. Newstead Newstead North Lynda Marwood Objects The contributor would prefer The Council has a duty to It is recommended that (ANEWS006) brownfield sites to be find effective housing land. Newstead North developed and considers Whilst the Council allocates (ANEWS006) is not local towns and villages to be a large volume of included within the at capacity. brownfield land, including Finalised Supplementary new brownfield housing Guidance on Housing. sites identified through the Housing SG process, it is not possible nor practical to rely entirely upon brownfield sites. Newstead Newstead North Isobel King; Objects The contributors are If the site were to go It is recommended that 87 (ANEWS006) Lisa Cowan & (Trees) concerned about the forward for allocation any Newstead North Charles Cowan potential impact on trees on future planning application (ANEWS006) is not the site. submitted would need to included within the comply with the site Finalised Supplementary requirements contained Guidance on Housing. within the finalised SG. One such requirement states that the site layout should ensure protection of healthy trees on the site, and that no trees on the site should be removed without the prior agreement of the Council’s Landscape section. Newstead Newstead North Roy Mack Objects (access at The contributor objects to The contributor states that It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Barnethead Cottage) the site and notes that access they own land immediately Newstead North would pass the North side of north of Barnethead (ANEWS006) is not their property [Barnethead Cottage, land which is included within the Cottage]. Given the required for access upgrade Finalised Supplementary narrowness of the entry it purposes. This is at odds Guidance on Housing. would require construction with the developer’s of a wider road. This in turn understanding. The planning would require part of the authority has sought contributor’s land to be assurances and acquired for that purpose documentation from the which the contributor would developer which would not agree to. confirm the developer’s ownership of this land. To date no such documentation has been received.
Given the uncertainty regarding land ownership the planning authority cannot be confident that the developer can deliver the required access improvements to and from 88 Rushbank. The site cannot be considered deliverable and therefore cannot be considered further. Newstead Newstead North Lynda Marwood Objects (Access to site The contributors object to The Council’s roads planning It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Morag Crawford from The Eddy) the site on the grounds that section were previously Newstead North Kathleen Breeze access from The Eddy will not consulted as part of the (ANEWS006) is not Elizabeth Ellis be possible, largely due to initial site assessment, and included within the Mrs Jane McCaul the limited width of the road were able to support the Finalised Supplementary Sandra Brown and third party ownership site’s allocation subject to a Guidance on Housing. Lisa Cowan issues. There are also number of improvements Charles Cowan concerns regarding the being made to enable John Crighton junction with Main Street. suitable vehicular access to, Mr & Mrs Ireland from and through the site Isobel King from Eddy Road and Mrs Burns Rushbank. This was reflected in the Draft Housing SG document which required it to be demonstrated that land needed to achieve access could be acquired from adjoining property owners.
The initial masterplan submitted through the call for sites process would have required numerous improvements to enable suitable access from Eddy Road, including addressing pinch points which are created by two buildings on the west side of Eddy Road. The developer has now submitted a revised masterplan which sets out a new approach to access from Eddy Road. This would 89 see access taken into the site further south than was originally envisaged, through the land of an adjoining property owner, avoiding one of the two pinch point buildings referred to above. The agreement of the same adjoining landowner would still be required and the developer’s agent has stated that they have been in contact with that adjoining landowner. However, through the public consultation, it has become clear that the developer is not in a position to carry out these improvements. The landowner in question has made clear they are completely unwilling to contemplate agreeing to sell their land, to enable access improvements on their land, or to enter discussions with the developer’s agent. To ensure the site would be effective, the planning authority requires confidence that access into the site could be achieved. As the key neighbouring landowner does not agree to enable access improvements to be made, it is concluded that access 90 from Eddy Road cannot be achieved. The site cannot therefore be considered deliverable and cannot be considered further.
Evidence which confirms the applicant is in control of the required land to upgrade access routes into the site has not been submitted. Newstead Newstead North Lynda Marwood Objects (Access to the site The contributors object to The Council’s roads planning It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Kathleen Breeze from Rushbank) the site on the grounds that section were previously Newstead North Elizabeth Ellis access from Rushbank will consulted as part of the (ANEWS006) is not Mrs Jane McCaul not be possible. There are initial site assessment, and included within the Sandra Brown also safety concerns related were able to support the Finalised Supplementary Lisa Cowan to using Rushbank, and a site’s allocation subject to a Guidance on Housing. Charles Cowan recent incident has been number of improvements John Crighton cited whereby Paramedics being made to enable Mr & Mrs Ireland responding to an emergency suitable vehicular access to, Isobel Kind call could not get their from and through the site Mrs Burns ambulance close to a from Eddy Road and property in Rushbank due to Rushbank. This was the narrow road and parked reflected in the Draft vehicles. It has also been Housing SG document suggested that a Housing which required it to be Association owns land demonstrated that land required to enable access needed to achieve access which they are unwilling to could be acquired from sell. adjoining property owners.
To ensure the site would be deliverable, the planning authority requires confidence that access can be achieved. The planning authority sought assurances and documentation from 91 the developer which would confirm that agreements with the relevant adjoining land owners are in place. To date no such documentation has been received.
Given the uncertainty regarding land ownership the planning authority cannot be confident that the developer can deliver the required access improvements to and from Rushbank. The site cannot be considered effective and therefore cannot be considered further. Newstead Newstead North Lynda Marwood Objects (Bio-diversity) The contributors have The Council’s Ecology It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Sandra Brown concerns regarding the effect Officer was consulted as Newstead North Isobel King of the development on local part of the Council’s initial (ANEWS006) is not Lisa Cowan biodiversity. assessment of the site and included within the Charles Cowan advised that there were no Finalised Supplementary significant biodiversity Guidance on Housing. issues on the site. Nevertheless, given the proximity of the site to the River Tweed the draft SG sets out a requirement that any impacts on ecology are assessed and that mitigation be required as appropriate. It is considered that this would address any potential adverse impacts on local biodiversity satisfactorily were the site to go forward for allocation. 92 Newstead Newstead North Isobel King Objects (Brownfield sites The contributor asks why The Council has a duty to It is recommended that (ANEWS006) preferable) such sites are put forward find effective housing land. Newstead North whilst there are brownfield Whilst the Council allocates (ANEWS006) is not sites available, where a large volume of included within the regeneration would enhance brownfield land, and new Finalised Supplementary Borders town centres. These brownfield housing sites Guidance on Housing. areas would more readily have been identified meet the needs of people through the Housing SG requiring affordable housing. process, it is neither reasonable nor practical to rely entirely upon brownfield sites. Newstead Newstead North Lynda Marwood Objects (Capacity of local The contributors object to The capacity of the local It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Morag Crawford roads) the site on the grounds that road network (including Newstead North Kathleen Breeze there would insufficient Main Street) to (ANEWS006) is not Elizabeth Ellis capacity in the local road accommodate further included within the Lisa Cowan network within Newstead to development at the Finalised Supplementary Charles Cowan safely accommodate proposed site has been Guidance on Housing. Victoria Roy additional vehicles and/ or considered as part of the John Crichton pedestrians. There are Council’s roads planning Peter Wood specific concerns related to team’s assessment of the Mr & Mrs Ireland the lack of pavement site. There was considered Mrs Margaret Elmi provision within Newstead. to be sufficient capacity in Mrs N Ramage the local network to Isobel King accommodate development on the scale proposed, subject to the formation of an internally connected road within the site, which would join the two site accesses to/ from Rushbank and Eddy Road. As per the responses set out above, it has been concluded that the developer is not in a position to achieve access to/ from Eddy Road, and there is uncertainty regarding access to/ from 93 Rushbank. It must therefore be concluded that a road linking these two access points from the east and west cannot be achieved. It is concluded that the requirements of the Roads Planning team with respect to local road network capacity cannot be met. Newstead Newstead North Lisa Cowan Objects (Conservation The contributors object to The site sits within or It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Charles Cowan Area) any adverse impact on adjacent to Newstead Newstead North Kathleen Breeze Newstead Conservation Conservation Area and the (ANEWS006) is not Elizabeth Ellis Area. site assessment concluded included within the Mrs Jane McCaul that this was a key Finalised Supplementary Isobel King consideration. If the site Guidance on Housing. Lynda Marwood was to be included within the SG a site requirement would state that the “design and layout of the site should take account of the Conservation Area” and any development proposal will need to comply with the Council’s LDP planning policy regarding development in Conservation Areas. Newstead Newstead North Sandra Brown Objects (Construction The contributors object to The responsibility for the It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Lisa Cowan Traffic) the site on the grounds that safe and orderly Newstead North Charles Cowan the accesses are unsuitable construction of any future (ANEWS006) is not Mrs N Ramage for construction traffic and development would rest included within the could be dangerous. with the developer, in Finalised Supplementary discussion with the Guidance on Housing. Council’s Roads Planning section. Newstead Newstead North Mr and Mrs Ireland Objects (Education The contributors believe The Education Officer has It is recommended that (ANEWS006) & Capacity) Melrose Primary School is at confirmed that there would Newstead North Lynda Marwood capacity. Further be capacity within the local (ANEWS006) is not 94 development will put a strain primary and secondary included within the on service delivery. school to accommodate the Finalised Supplementary development. Guidance on Housing. Newstead Newstead North Mrs Jane McCaul Objects (Impact on local The contributors object to Concerns regarding any It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Isobel King walking routes) the adverse impact on potential impact on walking Newstead North Lynda Marwood & popular walking routes and routes and local paths are (ANEWS006) is not Eileen Clark local paths resulting from the acknowledged. It should be included within the additional housing and noted that the draft SG sets Finalised Supplementary traffic, including on Eddy out a requirement that: Guidance on Housing. Road and the guided Trimontium walk. ‘Pedestrian access from St John’s Wynd and Townhead Way to be maintained. Pedestrian paths through the site to be established linking with the local path network including paths at the River Tweed.’ Newstead Newstead North James Hubbocks Objects (Local services) There is no local services It is acknowledged that It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Kathleen Breeze & provision within Newstead. Newstead itself does not Newstead North Mrs N Ramage benefit from local service (ANEWS006) is not provision but the village is a included within the short distance from Finalised Supplementary Melrose, where most key Guidance on Housing. local services are provided. Newstead Newstead North Roy Mack Objects (Loss of green The contributors object to Development within or on It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Lisa Cowan space etc) the loss of green space and/ the edge of existing Newstead North Charles Cowan or natural landscape/ settlements is generally (ANEWS006) is not Victoria Roy environment that would more sustainable than included within the Mr & Mrs Ireland result from developing the development in the Finalised Supplementary Lynda Marwood site. countryside and it is Guidance on Housing. considered that developing this relatively contained site could be achieved without unacceptably detracting from the existing settlement. Newstead Newstead North Elizabeth Ellis Objects (Loss of open It is very important to The Council has a duty to It is recommended that (ANEWS006) space) preserve open spaces in and find effective housing land. Newstead North 95 around our villages and Whilst the Council allocates (ANEWS006) is not towns so surely it is infinitely a large volume of included within the preferable to develop brown brownfield land, and new Finalised Supplementary field sites and, as far as brownfield housing sites Guidance on Housing. possible, leave our beautiful have been identified countryside to be loved and through the Housing SG enjoyed by all. process, it is neither reasonable nor practical to rely entirely upon brownfield sites. Newstead Newstead North Isobel King Objects (NSA and CAT) Newstead in situated in the Whilst the site sits within It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Eildon and Leaderfoot Newstead Eildon and Newstead North National Scenic Area (NSA) Leaderfoot NSA, this does (ANEWS006) is not and a Countryside Around not preclude development. included within the Towns area (CAT). The Council’s policy for Finalised Supplementary development within the Guidance on Housing. NSA (EP4) permits development which will not compromise the objectives of designation and the overall landscape value of the NSA. It is considered that this relatively contained site could be developed without compromising the objectives of the NSA.
With regards to the Council’s Countryside Around Towns policy, the site sits partly within the Countryside Around Towns (CAT) policy area which aims to prevent piecemeal development in the countryside and coalescence of settlements. The CAT policy does not 96 preclude development, and this particular part of the CAT is less sensitive than other areas, and the risk of coalescence in this location is minimal or nil. Newstead Newstead North Isobel King Objects (Subsidence) The contributors state that It is acknowledged that land It is recommended that (ANEWS006) James Hubbocks the river bank to the north of to the north east of the site Newstead North Kathleen Breeze the site is subsiding at the which adjoins the river (ANEWS006) is not John Crichton NHS Borders offices and suffers from erosion. included within the Mrs Jane McCaul believe the site to be However there is no Finalised Supplementary Mr & Mrs Ireland unsuitable for housing. evidence the site in Guidance on Housing. Elizabeth Ellis question is at risk. Newstead Newstead North Lisa Cowan & Objects (Subsidence) The contributor’s home is It is acknowledged that land It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Charles Cowan situated at the top of this to the north east of the site Newstead North sensitive bank, adjacent to which adjoins the river (ANEWS006) is not NHS Borders, and the suffers from erosion. included within the contributor is extremely However there is no Finalised Supplementary concerned about any further evidence the site in Guidance on Housing. land disturbance which question is at risk. would threaten their safety. Newstead Newstead North Mr & Mrs Ireland Objects (Traffic levels and Higher volumes of traffic will Whilst levels of background It is recommended that (ANEWS006) noise pollution) bring greater levels of noise noise or noise pollution may Newstead North pollution to the local area. increase slightly this is not (ANEWS006) is not considered a reasonable included within the justification to preclude the Finalised Supplementary site. Guidance on Housing. Newstead Newstead North Mr & Mrs Ireland Objects (Various) Impact on built and natural Whilst the site sits within It is recommended that (ANEWS006) environment: Newstead is a Newstead Eildon and Newstead North conservation village, an Leaderfoot NSA, this does (ANEWS006) is not Eildon and Leaderfoot Scenic not preclude development. included within the Area and a Countryside The Council’s policy for Finalised Supplementary Around Towns area, it is also development within the Guidance on Housing. the oldest inhabited village in NSA (EP4) permits Scotland. This development development which will not will have an inevitable compromise the objectives negative impact on the of designation and the traditional character of the overall landscape value of village and the natural the NSA. It is considered 97 environment surrounding it. that this relatively contained site could be developed without compromising the objectives of the NSA.
With regards to the Council’s Countryside Around Towns policy, the site sits partly within the Countryside Around Towns (CAT) policy area which aims to prevent piecemeal development in the countryside and coalescence of settlements. The CAT policy does not preclude development, and this particular part of the CAT is less sensitive than other areas, and the risk of coalescence in this location is minimal or nil.
If the site were to go forward for allocation any future planning application submitted would need to comply with the site requirements contained within the finalised SG. One such requirement states that the “design and layout of the site should take account of the Conservation Area” and any development proposal will need to comply with the Council’s LDP planning policy 98 regarding development in Conservation Areas. Newstead Newstead North Lynda Marwood Objects (Views/ property The contributor is an artist There is no right to a view in It is recommended that (ANEWS006) value) and bought their house to planning legislation, and Newstead North look out onto countryside, similarly, property values (ANEWS006) is not not houses and is concerned are not a consideration in included within the their property may reduce in planning. Finalised Supplementary value. Guidance on Housing. Newstead Newstead North John Crichton Objects to proposed site 23 new houses at this site is Site capacities are indicative It is recommended that (ANEWS006) capacity far too many and only about only and it will be for the Newstead North half of that number should developer to come forward (ANEWS006) is not be permitted and that they with a scheme appropriate included within the should not be packed closely to the site. This would be Finalised Supplementary together, but spread evenly considered fully at the Guidance on Housing. over the area of the slope. planning application stage. Newstead Newstead North Alan Couper Support The contributor notes that See response above. It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Consulting, on the access proposal Newstead North behalf of Lord submitted under the Call for (ANEWS006) is not Devenport Sites required widening of included within the Eddy Road on its west side. Finalised Supplementary It is now intended to take Guidance on Housing. access into the site from a different location on Eddy Road, significantly shortening the length of Eddy Road which requires widening.
The contributor states that they have been in contact with several adjoining landowners and have a received a positive response from several. Newstead Newstead North Alan Couper Support Comments noted. The It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Consulting on The contributor notes with suitability of any site design Newstead North behalf of Lord reference to the site and layout will ultimately be (ANEWS006) is not Devenport assessment that new determined at the planning included within the development needs to application stage. The site Finalised Supplementary complement the varied assessment concluded that Guidance on Housing. townscape already in the the relationship with the 99 village and states that that is Conservation Area would be why the Master Plan a key consideration and that prepared by Aitken Turnbull sensitive integration would Architects deliberately be essential. The site reflects a varied typology of progressed as an alternative housing. site in the Draft SG and no judgement on the suitability of the proposed masterplan would be made until a future planning application, were the site to become allocated. Newstead Newstead North Alan Couper Supports inclusion of site The contributor believes The contributor’s comments It is recommended that (ANEWS006) Consulting on access from Rushbank can be are at odds with other Newstead North behalf of Lord achieved, and requires only a contributors on the (ANEWS006) is not Devenport relatively minor widening of question of ownership of included within the the existing access which land immediately north of Finalised Supplementary runs between Nos 14 and 15 Barnethead Cottage. Guidance on Housing. Rushbank and a widening further in at Tweedwood The planning authority has Cottage which the sought assurances and contributor states is owned by Lord Devonport. documentation from the developer which would The boundary of the private confirm the developer’s property on the south side of ownership of this land, as the access, Barnethead well as a copy of Cottage, is the front correspondence which elevation of the cottage. The confirms the agreement of contributor concludes that other key adjoining this means all the land from landowners. To date no the front elevation of such documentation has Barnethead Cottage to been received. Tweedwood Cottage, including Tweedwood Given the uncertainty Cottage itself, are owned by regarding land ownership the developer. and the agreement of necessary adjoining The contributor believes landowners, the planning they are in a good position to overcome these issues authority cannot be 100 following contact with confident that the adjoining landowners. developer can deliver the required access improvements to and from Rushbank. The site cannot be considered deliverable and therefore cannot be considered further. Newstead Newstead Orchard Debbie Chabluk Comments The contributor suggests that Consideration of effects on It is recommended that (ANEWS005) requirements of existing neighbours is a fundamental Newstead Orchard residents adjacent to the site component of considering (ANEWS005) is included also be listed as a site planning applications and within the Finalised requirement, with specific will be addressed fully at Supplementary Guidance consideration to height of that stage. Site layout and on Housing. buildings and the provision of design, and the designs of parking space allocated buildings including building specifically to Townhead heights will be considered Farmhouse. through that process. Parking arrangements will also be addressed at the time of a planning application though it should be noted that these would only address parking issues relative to the development and the site itself. Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Note (Sewer pipe runs I believe that the main sewer Comments noted. This is a It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Donald Gordon through site) pipe for the East of the matter for the developer to Newstead Orchard village runs through North of consider. (ANEWS005) is included the orchard and also some within the Finalised old water culverts which may Supplementary Guidance have been installed during on Housing. the railway construction in 1849.
