Scottish Borders Council 22 May 2008

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL ITEM 7

22 MAY 2008

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

STRUCTURE PLAN ALTERATION: REPORT ON RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION DRAFT

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To agree the Council response to the representations put forward on the consultative draft Structure Plan Alteration, and to agree a finalised Structure Plan Alteration for submission to Scottish Ministers.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Scottish Borders Structure Plan was approved by Scottish Ministers in September 2002. It was agreed by the Council Executive on 27 June 2006 to recommend to full Council that a Structure Plan Alteration (SPA) and accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) be prepared. Notice of intention to prepare the SPA was advertised in February 2007.

2.2 On 27 September 2007 the Council agreed a draft SPA and SEA as a basis for consultation. The documents were advertised in November 2007 and they were subject to a 12 week consultation period running through to 25 January 2008. Meetings with stakeholders to inform them of the intent of the SPA document took place in November/December 2007.

2.3 There were 191 responses to the draft SPA and these are set out in Appendix A. Full copies of the responses are available for inspection in the Members’ Room.

2.4 Appendix A also sets out the proposed response to the representations on the SPA. In brief, the main areas of proposed change are as follows:

x Housing Allowances

o It is proposed that the Plan continues to provide allowances at settlement level up to 2018 (under Policy H1), but in Policy H2 to move to a housing market area level for the period 2019-2026. This will therefore continue to provide a broad indication of future requirements and will continue to be subject to review by the future Strategic Development Plan.

o It is proposed to increase the allowance for 2006-2018 in the Berwickshire Housing Market Area outwith the main settlements. This will allow the continued growth of the area’s smaller settlements where this is required, in line with the Council Policy on rural proofing. x Housing Market Areas

o It is proposed to extend the boundary of the Southern Housing Market Area to incorporate the Tweedsmuir remoter rural area. This will allow the consideration of future small scale housing development proposals in line with the policy on remote areas.

x Criteria for Land Allocation and Development

o It is proposed to widen the scope of Policy H3 to cover development proposals as well as Local Plan land allocations. This will allow the Council’s criteria aimed at achieving sustainable development to be more broadly applied.

o It is proposed to amend Policy H3 to include reference to the water environment to comply with Scottish Planning Policy 7.

o It is proposed to remove the criteria on sustainable construction from Policy H3 in recognition that it is not a location-based criteria.

x Brownfield Land

o It is proposed to amend Policies H3 and H5 to ensure that brownfield land that has potential future continued use for employment purposes is not lost to residential development.

o It is proposed to amend Policy H5 to include reference to the water environment to comply with Scottish Planning Policy 7.

x Affordable Housing o It is proposed to amend Policy H9 in the interests of clarity and effectiveness. This encompasses a simplification of the policy wording to improve clarity and recognition that retention of affordable housing stock for successive as well as initial occupants does not apply to parts of the affordable housing stock such as shared equity.

2.5 The finalised SPA will be printed and sent to Scottish Ministers who will then be responsible for further advert and ultimate approval of the document.

2.6 Comments on the SPA Environmental Report have been received from the Consultation Authorities. These have been incorporated into the finalised SEA Post Adoption Statement in Appendix B.

3 CONSULTATION

3.1 The Heads of Corporate Administration, Legal Services, Corporate Finance and Financial Administration, and the Directors of Education and Lifelong Learning, Social Work and Technical Services have been consulted on this report and any comments taken into account.

4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 There are financial implications in respect of the printing costs for the finalised SPA. Budget is available to cover these costs. 5 RISK COMMENTARY

5.1 The primary output from this report is the recommendation to agree the finalised SPA for submission to Scottish Ministers. The risk associated with this is minimal in that there is an outstanding requirement set out in the Council’s current Structure Plan to undertake a timeous review of housing matters. The recommended approach also reflects a proactive response to the provision of housing land to meet demand and need.

5.2 However, there is risk if the Council does not proceed with due diligence on the preparation of a SPA on housing land matters. The current Structure Plan and Local Plan were based on figures provided up to 10 years ago. The upward trend in projections (2004-based General Register Office) and the current approved Structure Plan Horizon of 2011 means that the Council should take steps to ensure the continuing adequate provision of housing land to meet projected requirements. It will be important for the Council to take forward the Local Plan Amendment consequential on the SPA to identify the detailed sites to meet requirements up to 2018.

5.3 The Education and Lifelong Learning Department have identified that there is a risk to the Council that there will be a requirement (due to the developer contributions policy exemption on the provision of funding towards education facilities by proposals for affordable housing) to part fund the expansion of and new schools requirement in areas where there has been identified capacity constraints projected.

6 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK

6.1 The Structure Plan is a key document in prioritising the environmental framework related to the future development in the area. Environmental implications related to development policy are an important consideration in the preparation and consultation on the Plan. An Environmental Report and finalised post adoption statement required under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act has been prepared.

7 EQUALITIES

7.1 The primary focus of a Structure Plan is to provide opportunity for appropriate development in terms of the social, economic and environmental context of the area. It therefore handles equalities by seeking to provide adequate land for reasonable needs related to housing land and affordable housing.

7.2 The Rural Proofing exercise suggests proposed amendments to the draft SPA relating to the expansion of the Southern Housing Market area to incorporate other remoter rural areas that will be subject to the policy on “anchor points”, and ensuring adequate allowances in the Berwickshire Housing Market Area in those villages outwith the main settlements.

8 SUMMARY

8.1 The report considers the representations made on the draft SPA and proposes amendments to a number of aspects of the plan to be taken into its finalisation prior to submission to Scottish Ministers. 9 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 It is recommended that the Council agrees:

(a) That the Structure Plan Alteration is amended in line with the recommended changes set out in Appendix A;

(b) That the finalised Structure Plan Alteration be printed and submitted to Scottish Ministers; and

Approved by Name Designation Ian Lindley Director of Planning and Economic Development

Author(s) Name Designation Martin Wanless Plans and Research Manager

Background Papers: Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Previous Minute Reference: Scottish Borders Council 27/9/07.

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Linda Ross can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Telephone: 01835 825060. E-mail: [email protected] SPA Responses – Grouped 1. General Responses

Comments on Structure Plan Alteration Proposed Council Response Proposed Change to Plan Bulk Standard Letter regarding development in Support noted. The issue related to the potential No Change Peebles - 110 standard letters have been received adverse consequence arising from overdevelopment in (see bottom of this document for listing) the Northern Borders was discussed in the approved Structure Plan (para 4.8 to 4.11). The approach taken The contributor supports the introduction of Policy H4 to was to constrain housing development in North cap future housing development in Peebles. Much of Tweeddale and North Ettrick and Lauderdale, and to the surrounding area identified for future development guide development to the development hubs, lies within a designated Area of Great Landscape Value particularly the Central Borders. The Structure Plan which could have negative impacts on tourism, jobs and Alteration seeks to take this forward in relation to the revenues which Peebles is reliant upon. There is Northern Housing Market Area to prevent potentially concern regarding the temptation to depart from the unsustainable development. Policy H4 ‘Five Year Land general trend to build in the valley bottom in Peebles as Supply’ states that in the Northern HMA additional land a consequence of the pressure to develop new will not be brought forward in excess of the structure greenfield sites and the negative visual impact in plan allowances for the period 2007-2018. This is to addition to concerns over development on the slopes avoid overdevelopment in the area that is under and hills above Peebles pressure due to its proximity to Edinburgh. There are also concerns over the ability to provide safe The Structure Plan is not site specific. Matters of detail and adequate access into potential new greenfield sites, including the access and infrastructure of particular the assumption being brownfield sites already have the sites will be dealt with by the site assessments for the required infrastructure that is needed to access the site. Local Plan Amendment to be prepared by the Council There have been problems with the inability to provide during 2008. safe and adequate access to potential new greenfield sites; the additional housing will put pressure on the existing local infrastructure and services.

Pat & Roy Aylott (8) Support noted. The issue related to the potential No Change The contributors wish to support the SPA whereby a adverse consequence arising from overdevelopment in proposed cap is to be imposed on future residential the Northern Borders was discussed in the approved development in Peebles. The contributors also suggest Structure Plan (para 4.8 to 4.11). The approach taken that a similar cap on residential development be was to constrain housing development in North implemented throughout the Borders due to potential Tweeddale and North Ettrick and Lauderdale, and to problems with infrastructure provision. guide development to the development hubs, particularly the Central Borders. The Structure Plan Alteration seeks to take this forward in relation to the Northern Housing Market Area to prevent potentially unsustainable development .The proposed policy H4 is applicable to the Northern Housing Market Area due to the significant pressure from the Lothians Housing Market Area. The pressure from other Housing Market Areas is not as significant in other parts of the Borders and are therefore not in need of special protection of 1 overdevelopment.

John Elliot (7) Not accepted. Table 4 of the Consultative Draft sets No Change The contributor objects to the SPA which fails to take out the position in relation to housing land in each of into account the situation of Duns where there needs to the Housing Market Areas. In Berwickshire the overall be a further allocation of housing land. In Duns there housing requirement 2006-2018 is 1503. This area four sites identified in the Local Plan each of these compares with an existing effective and potentially is currently in the process of being developed or in the effective land supply of 1437. Therefore, only a limited planning application stage, previously housing land shortfall is identified. In Duns the position at the 2006 north of Duns (BD4B) was removed in the FLP. Housing Land Audit was that there were 246 effective and potentially effective units (see Table 6). This may be viewed against an average annual completion rate of around 9 units in Duns (see Table 5). Therefore, no general Structure Plan Allowance has been allocated in Duns in the short term, but the Structure Plan Alteration has identified an opportunity for major redevelopment in connection with the redevelopment of the Berwickshire High School. Longer term allowances for housing (subject to review) have been made in Duns. Therefore, the existing supply and contributions from the redevelopment site is considered to be adequate to meet the requirement in the area.

Anne Maria Rennie (13) Not accepted. The Plan requires to provide land for No Change The contributor objects to any further housing housing development in line with national planning development within the Peebles. How can any more policy, in particular SPP3 ‘Planning for Housing’ and houses be constructed on the far side of the river before PAN38 ‘Housing Land’. Therefore the Structure Plan you build a second bridge over the Tweed as the Alteration provides the full requirement in relation to congestion on the roundabout at the church end of the the Northern Housing Market Area, but proposes High Street is at present intolerable, any further cars through Policy H4, to limit the provision to meeting the would bring it to as stand still at peak times. requirement. An initial assessment of key constraints Although the building of industrial sites in Peebles are was considered before identifying the Structure Plan on Councillor Bhatia’s wish list as yet we do not have Allowances. major employment within the area, and given cheaper labour is found in foreign land the prospect of mass employment is not likely. Consequently any houses built in Peebles have to be sold to people that will commute to work out with area adding to congestion on the Edinburgh and Glasgow roads that were not built to take such high volumes of traffic. Global warming is threatening the survival of us all, Peebles is the countryside the natural environment for wildlife, adding all this extra pollution through raising the carbon output is irresponsible, and adding to light 2 pollution altering the character of the town forever. The refusal to build any more houses here should not be seen as NIMBYism, already we have had to sit back while developers knock down ancient trees, block up rivers that have supported wildlife for centuries without due care destroying the quality of their habitats. The schools are struggling to house the growing number of children as we can see from the school building programs going on around us, again at the expense of the taxpayer. It is worth noting that the 50 houses being built in Glen Road will already add on average a further 100+ cars to an already congested road and if we permit 199 new houses we can look at around 300 more new cars, not to mention all the smaller developments that are squeezed in. A retired Doctor wrote into the local paper explaining the stress you are placing our health service under, although it was rebuffed as not part of the consideration when planning houses, I feel it should be as it is the health of out community that is at stake. We have been told the infrastructure is already at breaking point with water, electricity and sewage to supply; do the council have the capacity to deliver this without extra strain or cost to the tax payer? All of the above must be taken into account before any new housing can be considered.

Chirnside Community Council (124) – 1/2 Accepted in part. Table 4 of the Consultative Draft sets Increase the level of provision in the ‘Rest of’’ The contributor objects to the omission from the out the position in relation to housing land in each of Berwickshire section in Table 6 for the period structure plan and the assumptions that Chirnside the Housing Market Areas. In Berwickshire the overall 2006-2018 up to 100 units. Add to bullet point should not have any more land designated for housing. housing requirement 2006-2018 is 1503. This 8 in para 4.20 as follows: ‘A base level The village will now have no land left for development. compares with an existing effective and potentially provision of 100 units in the period 2006- The housing currently under construction will be sold by effective land supply of 1437. The Structure Plan 2018 is provided in the ‘Rest of Berwickshire’ the summer, leaving no ability to build houses for rent or Alteration lists the main settlements in each Housing area. Amend key diagram accordingly. sale under government schemes. Berwickshire Housing Market Area and includes smaller settlements in ‘Rest Association has expressed their desire to build in of HMA’. Although it is considered that there is Chirnside in the near future. sufficient housing supply in Berwickshire it is now The local primary school is also in favour of additional proposed to provide a base level provision in the short pupils as they can accommodate an additional 25 pupils term allowances for ‘Rest of Berwickshire’. The at no additional cost to the council with regards to new justification for this change is that it is important to buildings. provide for potential limited additional growth in the The Community Council has assurance from local main villages of Berwickshire to help reduce the Councillors who agree that additional land is required for demand for housing in the open countryside. In organic growth and the future well being of the village. addition, the proposed change reflects the fact that Berwickshire has a large number of effective units on Second Letter – Chirnside Community Council (124) 3 – 2/2 sites outside settlements, which tend to be on smaller The contributor emphasises the same points raised in sites. Finally, the proposed change is consistent with the original letter with additional concerns regarding the the Council approach to ‘rural proofing’. The precise lack of houses available to rent in Chirnside with a location of the proposed allowance within the ‘rest of’ limited number of affordable house available to first time Berwickshire will be addressed within the Local Plan buyers. The Community Council suggests the Amendment. settlement boundary should be amended to include more housing land to the north of the village

John Duff Planning – George Farr (144) Accepted in part. Table 4 of the Consultative Draft sets Increase the level of provision in the ‘Rest of’’ The contributor owns land in Gordon. The contributor is out the position in relation to housing land in each of Berwickshire section in Table 6 for the period pleased to see the positive view in terms of growth the Housing Market Areas. In Berwickshire the overall 2006-2018 up to 100 units. Add to bullet point taken by the Council. The contributor is concerned that housing requirement 2006-2018 is 1503. This 8 in para 4.20 as follows: ‘A base level there is limited provision for housing in the Berwickshire compares with an existing effective and potentially provision of 100 units in the period 2006- area and also dispute effectiveness of the allocated site effective land supply of 1437. The Structure Plan 2018 is provided in the ‘Rest of Berwickshire’ in Gordon. There are only 66 units allocated in Alteration lists the main settlements in each Housing area. Amend key diagram accordingly. Berwickshire in the next 5 years and none in many of Market Area and includes smaller settlements in ‘Rest the villages like Gordon. There has been no progress on of HMA’. Although it is considered that there is the allocated site in the last 4 years since the draft Plan sufficient housing supply in Berwickshire it is now was published, this does not constitute the effective land proposed to provide a base level provision in the short supply described in the Structure Plan Alteration. The term allowances for ‘Rest of Berwickshire’. The contributor would bring their site forward within 1 year justification for this change is that it is important to when allocated for development. The contributor notes provide for potential limited additional growth in the that there is spare capacity in the water/sewerage main villages of Berwickshire to help reduce the system to cope with the development. The contributor demand for housing in the open countryside. In also understands that there is spare capacity within the addition, the proposed change reflects the fact that school system. The contributor states that the site would Berwickshire has a large number of effective units on have modest visual impact and note that the Council sites outside settlements, which tend to be on smaller has not made a landscape assessment for Gordon. The sites. . Finally, the proposed change is consistent with contributor supports the ambitious plans for growth, but the Council approach to ‘rural proofing’. The precise is disappointed at the low allocation of 66 units in the location of the proposed allowance within the ‘rest of’ next 5 years does not reflect the current level of Berwickshire will be addressed within the Local Plan demand. This does not reflect the commitment by the Amendment. Government to raise house building from 25,000 to 35,000 units within 7 years. The contributor asks for their site to replace the allocated site or seen as a modest growth in Gordon with resulting benefits for the local economy services etc. The contributor would like to reach a mutually beneficial solution with the Council and would thereafter be happy to withdraw their objection.

Ladykirk Estates (130) Support noted. The Structure Plan Alteration has 2006 Increase the level of provision in the ‘Rest of’’ Note that the contributor supports the Alteration to the as the baseline year for the plan. Information used for Berwickshire section in Table 6 for the period Structure Plan. The contributor has a keen interest in projections and land supply was the most up to date at 2006-2018 up to 100 units. Add to bullet point 4 the economic growth in the Borders region and agrees the time of producing the document. 8 in para 4.20 as follows: ‘A base level that the Structure Plan should be updated to reflect new provision of 100 units in the period 2006- information on population trends. Revisal and updating Table 4 of the Consultative Draft sets out the position 2018 is provided in the ‘Rest of Berwickshire’ of the Structure Plan policies and the figures for in relation to housing land in each of the Housing area. Amend key diagram accordingly. effective land supply and housing land shortfall are Market Areas. In Berwickshire the overall housing essential to ensure that the Borders is ready for, and requirement 2006-2018 is 1503. This compares with take advantage of projected population growth by an existing effective and potentially effective land making sufficient land available for new housing. The supply of 1437. The Structure Plan Alteration lists the contributor is fully committed to the continuing main settlements in each Housing Market Area and regeneration of the Berwickshire Housing Area. The includes smaller settlements in ‘Rest of HMA’. contributor notes that the Structure Plan recognises the Although it is considered that there is sufficient housing area as a Priority Area for Regeneration on the supply in Berwickshire it is now proposed to provide a contributor supports the objective. The contributor notes base level provision in the short term allowances for that the Structure Plan Alteration is based on Finalised ‘Rest of Berwickshire’. The justification for this change Local Plan numbers prior to proposed modification. The is that it is important to provide for potential limited contributor made representations to the local plan additional growth in the main villages of Berwickshire process in respect of land owned by them on the to help reduce the demand for housing in the open southern side of Swinton village. The adopted Local countryside. In addition, the proposed change reflects Plan proposes further reduction in numbers and the the fact that Berwickshire has a large number of result is a shortfall of 126 in Berwickshire. This is a effective units on sites outside settlements, which tend severe housing shortage and this demonstrates that to be on smaller sites. Finally, the proposed change is there is an overriding need to allocate housing land to consistent with the Council approach to ‘rural proofing’. maintain a 5 year supply, which is a requirement of The precise location of the proposed allowance within national planning policy and the Structure Plan. There the ‘rest of’ Berwickshire will be addressed within the has been no affordable housing provision in Swinton in Local Plan Amendment. many years and there is a need in the area. Housing Needs Analysis by BHA demonstrates how demand is The Structure Plan Alteration sets out the guidance far outstripping supply in the area. Land in the that the Council provides through policies and contributor’s ownership represents a realistic supplementary planning guidance on affordable opportunity for the provision of affordable housing and housing to meet the needs of affordable and special mainstream housing in the Berwickshire Area. The needs housing. achievements of potential and effective housing land supply will contribute towards a wider economic and social aims for the region. Importance of mixed housing within the supply, affordable and mainstream, should not be overlooked.

Seed and Co. (183) 2/4 Support noted. Table 4 of the Consultative Draft sets Increase the level of provision in the ‘Rest of’’ The contributor is pleased to see updated population out the position in relation to housing land in each of Berwickshire section in Table 6 for the period figures and demographics have been updates and the Housing Market Areas. In Berwickshire the overall 2006-2018 up to 100 units. Add to bullet point proposed allocation of extra land for housing to satisfy housing requirement 2006-2018 is 1503. This 8 in para 4.20 as follows: ‘A base level existing and forthcoming demand. compares with an existing effective and potentially provision of 100 units in the period 2006- Chirnside – There are no mapped proposals for the effective land supply of 1437. The Structure Plan 2018 is provided in the ‘Rest of Berwickshire’ important town in the Eastern Hub. In the last Local Plan Alteration lists the main settlements in each Housing area. Amend key diagram accordingly. review allocations were taken up before the start of the Market Area and includes smaller settlements in ‘Rest

5 plan period. Chirnside should be promoted as a centre of HMA’. Although it is considered that there is for population growth because it has two of the largest sufficient housing supply in Berwickshire it is now employers, school with capacity and range of local proposed to provide a base level provision in the short services. Settlement Profile indicates preferred area for term allowances for ‘Rest of Berwickshire’. The expansion is to the north. The Community Council is justification for this change is that it is important to keen to promote land at north-east, particularly if it provide for potential limited additional growth in the brings a solution to the acute parking and traffic main villages of Berwickshire to help reduce the circulation difficulties on the eastern half of the main demand for housing in the open countryside. In street. Structure Plan should make specific provision for addition, the proposed change reflects the fact that residential growth on the North side of Chirnside. Berwickshire has a large number of effective units on sites outside settlements, which tend to be on smaller sites. Finally, the proposed change is consistent with the Council approach to ‘rural proofing’. The precise location of the proposed allowance within the ‘rest of’ Berwickshire will be addressed within the Local Plan Amendment.

Mrs C. Woolliams (136) Support noted. The issue related to the potential No Change. The contributor supports alteration to the Structure Plan adverse consequence arising from overdevelopment in to place a cap on the future development of greenfield the Northern Borders was discussed in the approved sites in and around Peebles. Structure Plan (para 4.8 to 4.11). The approach taken was to constrain housing development in North Tweeddale and North Ettrick and Lauderdale, and to guide development to the development hubs, particularly the Central Borders. The Structure Plan Alteration seeks to take this forward in relation to the Northern Housing Market Area to prevent potentially unsustainable development. Policy H4 ‘Five Year Land Supply’ states that in the Northern HMA additional land will not be brought forward in excess of the structure plan allowances for the period 2007-2018. This is to avoid overdevelopment in the area that is under pressure due to its proximity to Edinburgh. Sheila Shearer (176) Not accepted. The Plan requires to provide land for No Change. The contributor strongly objects to the character of housing development in line with national planning Peebles being dramatically altered by the continued policy, in particular SPP3 ‘Planning for Housing’ and building of more houses. There are enough houses for PAN38 ‘Housing Land’. Therefore the Structure Plan the infrastructure. Medical facilities, schools, sewage Alteration provides the full requirement in relation to and water treatment works are at bursting point. the Northern Housing Market Area, but proposes through Policy H4, to limit the provision to meeting the requirement This is to avoid overdevelopment in the area that is under pressure due to its proximity to Edinburgh. Seed and Co. (183) 1/4 Support noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor is pleased to see updated population Capacity Study was prepared to inform the Structure 6 figures and demographics have been updates and Plan Alteration and will guide the Local Plan proposed allocation of extra land for housing to satisfy Amendment that follows on from the Alteration. The existing and forthcoming demand. Study assessed landscape character and potential to Walkerburn – The settlement follows the valley floor accommodate housing development. The Local Plan because of constraints imposed by steep valley sides. Amendment that will follow on from the Structure Plan Earlier landscape study identified possibilities of a Alteration will allocate sites specific for housing or bridge to land at Westbold Farm where there is room, employment. There will be opportunities to contribute landscape impact is minimal and land does not flood. to the Amendment through public consultation. Omission of land at Westbold from Opportunities and Constraints plan is missed opportunity and contributor would like to see it promoted as the logical expansion of the settlement.

Seed and Co. (183) 4/4 Support noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor is pleased to see updated population Capacity Study was prepared to inform the Structure figures and demographics have been updates and Plan Alteration and will guide the Local Plan proposed allocation of extra land for housing to satisfy Amendment that follows on from the Alteration. The existing and forthcoming demand. Study assessed landscape character and potential to Kelso - There are servicing constraints on the south side accommodate housing development. The Local Plan of the river in Kelso. This would weigh in favour of Amendment that will follow on from the Structure Plan potential development to the north. Area B is better Alteration will allocate sites specific for housing or placed than area A for reaching schools, town centre employment. There will be opportunities to contribute and services. The contributor is working with Mr Hastie to the Amendment through public consultation. to make adjacent land available for cemetery. If Kelso expansion concentrates on Area A the settlement form would be unbalanced and create a lack of choice for home buyers.