101 Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Notes The contributor wishes to Comments noted. The It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Donald Gordon (Road description) correct the Draft SG Council’s Street Gazeteer Newstead Orchard description of access to the identifies the entire loop to (ANEWS005) is included site, and state that access is and from Main Street as within the Finalised from the B6361 Main Street Back Road. In order to Supplementary Guidance East via the private maintain consistency with on Housing. unadopted single the Council’s Street carriageway roads of Gazeteer, it is considered Hazeldean Road and Back appropriate to retain Road. current naming. Newstead Newstead Orchard Colin and Jeanette Notes The contributor states that The Council cannot control It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Tuddenham the previous approval was how the developer Newstead Orchard for 6 units described as describes or markets the (ANEWS005) is included ‘executive houses’ and that development. within the Finalised this may not be appropriate Supplementary Guidance for this conservation site. The design and layout of on Housing. The contributors realise any development will be there are no actual plans to required to take account of make comment on but wish the Conservation Area, and to register a concern that any will need to comply with proposed housing would not planning policies contained impact negatively on such an within the LDP, including historic village. those related to Conservation Areas. Newstead Newstead Orchard Evelyn & Notes The contributor notes the Whilst there has been infill It is recommended that (ANEWS005) David Oliver historical and cultural development within Newstead Orchard importance of Newstead, Newstead over recent years (ANEWS005) is included which claims to be the oldest there has been no allocation within the Finalised continuously inhabited in the village for over Supplementary Guidance village in Scotland. The twenty years. It should be on Housing. contributor believes there noted this site has has been a great deal of previously been granted development in the village in planning consent and this the last 25 – 30 years, leaving allocation effectively very few green spaces to reflects this consent. enjoy. Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Notes The hedge which partially The Council’s Roads DM It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Donald Gordon bounds the site to the South team have confirmed via Newstead Orchard (Backroad) is very old. The the previous planning (ANEWS005) is included 102 hedge makes the sight lines application and site within the Finalised difficult especially at the East assessment that suitable Supplementary Guidance corner and is very much a access into the site can be on Housing. road safety issue. achieved. Detailed access arrangements will be considered through the planning application process. Any effect the hedge has on access visibility will be considered at that time. Newstead Newstead Orchard Debbie Chabluk Notes The contributor is pleased Support noted. It is recommended that (ANEWS005) that site requirements Newstead Orchard included consideration of (ANEWS005) is included wildlife, conservation and within the Finalised the possible historical Supplementary Guidance significance of this area. on Housing. Newstead Newstead Orchard Debbie Chabluk Notes Townhead Farmhouse should The Council uses standard It is recommended that (ANEWS005) be clearly illustrated on the Ordnance Survey base- Newstead Orchard map, perhaps by use of the mapping to illustrate the (ANEWS005) is included same shading you have used locations of sites which the within the Finalised to identify all other dwelling Council is not able to Supplementary Guidance houses in the immediate change. on Housing. area. Newstead Newstead Orchard SEPA Notes 1. As explained in our 1. Bridge and culvert It is recommended that (ANEWS005) previous response, structures within and Newstead Orchard consideration will need adjacent to the site, (ANEWS005) is included to be given to bridge and and detailed within the Finalised culvert structures within consideration of surface Supplementary Guidance and adjacent to the site. water flood risk will be on Housing. Developable area/ assessed through FRA development type may at the planning be constrained due to application stage. flood risk. Review of the surface water 1 in 200 year flood map indicates that there may be flooding issues at this site. This is a matter for 103 the Council to consider. 2. Comments noted. 2. We also support the requirement to explore the potential for culvert removal and channel restoration. Newstead Newstead Orchard John Crichton Notes (Access On the South side of the site, Precise arrangements for It is recommended that (ANEWS005) arrangements) there is a very old high mixed access and landscaping will Newstead Orchard hedge, which is overgrown be addressed through the (ANEWS005) is included and would best be planning application within the Finalised removed. If this were done, process. However, the Supplementary Guidance and the fence on the North Council can only ask for the on Housing. side of the hedge moved to upgrade of Back Road from the North by one Metre, this the junction with Main would allow Back Road to be Street to the access into the widened and thus be able to site as vehicle trips are be upgraded and made up to unlikely to be made via adoptable standards. Claymires Lane. Any requirement to upgrade past access into the site would be unreasonable. Newstead Newstead Orchard Donald Gordon Notes (Archaeology) The contributor brings to Comments and submitted It is recommended that (ANEWS005) attention an archaeological information are noted. The Newstead Orchard find previously made on the archaeological assessment (ANEWS005) is included site and handed in to the of the site, including within the Finalised Trimontium Trust, and the archaeological evaluation Supplementary Guidance subsequent assessment of and any associated on Housing. the find by the National mitigation as identified will Museum of Scotland. be required. The Council Archaeologist has also been notified of the details of the find and the background of this find for future reference, including the documentation submitted. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Notes (Boundary walls) The contributors seek the The retention of the historic It is recommended that (ANEWS005) John Crichton retention of the historic wall to the north of the site Newstead Orchard James M Annand boundary walls to the site. is already a site requirement (ANEWS005) is included 104 Evelyn & for the development. This within the Finalised David Oliver More specifically, one site requirement has been Supplementary Guidance Mr A. Martin contributor seeks amended to ensure the on Housing. Neilson reassurance that the western western side of the site boundary wall would also be boundary wall is also It is also recommended retained as it is of historic retained. that the site requirement significance as well as (bullet point 3) be providing screening between amended to read: Big Well Wynd and the proposed development [Mr The historic wall to the A. Martin Neilson]. north and west of the site should be retained. Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Notes (Boundary walls) The contributors highlight Comments noted. It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Donald Gordon the condition of the historic Maintenance of the historic Newstead Orchard Maria Hawkes walls that bound the site, wall would be a matter for (ANEWS005) is included which they say are in a the owner to address. The within the Finalised serious state of decay. One historic wall to the west and Supplementary Guidance contributor [Maria Hawkes] north of the site will need to on Housing. asks for the walls to be be retained as part of the repaired by the developer. development in accordance with the related site requirement. Newstead Newstead Orchard Mr A. Martin Notes (Flood risk) The contributor notes an Comments noted. A flood It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Neilson accumulation of debris risk assessment is required Newstead Orchard around the watercourse as part of any subsequent (ANEWS005) is included downstream of the proposed planning application and will within the Finalised site which would require to address these issues. Supplementary Guidance be cleared, with subsequent on Housing. attention to ensure that such debris does not gather in the future as this could cause a serious flood risk to the new site. Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Notes (Flooding) The site has a small partially Comments noted. This It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Donald Gordon covered watercourse running matter will be addressed at Newstead Orchard East to West on its North the planning application (ANEWS005) is included side which until recently had stage. within the Finalised not been maintained for Supplementary Guidance 105 decades. Hazeldean Road on Housing. and Backroad are prone to surface flooding each winter after heavy rain. The road surface level should be raised substantially to avoid future flooding. The excessive winter surface water originates from a blocked/broken field drain in a field to the South of the A6091 and inadequate drainage maintenance at the Hazeldean Road underpass. Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Notes (Naming of site) This site has been referred to The site name has been It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Donald Gordon by residents as ‘Townhead chosen by the Council solely Newstead Orchard Orchard’ to distinguish it as a reference to be used (ANEWS005) is included from EHA Orchard at the within the LDP process. within the Finalised West End of the village. Changing the name now will Supplementary Guidance lead to confusion and will on Housing. affect the paper trail. Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Notes (requests upgrade The contributors request that The Council can only require It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Donald Gordon of Hazeldean Road and Hazeldean Road and Back the upgrade of Back Road Newstead Orchard Stewart & Linda Back Road) Road be improved and from the junction with Main (ANEWS005) is included Ritchie upgraded to an adoptable Street to the access into the within the Finalised Colin and Jeanette standard at the cost of the site. Given the location of Supplementary Guidance Tuddenham developer of the site as part the site, vehicle trips to and on Housing. John & Anne of any development. If this from the site are expected Walker was carried out it would to come via the Main Evelyn & allow all of the road along to Street/ Back Road junction. David Oliver and including Hazeldean It is considered most Meadow to be adopted onto unlikely that significant the list of Public Roads. vehicle movements to and from the site would be via the longer and more restricted Back Road/ Claymires Land route. It would therefore be unreasonable and 106 unjustified to require any developer to upgrade Back Road to an adoptable standard other than the part directly from the site onto the Main Street. Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Notes (timing of access Improvement works to Back The precise mechanism for It is recommended that (ANEWS005) John Walker and improvement works) Road should be completed achieving the required Newstead Orchard Anne Walker before any houses are built upgrade of Back Road to the (ANEWS005) is included or a Bond taken out by the access into the site will be within the Finalised developer to cover the costs determined at the planning Supplementary Guidance of this work if necessary. application stage. Similarly, on Housing. the timing of upgrade works will be determined at the planning application stage, but it may be beneficial to wait until construction has been completed before undertaking upgrade works. Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Notes (upgrade of Back I am of the opinion that a Comments regarding a It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Donald Gordon Road) firm commitment was made letter from 1988 from the Newstead Orchard by Borders Regional Council Director of Roads and (ANEWS005) is included Director of Roads & Transportation are noted. within the Finalised Transportation Mr R.Hill in a Supplementary Guidance letter to me in March 1988 It is confirmed that the on Housing. and I quote an extract from advice from the Council that letter "In conjunction Roads Planning Section is with any new development, that the Council can only my department have, and reasonably require an will continue to recommend upgrade of Back Road from to the Planning Committee the junction with the Main that upgrading of Back Road Street to the access into the relating to each project site. should be affected by the developer." Newstead Newstead Orchard Sandra Brown Notes [trees] The contributors note that The site allocation is subject It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Isobel King the site contains a number of to a site requirement that Newstead Orchard good quality trees and would no trees can be removed (ANEWS005) is included like to see these retained. without the prior within the Finalised 107 agreement of planning Supplementary Guidance authority. Consideration of on Housing. the quality and significance of the trees will be decided at that time. Newstead Newstead Orchard Smith and Garratt Object to the inclusion of The contributor states that Appendix 2, as contained It is recommended that (ANEWS005) on behalf of Millar Newsead North the site is covered by existing within the LDP, provides a Newstead Orchard Partnership and (ANEWS005) within the development policies, windfall assumption, which (ANEWS005) is included David Wilson Housing SG, stating that it therefore including the site is included within the within the Finalised Homes is covered by existing within the SG does not overall potential Supplementary Guidance development policies increase the availability and contribution towards the on Housing. choice of available sites. housing requirement (up to 2025). Objects to the inclusion of the site on the grounds that The Scottish Borders is rural it is capable of being in character and a large developed in accordance proportion of the windfall with existing planning assumption is provided for policies and the inclusion by housing in the within the Housing SG would countryside approvals. not help the Council in meeting the requirements of The LDP provides the SG. development opportunities within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development opportunities within settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities.
It must be noted that this site has previously been granted planning consent for 6 houses. 108 Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects Any houses in this area There is no right to a view in It is recommended that (ANEWS005) should be single storey to planning legislation. The Newstead Orchard avoid blocking the view from design of dwellings and (ANEWS005) is included existing houses in Back Road. consideration of any within the Finalised perceived impacts on Supplementary Guidance existing surrounding on Housing. residential properties will be assessed during the planning application process. Newstead Newstead Orchard Mrs Jane McCaul Objects Newstead is an ancient We are not aware of any It is recommended that (ANEWS005) village of national reports that traffic Newstead Orchard importance and interest. vibrations are adversely (ANEWS005) is included Many of the historic walls affecting walls or buildings within the Finalised were built without in Newstead. The Council’s Supplementary Guidance foundations and are at Roads DM team consider on Housing. serious risk from traffic the increase in traffic vibration and more cars associated with 6 going up and down the Main dwellinghouses to be fairly Street is most undesirable. minimal when compared with the existing traffic flows. It is worth noting that in the past, before the Melrose By-pass, there would have been more traffic going through the village and certainly more HGVs. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects The contributors note that Whilst Newstead sits within It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Christopher Hawkes Newstead sits with a various heritage and Newstead Orchard Maria Hawkes National Scenic Area. environmental constraint (ANEWS005) is included areas these do not preclude within the Finalised all development and the Supplementary Guidance principle of developing this on Housing. site is already established following the earlier planning approval on the site (06/02207/FUL). Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects The site is situated in a Newstead is not located It is recommended that 109 (ANEWS005) Countryside Around Towns within the area covered by Newstead Orchard area. the Countryside Around (ANEWS005) is included Towns policy, which applies within the Finalised only to areas outwith Supplementary Guidance settlement boundaries. The on Housing. policy aims to prevent piecemeal development in the countryside and coalescence of settlements. This site would result in ‘infill’ development which would help ensure the aims of the CAT policy are met. Newstead Newstead Orchard Adeline Boyd Objects The contributor objects The impact of development It is recommended that (ANEWS005) stating that whilst housing on existing residents is a Newstead Orchard needs seek to be addressed, fundamental consideration (ANEWS005) is included there is also a need to take in assessing sites and has within the Finalised into account the impact of been fully considered. Supplementary Guidance any development on existing on Housing. residents. Newstead Newstead Orchard Adeline Boyd Objects It should be a priority to Retention of natural It is recommended that (ANEWS005) retain natural habitat habitats and protecting Newstead Orchard wherever possible. biodiversity were amongst (ANEWS005) is included the aims of the site within the Finalised assessment process, and Supplementary Guidance assessment of this site did on Housing. not identify any concerns which would prevent development. Assessment of ecology impacts and provision of appropriate required mitigation would be addressed at the planning application stage. Newstead Newstead Orchard Christopher Hawkes Objects In principle, the contributor It is considered that the It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Maria Hawkes believes the council should Council does give due Newstead Orchard ensure that there is cognisance to the matters (ANEWS005) is included adequate housing for all of listed. It should be noted within the Finalised its residents, taking account that there has not been an Supplementary Guidance 110 of population growth. The allocation within Newstead on Housing. council also has a duty to for over 20 years. protect the unique environment of its green It must be noted that this spaces and historic villages. site has previously been Therefore planning decisions granted planning consent need to take account of what for 6 houses. can appear to be irreconcilable principles; the need for housing and the need to protect our culture. Newstead Newstead Orchard James M Annand Objects The site development for The site has been tested It is recommended that (ANEWS005) housing is very much a last previously for residential Newstead Orchard resort and counsel of development via a planning (ANEWS005) is included desperation and I would application which concluded within the Finalised hope that the planning the site was appropriate for Supplementary Guidance authority will not sanction a residential development. on Housing. proposal which has little to recommend it. Some other use for the ground should be preferred. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects to construction The contributors are It is not envisaged that It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Mrs N Ramage traffic concerned that access is construction vehicles will or Newstead Orchard Maria Hawkes unsuitable for construction even physically could access (ANEWS005) is included vehicles, which could the site via Back Road/ within the Finalised endanger those using the Claymires Land. The Supplementary Guidance Back Road and could existing road between the on Housing. undermine improvements site access and the Main made to Back Road by Street will ultimately be residents. made up to an adoptable standard for the benefit of all Back Road users. Any damage to Back Road caused by the developer outwith the part to be upgraded to adoptable standard will be a private matter between the parties involved. 111 In terms of access into the site itself, this will be addressed during the planning application process, and arrangements for the construction period will be decided upon at a later date following discussion with the Council’s Roads DM team. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects (archaeology) A full in-depth and detailed The archaeological It is recommended that (ANEWS005) archaeological survey should assessment of the site, Newstead Orchard be carried out. including archaeological (ANEWS005) is included evaluation and any within the Finalised associated mitigation as Supplementary Guidance identified is already a site on Housing. requirement. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects (brownfield sites The contributor questions The Council has a duty to It is recommended that (ANEWS005) preferable) why such sites are put find effective and Newstead Orchard forward whilst there are deliverable housing land. (ANEWS005) is included brownfield sites available, Whilst the Council allocates within the Finalised where regeneration would a large volume of Supplementary Guidance enhance Borders town brownfield land, including on Housing. centres. These areas would several new brownfield more readily meet the needs housing sites identified of people requiring through this Housing SG affordable housing. process, it is not reasonable to rely entirely upon brownfield sites to deliver effective sites. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects (conservation The contributors note that Whilst the development site It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Christopher Hawkes area) Newstead is a conservation sits within Newstead Newstead Orchard Maria Hawkes area of great historical Conservation Area, this (ANEWS005) is included Mrs N Ramage importance. designation does not within the Finalised preclude development and Supplementary Guidance One contributor [Isobel King] it is considered that an on Housing. states that the village has appropriate scheme which already had significant respects the Conservation 112 development both within Area can be achieved at this and adjacent to the location. The design and conservation area. layout of any development will be required to take account of the Conservation Area, and will need to comply with planning policies contained within the LDP, including those related to Conservation Areas.
It should be noted that no new housing sites have been allocated in Newstead for well over 20 years.
It must be noted that this site has previously been granted planning consent for 6 houses. Newstead Newstead Orchard James M Annand Objects (conservation Local residents have been Whilst the development site It is recommended that (ANEWS005) area) put to considerable expense sits within Newstead Newstead Orchard over the years to help Conservation Area, this (ANEWS005) is included maintain the character of the designation does not within the Finalised Conservation Area and it preclude development and Supplementary Guidance would be most unfortunate if it is considered that an on Housing. developers should be appropriate scheme which permitted to get off without respects the Conservation doing a complete and proper Area can be achieved at this job of preservation. This location. The design and would involve a great deal of layout of any development expense added to the will be required to take expense and difficulties of account of the Conservation access and drainage and Area, and will need to would scarcely allow the six comply with planning houses into the category of policies contained within relatively cheap and the LDP, including those affordable homes which after related to Conservation 113 all is the main object of your Areas. exercise. It should be noted that no new housing sites have been allocated in Newstead for well over 20 years. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects (field drain The part of Back Road from Comments noted. Detailed It is recommended that (ANEWS005) beneath access) Main Street to the site roads issues in and around Newstead Orchard entrance has a field drain the site would be a (ANEWS005) is included running beneath the road responsibility for the within the Finalised surface and would make it developer to address in Supplementary Guidance unsuitable. discussion with the on Housing. Council’s Roads Planning section at the planning application stage or thereafter. Newstead Newstead Orchard James M Annand Objects (flooding at Access from Back Road A flood risk assessment is It is recommended that (ANEWS005) access) presents difficulties as that required as part of any Newstead Orchard area is liable to flooding from subsequent planning (ANEWS005) is included the burn that passes under application. Detailed local within the Finalised the road and that traverses flooding related issues can Supplementary Guidance the site. In recent years its be considered at the on Housing. flow has been augmented by planning application stage. water from a loch that has formed at the junction of Main Street and the by-pass. Piping the burn under the road and through the site will be a considerable matter which may not be worth the expense for just 6 houses. Newstead Newstead Orchard John Walker and Objects (flooding) The contributors note that Comments noted. The risk It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Anne Walker the site floods. of surface water flooding Newstead Orchard Stewart and Linda was identified at the site (ANEWS005) is included Ritchie One contributor is concerned assessment stage and a within the Finalised Isobel King flooding could affect houses flood risk assessment is Supplementary Guidance Sandra Brown further down the village required as part of any on Housing. [Sandra Brown]. subsequent planning application in order to 114 address this matter. Newstead Newstead Orchard Christopher Hawkes Objects (growth of Newstead has experienced There have been no It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Maria Hawkes Newstead) an inexorable growth in the allocations within Newstead Newstead Orchard last 25 years that is removing in the last twenty years. It is (ANEWS005) is included the historic nature of considered that two recent within the Finalised Newstead. Newstead developments, at Supplementary Guidance becomes an extension of Barnethead Lane and The on Housing. Melrose and Melrose an Orchards, both developed in extension of Galashiels. The the last 20 years, are well very aspect of the designed developments community which is unique is which are in keeping and gradually being eroded. appropriate additions to the village. The Council has put in place firm policy protection to prevent coalescence between settlements within the Countryside Around Towns area which includes Galashiels, Melrose and Newstead. This policy aims to prevent coalescence by promoting infill development within settlements at sites such as this.
It must be noted that this site has previously been granted planning consent for 6 houses. Newstead Newstead Orchard Stewart and Linda Objects (house design) The contributors are The design and layout of It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Ritchie concerned about the style of any development will be Newstead Orchard housing that may be required to take account of (ANEWS005) is included developed on the site. the Conservation Area, and within the Finalised will need to comply with Supplementary Guidance planning policies contained on Housing. within the LDP, including those related to 115 Conservation Areas. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects (ownership of The contributor questions Back Road is not adopted by It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Back Road) whether the ownership of the Council and it is Newstead Orchard Back Road has been understood there are a (ANEWS005) is included established and whether number of parties in Back within the Finalised access into the site has been Road with a joint ownership Supplementary Guidance agreed with the owner. and who have a right of on Housing. access over it. It is anticipated that the developer will be able to upgrade the necessary part of Back Road as per the associated site requirement. Newstead Newstead Orchard Mrs N Ramage Objects due to lack of The contributors highlight It is acknowledged that It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Stewart and Linda services the lack of local services Newstead itself does not Newstead Orchard Ritchie within Newstead. benefit from local service (ANEWS005) is included provision but the village is a within the Finalised short distance from Supplementary Guidance Melrose, where most key on Housing. local services are provided. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects due to risk of The lower part of the site Any development on the It is recommended that (ANEWS005) subsidence regularly floods. Additional site will be required to Newstead Orchard houses in this area could comply with modern (ANEWS005) is included render the ground liable to building regulations, which within the Finalised subsidence through erosion, would address any risk from Supplementary Guidance and this may also have a subsidence. on Housing. knock-on effect on Back Road. Newstead Newstead Orchard Mrs Jane McCaul Objects to increased The centre of the village is The development of this It is recommended that (ANEWS005) traffic levels extremely narrow with no small site would have a Newstead Orchard room for pavements and as limited impact on overall (ANEWS005) is included things are now pedestrians, traffic levels in the area. within the Finalised riders and dog walkers are at The site has been assessed Supplementary Guidance risk from traffic – more by the Council’s Roads DM on Housing. aren’t needed. It is a quaint team who consider the local and beautiful village - indeed road network capable of it is a conservation area - and accommodating any its low density of housing resulting increase in traffic. and open views are part of 116 its charm. Many people come to walk here and enjoy its amenities and its peace and quiet which would be destroyed by another 50 or so cars going up and down. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects to increased The contributors are The capacity of the local It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Mrs N Ramage traffic levels concerned about the road network (including Newstead Orchard James M Annand capacity of local roads to Main Street) to (ANEWS005) is included deal with additional traffic. accommodate further within the Finalised Main Street is already a very development at the Supplementary Guidance busy thoroughfare with no proposed site has been on Housing. pavements and is used as a considered as part of the shortcut to and from the Council’s Roads DM team’s A6091 to Melrose. Although assessment of this site. there is a recommended 20 There is considered to be mph through the village sufficient capacity to many drivers ignore such accommodate development signs. Any more traffic using on the scale proposed. Main Street is only going to exacerbate already dangerous areas in the village. Newstead Newstead Orchard Margaret Elmi Objects to increased The contributors are The upgrade of Back Road It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Evelyn & traffic levels concerned about the from the junction with Main Newstead Orchard David Oliver potential increase in traffic Street to the access into the (ANEWS005) is included on Back Road that could site will be required of any within the Finalised result from development, development of the site. Supplementary Guidance which they note is un- Given the location of the on Housing. adopted. site, vehicle trips to and from the site are expected to come via the Main Street/ Back Road junction. Any additional adverse impact on Back Road or Claymires Lane is expected to be minimal. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects to proposed site The contributors consider 6 Planning permission was It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Mrs Jane McCaul capacity houses to be too many for previously granted on the Newstead Orchard 117 the size of the site. site for 6 dwelling houses. (ANEWS005) is included The site has therefore within the Finalised shown to have potential to Supplementary Guidance accommodate six dwelling on Housing. houses and a capacity of six units is considered appropriate. Site capacities are indicative only and it will be for the developer to come forward with a scheme appropriate to the site. Newstead Newstead Orchard Isobel King Objects to site access The contributors believe that Access to and from the site It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Stewart and Linda access to the site will be has been assessed by the Newstead Orchard Ritchie unsuitable. Contributors Council’s Roads DM team (ANEWS005) is included Sandra Brown note that access is on a sharp via the previous planning within the Finalised Mrs Jane McCaul bend from an unadopted application, and via the site Supplementary Guidance Maria Hawkes road which is used by assessment process, who on Housing. John Crichton pedestrians, dog walkers, confirm suitable access into horses etc. the site can be achieved.
Other contributors make Back Road will be required related points: the current to be made up to adoptable site entrance floods [John standard from the junction Crichton; Jane McCaul; with Main Street to the Stewart and Linda Ritchie]; access point into the site. the junction of Hazeldean Road and Main Street is dangerous with poor site lines to the East, as the road comes up a fairly steep gradient to meet Main Street [John Crichton]. Newstead Newstead Orchard Graham Barker Requests planning brief I request that a planning Given the previous approval It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Donald Gordon brief is prepared by Scottish [06/02207/FUL] on the site, Newstead Orchard Borders Council for this site it would not be justifiable to (ANEWS005) is included before planning applications require a planning brief for within the Finalised are asked for. this site. In effect, a site Supplementary Guidance layout would have been on Housing. 118 agreed when that planning permission was granted, although any new application would be required to reflect any subsequent changes in policy. Newstead Newstead Orchard Save Scott’s Supports The contributor considers to Comments noted. It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Countryside proposal to be reasonable. Newstead Orchard (ANEWS005) is included within the Finalised Supplementary Guidance on Housing. Newstead Newstead Orchard Scottish Supports requirement for We support the requirement Comments noted. It is recommended that (ANEWS005) Environmental FRA for a Flood Risk Assessment. Newstead Orchard Protection Agency (ANEWS005) is included within the Finalised Supplementary Guidance on Housing. Newtown St Land South of Holder Planning on Object to the non- ANEWT009 is considered to The following was the It is recommended that Boswells Whitehill (ANEWT009) behalf of CW allocation of (ANEWT009) offer clear potential as a conclusion of the Land South of Whitehill Properties within the Housing SG housing development assessment undertaken to (ANEWT009) is not opportunity (capacity 500 the original submission included within the units) which can significantly through the process of the Finalised Supplementary contribute to the shortfall. call for sites, it is considered Guidance on Housing. An indicative Masterplan is that this remains relevant to submitted. Disagree with the the most recent submission: conclusions of the RAG assessment for the following The site was considered as reasons: part of the Housing SG. An As shown in the initial stage 1 RAG indicative Masterplan, assessment was contrary to the undertaken, however this development of the site concluded that the site eroding the settlement should not be taken forward identities of Newtown St as part of the Housing SG. Boswells and St Boswells, The conclusion of the the proposed tree belt assessment is as follows: and landscaping will The majority of this site was 119 create a strong 100- considered as part of the metre buffer between previous Local Plan and the the settlements, which more recent Local will ensure no visual or Development Plan perceptual coalescence. Examination under site code Woodland planting and ANEWT008. The LDP landscaping will ensure Reporterʼs conclusions development is not raised the following visible along the A699, concerns: ensuring that the rural "As local considerations are character is retained and concerned, the council has reducing the impact on drawn attention to the the landscape character findings of the report into of the area. the inquiry of the current Newtown St Boswells is local plan. That report an accessible location emphasised the importance within the Central of the settlement identities Borders Housing Market of Newtown St Boswells and Area. The site is St Boswells to the south. accessed from the new Taking into account the proposed junction on the proposed housing land A68 and directly from allocation at site Newtown St Boswells. It ANEWT005, the separation is intended to create a distance is some 600 primary route through metres. This is a narrow but the proposed site from sensitive strip which I agree these two points, which is important in visually will connect directly with containing the two the A699. settlements. The contours of Development of the site the land within the strip, will be a natural particularly the low hillock, extension to the assist in providing visual allocated Newtown St separation. Boswells Expansion Area The findings of the previous (ANEWT005). The site is inquiry also attached effective and free from importance to the need to any physical constraints retain the northern side of that would impact upon the A699 free from development, there are development. I agree that, 120 no known issues relating despite the tree belt shown to either ground stability on the indicative plan, the or ground conditions. degree of urban There are no known encroachment on the A699 infrastructure or would be unacceptable and servicing constraints that result in an adverse cannot be overcome in landscape character impact order to allow on this area of essentially development to rural character. progress. Having regard to the local The sites development adverse impact that would represents an result as a consequence of economically viable and the proposed enlarged realistic prospect, it is expansion area, despite the proposed that the site strategic housing land will be developed in assessment; I conclude that parallel with the existing the additional housing land allocated site, thereby allocation is not justified". increasing overall delivery of housing This remains the case and significantly. It is therefore the housing site anticipated that the site will not be included as part can deliver a range of of the Housing house types and tenures, Supplementary Guidance. It including affordable is considered there are housing from 2019/20. more appropriate sites for Development of the site inclusion within the will bring economic Supplementary Guidance. benefit to the town, with an increased local population providing support for local business and services. Overall, the site is deliverable and meets the specific criterial for ‘effectiveness’ as set out in PAN2/2010. Selkirk Angles Field Historic Comment (ASELK033) This site is fully or partially Comments noted. The site It is recommended that 121 (ASELK033) Environment within the Inventory requirements have been Angles Field (ASELK033) is Scotland Battlefield – Battle of amended to read: included within the Philiphaugh. However, the Finalised Supplementary site requirements for this site ‘Development must not Guidance on Housing. refer only to the need to have a negative impact consider the setting of the upon the key landscape It is also recommended battlefield, rather than the characteristics, special that the final site necessity to ensure that qualities and setting of the requirement should be development is sensitive and historic battlefield (Battle of amended to read: appropriate to the location Philiphaugh) and the within the battlefield. The adjacent SBC Garden and ‘Development must not site requirements should be Designed Landscape’. have a negative impact amended to require that upon the key landscape development must not have characteristics, special a negative impact on key qualities and setting of the landscape characteristics and historic battlefield (Battle special qualities of the of Philiphaugh) and the battlefield. adjacent SBC Garden and Designed Landscape’. Selkirk Angles Field Scottish Natural Comments(ASELK033) SNHnotethattheir Comments noted. The It is recommended that (ASELK033) Heritage previous comments have fourth bullet point should Angles Field (ASELK033) is been included in the site be amended to read: included within the requirements. SNH Finalised Supplementary highlight that there may be ‘Pedestrian/cycle links to be Guidance on Housing. site and wider community improved between the site benefit in also setting the and Selkirk and the existing It is also recommended requirements for links from path network within the that the following site this site to the existing path vicinity’. requirement be amended network. to read:
Pedestrian/cycle links to be improved between the site and Selkirk and the existing path network within the vicinity Selkirk Angles Field Scottish Comments (Flooding) Whilst SEPA supports the SEPA have not objected to It is recommended that (ASELK033) Environmental requirement for a FRA, the the allocation of the site Angles Field (ASELK033) is Protection Agency development requirement and asked for its removal. included within the 122 does not mention the fact Ultimately, the number of Finalised Supplementary that the site is likely to be houses approved on the site Guidance on Housing. heavily constrained due to will be determined via a flood risk and therefore planning application, taking recommend that the Council cognisance of the Flood Risk may consider removing this Assessment and SEPA’s site from the LDP as it may response to it. not be able to accommodate the desired number of houses indicated. Selkirk Angles Field Ian Wells Object Would wish to be consulted Neighbours would be It is recommended that (ASELK033) on type and design of notified of any planning Angles Field (ASELK033) is properties which should application and would have included within the reflect the natural element of the opportunity to Finalised Supplementary the countryside and the comment on house types Guidance on Housing. effect on the business at and design. Issues relating Philipburn House Hotel. to noise and pollution Object to potential noise and would be dealt with by pollution development Environmental Health would cause to local through the process of any residents and the aforesaid planning application. business. Would wish to discuss further with For construction projects of Environmental Health two or more dwellings, Officers to cause the least Environmental Health would disruption to all concerned. require the developer to Request further details and submit a Construction request that no work Method Statement (CMS). commences before 9am and This would require to no activity takes place after identify all potential adverse 4.30pm Monday to Friday amenity and environmental and no activity takes place at impacts, including hours of the weekend. Noise surveys work and site delivery and ways to reduce noise times. The CMS would also must take place. need to specify remediation measures and allocate responsibility for implementing these to specific individuals/roles 123 within the developer’s organisation. Environmental Health would thereafter ask for a planning condition to be attached to any consent granted prohibiting all work that is not in accordance with the CMS, without the written consent of the Planning Authority. Noise Impact Assessments may be required for some renewables, such as air- source heat pumps, which can cause noise issues in residential situations. Selkirk Angles Field Mr & Mrs R Nichol Object to the inclusion of Dismayed that SBC feels the There is no right to a view in It is recommended that (ASELK033) (ASELK033) within the need to erect 30 units in planning legislation. The Angles Field (ASELK033) is Housing SG front of Linglie Road, Selkirk development of the site included within the following the endurance by should not result in Finalised Supplementary residents of the works increased crime and/or Guidance on Housing. associated with the flood antisocial behaviour. The prevention scheme for the Education Officer has good part of two years. confirmed that there would Purchased house due to the be capacity within the local view towards the Yarrow primary and secondary Valley, the privacy with no school to accommodate the other houses looking into the development. The Roads front of it and because it is Officer has raised no within a quiet area of objections to the site being Bannerfield. Bannerfield, allocated for housing from a which was being labelled the roads safety point of view. worst place to live in Selkirk, Due to various constraints is now slowly turning itself there are limited other around. Crime rate is falling, areas within the town which people are taking pride in could be allocated for their gardens, and it has a housing. good school and nursery. 124 Fear that as well as spoiling the landscape, there would be a rise in crime and antisocial behaviour, the school would become crowded, the main road to Peebles would become busier and the corner of Linglie Road and more accidents would occur. Development would spoil the landscaped natural walk way along the Philipburn. There are many more areas in Selkirk where houses could be built. Selkirk Angles Field Iain Poe Object to the inclusion of The Flood Protection Whilst it is acknowledged It is recommended that (ASELK033) (ASELK033) within the Scheme, although welcomed, that the works undertaken Angles Field (ASELK033) is Housing SG involved lots of heavy road during the Flood Protection included within the traffic, noise, dirt and Scheme would undoubtedly Finalised Supplementary vibration. This has impacted cause disruption to existing Guidance on Housing. upon house sale. Further residents, the benefits of works of a similar nature the Scheme are significant would postpone this yet to the area. It is considered again. A new housing that a sympathetic and well- development would spoil the planned development for area, which has recently the site in question would improved with the new park not have a detrimental in the Angles Field. The area impact upon the character now with its new park in the of the area. The Roads Angles Field is not only Planning Team has raised no pleasing to look at is great objections to the allocation for walks and relaxing. A new of the site for housing. housing development would There are several options spoil this. The road available for both vehicular immediately outside no4 access and pedestrian/cycle Linglie Road and the Primary linkage therefore the site School has already seen an can connect and integrate increase of traffic due to the well with its surroundings as 125 road closure on the opposite well as internally. side of the Angles Field. New housing will in no way add to the scenic beauty of the area that has seen a rebirth after the flood protection works. Selkirk Angles Field Kate Jenkins Support the inclusion of The support for this site is Comments are noted. The It is recommended that (ASELK033) (ASELK033) within the supported by further masterplan and 3D sketches Angles Field (ASELK033) is Housing SG information contained in a provide detail which would included within the supporting statement, be considered as part of any Finalised Supplementary masterplan, 3D sketches and future planning application / Guidance on Housing. a letter of support from the planning brief. Eildon Housing Association.
The masterplan includes: Principles of ‘Creating Places’ and ‘Designing Streets’; Possibly housing mix, including RSL (affordable housing) requirement; Three areas which could be developed in phases; Landscape principles (soft and hard); Access and permeability; Acknowledgment of LDP policy including PMD1 ‘Sustainability’ and PMD2 ‘Quality Standards’.
The following key points are made under ‘Information on Angles Field’: The site is within the settlement boundary of Selkirk. The Council has set out a number of site 126 requirements which are demonstrated within the Masterplan document. Development Management has stated “full support” for the site and stated “It is considered that this is the best of the Selkirk sites brought forward by a considerable margain”. The site has no environmental designations over it. Scottish Water has confirmed there is capacity to accommodate development. Public transport is available and a general store and primary school. The Roads Planning team are supportive of the proposals.
The following key points are made under ‘Comments relating to site layout, consultations, design and deliverability’: Initial discussions have been held with the Eildon Housing Association who have confirmed support for the allocation on the basis of the delivery of between 6 and 8 affordable rented 127 houses. The layout provides for strong street frontages onto the two adjoining roads. Such a layout helps the site relate well to neighbouring existing residential development. Larger houses are positioned to the west of the site, with driveways leading off the stopped- up road. The Masterplan indicates ways in which appropriate definition of public and private space will be achieved within the development. The site includes an area of green space at the northerly point of the site. Structured landscape planting and hedge planting have been provided to the south. The majority of the existing trees to the east of the site would be retained. Selkirk Heather Mill Historic Notes (Battlefield) The site is fully or partially Comments are noted. It is recommended that (MSELK002) Environment within the Inventory Heather Mill (MSELK002) Scotland Battlefield - Battle of If the site was to be taken is included within the Philiphaugh but the site forward for inclusion in the Finalised Supplementary requirements refer only to Finalised Housing SG, an Guidance on Housing. the need to consider the additional site requirement setting of the battlefield, would be required, to read: It is recommended that an rather than the necessity to additional site 128 ensure that development is ‘The setting of the Battle of requirement be included sensitive and appropriate to Philiphaugh Battlefield to read: their location within the should be considered as part battlefield. The site of the site design to ensure The setting of the requirements should be that development is Battle of Philiphaugh amended to require that sensitive and appropriate to Battlefield should be developments must not have its location within the considered as part of a negative impact on key battlefield and does not the site design to landscape characteristics and have a negative impact on ensure that special qualities of the its key landscape development is battlefield. characteristics and special sensitive and qualities’. appropriate to its location within the battlefield and does not have a negative impact on its key landscape characteristics and special qualities. Selkirk Heather Mill SEPA Notes (Flooding) The contributor requires a Comments are noted. It is recommended that (MSELK002) modification to the Heather Mill (MSELK002) development requirement to If the site was to be taken is included within the mention the Flood Protection forward for inclusion within Finalised Supplementary Scheme. The contributor the Finalised Housing SG, an Guidance on Housing. notes that the use of the site additional site requirement has been changed to mixed would be required, to read: It is recommended that an use. This proposed change to additional site the land use is an increase in ‘The site has been allocated requirement be included vulnerability and is reliant on for mixed use following to read: the FPS to protect the site completion of the Selkirk from the Ettrick Water. There Flood Protection Scheme. The site has been is a residual risk from surface Any development proposal allocated for mixed water ponding behind coming forward on the site use following defences, structural failure should address the risk of completion of the and overtopping. Council any potential surface water Selkirk Flood should be mindful that ponding behind flood Protection Scheme. allocating land for housing defences’. Any development will increase the number of proposal coming persons reliant on a FPS to forward on the site 129 protect them from flooding. should address the risk The contributor stresses that of any potential FPSs have a finite design life. surface water ponding The contributor would be behind flood defences. more supportive of a land use type that is similar to the current land use. The Council should satisfy itself in respect of water resilient/resistant design and evacuation in the event of inundation. This also applies to other sites in the built up area. Selkirk Heather Mill Ferguson Planning Objects (various) 1. It should be noted that this 1. Selkirk Riverside It is recommended that (MSELK002) on behalf of site forms part of local industrial estate is a large Heather Mill (MSELK002) Roxburghe Estates safeguarded business and area of land with a number is included within the industrial allocation of empty and derelict Finalised Supplementary (BSELK003) and the buildings on it. Whilst it Guidance on Housing. implications of the loss of would be desirable to see all this employment land have these buildings brought into not been determined within business/ industrial use, the the assessment. reality is the market could not accomplish this. It is 2. Issues regarding potential therefore considered more flooding issues, heritage and beneficial to allow parts of biodiversity will also need to this area to be redeveloped be assessed to understand into other appropriate and the development constraints positive uses. The principle on this brownfield site. of supporting mixed use development at this site is already established.
2. Potential flooding, heritage and biodiversity issues have all been considered through the site assessment process and either do not require mitigation, or would be 130 mitigated through the requirements which would be attached to the allocation. Selkirk Heather Mill Rob Elliot Objects (traffic levels) The contributors are The capability of the local It is recommended that (MSELK002) Sue Elliot concerned about increased road network to Heather Mill (MSELK002) Calum Sutherland traffic levels on Riverside accommodate further traffic is included within the Road. As part of the flood was considered as part of Finalised Supplementary defence works, Riverside the Council’s roads planning Guidance on Housing. Road was connected to Level team’s assessment of the Crossing Road, with the site. The local road network result that a percentage of was considered capable of road users go at great speed accommodating increased past the existing Riverside traffic levels in line with the Road houses, where there scale of development that is are young children and proposed. animals. There are also many daily dog-walkers. 75 houses would certainly increase the traffic dangers many fold. The contributor has concerns too for the safety of children who would be resident in any houses on this site. There is a large volume of commercial traffic and machinery on the immediate boundaries of three sides of MSELK002; drivers are working and in a hurry – this is a dangerous place. Selkirk Heather Mill Steve Burrell Objects (various) The contributor feels there Selkirk Riverside industrial It is recommended that (MSELK002) are many more suitable sites estate is a large area of land Heather Mill (MSELK002) within the Borders that with a number of empty and is included within the would serve the local derelict buildings on it. Finalised Supplementary community better. As the Whilst it would be desirable Guidance on Housing. proposed site is within an to see all these buildings area allocated for industrial brought into business/ use it would surely be more industrial use, the reality is 131 sensible for it to be used for the market could not job creation. There are accomplish this. It is limited employment therefore considered more opportunities as it is in and beneficial to allow parts of around the borders, and to this area to be redeveloped remove a large site that in into other appropriate and the future could provide positive uses. much needed jobs seems a mistake. Selkirk Heather Mill Rob Elliot Objects and propose The contributors consider The contributors appear to It is recommended that (MSELK002) Sue Elliot alternative site the site immediately across refer to site ESE10B (Linglie Heather Mill (MSELK002) Calum Sutherland the Ettrick on the north east Road), which is located is included within the end of Bannerfield more opposite site MSELK002 on Finalised Supplementary appropriate. the opposite side of the Guidance on Housing. Ettrick Water. This site is already allocated for housing.
Selkirk Heather Mill J Sutherland Objects and proposes A potential alternative site The contributor appears to It is recommended that (MSELK002) alternative site for housing could be the site refer to site ESE10B (Linglie Heather Mill (MSELK002) (used as a storage compound Road), which is located is included within the by contractors during the opposite site MSELK002 on Finalised Supplementary flood protection works) on the opposite side of the Guidance on Housing. the opposite side of the river Ettrick Water. This site is next to an existing housing already allocated for estate. housing. Selkirk Heather Mill Rob Elliot Objects to use for housing The contributors would This site is covered by policy It is recommended that (MSELK002) Sue Elliot prefer to see the site ED1 which seeks to ensure Heather Mill (MSELK002) Calum Sutherland developed for industrial/ that adequate supplies of is included within the J Sutherland commercial use and consider Business and Industrial Land Finalised Supplementary the site inappropriate for are retained. However, Guidance on Housing. housing. policy ED1 does recognise that there may be extenuating circumstances which could allow consideration of other development uses.
The policy therefore 132 identifies a hierarchy of sites split into 4no categories which state what uses could be allowed within each category. The site in question (LDP ref BSELK003) is listed within the lowest of the 4no categories which is entitled a ‘local’ designation. In essence this means ‘local’ designations have a lower priority need for protection of Business and Industrial use. Consequently alternative uses can be accepted on these sites and it should therefore be noted that in principle policy ED1 can allow mixed uses including housing on the site.
The LDP settlement profile for Selkirk also acknowledges that the southern part of the Riverside area may allow for mixed use development and a site requirement accompanying the existing business and industrial site (BSELK003) states that “due to the location of this site adjacent to a mixed use area it is considered that this site would be appropriate for mixed use development”. It is also 133 noted that the provision of an element of employment land on part of the site is also a site requirement within the Supplementary Guidance. Selkirk Heather Mill Rob Elliot Objects to use for housing The completion of the Selkirk It is agreed that the It is recommended that (MSELK002) Sue Elliot FPS is considered an completion of the Selkirk Heather Mill (MSELK002) Calum Sutherland opportunity to promote the FPS offers the opportunity is included within the J Sutherland site as a place for business/ to encourage the reuse and Finalised Supplementary job creation. development of this site, Guidance on Housing. but it is considered that this need not be restricted to business use, and providing a wider range of possible acceptable uses would provide the best opportunity for redevelopment to be achieved. Selkirk Heather Mill Rob Elliot Objects to use for housing Housing could risk it The site is located within It is recommended that (MSELK002) Sue Elliot becoming a commuter estate the Central Housing Market Heather Mill (MSELK002) Calum Sutherland for people travelling to work Area and Central Strategic is included within the in Edinburgh. Development Area. The site Finalised Supplementary therefore benefits from Guidance on Housing. good transport links and is within reach of a wide range of employment opportunities as well as the Border Railway stations at Tweedbank and Galashiels, which would enable access to an even wider range of employment opportunities. This is considered to be one of the advantages of this site. Selkirk Heather Mill John Handley Support 1. The contributor confirms Support and comments are It is recommended that (MSELK002) Associates on that this site is owned by noted. Heather Mill (MSELK002) 134 behalf of Equorium their client, Equorium is included within the Property Company Property Company Ltd Finalised Supplementary Ltd (formerly EWM Property Guidance on Housing. Company Ltd) and they are fully supportive of this proposed allocation, and are willing to release the site for development, including housing. The contributor welcomes the identification of the site as a preferred site for mixed use development. The contributor’s client supports the site’s Stage 1 Site Assessment conclusions. The proposed allocation would allow the contributor’s client’s site to be redeveloped for a wider range of mixed uses and specifically residential use. This approach is consistent with the advice contained within the SPP and reflects the site’s brownfield status; its relatively high profile location along the edge of the Ettrick Water; its accessibility; and the surrounding mix of uses.
2. There are a collection of former mill buildings on the site, but none are in active use and are lying vacant and derelict. A separate area of extensive undeveloped land is situated to the east of the main Mill building. Whilst 135 there is some heritage interest in the mill buildings, none of the buildings on the wider site are listed and all are in a very poor condition. They have been derelict for a number of years. None of the buildings are considered to have any intrinsic heritage or architectural value, and as they are not listed, or within a Conservation Area, could be demolished.
3. The site is surrounded by a wide range of differing land uses, including housing; offices; commercial; storage; retail; tourism and leisure uses.