Kelso and District Amenity Society (146) Not accepted. The Plan requires to provide land for No Change. The contributor comment that the document is rather housing development in line with national planning bland but not contentious as far as Kelso is concerned. policy, in particular SPP3 ‘Planning for Housing’ and However, the society can see how other districts might PAN38 ‘Housing Land’. Therefore the Structure Plan be concerned over rapid expansion of housing, Alteration provides the full requirement in relation to especially between Galashiels and St Boswells. the Housing Market Areas. The Structure Plan Individual communities are in danger of being swamped Alteration is focused on housing, with the approved by proposed new housing which mainly cater for Structure Plan continuing to provide policy on other Edinburgh commuters. The main concern to the matters including transport. The detailed comments contributor was the limited amount of attention given to related to transport have been passed to the Technical the question of public transport. Kelso has no central Services Department. point for bus services and no proper facilities for travellers. The contributor is suggesting a proper bus stopping area with a waiting room (heated with photo voltaic cells). The document focus is on north/south routes and less said about east/west routes that tend to be poorly served by public transport. With an ageing 7 population, good transport links are increasingly important for people to access shops, hospitals etc. Problems have to be addressed to get people to opt for public transport instead of cars.

Rodger Builders (127) Comments noted. The Structure Plan Alteration sets No Change. The contributor notes that the Alteration focuses on out the housing land requirement and housing land housing and has identified 23% growth in households to allowances for the plan period. Any site specific 2024. The Murison Hill site is identified as a housing site information will be assessed during the Local Plan in the background report as recorded in the Housing Amendment that will be carried out during 2008. There Land Audit. The development potential for housing and will be opportunities to contribute to the Amendment assisting to meet the requirements for Selkirk are through public consultation. recognised. The Murison Hill site was included in HLA 2006 and has contributed to meeting the housing requirement over the Structure Plan Alteration period. Thereafter there will still be significant housing requirements to be met in Central Borders HMA. In terms of infrastructure Selkirk has spare capacity in water and wastewater for development to proceed in the short term. Primary and Secondary schools also have capacity to accommodate further expansion including Murison Hill. Flood risk is an issue that is not applicable to Murison Hill. The contributor maintain the site can assist in meeting the increasing requirement in Central Borders HMA and site specific issues such as landscape impact, vehicular and pedestrian access can be part of masterplan for the development of the site, to ensure the site is included in the next Local Plan, which will give site specific effect to the strategic housing requirement detailed in the Structure Plan Alteration.

Charlesfield Properties LLP (156) Comments noted. The Structure Plan Alteration sets No Change. The contributor has landholdings that are capable of out the housing land requirement and housing land meeting strategic housing requirements over the next 20 allowances for the plan period. Any site specific years or thereby. Charlesfield lies within the Central information will be assessed during the Local plan Borders HMA and can meet the requirement over the Amendment that will be carried out during 2008. There Structure Plan Period. In terms of infrastructure, any will be opportunities to contribute to the Amendment development at Charlesfield can contribute to upgrading through public consultation. spare water and wastewater capacity to allow development to proceed in short tem. Primary and secondary education capacity can also be addressed. There are no irresolvable flood risk impacts in terms of developing around Charlesfield. The contributor maintains that their landholdings can assist in meeting the increasing housing requirement in the Central 8 Borders HMA. Site specific issues such as landscape impact, infrastructure provision and relationship with the existing and expanded industrial area can be addressed in a comprehensive masterplan, to ensure that the site is included in the next Local Plan, which will give site specific effect to the strategic housing requirement outlined in this Structure Plan.

John Duff Planning – Boyd Family (143) Support noted. The Structure Plan Alteration sets out No Change. The contributor owns land in Bowden. The contributor is the housing land requirement and housing land pleased to see the positive view in terms of growth allowances for the plan period. The housing land taken by the Council. The contributor also notes the allowances in table 6 set out the allowances for the intention to focus growth in the Central Borders HMA main settlements in each Housing Market Area and where the best opportunities for new/existing residents also in the rest of the Housing Market Area, which to use the reopened Waverley line to Edinburgh. The includes smaller settlements such as Bowden. Any site contributor notes and supports the 7074 houses specific information will be assessed during the Local proposed between 2006-2026. The contributor is plan Amendment that will be carried out during 2008. pleased to note the major allocation for Newtown St There will be opportunities to contribute to the Boswells however consider a more sensitive local Amendment through public consultation. solution for their proposed development that would be locate it in smaller development parcels which would be more easily accepted into the social and community infrastructure that exists in this primarily rural area. The contributor is pleased to note that there is spare capacity in water/sewerage systems for the development. The schools are operating over capacity but the contributor would be willing to provide support for the school provision, were their land allocated. The contributor also note that no landscape capacity study have been carried out by the Council and that previous new development has been easily accommodated into the village and development to the North onto Whiterigg Farm could be achieved in a similar low impact manner. The contributor supports the Council’s plans for growth but is disappointed that no housing has been allocated in the villages around Newtown St Boswells and Bowden in particular. The contributor’s site would continue an existing pattern of growth avoiding any development close to Conservation Area and can utilise/help fund committed infrastructure. The land is immediately available and would be ideal for development in the short/medium term. The contributor would like to reach a mutually beneficial solution with the Council and would thereafter be happy to withdraw their objection.

9 John Swanson (147) Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration is based No Change. Item 1.13 - The contributor is concerned over GRO on the household projections from the General projections; if the population has increased 3% 1991- Register Officer for Scotland which is the government’s 2001 how do we arrive at a prediction of 15% over next advisor on demographics. The projections do not 20 years? specifically take account of the Waverley project but a Item 1.14 – How accurate are GRO household further 20% flexibility is built in to the overall housing projections and is too much emphasis being put on the land requirement. This approach is supported by the forecasts? Has GRO got figures right compared to when General Registrar. The provision of additional flexibility the Structure Plan was completed? is an approach that is supported by PAN 38 on Item 1.31 – Stronger wording than ‘restraint’ regarding Housing Land. Peebles is essential at least until infrastructure is improved. Areas for future development will require a The Structure Plan Alteration is based on the 2004- full survey of the infrastructure incl. roads, a new Tweed based projections which provide the most up to date crossing, health facilities, school capacities, leisure and information available at the time of writing. sports etc. and that a programme of delivery is agreed before any further housing development other than The Structure Plan sets out the housing land social/affordable housing is permitted. Current facilities allowances for the plan period in each of the main are being swamped. The Plan must in regards to settlements and Housing Market Areas. The Peebles, cut back significantly until improvements to the allowances put forward for Peebles and the other main infrastructure have been made. Wording required that settlements in the Northern Housing Market Area housing development does not completely cripple represent a balanced approach to the provision of new facilities and that they are improved in advances of and development to meet the projected housing land with spare capacity to deal with any further housing shortfall. development is essential. Item1.33 - It is a basic error not to include the scenario Policy H4 ‘Five Year Land Supply’ states that in the of the railway if built in the forecasts. Northern HMA additional land will not be brought Item 1.40 – Why is a site for a new village identified in forward in excess of the structure plan allowances for the side valley East of Cademuir hill when Peebles is the period 2007-2018. This is to avoid considered an area of restraint? This emphasises the overdevelopment in the area that is under pressure need for stronger wording than ‘restraint’. due to its proximity to Edinburgh. Principle 3 – Peebles needs to be deleted from (iii) and (v). Land identified in the Development and Landscape Item1.41 – the statement requires to be strengthened Capacity Study ‘New Settlements’ is identifies potential i.e. development should be curtailed until a full search areas for new settlements in landscape terms infrastructure study has been carried out. only and key infrastructure and servicing will be Item 4.2 – All emphasis is on GRO figures that does not considered and public consultation carried out before include the railway. any land is proposed for allocation for housing. Item 4.11 – Concerns expressed about the size of the 20% flexibility and that it is only in one direction. The The Structure Plan set out that there is a need for method synthetically distorts actual requirements and affordable and special needs housing and more only succeeds in providing housing developers a larger detailed policy is included in the Local Plan and lever to push for over supply of land allocation, and not Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable a properly planned and phased release. A base case Housing. should be used and flexibility would give both positive

10 and negative scenarios, so that control in operation of the plan remains both intact and feasible. Item 4.35 – A stronger statement is needed regarding affordable housing that includes the percentage figure 25% minimum instead of by agreement. The Council should pressure The Scottish Government into making funding available to provide urgent required affordable and preferable rented housing which stays available for generations, without giving up large tracts of land for more expensive housing.

Executors of the late David Liddell-Grainger’s Estate Comment noted. The Structure Plan Alteration does Increase the level of provision in the ‘Rest of’’ and the Trustees of the Ayton Castle Estate not allocate specific housing site but sets out the Berwickshire section in Table 6 for the period Maintenance Fund (121) housing requirement for the main settlements and the 2006-2018 up to 100 units. Add to bullet point Eyemouth – The contributor notes the promotion of the Housing Market Areas in the Borders. A Local Plan 8 in para 4.20 as follows: ‘A base level Eastern hub and the housing land allowances in table 6. Amendment will follow on from the Structure Plan provision of 100 units in the period 2006- The contributor submits details on land that would be a Alteration and will allocate sites specific for housing or 2018 is provided in the ‘Rest of Berwickshire’ logical extension to the existing settlement in order to employment. There will be opportunities to contribute area. Amend key diagram accordingly. accommodate proposed future growth and request that to the Amendment through public consultation. the long term development potential of the land is Table 4 of the Consultative Draft sets out the position considered by the Council. in relation to housing land in each of the Housing Ayton – The village is in the Eastern hub and close to Market Areas. In Berwickshire the overall housing the A1 and offers great transport links. The contributor requirement 2006-2018 is 1503. This compares with would welcome an opportunity to discuss the merits of an existing effective and potentially effective land their land in assisting in the future growth of the village. supply of 1437. The Structure Plan Alteration lists the Burnmouth – the village is in the eastern hub. The main settlements in each Housing Market Area and contributor understands that the Finalised Local Plan includes smaller settlements in ‘Rest of HMA’. notes a resistance to development to the north of the Although it is considered that there is sufficient housing settlement on the basis of potential impacts on the supply in Berwickshire it is now proposed to provide a character and setting of the village and the local road base level provision in the short term allowances for network. The contributor was not involved in the LP ‘Rest of Berwickshire’. The justification for this change process but would hope to engage with the Council at is that it is important to provide for potential limited appropriate time to discuss any possible future additional growth in the main villages of Berwickshire development opportunities. to help reduce the demand for housing in the open countryside. In addition, the proposed change reflects the fact that Berwickshire has a large number of effective units on sites outside settlements, which tend to be on smaller sites. Finally, the proposed change is consistent with the Council approach to ‘rural proofing’. The precise location of the proposed allowance within the ‘rest of’ Berwickshire will be addressed within the Local Plan Amendment.

Buccleuch Property (153) Comments noted. The Structure Plan Alteration does No Change. The contributor is supportive of the proposed railway not allocate specific housing site but set out the 11 line however they are keen to see the advantages of housing requirement for the main settlements and the this development balanced with a coherent promotion of Housing Market Areas in the Borders. A Local Plan development in settlements least affected by the Amendment will follow on from the Structure Plan Waverley Line. The contributor considers that Alteration and will allocate sites specific for housing or development should be prompted in the Hawick area. employment. There will be opportunities to contribute The Council should specifically promote strategic to the Amendment through public consultation. residential development in the Hawick area through the SPA. It is also considered appropriate to promote the The Structure Plan Alteration puts forward a balanced development of employment land in Hawick. The series of housing allowances to meet the housing contributor owns land in and around Hawick shortfall in all key settlements including Hawick, The contributor suggests the Council should continue to Newtown St Boswells and Newcastleton. focus on Newtown St Boswells within the SPA and promote development in the local area. Buccleuch The Structure Plan Alteration is taken forward in line Estates consider that increased levels of housing should with national policy including SPP15 on Rural be identified in Newtown St Boswells to support Development and sets out appropriate policies in terms regeneration and deliver the Councils aspirations for the of housing development in the countryside. It allows town. The contributor owns land around Newtown St the scope to develop existing clusters subject to Boswells. acceptability in terms of the existing group and the The contributor identifies the potential for development surrounding environment. Rebuilding or conversion of in Clarilawmuir. It is considered that this location has the existing buildings is also generally acceptable. The potential to accommodate an eco village. The development of new isolated housing or small clusters contributor is keen to support development in is not supported unless there is a clear and specific settlements across the Scottish Borders and supports locational business requirement reflecting their the identification of Newcastleton. The contributor potential to contribute to unsustainable development. considers it important that the need for affordable housing is based on up to date housing needs assessment for each housing market area. It is important that the housing need assessments are kept up to date. The contributor is strongly supportive of SPP15 Planning for Rural Development. The Structure Plan needs to reflect the requirements of SPP15 for residential development in rural areas. It is considered that small scale development associated with existing small settlements in the Scottish Borders should be supported by the SPA. The Structure Plan needs to reflect the requirements of SPP15 for residential development in rural areas. The contributor considers small scale development associated with small settlements in the Scottish Borders should be supported by the SPA. The Structure Plan should allow scope to deliver new clusters and building groups and more meaningful cohesive groups of dwellings with ancillary business space as SPP15 promotes. It is imperative that housing in the countryside is not limited by a subjective approach as to what forms a building group

12 or what might form overdevelopment. Low impact eco- houses should also be encouraged.

NHS Borders (190) Correction on page 47 of the written One stated Principal Aim is ‘Have access to educational Comments noted. The Council is committed to working statement will be made to reflect the and health facilities and resources’. The additional with its New Ways partners to manage the process of information from NHS Borders. The text will population and in particular its distribution will mean change within the Borders. The Structure Plan read as follow; H – (Health body): - NHS extra demands on our local health services and it is supports a strategy where sustainable location is the Borders. essential this is acknowledged. key consideration. The growing population and To date there has been no planning gain accruing to the increasing number of households may create higher NHS and the capital investment made in health centre pressure on existing facilities and infrastructure. Some to keep pace with growing population has already been of this strain can be relieved by the planning process in excess of £5m. The contributor would be keen to through developer contributions where a specific work with Scottish Borders Council to explore planning development will bring facilities or infrastructure to or gain opportunities in connection with enlarging the over capacity. New facilities would need to be planned primary care facilities across the Scottish Borders, in through the planning process. response to new settlements and the general increase in the population. Correction on page 47 of the written statement will be The further growth of 10% forecast in the entire Borders made to reflect the information from NHS Borders. The population will impact on Borders General Hospital, text will read as follow; H – (Health body): - NHS Mental Health, Primary Care Services and budgets for Borders. referral to specialist services outwith the area. NHS Borders is progressing a range of schemes to meet this increase in demand especially that associated with an ageing population. The advent of the proposed ‘hubs’ of Central, Eastern and Western Borders is not currently mirrored by the NHS facilities. The scope of existing facilities may require to be increased to take account of revised population estimates. Access for rural communities requires careful consideration of sustainable transport solutions to allow rural population too access health care facilities. In terms of attracting and retaining staff the contributor would be keen to discuss the need for a sufficient balance of affordable and attractive housing within short travel distance of NHS facilities, well served by public transport. The 3 hubs and 4 housing market areas do not map to the existing area committee structure, which has only recently been mirrored by NHS Borders to aid integration of services in the community and we shall continue to work with out SBC service colleagues to ensure close co-ordination and continued integration of services.

13 A variety of NHS bodies are listed on page 47 of the Written Statement. The only body now is existence is NHS Borders, and the contributor would be grateful if this change could be made. Councillor Davidson (181) Agreed. It is important to retain employment land for Amend policies and text as follows: The contributor disagrees with the presumption that new that purpose where there is likely to be a continuing Policy H3 – amend (iii). The re-use of vacant, housing will be directed to brown field sites due to the demand for such provision. The policy criteria will be derelict, previously developed or lack of employment land and industrial units in and amended to allow the retention of brownfield land for contaminated ‘brownfield’ sites no longer around most Border towns. Brownfield sites are not its original employment purpose where that is required for employment purposes. plentiful in number and should not dilute our options for appropriate. economic development and inward investment. It will Policy H5 – amend wording of policy to; The distort values and make the supply of employment land Policy H3 – amend (iii). The re-use of vacant, derelict, development of brownfield sites for housing and business units more difficult to achieve. The anchor previously developed or contaminated ‘brownfield’ development is supported where the site is point policy must not be so restricted that is become sites no longer required for employment purposes. no longer required for any employment use impossible to meet the criteria. The whole points of it and where it will enhance the form and quality was to make a dispensation for areas in the Southern Policy H5 – amend wording of policy to; The of the urban environment. Such development HMA where building groups of 3 are not the norm or are development of brownfield sites for housing should include appropriate energy very far apart and there is a need for housing to sustain development is supported where the site is no longer conservation and sustainability measures, the local community. We must make sure that we do not required for any employment use and where it will sustainable drainage, and must not lead to an restrict unnecessarily the possibilities of using European enhance the form and quality of the urban adverse impact on floodplain capacity. funding for the supply of small business units in the environment. Such development should include countryside or shared office space. appropriate energy conservation and sustainability Paragraph 4.25 – clarify through addition to measures, sustainable drainage, and must not lead to paragraph; The Plan supports the an adverse impact on floodplain capacity. development of infill and brownfield sites which meet sustainability objectives where Paragraph 4.25 – clarify through addition to paragraph; they are no longer required for employment The Plan supports the development of infill and purposes. Significant brownfield opportunities brownfield sites which meet sustainability objectives will be able to contribute towards meeting where they are no longer required for employment structure plan allowances. purposes. Significant brownfield opportunities will be able to contribute towards meeting structure plan allowances. James D Smith (149) The contributor thinks that the proposed alterations to Comment noted. No Change. the Structure Plan are generally acceptable and the Council have to be commended on producing a document is more in tune with current needs and aspirations. _ _ The contributor urges the Council to consider how to Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration is based No Change. best to use the reduction in GRO projections and on the household projections from the General consequential reduction in demand for housing, to best Register Officer for Scotland, the government’s advisor effect. The contributor suggests to delete the most on demographics. The Structure Plan Alteration is controversial and unpopular housing sites. Paragraph based on the 2004-based projections which are the 1.13, 1.14, 1.39, 4.2, 4.7, 4.8, 4.12 and 4.15 needs most up to date information available at the time of 14 updating due to GRO population projections. writing. GROS consider that the Plan is reasonable in terms of the requirement for housing. Any site specific information will be assessed during the Local plan Amendment that will be carried out during 2008. There will be opportunities to contribute to the Amendment through public consultation. It is considered that the Structure Plan Alteration should continue to be based on the 2004-based population and household projections to ensure a consistent base for the Plan.

_ _ Paragraph 1.16 – why is increased population a positive Increased population will encourage development in No Change. objective? the area both in terms of local business and education. Increased population will also help maintain and improve local services. _ _ Paragraph 1.23 “Reduction of Borders’ dependence of Not accepted the paragraphs are part of the existing No Change. jobs, services and facilities outwith the area” is in approved Structure Plan with the Council aim to conflict with 1.26 and 7.11 – moving commuter provide the right conditions for economic prosperity demands forward. and to reduce dependence on other regions when it comes to jobs, services and facilities but also acknowledge that the region is not entirely self- sufficient. _ _ Paragraph 1.42 Second bullet point – is in conflict with The update box includes references to that the further No Change. revised Principle S2 in which item (iv) and (v) are allowances brought forward by the Structure Plan deleted. Alteration will require to focus across a range of towns in the Central hub area. _ _ Policy 2 - This is unacceptable as it opens potential Not accepted. The Local Plan Amendment will meet No Change. floodgates to ignoring Local Plans. the requirement from the Structure Plan Alteration. The proposed amendment to Policy P2 is to ensure that, if the need should arise, there is a proper planned approach to any identified shortfall I land supply. The provisions of the new Planning Act that require regular updates of the Development Plan should minimise the need to call on this policy. _

_ Paragraph 7.3 First two bullet points are in conflict with Agreed. An Update Box should be introduced Add Update box alongside para 7.3 to explain revised Principle S2 in which items (iv) and (v) are alongside paragraph 7.3 to explain the proposed the proposed strategy revision arising from deleted. strategy revision arising from the Structure Plan the Structure Plan Alteration. Alteration. 15 _ _ Policy P3 – in conflict with revised 1.31. Not accepted. Development is still focused on the hub No Change. areas although the updated policy allows for development to be spread over a larger area within the hub. _ _ Paragraph 7.11 - This is conflict with 1.23 – commuter Not accepted. The two paragraphs are part of the No Change. demand moving southward (increasing is an essential existing approved Structure Plan. Note the Update box aspect of this), and the increase in commuting distance in relation to para7.11. is also in conflict with the guidance on increasing sustainability. _ _ Table 7.2 - Item 1 is in conflict with revised Principle S2 Agreed. It would be useful to note those parts of the Add note to table 7.2 to explain those aspects and revised Policy P1. checklist that are now superceded by the Alteration. of the checklist that have been superceded The contributor believes that the potential adverse effect by the Alteration. of Electricity sub-stations and transmitters in the landscape they should be subject to similar criteria as new housing as specified in Policy H8.

2. Comments on the proposed settlement at Caddon Valley

J. Mellor (140) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the proposed new settlement Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for in the Clovenfords area due to overdevelopment in the new settlements, not actual sites. However, the area and the lack of amenities and inadequate roads. Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any Any new development should be located along the line allowances for potential new or expanded settlements of the railway such as Stow, Fountain Hall, and Heriot within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does as this would make the proposed railway more viable encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be and environmentally friendly. brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan process before allocation for housing.

Fiona Oliver (169) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the proposed new settlement Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for to the North West of Clovenfords. Concerns are raised new settlements, not actual sites. However, the over the scenic beauty of the Caddon Valley which is Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any enjoyed all year round by walkers and cyclists. allowances for potential new or expanded settlements Development on this site will destroy the character and within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does beauty and the nature within it. The contributor also encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be raises concerns over suitable access to the brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any development in addition to the unpredictability of the proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject weather in valley which is different to that experienced to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan in Clovenfords. process before allocation for housing. 16 Dr Catherine Livingstone (137) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the proposed new settlement Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for to the North West of Clovenfords as it contravenes new settlements, not actual sites. However, the Principle S1. The community are strongly against the Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any development, as there is no economic need or allowances for potential new or expanded settlements commercial hub for the development to link into and within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does support. The proposed location is not serviced by any encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be transport infrastructure and will require daily commuting. brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any The land allocated for the development is productive proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject farmland which is in limited in Tweeddale taking it out of to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan production is not sustainable or logical. There is also no process before allocation for housing. support infrastructure for the settlement to draw on. The contributor is against the development being on a greenfield site and a significant distance from the main centres of Galashiels and Melrose. The new settlement would not benefit from the railway and would lead to an increase in car commuting. There are no community benefits of a development that is described in the New Settlements Final Report as an attractive valley and goes against the key role of the Plan in conserving the Borders environmental heritage.

E I Elliot (152) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the proposed new settlement Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for in the Caddon Valley as the existing road infrastructure new settlements, not actual sites. However, the would need to be upgraded to the necessary standard, Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any for the increase in traffic that a new holding would allowances for potential new or expanded settlements attract; this would involve large scale investment. The within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does elevation of the proposed development lies at 200-300m encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be at which levels different weather is experienced than brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any lower parts of the town. The scenic value of the proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject attractive valley is enjoyed by both walkers and cyclists to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan a new development would ruin the landscape and have process before allocation for housing. a significant impact on the nature conservation that takes place within the valley. Both landowners are unwilling to consider a development in this valley.

Andrew Elliot (179) + Petition Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the proposed new settlement Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for in the Caddon Valley as the existing road infrastructure new settlements, not actual sites. However, the would need to be upgraded in addition to a new road Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any being constructed. allowances for potential new or expanded settlements Chapter 7 of the Scottish Borders Development and within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does Landscape Capacity Study – New Settlements – Final encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be 17 report, May 2007 states that “houses… should be brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any orientated to make the most of passive solar gain... and proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject make the most of south and west facing elevations”. to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan The proposed site lies between 200-300m, with the process before allocation for housing. majority of the site lying above 220m SBC appear content with this elevation making oral reference to that “220m is the same as the elevation as the top of Selkirk”. The contributor states that at such levels considerably different weather is experienced than lower parts of the town. The proposal to build the whole of the settlement at this elevation in a group of hills which appears to attract more “weather” than might be expected even by someone residing in Clovenfords appears folly. The character within this scenic valley is enjoyed by both walkers and cyclists and shall be irreversibly altered by a new settlement. Both landowners are unwilling to consider a development in this valley.