4. The LDP confirms that the Council has an approved Flood Prevention Scheme for Selkirk and work on this is nearing completion. This scheme includes substantial mitigation measures along the Riverside Area. Flood risk issues are therefore being addressed and will remove any future flood risk associated with the redevelopment of this site. The Stage 1 Site Assessment also confirms that the Council is of the view that the Selkirk Flood Prevention Scheme will enable 136 development at this location, including housing.
5. Being surrounded by roads on three sides, the site is highly accessible and further benefits from links to the adjacent riverside path and connections north of the Ettrick Water. The site is relatively well connected to the town centre and the A7, and existing bus stops are located along Dunsdale Road.
6. As a result of its brownfield status; its relatively high profile location along the edge of the Ettrick Water; its accessibility; and the surrounding mix of uses, the contributor’s client’s site has the opportunity to be redeveloped for a wider range of mixed uses which would maximise job creation and economic development opportunities. In addition to the existing policy support for employment related uses, the contributor welcomes the Council’s support for residential development on this site as set out in the Draft Supplementary Guidance. The proposed allocation of this site would 137 help to address the confirmed shortfall in the housing land supply; would contribute to the objectives of sustainable economic growth; and would allow the redevelopment of a vacant and derelict site for a high quality, sustainable development in an accessible location. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Historic Comment (ASELK041) This site is fully or partially Comments noted. If the site It is recommended that (ASELK041) Environment within the Inventory (ASELK041) was to be taken Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Scotland Battlefield – Battle of forward for inclusion in the is not included within the Philiphaugh. However, the finalised Housing SG, the Finalised Supplementary site requirements for this site site requirement would be Guidance on Housing. refer only to the need to amended to read: consider the setting of the battlefield, rather than the ‘Development must not necessity to ensure that have a negative impact development is sensitive and upon the key landscape appropriate to the location characteristics, special within the battlefield. The qualities and setting of the site requirements should be historic battlefield (Battle of amended to require that Philiphaugh) and the development must not have adjacent SBC Garden and a negative impact on key Designed Landscape’. landscape characteristics and special qualities of the However, due to an battlefield. outstanding objection from SEPA on the grounds of flooding this site will not be carried forward for allocation. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 SNH Comments The site requirements should Further to the advice of SNH It is recommended that (ASELK041) be updated to make it clear it is recommended that the Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) that information will be fourth site requirement be is not included within the required to support Habitats amended to read: Finalised Supplementary Regulations Appraisal and Guidance on Housing. 138 inform any mitigation that Mitigation required to may be required. ensure no significant adverse effects on integrity of River Tweed Special Area of Conservation. information to support the Habitats Regulations Appraisal would be required to identify what mitigation, if any, is to be delivered. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Major Angus Object to the inclusion of Previous objections raised to This site was included in the It is recommended that (ASELK041) William Boag (ASELK041) of the Housing the building of additional Draft Housing SG as an Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) SG properties on Ettrickhaugh “alternative” site as is not included within the Road remain unchanged. It discussions regarding Finalised Supplementary is not so many months ago flooding were ongoing with Guidance on Housing. that SEPA pointed out that SEPA and it was thought house building intentions that their objections may be should be shelved. The overcome. However this reasons were quite clear, has not happened. namely whilst they accepted Consequently this site has that the flood prevention been removed and will not work had improved the be included within the situation, the area remains a Finalised Housing SG. flood plan and in extreme However, it must be stated weather could flood. They that the Senior Manager in did however agree to charge of the multi million commercial premises on the pound flood protection proposed site. Once again, scheme for Selkirk strongly residents find themselves in disagrees with SEPA’s limbo and would like this stance. This matter will be issue put to bed. Why state subject to further discussion very recently that the Council between the parties in due accepts SEPA’s view and in course and will give very short order go back on reference to SEPA’s recent yourselves? consultation paper on Development Behind Flood 139 Defences. As long as SEPA continue to object to this site on the grounds of flood risk the Council will not formally allocate it for housing. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Richard Wynn Jones Object to the inclusion of With the amount of During the process of this It is recommended that (ASELK041) (ASELK041) within the abandoned mills in the area, Housing SG, existing Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Housing SG the shortfall of 916 units redevelopment sites were is not included within the could be best met by considered for possible Finalised Supplementary redevelopment. Selkirk has housing allocation. Guidance on Housing. other areas that would Unfortunately, the benefit from such redevelopment of existing redevelopment. Proposal is properties can be cost a direct result of the flood prohibitive and the defence programme, effectiveness of such sites is question its fairness in therefore undermined. consideration. The site Consequently the planning already suffers from system cannot completely extended traffic issues and rely on brownfield sites to parking problems. An meet housing requirements additional 8 units would and must therefore consider surely complicate the greenfield options. problems. What happened to the letter that outlined The site would be tested that specific area as against a number of criteria, unsuitable development, like one of which is flooding. the Battlefield to the west of Ettrickhaugh Road? The Roads Planning Team has raised no objections to the allocation of the site for housing. Some minor widening to Ettrickhaugh Road will be required to mitigate the increase in traffic movements.
Unfortunately it is unclear which letter is being 140 referred to. The site is located within the Inventory Battlefield – Battle of Philiphaugh. As advised by Historic Environment Scotland, care would be required in on order to ensure that development at this location would not have a negative impact upon the key landscape characteristics, special qualities and setting of the Battlefield.
However, due to an outstanding objection from SEPA on the grounds of flooding this site will not be carried forward for allocation. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Fraser Dickey Object to the inclusion of The flood prevention work Whilst it is acknowledged It is recommended that (ASELK041) (ASELK041) within the has only recently been that the works undertaken Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Housing SG completed, this work has during the Flood Protection is not included within the caused a huge amount of Scheme would undoubtedly Finalised Supplementary noise and disturbance over cause disruption to existing Guidance on Housing. the last few years. More residents, the benefits of building work at this location the Scheme are significant would have further adverse to the area. effect on residents. Given the narrow width of the road The Roads Planning Team and the already large volume has raised no objections to of traffic from both the the allocation of the site for cricket and rugby club, the housing. Some minor building work and increased widening to Ettrickhaugh number of vehicles would Road will be required to adversely affect highway mitigate the increase in safety and the convenience traffic movements. of road users. The proposal 141 would result in residents in Consideration would be Ettrickhaugh Cottages losing given during the process of both their privacy and view any future planning looking southwards and application to ensure would adversely affect the privacy of existing residential amenity of the properties is not area. New development compromised. would spoil the character of the neighbourhood, There is no right to a view in particularly from the new planning law. It is footpath which starts at the considered that a end of Ettrickhaugh Road and sympathetic and well- runs up to the salmon ladder. planned development for the site in question would not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area. These matters would be addressed during the process of any planning application submitted for the development of the site.
However, due to an outstanding objection from SEPA on the grounds of flooding this site will not be carried forward for allocation. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 John Lowrie Object to the inclusion of Ettrickhaugh road is a cul-de- The Roads Planning Team It is recommended that (ASELK041) (ASELK041) within the sac. The proposed 8 units has raised no objections to Philiphaugh 2(ASELK041) Housing SG could mean another 16 the allocation of the site for is not included within the vehicles at least using what is housing. Some minor Finalised Supplementary a busy road at the moment. widening to Ettrickhaugh Guidance on Housing. An access road between Road will be required to Ettrickhaugh and the Yarrow mitigate the increase in Road would be desirable traffic movements. though feared highly unlikely. After 2 years of Any issues relating to noise traffic related to the Flood would be dealt with by 142 Protection Scheme another Environmental Health lengthy period of building through the process of any traffic is highly undesirable, planning application and in what is a relatively quiet also during the process of cul-de-sac. Also the development should issues accompanying noise, dust arise. For construction and mess over a long build projects of two or more time is not merited for 8 dwellings, Environmental units. Scottish Water are at Health would require the the moment only just able to developer to submit a supply a reasonable water Construction Method pressure in the street. Statement (CMS). This Another requirement for would require to identify all more water would not help potential adverse amenity this situation. and environmental impacts, including hours of work and site delivery times. The CMS would also need to specify remediation measures and allocate responsibility for implementing these to specific individuals/roles within the developer’s organisation. Environmental Health would thereafter ask for a planning condition to be attached to any consent granted prohibiting all work that is not in accordance with the CMS, without the written consent of the Planning Authority. Noise Impact Assessments may be required for some renewables, such as air- source heat pumps, which can cause noise issues in 143 residential situations. Any issues arising relating to mess and dust would be addressed during any development, if necessary.
Scottish Water has raised no objections to the proposed site.
However, due to an outstanding objection from SEPA on the grounds of flooding this site will not be carried forward for allocation. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Ann Fernie Object to the inclusion of Main concern is the width of The Roads Planning Team It is recommended that (ASELK041) (ASELK041) within the the road which is single land has raised no objections to Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Housing SG and would not be able to the allocation of the site for is not included within the cope with any further traffic. housing. Some minor Finalised Supplementary Ettrickhaugh Road has seen widening to Ettrickhaugh Guidance on Housing. increased traffic from the Road will be required to rugby club, football club and mitigate the increase in cricket club. There has only traffic movements. recently been a new walkway on the damside which has It is considered that the increased the cars in the development of this site street and also parked cars would be acceptable in which make safe driving principle, however, due to extremely challenging. There an outstanding objection are frequently many cars at from SEPA on the grounds the beginning of the road of flooding this site will not which can make access be carried forward for difficult and it is only a allocation. matter of time before there is a collision. The flood protection works carried out as yet have not been tested and completed. The lack of 144 future housing in the town is understood, there may be other more appropriate sites. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Mr & Mrs W J Object to the inclusion of Site should not be allocated There is no right to a view in It is recommended that (ASELK041) Hogarth (ASELK041) within the as it would it would impact planning law. Any Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Housing SG upon views and outlooks. perceived impacts on is not included within the The Flood Protection Scheme existing residents would be Finalised Supplementary has not yet been signed off assessed at the planning Guidance on Housing. and has yet to prove to work. application stage should a The access road is not wide proposal be submitted. enough to accommodate excess number of traffic. The Roads Planning Team has raised no objections to the allocation of the site for housing. Some minor widening to Ettrickhaugh Road will be required to mitigate the increase in traffic movements.
However, due to an outstanding objection from SEPA on the grounds of flooding this site will not be carried forward for allocation. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Nick Mill Object to the inclusion of The proposed land, Whilst the site is currently in It is recommended that (ASELK041) (ASELK041) within the Laurieston Racing Stables, is use, the Local Planning Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Housing SG a working racehorse yard and Authority must assess its is not included within the stables, employs local appropriateness, or Finalised Supplementary people, has college otherwise, for residential Guidance on Housing. placements, supports local development. feed suppliers, blacksmiths, farriers, farms and vets and The Project Manager of the also boasts one of the few Selkirk Flood Protection outdoor riding schools in Scheme has confirmed that Selkirkshire. Even more the site in question is astonishing is after having in protected to a 1 in 200 year excess of £23,000 spent on event level as a result of the 145 the property to improve Scheme now in place. facilities in the last year, including the planting of The Roads Planning Team trees and over 200,000 wild has raised no objections to flowers, on land that was the allocation of the site for previously rejected for housing. Some minor planning! Worthy of note is, widening to Ettrickhaugh this land still floods, no flood Road will be required to prevention works were mitigate the increase in directly done to this property traffic movements. and it has always been much lower than the actual road. It is considered that the Ettrickhaugh Road is a cul de development of this site sac, traffic is already a major would be acceptable in issue and this road and the principle, however, due to services are already wholly an outstanding objection unsuitable for development, from SEPA on the grounds water pressure is an ongoing of flooding this site will not problem as is sewage. With be carried forward for a Rugby club, Football Club, allocation. Cricket Club, all weather pitch and function suites All potential sites in Selkirk already present on the road, considered as part of the it is clearly evident the Housing SG process must be proposers of this lunacy are assessed on their own unaware just how busy this merits. road already is. The entire street has suffered for almost the last three years from construction traffic with the flood prevention scheme and reinstatement works are still ongoing and will be for many months. Selkirk has several areas that would certainly benefit from development on land that is sitting idle and has been for some time, ASELK041 is 146 clearly not one of them. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Valerie Mcgowan Object to the inclusion of With this road being a no The Roads Planning Team It is recommended that (ASELK041) (ASELK041) within the through road and struggling has raised no objections to Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Housing SG to cope with the volume of the allocation of the site for is not included within the traffic at the moment it housing. Some minor Finalised Supplementary would not be of benefit to widening to Ettrickhaugh Guidance on Housing. add this allocation. There is Road will be required to also an immense amount of mitigate the increase in traffic from the rugby traffic movements. football and cricket fields which also have access off However, due to an this road. With regard to outstanding objection from services there have been a SEPA on the grounds of lot of problems with water flooding this site will not be pressure due to existing carried forward for piping getting old and is allocation. liable to bursts. There has also been a lot of disruption due to flood prevention work and nobody wants to have another prolonged spell of disruption. The beauty of the area has already suffered, as have birds and wildlife. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Pamela Douglas Object to the inclusion of Concern regarding the The Roads Planning Team It is recommended that (ASELK041) (ASELK041) within the increase in vehicle volume on has raised no objections to Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Housing SG Ettrickhaugh Road and as the allocation of the site for is not included within the provided photographs of the housing. Some minor Finalised Supplementary road on a Saturday. There widening to Ettrickhaugh Guidance on Housing. were 21 parked vehicles Road will be required to between the turn off on the mitigate the increase in main road to the entrance to traffic movements. the Cricket Field. It is certainly not uncommon for However, due to an this amount of parked outstanding objection from vehicles to be present and SEPA on the grounds of requires some navigating to flooding this site will not be get up or down the road carried forward for when vehicles are allocation. 147 approaching in the opposite direction. This difficulty is also increased when cricket/rugby or football matches are taking place. The prospect of increased volume of cars on Ettrickhaugh Road is of concern. Eight units could produce a further sixteen vehicles using an already contested area. Photos have been attached to this submission. Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Ian Lang Object to the inclusion of Objects to proposal for 8 It is unclear why two-storey It is recommended that (ASELK041) (ASELK041) within the units of two-storey housing. units are being referred to. Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Housing SG The road is too narrow to This has not been is not included within the allow 8 access roads/drives established at this stage. Finalised Supplementary without considerable Guidance on Housing. inconvenience to existing The Roads Planning Team occupiers opposite. Existing has raised no objections to parking and access the allocation of the site for arrangements would be housing. Some minor considerably widening to Ettrickhaugh inconvenienced. The existing Road will be required to access road is already very mitigate the increase in busy, particularly at traffic movements. weekends with the use of rugby, cricket, hockey and However, due to an football games and practices. outstanding objection from The proposed two-storey SEPA on the grounds of units would overlook existing flooding this site will not be properties and this cannot be carried forward for fair even although they have allocation. had dormer conversions. It is expected that the housing Consideration would be would be of modern given during the process of construction and this could any future planning be at variance with existing application to ensure 148 housing fronting onto the privacy of existing road. A smaller development properties is not of four units might be compromised and that any reasonable with integrated development is in keeping access and a widening of the with the character of the road. area.
Selkirk Philiphaugh 2 Scottish Seek the removal of the Require the removal of this This site was included in the It is recommended that (ASELK041) Environmental site (Flooding) site from the Supplementary Draft Housing SG as an Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK041) Protection Agency Guidance. SEPA provided a “alternative” site as is not included within the report with their response to discussions regarding Finalised Supplementary the 'call for sites' flooding were ongoing with Guidance on Housing. consultation in summer 2016 SEPA and it was thought which they would repeat in that their objections may be this representation. The site overcome. However this is entirely within the has not happened. floodplain and has flooded in Consequently this site has the past. It is recommended been removed and will not that (ASELK033) is included be included within the within the Finalised SG on Finalised Housing SG. housing. However, it must be stated that the Senior Manager in charge of the multi million pound flood protection scheme for Selkirk strongly disagrees with SEPA’s stance. This matter will be subject to further discussion between the parties in due course and will give reference to SEPA’s recent consultation paper on Development Behind Flood Defences. As long as SEPA continue to object to this site on the grounds of flood risk the Council will not formally allocate it for housing. 149 Selkirk Philiphaugh Mill Historic Comment (ASELK040) This site is fully or partially Comments noted. If the site It is recommended that (ASELK040) Environment within the Inventory (ASELK040) was to be taken Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK040) Scotland Battlefield – Battle of forward for inclusion in the is not included within the Philiphaugh. However, the finalised Housing SG, the Finalised Supplementary site requirements for this site site requirement would be Guidance on Housing. refer only to the need to amended to read: consider the setting of the ‘Development must not battlefield, rather than the have a negative impact necessity to ensure that upon the key landscape development is sensitive and characteristics, special appropriate to the location qualities and setting of the within the battlefield. The historic battlefield (Battle of site requirements should be Philiphaugh) and the amended to require that adjacent SBC Garden and development must not have Designed Landscape’. a negative impact on key landscape characteristics and However, due to an special qualities of the outstanding objection from battlefield. SEPA on the grounds of flooding this site will not be carried forward for allocation. Selkirk Philiphaugh Mill Major Angus Object to the inclusion of Previous objections raised to This site was included in the It is recommended that (ASELK040) William Boag (ASELK040) within the the building of additional Draft Housing SG as an Philiphaugh 2 (ASELK040) Housing SG properties on Ettrickhaugh “alternative” site as is not included within the Road remain unchanged. It discussions regarding Finalised Supplementary is not so many months ago flooding were ongoing with Guidance on Housing. that SEPA pointed out that SEPA and it was thought house building intentions that their objections may be should be shelved. The overcome. However this reasons were quite clear, has not happened. namely whilst they accepted Consequently this site has that the flood prevention been removed and will not work had improved the be included within the situation, the area remains a Finalised Housing SG. flood plan and in extreme However, it must be stated weather could flood. They that the Senior Manager in did however agree to charge of the multi million commercial premises on the pound flood protection 150 proposed site. Once again, scheme for Selkirk strongly residents find themselves in disagrees with SEPA’s limbo and would like this stance. This matter will be issue put to bed. Why state subject to further discussion very recently that the Council between the parties in due accepts SEPA’s view and in course and will give very short order go back on reference to SEPA’s recent yourselves? consultation paper on Development Behind Flood Defences. As long as SEPA continue to object to this site on the grounds of flood risk the Council will not formally allocate it for housing. Selkirk Philiphaugh Mill Scottish Seek the removal of the Require the removal of this This site was included in the It is recommended that (ASELK040) Environmental site (Flooding) site from the Supplementary Draft Housing SG as an Philiphaugh Milll Protection Agency Guidance. SEPA provided a “alternative” site as (ASELK040) is not included report with their response to discussions regarding within the Finalised the 'call for sites' flooding were ongoing with Supplementary Guidance consultation in summer 2016 SEPA and it was thought on Housing. which they would repeat in that their objections may be this representation. The site overcome. However this is entirely within the has not happened. floodplain and has flooded in Consequently this site has the past. It is recommended been removed and will not that (ASELK033) is included be included within the within the Finalised SG on Finalised Housing SG. housing. However, it must be stated that the Senior Manager in charge of the multi million pound flood protection scheme for Selkirk strongly disagrees with SEPA’s stance. This matter will be subject to further discussion between the parties in due course and will give reference to SEPA’s recent 151 consultation paper on Development Behind Flood Defences. As long as SEPA continue to object to this site on the grounds of flood risk the Council will not formally allocate it for housing. St Boswells Charlesfield West Savills on behalf of Object The contributor objects to Comments noted. A larger It is recommended that (ACHAR003 & Charlesfield First the non-inclusion of land at site at this location was Charlesfield West, MCHAR002) LLP Charlesfield which was assessed for mixed use as Charlesfield (ACHAR003) is submitted as part of the Call part of the Call for Sites not included within the for Sites process, of the Draft process under site code Finalised Supplementary SG. MCHAR002. The new site Guidance on Housing. submitted by the An initial stage 1 RAG contributor has been coded assessment was undertaken as ACHAR003 and the and the site was given an proposed use is housing amber rating and was subject only. to consultation. The site has been through The majority of consultation the full site assessment responses generally accepted process which concluded that the site could be that the site is doubtful, satisfactory developed, primarily for reasons of the subject to appropriate relationship with adjoining mitigation methods. The employment land uses and main constraint to this site Countryside Around Towns being allocated for (CAT) considerations. It is residential development was considered there are more the isolation from the towns appropriate sites within the of St Boswells or Newtown St Central SDA to meet the Boswells and its location housing shortfall. However alongside Charlesfield the site could be considered Industrial Estate. as part of a future Local Notwithstanding, it should be Development Plan process. noted that Development Please refer to the full site Management assessed the assessment contained proposals and consider that within Appendix D – Stage 2 152 the northern most part of Database Report (Update). the site could accommodate housing.
In line with these supportive comments, the contributor has included an updated masterplan showing a refined location for a more limited residential scheme with an approximate capacity of 50 units, which address the comments made by Development Management. An allocation of this level will allow for the development of a sustainable scheme to progress with limited access and utilities upgrades. This would help make a meaningful contribution to a range of sites to meet the identified shortfall in housing land supply. A small number of houses here would also help support the existing commercial activities at Charlesfield. The site code of the proposed new housing site is ACHAR003. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) Scottish Comment (MTWEE002) Support the requirement for Support noted. The sixth It is recommended that Environment a FRA to assess the flood risk site requirement should be Lowood (MTWEE002) is Protection Agency from the River Tweed and amended to read: included within the the requirement for the Finalised Supplementary developer to demonstrate A Flood Risk Guidance on Housing. how the risk from surface Assessment is required water would be mitigated. as the site is at risk It is also recommended Consideration will need to be from a 1:200 year flood that the following site given to bridge and culvert event from fluvial and requirement be amended 153 structures within and surface water flooding. to read: adjacent to the site. The FRA would require Require a modification to the to assess the flood risk A Flood Risk developer requirement to from the River Tweed Assessment is required investigate the possibility of and the developer to as the site is at risk deculverting. demonstrate how the from a 1:200 year flood risk from surface water event from fluvial and would be mitigated. surface water flooding. Consideration will need The FRA would require to be given to bridge to assess the flood risk and culvert structures from the River Tweed within and adjacent to and the developer to the site. The possibility demonstrate how the of deculverting should risk from surface water be investigated. would be mitigated. Consideration will need to be given to bridge and culvert structures within and adjacent to the site. The possibility of deculverting should be investigated. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) Scottish Comment (MTWEE002) As a result of the positive Comments are noted. N/A Government – collaboration between the Planning and Council and Transport Architectural Scotland in the preparation Division and of the Supplementary Transport Scotland Guidance, the SG has no comments. The SG looks forward to working with the Council in the future, particularly on the appraisal of this site, where involvement would be welcomed. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) Scottish Natural Comments (MTWEE002) While recognising the visual It is recommended that Heritage containment and the Lowood, Tweedbank proximity to the station of (MTWEE002) is included this site SNH also continue to within the Finalised 154 highlight the natural heritage Comments noted. Supplementary Guidance attributes of this site. Given on Housing. the scale, strategic location It is confirmed a masterplan and the natural heritage is being prepared and SNH’s sensitivities of this site comments will be sought. (combined with the quantity Furthermore, SNH will be of development to be consulted when planning allocated) we strongly application(s) are submitted suggest that further work is for the development of the undertaken to identify site. specific spatial locations and requirements for development. We consider that, if the potential to create a high- quality development in this location is to be realised, then further spatial and site specific site requirements should be produced. For example, we highlight the placemaking opportunities with respect to the retention of existing site features such as stone walls, trees, and woodlands, as well as the opportunities for the promotion of access and active travel networks, sustainable solutions to the drainage issues and layouts of proposed development which make the most of site views and inherent character, as well as the opportunities for co- ordinated access and active travel through the site, including in relation to the 155 River Tweed (SAC). We suggest more detailed site development principles and specific spatial requirements are needed and we would advise that should ideally be prepared by a multi- disciplinary team led by Scottish Borders Council rather than left to any future applicant. SNH would be happy to participate or assist SBC in achieving more detailed site requirements for this important site. Reference to the River Tweed SAC should be updated to clearly state the requirement for submission of information to support Habitats Regulations Appraisal. This will be required to identify what mitigation, if any, is to be delivered. The site’s proximity to the Tweedbank Railway Station and the potential for extension of the Borders Railway should be made clearer in site requirements. This should include delivery of pedestrian and cycle links to the station as well as to Tweedbank and Galashiels, supporting this site as a place for sustainable living and working. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) Holder Planning on Object to the Of the 652 units identified in Please refer to response It is recommended that 156 behalf of CW deliverability/inclusion of the Central Area, nearly half above. Lowood, Tweedbank Properties (MTWEE002 ) within the are to be delivered at (MTWEE002) is included Housing SG Lowood. Given the site within the Finalised assessment identifies a Supplementary Guidance number of significant on Housing. potential development constraints relating to flood risk, River Tweed SAC/SSSI, co-location, drainage, ecology, archaeology and road network issues it is not considered that this site should be identified as a preferred site for inclusion in the SG as it is unlikely to contribute to the effective housing land supply in the short – medium term. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) Ferguson Planning Object to the Question the Council’s Please refer to response It is recommended that on behalf of deliverability/inclusion of decision to allocate this site above. Lowood, Tweedbank Roxburghe Estates (MTWEE002 ) within the for up to 300 dwellings when (MTWEE002) is included Housing SG there are potential significant within the Finalised issues which require further Supplementary Guidance investigation to determine on Housing. whether development is feasible. Difficulty understanding the Council’s reasoning for the identification of this site as a preferred option when it is unclear whether this will indeed represent an effective site within the 5 year housing land supply. Does not entirely disagree with the principle of development on the site, but questions the Council’s assertion that 300 dwellings could be 157 accommodated on the site given the potential constraints that have been presented. The constraints associated with site MTWEE002 are potentially significant, including its location next to the sensitive designated SSSI and SAC River Tweed. With regards to the actual 300 unit allocation we are not against large allocations or Greenfield sites if they meet SEA criteria. However, we do question the deliverability of the full allocation over the local plan lifespan given the numerous site investigations still required and constraints such as:
Landscape: Significant landscape issue as built development would obstruct existing panoramic views from main road and adjoining properties including Nether Horsburgh House (listed). Development would change the character of this section of the Tweed Valley and could easily impair the qualities of the Special Landscape Area (SLA) by introducing an urban character. Further views would be restricted by 158 mitigation measures to screen out ‘lower amenity’ buildings. Features such as a new roundabout, street lighting, pedestrian crossing etc. could not be screened from the road. The main road and river separate this site physically. Biodiversity Moderate risk mature broad leaved woodland and parkland, as well as improved pasture and pond. Designated Sites Adjacent to SSI and SAC, mitigation required to ensure no significant adverse effects on integrity of River Tweed SAC, existence of Protected Species and potential for presence of other protected species. Transport Assessment A72 would effectively split the extended village in two. To satisfactorily serve the site from a vehicular aspect, a roundabout would be required at the main access to replace existing junction arrangement. Dealing with pedestrians and cyclists may be challenging, an underpass or an overbridge being the preferred solution, but difficult to achieve due to the lie of the land and physical
159 constraints. Archaeological Assessment Landscape park across whole area and location of ‘Bridgend’ medieval settlement likely, as well as bridge footings and medieval road. Flood Risk Assessment To assess risk from the River Tweed. SEPA flood map indicates there may be flooding issues within the site and may constrain level of development. Pond on site should also be protected. The site borders the River Tweed along a large part of its length so care must be taken to protect this sensitive water environment. Environmental Impact Assessment Planning applications likely to require EIA. Drainage Impact Assessment Foul water must be connected to the SW foul network, however this site is not currently within the sewered catchment. Core Path Site is shared with Core path 01 along the riverside and is prone to flood damage. A guideline 10 metre buffer, in particular around the North West corner should be left to 160 accommodate the path and future possible damage due to bank erosion and should have a natural buffer of landscaping to allow the continued “countryside path “nature of the route. Education Potential need to extend the primary school. Trees and Ecology Significant woodland on site. We believe it would be more logical to allocate an element of these 300 units (e.g. 100 units) as the site’s capacity amounts to almost a third of the entire shortfall for the local plan period. This lower allocation would also have a lesser impact on the Countryside around Towns Area and on the sensitive River Tweed. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) Ferguson Planning Object to the Question the deliverability of The Scottish Government It is recommended that on behalf of deliverability/inclusion of the full allocation over the document entitled “Borders Lowood, Tweedbank Amcows 59 Ltd (MTWEE002) within the local plan lifespan given the Railway - Maximising the (MTWEE002) is included Housing SG numerous site investigations Impact: A Blueprint for the within the Finalised still required and constraints Future” identifies the Supplementary Guidance on this site which is within opportunities the railway on Housing. the CAT area and next to the corridor offers in terms of sensitive designated SSSI and being a catalyst for new SAC River Tweed. Believe housing developments, the site is undeliverable in businesses or visitor full and suggest at least 200 destinations. It supports units require to be extracted the potential of the line in from this allocation and triggering significant reapportioned elsewhere. economic benefits. The SG on Housing will become part 161 of the statutory Development Plan and it is therefore a key document to ensure implementation of the Blueprint. Lowood is within a highly accessible and sustainable location given its location on land immediately to the north of the Tweedbank Railway terminus. The site is within the Central Borders Housing Market Area which has a proven record of housing market developer interest and consumer demand. The parkland and woodland setting and its proximity to the scenic River Tweed make the site a highly attractive development opportunity. Whilst it is acknowledged there are some site constraints to be addressed and overcome, none of these are identified as being insurmountable, and work on a masterplan has already commenced which increases the effectiveness, promotion and delivery of the site. This will investigate in close detail the constraints to be mitigated. It is contended that Lowood is a prime site with an extremely attractive setting for market interest and should be included 162 within the SG.
The following was the conclusion of the assessment undertaken for the Draft Housing SG, this remains pertinent:
The submission of a Flood Risk Assessment would be required to assess risk from the River Tweed as well as surface water flooding issues. Co-location issues include potential for odour from E Langlee landfill (Pollution, Prevention and Control) and WML (Waste Management Licensing) exempt composting site at Pavillion Farm. There is moderate risk to biodiversity and mitigation would be required to ensure no significant adverse effects on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC. Archaeological investigation would be required. This site is outwith the Tweedbank settlement boundary however it benefits from its close proximity to the station at Tweedbank and business and industrial sites as well as a range of services in Galashiels. The site is entirely enclosed by the River Tweed to the north 163 and by the existing settlement of Tweedbank to the south. The development of the site would not result in settlement coalescence. It is considered that the site offers a strategic opportunity due to its immediate proximity to the railway terminus and its location within the Central Borders. Internally there are a number of constraints which would require to be sensitively addressed. Although lacking in designations, the estate shows clear indications of being a 'designed landscape' with an attractive meandering driveway leading from the gatehouse through parkland to the main house and associated buildings. There is also a significant tree and woodland structure on the estate as well as a pond which is a notable feature. These issues will require careful consideration through the process of the aforesaid masterplan and a tree survey. A Transport Appraisal will be required, with the need for at least two key vehicular access points into the site and effective pedestrian/cycle 164 connectivity. Site access must take cognisance of the possible extension of the Borders Railway and of the potential for a replacement for Lowood Bridge as identified in the Local Access and Transport Strategy. Potential contamination would require investigation/mitigation. A full Drainage Impact Assessment would be required. There is currently no capacity at the Waste Water Treatment Works to accommodate development. The site, with its close proximity to the existing business and industrial uses at Tweedbank offers the opportunity for the extension of the Central Borders Business Park. A masterplan for the site is currently being prepared which will address relevant matters in more detail, including taking account of the existing planned landscape and the consideration of appropriate zoning and phasing. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) Barry Templeton Object to the inclusion of The implications of the Comments noted. It is clear It is recommended that (MTWEE002) within the proposals are huge for my that this is a well- Lowood, Tweedbank Housing SG business and my current established business within (MTWEE002) is included residence. I took over the this site and the uncertainty within the Finalised plant nursery at Lowood in brought to the owner(s) of Supplementary Guidance 2008. It was derelict at that the business is on Housing. 165 time and I have, since then, acknowledged. It is worked tirelessly to upgrade understood that the the infrastructure and to business rents the property grow up an excellent range from the owner of the of plants/trees. It has been estate. This would be an no mean feat to continue issue to address with the growing and expanding owner in respect of the through a recession and future of the business at this through at least two severe location. winters. The business has established a good reputation for garden design, was commissioned to design and implement the new ‘Queen’s Garden in Bank Street, Galashiels and has also had considerable input into the community. The business has already suffered as a result of the potential development emerging. The Development Plan suggests that there will be housing located in the West field, immediately adjacent to the nursery. If the nursey were to be enabled to continue alongside this development, there would have to be significant security upgrade around the perimeter of the business. As it stands, this is a quiet and relatively quiet location. I am very concerned that all the effort and expense incurred in establishing my business at this location over the past nine years could now go to 166 waste just when it is really getting going, especially in garden design. The future has suddenly become very unclear. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) AC & MS Stewart Object to the inclusion of This site has so many Please refer to response It is recommended that (MTWEE002) within the constraints attached that it is above. Lowood, Tweedbank Housing SG unlikely to ever be (MTWEE002) is included developed, nor should it be. within the Finalised Supplementary Guidance on Housing. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) Save Scott’s Object to the inclusion of Clearly this provides an at-a- Comments noted. The It is recommended that Countryside (MTWEE002) within the stroke way of delivering Council’s Local Transport Lowood, Tweedbank Housing SG nearly half of the Central Strategy (2007/08) and (MTWEE002) is included HMA contribution. In many more recently the Main within the Finalised ways it makes sense to use Issues Report relating to the Supplementary Guidance the other half of the ‘island’ forthcoming Local Access on Housing. between the Tweed and the and Transport Strategy (July A7/A68 linking main road. It 2015) identify a potential is at low altitude and from new road configuration at most viewpoints would be Tweedbank which would quite well screened. From include the provision of a aerial viewpoints such as The new bridge at Lowood. This Eildons it will really only be would improve connection in-kind extension of the between Tweedbank and Tweedbank settlement. Melrose Road (B6374) in However, we have Galashiels removing considerable concerns for a pressure on the trunk road possible knock-on effect - network (A6091) and on that its existence and Abbotsford Road (A7) into accesses might be used as a Galashiels. Lowood Bridge is justification for building a a Category B listed building. new Tweed crossing to Care would require to be functionally replace the given to conserve, protect, characterful Lowood Bridge. and enhance the character, This would be much to the integrity and setting of the detriment of the charm of listed building in line with that portion of the Tweed. Policy EP7 (Listed Buildings) Whilst details will be worked of the Scottish Borders Local 167 out at the Masterplanning Plan 2016. stage, we are pleased to see a commitment to conserving much-valued features such as the woodland and tree screens, along with footpaths such as the Four Abbeys Way and the Southern Upland Way. Tweedbank Lowood (MTWEE002) Bowden Village Object/ Comment to the Concerns are expressed Passenger numbers for the It is recommended that Committee inclusion of (MTWEE002) about the overloading of the Borders Railway’s first year Lowood, Tweedbank within the Housing SG transport network. The were predicted to be (MTWEE002) is included Borders Railway is already around 650,000. This figure within the Finalised performing worse than was far exceeded with Supplementary Guidance expected and the notion that passenger numbers over on Housing. extra houses will guarantee one million. There have better numbers cannot be been complaints in respect assumed. Extra houses may of the performance of the give Scotrail a greater train service, this has incentive to provide new already improved and is rolling stock (and more of it) expected to improve further and improve the quality with the arrival of new aspect of the line’s rolling stock. Transport performance but the single- Scotland along with the track route has not been the Council’s own Roads commuter relief as some had Planning Team have been hoped. There seems to be consulted on the various more freight on the A roads. sites proposed for inclusion If the prospective houses are in the Housing SG and have constructed, we are going to raised no objections in be subjected to a long time principle to those carried of altering the roads to forward for inclusion. accommodate increased and Issues relating to the ever-increasing traffic. capacity of the existing Concern expressed over the School would require to be suggestion that an extension considered, the Council’s to the primary school would Education Officer has potentially be required. confirmed that an extension Capacity is already being to the existing School would 168 stretched in the school require to be considered sector so it would be but has raised no objections inevitable that an extension in principle to the proposal. is the very least required. Scottish Natural Heritage Concern relating to potential and the Council’s Ecology negative impact upon wildlife Officer have been consulted e.g. heron. during the process of the Housing SG and will be heavily involved in any future planning application in order to ensure there is no detrimental impact upon wildlife.
169 Northern Housing Market Area
Broughton - ABROU002: Page 1 Innerleithen - MINNE001: Page 1 onwards Lauder - ALAUD007: Page 3 - ALAUD008: Page 3 Peebles - General comments: Page 4 onwards - APEEB045: Page 6 onwards - APEEB049: Page 8 onwards - APEEB050: Page 8 onwards - APEEB052: Page 10 onwards - MPEEB004: Page 10 onwards - MPEEB006: Page 11 onwards - MPEEB007: Page 17 onwards West Linton - AWEST016: Page 28 - AWEST017: Page 29 SETTLEMENT SITE NAME CONTRIBUTOR COMMENT SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATION PROPOSED RESPONSE RECOMMENDATION & SITE CODE TYPE
Broughton South West Strutt & Parker Object The contributor wishes to see site It should be noted that the purpose of the SG It is recommended of Dreva ABROU002 allocated for Housing within on Housing is to take forward additional sites that South West of Road the Supplementary Guidance on Housing. to meet the Housing Land Requirement as Dreva Road (ABROU002) The contributor states that the site recommended by the LDP Examination (ABROU002) is not currently has planning consent which is Reporter. However, it should also be noted included within the due to lapse in April 2017. In the event that the site has recently received planning Finalised SG on that this permission is not renewed, the consent; in addition the site is already Housing. allocation of the land for housing would included in the Housing Land Audit and has maintain its position in the established been for many years. Therefore the site effective land supply and avoid the council already contributes to the Housing Land suffering a 31 unit additional shortfall. Supply. Allocating the site within the SG will Given that the LDP reporter amended the not assist the Council in contributing to the settlement boundary to include this site additional requirement which is required to and whilst it would remain as white land be met by the SG. within the settlement, it seems illogical for the site not to be allocated making Therefore this objection is not accepted. reference to the extant planning application dating from 1972 and forming part of the established supply. The contributor notes that when considering that the Reporter in the Examination Report stated that “development here would be well integrated with the form and fabric of the village” and that the site received a top scoring as part of the Council’s recent assessment of the sites suitable for allocation in the call for sites process, we believe that the inclusion of this site as an additional allocation is essential for the Council in maintaining a robust established housing supply. Innerleithen Caerlee Mill Farningham Note The contributor states that they have no Comment noted. It is recommended (MINNE001) Planning Limited objection to the identification of this site that Caerlee Mill on behalf of as a preferred allocation. (MINNE001) is Wemyss & March included within the 1 Estate Finalised SG on Housing. Innerleithen Caerlee Mill Barton Willmore Object The contributors state that there are It is noted that various constraints are present It is recommended (MINNE001) on behalf of various constraints relating to the site that in relation to the site. However it should be that Caerlee Mill AWG Property could limit its effectiveness, including noted that the site requirements including any (MINNE001) is Ltd & Taylor constraints relating to flooding, required infrastructure upgrades will require included within the Wimpey UK Ltd; contamination and listed buildings, in that to be taken into consideration at the planning Finalised SG on Taylor Wimpey preserving the setting and character of application stage. In addition, it is noted that Housing. Ltd the listed building is likely to constrain the site has gone through an extensive development options on the site. In consultation process where comments were addition constraints relating from Scottish received from various key agencies including Water also exist. Scottish Water and internal consultees. Where appropriate these comments have been included within the site requirements. Furthermore a Planning Brief was produced for the site which considered a number of options and identified the preferred way forward for the development of the site including identifying the buildings that could be removed as well as identifying an area where enabling development could take place.
It is also noted that the site is in the ownership of a developer and works have already been undertaken to secure the listed building on the site, which involved partial demolition.
Therefore this objection is not accepted. Innerleithen Caerlee Mill SEPA Support / Note SEPA support the statement that a Flood Support and comments noted. It is recommended (MINNE001) Risk Assessment (FRA) may be required. that Caerlee Mill As explained in their previous responses, (MINNE001) is SEPA state that should the agreed layout included within the or development type differ from what was Finalised SG on previously agreed in the context of Housing. planning application 14/00638/PPP, they would require an updated FRA which considers our previous responses. As this 2 area of Innerleithen is at flood risk, it is essential that any new development will have a neutral impact on flood risk and the FRA will inform the area of redevelopment, type of development, finished floor levels and ensure that the development has a neutral impact on flood risk. Furthermore flood resilient and resistant materials may be incorporated. They also support the requirement to de- culvert. Innerleithen Caerlee Mill Smith and Object The contributor states that the site is Appendix 2, as contained within the LDP, It is recommended (MINNE001) Garratt on behalf covered by existing development policies, provides a windfall assumption, which is that Caerlee Mill of Millar therefore including the site within the SG included within the overall potential (MINNE001) is Partnership and does not increase the availability and contribution towards the housing included within the David Wilson choice of available sites. requirement (up to 2025). Finalised SG on Homes Housing. Objects to the inclusion of the site on the The Scottish Borders is rural in character and a grounds that it is capable of being large proportion of the windfall assumption is developed in accordance with existing provided for by housing in the countryside planning policies and the inclusion within approvals. the Housing SG would not help the Council in meeting the requirements of The LDP provides development opportunities the SG. within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development opportunities within settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities.
This objection is therefore rejected. Lauder Land to Holder Planning Object The contributor objects to the non- It is noted that the initial Stage 1 assessment It is recommended South East of on behalf of inclusion of the site ALAUD008 within the stated that: “The site contributes to the that Land to South Lauder Edward Supplementary Guidance on Housing. immediate setting of the settlement. East of Lauder (ALAUD007) Maitland-Carew They state that the site is well suited for Development at this location would also result (ALAUD007) & & housing development and when the in elongating the settlement. Maitland Park: Phase Maitland Smith & Garratt adjacent housing site was developed it 2 (ALAUD008) Park: Phase 2 on behalf of was so with this site in consideration. The Lauder has already two allocated housing sites are not included 3 (ALAUD008) Edward site is not constrained by flood risk as with an indicative capacity of 130 units. within the Finalised Maitland-Carew stated within the Development and Development has not commenced on either SG on Housing. Landscape Capacity Study, a SUDS is site. It is therefore considered that Lauder already in place on the site which can does not require additional housing land at accommodate this site. Lauder is well this time. placed to benefit from the railway in Stow as well as easy connection to the A68 and The Development and Landscape Capacity the existing public transport services Study states that the area is severely which operate along it. Development of constrained”. the site will bring economic benefits to Lauder and increased population will In addition, the initial assessment notes that assist in supporting, sustaining and the settlement has good public transport enhancing community facilities. The site is connections and is relatively close to the an effective site that can be delivered railway station at Stow. Furthermore, it is within the LDP period. The Council states acknowledged that based on the SEPA Flood that Lauder does not require additional Risk Maps 2014, the site is not fully subject to housing land as there are currently two flood risk and this too is noted within the allocated housing sites within the Stage 1 assessment, nevertheless the settlement however, most other Development and Landscape Study (which settlements which have been identified as was produced in association with Scottish having a Preferred site within the Draft SG Natural Heritage) does state that this part of also have allocated housing sites. The Lauder is subject to high sensitivity in respect submission also includes a critique on the to the sense of arrival which is created by the Development Landscape Study 2008 as it woodland which is at the junction with the relates to the contributors site. (Holder B6362, and the woodland located in front of Planning on behalf of Edward Maitland- the new housing on arrival; and in respect to Carew). the immediate settlement edge which is defined by the generous woodland strip which The contributor urges the council to effectively creates a ‘full stop’ to the village. include sites ALAUD007 / ALAUD008. (Smith & Garratt on behalf of Edward Therefore this objection is not accepted. Maitland-Carew). Peebles Peebles Peebles Support / Note The contributor states that they are Support and comments noted. No change. (General Community Trust pleased with the moderate line that has comments) been taken in respect of the scale of In respect to comments regarding the need to additional housing land for Peebles. In balance the physical infrastructure, economic addition they are pleased that the and social needs of the town with housing principle of further development to the development, it should be noted that south of the town is contingent on the consultation is undertaken during the plan- 4 construction of a second road bridge. The making process with both internal and contributor supports the position of external consultees including Roads Planning, excluding sites south of the Tweed that Economic Development, Housing Strategy and have been presented for consideration NHS to name a few, for their advice and input under this SG. in the process. In respect to comments regarding the loss of formerly economic land The contributor also highlights their to housing, it should be noted that the March continuing concerns with the need to Street Mills site is not protected under Policy strike a balance between housing ED1 Protection of Business and Industrial development and the physical Land, however the site has been identified as infrastructure, economic and social needs a Mixed Use site which must provide a mix of of the town. Three issues that are uses including housing and employment. pertinent to the current SG are: unresolved and worsening road traffic congestion, unsatisfied need for more affordable housing and inadequate allocation of land to economic use coupled with the practice of transferring formerly economic land to housing. Peebles Peebles Peebles Support / Note The Community Council are broadly Support noted. No change. (General Community supportive of the SG. comments) Council of the In relation to the Housing Land Audit Royal Burgh of They note that it is proposed to allocate comments, it should be noted that the 2016 Peebles and 100 additional units within the HLA is a snapshot of the approvals and District Development Boundary. However, they completions at 31st March 2016. When the note that the Peebles Civic Society HLA was drafted; identified a further 221 sites not included - There were no completions at APEEB041: in the Housing Land Audit 2016 and does Violet Bank Phase II; not identify further individual units also - Allocation APEEB021: South of South constructed in recent years. Park was included within the HLA for 50 The Community Council supports the units; Council’s assessment that any significant - Allocation MPEEB006; Rosetta Road was development south of the river must not included within the HLA for 100 units be approved or undertaken prior to the and formed part of the larger site TP138; construction of a second bridge. - Peebles Hydro was included within the HLA as a windfall site TP141 for 33 units; - Kingsmeadows was included within the HLA as a windfall site TP139 for 24 units, with 6 completions at the time of the 5 audit.