Andrew Smith (172) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the proposed new settlement Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for in the Caddon Valley for the following reasons as the new settlements, not actual sites. However, the existing road infrastructure would need to be upgraded Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any in addition to a new road being constructed. allowances for potential new or expanded settlements Chapter 7 of the Scottish Borders Development and within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does Landscape Capacity Study – New Settlements – Final encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be report, May 2007 states that “houses… should be brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any orientated to make the most of passive solar gain... and proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject make the most of south and west facing elevations”. to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan Presuming a new settlement would be designed in the process before allocation for housing. traditional manner of the Borders across the side of the valley; houses will be positioned downhill towards the river facing north and north-east. This proposed site lies between 200-300m, with the majority of the site lying above 220m SBC appear content with this stating that “220m is the same as the elevation as the top of Selkirk”. The contributor states that at such levels considerably different weather is experienced than lower parts of the town. The proposal to build the whole of the settlement at this elevation in a group of hills which appears to attract more “weather” than might be expected even by someone residing in Clovenfords appears folly.

Catriona Bird (173) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. 18 The contributor objects to the proposed new settlement Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for in the Caddon Valley for many reasons but primarily due new settlements, not actual sites. However, the to road access costs and the provision of the necessary Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any infrastructure would not be viable. Increased car allowances for potential new or expanded settlements ownership would increase road congestion in the area. within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does Furthermore another farm (if not two) would disappear encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be from the Borders – against the farmers wishes. The brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any Caddon Valley is a beautiful valley where wildlife thrives proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject therefore there should be no disturbance to this natural to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan habitat. process before allocation for housing.

Ruaridh Kohler (168) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the proposed new settlement Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for identified in the Development and Landscape Capacity new settlements, not actual sites. However, the Study at Craiglatch/ Blackhaugh, objecting to greenfield Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any development stating such developments should be kept allowances for potential new or expanded settlements within existing settlements. within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan process before allocation for housing.

Judith Smith (167) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the proposed plans for a new Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for settlement to be developed between Craiglatch and new settlements, not actual sites. However, the Blackhaugh. The picturesque valley is used for farming, Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any but also for local people for walking, cycling and being allowances for potential new or expanded settlements part of the rural community. The proposed road system within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does do not take into account the commute from the new encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be settlement to reach them, 3 miles to the A7 or 1 mile to brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any Thornielea on twisty, narrow roads that are prone to proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject adverse weather conditions, another factor to be noted if to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan the proposed development is to be built at the planned process before allocation for housing. height of 200-300m. The contributor supports the landowner against this development.

Tony Stevenson (162) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the current bid to form a new Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for settlement in the Caddon Valley. The current road new settlements, not actual sites. However, the network is not capable of taking the extra flow of traffic, Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any sewerage infrastructure is not any where near being allowances for potential new or expanded settlements capable without serious investment. Apart from within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does destroying the rural environment many of the reasons encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be for the Borders being famous and loved throughout the brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any 19 world will be destroyed. Building communities in areas proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject of such beauty and environmental importance which to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan provides habitat protected species of wildlife is not process before allocation for housing. beneficial. There are far better sites if looked at sensibly to build new and affordable housing closer to existing settlements. Planning permission for two superstores in town centre and proposing villages miles away encourage more cars on the roads increasing pollution. It would be better use of space to build affordable housing in town centre where people can walk to shops and amenities instead of benefiting rich companies. Town centres have gone through changes forcing many businesses and shop owners out of business.

Peter Cairns (174) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor notes that land in the Caddon Water Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for Valley is included for consideration as suitable for future new settlements, not actual sites. However, the residential development and appreciates the need to Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any identify areas in the Borders suitable for future allowances for potential new or expanded settlements development. The contributor struggle to see how land within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does in the fertile and relatively inaccessible valley meets encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be criteria outlined for identifying locations suitable for brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any future development. The DLC report acknowledges the proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject need for extensive new road and bridge infrastructure, to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan which the contributor thinks runs contrary to the process before allocation for housing. inclusion criteria. Development in the area where there are no public transport links, no services accessible without a car could ever fulfil the environmental or sustainability criteria outlined in the structure plan. If the intention is to blast a major road through a beautiful area of great local amenity and build expensive car- based commuter housing, then the structure plan should be open and upfront about this. Otherwise the inclusion of this area of land on a sustainable DLC plan is incongruous and at odds with the stated purpose of the plan. The Contributor asks the Council to review inclusion of this area.

M.B Brydon (166) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the two areas identified as Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for 6.1.1.3 Clovenfords and 6.2.1.1 North West of new settlements, not actual sites. However, the Clovenfords listed as suitable for development. These Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any are unsuitable by reason of inadequate road allowances for potential new or expanded settlements infrastructure, proximity in 6.1.1.3 to an outstanding within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does historic group of 17th century cornmill and associated encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be 20 structures in a setting illustrated in an 18th C painting brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any which has scarcely altered. At 6.2.1.1 the site is North proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject facing ie not in accord with stated criteria. It is between to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan 200 and 300m elevation. The quiet agricultural process before allocation for housing. character of this secluded historic side valley would be destroyed by the intrusion of an inappropriate housing development. It would lead to an increase in commuting traffic trying to access the proposed railway at Stow or by road to Edinburgh on the A7.

Valerie Harling (164) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor’s objection is in relation to Search Area Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for under Map 2, specifically the area North West of new settlements, not actual sites. However, the Clovenfords. The contributor is dismayed that Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any consideration is given to a new town in a thriving allowances for potential new or expanded settlements agricultural area of such beauty. This is an expanse of within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does fields and rolling hills, three farms and sporadic encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be dwelling. The loss of such an area would be devastating brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any and the effect on the psyche of the local community proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject would be grossly underestimated and could never be to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan measured. Clovenfords is scheduled to have a new process before allocation for housing. school built by 2010. A new settlement in the area considered would be some 3-4 miles from the new school and problems with multiple cars would occur. The contributor states that with 25% affordable housing and the said settlement not on a bus route the Council would have to provide free taxi provision, under their obligation to provide free transport for primary and secondary children outside of the 2 and 3mile limit and this would increase the bill to SBC considerably. Building the new school and a new settlement such a distance away does not make sense.

Charles Simpson (187) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the identification of the Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for Caddon Valley near Clovenfords as potential area in the new settlements, not actual sites. However, the Borders for future housing development. The contributor Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any states that the method of looking at settlement patterns allowances for potential new or expanded settlements is not relevant today and fresher and more radical ideas within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does may be necessary. Clovenfords developed as a centre encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be for surrounding agricultural community. Caddonfoot brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any developed with the school, church and village hall and proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject Clovenfords had the hotel and shops. As a result there to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan is an almost dysfunctional community with no central process before allocation for housing. focal point. Due to recent rapid development the village 21 has resulted in quite separate and disjointed areas within the general locality of Clovenfords. There is a poor community spirit and many residents have no or little knowledge of its outlying districts and those in outlying agricultural areas have little to do with the village. There is no Gala week today but there was 15 years ago. The western exit road to Peebles – high speed of exiting vehicles and overtaking makes the idea of having an exit road turning off to the right around Caddonmill to a new settlement not sensible. Caddon Valley from Old Redhead and Craiglatch up to Blackhaugh – confluence of valleys around Old Redhead makes it very windy. The contributor notes that the report discusses aspects and microclimates. The contributor states that the climate in the winter in the Caddon Valley is quite different from Clovenfords. The hills of Laidlawsteil and Cauldface on the west of the valley produce drastically cold and dismal shadows, large amount of water pour into the valley, particularly after heavy snow. The roads are icy and treacherous. Further destruction of valuable farmland and Borders way of life must be taken seriously. Recently planning permission has been given to Whytbank Farm for steading conversion. What will become of Laidlawsteil, Newhall and Blackhaugh which is valuable heritage which seems to be being dismissed?

Mr. Herbert Murray and Family (170) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to any plan s for new housing Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for development in the area around Craiglatch to new settlements, not actual sites. However, the Blackhaugh. The contributor is concerned that the Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any proposed primary school might be too small by the time allowances for potential new or expanded settlements it’s built owing to new houses being built in the within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does surrounding area all the time. Clovenfords has changed encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be character from beautiful, unspoilt rural village to a brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any complete mix and match of house styles and shapes, proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject none which complement the area. As far as I am led to to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan believe these new homes are being frantically put up all process before allocation for housing. over the Borders in anticipation of the Waverley Line re- opening. The contributor doesn’t consider the railway project being worth ruining the Borders Countryside since the project is financially unstable. Thousands of new homes will not help local people and first time buyers to get on the property ladder.

22 Jennifer Elliot (138) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor is writing to object to the proposed Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for building of multiple houses at land of Laidlawshiel farm. new settlements, not actual sites. However, the The family has lived in the valley since 1829 and the Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any area is enjoyed by walkers, cyclists, fishermen and allowances for potential new or expanded settlements picnics. The roads are narrow and twisty. It is 3 miles to within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does A7 and 1 mile over steep hill to A72. The weather is encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be very different from Clovenfords because of the height brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any 200 m rising to 300m. During a few days of start of proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject January and mid February 2008 roads were nearly to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan impassable. The contributor thinks this is a most process before allocation for housing. unsuitable valley for the proposed settlement. Gregor Scott (171) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor has the following objections regarding Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for the Caddon Valley; Economic benefits – building a new new settlements, not actual sites. However, the town in this location will bring no sustainable economic Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any benefit to the community, except the short construction allowances for potential new or expanded settlements phase. No long term economic benefit will be achieved within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does since the residential area would be miles away from encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be traditional employment centres and 30 miles from brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any nearest large commercial centre. No immediate proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject availability or provision for premises that would sustain to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan the development of any commercial activity anywhere in process before allocation for housing. the Caddon Valley, unless it is intended to convert existing farm buildings. The development would require every family to have private transport in their daily lives. Environmental considerations – Two cars per family would be required for everyday travel to employment, education and recreation. The impact from car use would overturn any benefits from harnessing solar and wind power. Recommended environmental policy is for new homes to be sites as close to centres of employments as possible to minimise the need to commute. The Caddon valley development appears to contravene this principle in every way. No shops, no schools or commercial activities are within three miles. Transport infrastructure – existing roads are single track and needs to be upgraded. The roads needed would be to feed into the A7 and A72 roads. Te contributor does not believe that the roads are suitable for any more commuting traffic and would become gridlocked at peak commuting times. Every child attending school would be entitled to free transport to the nearest Primary or Secondary school since there are no schools within three miles. Communication limitations – There will be 23 serious difficulties with provision of modern communication services. Residents in the Caddon Valley development would not enjoy high bandwidth or high speed. Topography would make the site unsuitable for delivery of broadband, wireless service, cellular phone and terrestrial digital TV provision. These limits would curtail eventual development of any commercial activity; no business can survive without modern communication provision.

Paul Hayes (139) Comment noted. The Development and Landscape No Change. The contributor objects to the proposed development in Capacity Study focuses on identifying search areas for the Caddon Valley, NW of Clovenfords. new settlements, not actual sites. However, the Site – the proposed site is the main regular water Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any collecting area (flood plain) for rapid storm water runoff allowances for potential new or expanded settlements and common winter rapid thaw events form the within the short term (2006-2018). However, it does surrounding steeper slopes. Flooding here relieves encourage suitable sustainable proposals to be pressure and risk of associated flooding further down brought forward for consideration in the long term. Any the valley and Clovenfords. Development on the site proposed new or expanded settlement will be subject would be in contrast to identified principle dealing with to extensive public consultation through the Local Plan climate change, specifically “the relocation of process before allocation for housing. development away from floodplains of main rivers and their tributaries, which may become subject to increased flooding due to water level rise and extreme weather conditions as a result of climate change.” The introduction of hard surfaces within the proposed settlement area would have a negative impact on the ability of the area to cope with rapid water runoff. Aspect – The proposed site is elevated (200-300meters and acts as wind channel particularly when wind is predominant SW direction. Any development layout may find conflict with a “layout designed to minimise the effect of wind channelling” against being “oriented to make the most of passive solar gain”. Roads – the existing road is a track and a half and meeting traffic involves driving on soft verge. Current roads release pressure from road closures on the A7 and A72 resulting in temporary disruption, congestion and destruction of soft verge. An increase in traffic would exacerbate the problem. Due to position of existing dwellings, upgrade of the roads would involve “extensive earthworks and underbuilding for development, both of which increase the embodied energy used in the construction process” in contrast to the stated principle of Limited Energy Consumptions.

24 Due to shortage of immediate employment, commuting to work would be expected. The likelihood is that public transport would be provided as a route extension so decreasing the frequency of the service. Therefore the constraints of the work commute and the transport of e.g. children to and from school, realistic requirement for shopping, etc. may require most households to own 2 cars. Existing road drainage is poor with the roads regularly flooding. Any alterations to this will impact the volume of water collecting in the valley floor and adding to the flood levels. Services – There is no mains water supply or sewerage infrastructure into the proposed site area. Existing dwellings are spring water fed with septic tanks. Any large scale developments to introduce mains water, sewerage, road upgrading and ultimately the proposed settlement would certainly have a negative impact on the already identified “attractive valley” and “attractive landscape” (6.2.1.1)

3. No comments

West Lothian Council (142) Noted. No Change. The contributor raises no objections to the content of the SPA.

South Lanarkshire Council (192) Noted. No Change. No comments to make on the Plan.

Northumberland County Council (189) Support noted. No Change. Northumberland County Council welcomes the document and has no objections to make.

Cumbria County Council (11) Noted. No Change. No comments.

Lanton Community Council (182) Comment noted. The consultation on the designation No Change. The Community Council has no representations. of the City Region is a separate procedure and the However, there has been discussions regarding consultation has been carried out by the Scottish concerns that Scottish Borders is being included in a Government. predominantly urban planning body and how this may adversely impact on development planning in the Borders.

25 3. General supporting comments

Scottish Rural Property Business Association (18) Support noted. The main development strategy No Change. The contributor welcomes the SPA. The less (Principle S3) sets out the overall approach to the prescriptive nature of the plan should be of benefit to location strategy. The housing land allocations in the members, many of whom own land in locations outwith Structure Plan Alteration focus on the main settlements the major settlements. The changes to the Structure and smaller existing settlements and in the longer term Plan should encourage small developments in smaller potential new or expanded settlements in accordance settlements and outwith settlements, which should with Principle 3. assist in meeting housing need. The Structure Plan Alteration sets out appropriate policies in terms of housing development in the countryside. It allows the scope to develop existing clusters subject to acceptability in terms of the existing group and the surrounding environment. Rebuilding or conversion of existing buildings is also generally acceptable. The development of new isolated housing or small clusters is not supported unless there is a clear and specific locational business requirement reflecting their potential to contribute to unsustainable development. GVA Grimley on behalf of Miller Group (154?) Support noted. The Structure Plan Alteration is No Change. The contributor would like to register their support for prepared in line with SPP3 and PAN38. The Alteration the general aims of the Structure Plan Alteration to takes a positive view towards meeting requirements for increase the delivery of housing land in the Scottish housing and applies a flexibility provision. The housing Borders in line with population and household land allowances set out in the plan include both the projections. It commends the positive attitude towards GRO household projections for the area and 20% sustainable development under Policy H3 Housing Land flexibility to include affordable housing, geographic Allocation. The contributor is keen to see a more flexible dispersal and second homes. GRO commend this approach to housing land allocations in line with the approach. discussion document Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland. The contributor is of the view that the Structure Plan Alteration should adopt a more flexible approach to housing land allowances to reflect the aims of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Borders are seen as a key growth area in Scotland, in terms of projected housing growth areas, according to GROS statistics. The contributor considers it imperative that the Council take an ambitious and flexible view of housing land allocations to meet projected requirements.

Anderson Strathern on behalf of Douglas and Support noted. There is substantial existing supply of No Change. Angus Estates (155) housing land in the Berwickshire Housing Market Area. The contributor supports the Alteration to the Structure This is reflected in the relatively small allowances set 26 Plan and has an interest in Coldstream being the out within the Structure Plan Alteration for the period location of one of their primary landholdings. The 2006-2018. Within Coldstream the current local plan contributor also supports the recognition of Coldstream has identified a significant site amounting to 60 units as a Priority Area of Regeneration. There is a housing that will be able to be developed for both mainstream shortfall in the Berwickshire HMA and there is an and affordable housing. The Alteration further identifies overriding need to allocate housing land to maintain a 5 an allowance for a further 50 units. year supply – a requirement of national planning policy and the Structure Plan itself. The contributor states there has been no affordable housing provision in Coldstream for 10 years, and there is an urgent need in the area. The contributor supports the targets for potential and effective housing land supply in Coldstream and the wider Berwickshire Housing Market Area set out in the Structure Plan Alteration. The importance of providing a mix of housing within the supply, including affordable units should not be overlooked.

Mr and Mrs Aitken (188) Support noted. However, it should be noted that it is No Change. The contributors support the Eastern development hub proposed to identify the longer term allowances by and the allowances for Duns for longer term allocations housing market area rather than by settlement. This of 150 units provided in table 6 of SPA. will allow further detailed consideration of the approach to housing allowances through future strategic and local plans. Jill Noble (158) Support noted. The longer term allowances are subject No Change. Chapter 1 - The contributor supports the suggestion set to review by future strategic and local plans. out in “update” box on page 15 that the Council will consider suitable proposals for new villages or satellite developments for implementation from 2019 onwards within the Northern Housing Market Area. Chapter 4 – The contributor supports the identification of housing land requirement 2019-2026 of 1058 and the longer term allowances 2019-2026 of 500 for “Rest of Northern HMA”. The contributor also supports policy H2 and that the Local Plan should identify land for potential future development for the period 2019-2026. The contributor put forward areas for a potential new village or satellite development to contribute towards meeting the housing land requirement in the Northern HMA 2019-2026.

Scottish Natural Heritage (180) 1/2 Support noted. No Change. SNH commend the clear presentation of the proposed alteration and the associated Report of Survey. SNH have no objections to the proposed alteration. In relation to natural heritage the implications of the proposed 27 alteration primarily relate to landscape and SNH support the conclusions reached by the Council that there are limitations on additional development in the primary core hub. SNH support the use of landscape capacity studies to inform future development patterns and the revised approach to the identification of future opportunities given in the replacement chapter 4.

4. Comments relating to the Development and Landscape Capacity Studies

Smith & Garratt Rural Asset Management (133) Support noted. The reference to the Landscape No Change. The contributor is supportive of population figures and Capacity Study is noted. The Structure Plan Alteration demographics being updated which should lead to the is not site specific. The Landscape Capacity Study is allocation of extra housing land to satisfy demand one element in the overall consideration of the future across the Borders. The contributor objects to contain allocation of land through the Local Plan Amendment the southern edge of Duns with tree planting as shown process. The issue of the need of employment land will in the Design Concept and Landscape Enhancement be assessed as part of the Local Plan Amendment. Proposals. Such containment would restrict the availability of employment land. Duns is a major centre for commerce, industry and employment within the eastern hub and it is essential to safeguard the town’s future. The next revision of the local plan may well need to include a new allocation for employment land; therefore it is inappropriate to block growth to the south of Duns.

CBRE on behalf of Rural Renaissance (122) Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration’s Report of No Change. The contributor objects to the Structure Plan Alteration Survey takes into account a wide range of factors in due to the over reliance on landscape capacity studies setting out the proposed housing land allowances. as the means to identify suitable locations for These include infrastructure (water, waste water, and development. The contributor requests that the SPA education), landscape designations, urban capacity should be amended to include under Principle S2 and flooding. The landscape capacity study clearly (renumbered from Principal S3 in the current Structure states that the landscape is not the sole determinant of Plan) that the Local Plan will be required to identify future development potential. suitable sites to deliver development envisaged by The Structure Plan Alteration is not site specific. The Table 6 of the SPA. The findings of the landscape Landscape Capacity Study is one element in the character studies should be balanced against other overall consideration of the future allocation of land factors before a decision is reached on the appropriate through the Local Plan Amendment process. scale of future development in a particular location. The The Housing Land Requirement is based on a baseline focus on landscape capacity as the main determinant of requirement which include the GRO household future housing allocations in the specified settlements projections and empty properties, demolitions and the ignores wider social and economic factors. The overall requirement includes an additional 20% contributor is concerned that the landscape capacity flexibility. studies will become accepted as baseline and definitive

28 information. Locations not considered suitable for development will be overlooked without any recognition that there are wider factors which influence the location of development. The supporting text should be clear that the landscape capacity studies prepared to date are only part of the analysis and further work will be required to consider other factors. Until that time no sites should be dismissed from the Council’s consideration.

White Young Green on behalf of A & R Brownlie Support noted. The Structure Plan Alteration is not site No Change. Limited (185) specific. Proposals for future development will be The contributor supports further residential development considered in detail as part of the Local Plan in Earlston and promotes the designation of land west of Amendment, and this will include a number of the settlement (Rhymer’s Mill) for longer term settlement infrastructural and service considerations, brownfield expansion. There is no written evidence of any other opportunities, and the landscape capacity study for search areas having been considered by the Council’s Earlston.. The landscape capacity study clearly states appointed consultants. Prior to confirming the preferred that landscape is not the sole determinant of future direction of future growth, therefore it is strongly development potential. suggested that a comprehensive landscape study of all land surrounding Earlston be undertaken. Within this context it is suggested that the potential for growth to the west of Earlston be fully assessed.

Councillor Aitchison (184) Support noted. The proposal for potential new or No Change. The Scottish Borders Development and Landscape expanded settlements for future development provide Capacity Study produced by Alison Grant and others is an indication of potential areas that could be a well produced and easy to read document and in it considered. However, the Structure Plan Alteration there are some very worthwhile proposals. does not identify specific areas, but proposes that There are two parts in it which particularly concern me developers bring forward sustainable proposals for about my area of operations; they are the Lugate Valley, consideration by the Council as part of the long term Stow and The Caddon Water. Whilst I appreciate that provision for housing from 2019-2026. some areas need to be identified for future development Policy H4 in the Structure Plan Alteration addresses which is just posh speak for house building, I find these the concerns expressed over overdevelopment in two to be faulty on a number of fronts. areas in the proximity of Edinburgh. The policy states Lugate Valley – Although this valley runs East-west and that additional land will not be brought forward in therefore fulfils much of the requirements identified by excess of the structure plan allowances for 2007-2018 the authors, it ignores completely the infrastructure in in the Northern Housing Market Area. this area. The Lugate Valley is on the West side of the Gala Water and is remote from the village of Stow. The The comment on the need of mixed facilities in a access road is already busy with the new development community is noted. The potential for new or at Stagehall and any further addition to this road would expanded settlements is a long term process requiring make access ridiculously difficult. The alternative would full involvement from potential developers and service be a completely new road structure and junction in an and infrastructure providers to ensure that it is area which is notoriously accident prone on the A7, a appropriately designed. 29 road which is fast reaching capacity anyway. The cost of this to any developer would be prohibitive and I suggest also to the SBC. The village of Stow is not blessed with a good infrastructure. There are only limited facilities within the village and it is doubtful whether there will be any improvement in the near or even distant future. The last thing we would like here is another architectural and environmental disaster as is Cardrona. There is also a proposal in the Craigend Valley which is also east-west and although the Craigend Road is a very busy road it seems more sensible to concentrate any development in that area which is also hidden from the A7 which is also mentioned in this report as a precondition of development Caddon Water – This proposal is faulty in a similar way. The infrastructure in this area is very limited. Access to the main arterial roads North to Edinburgh is difficult from this area and any further traffic on the side roads which service this area would push them beyond any reasonable capacity. To improve the infrastructure here would be horrendously expensive making any sensible development here out of the question. The valley of the Caddon Water is particularly unspoilt and lovely. A hidden jewel in this area and one which I would hate to see covered in “executive housing” to serve the needs of our vast and over important neighbour, Edinburgh. The height above the valley means that this little corner will have its own “microclimate” and its accessibility in winter weather would be very difficult. I understood when you gave the presentations at Newtown that the Northern margins of this area were to receive special privilege, in that development would be deliberately limited to prevent any concentration of housing in this area nearest to Edinburgh. I hope that these comments will be considered and added to the list of objection/comments added by others to this report. Whilst I appreciate this study was to identify places or areas for new settlements. I hope that if any of these proposals come to fruition that a great deal of thought will be taken to the inclusion of all the things a village needs to be a viable community. Play areas, sports facilities, gardens, shops small industrial units and a mix 30 of housing are all part of the overall necessity as I am sure you are well aware and a disastrous dumping of housing in a new area would be objectionable whichever area was chosen to develop. We don’t need any more golf courses, the ones we have already got are struggling for membership and that bribe from a developer has run its course! 183 3/4 Seed and Co. Support noted. The Structure Plan Alteration lists the No Change. The contributor is pleased to see updated population main settlements and the proposed housing allowance figures and demographics and the proposed allocation in each Housing Market Area. of extra land for housing to satisfy existing and forthcoming demand. _ _ Duns - Area A on Design Concept and Landscape The Structure Plan Alteration does not allocate specific No Change. Enhancement Plan is unsuitable for residential housing site and a Local Plan Amendment will follow development because of wetlands that supports a on from the Structure Plan Alteration and will allocate diverse range of species and difficult to service and sites specific for housing or employment. There will be build without special techniques that may render it opportunities to contribute to the Amendment through uneconomic. More suitable land is t the north, which is public consultation. shown on the plan as private parkland to the rear of Wellfield House. The development potential here appears to have been overlooked. Opportunity to develop land o the west of Cheeklaw has also been overlooked. At Cheeklaw that ground conditions should be ideal for construction, backdrop is existing townscape and development will improve transport links into and around town.