The ‘Main Report’ of the HLA only includes sites with an indicative site capacity of 5 units or more. The ‘Small Sites Report’, includes all sites with an indicative capacity up to 4 units. This includes an additional 27 units within Peebles, with 5 completions. 80% of all small sites within the HLA contribute towards the effective housing land supply. Therefore, the 221 units referred to within the submission are all accounted for within the established housing land supply already.
However, in respect of the Housing SG, the 2014 HLA was the baseline and none of the sites referred to were included within that audit. However Violet Bank (Phase II) and South of South Park were allocated within the LDP and included within the contribution to the requirement. Rosetta Road was added by the Reporter at Examination to the LDP (APEEB044 & MPEEB006) within an indicative capacity for 100 units and is also included within the contribution to the requirement. Peebles Hydro and Kingsmeadows are windfall sites within Peebles. There is already a windfall assumption included within the contribution to the requirement, which allows for such developments.
In respect to comments regarding the need for a new bridge, it is noted that the requirement for a new bridge is set out in the site requirements for the longer term site identified within the Local Development Plan. Peebles Venlaw Andrew Bennie Object The contributor objects to the non- It is noted that the Stage 1 Assessment It is recommended (APEEB045) Planning Limited inclusion of site APEEB045 – Venlaw highlights that the site has been considered that Venlaw on behalf of within the Supplementary Guidance. The previously through the Local Plan Amendment (APEEB045) is not 6 S Carmichael contributor notes that the site was and the Local Development Plan (LDP) included within the Properties Ltd discounted at stage 1 of the assessment Process. In addition it should be noted that Finalised SG on process and so was not subject to detailed the site was considered by the LDP Reporter Housing. assessment by any suitably qualified who considered many of the issues raised by professional parties, and therefore the the contributor. However within his overall conclusions of that assessment cannot be conclusions the Reporter stated: “I conclude either reasonably or justifiably supported. overall that the potential benefits of increasing the land supply by allocation of this These conclusions raise four areas of site are outweighed by the likely significant concern – landscape, archaeology, access adverse impact on the character and visual and past promotional history. amenity of this sensitive settlement edge location.” The contributor’s submission includes information which aims to address the Therefore, despite being aware of the issues noted above. In terms of landscape, shortfall in housing land, and having the the contributor states that the “draft SG opportunity to augment the supply, the has failed to provide evidence, which Reporter did not consider this site suitable for would support the contention that development. Furthermore it is noted that the development of the site, as proposed, Council have received support for the would give rise to any demonstrably exclusion of this site (see below) within the adverse landscape impacts”. In respect of Supplementary Guidance. archaeology, the landscape assessment makes it clear that no development will Therefore this objection is not accepted. take place within the area of the cultivation terraces, and that on a general matter of other potential archaeological features within the site, it is submitted that this is of relevance to development of any green field site. In respect to Access, the Reporters Report stated that a technical solution could be arrived at which would allow some development on the site. In respect to past promotional history, on the basis that any planning decision has to be made within the context of those considerations which are of relevance at the point in time when the decision requires to be made, the fact that this or indeed any other site, may not 7 have been supported for development in the past, does not in and of itself present a for all time impediment to the potential future allocation and subsequent development of such sites. The contributor states that the site is an effective site. Peebles Venlaw Peebles Civic Support the The contributor supports the rejection of Support noted. It is recommended (APEEB045) Society; non-inclusion site APEEB045 – Venlaw on account of the that Venlaw Peebles of the site severe impact on the landscape character (APEEB045) is not Community of setting of Peebles in the Eddleston included within the Trust; Water valley. (Peebles Civic Society) Finalised SG on Peebles Housing. Community The contributor supports the rejection of Council of the site APEEB045 – Venlaw, the site is Royal Burgh of problematic and its development would Peebles and adversely affect the visual impact of this District key entrance gateway to the town. (Peebles Community Trust)
The contributor supports the rejection of site APEEB045 – Venlaw in that its development would have a significant negative impact on the town landscape. (Peebles Community Council of the Royal Burgh of Peebles and District). Peebles South West Barton Willmore Object The contributor objects to the non- Whilst it is accepted that the site is subject to It is recommended of on behalf of inclusion of the site APEEB049 / APEEB050 a number of constraints of which many can be that South West of Whitehaugh Taylor Wimpey within the Supplementary Guidance. The overcome, it is considered that the main Whitehaugh (APEEB049) Ltd site is currently identified as a longer term reasons for the exclusion of the site primarily (APEEB049 & & housing site within the LDP and should relates around the need for a second bridge. APEEB050) are not (APEEB050) come forward in the short term. The However it should also be noted that in included within the contributor notes that there are a number addition to a new bridge, the Council are also Finalised SG on of constraints identified in relation to the of the opinion that for the site to come Housing. site and submits a revised layout that forward, Glen Road would also require seeks to deal with those issues. The upgrading and the site relies on a vehicular contributor states that a vehicular access linkage between the end of Glen Road and the link with Glen Road will not be required. roundabout at the southern end of Whitehaugh Park; Nevertheless, it is noted 8 Vehicular access into the site can be that this upgrading, and road link as well as achieved via the existing roundabout at the need for a new bridge are disputed by the the southern end of Whitehaugh Park. It is contributor. not considered that the site is constrained by existing transport links and road In respect to the Roads Planning section, they network. The contributor is of the opinion state that for the site to come forward a new that the existing vehicular bridge of the bridge would be required. The contributor will River Tweed can comfortably be aware of the raft of previous consultancy accommodate additional trips associated work that provided the background to the with this development. Flooding is not an inclusion of the requirement for a new bridge issue for the site and foul and storm water within the LDP to help serve the town of drainage together with SUDS treatment Peebles. The issue was not just existing and if necessary storm water attenuation capacity on the old Tweed Bridge, but also and be dealt with within the site. The environmental and pedestrian related safety ecological value of the site is low. The site concerns on Peebles High Street and the benefits from good access to public potential reduction of traffic speeds and transport, employment and services. It is volumes, allied to the concerns associated considered that capacity already exists in with the reliance on one bridge within the relation to education provision, in town which controls the movement of traffic addition ground conditions will not result between both sides of the river. In addition, in a constraint for the site. There is the Roads Planning section question the adequate capacity available to service the assessment of Tweed Bridge traffic capacity site in respect to electricity, gas, water and anticipated traffic flow on the bridge. and foul drainage. With committed development in the current Local Development Plan and the proposed It is noted that other sites which have development in this submission this would been identified as Preferred sites within result in the bridge operating just over the SG on Housing have constraints as capacity or at least close to it. This is at odds identified within the Council’s site with ‘Designing Streets’ which promotes assessment as this site. These constraints strong street connectivity. In terms of good could ultimately affect housing delivery street connectivity as per ‘Designing Streets’, and by allocating site APEEB049 would and the proper planning of the town of assist in maintaining an effective 5 year Peebles any development of this site will housing land supply. require a vehicular link between the end of Glen Road and Kingsmeadows Road via the Whitehaugh land as is confirmed for this site in the current LDP.
In addition, the contributor state that flooding 9 is also not an issue, however as noted within the site assessment, SEPA have stated that that a flood risk assessment would be required and the Council's flood team have stated that surface water would need to be considered.
Therefore this objection is not accepted. Peebles South West Farningham Note The contributor acknowledges that their Comments noted. It is recommended of Peebles Planning Limited land is not appropriate to allocate at this that South West of (APEEB052) on behalf of time but wishes for the Council to retain Peebles (APEEB052) is Wemyss & March the site on record for consideration in included within the Estate LDP2. Finalised SG on Housing. Peebles Land South Barton Willmore Object The contributor objects to the non- Whilst it is accepted that the site is subject to It is recommended East of on behalf of inclusion of the site MPEEB004 within the a number of constraints of which many can be that Land South East Peebles AWG Property Supplementary Guidance. It is noted that overcome, it is considered that the main of Peebles (MPEEB004) Ltd & Taylor the submission also includes an adjacent reasons for the exclusion of the site primarily (MPEEB004) is not Wimpey UK Ltd area for compensatory storage to the relates around flood risk and the need for a included within the The site is south east of the site. The contributor second bridge. It is noted that the contributor Finalised SG on part of states that a number of studies have been is of the opinion that the flooding issue can be Housing. longer term undertaken for the site and that there are dealt with, and that there is no requirement mixed use no constraints with regard to servicing, for a new bridge. However, it should be noted site road access, traffic and accessibility, that the submission from the contributor has (SPEEB005) environmental constraints, economic been forwarded to SEPA, the Council’s Flood & viability – with each having an identified, Management section as well as the Council’s (MPEEB008) appropriate mitigation measure and/or Roads Planning section. SEPA have stated that solution. Flood risk documentation has they cannot support development at this been prepared to outline measures to location, and state: “If formally consulted mitigate potential flood risk associated through the planning process on the proposed with development of the site. A technical development we would object in principle on note has been prepared in respect to the the grounds that it may place buildings and issue relating to the bridge capacity and persons at flood risk contrary to Scottish that note indicates that there is sufficient Planning Policy based on the information capacity to accommodate the supplied with this consultation.” Whilst the development. It is considered that any Council’s Flood Management section also slight increase in traffic associated with state that they would not be able to accept the site would have a minimal impact on this proposal for housing. the town centre amenity but that In respect to the Roads Planning section, they 10 proportionate environmental mitigation state that for the site to come forward a new measures could be introduced addressing bridge would be required. The contributor will this issue. A flood modelling report has be aware of the raft of previous consultancy been prepared and it confirms that an work that provided the background to the effective solution can be provided to inclusion of the requirement for a new bridge resolve the flood risk issue. The within the LDP to help serve the town of contributor notes that it is considered that Peebles. The issue was not just existing whilst the approach is unconventional, capacity on the old Tweed Bridge, but also and may not allow for withdrawal of environmental and pedestrian related safety SEPA’s objection, it would provide concerns on Peebles High Street and the comprehensive mitigation for any potential reduction of traffic speeds and potential flood risk within the site and the volumes, allied to the concerns associated surrounding area – allowing for the with the reliance on one bridge within the Council to support residential town which controls the movement of traffic development in this location. between both sides of the river. In addition, The site is effective and can deliver the Roads Planning section question the significant benefits including economic assessment of Tweed Bridge traffic capacity development, jobs, retain, expenditure, and anticipated traffic flow on the bridge. affordable housing provision etc. The site With committed development in the current is deliverable for housing and within the Local Development Plan and the proposed short term/Plan period. It is noted that a development in this submission this would Proposal of Application Notice has been result in the bridge operating just over submitted in relation to this site in June capacity or at least close to it. This is at odds 2016. It is noted that other sites which with ‘Designing Streets’ which promotes have been identified as Preferred sites strong street connectivity. within the SG on Housing have similar constraints as identified within the Therefore this objection is not accepted. Council’s site assessment as this site. These constraints could ultimately affect housing delivery and by allocating site MPEEB004 would assist in maintaining an effective 5 year housing land supply. Peebles Rosetta Road Savills Support / The contributor states that whilst they Support noted. It is recommended (MPEEB006) on behalf of Object support the inclusion of the site within the that Rosetta Road Aberdeen Asset Draft SG on Housing, they also identify a However, it should be noted that this Mixed (MPEEB006) is Management number of inconsistencies regarding the Use allocation was recommended for included within the designation that need to be addressed. inclusion by the Examination Reporter. It is Finalised SG on The contributor seeks that the site is not for the SG on Housing to make changes to Housing. allocated for Housing only and not mixed existing allocations but rather to identify sites 11 use. to provide further housing. In respect to The contributor requests an increase in housing numbers, it is noted that numbers set capacity from 30 units to 100 units. out in both the SG on Housing and the Local The contributor requests that the Development Plan are indicative only, the improved holiday park is identified as a exact number of units that a proposed separate leisure allocation. development can accommodate can only be The contributor requests that the determined through the processing of a following text is removed from the fourth detailed planning application. In relation to site requirement – “The housing the site requirements set out in the SG on development is dependent on a vehicular Housing, and particularly the requirement in bridge link over the Eddleston Water to relation to the vehicular bridge link over the connect Rosetta Road with Edinburgh Eddleston Water; it should be noted that Road via Kingsland Road/Kingsland Square many of these requirements have come about and Dalatho Street”. through the planning application (13/00444/PPP) on site, and this includes the requirement for the bridge. In that respect it should be noted that the Reporter recommended the inclusion of a site requirement within the Plan stating that the proposed development proceed in accordance with application 13/00444/PPP. Therefore excluding the requirement for a new bridge, as requested by the contributor would be contrary to the Reporters recommendations as the proposed development would not be in line with that planning application.
Therefore this objection is not accepted. Peebles Rosetta Road Peebles Civic Support/Note The contributor supports the proposal to Support and comments noted. It is recommended (MPEEB006) Society; accommodate a further 30 units to the that Rosetta Road Peebles 100 units already in the LDP provided that In relation to the comments also submitted. It (MPEEB006) is Community the following issues are addressed: The should be noted that any proposed included within the Council of the education report states that both primary development on the site will be subject to a Finalised SG on Royal Burgh of and secondary schools have limited detailed planning application. In addition, Housing. Peebles & District capacity. This is to be taken into account Local Development Plan Policy IS2 Developer in assessing the educational needs for Contributions would apply. That policy Peebles as a whole. requires developers to make full or partial A full on site traffic impact study is to be contribution towards the cost of addressing carried out by the Scottish Borders Council deficiencies in infrastructure and services 12 and we suggest a condition be inserted which would include contributions towards that it is to be part funded by the the primary and secondary school. In respect developer prior to a detailed planning to comments in relation to a full on site traffic application being assessed. (Peebles Civic impact study, it should be noted that the Society) Roads Planning Section have been consulted and are of the opinion that the proposed It is noted that the site holds potential for development requires a new vehicular bridge significant impact on infrastructure in link over the Eddleston Water, in addition a particular education and traffic. In Transport Assessment would be required. addition the contributor notes comments Whilst the Transport Assessment is not in relation to the “Local impact an undertaken by the Roads Planning section of integration summary” of the site the Council, they are involved in the scoping assessment for the site. They also state for the Assessment and respond to the that they are in agreement with the site findings of the Assessment. It is therefore requirements in relation to that the site considered that the issues raised by the must provide a mix of uses including contributor are addressed in the site housing and an enhanced tourism requirements for the site. offering, and that the housing development is dependent on a vehicular bridge link over the Eddleston water. However, the contributor would also like to see a requirement for any developer to fund an SBC physical assessment of current traffic patterns and likely future development impact in the north of Peebles prior to any planning approval. (Peebles Community Council of the Royal Burgh of Peebles and District). Peebles Rosetta Road Scottish Natural Note It is understood that this allocation is for Comments noted. It is recommended (MPEEB006) Heritage the redevelopment of the existing caravan that Rosetta Road site for residential development. As the In the process of producing a planning brief (MPEEB006) is site is subject to a planning application, for the site and the adjacent Housing site included within the Scottish Natural Heritage have no further (APEEB044) allocated within the Local Finalised SG on comment to make at this stage. Development Plan, the Council would be Housing. Should that consent not be implemented, content to involve Scottish Natural Heritage in Scottish Natural Heritage would be happy the process. to advise on natural heritage issues for the required planning brief. Peebles Rosetta Road Farningham Note Thecontributor statesthat they haveno Comment noted. It is recommended 13 (MPEEB006) Planning Limited objection to the identification of this site that Rosetta Road on behalf of as a Preferred allocation. (MPEEB006) is Wemyss & March included within the Estate Finalised SG on Housing. Peebles Rosetta Road Peebles Note The contributor states that the impact of Comments noted. It is recommended (MPEEB006) Community Trust an additional 30 units to this site is It should be noted that the planning consent that Rosetta Road unclear. A Planning Permission in Principle on the site has not yet been issued, the (MPEEB006) is has already been approved on the site, application (13/00444/PPP) was “minded to included within the subject to conditions in respect of traffic, approve” by the Planning and Building Finalised SG on visual impact, and protection of heritage Standards Committee. In respect to Housing. values and assets on the site. comments in relation to the statement that It is noted that the planning permission the new bridge across the Eddleston Water for this site is contingent on the will do nothing to mitigate the congestion construction of a vehicular bridge affecting the area to the immediate south and between Kingsland and Dalatho Street and will only benefit the development itself; it will do nothing to mitigate the congestion should be noted that developer contributions affecting the area to the immediate south. can only be sought where they directly relate The contributor states that they do not to the development being proposed and not see how the addition of 30 further to any existing deficiencies elsewhere in the housing units to this site benefits Peebles town. It should also be noted that the 30 units in the slightest. are allocated to a Mixed Use site already allocated within the Local Development Plan (LDP), and the LDP does not set out an indicative housing capacity. In addition, it is also noted that the Examination Reporter recommended that in identifying additional sites, the longer term housing and mixed use sites identified in the plan will be considered first. Therefore, as a Mixed Use site with no housing capacity attributed to it, it is considered that this is an acceptable site to assist in meeting the requirement for additional housing. Peebles Rosetta Road SEPA Support/ Whilst SEPA support the requirement for a Support noted. It is recommended (MPEEB006) Object Flood Risk Assessment, as well as the Objection accepted. that Rosetta Road statement that there should be no The relevant site requirement should be (MPEEB006) is culverting for land gain. amended to read: included within the SEPA object to the site in that they would Finalised SG on 14 require a modification to the “A Flood Risk Assessment will be required to Housing. Supplementary Guidance to include an inform the design and layout of the proposed additional requirement for the developer development. Consideration will need to be It is also to investigate the possibility of de- given to bridge and culvert structures within recommended that culverting. and adjacent to the site which may exacerbate the final site flood risk. There should be no culverting for requirement should land gain. In addition, investigation of the be amended to read: possibility for de-culverting should also be undertaken.” A Flood Risk Assessment will be required to inform the design and layout of the proposed development. Consideration will need to be given to bridge and culvert structures within and adjacent to the site which may exacerbate flood risk. There should be no culverting for land gain. In addition, investigation of the possibility for de-culverting should also be undertaken. Peebles Rosetta Road Barton Willmore Object The following constraints relating to the It should be noted that Mixed Use site It is recommended (MPEEB006) on behalf of site are likely to limit the effectiveness of MPEEB006 is an allocated Mixed Use site that Rosetta Road AWG Property the site, potentially reducing its capacity within the Local Development Plan (LDP). (MPEEB006) is Ltd & Taylor or deliver timescales, these relate to roads Furthermore the site was recommended for included within the Wimpey UK Ltd & and access, landscape, flooding, ecology, inclusion in the Plan by the Examination Finalised SG on 15 Barton Willmore archaeology and listed buildings. Reporter in the knowledge that the site was Housing. on behalf of subject to a number of constraints. However, Taylor Wimpey it should be noted that the LDP does not set Ltd out an indicative capacity for the site. In addition, it should also be noted that the Examination Reporter recommended that in identifying additional sites, the longer term housing and mixed use sites identified in the plan will be considered first. Therefore, as a Mixed Use site with no housing capacity attributed to it, it is considered that this is an acceptable site to assist in meeting the requirement for additional housing. It is considered that 30 units is an appropriate figure for the site to assist in contributing to the housing requirement.
Therefore this objection is not accepted. Peebles Rosetta Road Douglas M Tait & Object The contributor states that objections It should be noted that the planning consent It is recommended (MPEEB006) Morris Anderson made previously regarding this site still on the site was not issued, the application that Rosetta Road remain. In respect to Water Supply, the (13/004444/PPP) was “minded to approve” by (MPEEB006) is contributor states that their property is the Planning and Building Standards included within the served by mains water, however on Committee. Finalised SG on occasions the supply is very low and at However, it should also be noted that the site Housing. times of heavy usage none at all. They also requirements set out in the SG on housing state that they have been advised by requires that a Water Impact Assessment is Scottish Water that further demand on undertaken. Furthermore, Scottish Water has the water mains in the immediate area been consulted and has not raised any issues. would cause problems. Therefore without Nevertheless it should also be noted that a upgrades, any additional properties will Growth Project is planned for completion in likely cause problems. 2018 which would accommodate this In relation to access, any development of development. this site is naturally going to create a large In respect to comments regarding the road volume of traffic, and there are existing network, the Roads Planning Section have issues on the road network. been consulted and are of the opinion that There are already around 100 new houses the proposed development requires a new proposed for this site, with 20 planning vehicular bridge link over the Eddleston conditions attached to the application and Water, in addition a Transport Assessment the applicant is slowly trying to dilute would be required, these requirements have 16 these conditions, no concessions should also been set out in the SG on Housing. be made. If another 30 units are In respect to comments regarding the considered for this site then all original pedestrian/cycle link, the exact location of the conditions should be strictly enforced. link has not yet been determined, but it is The infrastructure of Peebles is unable to noted that its purpose is to ensure safe access cope with the current population, if from the site for pedestrians and cyclists. The additional development is approved then location of the link will likely be determined a massive investment is required which is through the planning application process. unlikely to come due to the economic Based on the above, it is therefore considered climate. (Douglas M Tait) that these objections are not accepted.
The contributor states that development at this location may result in an adverse bearing on their water pressure, so if the proposed allocation is to proceed then a full investigation and if necessary relevant improvements will be essential. It is considered that even with the construction of a new bridge at Dalatho, additional housing units will impact on both Rosetta Road and March Street making the situation intolerable and indeed dangerous. In relation to the site requirement for a pedestrian/cycle link, it is not clear why such a link would be necessary, but if it is, it should be on the lower most easterly section of the minor road and no further up than the existing garages. Geographically this would make sense, however it is noted that any increase in access and usage without corresponding liability would unfairly increase maintenance burdens on the owner of which the contributor is one. (Morris Anderson). Peebles March Street SEPA Support We support the requirement to consider Support noted. It is recommended Mill surface water flooding for any new that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) development. (MPEEB007) is 17 included within the Finalised SG on Housing. Peebles March Street Peebles Civic Support We support the proposal to accommodate Support noted. It is recommended Mill Society 70 units on this site and the site In relation to comments regarding education that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) requirement that the site must provide a and a traffic impact study; it should be noted (MPEEB007) is mix of uses including employment and that Development Plan Policy IS2 Developer included within the potentially commercial and community Contributions would apply. That policy Finalised SG on use. requires developers to make full or partial Housing. The education report states that both contribution towards the cost of addressing primary and secondary schools have deficiencies in infrastructure and services limited capacity. This is to be taken into which would include contributions towards account in assessing the educational the primary and secondary school. It should needs for Peebles as a whole. be noted that the Education section of the A full on site traffic impact study is to be Council have not objected to the site. In carried out by the Scottish Borders respect to comments in relation to a full on Council. We suggest a condition be site traffic impact study, it should be noted inserted that it is to be part funded by the that the Roads Planning Section have been developer prior to a detailed planning consulted and are of the opinion that the application being assessed. vehicular access will be from March Street and from Dovecot Road with two further optional vehicular links to Ballantyne Place to be explored, in addition a Transport Assessment would be required. Whilst the Transport Assessment is not undertaken by the Roads Planning section of the Council, they are involved in the scoping for the Assessment and respond to the findings of the Assessment. It is therefore considered that the issues raised by the contributor are addressed in the site requirements for the site. Peebles March Street Turley Support The contributor supports the Support noted. It is recommended Mill on behalf of identification of the Former March Street that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) Moorbrook Mill as a suitable location for housing. The (MPEEB007) is Textiles Limited contributor notes that a planning included within the application has been submitted for the Finalised SG on site and set out how they have sought to Housing. bring forward a development in line with 18 the site requirements set out within the Draft SG. The contributor states that the site is an effective and viable site, which is sustainably located, makes best use of the land resource, and its development will allow for the significant heritage buildings on the site to make a more positive contribution to the Conservation Area. Peebles March Street Farningham Note The contributor states that they have no Comment noted. It is recommended Mill Planning Limited objection to the identification of this site that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) on behalf of as a Preferred allocation. (MPEEB007) is Wemyss & March included within the Estate Finalised SG on Housing. Peebles March Street John Denholm Note The contributor states that the height on Comments noted. It is recommended Mill the buildings looking onto March Street In respect to comments regarding the detailed that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) (ex offices) are kept to the same height as design of the site, it should be noted that the (MPEEB007) is the present, with slate roof and grey exact details of the proposed development of included within the harling. That the walls, railings and pillars the site has not yet been determined, Finalised SG on (pillars – if this is an access road) are kept however it will be subject to a detailed Housing. as it is, to blend with the old. planning application.
Nevertheless it is acknowledged that the site is located within the Peebles Conservation Area and as a result of that a site requirement has been included within the SG on Housing to reflect that. That requirement notes that the retention of some buildings will be required. In addition the requirement states: “The overall scale and height of any new build will require to respect the Conservation Area. Where any buildings are to be removed, as far as possible their materials should be reused within the site”. Peebles March Street Scottish Natural Note The site is adjacent to Key Greenspace Comments noted. It is noted that a site It is recommended Mill Heritage GSPEEB008 (Rosetta Road Allotments). requirement for the site seeks amenity access that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) Redevelopment of this site should not within the site, and links to Ballantyne Place (MPEEB007) is obstruct existing or planned footpath and and to Rosetta Road. included within the cycle route access to this site and the Finalised SG on 19 development itself should be linked to Housing. and beyond via this key greenspace. Scottish Natural Heritage welcomes the requirement that links to the footpath network are created, maintained and enhanced. Peebles March Street Peebles Note / Object It is noted that 70 units may be achievable Comments noted. However, it should be It is recommended Mill Community but would require significant conditions noted that Policy ED1: Protection of Business that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) Council of the applied to any approval. and Industrial Land does not identify the (MPEEB007) is Royal Burgh of The contributor notes Policy ED1 March Street Mills site as business and included within the Peebles and Protection of Business and Industrial Land. industrial site; therefore Policy ED1 will not Finalised SG on District However, proposals put forward by the apply to this site. Nevertheless, the site Housing. site owners did little to include requirements set out in the SG on Housing retirement, commercial and other states that “The site must provide a mix of community use. Should SBC wish to see 70 uses including housing, employment, and units on the site and still hold adherence potentially commercial and community use”. to Policy ED1, it may be possible through It should be noted that the planning conditions that any approval would application on the site is for Planning include at least 50% of the units to be Permission in Principle and not a detailed affordable and be 1-2 bed units for rent. application. The site capacity included within This would go some way to meeting the the SG on Housing is an indicative capacity shortfall identified in the Housing Strategy and the exact housing numbers on the site and Strategic Housing Investment Plan. can only be determined through the A further condition should be to reserve a processing of a detailed planning application. significant proportion of the site for However, it is considered that the 70 units is a Employment Use although this could be realistic number for the site taking into partially met by proposals for community consideration the need to include a mix of co-production, shared work space and uses on the site. training facilities. In respect to affordable housing, Policy HD1 The unrestricted inclusion of this site for requires a standard 25% of affordable housing 70 Units would undermine the wide range on all sites although this figure can be re- of employment, social and community affirmed at the detailed planning application uses presented by this unique once in a stage, it should also be noted that paragraph generation town centre site. 129 of Scottish Planning Policy states that It is noted that the site holds potential for affordable housing contribution within a significant impact on infrastructure in market site should generally be no more than particular education and traffic. 25% of the total number of houses. In relation to comments regarding education and traffic; it should be noted that 20 Development Plan Policy IS2 Developer Contributions would apply. That policy requires developers to make full or partial contribution towards the cost of addressing deficiencies in infrastructure and services which would include contributions towards the primary and secondary school. In addition, a requirement for a Transport Assessment is included. It is therefore considered that the issues raised by the contributor are addressed in the site requirements for the site. Based on the above, it is therefore considered that the objection is not accepted. Peebles March Street Peebles Object The site requirements for the former It should be noted that the March Street Mill It is recommended Mill Community Trust March Street Mill site fail to recognise and site is not a protected business or industrial that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) uphold the significance of the site as a key site. The site requirements for the site set out (MPEEB007) is economic asset for the town. The that “The site must provide a mix of uses included within the contributor states that they are of the including housing, employment, and Finalised SG on view that the site requirements need to potentially commercial and community use”. Housing. be strengthened to achieve at least an Furthermore, it should be noted that the site even split between social and economic could have come forward for development use, and development of housing. A even without the SG on Housing. It should clearer direction is needed on the also be noted that the Council do not allocate disposition of land-use across the site. In sites for affordable and/or for local addition, the contributor states that the needs/people. However, it should be noted area around this site is subject to that Local Development Plan policy, HD1: increasing traffic congestion arising from Affordable and Special Needs Housing will raised car ownership. apply. It is noted that the planning permission In respect to comments regarding increasing for the Rosetta Road site development is traffic congestion, it should be noted that the contingent on the construction of a Roads Planning Section have been consulted vehicular bridge between Kingsland and and are of the view that the development can Dalatho Street and will do nothing to be accommodated. They have requested that mitigate the congestion affecting the area the vehicular access be from March Street and to the immediate south, around this site. from Dovecot Road with two further optional The contributor states that in relation to vehicular links to Ballantyne Place to be the sites future development, the design, explored. In addition, it should be noted that a employment and residential requirement for a Transport Assessment is accommodation on the site should be included within the list of site requirements 21 directed at people who live and work for the site. locally. This can be achieved by allocating In respect to comments regarding the detailed a significant proportion to economic use, design of the site, it should be noted that the and designing any housing element to exact details of the proposed development small units with raised allocations to have not yet been determined, however it will affordable housing which would be be subject to a detailed planning application. supported by existing planning policies in Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is respect of Protection of Business and located within the Peebles Conservation Area, Industrial land (ED1), Sustainability it is noted that elements such as the tentering (PMD1), Town Centre Development (ED3), shed, weaving shed could influence the design Quality Standards (PMD2) and Affordable of the new development. However, it is Housing (HD1). important to ensure that additional In addition, the allotment site should be restrictions are not placed on the site that retained as allotments. could hinder its development from coming In relation to the heritage value of the forward. In that respect it is noted that the site, it is considered that this would be Council’s Heritage and Design Officer has best achieved through the retention of a advised that any new development must seek significant proportion of the site for to ensure the retention and reuse of at least economic and community use. In terms of the Engine House and the Lodge House, and built heritage the contributor states that this has been included within the site they do not believe that the retention of requirements for the site. In addition the the Engine Room/Boiler House is in itself a requirement states: “The overall scale and necessary or representative emblem of height of any new build will require to respect this important site. It is considered that the Conservation Area. Where any buildings incorporating some of the design features are to be removed, as far as possible their and materials of the buildings on the site, materials should be reused within the site”. most notably the wooden clad tentering Based on the above, it is therefore considered sheds, but also the boiler house and that the objection is not accepted. engineering sheds and the repeating forms of the weaving sheds would be appropriate. Peebles March Street Barton Willmore Object The following constraints are considered It is noted that various constraints are present It is recommended Mill on behalf of to potentially constrain the March Street in relation to the site. However it should be that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) AWG Property Mill site’s effectiveness, capacity and noted that any site requirements including (MPEEB007) is Ltd and Taylor deliverability for housing; these relate to any required infrastructure upgrades will included within the Wimpey UK Ltd & roads and access, heritage and design, and require to be taken into consideration at the Finalised SG on Barton Willmore flooding and ecology could prove planning application stage. In addition, it is Housing. on behalf of problematic. In addition, the requirement noted that the site has gone through an Taylor Wimpey to provide mixed use development, and extensive consultation process where 22 Ltd concentrate on office and industrial uses comments were received from various key could further reduce residential capacities agencies including SEPA and internal on this site. consultees. Where appropriate these comments have been included within the site requirements. The site capacity included within the SG on Housing is an indicative capacity and the exact housing numbers on the site can only be determined through the processing of a detailed planning application. However, it is considered that the 70 units is a realistic number for the site taking into consideration the need to include a mix of uses on the site. Therefore this objection is not accepted. Peebles March Street Dorothy & Object The contributors express concern in Any proposed development will require It is recommended Mill Dunbar relation to the allocation of the site. The detailed planning consent. It should be noted that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) Henderson; site shares a boundary with their fence, that in that respect, Local Development Plan (MPEEB007) is Alan Foster; with their garden and property being at Policy HD3: Protection of Residential Amenity included within the Keith McDonald what could be a main entrance into the will apply. That policy aims to protect the Finalised SG on mixed use site. They express concern that amenity of both existing established Housing. they could have two storey buildings residential areas and proposed new housing constructed within metres from their developments. Issues such as overlooking, loss property, and state that in the time that of privacy, generation of traffic or noise as they have lived at their property they well as the scale, form and type of have not had issues regarding disruptive development in terms of its fit within a traffic, neighbourhood noise or privacy. residential area will be considered. The contributors state that they have In respect to any new uses on the site, these viewed proposals for this site by the local too would be considered in any planning community and a building company and application for the site and the above policy neither provided clarity. However, the will be relevant, so issues such as potential contributors note that the Housing SG noise would be dealt with as part of that provides clarity that the Allotments are to process. It should be noted that the remain. application process would be undertaken in The contributors state that the adjacent consultation with Environmental Health who Tesco supermarket has strict regulations oversees such issues as noise. regarding noise and movement within the In relation to the allotments on the site, as neighbourhood, and they would therefore noted within the Draft Supplementary expect that any community building Guidance on Housing – the allotments are would have stricter noise regulations as protected in line with Local Development Plan 23 the building would be within closer Policy EP11 – Protection of Greenspace. In proximity to housing than Tesco is. that respect, it should be noted that although (Dorothy & Dunbar Henderson) the allotments are protected, there is still the potential for the allotments to be relocated in The contributor objects to the relocation line with the policy. However, this would be of the allotments in that development at something that would be dealt with as part of that location will affect the amenity of any subsequent planning application for the their property. If the allotments were to site. remain in their existing location the In respect to comments regarding road safety, development need not affect any existing it should be noted that the Roads Planning properties. Moving the allotments is a Section have been consulted and are of the cost saving exercise. The contributor also view that the development can be objects to the demolition of the office accommodated. They have requested that the building as they are an integral part of the vehicular access be from March Street and look of March Street. The contributor also from Dovecot Road with two further optional makes other comments regarding vehicular links to Ballantyne Place to be development within the town boundaries explored. In addition, it should be noted that a and over development. (Alan Foster) requirement for a Transport Assessment is included within the list of site requirements The contributor notes that they do not for the site. object to the recommendation for housing In respect to comments regarding within the site. However the contributor development within the town boundaries, it does express concerns in relation to road should be noted that new development will safety issues and the impact that the require to be assessed against the policies development will have on the contained within the Local Development Plan, Administration Office. The contributor and particularly Policy PMD2: Quality notes that the developer at a public Standards which aims to ensure that all new meeting stated that this building would be development is of a high standard and retained for community use. This issue is respects the environment in which it is not included within the site requirements contained. and the retention of the building would be In regards to comments that the building more in line to a conservation street than fronting onto March Street should be retained new build. (Keith McDonald) for community use, it should be noted that the SG on Housing states that the site must provide a mix of uses including housing, employment, and potentially commercial and community use. Therefore community uses on the site are not mandatory. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is 24 located within the Peebles Conservation Area, the Council’s Heritage and Design Officer has advised that any new development must seek to ensure the retention and reuse of at least the Engine House and the Lodge House, and this has been included within the site requirements for the site. In addition the requirement states: “The overall scale and height of any new build will require to respect the Conservation Area. Where any buildings are to be removed, as far as possible their materials should be reused within the site”. Based on the above, it is therefore considered that these objections are not accepted. Peebles March Street Rachel & Gary Object The contributors state that they object to It should be noted that whilst the allotments It is recommended Mill Smith, developing on the allotment site but are are protected under Local Development Plan that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) Mr & Mrs B not opposed to developing on the pre- Policy EP11: Protection of Greenspace, there (MPEEB007) is Crooks, existing buildings. However, developing is still the potential for the allotments to be included within the James McKenize, the old mill site should be done in a way relocated in line with this policy. However, Finalised SG on J Maben, that is sensitive to the surrounding this would be something that would be dealt Housing. Matthew & environment, and should not exceed the with as part of any detailed planning Angela existing building heights. The contributors application for the site. That policy states that MacDonald, state that they see the need for that decision would require to be made based Caitland development but they also see the need on consultation with user groups and advice O’Donnell & to protect historic, social, green, open from relevant agencies. In respect to that David Paton, spaces such as the allotment. They also policy, it should be noted that it is in line with Rachel Clarke, state that developing on the allotments is Scottish Planning Policy. Brian Hill against Scottish Government Planning In respect to comments regarding the detailed Policy, in addition the site is used by design of the site, it should be noted that the protected species for foraging, and exact details of the proposed development of developing at this location would increase the site have not yet been determined; the likelihood of flooding by removing the however it will be subject to a detailed natural flood protection the allotments planning application. Nevertheless it is provide. acknowledged that the site is located within Where development takes place local the Peebles Conservation Area and as a result authority funding must be directed to of that a site requirement has been included improving local services and within the SG on Housing to reflect that. That infrastructure. requirement notes that the retention of some 25 buildings will be required. In addition the requirement states: “The overall scale and height of any new build will require to respect the Conservation Area. Where any buildings are to be removed, as far as possible their materials should be reused within the site”. In relation to comments regarding protected species, the site requirements set out in the SG on Housing state that an assessment of ecology impacts and provision of mitigation as appropriate will be required; and a further requirement is also included in respect to surface water flooding. In that respect it should be noted that SEPA have been consulted and have not objected to the principle of development of the site. In relation to comments regarding local services and infrastructure; it should be noted that Development Plan Policy IS2 Developer Contributions would apply. That policy requires developers to make full or partial contribution towards the cost of addressing deficiencies in infrastructure and services which would include contributions towards the primary and secondary school. In addition, a requirement for a Transport Assessment is included. It is therefore considered that the issues raised by the contributor are addressed in the site requirements for the site. Based on the above, it is therefore considered that the objection is not accepted. Peebles March Street Rachel & Gary Object The contributors state that they object to It should be noted that whilst the allotments It is recommended Mill Smith, developing on the allotment site but are are protected under Local Development Plan that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) Mr & Mrs B not opposed to developing on the pre- Policy EP11: Protection of Greenspace, there (MPEEB007) is Crooks, existing buildings. However, developing is still the potential for the allotments to be included within the James McKenize, the old mill site should be done in a way relocated in line with this policy. However, Finalised SG on J Maben, that is sensitive to the surrounding this would be something that would be dealt Housing. Matthew & environment, and should not exceed the with as part of any detailed planning Angela existing building heights. The contributors application for the site. That policy states that 26 MacDonald, state that they see the need for that decision would require to be made based Caitland development but they also see the need on consultation with user groups and advice O’Donnell & to protect historic, social, green, open from relevant agencies. In respect to that David Paton, spaces such as the allotment. They also policy, it should be noted that it is in line with Rachel Clarke, state that developing on the allotments is Scottish Planning Policy. Brian Hill against Scottish Government Planning In respect to comments regarding the detailed Policy, in addition the site is used by design of the site, it should be noted that the protected species for foraging, and exact details of the proposed development of developing at this location would increase the site have not yet been determined; the likelihood of flooding by removing the however it will be subject to a detailed natural flood protection the allotments planning application. Nevertheless it is provide. acknowledged that the site is located within Where development takes place local the Peebles Conservation Area and as a result authority funding must be directed to of that a site requirement has been included improving local services and within the SG on Housing to reflect that. That infrastructure. requirement notes that the retention of some buildings will be required. In addition the requirement states: “The overall scale and height of any new build will require to respect the Conservation Area. Where any buildings are to be removed, as far as possible their materials should be reused within the site”. In relation to comments regarding protected species, the site requirements set out in the SG on Housing state that an assessment of ecology impacts and provision of mitigation as appropriate will be required; and a further requirement is also included in respect to surface water flooding. In that respect it should be noted that SEPA have been consulted and have not objected to the principle of development of the site. In relation to comments regarding local services and infrastructure; it should be noted that Development Plan Policy IS2 Developer Contributions would apply. That policy requires developers to make full or partial contribution towards the cost of addressing deficiencies in infrastructure and services 27 which would include contributions towards the primary and secondary school. In addition, a requirement for a Transport Assessment is included. It is therefore considered that the issues raised by the contributor are addressed in the site requirements for the site. Based on the above, it is therefore considered that the objection is not accepted. Peebles March Street Smith & Garratt Object to the The contributor states that the site is Appendix 2, as contained within the LDP, It is recommended Mill on behalf of inclusion of covered by existing development policies, provides a windfall assumption, which is that March Street Mill (MPEEB007) Millar MPEEB007 therefore including the site within the SG included within the overall potential (MPEEB007) is Partnership and within the does not increase the availability and contribution towards the housing included within the David Wilson Housing SG, choice of available sites. requirement (up to 2025). Finalised SG on Homes stating that it Housing. is covered by Objects to the inclusion of the site on the The Scottish Borders is rural in character and a existing grounds that it is capable of being large proportion of the windfall assumption is development developed in accordance with existing provided for by housing in the countryside policies planning policies and the inclusion within approvals. the Housing SG would not help the Council in meeting the requirements of The LDP provides development opportunities the SG. within settlement boundaries, through housing, re-development and mixed use allocations. Therefore, the SG will continue to identify and provide development opportunities within settlement boundaries, as per the LDP, including brownfield opportunities. West Linton Land to East Clarendon Object The contributor objects to the non- It should be noted that the Reporter who It is recommended of The Loan Planning and inclusion of site AWEST016 within the recommended that the Council produce a SG that Land to East of (AWEST016) Development on Draft SG. They state the SG fails to on Housing, did not specify where the extra The Loan (AWEST016) behalf of The allocate sufficient housing sites within the housing should be located. It is also is not included within Lintonbank Northern Housing Market Area. The site is considered that at this time West Linton has the Finalised SG on Country Estate deliverable in the short term. The site can sufficient housing land already allocated. Housing. be accessed through the neighbouring site A stage 1 assessment was undertaken for the – AWEST018 which is promoted site, and that assessment concluded that “The separately via a new roundabout on the site submitted is in the region of 8.5 ha, and A702, the submission states that the costs seems to require access through the of this would be borne by the developer. neighbouring land also submitted AWEST018 Pedestrian and cycle access can be (13ha) which collectively could potentially 28 provided via The Loan. Suitable landscape increase the settlement by at least one third. design can mitigate any development The site has been submitted with the potential impact including retention of significant for 100 units. However, it is known that there existing tree belts and enhancement via are issues in relation to the Private Road – The new planting. Existing sites do not provide Loan. In addition, the majority of site is sufficient short term provision to meet constrained within the D&LC Study. West demand, given West Linton is the most Linton currently has a number of allocated marketable location for new housing housing sites within the Plan and at this time it within the Borders. The contributor has is not considered appropriate to bring forward also set out an assessment of their site in additional land.” line with the Council’s stage 1 assessment Furthermore, it is noted that the exclusion of criteria. In addition, West Linton is a the adjacent site AWEST018 has not been marketable location, existing allocated objected to, and this site relies on it for sites within the settlement only provide a vehicular access. short term provision whilst Lintonbank is Based on the above, this objection is rejected. capable of providing both short and longer term provision. The proposed site will not negatively impact on the wider Special Landscape Area. West Linton South of Springfield Object The contributor states that they are As stated within the site assessment summary It is recommended Robinsland Properties PLC actively involved in developing the the site is “considerably constrained that South of Farm Robinsland allocation and to date have particularly in relation to Roads Access as well Robinsland Farm (AWEST017) delivered a number of private and as Landscape”. Furthermore as also noted, (AWEST017) is not affordable housing through Eildon numerous sites at this location have been included within the Housing Association. Based on this success considered previously through the Local Plan Finalised SG on of delivery and the needs of the village the and Local Development Plan process including Housing. contributor states that Eildon Housing at the recent LDP Examination prior to the Association are keen to develop further adoption of the current LDP. In addition the homes, therefore this site would facilitate assessment summary notes that even for a this. It is noted that the contributor has reduced site roads access through to Station submitted a Landscape and Visual Road would still be required, and it is noted Appraisal in support of their submission, that the applicant have stated that the and has undertaken a stage 1 site required land for access is outwith their assessment and has included it as part of control. It is further noted that the required their submission. The contributor notes land has not been submitted for consideration the summary of the assessment through the Housing SG process. undertaken by the Council and state that In respect to the three allocated housing sites the two allocated sites within the set out in the LDP, two have commenced; and settlement are under construction or will the third does not have planning permission 29 soon be. Whilst the full extent of a new as yet. road link is not within the control of the The contributor makes reference to the contributor, there is still the potential for approved Planning Brief for Robinsland, in additional development to be accessed that respect it is noted that the Planning Brief directly from the site currently under has been produced for the existing allocated construction. This future connection is Robinsland site only. The shown link referred also shown within the Planning Brief to by the contributor in their submission was produced for the Robinsland site. In shown to ensure that the site was designed in addition, there are multiple access points a way that would allow for connectivity in that exist including Deanfoot Road and future if required. Internal consultation with Broomlee Crescent, these can be used to Roads Planning colleagues has confirmed that provide connectivity into the heart of the they would only support additional village until such time as a link road may development if there was full connectivity be required. Through a masterplan led with Station Road as well as improvements approach there is an opportunity to create along the main street. a new logical defensible boundary for The Council commissioned a Development West Linton. Without sight of the full RAG and Landscape Capacity Study in association assessment it is unclear how the site failed with Scottish Natural Heritage which to progress through to stage 2. concluded that the majority of the site submitted is constrained in Landscape terms. Based on the above, this objection is rejected.