John Duff Planning – Belinda Nunn (145) Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration identifies No Change. The contributor objects to the lack of land allocated in development ‘hubs’ but also states that the potential the Melrose area. The land put forward by the for additional development in the primary core hub has contributor is infrequently used for pony grazing. The limitations. Therefore, the Structure Plan Alteration contributor is pleased to see the positive view in terms focuses on a range of towns across the Central hub of growth taken by the Council. The contributor also area. notes the intention to focus growth in the Central The Structure Plan Alteration sets out the housing land Borders HMA where the best opportunities for requirements and housing land allowances per new/existing residents to use the reopened Waverley Housing Market Area and main settlement. Melrose is line to Edinburgh. The contributor notes and supports an area with recognised landscape capacity constraint the 7074 houses proposed between 2006-2026. and has no substantial land allowances identified in the Melrose has proven one of the most attractive locations Structure Plan Alteration. for house purchasers but the proposed Structure Plan The Structure Plan Alteration does not allocate specific Alteration makes no allocation to respond to this strong housing sites but sets out the housing requirement for market demand. the main settlements in the Borders Housing Market Areas. A Local Plan Amendment will follow on from the The contributor promotes a gap site which could be Structure Plan Alteration and will allocate sites specific 31 developed as a continuation of previous successful for housing or employment. There will be opportunities development and there is a clear planning boundary. to contribute to the Amendment through public The contributor is pleased to note that there is spare consultation. capacity in water/sewerage systems for the development. The schools operate over capacity and the Council should be obliged to improve the position to allow satisfactory spare for the children and staff / hence if schools are upgraded it is an ideal time to promote more growth to utilise the new capacity and to help fund the new provision which would otherwise have to be paid for entirely by the Authority. In the plans provided the Council’s external advisor identifies the contributors land as steep slopes but does not recognise that the existing development has been successfully developed on similar slopes and the area has proved to be one of the most popular areas for house purchasers. The clear planning boundary would limit this development. The contributor supports the ambitious plans for growth and believes that the growth will have positive benefits for the local/regional economies and provide additional customers to the Waverley Railway line. However the contributor is disappointed that no housing has been allocated to Melrose which is considered as a mistake since Melrose has been proven popular with house purchasers. The contributor’s site would continue existing pattern of growth and is an infill site and can utilise / help fund already required infrastructure. The contributor would like to reach a mutually beneficial solution with the Council and would thereafter be happy to withdraw their objection. 5. Comments relating to Policy H2 and H4

Ryden on behalf of Tweed Homes (125) Not accepted. The provision of 50 units in this area is No Change. 1/2: Table 6 - The contributor proposes that the considered to be adequate in terms of the overall land Structure Plan Allowance for the Rest of the Northern supply position and the limited number of villages in Housing Market Area for the period 2006-2018 be the housing market area. increased to 160 units or more if appropriate. _ _ The contributor proposes that West Linton be identified Noted. Policy H2 as currently set out in association No Change. as a priority as an expanded settlement in the period with Table 6 would allow developers to bring forward 2019-2026. proposals for consideration by the Council to meet the indicative allowances for 2019-2026. In the Northern Housing Market area the Structure Plan proposes 500 units that could be met through proposals for potential

32 new or expanded settlements.

_ _ Policy H2 – The contributor propose that an additional Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration is set out No Change. sentence be added to the policy: ‘Longer term to assist in preventing rapid overdevelopment within allocations can be brought forward and granted the Northern Housing Market Area due to the demand planning consent if monitoring shows that there is a from Lothian Housing Market Area. Unfettered shortfall of effective housing land against the 5 year provision of land in the Northern Housing Market Area minimum requirement at any time’. would lead to unsustainable development leading to Policy H4 – The contributor proposes that additional increased levels of commuting to Edinburgh and wording is added to this sentence in the policy to read increased pressure on infrastructure and services. The ‘…unless monitoring shows there is a shortfall of suggestion for change in policy H2 and H4 would effective housing land against the 5 year minimum potentially go against such provision. requirement at any one time.

Turley Associates on behalf of CALA Management Noted. The terms of the objection are not clear. No Change. (159) However, the landscape capacity study will provide The contributor objects to the statement the “Western part of the context for the consideration of future Hub will centre on Peebles with the focus for most new development within Peebles. development lying to the east of the town”. This matter has subsequently been considered at a public inquiry on objections to the Finalised Draft Local Plan, with the Reporter supporting the principle of development to the east of Peebles. The proposed Development Strategy of the Consultation Draft Structure Plan Alteration (SPA) states that, “The Western Hub, particularly at Peebles, has been subject to significant development pressure that will require to be distributed over a wider area. In addition, a landscape capacity study undertaken by the Council provides the context for the future development of Peebles.

_ _ Policy S3 –Development Strategy – of the approved Noted. However, the renamed Principle S2 No Change. Structure Plan is proposed to be amended in the SPA to ‘Development Strategy’ suggests deleting point (iv) delete reference to potential areas of substantial new and (v) but still includes reference to preferred areas development. In particular, it deletes reference to for focus of development in point (i), (ii) and (iii). This support the principle of longer term substantial clearly refers to the western development hub with a development in the Peebles area. focus on the Peebles/Innerleithen/Central Borders axis.

_ _

33 Proposed Policy H4 – states that “In the Northern Not accepted. The current Structure Plan identifies No Change. Housing Market Area (which includes Peebles additional issues relating to ‘area of restraint’ in North Tweeddale land will not be brought forward in excess of the and North Ettrick and Lauderdale Housing Market Structure Plan allowances for the period 2007-2018”. An Areas. The Structure Plan Alteration identifies the update box in chapter 7, Implementation and Monitoring Northern Housing Market Area as being subject to states that the SPA, “proposes that the Northern pressures from Lothian Housing Market Area and Housing Market Area is an area of restraint (see Policy proposes that it meets the requirement set out H4)”. The contributor objects that Peebles should still be (including 20% flexibility) but that additional seen as a focus for development with most new development will be restrained. Unfettered development lying to the east of the town. There is no development would lead to unsustainable development justification for it being part of any area of restraint or for leading to increased levels of commuting to Edinburgh it having any moratorium on housing development and increased pressure on infrastructure and services. imposed. This would prejudice the delivery of wider benefits for Peebles, while exacerbating problems with housing affordability and need. _ _ In addition the housing requirement work, as well as the Noted. The Allowances for the Finalised Structure Plan No Change. distribution of opportunities in Table 6 should be re- are subject to appropriate change in response to the considered. consultation process. _ _ Development and Landscape Capacity Study should not Noted. The landscape capacity study is only one No Change. alone dictate the context of future development in element of the issues that needs to be taken into Peebles. Further work should be carried out. The scope consideration in future allocation of housing land. The of the DLCS fails to properly consider mitigation Structure Plan Alteration’s Report of Survey takes into measures, technical solutions or the benefits a account a wide range of factors in setting out the development can bring to the town to offset any proposed housing land allowances. These include landscape impact concerns. The work used to justify a infrastructure (water, waste water, and education), reduction the HMAs in the Borders from four to seven landscape designations, urban capacity and flooding. has weaknesses. It is based upon out dated information The landscape capacity study clearly states that the and is not representative of the marketplace. Recent landscape is not the sole determinant of future CALA developments at Peebles have been subject to development potential. high levels of purchasers originating from the Peebles area.

6. Comments relating to Policy H3 and H5

Scottish Enterprise Borders (126) Agreed. It is important to retain employment land for Amend policies and text as follows: The contributor raises concerns over Policies H3 and that purpose where there is likely to be a continuing Policy H3 – amend (iii). The re-use of vacant, H5. Generally the residential redevelopment of demand for such provision. The policy criteria will be derelict, previously developed or brownfield sites is welcomed by the contributor as it amended to allow the retention of brownfield land for contaminated ‘brownfield’ sites no longer would allow for redevelopment of multi-storey mill its original employment purpose where that is required for employment purposes. buildings which would otherwise remain vacant with the appropriate. prospect of falling into dereliction as such property is Policy H5 – amend wording of policy to; The

34 unsuitable for modern business use. The harnessing of Policy H3 – amend (iii). The re-use of vacant, derelict, development of brownfield sites for housing residential demand in such circumstances would previously developed or contaminated ‘brownfield’ development is supported where the site is produce an environmental and visual improvement, sites no longer required for employment purposes. no longer required for any employment use while reducing the pressures of development on and where it will enhance the form and quality agricultural land. The higher residential land values offer Policy H5 – amend wording of policy to; The of the urban environment. Such development an opportunity to recycle derelict and contaminated land development of brownfield sites for housing should include appropriate energy which may not be a viable proposition for business development is supported where the site is no longer conservation and sustainability measures, space development, given the lower values for the latter required for any employment use and where it will sustainable drainage, and must not lead to an use. There is concern however that residential market enhance the form and quality of the urban adverse impact on floodplain capacity. might, supported by the policies bid residential values environment. Such development should include for industrial brownfield sites which potentially may be appropriate energy conservation and sustainability Paragraph 4.25 – clarify through addition to suitable for business use, which would be more than the measures, sustainable drainage, and must not lead to paragraph; The Plan supports the business space market could offer. The effect would be an adverse impact on floodplain capacity. development of infill and brownfield sites the removal of business space land and buildings from which meet sustainability objectives where an already tight market. Alternatively industrial firms Paragraph 4.25 – clarify through addition to paragraph; they are no longer required for employment might see encouragement to sell their property assets The Plan supports the development of infill and purposes. Significant brownfield opportunities for residential redevelopment due to higher values brownfield sites which meet sustainability objectives will be able to contribute towards meeting associated with housing development which would where they are no longer required for employment structure plan allowances. exclude other industrial demand. Residential developers purposes. Significant brownfield opportunities will be may be prepared to purchase industrial property and able to contribute towards meeting structure plan effectively remove it from the market with a view to allowances. seeking a residential consent as and when the property falls into a neglected ‘brownfield’ land condition. It is considered therefore that in the context of the shortage of supply of land for business space development some safeguards may be require to be drawn up in order to achieve a balance of the potential advantages of harnessing residential development pressures by recycling difficult sites encouraging speculation.

SEPA (128) The contributor is of the view that Policy H3 Housing Agreed. A further criterion to be added to policy as A further criterion to be added to policy H3 as Land Allocation is a thorough policy however whilst follows- ‘the impact upon the natural environment follows- ‘the impact upon the natural criterion (vii) cover impacts upon the man-made including air quality, soil quality and the water environment including air quality, soil quality environment, there is no such criterion to cover the environment ‘. and the water environment ‘. impacts upon the natural environment. The contributor recommends that Policy H3 is amended to include: ‘the impact upon the natural environment including air quality, soil quality and the water environment. _ _ No Change. The contributor supports the statement in Policy H3 that Support noted. Local Plans will allocate sites for housing that meet the criteria of (iv) ‘the avoidance of flooding’. This view is supported by draft (internal) SEPA policy on flood risk, SPP7 ‘Planning and Flooding’ and the work of the

35 Flooding Issues Advisory Committee. _ _ Policy H3 Criterion (xi) – when allocating land for Comments noted. Criteria (xi) cover the issues No Change. housing to meet the predicted demand, the Council mentioned by the contributor. should be aware of the issues of compatibility of development to ensure that amenity issues do not arise, i.e. good choice of location reduced the need for regulation, with particular emphasis on noise and air quality. _ _ The contributor supports the reference in Paragraph Support noted. It is agreed that Paragraph 4.27 will be Paragraph 4.27 will be updated to read; ‘New 4.27 to the issues of flooding, SUDS and energy updated to read; ‘New housing in built-up areas housing in built-up areas must take account conservation. However no mention is made on the role must take account of sustainable flood of sustainable flood management issues and of sustainable waste management. The contributor is of management issues and not impact on the not impact on the floodplain’s capacity to hold the view that Paragraph 4.27 provides the opportunity to floodplain’s capacity to hold water or make water or make flooding worse elsewhere. It include such reference in order to ensure the SPA flooding worse elsewhere. It must also take must also take account of sustainable urban conforms to the National Waste Plan, Area Waste Plan, account of sustainable urban drainage systems, drainage systems, sustainable waste National Waste Strategy and SPP10 ‘Planning for sustainable waste management and energy management and energy conservation Waste Management. The contributor recommends that conservation principles.’ principles.’ Paragraph 4.27 is amended to read: …sustainable urban drainage systems, sustainable waste management and energy conservation principles. _ _ The contributor notes that Policy H5 states that the Agreed. Policy H5 Brownfield Development to be Policy H5 Brownfield Development to be development of brownfield sites for housing must not updated to read; ’Such development should include updated to read; ’Such development should lead to an adverse impact upon flood plain capacity. appropriate energy conservation and sustainability include appropriate energy conservation and Whilst the contributor agrees with this statement, SEPA measures, sustainable drainage, and must not lead to sustainability measures, sustainable contributor would wish to highlight that brownfield sites an adverse impact on floodplain capacity and the water drainage, and must not lead to an adverse should meet the requirements set out in SPP7 with environment.’ impact on floodplain capacity and the water particular regard to paragraphs 26 and 27 and the Risk environment.’ Framework. The contributor recommends that development of brownfield sites within the functional floodplain should not involve changes to a more flood sensitive use in accordance with the provisions of SPP7. In order to take account of possible contaminated land issues when developing brownfield sites the contributor recommends that he impact upon water quality should also be referred to in the policy. The contributor recommends that Policy H5 is amended to read …not lead to an adverse impact on floodplain capacity and the water environment. _ _ The contributor supports the reference to sustainable Accepted in part. Policy H3 Housing Land Allocation Policy H3 ‘Housing Land Allocation’ will be construction and energy efficient design in Policies H6, will be renamed to Housing Land Allocation and renamed to ‘Housing Land Allocation and H7 and H8. However none of the mentioned policies Development to cover housing land allocations and Development’ to cover housing land

36 make reference to flooding. The contributor is of the proposals. allocations and development proposals. opinion that it is not just allocated sites but also Amend first sentence of policy to read ‘Sites brownfield sites which will need to be considered for for housing will require to meet the key flood risk. In order to ensure consistency with Policy H3 sustainability and design requirements of the and H4, SEPA recommends that the avoidance of Council.’ flooding is referred to in the above Policies H6, H7 and Replace para 4.23 as follows:’In the H8. consideration of sites for housing a range of criteria will be used to ensure that the Development Strategy is successfully implemented.’ _ _ Housing in the Countryside has the potential to impact Comment noted. To avoid repetition it is proposed to Policy H3 ‘Housing Land Allocation’ will be upon the water environment, especially where no mains amend the name of policy H3 Housing Land Allocation renamed to ‘Housing Land Allocation and sewage connection is available. The contributor to Housing Land Allocation and Development to Development’ to cover housing land therefore recommends that Policies H6, H7 and H8 or include both housing land allocations as well as allocations and development proposals. their supporting text should make reference to the applications. Amend first sentence of policy to read ‘Sites protection of the water environment. for housing will require to meet the key sustainability and design requirements of the Council.’ Replace para 4.23 as follows:’In the consideration of sites for housing a range of criteria will be used to ensure that the Development Strategy is successfully implemented.’

_ _ The contributor has assessed Table 8 ‘Capacity in Comments noted. The Council has regular liaison No Change. Waste Water Treatment Works (Page 13 and 14, Report meetings with Scottish Water and information from the of Survey). The contributor has highlighted the towns meeting have informed the Structure Plan Alteration. where there appears to be a discrepancy between the The Council has had further discussion with Scottish capacity stated in the Report of Survey and the figures Water to inform the finalisation of the Structure Plan that were agreed with SEPA in 2006. It should be noted Alteration. that the agreed figures of 2006 may have been superseded through discussions with the Council and Scottish Water. The towns where there appears to be a discrepancy are Kelso, Melrose, Newtown St Boswells, St Boswells, Coldstream, Duns, Peebles, Walkerburn/ Innerleithen and West Linton. _ _ The contributor is please to see that reference has been Agreed. Third sentence in paragraph 14.1 to be Third sentence in paragraph 14.1 to be given to the SEPA flood map. The contributor updated to read; ‘SEPA has produced Indicative River updated to read; ‘SEPA has produced recommends that the working in sentence three of and Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) that identifies areas Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map paragraph 14.1 of Section 14 Flooding ‘second that are estimated to be at risk of flooding from rivers (Scotland) that identifies areas that are generation flooding maps’ is replaced with the correct or the sea if there is no flood defences.’ estimated to be at risk of flooding from rivers terminology to read ‘Indicative River and Coastal Flood or the sea if there is no flood defences.’

37 Map (Scotland)’. _ _ The Contributor notes that the Council has carried out Noted. The flood assessment included in the Local No Change. preliminary work in seven settlements with significant Plan Amendment will use information provided by flooding issues to create an implementation strategy for SEPA and other Council departments. a Flood Alleviation scheme, and a prioritisation programme has been drawn up. The contributor is unsure whether this information in addition to the Indicative Rive and Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) will be used to inform the Local Plan Amendment that will take forward the housing allowance identified in the SPA as outlined in Paragraph 7.2 of Consultative Draft Written Statement). In order to provide a sustainable approach to flood risk, SEPA recommends that a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is carried out to inform the proposed Local Plan Amendment. _ _ The contributor makes flooding comments on sites Noted. Information from SEPA will be used in the No Change. within the Urban Capacity Study. development of the Local Plan Amendment. 7. Comments relating to Policy H6 and H7

Ristol (186) Support noted. The definition used for building group is No Change. Ristol support the aims of policy H7 but raise concerns set out in Appendix H2. over the definition of a building group. Drawing on the guidance in SPP15 and precedents from other authorities the plan should note building groups can include small settlements existing steading buildings and brownfield sites. _ _ In Appendix 2, Rebuilding of existing dwelling, Policy H6 It is agreed that high quality and innovative design are No Change. criteria 8 should apply a degree of latitude on the actual important as is sound site planning. The 100% cap is a extend of the previous building and should encourage subsidiary part of the assessment of proposals (see high quality and innovative design. The focus of list of criteria on page 52). Appendix 2, New housing associated with building groups, Policy H7 criteria 8 should not be on setting a cap on the number of properties, but rather facilitate sound site planning. As such the 100% cap should be deleted.

8. Comments relating to housing and population figures

Elphinstone Estates (163) Para 1.2: It should be noted that the Scottish Noted. The Structure Plan Alteration has been No Change.

38 Government has recently published a draft SPP3 – prepared in line with existing national policy and advice Planning for Housing. Whilst the Draft SPP was not set out in SPP3 and PAN38. The consultative draft available to the authority at the time of writing the SPP3 is yet to be finalised and the Council has Alteration, its guidance should be taken into account in expressed a number of substantive reservations in the Final Plan. response to the Government’s consultation. _ _ Paras. 1.12 to 1.15 and 1.39: It is stated in the Not accepted. The updates to the Structure Plan No Change. Alteration that a major aim of the plan is to halt the strategy approved in 2002 make it clear that the slowing of population and household growth (+15% and Alteration is based on the latest household projection +23% respectively) which is projected by GROS. figures provided by GROS. The GROS figures are However the strategy in Principle S2 adds only 2% to given further flexibility of 20%. This approach is the 10% GROS estimate for household growth by 2011. supported by GROS in their response to the Whilst it is important that plans should be Consultative Draft Plan. implementable, this appears to be an unambitious target and one which does not reflect the Scottish Governments aspirations to build 35,000 houses nationally. The contributor notes that the longer term target of 23% by 2024 is the same as the GROS estimate and so contains no aspirational element which would help to lead to a reversal of the negative trends identified at para. 1.25. _ _ Para 4.5: The view of the contributor is that the housing Not accepted. The Housing Market Areas have been No Change. market in the Borders is a highly localised one and so put forward on basis of analysis in line with advice the proposal to reduce the number of housing market provided by Communities Scotland. Communities areas from seven to four would not be supported by the Scotland has expressed support to the Council’s contributor. The existing market area system should be revised Housing Market Areas. It is noted that the retained, since it more accurately reflects the settlement current Lothian Structure Plan has one Housing Market pattern than the proposed system. Also since the Area ranging from Dunbar to Livingston. imminent Strategic Development Plan for Lothian, Fife and Borders is already in preparation and will presumably reconsider the issue of housing market areas it would seem imprudent to make a change at present, within a few years of the new system being introduced. The contributor is strongly of the view that the existing seven HMA system should remain until this is reviewed as part of the new strategic development plan. Preferably this should be augmented by a settlement study which will ensure an adequate distribution of effective sites in each settlement. _ _ The contributor expresses a need for further analysis Not accepted. Significant opportunities have been No Change. which is demonstrated at Table 5. This shows for identified in Newtown St Boswells. The Local Plan example that in Newtown St Boswells, a substantial agreed by the Council for adoption includes an settlement, there were only 4 housing completions effective and potentially effective supply of 80 units

39 between 2002 and 2006. This illustrates a lack of (see Table 6), and a further 900 units are identified in opportunity which needs to be addressed urgently. the Structure Plan Alteration. _ _ Para 4.11: the 20% supply flexibility is welcomed, but as Support noted. The additional flexibility is over and No Change. stated above, the distribution of sites should also be above the household projections published by General considered. Register Officer for Scotland. The Structure Plan Alteration considers the distribution of sites at a settlement and Housing Market Area level. _ _ Policy H1: The contributor welcomes this policy and its Support noted. The proposal will be taken forward No Change. allocation of 900 units in Newtown St Boswells. through the formal planning process and by the However concerns are raised at the method of preparation of a masterplan by the developers. delivering this through further Local Plan Alteration and Structure Plan Alteration and the Local Plan the potential delays and uncertainties this could lead to. Amendment will be brought forward as expeditiously Alternatives to a review of the Local Plan should be as possible to ensure continuing provision of housing explored with interested parties with a view to allowing land within the region. the housing development and the regeneration of the village to proceed as quickly as possible. This may involve interim planning guidance as suggested at Para 7.3 and Policy P2 of the Alteration, or other measures.

Clovenfords and District Community Council (21) Accepted in part. The Structure Plan Alteration makes The longer term allowances will be expressed We note that the Housing land Allowances in table 6 on no housing land allowance for the period 2006-2018 in in the Plan by Housing Market Area rather page 27 are at this current stage considerably out of line light of the existing provision of land identified in the than by settlement. This will require a with the combined total of (i) application pending housing land audit as at 2006 and taking into rewording of policy H2 to remove the approval and (ii) the allocations of land for housing consideration the completion of housing development requirement to identify land for potential detailed in the finalised version of the Local Plan. We in the village over the last few years. This is the longer term development within the Local calculate at the current date the effective and potential snapshot baseline used to inform the Plan. The Plan Plan Amendment. housing land supply is 77 in sites with full planning does make potential provision of 100 units for the Policy H2 to be reworded as follows: replace permission where construction has not been completed period 2019-2026 but clearly stated that this will be ‘should’ with ‘may’. or has not started. We are aware of sites where full subject to review by future strategic plans. However, it Replace Para 4.21 with the following wording: planning permission has been applied for totalling 16 is proposed that the longer term allowances will be ‘Longer term allowances are expressed by units and the finalised local plan has identified sites for a expressed in the Plan by Housing Market Area rather housing market area to provide an indicative further total of 66 units. We conclude that the SPA totals than by settlement. This will allow the future strategic view of future housing requirement, subject to of 64 and 0 would be 77 and 82 respectively if current plan to put forward a development strategy in full review by the future Strategic Development figures are used. consideration of all relevant factors in the light of the Plan. These figures represent a growth since 2006 of over indicative housing allowances within each housing Amend Key Diagram accordingly. 60% of the number of houses within the settlement market area. boundary of Clovenfords. This would follow growth between 2002 and 2006 in excess of 25% on your own figures (table 5). These combined growth figures are higher than the total growth figures detailed in table 5 and 6 for any other settlement in the Central HMA with the possible exception of Newtown St Boswells. The growth currently proposed for Clovenfords is far in

40 excess of the average growth in housing projected to be required across the Central Housing market Area. We therefore want the total shown for the Structure Plan Longer Term Allowances 2019-2026 to be reduced from the 100 identified in your document to 0, after the totals shown for 2006 and for 2006-2018 are adjusted to the current figures as we have detailed above. We do not want the SBC development plans to allocate any more housing to our village over that in current pending application as detailed in the Finalised Local Plan. We are supportive of growth in the village, as this improves the viability of the limited commercial and community facilities we have already but we want to see growth at a pace that the community can accommodate so that the households which are new to the village can integrate into the community. We don’t want Clovenfords to become a surrogate new-town which is one of the risks of expansion at an excessive speed. _ _ We note the proposed Policy H9 in regard to Affordable Noted. In relation to affordable housing the Council has No Change. and Special Needs Housing. Our community Council affordable housing policy and supplementary planning would welcome the provision of Affordable and Special guidance on affordable housing which set out the level Needs Housing integrated into developments within our of requirement needed in each Housing Market Area. village. It is of some concern to us that in regard to The current level of contributions to affordable housing recently approved developments response given to is 25% in Clovenfords. The new site allocated in the representations concerning the provision of affordable local plan approved for adoption would generate housing in Clovenfords have included “there is no approximately 15 affordable units. demand for affordable housing in Clovenfords” and “there are not the facilities in Clovenfords We would point out that the latter statement is something of a self fulfilling declaration. _ _ We are concerned that there is an aging population the Support noted. The affordable housing policy and up- No Change. our village and we would welcome renewal and new to-date Local Housing Strategy and housing needs families We want to support Policy H9 (in general) as assessment identify and try to meet any local need to applied to our village and look forward to working mitigate lack of appropriate housing in the area. constructively with Councillors and Planning Officials to see that the Policy is put into effect and that assumptions about demand and about the lack of facilities are vigorously challenged. _ _ We are alerted by the comments in Paragraph 4.22 Comments noted. The Structure Plan Alteration is not No Change. (page 28) to the possibility that SBC would look to site specific. However, it does recognise the potential substantive settlement expansions or new settlements future requirement for housing land in the period 2019- to assist in meeting a shortfall in housing sites in the 2026. The level of this requirement suggests that the

41 Central Housing Market Area. We note that this shortfall Council may require to consider meeting that (1600 euphemistically allocated to ‘Rest of Central requirement through a range of development options HMA) is itself a substantial proportion of the housing including substantial settlement extension or through growth for the Central HMA. We also note the contents the identification of new settlements. Therefore, the of the Development and Landscape Capacity Study Structure Plan Alteration raises this possibility and (page 9) within the Report of Survey. In particular we alerts the development industry to this option. This see that Clovenfords is identified in Appendix 4 of the recognises that such options take considerable time to Study as both an opportunity for Potential Side Valley bring to fruition if they are to be properly sustainable Extension and as a potential New Side Valley and masterplanned. The Development and Landscape Settlement. We consider that this raises two issues Capacity Study focuses on identifying potential search which we wish to address in this representation. areas for new settlements, not actual sites. The Structure Plan Alteration does not identify any We would not be in favour of a new settlement in the allowances for potential new settlements within the location identified North West of Clovenfords. We do not short term (2006-2018). Any proposed new or see that a new settlement near Clovenfords will make expanded settlement will be subject to extensive public any contribution to our village or meet any of out consultation before allocation for housing. concerns whilst at the sae time it would increase the housing and encroach on the countryside near our village. Further the provision of access and services to anew settlement in that location would be both expensive and disruptive.

We have clearly stated we do not want to see further growth (over and above that applied for and identified in the Local Plan) Within or as an extension to the settlement boundary of the village of Clovenfords, throughout the timescale of the Structure Plan. The 2005 version of the Local Plan stated preferred areas for expansion beyond the period of the Local Plan (2011) were in the North East and South of the village. This Report of Survey now identifies a potential for side valley extension towards the North West. It is contradictory and open to ridicule that the different documents indicate potential expansion in three different directions of the village; this is no guidance for potential developers and a recipe for confusion. We do not want directions for future extension to be identified ion any development plans. If new build is forced on the community we would wan tot be consulted on the location, size and nature of development before it is incorporated in any future Development Plans. Peebles Civic Society (151) Noted. The Structure Plan Alteration is taken forward No Change. The contributor questions the size of the flexibility factor in line with national planning policy. PAN38 on Housing and the way it is used as an addition to the Baseline Land states that flexibility should be built into Housing Land Requirement to produce the Overall development plan housing land allowances to allow for

42 Housing Land Requirement for the 20-year period of the sites assessed as effective which fail to be developed. plan. The projections does not take specific account of the Regarding its size the flexibility factor used in the Waverley project but a further 20% flexibility is built in Alteration is 20%. This is double the 10% factor used in to the overall housing land requirement to take into the Structure Plan and Local Plan. Such an increase account factors related to affordable housing, needs to be justified by evidence that 10% has been geographic dispersal and second homes. It should be inadequate in the past or the future situation will be noted that the demand for housing land within the sufficiently changed to warrant the increase. Para 4.9 Borders continues at a substantive level and that it is says that the flexibility Factor is in accordance with important to ensure that future housing provision is Scottish Planning Policy to provide for a range and properly planned through the Local Plan Amendment choice of sites for development – i.e. it is to provide and by the preparation of site planning briefs. If alternative sites not additional sites, for development demand substantially outstrips supply then the Council during the period (and certainly not additional houses). may be faced with dealing with planning applications The contributor states that the purpose of the flexibility on an ‘ad hoc’ basis that may not be in the best factor is simply to provide flexible site opportunities for interests of the community. On the other hand if there developers. Whilst even the need for this is is a potential overprovision then this would be built into questionable, as planning should allocate the required the process of future development plans. range of site types and locations to meet the needs of the community, it is difficult to imagine that the genuine operational needs of developers warrant a 20% allowance. The size of the flexibility factor would not be important if it were not for the way in which this land or site flexibility allowance transmits into being presented as the actual number of housing units required. Therefore all that is needed for flexibility is a statement that Local Plans will allocate, solely to provide site flexibility, 10/20% more land that is required to meet the current 5 year housing requirement. _ _ Policy H4 is a most necessary and welcome policy. Support noted The Plan requires to provide land for No Change. However accurate monitoring of completions and control housing development in line with national planning of planning consents will be essential to ensure that this policy, in particular SPP3 ‘Planning for Housing’ and policy is compatible with the requirement to maintain a 5 PAN38 ‘Housing Land’. Therefore the Structure Plan year supply of housing land at all times. If planning Alteration provides the full requirement (including 20% consents matching the Structure Plan allowance are flexibility) in relation to the Northern Housing Market exhausted before the end of the relevant period there Area, but proposes through Policy H4, to limit the will, inevitably be pressure to vary the policy and such provision to meeting the requirement This is to avoid pressure needs to be avoided. Monitoring of overdevelopment in the area that is under pressure completions should be against the Baseline due to its proximity to Edinburgh. Requirement, not against that estimate plus a site flexibility allowance. _ _ The contributor comments on the current situation in Noted. The Housing Land Audit (HLA) monitors No Change. Peebles, raising concerns the Overall Housing Land housing land supply and completions. The HLA is Requirement for Peebles which will be achieved well undertaken on an annual basis and includes sites that

43 before 2018. The contributor foresees a genuine are programmed to be developed within 5-7 years and problem in controlling development in the context of the identifies if sites are available to meet the housing land maintenance of the 5 year land supply. The contributor requirement. states the priority requirement is for an effective means of controlling planning consents so that development does match the housing requirement (not the housing land requirement) and is evenly phased over the period.

MFA on behalf of Carmarthen Development Limited (157) Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration is No Change. The contributor welcomes the review of the Structure prepared in line with SPP3 and PAN38. The Alteration Plan considers it very necessary to ensure that, in takes a positive view towards meeting requirements for particular the future housing land requirements area housing and applies a flexibility provision. The housing based upon the most up to date and relevant population land allowances set out in the plan include both the figures and projections. The Council’s strategy of GRO requirement for the area and 20% flexibility to accommodating this significant projected population include affordable housing, geographic dispersal and increase is to direct allocations across the Central Hub, second homes. The housing allowances set out in the in the main because of the perceived lack of new land Structure Plan Alteration meet the projected shortfall in for additional housing elsewhere. It is contended that each of the Housing Market Areas across the region. this strategy is flawed as it does not allow for an This provides an appropriate and equitable distribution equitable distribution of housing across the Scottish across the Borders. Borders nor does it resolve existing and projected shortfalls of affordable housing outwith the Central hub as required within Draft SPP3: Planning for Housing. The contributor suggests a more equitable approach be taken and reconsideration of the strategy to ensure that the increased population requirements can also be responded to in the interests of meeting the affordable housing shortfall outwith the Central Hub and particular with the Eastern Housing market Area. _ _ In respect of the Landscape Capacity Study for Duns it Comments regarding allocation in Duns are noted. No Change. is noted there are constraints which effectively limit the Proposals on existing allocated sites may be able to capacity of Duns to absorb further development. The justify amended densities where this contributes to contributor suggests the existing housing allocations overall site quality and design. within Duns and the Eastern Housing Market Area be reviewed with a view to achieving a more sustainable use of the already identified and suitable development land through higher densities an therefore a higher number of units. DAWN Homes (148) The contributor suggests an update to Para 1.40 as the Not accepted. Paragraph 1.40 represents the Structure No Change. expansion to Newtown St Boswells was to be Plan approved by Scottish Ministers in 2002. The dependent on the Waverley Railway route being current Structure Plan sets out to meet the housing reopened in 2011. As the Communities Minister of the requirement within the Borders based on the GROS 44 Scottish Government has admitted that the new railway projections and an additional element of flexibility. The line will not be opened by then. The Council should Waverley Railway line is not specifically built into the modify its position accordingly. GROS projections. _ _ The contributor suggests reviewing Paragraph 1.41 as Not accepted. Allowances set out in the approved No Change. the Council has now recognised the potential for Structure Plan have been met in full in the Local Plan additional development in the Central Borders has agreed for adoption. At the Local Plan Inquiry the limitations and indeed should recognise that the Independent Reporters concluded Structure Plan allocations previously made there which are failing to requirements were adequately met by the Local Plan.. deliver new housing to the level planned for were in fact excessive. _ _ Chapter 4 – Housing: The contributor objects to the Not accepted. The Housing Market Area Review was Amend the Southern HMA to include the Alteration reducing housing market areas from seven to based on Communities Scotland method as advised in Tweedsmuir area. Amend the key diagram four. The Southern Housing Market Area (essentially PAN38 ‘Housing Land’ and the Council has received accordingly. Newcastleton) is of such a limited nature in population support from Communities Scotland for its work on terms that it should simply be included within the same Housing Market Areas during the consultation period. Housing Market Area in which Hawick lies. The Southern Housing Market Area follows has a wider policy role in relation to development in the remote rural areas as well as the basis for future housing provision. However, it is noted that the Southern HMA should be extended to include the Tweedsmuir remoter rural area. This would allow development proposals in that area to be assessed in terms of policies relevant to remoter rural areas. _ _ The distribution in Table 4 should be increased by Not accepted. In line with SPP3 the Structure Plan No Change. increasing the overall housing land requirement for Alteration is required to provide housing land 2006-2018 by 500 houses in the Northern Housing allowances to meet the projected shortfall in each Market Area, and reducing it accordingly in mainly Housing Market Area. Berwickshire then the Central Borders. Table 6 will also Comments on the City Region Plan are noted. Scottish require modifying accordingly. Assuming however this Borders Council will be closely involved in the Strategic does not happen we would suggest the following Development Plan process and will use indicative modifications were made: allowances by housing market area as a basis for 1. There is no evidence in delivery to date that consideration. there is any justification for concentrating 900 units at Newtown St Boswells and this should be reduced to half of that. 2. The allocations if anything seem on the low side if the council are correct in their assertions about demand in Hawick. Jedburgh’s allocation should be significantly less than the Hawick allocation. 3. The Northern Housing Market Area is where demand is strongest and in the contributors

45 view allocations need to be increased in either Tweeddale or North Ettrick and Lauderdale, the latter lying closest to the railway line when it is reinstated. 4. With regard to the view beyond 2019, given this will be reviewed as part of the City Region plan for Edinburgh it is doubtful if much relevance should be attached to this. _ _ The contributors does not agree with the assertion in Not accepted. The issue related to the potential No Change. Para 4.24 that demand should be allowed to outstrip adverse consequence arising from overdevelopment in supply if a 5 year effective housing land supply is not the Northern Borders was discussed in the approved available no further allocations will be required which is Structure Plan (para 4.8 to 4.11). The approach taken contrary to national planning guidance. Accordingly the was to constrain housing development in North contributor objects to Policy H4 unless the allowances Tweeddale and North Ettrick and Lauderdale, and to for 2007-2018 are increased. guide development to the development hubs, particularly the Central Borders. The Structure Plan Alteration seeks to take this forward in relation to the Northern Housing Market Area to prevent potentially unsustainable development. Policy H4 ‘Five Year Land Supply’ states that in the Northern HMA additional land will not be brought forward in excess of the structure plan allowances for the period 2007-2018. This is to avoid overdevelopment in the area that is under pressure due to its proximity to Edinburgh.

_ _ In order to better understand distributional differences, Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration is No Change. Table 7.1 should also show that against a completion prepared in line with SPP3 and PAN38. The Alteration rate of 861 central Borders over the last 5 years, with an takes a positive view towards meeting requirements for effective supply of 1654 houses existing in 2006 there is housing and applies a flexibility provision. The housing in fact an approximate supply of nearly 10 years. The land allowances set out in the plan include both the other figures are overestimated noticeably North Ettrick GRO requirement for the area and 20% flexibility to and Lauderdale where the suggestion is there is a 31 include affordable housing, geographic dispersal and year supply. In the contributors view Table 7.1 should second homes. The housing allowances set out in the be based on demand to date than contrived housing Structure Plan Alteration meet the projected shortfall in land requirement. The contributor believes the Structure each of the Housing Market Areas across the region. Plan is subject to manipulation which added to the This provides an appropriate and equitable distribution extreme manipulation of the previous Structure Plan is across the Borders. likely to constrain the demand in areas closet to Edinburgh where the demand is actually emanating from continues to over allocate in the Central Borders (most notably Newtown St Boswells).

46 Dundas & Wilson on behalf of Kirklands Partnership (120) Support noted. Principle S3 ‘Development Strategy’ in No Change. In general terms the contributor supports the proposed criteria (iii) provides strategic direction for development alteration to the Structure Plan. The contributor objects through the development hubs. The Structure Plan to the deletion of the clause “longer term substantial Alteration recognises the potential shortfall in the development to be supported in principle in the following supply of housing land from 2006-2018 and puts locations… The Peebles/Innerleithen/ Central Borders forward housing allowances to meet the shortfall. In axis dependent on progress on the railway” from addition, the Structure Plan Alteration identifies Principle S3 unless there is a proper consideration at (subject to review) the potential requirement from this stage of the full development potential of 2019-2026. Innerleithen North. _ _ The contributor is inclined to assume that the Housing Comment noted. The allowances for Innerleithen 200 No Change. Land Allocations contained in Table 6 will have been in short term and 200 in longer term is seen as amended and updated in the Alteration. The contributor sufficient considering recent and current development notes the findings of the Report of Survey and its and the context of the of the settlement. The Structure conclusion that Innerleithen has “modest” short term Plan is not site specific and the Development and development. In the view of the contributor there is Landscape Capacity study is just one factor to potential capacity for “substantial” development at consider. Provision of allowances, overall strategy, Innerleithen in the short and long terms. service and infrastructure are other factors to include in The contributor requests that the figures for housing overall assessment of development on specific sites. capacity for Innerleithen in Table 6 should be amended The Structure plan Alteration states that in the short to take account of the contributors current planning term the housing allowances could be met by application for 93 houses at Innerleithen North and the expansion of existing settlements. In the longer term potential for a larger scale development on the site substantive settlement extensions or new settlements overall. could be brought forward for Council consideration to The contributor supports in principle the favourable meet the requirement identified in the ‘rest of’’ conclusion identifying Site A at Innerleithen North as categories within Table 6 of the Structure Plan being appropriate housing in landscape terms. The Alteration. contributor raises concerns regarding Site A. The contributor considers the size of site identified as too small; and considers the site suitable for development is 37 hectares rather than 6.9 hectares suggested in the Development and Landscape Capacity Study. The contributor objects to the figures used in Table 7 which suggests a total of 14 hectares is available for development at Innerleithen and Walkerburn and asks that it is increased to include the site of approx 37 hectares at Innerleithen North. The contributor asks that the Council to consider the primary school site for potential development and be included in the housing land supply through the Alteration. The contributor asks that the principle of substantial development at Innerleithen North within the next 10 years be acknowledged in Table 14. The contributor is

47 of the view that there is potential for substantial development in the longer term in addition to this. The contributor cannot accept the statement in para 16.7 beginning “In the longer term however the potential scale….”. There is an opportunity here for development plans to take the lead and for the forthcoming Local Plan Alteration to address this question of the timing and layout of housing development at Innerleithen North. In order to allow this to happen, the Structure Plan must flag up the principle of a substantial land release at Innerleithen North. The contributor asks that the terms of para 16.7 and Table 14 be adjusted to make provision for substantial short and long term development opportunities in Innerleithen, subject to the outcome of local plan procedures downstream.

Note: The contributor also encloses a Landscape and Visual Assessment, road master plan and cross sectional diagrams of the site. Save Scott’s Countryside (19) F. Hardwick (20) In general we welcome the SPA, which has benefited Support noted. No Change. from Landscape and Urban Capacity studies, from a Strategic Environmental Assessment and from a reshaping of Housing Market Areas, and reflects opinion and advice expressed by individuals and organisations like ourselves and the Local Plan Public Inquiry Reporters. _ _ We note a major shift in that the focus for development Comment noted. The Structure Plan Alteration is No Change. will now be away from the primary hub in the central based on the household projections from the General Tweed valley, in our view soon to become unacceptably Register Officer for Scotland which is the government’s overdeveloped, to other areas in the central Borders advisor on demographics. The Structure Plan and to the western, Peebles-based hub. Alteration is based on the 2004-based projections However, the General Register Office (GRO) have just which were the most up to date information available at published on 22/01/2008 their 2006-based Population the time of writing. Projections. These give for the Borders from 2004 to 2024 an increase in population which is nearly 20% (18.25%) less than the figure used as the starting point for Scottish Borders Council(SBC)‘s calculations in this SPA. _ _ We argue strongly that any readjustment should have Noted. The Structure Plan Alteration sets out the No Change. as a priority the removal from Plans of the great strategic housing land allowances as stated in national majority of further building where landscape and planning policy. The coming Local Plan Amendment

48 settlement boundaries have already been severely will assess specific sites for housing. compromised in the central Tweed valley and its associated National Scenic Area (NSA) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)--as well as being used to reduce future pressure on the Peebles-based western hub and its associated NSA and AGLV. _ _ Edinburgh and the Lothians are projected to have even Comment noted. The Structure Plan Alteration bases No Change. higher population increases than the Borders; and the housing allowances on GRO projections and does Edinburgh city to have the highest proportion of not specifically cater for the Waverley Railway. Policy working-aged people in any of the Scottish council H4 aims to reduce the danger of over development in areas. This, along with Edinburgh’s expansionist the Northern Housing Market Area by not releasing economic imperative, means even greater pressure for further housing land in excess of the structure plan us to deliver accessible parts of the Borders as allowances for the period 2007-2018. dormitory suburbs, whether by tacit agreement or by South East of Scotland strategic planning. We demand explicit caps on any further Waverley railhead-linked housing. _ _ Strategic Environmental Assessment Noted. The Strategic Environmental Report (SEA) is No Change. We had hoped that this would be a secure bedrock for based in strategic land allowances in the Structure the SPA, but there seems a real possibility that the Plan Alteration. A detailed site allocation assessment environment may not be as well protected by this Report will be included in the SEA for the coming Local Plan as one might at first assume. Amendment. Views about just where one draws the line on “minimal” negative impact may vary, certainly in relation to individual sites, but overall we get a sense that Development, especially new-build residential and infrastructure, will come first and the Local Environment a poor second. _ _ Brown-field v.Green-field sites are an example. The Noted. Policy H3 includes the re-use of vacant, derelict No Change. requirement for development land is said to be well in brownfield sites as a specific criteria in considering excess of what is available from “brown-field” or “derelict future housing land allocation. Importantly, it also / disused” assets and that agricultural land or open includes a criteria to retain open spaces within towns space in green-field / green belt areas will have to be and to prevent town cramming. This balanced acquired for this purpose. We look therefore for written approach is more appropriate than that proposed by policies that will ensure there is no recourse to green- the objector. field and agricultural land until other options are exhausted and environmental assessment has been extended to include active local consultation In particular, Policy H5 (paragraph 4.25) talks only of “supporting” the development of brown-field sites. We require a stated presumption that they will be pursued as first options.

49 _ _ Heritage - we note that, although the Report talks of the Not accepted. Policy H3 includes a specific criteria No Change. need to protect or safeguard our Ancient Monuments relating to the impact on the man-made environment and Historic Buildings, there is no clear undertaking that including archaeology in considering future housing SBC will actually do so. Bearing in mind the recent land allocation. history of events relating to the setting of Abbotsford, we must demand an explicit commitment to the safeguarding of Ancient Monuments, Historic Buildings and their settings. _ _ Designated Areas - we are disappointed that there has Noted. The Structure Plan alteration deals principally No Change. been no attempt to improve the protection afforded by with housing. The policies relating to natural and built Policies N10 and N11 to NSAs, Areas of Great environment are covered in the Structure Plan Landscape Value (AGLVs), Gardens and Managed approved by Scottish Ministers. Landscapes. Discussion in arenas like the Public Inquiries has demonstrated an expectation from local and national bodies, as well as members of the public, that the setting of , and the views from, designated areas will be protected. We therefore demand that relevant policies be amended to reflect such expectations. _ _ In Chapter 1 CHAPTER 1 No Change. We note: 1. As stated in the Structure Plan Alteration (1.26) it is 1. Continuing contradictions and tensions, not resolved the aim to continue to strive to create jobs locally, in the SPA. These are between paragraphs 1.10; 1.16; whilst also enabling Scottish borders communities to 1.17; 1.23; 1.24; 1.26; 1.27. They mainly concern issues take advantage of job opportunities outside the region, of sustainability and self-reliance v. dependence on particularly in Edinburgh. The region benefits from the Edinburgh. relation with Edinburgh through accommodating 2. The enshrinement of Interim Policy Guidance in housing and employment in the Borders. Principle P3 alteration and look for incorporated statements that it will not be used to enable Developers 2. Noted. Although no change has been suggested to to successfully put forward unsuitable windfall sites or policy P3 in the Structure Plan Alteration. provide any escape from the proper constraints of the SP Principles. We welcome: 1. The 1.4 update about SPP3 and SPP15 1.-5. Support noted. incorporations (Scottish Planning directives). 2. The retention of 1.22; 1.23; and 1.24 about sustainability and community engagement., 3. The 1.31 update about capacity in hubs - in the primary, central Borders hub and the western, Peebles- based hub. 4. The 1.33 update, to use General Register Office, rather than Railway, predictions.