30 General Comments
Coal Authority (Contaminated Land): Page 1 Sports Scotland (Provision of Outdoor Sports Facilities): Page 2 Historic Environment Scotland (Historic Environment): Page 3 Scottish Government (Flood Risk & Transport): Page 3 East Lothian Council (General): Page 4 SEPA (Flood Risk): Page 4 Various Contributors (Distribution of Housing within the Scottish Borders): Page 5 Felsham Planning & Development (Housing Market Areas & Housing Land Supply): Page 6 Turley (Policy HD4 Presumption in Favour of Sustainability): Page 9 Various Contributors (Over-weighting of Housing Allocation to the Lowood site): Page 9 Save Scott’s Countryside (Distribution of Housing Sites within Proximity to Abbotsford House and Scott’s Managed Landscape): Page 10 SETTLEMENT/ CONTRIBUTOR COMMENT SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATION PROPOSED RESPONSE RECOMMENDATION SITE NAME OR TYPE CODE/TOPIC Contaminated The Coal Authority Note The Coal Authority is pleased to see that Comments are noted. N/A Land (General) adopted LDP Policy IS13: Contaminated Land, although not explicit in the title, also All preferred and alternative sites contained within the relates to unstable land. Para 1.6 of this Draft Housing SG, were subject to a Stage 2 site document clearly states that the policy assessment. This included a desktop spatial constraint covers unstable land arising from mining check for minerals and coal, using the up to date activities which affects part of the Borders. shapefile layer.
The Draft Housing SG identifies sites which It should be noted that no preferred or alternative have been subject to Stage 1 RAG and Stage Housing SG sites sit within the Coal Authority’s Coal 2 assessments. It is noted that as part of the Mining Reporting Area which identifies former mine considerations ‘Site Requirements’ have entries and coal related hazards. been identified and in some cases these include notification of contamination issues which require further investigation and mitigation. It is not clear if this identification of ‘contamination’ on relevant sites includes consideration of unstable land.
The Coal Authority would expect all potential sites to have been assessed against the most up to date coal mining data in order to ensure that any sites which may contain mine entries or other coal related hazards that require remediation or stabilisation prior to development are identified.
However, they emphasise that former mining activities and related hazards are certainly not a strict constraint on development; indeed it would be far preferable for appropriate development to take place in order to remove these public liabilities on the general tax payer. The Coal 1 Authority would therefore not wish to suggest that any potential sites should be excluded from the assessment on the grounds of former mining legacy issues. Provision of Sports Scotland Note Should a planning application be submitted Comments are noted. N/A Outdoor Sports on a site which Sports Scotland are a Facilities statutory consultee, we would base our (General) response against the provisions of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) paragraph 226. This which states that outdoor sports facilities should be safeguarded from development except where:
The proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as an outdoor sports facility; The proposed development involves only a minor part of the outdoor sports facility and would not affect its use and potential for sport and training; The outdoor sports facility which would be lost would be replaced either by a new facility or comparable or greater benefit for sport in a location for users, or by the upgrading of an existing outdoor sports facility to provide a facility of better quality on the same site or at another location that is convenient for users and maintains or improves the overall playing capacity in the area, or The relevant strategy and consultation with Sportscotland show that there is a clear excess of provision to meet current and anticipated demand in the area, and that the site would be 2 developed without detriment to the overall quality of provision. Historic Historic Note HES have looked at all the sites, Comments are noted. N/A Environment Environment concentrating on scheduled monuments and Scotland their setting, listed buildings, the setting of A listed buildings, gardens and designed landscapes and battlefields appearing in their respective Inventories, and Conservation Areas.
Many of the proposed development sites have the potential for direct or indirect impacts on heritage assets. However, we consider that in all these cases, robust application of national and appropriate local policies should be able to mitigate adverse impacts, and do not have any specific comments to offer. For those sites which are carried forward to the adopted Housing SG, early engagement with HES on development proposals which raise complex or significant issues will be key to avoiding adverse impacts and optimising positive outcomes for the historic environment. Flood Risk & Scottish Note Planning & Architecture Division Planning & Architecture Division It is recommended Transport Government Highlight the Scottish Government position 3 no. sites were included as “alternative” options that these three set out in SPP paragraph 255 that the Huddersfield Street (AGALA033), Philiphaugh Mill sites, Huddersfield planning system should promote flood (ASELK040) and Philiphaugh Mill 2 (ASELK041) although Street (AGALA033), avoidance, by locating development away it was acknowledged that there were SEPA objections Philiphaugh Mill from functional flood plains and medium to regarding them. They were included as it was (ASELK040) high risk areas. They note sites are included considered further discussions with SEPA may resolve &Philiphaugh Mill 2 in the guidance which have previously their concerns. However, this has not happened. (ASELK041) are not received objections from SEPA through the Consequently these sites have been removed and there included within the development plan preparation process on are no sites proposed within the SG which SEPA have Finalised SG on the grounds of flood risk. objected to. However, it must be stated that the Senior Housing. Manager in charge of the multi million pound flood Medium to high risk areas (where there is an protection scheme for Selkirk strongly disagrees with annual probability of coastal or watercourse SEPA’s stance. This matter will be subject to further flooding is greater than 0.5% (1:200 years)) discussion between the parties in due course and will 3 may be suitable for residential development give reference to SEPA’s recent consultation paper on within built up areas, provided flood Development Behind Flood Defences. As long as SEPA protection measures to the appropriate continue to object to sites on the grounds of flood risk standard already exist and are maintained, the Council will not allocate these sites in the Plan. are under construction, or are a planned measures in a flood risk management plan. Transport Scotland Comments noted. Transport Scotland As a result of the positive collaboration between the Council and Transport Scotland in the preparation of the Supplementary Guidance, we have no comments to make. We look forward to working with the Council in the future, particularly on the appraisal of the Tweedbank site Lowood, (MTWEE002), which we could welcome involvement. General East Lothian Note The amber and green sites in Table 6 page Comments are noted. The Finalised SG on Council 19 total 54 but the stage 2 assessment, Housing will be paragraph 5.13 refers to 53 amber and updated accordingly, green sites. to reflect the total number of sites assessed. Flood Risk – SEPA Note SEPA request an addition to Section 7 of the The comments from SEPA have been taken on board The Finalised SG on ‘Section 7: Housing SG: Considerations for all sites, of and the finalised Housing SG will include an additional Housing will be Consideration for an additional paragraph (7.7), related to the paragraph in section 4 (4.7), in respect of flooding. The updated accordingly all Sites ‘ protection and enhancement of the water following wording to be inserted; to include the environment. additional paragraph ‘In respect of the protection and enhancement of the 4.7. The development should help contribute to water environment, proposals must be assessed the objectives of the Water Framework against Policy IS8: Flooding, as contained within the Directive (WFD) and your associated duties LDP. The policy aims to discourage development from as a responsible authority under the Water taking place in areas which are, or may become, subject Environment and Water Services (Scotland) to flood risk. Development should ensure it helps Act 2003 to ensure compliance with the contribute to the objectives of the Water Framework WFD and River Basin Planning process in Directive (WFD) and the associated duties of the Local carrying out your statutory functions. Authority under the Water Environment and Water Development should not add any further Services (Scotland) Act 2003 to ensure compliance with morphological pressures to the water bodies the WFD and River Basin Planning process in carrying 4 or result in any deterioration in status. Any out statutory functions. Development should not add opportunities to improve modified habitat any further morphological pressures to the water should also be harnessed. bodies or result in any deterioration in status. Any opportunities to improve modified habitat should also be harnessed’. Distribution of 1. Holder Planning, Object Edward Maitland - Carew The Draft Housing SG seeks to identify an additional N/A Housing within on behalf of The contributor notes the approach 916 housing units, to meet the identified shortfall. It the Scottish Edward Maitland- undertaken by the Council in terms of the was considered that in order to distribute the shortfall Borders(General Carew; distribution of housing sites throughout the of housing, broadly within the SDA’s and surrounding Approach) Scottish Borders in line with the population area, the population projections for each SDA and 2. Clarendon projections. However, they state that whilst surrounding areas were assessed. However, it should Planning & they understand the theory underpinning be noted that the LDP does not specify a distribution Development Ltd, this approach, they consider it an overly for the additional 916 units within SDA’s or HMA’s. on behalf of The simplistic approach which fails to take Lintonbank account of the marketability of the Policy HD4, as contained within the LDP, states that Country Estate; respective Housing Market Areas and likely ‘The longer term housing and mixed use sites identified demand within individual settlements. in the plan will be considered first, but that will not 3. Springfield preclude looking beyond those in the event that the Properties PLC The contributor questions the shortfall cannot be met from those sites’. The preferred appropriateness of directing significant site referred to within Coldstream forms part of an housing allocations to settlements within identified longer term site within the LDP, which was the Berwickshire HMA (e.g. Coldstream), considered acceptable for housing. which are less attractive to developers and, as such, less likely to come forward within It should be noted that no other appropriate sites were reasonable timescales to assist in meeting identified through the assessment process within the the housing shortfall/maintaining a 5 year Northern HMA, which could have been taken forward effective housing land supply. Rather within the Draft SG. settlements in the Northern HMA where there is a proven track record of delivery As noted within the Draft SG, there are a number of such as in Lauder should be identified for infrastructure constraints within the Northern HMA, further development. which limits the availability of effective land for housing, therefore no alternative options were It is considered appropriate to reconsider presented within the Northern HMA. This is an issue the SG’s strategy for distributing the housing which will need to be looked at and assessed as part of requirement, with a greater focus placed on the next LDP. It should be noted that in relation settlements such as Lauder that will specifically to West Linton, there are a number of generate stronger developer interest and allocated housing sites within the LDP. At this time, it is maximise the prospect of housing delivery not considered appropriate to bring forward additional within the necessary timescales. land within West Linton. 5 The Lintonbank Country Estate The SG notes that the housing shortfall has been distributed in accordance with the population projections for each SDA and indicates that 20% of the units i.e. 183 units should be provided within the Northern HMA however, the sites identified within the SG identifies only 135 units. It is therefore considered that there is still a shortfall within the Northern HMA and that additional sites should be allocated within this area. Specifically West Linton has a strong housing market and associated housing demand.
Springfield Properties PLC The contributor notes that the SG only identifies three preferred sites within the Northern HMA and no alternative sites. Whilst they state it is not their intention to critically assess the sites in detail, they point out that all three sites have many challenges, should any of these sties not deliver in providing homes, there is no fall- back position. The contributor also states that there is a lack of alternative sites and that this issue will be considered during the next LDP. However, the contributor states that this issue should be considered during the SG process and not through the LDP. Housing Market Felsham Planning Object Housing Market Areas Housing Market Areas N/A Areas & Housing & Development, Agree that the Central Area is a key focus for The comments are noted. The Council cannot review Land Supply on behalf of Rural growth, however it is wrong to imply that all the housing market areas through the preparation of (General Renaissance Ltd towns within it are equally capable of the Housing SG. The SG is merely concerned with Approach) growth. There are quite distinct and identifying additional sites to meet the housing land localised markets within the LDP, and shortfall identified within the LDP. demand in towns such as Jedburgh and Hawick is markedly weaker than in the It was considered that in order to distribute the 6 stronger settlements such as Melrose. shortfall of housing, broadly within the SDA’s and surrounding area, the population projections for each Consider the Central Borders Housing SDA and surrounding areas were assessed. However, it Market Area is too large and needs to be should be noted that the LDP does not specify a reconsidered. There is a need to breakdown distribution for the additional 916 units within the the Central Borders HMA to give an accurate SDA’s or HMA’s. analysis of the likely demand arising in each of the main towns, rather than assuming Adequacy of Housing Land Supply that demand arising from in Central Borders Comments are noted. HMA will be met anywhere across the HMA. The location of the sites in the SPG to meet Generosity was subject to the Reporter’s Examination the Reporter’s requirement needs to be (Issue 80). The Reporter concluded that it was not related to this analysis. The Council has appropriate to recommend that a further allowance for already, in the LDP, allocated more land in generosity be added to the housing land requirement. weak market areas than the market can Therefore, the Reporter recommended that the sustain. Housing targets need to be based preparation of a Housing SG be prepared to identify an on housing market areas and reflect actual additional 916 units, to meet the housing shortfall. demand and activity not the perception of the planners of what they wish to see. It is noted that there are sites contained within the HLA Functional housing markets need to be which have been included for a number of years. The realistic both in terms of their definition and Council cannot remove allocated sites from the LDP as the locations within the housing market part of the Housing SG process. However, there will be areas where development is directed. a review undertaken for existing allocations, as part of LDP2. Adequacy of Housing Land Supply The Reporter’s requirement must be met, The comments in relation to the HLA methodology are but the Council is not constrained to identify noted. sites for 916 units and no more. The Council could identify more sites to allow for flexibility. Their clients believe that the housing land supply has been understated and have previously advocated that the preferred strategy should be to plan for economic recovery but with a flexibility allowance of a further 30%, this means that further consideration needs to be given to:
Overall housing land supply targets; Appropriate location for 7 development; Criteria for selecting and assessing alternative sites to ensure a mechanism to allow additional land to come forward without requiring a review of the CDP; Need to support and expand the rural economy and to ensure that housing policy identifies land supply in all the countryside, beyond agricultural need.
The latest Housing Land Audit contains a substantial number of sites which have been in the audit since 2006 (i.e) 2 cycles of the Development Plan and remain undeveloped. Where such sites are identified as effective there must be doubts whether they will come forward. The Council needs to interrogate these sites carefully to justify their continued inclusion. In addition, there are an equally large number of sites recorded as ‘developer’ with no house builder attached. Whilst such sites are identified as effective there must be doubts whether they will come forward. The Council needs to interrogate these sites carefully to justify their continued inclusion.
Sites should not remain in the audit for more than 5 years without clear signs of activity. This requires a rolling review with sites being regularly removed if there is no evidence of delivery being likely within a reasonable period of time. This will result in a larger number of sites being removed from the audit than has been the case and supports the submissions they have made for a 30% flexibility allowance in the 8 development to allow for the proper choice and to ensure, as far as possible, that there is development plan support for the majority of the housing land supply.
Therefore, it is important that the Housing Land Strategy has a clear recognition of the sites that are effective and the location of those sites so that the basis for determining allocation of the housing land supply starts from a realistic understanding of what sites are available and where they are located.
Our client supports the adoption of a common set of measures to address the obvious housing land supply shortfall but believes that the Council should go further than is required by the Reporter and ensure that sufficient sites are allocated to actually deliver the 916 unit shortfall. This requires recognition that not all sites will come forward, which justifies an over allocation to allow for this shortfall. It also requires a rigorous review of the Housing Land Audit and identifying the majority of the new sites in areas where there is proven demand. Policy HD4/ Turley on behalf of Object The contributor states that given the It is not considered that the proposed site should be N/A Presumption in Amber Real Estate accepted shortfall in effective housing land assessed against Policy PMD4, for the purposes of the favour of Investments Ltd supply, SPP’s presumption in favour of Housing SG. sustainability sustainable development which contributes (General to meeting an effective five year housing Policy HD4 sets out the requirement for the Housing Approach) land supply, is a significant material SG, to address the housing shortfall for the LDP period. consideration in the consideration of Therefore, there is a mechanism in place, to identify planning applications. the required housing shortfall for the plan period. Over-weighting Edwin Thompson Object The site at Lowood, Tweedbank covers The Scottish Government document entitled ‘Borders N/A of housing on behalf of approximately 32% of the SG allocation for Railway – Maximising the Impact: A Blueprint to the allocation to the several land the entire region. The SG would appear to Future’ identifies the opportunities the railway corridor site at Lowood, owners; give an over-weighting of allocations to the offers in terms of being a catalyst for new housing Tweedbank site at Lowood, Tweedbank. developments, businesses or visitor destinations. It 9 1.RH & DH Hall supports the potential of the line in triggering significant economic benefits. The SG on Housing will 2.Miles Browne become part of the statutory Development Plan and it is therefore a key document to ensure implementation 3.G W Thomson of the Blueprint. Lowood is within a highly accessible and Sons and sustainable location given its location on land immediately to the north of the Tweedbank Railway terminus. The site is within the Central Borders Housing Market Area which has a proven record of housing market developer interest and consumer demand. The parkland and woodland setting and its proximity to the scenic River Tweed make the site a highly attractive development opportunity. Whilst it is acknowledged there are some site constraints to be addressed and overcome, none of these are identified as being insurmountable, and work on a masterplan has already commenced which increases the effectiveness, promotion and delivery of the site. This will investigate in close detail the constraints to be mitigated. It is contended that Lowood is a prime site with an extremely attractive setting for market interest and should be included within the SG. Distribution of Save Scott’s Object Note concerns that 50% of the preferred The distribution of the housing sites for the SG took on N/A housing sites Countryside sites within the Housing SG are within five board where market demand is greater and this within proximity miles of Abbotsford House and Scott’s included the Central Borders. It is considered to Abbotsford Managed Landscape; and nearly 40% are no justification that a substantial number of units can be House and more than 2 miles distant. allocated in this area and it is not considered these Scott’s Managed allocations will have a detrimental impact on Landscape Abbotsford House or Scott’s Managed Landscape.
10 Internal Consultation Responses
Roads Planning Officer SETTLEMENT SITE NAME & CONTRIBUTOR COMMENT SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATION PROPOSED RESPONSE RECOMMENDATION SITE CODE TYPE
Galashiels Former Castle Roads Planning Note Replace the existing site requirement, Comments are noted. It is recommended Warehouse Officer requesting a Transport Assessment with that Former Castle Site the requirement for a Transport If the site (AGALA037) is taken forward for Warehouse Site (AGALA037) Statement. inclusion in the finalised Housing SG, amend (AGALA037) is the existing site requirement to read; included within the Finalised SG on ‘A Transport Statement will be required to Housing. address sustainable travel and street connectivity’. It is recommended that site requirement (bullet point 7) be amended to read:
A Transport Statement will be required to address sustainable travel and street connectivity Newstead Newstead Roads Planning Note Replace the existing site requirement, Comments are noted. It is recommended North Officer requesting a Transport Assessment with that Newstead North (ANEWS006) the requirement for a Transport If the site (ANEWS006) is taken forward for (ANEWS006) is not Statement. inclusion in the finalised Housing SG, amend included within the the existing site requirement to read; Finalised SG on Housing. ‘A Transport Statement will be required’.
However, it should be noted that the site is not proposed for inclusion within the Finalised Housing SG.
1