50 5. Retention of 1.38 about Principle S1, concerning environmental protection and biodiversity. We oppose: Noted. The Updates provides in Chapters 1 and 7 are 1. The 1.40 update, about old Principle 3, which intended to be factual updates of the current position. identifies/confirms a Newtown St. Boswells’ Expansion, 1. The Newtown St Boswells expansion is part of the coupled with no intention to look, effectively at last, for a Local Plan approved for adoption and is required to New Settlement until after 2018. We would (still) prefer meet the housing requirement set out in the approved an early, renewed Search for a new settlement rather Structure Plan. The expansion was discussed at the than the proposed Newtown expansion. Local Plan Inquiry and the preferred location of the 2. The retention in new Principle 2 of the proposed expansion was confirmed by the independent Waverley Rail line to Tweedbank; and the idea that any Reporters. extension of a light passenger railway to Carlisle would 2.The Waverley Railway reinstatement is supported in bring any benefit to the Borders. the current Structure Plan and the Scottish Government is supporting the reinstatement of the railway line.

_ _ In Chapter 4 CHAPTER 4 No Change. 2006-2018: 1. Comments noted. The Structure Plan Alteration 1. 200 Earlston Houses: The future expansion distributes the strategic allowances and the Local Plan envisaged, large given the size of the existing Amendment will deal with site specific issues. Policy settlement, is facilitated by the planned relocation of the H3 Housing Land Allocation and Development sets out High School to a site in the east the town. The site to be the key sustainability and design requirements of the vacated abuts the National Scenic Area (NSA) and is Council and includes criteria (vii) the capacity of the presently ameliorated in impact by the playing fields, as landscape to absorb development. the buildings are to the road/town centre side of the site. 2. Not accepted. The future growth of the main Housing on this site will therefore need to incorporate a settlement in the Borders is modest in relation to the landscaped buffer in order not to present a hard, scale of existing supply and the context of the suburban edge to the NSA. Right from the outset, we settlement. The Local Plan Amendment will deal with demand clear statements about such buffering. The the detailed land allocations. style and design of the houses will also require tight 3. Noted. The expansion of Newtown St Boswells is control - a detailed development Planning Brief will be safeguarded in the Local Plan approved for adoption essential in the forthcoming Local Plan review (likely to and the land will be allocated through the local plan be summer 2008). process and masterplanning along with substantial 2. 100 Galashiels Houses: We believe the settlement is public engagement . already planned to spread too far, and too high, along 4. Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration is based the valleys--so any further housing will need to be infill on national planning policy SPP3 and PAN 38.The in effect, no higher or further out than the present Local Alteration also base the allowances on the GROS Plan. We demand that such assurance is incorporated. projections and a further 20% flexibility. The flexibility 3. 900 Newtown St. Boswells Houses: The Local Plan factor is a part of the national policy. The GROS have Public Inquiry Reporters put in much work in agreed that the Council’s approach to the overall determining the land to be safeguarded for future housing requirement is appropriate. The Council has expansion, aided by the owners of the Mart confirming use the best information available when assessing site their willingness to move to the east side of the A68. specific issues and consider housing allocations. The Reporters eventual focussing of the actual area for

51 safeguarding was impressively reasoned and, apart from some concerns over the north-west part, because of its proximity to the NSA, we are supportive of their conclusions. These must not be reversed. We demand that the SPA explicitly rules out any revisiting of the discounted areas continuous with the settlement. 4. These 1200 houses, addressed above by settlement, would put further pressure on the landscape and settlement size and character relating to the Eildon and Leaderfoot NSA’s setting and the views from it. We demand that a revision of target numbers in line with 2006-based projections is used to provide the relief that this area of the central Borders deserves. _ _ Longer Term (2019-2026): 1600 Houses in the “rest of LONGER TERM No Change. the Central HMA”. Comment noted. We note the intention that these numbers should include New Settlement / Extensions and “should be identified in the (next) Local Plan, but further reviewed as part of the Strategic Development Plan for Edinburgh and the South of Scotland”, to reflect revised forecasts dependent on City Region, Railway and Demographic / Migration developments. The areas under consideration will clearly not be in the Central Tweed Valley or its NSA, but we will be interested to observe their development planning, which we trust will prove sympathetic and informed, with meaningful community involvement from early on in the process.

City of Edinburgh Council (191) The Alteration seeks to conform to the requirements of Accepted in part. The Structure Plan Alteration policy The longer term allowances will be expressed SPP3 Planning for Housing by maintaining a 5 year H2 states that the longer term allowances will be in the Plan by Housing Market Area rather housing land supply and by providing housing land for reviewed as part of the Strategic Development Plan for than by settlement.. This will require a 0-12 years (2006 -2018) and 13-20 years (2019-2026) Edinburgh and the South of Scotland. The allowances rewording of policy H2 to remove the In both cases, housing requirements are specified at set out in table 6 is set out to assist communities, requirement to identify land for potential settlement level (Table 6). Although the document infrastructure and service providers, and developers in longer term development within the Local states that the longer term requirement (2019-2026) will their long term planning. It is accepted, however, that Plan Amendment. be reviewed as part of the SDP process, there could be the appropriate approach would be to put forward Policy H2 to be reworded as follows: replace significant implications in making even tentative these allowances (subject to review) by housing ‘should’ with ‘may’. settlement specific allocations for this period. The market area. This will require a rewording of policy H2 Replace Para 4.21 with the following wording: responsibility for identifying the location and quantity of to remove the requirement to identify land for potential ‘Longer term allowances are expressed by housing development for post 2018 will fall to the new longer term development within the Local Plan housing market area to provide an indicative SDPA and it would be undesirable for its strategic option Amendment. view of future housing requirement, subject to to be constrained at this stage. In particular such review by the future Strategic Development

52 specific allocations could create an expectation among Plan. communities, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders that such a pattern of development would take place, whereas the SDPA may legitimately propose an alternative spatial strategy. In any case SPP3 (para 63) states that beyond year 12, structure plans should give a “board indication” of where requirements will be met. The allocations at settlement level for 2019-2026 set out in Table 6 could be seen as going beyond the requirements of SPP3 in this respect. In the light of theses concerns we suggest that SBC considers altering the time period for the Alteration to 2006-2018, which would provide a 12 year housing land supply in accordance with SPP3 and also bring it closer to the time horizon of the Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan (2015). This would ensure that the first SDP for the Edinburgh City region is based as far as possible on a common starting point and avoid the risk that long term strategic choices become pre-determined in advance of the SDP. If this not acceptable to SBC then as a minimum we suggest that the long term housing requirements for 2019-2026 are taken to the level of Housing Market Areas only and that policy H2 on local plan allocations is consequently removed. In this way the Alteration could continue to give an indication of current thinking about the broad scale and location of growth to 2026, while avoiding raising expectations about specific sites, the need for which may be revisited. Lord Ralph Kerr (134) The contributor supports the Structure Plan Alteration in General support noted. The proposed change is not No Change. general but is concerned over the split in housing accepted. The allowance of 0 for Kelso in the short figures in 2006-2018 and 2019-2026. The contributor term is related to the substantial supply available in the think this leads to no housing allocations for the next 12 town in the 2006 Housing Land Audit. The existing years and such position is not considered to allow for supply of over 450 units includes sufficient flexibility. flexibility in attracting growth and development. The The longer term allowances are not to be brought allowance of 300 (for Kelso) should be moved forward forward in advance of 2019-2026 unless there is not a to 2006-2018 or the figure should cover the whole five year supply available in the Housing Market Area. period 2006-2026. The latter approach could The allowance for the ‘Rest of Central HMA’ is to be incorporate a phasing policy that restricts oversupply but allocated in settlements not included in the list of main allows more certainty and flexibility to the housing settlements. market, a key objective of Scottish Planning Policy 3.

The Community Council of the Royal Burgh of 1.13 Comment noted. The GRO projections are the No Change. Peebles and District (160) Scottish Government’s projections on population and 53 Item 1.13 - The contributor is concerned over GRO household changes. The 2004-based projections show projections; if the population has increased 3% 1991- a 15% population increase from 109,000 to 126,000 in 2001 how do we arrive at a prediction of 15% over next the Borders between 2004-2024. The Council add a 20 years? Why has the Council increased a further degree of flexibility, in accordance with national 20%? If the figures prove to be too high, then the planning policy, to provide a range and choice of sites Structure and consequently Local Plans leave the area as well as take into account factors related to open to over-development for the wrong reasons. affordable housing, geographic dispersal and second homes. The GROS is supportive of the Council approach to housing requirement. Future Plans will review and update with future projections. _ _ Item 1.14 – How accurate are GRO’s predictions and is 1.14 Noted. The projections mirror the trend of No Change. too much emphasis put on the forecasts? Has GRO got increasing number of household due to smaller its figures right. If figures are accurate this demands household size and longevity. Planning authorities greater planning for smaller houses and affordable highlights the need for affordable housing and require housing in the Borders. contributions from developer towards affordable housing. Although, it is market demand that decides what type and size of property developers choose to deliver. _ _ Item 1.15 – In order to stem the reduction of net in- Item 1.15 Accepted in part. It is important to retain Amend the Plan as follows: Policy H3 – migration, land for industrial uses needs to be protected employment land for that purpose where there is likely amend (iii). The re-use of vacant, derelict, to attract new employers with economic development to be a continuing demand for such provision. The previously developed or contaminated strategies to support growth of key SME’s. Business policy criteria will be amended to allow the retention of ‘brownfield’ sites no longer required for and retail rates needs to be capped to not lose brownfield land for its original employment purpose employment purposes. businesses to other areas. where that is appropriate. Development hubs – Following approval at Whitehaugh Policy H5 – amend wording of policy to; The the need for additional allowance at Venlaw Hill is Policy H3 – amend (iii). The re-use of vacant, derelict, development of brownfield sites for housing unnecessary and will be detrimental to the town. previously developed or contaminated ‘brownfield’ development is supported where the site is Allocation at Whitehaugh increase pressure to invest in sites no longer required for employment purposes. no longer required for any employment use Peebles High School facilities (particularly sports) and and where it will enhance the form and quality increased provision of NHS service, doctors and Policy H5 – amend wording of policy to; The of the urban environment. Such development dentists. development of brownfield sites for housing should include appropriate energy development is supported where the site is no longer conservation and sustainability measures, required for any employment use and where it will sustainable drainage, and must not lead to an enhance the form and quality of the urban adverse impact on floodplain capacity. environment. Such development should include appropriate energy conservation and sustainability Paragraph 4.25 – clarify through addition to measures, sustainable drainage, and must not lead to paragraph; The Plan supports the an adverse impact on floodplain capacity. development of infill and brownfield sites which meet sustainability objectives where Paragraph 4.25 – clarify through addition to paragraph; they are no longer required for employment The Plan supports the development of infill and purposes. Significant brownfield opportunities brownfield sites which meet sustainability objectives will be able to contribute towards meeting where they are no longer required for employment structure plan allowances.

54 purposes. Significant brownfield opportunities will be able to contribute towards meeting structure plan allowances. The Structure plan alteration does not allocate site specific land for housing. The local plan process and the development management process deals with site specific issues and the need for developer contributions. This will be subject to public consultation. _ _ Item 1.31 – Stronger wording than ‘restraint’ is needed Item 1.31 Comment noted. An initial assessment of No Change. for the Peebles Area. Future development in Peebles capacity in infrastructure and facilities has been made area will require an in-depth look at the infrastructure before setting the housing land allowances. Further roads, (including Tweed crossing) health facilities, assessments will be made during the local plan school capacities, leisure and sports etc. Current process when specific sites are assessed for suitability facilities are at capacity. The Update regarding Peebles for housing allocation. Policy H4 ‘Five Year Land could be stronger i.e. cut back significantly until Supply’ states in the Northern HMA additional land will improvements to the infrastructure have been made. not be brought forward in excess of the structure plan Wording required that housing developments do not allowances for the period 2007-2018. This is to avoid completely cripple the facilities and that they are overdevelopment in the area that is under pressure improved in advance of and with spare capacity to deal due to its proximity to Edinburgh. with any further housing development is essential. _ _ Item 1.33 - GRO figures does not include Waverley. If Not accepted. The Plan uses the GROS projections as No Change. railway is built this will have significant impact and to not a baseline for the housing land requirement. A 20 per plan for this seems short-sighted. cent flexibility element is added to the baseline to seek to ensure provision of land across the region. This approach is accepted by GROS as a basis for forward planning. _ _ Item 1.40 –Why is a site for a new village identified in Noted. The Structure Plan is not site specific. Detailed No Change. the side valley East of Cademuir hill when Peebles is proposals will be brought forward as part of future local considered an area of restraint? See comment 1.31. plans. The Structure Plan Alteration states that Policy 1 – The contributor would like the statement proposals for substantive settlement expansions or strengthened i.e. development should be curtailed until new settlements in the longer term may be considered a full infrastructure study has been carried out. as a way of meeting the long term requirement at that Principle 2 – Support removal. time.The Landscape capacity identifies areas of search Principle 3 – Peebles needs to be deleted from (iii) and for potential new developments and is only considering (v). See comment 1.31. landscape capacity. Further assessment and consultation before any areas are safeguarded for a new settlement. _ _ Item 1.41 - The contributor would like the statement Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration has No Change. strengthened i.e. development should be curtailed until considered the available capacity of infrastructure as a full infrastructure study has been carried out. well as other planning constraints at a strategic and

55 settlement level. Further assessments of infrastructure capacity will be carried out as a part of the Local Plan Amendment when site specifics are assessed. _ _ Item 4.11 - Concerns expressed about the size of the Not accepted. A degree of flexibility has been added to No Change. 20% flexibility and that it is only in one direction. The the baseline requirement, in line with national planning method synthetically distorts actual requirements and policy. GROS have commented that this is a only succeeds in providing housing developers a larger reasonable approach to the supply of housing land. As lever to push for over supply of land allocation, and not planning authority it is important to ensure that the a properly planned and phased release. A base case supply of land is adequate to meet all needs from the should be used and flexibility would give both positive private and affordable housing sector. In addition, the and negative scenarios, so that control in operation of disparate geography of the Borders does require that the plan remains both intact and feasible. in some cases a theoretical overprovision is put in _ place to ensure that growth requirements can be met. _ __ Item 4.2 - Concerned that emphasis is being but on Noted. The GRO projections are the Scottish No Change. GRO figures. Governments projections on population and household changes. PAN38 state that the GRO projections are a good starting point for local authorities in calculating requirements. _ 4.35 – A stronger statement is needed regarding Not accepted. The Structure Plan sets out the strategic No Change. affordable housing that includes the percentage figure need for affordable and special needs housing and 25% minimum instead of by agreement. The Council more detailed policy (including the percentage should pressure The Scottish Government into making requirement) is included in the Local Plan and funding available to provide urgent required affordable Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable and preferable rented housing which stays available for Housing. generations, without giving up large tracts of land for more expensive housing.

Archie Stewart (175) The projected population growth for the Borders gives Noted. The Structure Plan set out that there is a need No Change. the Structure Plan added importance. The plan must for affordable and special needs housing and more make provision for this increased population whilst detailed policy is included in the Local Plan and protecting valuable landscape and lifestyle. The Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable landscape and lifestyle is in part driving the increasing Housing. Policy H3 set out the strategic criteria in population. Development should be spread over the terms of sustainability and design and more detailed Borders, focus moved away from Waverley line and policy is included in the local plan. Galashiels. Increases in population of villages and smaller towns will revitalise and allow people to stay in their villages to support local service. Cities like Edinburgh and Newcastle will increase the number of commuters living in the area. It is vital to provide homes and workplaces for local people who will work in the area with perhaps lower incomes. Mix of affordable

56 housing and general market housing will retain the spirit of Borders villages. Blocks of suburban houses that are out of place in the landscape and peoplescape should be avoided. Design should allow for the innovative as well as traditional. Village boundaries should be flexible and not provide an artificial barrier to development. _ _ Policy H3 – it is a worthy aim stated in many policies but Noted. Policy H3 includes the criteria for access to No Change. the limitations of public transport in the region must be service and facilities by foot, cycle or public transport. recognised. Car ownership in this rural area is a Although, it is recognised that the rural character of the necessity for most people. The current policy of Borders makes this a challenge one of the main aims centralisation currently in force to justify public transport within the Structure Plan is to guide development to should be halted. SPP3 states need for housing in the existing towns and villages. right places, this is surely where people want to live and not where planners want them to live. _ _ Policy H6 – would seem to be successful in allowing Noted. Policy H6 supports conversions and rebuilding No Change. renovation of outdated buildings for housing and that fit the character of the surrounding area and meet employment. Number of approvals in appendix 6 would sustainable construction requirements particularly in indicate that there are problems with development of relation to energy efficient design. This supports these sites. The policy should be applied in such a way sustainable design proposals in principle. that allows cost effective completions using sustainable design that is not tied to past but respect landscape setting. Tourism – is a key industry for the region and should be supported by the sustainable development of accommodation and facilities for increasing numbers of discerning visitors. The perception of the region is high quality and this should be maintained.

Stuart Bell (141) The contributor challenges the fundamental Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration is based No Change. assumptions that have been used for forecasts for land on the household projections from the General for housing growth in Central Market Area. The Register Officer for Scotland which is the government’s contributor challenges; that there is no explanation of advisor on demographic matters. A further 20% the basis for the growth projected in the Borders and no flexibility is built in to the overall housing land explanation of what factors have changed since 1998 requirement, in line with national planning policy. The estimates. The contributor is used to some indication of Structure Plan Alteration is based on the 2004-based margin of error or confidence level around statistic projections which were the most up to date information projects far into the future and seriously doubt the available at the time of writing. The distribution of validity of figures since he doesn’t see explanation or housing allowances is based on the existing confidence level. The contributor recognise that these distribution of population and households in the might exist but have been to websites for GRO and Borders. The GROS supports the Council approach on GAD as referenced in the Councils note and find there this matter. scant information to substantiate the detail of population

57 projection at the level of the Borders region. Both sources are national level data and are driven by broad expectations of fertility, mortality and migration. Without some sort of explanation, some sort of cause and effect analysis taken to the local level the contributor challenge both sources are being stretched to the limit of credibility in going to the level of detail of the Borders region. The break down to sub-sections of the Borders is guesswork. Guesses are no justified in writing and confidence level of the guess is not justified in writing. Putting data onto chart does not make it accurate or credible. c) The contributor believes that one of many motors for economic development was the strategy for the region as defined in the Structure Plan. Structure Plan did not summarise what was happening out-with the control of the SBC; it documented what the Council wanted to happen, what it desired to occur to generate growth or changes in the region. Putting infrastructure in place is not a consequence of growth or change, it is a driver for it. The contributor believe that the Structure Plan and Alteration added to it is a bit like the tail wagging the dog ‘these things are going to happen whether we like it or not. d) The contributor understands that the analysis in the Report of Survey links the population and households projections. At a meeting on 7 December 20% flexibility factor was added. If there is higher than expected growth and you add on flat percentage factor this exaggerates the changes if the growth level is lower and then produce a massive swing in projections. The factor used should in itself reflect the confidence level of your basic projections (ie less confident lower factor). Not doing this are taking guess work and making it less trustworthy. The contributor recognises the constraints which the Council may have had in producing household projections for the Borders and sub-regional level. The contributor also understands that have to be drawn from scant, sometimes conflicting and sometimes patchy data. The contributor does not believe the numbers and does not agree with the quantification of the housing growth in the Central HMA and does not think data is good enough to use for looking for housing sites. _ _ 2. The contributor is aware of the comments made by 2. Noted. The distribution of housing land allowances No Change. Clovenfords and District Community Council and agrees has considered the high completion of housing

58 with much of it. As an individual the contributor development in Clovenfords village over the last few considers; i) it is alarming is at variance with figures years and not provided allowances for any further shown in the Local Plan for current and projected housing in the period from 2006-2018. This position is developments. Why are the Reporter’s emphasised by recent decisions relating to land likely recommendations not included in table 6 when the to come forward through the Local Plan process. Council was aware of them when drawing up parts of the Alteration? The contributor believes that the The Structure plan alteration uses 2006 as the base additional housing allocations will get added to table 6, year and the HLA 2006 represents the current supply. particularly now when the Council finds itself short of The Plan has to use the most appropriate baseline for housing sites in the Central HMA over the period 2019- its consideration of the supply and demand for 2026. The confusion is not good practice when housing. Where intervening changes take place they preparing documents for public consultation. ii) An will be monitored through the annual housing land unacceptable growth rate for Clovenfords is projected audit and built into the forthcoming Local Plan after considerable growth in 2002-2006. The growth Amendment. rates are the highest of any communities detailed in the document within the HMA and 2006-2026 growth rates The Development and Landscape Capacity Study are far in excess of the average for the Central HMA. focuses on identifying search areas for new The growth rate is too fast for a small community to settlements, not actual sites. However, the Structure absorb without losing its coherence and changing the Plan Alteration does not identify any allowances for character of the village. The contributor asks to limit the potential new or expanded settlements within the short growth projected for Clovenfords to an absolute term (2006-2018). However, it does encourage maximum of the levels in table 6. I.e. these figures have suitable sustainable proposals to be brought forward to include any Local Plan changes. The latter must not for consideration in the long term. Any proposed new be an addition to the numbers in table 6. iii) 16600 or expanded settlement will be subject to extensive housing units shown in table 6 as allocated for ‘Rest of public consultation before allocation for housing. Central HMA’ will weigh heavily on SBC Planning deliberations. The contributor foresees pressure to The Council has a responsibility to allocate housing allocate the units to real locations. The contributor is land to meet the requirement set out in the Structure aware of the possibility of a new settlement to the north Plan. The local plan agreed for adoption meets the west of Clovenfords. The contributor acknowledges that requirements set out in the approved Structure plan the Report of Survey is speculative and is alarmed at and the requirements in the Structure plan alteration the possibility to locate a new settlement in the Caddon will be met in the coming local plan amendment. In Valley. This gives no advantages for Clovenfords and it assessing sites for the local plan amendment a wide won’t help to increase the utilisation of commercial or range of issues will be considered. community facilities. Communications and services for a new settlement in the Caddon Valley will be expensive, disruptive and a new settlement will spoil the valley. Why has the Council and SNH not looked at alternatives for new settlements previously evaluated instead of financing a survey. Why looking at new settlements when town have boarded up shops because shop owners had to close down due to economic decline. The only way towns like Hawick and Jedburgh will survive are if they grow, but there are low growth figures for them in the Alteration. iv) The contributor does not want

59 to see more growth over and above that applied for and identified in the Local Plan, within or as extension to settlement boundary of Clovenfords, throughout the timescale of the Structure Plan. The contributor does recognise that the Council might be obliged to identify ideas for further expansion. The contributor objects to the possible directions for the expansion of Clovenfords to the north east and to the south which are identified in the Local Plan. Both are visually intrusive and the south has all the disadvantages highlighted by the Reporter at the LPI, appertaining to a shaded, north facing and sloping site. The speculation in the report of survey around possible extension to the settlement boundary of Clovenfords to the north west is more attractive visually than to the south or to the north east. If the Council has to identify a direction the contributor believes the best direction is north west. The contributor believes it is unacceptable to add survey findings in the Structure Plan Alteration onto the Local Plan all three directions formally identified as preferences for future expansion – this is no guidance at all for developers. The contributor asks the Council to take out at least 2.

9. Comments relating to the reduction of the number of HMAs

Ryden on behalf of Tweed Homes (125) Support noted. No Change. 2/2: Housing Market Areas Chapter 4, Para 4.5 - The contributor supports the approach of the Council to reduce the seven housing market areas to four. Larger HMA boundaries are justified and there will be opportunities for further refinement once a city region plan is developed for the Lothians.

Scottish Government (178) Support noted. No Change. There is general acceptance of the need for the alteration as a means of reviewing housing policies and allocations and ensuring the provision of an adequate land supply. The General Register Office for Scotland indicates that it is satisfied with the approach used for household projections and considers that a reasonable flexibility factor has been used. _ _ Historic Scotland is generally content with the draft, but The comments related to the High School in Duns are No Change.

60 raise one detailed concern - “We note that para 4.20 (3rd noted. The Redevelopment opportunity at the High last bullet) identifies significant brownfield opportunities School site in Duns is included in the local plan agreed at Duns (old High School site) and Reston (former for adoption. Further consultation will take place in mart). Both of these sites contain listed buildings. In terms of the site through the planning process. the case of the mart site we have already seen a Planning Brief and were content, so have no further comments to offer on this. At Duns we have been involved in initial discussions with SBC regarding the replacement of the school and the fate of the old building. It is a building of some quality and, due to the site layout, much of the grounds are crucial to the setting of the listed building. Against this background we have no objections in principle to the proposed brownfield land release at this site, and acknowledge the strategic nature of this plan. However we would wish to flag up the listed building issue at this point to ensure that it is acknowledged and addressed at the more detailed planning stage, including in any planning briefs/master plans which come forward for this site.” _ _ Comments received from Communities Scotland Comments from Communities Scotland: No Change. 1. The Alteration is based wholly on the last GRO 1. Noted. It should be clear that the Alteration uses an population and household projections and takes no additional 20% flexibility to the GRO projections. This account of scenarios on the Waverley Line. Whilst a is intended to provide appropriate flexibility to meet a final decision on the Line has still to be made, it would wide range of factors.Whilst the projections do not take seem short-sighted to ignore it altogether when specific account of the Waverley line, they are the reviewing allocation of land to meet future housing Government’s projection of future household needs and demand. requirement. The Plan’s approach is one with which GROS is satisfied. _ _ 2. Support noted. The Plan has been developed in line No Change. 2. CS welcomes the rationalisation of the Housing with SPP3 and PAN38. The Firm foundations Market areas from 7 to 4 to align planning with the Local document was not available at the time of drafting the Housing Strategy. It would have been beneficial, Structure Plan Alteration. however, to have discussed cross local authority boundary issues as highlighted in the Scottish Government’s ‘Firm Foundations’ paper. _ _ 3. Comment noted. The policy is introduced to give No Change. 3. The Alteration introduces restraint on development in clear direction to future planning in the Northern the North Tweeddale and North Ettrick and Lauderdale Housing Market Area, and in recognition of the Housing Market areas. This policy could be challenged potential for unsustainable development in the by developers and it may cause difficulties for the new Northern Housing Market Area without a planned City Region Development Plan. approach. It should be noted that the Plan proposes to

61 meet the projected shortfall (including the 20 per cent flexibility) in full.

_ _ 4. Development has been concentrated in the Central 4. Not accepted. The Plan has put forward housing No Change. Borders area but, as a result of decisions on the allowances to meet the projected shortfall in each of Waverley Line, there could be a significantly different the four housing market areas. This would allow for pattern of housing need and demand. development to meet a range of situations including the Waverley. It should be noted that the Government has idicated that it is seeking the preparation of a Strategic Development Plan by 2011. This will review the strategic housing requirement for Edinburgh and the South East of Scotland. 10. Comments relating to brownfield/ greenfield development and building groups

Ryden on behalf of Mr Mitchell (123) Accepted. Table 4 of the Consultative Draft sets out Add to bullet point 8 in para 4.20 as follows: The contributor requests the Structure Plan to expand the position in relation to housing land in each of the ‘A base level provision of 100 units in the the justification for the release of sites for greenfield Housing Market Areas. In Berwickshire the overall period 2006-2018 is provided in the ‘Rest of development within rural settlements where the release housing requirement 2006-2018 is 1503. This Berwickshire’ area. Amend Table 6 and key can be justified on social, infrastructure or economic compares with an existing effective and potentially diagram accordingly. reasons. Greenfield development adjacent settlements effective land supply of 1437. The Structure Plan should be permitted in certain circumstances where this Alteration lists the main settlements in each Housing can be justified by social and economic reasons. Small Market Area and includes smaller settlements in ‘Rest settlements for example Birgham in Berwickshire are of HMA’. Although it is considered that there is unable to maintain basic local services. To rectify this sufficient housing supply in Berwickshire it is now matter it is requested by the contributor that the proposed to provide a base level provision in the short Structure Plan specifically supports modest growth term allowances for ‘Rest of Berwickshire’. The which would allow existing services to be maintained justification for this change is that it is important to and improved (in small rural settlements). This is provide for potential limited additional growth in the generally supported by National Policy SPP3 and main villages of Berwickshire to help reduce the SPP15 to allow local communities to provide a high demand for housing in the open countryside. In standard of living for local residents. It will also be addition, the proposed change reflects the fact that necessary in order to ensure that there is a range of Berwickshire has a large number of effective units on housing available in such settlements including the sites outside settlements, which tend to be on smaller provision of affordable housing. sites. Finally, the proposed change is consistent with the Council approach to ‘rural proofing’. The precise location of the proposed allowance within the ‘rest of’ Berwickshire will be addressed within the Local Plan Amendment. White Young Green on behalf of Wemyss and March Support noted. The issue related to the potential No Change. Estates (135) adverse consequence arising from overdevelopment in the Northern Borders was discussed in the approved The contributor objects to the last sentence of Policy Structure Plan (para 4.8 to 4.11). The approach taken H4. The inclusion of this could result in there being less was to constrain housing development in North than a 5 year land supply in the Northern area contrary Tweeddale and North Ettrick and Lauderdale, and to 62 to Paragraph 31 of PAN 38 Housing Land and SPP3 guide development to the development hubs, Planning for Housing. particularly the Central Borders. The Structure Plan Alteration seeks to take this forward in relation to the Northern Housing Market Area to prevent potentially unsustainable development . Policy H4 ‘Five Year Land Supply’ states that in the Northern HMA additional land will not be brought forward in excess of the structure plan allowances for the period 2007- 2018. This is to avoid overdevelopment in the area that is under pressure due to its proximity to Edinburgh. _ _ The contributor suggests that the restriction in Appendix Noted. The Structure Plan Alteration is taken forward No Change. H2 relating to Policy H7 Building Groups - any increase in line with national policy including SPP15 on Rural to building groups not exceeding 100% of the existing Development and sets out appropriate policies in terms number of housing units within the group be removed. of housing development in the countryside. It allows The restriction to 100% may prevent suitable and the scope to develop existing clusters subject to sustainable development and is contrary to the spirit of acceptability in terms of the existing group and the SPP3 Planning for Housing (Paragraph 50). surrounding environment. Rebuilding or conversion of existing buildings is also generally acceptable. The development of new isolated housing or small clusters is not supported unless there is a clear and specific locational business requirement reflecting their potential to contribute to unsustainable development. The 100% rule is not specifically referred to within the Structure Plan policy in that the Appendix is a summary of the current supplementary planning guidance on the subject. It will therefore be reviewed as part of the Local Plan Amendment that will follow the Structure Plan Alteration. _ _ The contributor broadly supports Policy H10 and Support noted for policy H10. The Structure Plan No Change. suggests further emphasis be placed on the sustainable Alteration does not allocate specific housing siteS but advantages of locating significant amounts of affordable set out the housing requirement for the main housing in or adjacent to settlements where a range of settlements and the Housing Market Areas in the services already exist. The contributor has undertaken a Borders. A Local Plan Amendment will follow on from comprehensive assessment of the sites identified in the the Structure Plan Alteration and will allocate sites Development and Landscape Capacity Study in specific for housing or employment. There will be Peebles. The contributor states some of the land opportunities to contribute to the Amendment through identified as having potential for development within the public consultation. Development and Landscape Capacity Study have limited capacity to accommodate potential new development in the future it has been demonstrated that two sites – Enclosed field – Peebles South West and Small Fields – Peebles South East have potential design limitations due to physical or visual constraints.

63 In contrast the Contained Fields – Peebles South West has less visual impact or physical constraints and as such potential to accommodate future development without significantly impacting on the wider setting of Pebbles. This represents a wholly appropriate and suitable location for short or medium term greenfield release to contribute towards the stated housing land requirement articulated in the Structure Plan Alteration.

Berwickshire Housing Association (165) 1. At paragraph 4.18, Berwickshire Housing Association 1. Support noted. The Structure Plan Alteration No Change. (BHA) support the Council’s assumptions that there are promotes development related to settlements. limited areas available in Berwickshire for brownfield development. BHA would request that a greater emphasis is placed on the location of new housing developments in close proximity to town centres, employment and community facilities, particularly multi- use education, sports and health facilities. _ _ 2. At paragraph 4.20, whilst BHA recognise the 2. Noted. The Redevelopment opportunity at the High No Change. importance of the re-use of the former high schools, School site in Duns is included in the local plan BHA feel that particularly in Duns, the Berwickshire High agreed for adoption. Further consultation will take School is combination of brownfield and greenfield site place in terms of the site through the planning brief and that other more suitable sites in the town should be process. considered before housing is allocated to the whole of this site. _ _ 3. The landscape report that accompanies this Draft 3. Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration does No Change. Structure Plan Alteration correctly identifies areas on the not allocate specific housing site but sets out the Western fringe of Duns, in the Todlaw area, as being housing requirement for the main settlements and suitable for residential development. BHA would request the Housing Market Areas in the Borders. A Local that clear reference is made to this in the Structure Plan Plan Amendment will follow on from the Structure in an appropriate location and/or that this area is Plan Alteration and will allocate sites specific for included for residential development in the next Local housing or employment. There will be Plan. opportunities to contribute to the Amendment through public consultation. _ _ 4. Table 6, BHA would contest that a number of housing 4. Noted. The effective supply and potentially effective No Change. sites in Duns have been built out and that the 2006 supply in the Structure Plan Alteration are based on figures should be updated to reflect this approach. the Housing Land Audit 2006. No general Structure Plan Allowance has been allocated in Duns in the short term, but the Structure Plan Alteration has identified an opportunity for major redevelopment in connection with the redevelopment of the Berwickshire High School. Longer term allowances for housing have been made

64 in all housing market areas. The existing supply and contributions from the redevelopment site is considered to be adequate to meet the requirement in the area. _ _ 5. BHA concur with the criteria set out in Policy H3 but 5. Noted. The policy covers a wide range of criteria No Change. would seek greater emphasis on a sequential approach each of which will assume a level of importance to the allocation of sites in order to support the drivers of dependent upon the specific sites under consideration. this policy; transportation, accessibility to services and In addition, the overriding principle is set out in the relationships to business. Even in smaller towns, a new policy in terms of the need to meet the Council’s development should be located in close proximity to sustainability requirements. This is in line with the these areas, as even a small development which is locational strategy set out in Principle S3. badly located will result in increased use of private transport. _ _ 6. BHA support the inclusion of Policy H9 and Policy 6. Support noted. No Change. H10. _ _ 7. BHA agree that Duns should be contained within the 7. Support noted. No Change. Eastern hub, as a focus for future growth. _ _ 8. At Paragraph 7.3, BHA would seek the inclusion of 8. Noted. The areas included are based on the No Change. Duns as an area for regeneration and investment, contents of the approved Structure Plan. This aspect particularly where willing public and private sector will be subject to review in the forthcoming strategic partners are available. development plan.The Council is currently undertaking whole town action plans to determine what improvements are needed in the Borders towns. _ _ 9. The inclusion of Policy P3 prejudices the potential for 9. Noted. The development hubs are set out in the No Change. larger developments outwith the planned Development approved Structure Plan. As noted above it is intended Hubs, in particular in the North East Berwickshire area to provide further flexibility in those areas outwith the where there is good access to the A1 and main line main settlements of Berwickshire. Development sites railway travel within areas not included within the will be brought forward through the local plan Eastern Hub. amendment process. _ _ 10. At paragraph 7.10 the inclusion of Reston Station as 10. Noted. The current Structure Plan states the No Change. a future important transport link is imperative and this importance of the location of A1 and the relation to the opportunity should be safeguarded. Likewise, the two main towns Duns and Eyemouth in the eastern importance of the A1 as a major transport route should hub. The Local Plan approved by the Council for be developed and opportunities in the Eastern Hub adoption includes the the safeguarding of the Reston created with this linkage in mind. station site.

11. Comments on: Changes to national policy Strategic Housing Allocations 65 Development Strategy Development and Landscape Capacity Studies

Geddes Consulting on behalf of Lynch Homes (131) The contributor has three objections to the Alteration and promotes the expansion of St Boswells. _ _ The contributor objects that the proposed distribution of Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration builds No Change. strategic housing allocations are not in accord with the upon the progress made by the approved Structure Approved Structure Plan as well as current and Plan. It recognises that the development hubs are still emerging guidance from the Scottish Government. important to the delivery of the Council strategy and Since the release of the SPA the Scottish Government seeks to spread the development opportunities across has released consultation drafts on National Planning the range of principal settlements within the central Framework, Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in hub. This recognises that there are limited Scotland and SP3: Planning for Housing. The Council opportunities within the core hub to meet development should therefore consider Objections to the Structure up to 2026. This recognises that the approved Plan within this context. structure plan was designed to meet development The distribution and scale of land release outlined requirements only up to 2011. The Structure Plan in the Alteration and its Key Diagram must therefore Alteration therefore proposes a refinement to Principle conform with this development strategy and S3 to take these matters into account. The Structure locational criteria set by Principle S3 and Policy H3. Plan Alteration has been prepared in line with national The Council’s appraisal has not been carried out to a policy as set out in SPP3 Planning for Housing. The rigorous methodology and the analysis to an acceptable Plan therefore takes account of the current supply of standard. housing land as set out in the agreed housing land The distribution of the strategic requirement for the audit for 2006 and the household projections produced Central Borders HMA is therefore not in accord with the by GROS, along with flexibility provision of 20%. It Council’s own development strategy Principle S3 and should be noted that substantial land is already does not accord with the guidance form the Scottish identified in the core hub of the Central Borders Government including SPP3: Land for Housing. through the Local Plan approved for adoption by the The work carried out by the Council to identify potential Council, and that this has been augmented through the development opportunities in the Central Borders HMA Structure Plan Alteration, in particular by the proposed is flawed. The surveys, analyses and evidence settlement expansion at Newtown St Boswells. presented by the Council do not lead to the conclusion that the core corridor within the HMA is at capacity and no further development can be accommodated. _ _ Definition of the new Central Borders HMA and Not accepted. The Housing Market Areas have been No Change. implications for the delivery of the Council’s put forward on the basis of analysis in line with advice development Strategy and guidance provided by Communities Scotland. The Central Borders HMA needs further consideration in Communities Scotland has expressed support to the terms of the role to meet the housing market demands proposed Housing Market Areas. The Housing Market from Edinburgh and support the Waverley line through Areas included within the Plan fit much more closely to increasing patronage. Allocating land releases such as the Council’s development hub strategy than did the Hawick and Jedburgh do not meet these requirements. previous 7 housing market areas. It is noted that the Settlements such as Hawick and Jedburgh relate more current Lothian Structure Plan has only one housing 66 to Carlisle and Newcastle than Edinburgh. The HMA market area stretching from Livingston to Dunbar. should be redefined to exclude settlements south of Ashkirk and this area transferred to the Southern HMA. No comparative analysis has been given to past build rates in these new HMAs. This is an important consideration and measurement if the Scottish Governments objectives of increasing housing output are to be supported. _ _ Delivery of the Development Strategy needs to have Not accepted. The Council intend to bring forward a No Change. the flexibility to allow early land releases Local Plan Amendment to detail the allowances set by The Council however needs to allow all practical means the Structure Plan Alteration. In addition, in the event by which it can flexibly deliver these aspirations given of the potential of a shortfall of land in the Central the importance of the house building requirements to Borders the Plan includes Policy H4 on the the economic development strategy in the Central maintenance of a 5 year supply. This will be monitored Borders HMA. A simple consideration to improve through the annual housing land audit. The provisions delivery is to consider the scale of land release over up to 2018 and indicative provisions for 2019-2026 are time. The strategic requirements should therefore be required as a response to meet current and future allocated by settlement without reference to the scale of need. New or extended settlements are part of the development to be met by 2018. This would assist longer term allowances and to be considered as part of infrastructure providers such as Scottish Water, a future Plan review. This acknowledges the fact that a Transport, as well as the Council who all need to be considerable time required to develop substantial planning for the whole release of the housing development proposals. requirement in appropriate locations well in advance of The Structure plan alteration is proposed to move 2018. towards global allowances for housing market areas Another unnecessary restraint is the lack of defined for the longer term allowances 2019-2026. This will spatial development strategy beyond 2018 for the allow their proper review as part of the Strategic Central Borders HMAs outstanding housing requirement Development Plan for Edinburgh and South East of 1600 units. Scotland. Settlements for this outstanding balance of the strategic requirement should be identified at this stage of the Structure Plan process. These settlements should be in the core corridor of the HMA – Galashiels to St Boswells corridor to accord with the Councils development strategy. This approach would give clarity to the community as what will happen to their settlements in the future and provide confidence to investors, house builders and service providers. _ _ Lack of strategic housing requirement the Core Not accepted. The Development Strategy aims to No Change. Area of Central Borders HMA guide development to existing towns and villages and According to the Councils development strategy to the primary hub in the Central Borders which (Principle S3) the aim is to focus development in the includes Hawick and Jedburgh as well as principal Galashiels – Melrose- Newtown St Boswells towns in the primary hub including Newtown St development corridor. Only 300 new homes are Boswells. See also response to objection 1.

67 allocated to Galashiels, none to Melrose, none in St Boswells with only the settlement expansion at Newtown St Boswells accommodating 1000 new homes as a major expansion. 4100 new homes could be potentially located In other more peripheral settlements. The distribution of these proposed housing land allowances are not in accord with the Council’s development strategy. The current guidance in the Alteration does not provide local communities with sufficient guidance as to what may happen to their communities in the future. Developers do not know whether to plan for further settlement expansions or invest in new town options. A spatial distribution for this 1600 allowance should be made and the allowance allocated to the various settlements in accord with Principle S3. Unless circumstances dictate otherwise, the majority of this allowance should therefore be distributed in Galashiels – Melrose – Newtown St Boswells/ St Boswells corridor with a significant amount within 5 minutes of stations to support the Council’s wider aim of sustainable transport.

_ _ The research and analysis undertaken by the Not accepted. See response to objection 1. The No Change. Council through the various Development and housing land allowances set out in the Structure Plan Landscape Capacity Studies do not support the Alteration can be met through analysis undertaken I choice of the proposed development strategy terms of the Landscape Capacity Study and selected by the Council. infrastructure capacities. It should be noted that the By maintaining the criteria in principle S3 and Policy H3 Structure Plan Alteration is not site specific, and that unchanged, the Council remains bound to a strategy of the Landscape capacity studies are one aspect of the locating development within the Primary Core Hub, by consideration that will be required as part of the site preference. All reasonable housing proposals within the allocation process for the Local Plan Amendment. This Primary Core Hub should be considered favourably. is clearly set out in the documentation pertaining to the The perspective of the brief for the Development and Plan. The Report of Survey identifies the range of Landscape Capacity Studies is of utmost relevance, as factors that are used at a strategic level to identify the the capacity of a landscape to accommodate proposed allowances within the Alteration. development is influenced by the scale of development Notwithstanding,the Development and Landscape it is considered necessary to accommodate. The Brief Capacity Study includes 371.8 ha land just out with for these Studies is limited in scope to landscape and settlements and the requirement in the Alteration is for visual issues, with some review of environmental approximately 135ha calculated on an average density sustainability. These Studies do not take into account of 20units /ha. The DLCS does not take into account other planning considerations, and “cannot be used in other planning considerations except landscape isolation to allocate sites which are either appropriate or capacity. inappropriate for development” (section 1.1, Scope of Study, Brief, Methodology and Bibliography.

68 However, the conclusions of the Studies are being used to promote preferred development locations in isolation of a careful and systematic consideration of other of other equally important factors e.g access to sustainable transport set out in SPP17. In addition the scope of the Studies is limited to 11 settlements; the fact that the studies do not systematically cover all settlements confirms that preconceptions on where development might be appropriate have influenced the conclusions reached. Prior to any proposals or design concepts being advanced the Council needs to take account of all other relevant criteria. These must specifically include: Criteria in PAN 38 (now as reiterated in the Revised Consultation Draft SPP3: Planning for Housing), Criteria in Principle S3 and Policy H3 of the Structure Plan Alteration. There are sites recommended for development within the Studies which are considered non-effective, and others which are considered will have unacceptable impacts on the surrounding road network.

_ _ The contributor has undertaken an examination of Not accepted. See response to objection 1. The No Change. the Development and Landscape Capacity Studies housing land allowances set out in the Structure Plan and makes the following objections: Alteration can be met through analysis undertaken I The conclusions in the sustainability appraisal are terms of the Landscape Capacity Study and inconsistent and lack an objective, rigorous infrastructure capacities. It should be noted that the methodology through which valid and transparent Structure Plan Alteration is not site specific, and that conclusions can be drawn the Landscape capacity studies are one aspect of the No technical information is provided substantiate consideration that will be required as part of the site findings in the Sustainability Assessment – comments allocation process for the Local Plan Amendment. This are arbitrary and it ignores potential for future is clearly set out in the documentation pertaining to the developments to introduce measures to improve Plan. The Report of Survey identifies the range of sustainability through mitigation. factors that are used at a strategic level to identify the Assessments of sustainable transport connections for proposed allowances within the Alteration. example do not take account of existing bus routes, the Notwithstanding,the Development and Landscape potential for future public transport connections, or Capacity Study includes 371.8 ha land just out with subsidy to support bus services on existing routes. settlements and the requirement in the Alteration is for Assessments of the potential to develop a site approximately 135ha calculated on an average density sustainably are limited to the site itself, taking no of 20units /ha. The DLCS does not take into account account of measure required to access it. other planning considerations except landscape The work has been carried out without reference to the capacity. scale of development to be accommodated in the settlements, reaching very arbitrary conclusions about

69 the capacity of a settlement to accommodate future development. The consequence of this approach is that these findings continue to support the very limited release of land in the settlements of Galashiels, St Boswells and Melrose, contrary to the Council’s approved development strategy. Given Government guidance to identify locations for sustainable development, it is evident that the Central Borders HMA has capacity to accommodate substantial additional development.

_ Affordable Housing _ Insufficient consideration has been given to the need to Not accepted. Whilst it is agreed that there is a need No Change. have subsidy available to deliver the Council’s for increased funding from Central Government Affordable Housing Policy. Policy 9 should be modified towards affordable housing, the policy looks to the to have regard for financial (subsidy) implications in provision of affordable housing from private investing in affordable housing. Without Housing developers, Communities Scotland and registered Association Grant from the Scottish Government, then social landlords. The Council’s supplementary planning the requirements for subsidised affordable housing guidance on affordable housing sets out the different cannot be met even if there is an ample land supply. mechanisms across the range of sectors that may be The Council also need to address in Policy 9 the lack of used to deliver affordable housing. funding from the providers of subsidised affordable housing to finance developer contributions such as the Waverley Line or off site transport improvements.

Note: The contributor also encloses a Briefing Note on the future expansion of St Boswells and a Report on Potential for St Boswells to Accommodate Strategic Growth.

Geddes Consulting on behalf of Torwoodlee & Buckholm Estates (132) _ _ The contributor has three objections to the Alteration Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration builds No Change. and is promoting a further expansion of Galashiels at upon the progress made by the approved Structure Buckholm. Plan. It recognises that the development hubs are still The contributor objects that the proposed distribution of important to the delivery of the Council strategy and strategic housing allocations are not in accord with the seeks to spread the development opportunities across Approved Structure Plan as well as current and the range of principal settlements within the central emerging guidance from the Scottish Government. hub. This recognises that there are limited

70 Since the release of the SPA the Scottish Government opportunities within the core hub to meet development has released consultation drafts on National Planning up to 2026. This recognises that the approved Framework, Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in structure plan was designed to meet development Scotland and SP3: Planning for Housing. The Council requirements only up to 2011. The Structure Plan should therefore consider Objections to the Structure Alteration therefore proposes a refinement to Principle Plan within this context. S3 to take these matters into account. The Structure The distribution and scale of land release outlined Plan Alteration has been prepared in line with national in the Alteration and its Key Diagram must therefore policy as set out in SPP3 Planning for Housing. The conform with this development strategy and Plan therefore takes account of the current supply of locational criteria set by Principle S3 and Policy H3. housing land as set out in the agreed housing land The Council’s appraisal has not been carried out to a audit for 2006 and the household projections produced rigorous methodology and the analysis to an acceptable by GROS, along with flexibility provision of 20%. It standard. should be noted that substantial land is already The distribution of the strategic requirement for the identified in the core hub of the Central Borders Central Borders HMA is therefore not in accord with the through the Local Plan approved for adoption by the Council’s own development strategy Principle S3 and Council, and that this has been augmented through the does not accord with the guidance form the Scottish Structure Plan Alteration, in particular by the proposed Government including SPP3: Land for Housing. settlement expansion at Newtown St Boswells. The work carried out by the Council to identify potential development opportunities in the Central Borders HMA is flawed. The surveys, analyses and evidence presented by the Council do not lead to the conclusion that the core corridor within the HMA is at capacity and no further development can be accommodated.

_ _ Definition of the new Central Borders HMA and Not accepted. The Housing Market Areas have been No Change. implications for the delivery of the Council’s put forward on the basis of analysis in line with advice development Strategy and guidance provided by Communities Scotland. The Central Borders HMA needs further consideration in Communities Scotland has expressed support to the terms of the role to meet the housing market demands proposed Housing Market Areas. The Housing Market from Edinburgh and support the Waverley line through Areas included within the Plan fit much more closely to increasing patronage. Allocating land releases such as the Council’s development hub strategy than did the Hawick and Jedburgh do not meet these requirements. previous 7 housing market areas. It is noted that the Settlements such as Hawick and Jedburgh relate more current Lothian Structure Plan has only one housing to Carlisle and Newcastle than Edinburgh. The HMA market area stretching from Livingston to Dunbar. should be redefined to exclude settlements south of Ashkirk and this area transferred to the Southern HMA. No comparative analysis has been given to past build rates in these new HMAs. This is an important consideration and measurement if the Scottish Governments objectives of increasing housing output are to be supported.

_ _

71 Delivery of the Development Strategy needs to have Not accepted. The Council intend to bring forward a No Change. the flexibility to allow early land releases Local Plan Amendment to detail the allowances set by The Council however needs to allow all practical means the Structure Plan Alteration. In addition, in the event by which it can flexibly deliver these aspirations given of the potential of a shortfall of land in the Central the importance of the house building requirements to Borders the Plan includes Policy H4 on the the economic development strategy in the Central maintenance of a 5 year supply. This will be monitored Borders HMA. A simple consideration to improve through the annual housing land audit. The provisions delivery is to consider the scale of land release over up to 2018 and indicative provisions for 2019-2026 are time. The strategic requirements should therefore be required as a response to meet current and future allocated by settlement without reference to the scale of need. New or extended settlements are part of the development to be met by 2018. This would assist longer term allowances and to be considered as part of infrastructure providers such as Scottish Water, a future Plan review. This acknowledges the fact that a Transport, as well as the Council who all need to be considerable time required to develop substantial planning for the whole release of the housing development proposals. requirement in appropriate locations well in advance of The Structure plan alteration is proposed to move 2018. towards global allowances for housing market areas Another unnecessary restraint is the lack of defined for the longer term allowances 2019-2026. This will spatial development strategy beyond 2018 for the allow their proper review as part of the Strategic Central Borders HMAs outstanding housing requirement Development Plan for Edinburgh and South East of 1600 units. Scotland. Settlements for this outstanding balance of the strategic requirement should be identified at this stage of the Structure Plan process. These settlements should be in the core corridor of the HMA – Galashiels to St Boswells corridor to accord with the Councils development strategy. Galashiels has capacity to expand further and to meet its outstanding requirements such as the provision of a new primary school. _ _ Lack of strategic housing requirement the Core Not accepted. The Development Strategy aims to No Change. Area of Central Borders HMA guide development to existing towns and villages and According to the Councils development strategy to the primary hub in the Central Borders which (Principle S3) the aim is to focus development in the includes Hawick and Jedburgh as well as principal Galashiels – Melrose- Newtown St Boswells towns in the primary hub including Newtown St development corridor. Only 300 new homes are Boswells. See also response to objection 1. allocated to Galashiels, none to Melrose, none in St Boswells with only the settlement expansion at Newtown St Boswells accommodating 1000 new homes as a major expansion. 4100 new homes could be potentially located in other more peripheral settlements. The distribution of these proposed housing land allowances are not in accord with the Council’s development strategy. The current guidance in the Alteration does not provide local communities with sufficient guidance as to what

72 may happen to their communities in the future. Developers do not know whether to plan for further settlement expansions or invest in new town options. A spatial distribution for this 1600 allowance should be made and the allowance allocated to the various settlements in accord with Principle S3. Unless circumstances dictate otherwise, the majority of this allowance should therefore be distributed in Galashiels – Melrose – Newtown St Boswells/ St Boswells corridor with a significant amount within 5 minutes of stations to support the Council’s wider aim of sustainable transport. An appraisal has been carried out on the prospects of further land at Buckholm accommodating additional development. This has established prospects of releasing land for around 500 new homes, including affordable housing

73 Studies is limited to 11 settlements; the fact that the studies do not systematically cover all settlements confirms that preconceptions on where development might be appropriate have influenced the conclusions reached. Prior to any proposals or design concepts being advanced the Council needs to take account of all other relevant criteria. These must specifically include: Criteria in PAN 38 (now as reiterated in the Revised Consultation Draft SPP3: Planning for Housing), Criteria in Principle S3 and Policy H3 of the Structure Plan Alteration. There are sites recommended for development within the Studies which are considered non-effective, and others which are considered will have unacceptable impacts on the surrounding road network. The contributor has undertaken a technical examination of the Development and Landscape Capacity Studies and makes the following objections: The conclusions in the sustainability appraisal are inconsistent and lack an objective, rigorous methodology through which valid and transparent conclusions can be drawn No technical information is provided substantiate findings in the Sustainability Assessment – comments are arbitrary and it ignores potential for future developments to introduce measures to improve sustainability through mitigation. Assessments of sustainable transport connections for example do not take account of existing bus routes, the potential for future public transport connections, or subsidy to support bus services on existing routes. Assessments of the potential to develop a site sustainably are limited to the site itself, taking no account of measure required to access it. The work has been carried out without reference to the scale of development to be accommodated in the settlements, reaching very arbitrary conclusions about the capacity of a settlement to accommodate future development. The consequence of this approach is that these findings continue to support the very limited release of land in the settlements of Galashiels, St Boswells and Melrose, contrary to the Council’s approved development strategy. Given Government guidance to identify

74 locations for sustainable development, it is evident that the Central Borders HMA has capacity to accommodate substantial additional development. The land at Buckholm has been considered as part of the Development and Landscape Capacity Study for Galashiels and concluded that ‘... there were no long term options for the expansion of Galashiels North West identified (para 8.4.3). The contributor __ Buckholm as a sustainable location for development and is therefore proposed as a strategic development opportunity for 500 homes and primary school and should be included as an allowance in the Alteration. The site is effective and capable of being developed during the period 2006- 2018. _ _ Affordable Housing Not accepted. Whilst it is agreed that there is a need No Change. Insufficient consideration has been given to the need to for increased funding from Central Government have subsidy available to deliver the Council’s towards affordable housing, the policy looks to the Affordable Housing Policy. Policy 9 should be modified provision of affordable housing from private to have regard for financial (subsidy) implications in developers, Communities Scotland and registered investing in affordable housing. Without Housing social landlords. The Council’s supplementary planning Association Grant from the Scottish Government, then guidance on affordable housing sets out the different the requirements for subsidised affordable housing mechanisms across the range of sectors that may be cannot be met even if there is an ample land supply. used to deliver affordable housing. The Council also need to address in Policy 9 the lack of funding from the providers of subsidised affordable housing to finance developer contributions such as the Waverley Line or off site transport improvements.

Note: The contributor also encloses an Appraisal of development opportunities at Galashiels, a briefing note and an indicative concept sketch of the proposed Galashiels Expansion

Geddes Consulting on behalf of JS Crawford Partnership (150) The contributor has 11 objections to the Structure Plan Alteration as well as a series of objections about concerns over the spatial distribution of the proposal housing allowances’ compliance with the Council’s own development strategy; an objection has been made to the approach adopted by the Council in the commissioning of the Development and Landscape Capacity Studies. Objection 1 Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration builds No Change.

75 Proposed distribution of strategic housing allocations upon the progress made by the approved Structure are not in accord with the Approved Structure Plan as Plan. It recognises that the development hubs are still well as current and emerging guidance from the Scottish important to the delivery of the Council strategy and Government. seeks to spread the development opportunities across Since the release of the SPA the Scottish Government the range of principal settlements within the central has released consultation drafts on National Planning hub. This recognises that there are limited Framework, Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in opportunities within the core hub to meet development Scotland and SP3: Planning for Housing. The Council up to 2026. This recognises that the approved should therefore consider Objections to the Structure structure plan was designed to meet development Plan within this context as well as the Council’s support requirements only up to 2011. The Structure Plan for the Waverley Rail Project. The distribution and scale Alteration therefore proposes a refinement to Principle of land release outlined in the Alteration and its Key S3 to take these matters into account. The Structure Diagram must therefore conform with this development Plan Alteration has been prepared in line with national strategy and locational criteria set by Principle S3 and policy as set out in SPP3 Planning for Housing. The Policy H3. Plan therefore takes account of the current supply of This development strategy requires substantial new housing land as set out in the agreed housing land development to the released in the following areas as audit for 2006 and the household projections produced set out in Principle S3: East of Galashiels within the by GROS, along with flexibility provision of 20%. It Galashiels/Melrose/St Boswells corridor; The Newtown should be noted that substantial land is already St Boswells/St Boswells area; Galashiels/Selkirk axis; identified in the core hub of the Central Borders and Pebbles/Innerleithen/Central Borders axis. through the Local Plan approved for adoption by the These substantial land releases provide best prospects Council, and that this has been augmented through the for the securing patronage for the Waverley Rail Project, Structure Plan Alteration, in particular by the proposed to be effective new land releases should be within settlement expansion at Newtown St Boswells. 2.5km (at least) of the new stations. Actual trends in housing building in the Scottish Borders The current Structure Plan’s strategic housing requirements in the Scottish Borders for the period 1999-2011 is 6,313 new homes. This is a build rate of 526 new homes per annum. The contribution from the former Central Borders HMA is 3,274 new homes (52%) and this is equivalent to 273 new homes built annually. Actual build rates have been substantially below that in the former Central Borders HMA, whereas for the Scottish Borders completions have met the Plan’s requirements. This highlights the need for the Council to focus its attention on securing further development on existing allocation, and overcoming any implementation delays in new housing sites within its core development corridor. Analysis of proposed development strategy Substantial land releases therefore need to continue to be in the Central Borders HMA with a focus on a core corridor from Galashiels to St Boswells. The distribution

76 of the strategic requirement for the Central Borders HMA is therefore not in accord with the Council’s own development strategy (Principle S3) does not accord with the guidance from the Scottish Government including SPP3 and does not support the Council’s agreed targets for the Waverley Rail Project’s Outline Business Case. _ _ Objection 2 Not accepted. See response to objection 1. The No Change. The research and analysis undertaken by the housing land allowances set out in the Structure Plan Council through the various Development and Alteration can be met through analysis undertaken I Landscape Capacity Studies do not support the terms of the Landscape Capacity Study and choice of the proposed development strategy infrastructure capacities. It should be noted that the selected by the Council. Structure Plan Alteration is not site specific, and that By maintaining the criteria in principle S3 and Policy H3 the Landscape capacity studies are one aspect of the unchanged, the Council remains bound to a strategy of consideration that will be required as part of the site locating development within the Primary Core Hub, by allocation process for the Local Plan Amendment. This preference. All reasonable housing proposals within the is clearly set out in the documentation pertaining to the Primary Core Hub should be considered favourably. Plan. The Report of Survey identifies the range of The perspective of the brief for the Development and factors that are used at a strategic level to identify the Landscape Capacity Studies is of utmost relevance, as proposed allowances within the Alteration. the capacity of a landscape to accommodate Notwithstanding,the Development and Landscape development is influenced by the scale of development Capacity Study includes 371.8 ha land just out with it is considered necessary to accommodate. The Brief settlements and the requirement in the Alteration is for for these Studies is limited in scope to landscape and approximately 135ha calculated on an average density visual issues, with some review of environmental of 20units /ha. The DLCS does not take into account sustainability. These Studies do not take into account other planning considerations except landscape other planning considerations, and “cannot be used in capacity. isolation to allocate sites which are either appropriate or inappropriate for development” (section 1.1, Scope of Study, Brief, Methodology and Bibliography. However, the conclusions of the Studies are being used to promote preferred development locations in isolation of a careful and systematic consideration of other of other equally important factors e.g access to sustainable transport set out in SPP17. In addition the scope of the Studies is limited to 11 settlements; with some existing settlements excluded e.g. Earlston and St Boswells. The simple fact that the Studies do not systematically cover all settlements confirms that preconceptions on where development might be appropriate have influenced the conclusions reached. The Search Area indicated in Map 2 of this study is an arbitrary choice, given the conclusion reached and a wider area is evident from even a brief site visit. This recognised capacity is not

77 translated through to an informed Study of the town. This is an important omission. There are sites recommended for development within the Studies which are considered non-effective and other which will have unacceptable impacts on the surrounding road network. Given Government guidance to identify locations for sustainable development it is evident that the Central Borders HMA has the capacity to accommodate substantial development. _ _ Objection 3 Not accepted. The Housing Market Areas have been No Change. Definition of the new Central Borders HMA and put forward on the basis of analysis in line with advice implications for the delivery of the Council’s and guidance provided by Communities Scotland. development strategy Communities Scotland has expressed support to the The central Borders HMA has been re-defined and proposed Housing Market Areas. The Housing Market increased in area. The size and heterogeneous nature Areas included within the Plan fit much more closely to of this huge HMA needs further consideration in terms the Council’s development hub strategy than did the of role to meet the housing market demand from previous 7 housing market areas. It is noted that the Edinburgh and support the Waverley Rail line through current Lothian Structure Plan has only one housing increasing patronage. Allocating land releases in market area stretching from Livingston to Dunbar. peripheral locations such as Hawick and Jedburgh do not meet these requirements of the Council’s chosen development strategy. Settlements such as Hawick and Jedburgh relate more to Carlisle and Newcastle than Edinburgh. One of the consequences of increasing the size of the Central HMA will be to make the Council’s development strategy less sustainable as homes are allocated to towns more remote from the core development corridor and the new rail link. The HMA should be redefined to exclude settlements south of Ashkirk and this area transferred to the Southern HMA. _ _ Objection 4 Not accepted. The Council intend to bring forward a No Change. Delivery of the Development Strategy needs to have Local Plan Amendment to detail the allowances set by the flexibility to allow early land releases the Structure Plan Alteration. In addition, in the event The Council needs to allow all practical means by which of the potential of a shortfall of land in the Central it can flexibly deliver these aspirations given the Borders the Plan includes Policy H4 on the importance of the house building requirements to the maintenance of a 5 year supply. This will be monitored economic development strategy in the Central Borders through the annual housing land audit. The provisions HMA. A simple consideration to improve delivery is to up to 2018 and indicative provisions for 2019-2026 are consider the scale of land release over time. The required as a response to meet current and future strategic requirements should therefore be allocated by need. New or extended settlements are part of the settlement without reference to the scale of longer term allowances and to be considered as part of

78 development to be met by 2018. a future Plan review. This acknowledges the fact that a Another unnecessary restraint is the lack of a defined considerable time required to develop substantial spatial development strategy beyond 2018 for the development proposals. Central Borders HMA’s outstanding housing The Structure plan alteration is proposed to move requirement of 1600 units. Settlements for this towards global allowances for housing market areas outstanding balance of the strategic requirement should for the longer term allowances 2019-2026. This will be identified at this stage of the Structure Plan process allow their proper review as part of the Strategic and not be postponed. Development Plan for Edinburgh and South East Scotland. _ _ Objection 5 Noted. Policy H4 in the Plan covers the issue of the No Change. Proposed development strategy needs to maintain a 5year land supply. The housing allowances meet the minimum 5 year housing land supply and support projected shortfall and incorporate a 20% flexibility the Business Case for the Waverley Line element. The approach has been accepted as SPP3 makes it cleat that a 5 year land supply is reasonable by GROS. required from the date of adoption of the Local Plan. Table 7.1 should demonstrate that further action could be required to maintain the land supply in the Scottish Borders. The overall scale of land release is much lower than previously presented to the Scottish Parliament. Effectively the Structure Plan Alteration (contrary to OBC) has only allocated a small percentage of the potential dwellings within 2.5 km of proposed stations (defined as the most effective patronage zone). The Council therefore needs to give further consideration to the level of patronage it wishes to secure in support of the Rail Project. Further land releases are necessary within the core corridor in the Central Borders HMA. This needs to be an additional 2,700 new homes. _ _ Objection 6 Not accepted. The Development Strategy aims to No Change. Lack of strategic housing requirement the Core guide development to existing towns and villages and Area of Central Borders HMA to the primary hub in the Central Borders which According to the Councils development strategy includes Hawick and Jedburgh as well as principal (Principle S3) the aim is to focus development in the towns in the primary hub including Newtown St Galashiels – Melrose- Newtown St Boswells Boswells. See also response to objection 1. development corridor. Only 300 new homes are allocated to Galashiels, none to Melrose, none in St Boswells with only the settlement expansion at Newtown St Boswells accommodating 1000 new homes as a major expansion. 4,100 new homes are located in other more peripheral settlements. As stated in Objection 1, the distribution of these proposed housing land allowances are not in accord with the Council’s development strategy. The

79 allowance of 1,800 new homes should be allocated only to those settlements within the Central Borders HMA, initially to settlements within the core corridor and thereafter to the other settlements on the periphery. This should be carried out in accord with a transparent and objective methodology which can substantiate the outcome of more sustainable development. _ _ Objection 7 Not accepted. See response to objection 4. SPP3 No Change. Lack of spatial guidance to meet post 2018 housing require a broad indication of where requirements requirement in Central Borders HMA beyond 12 years will be met and the Council is The Alteration in Table 6 identified the settlements to recommended to meet this requirement in table 6 by accommodate the identified strategic requirement. A setting out the allowances at HMA level (see response total of 5,400 new homes have been identified for to objection 4). The SPA includes policy (H2) stating release in the Central Borders HMA over the period that review of longer term allowances will be reviewed 2006 to 2026. However, an allowance of 1,600 homes as part of the SDP for Edinburgh and South of has not been allocated to any specific settlement. Scotland. Indeed, there is a prospect that this may be a new settlement. The prospect of a further new settlement does not meet the sustainability requirements for the Scottish Borders. Previous studies about the need for new settlements such as the Tribal Report demonstrate that it is only the ongoing expansion of settlements which can meet economic, transport and infrastructure requirements which should be considered favourably. A new town in the Scottish Borders is not a sustainable option. The current guidance in the Alteration does not provide local communities with sufficient guidance as to what may happen to their communities in the future. Developers do not know whether to plan for further settlement expansions or invest new town options. Experience in the Scottish Borders highlights that the lead-in times on this ambiguous approach will only result in delays in the implementation of the Plan and delays to building new homes. A decision about the spatial distribution for this post 2018 1,600 allowance should be made now, and the allowances allocated to the various settlements in accord with Principle S3 as recommended in Objection 4. The majority of this allowance should therefore be distributed in Galashiels – Melrose – Newtown St Boswells/ St Boswells corridor with a significant amount within 5 minutes of stations to support the Council’s

80 wider aim of sustainable transport and the reintroduction and cost effective running of services. An allocation of 250 new homes specifically in Melrose, Darnick and Gattonside should be considered given the shortcomings in the Development and Landscape Capacity Studies identified in Objection 2. Earlston is also a candidate site for further land release and its allowance should be increased. _ _ Objection 8 Noted. The Structure Plan Alteration builds upon the No Change. Meeting Structure Plan objectives – promoting progress made by the approved Structure Plan. It sustainability in the transport strategy recognises that the development hubs are still The Council places some weight on the Borders Rail important to the delivery of the Council strategy and project in improving the sustainability of its development seeks to spread the development opportunities across strategy. Whilst this rail service is a welcome addition the range of principal settlements within the central for the Scottish Borders as a flagship project, it is of hub. This recognises that there are limited limited value to commuters some distance from its two opportunities within the core hub to meet development stations in Galashiels. This is defined as 2.5 km by the up to 2026. This recognises that the approved Council. Bus services will continue to transport most of structure plan was designed to meet development the Borderers commuting to Edinburgh and within the requirements only up to 2011. The Structure Plan Borders, particularly given the limited employment Alteration therefore proposes a refinement to Principle opportunities which can be served from stations on the S3 to take these matters into account. It should be rail line. noted that substantial land is already identified in the Change in transport modes will need to be a feature of core hub of the Central Borders through the Local Plan the use of this rail service and as such this will prove to approved for adoption by the Council, and that this has be a disadvantage to increasing patronage beyond been augmented through the Structure Plan Alteration, those it most conveniently serves. in particular by the proposed settlement expansion at Greater emphasis therefore needs to given to locating Newtown St Boswells. more development close to this rail line in sustainable locations such as Galashiels and Melrose which are within 5 minutes travel time as this provides the highest likelihood to maximise patronage of the railway. This also supports the assumptions adopted in the Outline Business Case for the Waverley line and supported by the Council. The spatial distribution of the housing land allowances in Table 6 therefore needs to be specifically reconsidered in terms of their sustainability in transport terms and modifications made to the Key Diagram. _ _ Objection 9 Noted. The Structure plan promotes contributions to No Change. Meeting Structure Plan objectives – retaining and affordable housing to help meet the need of affordable attracting the young economically active housing in the region. The local university is expanding population as part of the economic development and further assessment of employment land will be strategy included in the Local Plan Amendment.

81 The Council needs to demonstrate how its strategic development plan can attract and retain a young economically active population. There is a need within the Scottish Borders to ensure a fully functioning housing market with the full range and choice in all locations. Strong and sustained housing supply in the housing market is an effective and efficient way to meet the requirements of would be homeowners. _ _ Objection 10 Not accepted. Whilst it is agreed that there is a need No Change. Affordable Housing for increased funding from Central Government Insufficient consideration has been given to the need to towards affordable housing, the policy looks to the have subsidy available to deliver the Council’s provision of affordable housing from private Affordable Housing Policy. Policy 9 should be modified developers, Communities Scotland and registered to have regard for financial (subsidy) implications in social landlords. The Council’s supplementary planning investing in affordable housing. Without Housing guidance on affordable housing sets out the different Association Grant from the Scottish Government, then mechanisms across the range of sectors that may be the requirements for subsidised affordable housing used to deliver affordable housing. cannot be met even if there is an ample land supply. The Council also need to address in Policy 9 the lack of funding from the providers of subsidised affordable housing to finance developer contributions such as the Waverley Line or off site transport improvements. _ _ Objection 11 Accepted. It is important to retain employment land for Amend Plan as follows: Policy H3 – amend Brownfield Development that purpose where there is likely to be a continuing (iii). The re-use of vacant, derelict, previously Policy H5 Brownfield development promotes the re-use demand for such provision. The policy criteria will be developed or contaminated ‘brownfield’ sites of existing sites. In the context of the Scottish Borders, amended to allow the retention of brownfield land for no longer required for employment purposes. this policy as it stands could inadvertently encourage its original employment purpose where that is and facilitate the closure of existing businesses in order appropriate. Policy H5 – amend wording of policy to; The to promote premises for conversation to profitable development of brownfield sites for housing residential use. Policy H3 – amend (iii). The re-use of vacant, derelict, development is supported where the site is Given the fragility of the Scottish Borders’ economy, previously developed or contaminated ‘brownfield’ no longer required for any employment use further consideration should be given to reserving or sites no longer required for employment purposes. and where it will enhance the form and quality prioritising these sites for industrial or commercial use of the urban environment. Such development as part of the wording for Policy 5 e.g. inserting the Policy H5 – amend wording of policy to; The should include appropriate energy following sentence at the end – Retention of existing development of brownfield sites for housing conservation and sustainability measures, uses as part of the site’s redevelopment is the Council’s development is supported where the site is no longer sustainable drainage, and must not lead to an preference where this is supported by other policies in required for any employment use and where it will adverse impact on floodplain capacity. the Plan. enhance the form and quality of the urban environment. Such development should include Paragraph 4.25 – clarify through addition to appropriate energy conservation and sustainability paragraph; The Plan supports the measures, sustainable drainage, and must not lead to development of infill and brownfield sites an adverse impact on floodplain capacity. which meet sustainability objectives where they are no longer required for employment

82 Paragraph 4.25 – clarify through addition to paragraph; purposes. Significant brownfield opportunities The Plan supports the development of infill and will be able to contribute towards meeting brownfield sites which meet sustainability objectives structure plan allowances. where they are no longer required for employment purposes. Significant brownfield opportunities will be able to contribute towards meeting structure plan allowances. Homes for Scotland (177) _ _ Chapter 1 The Development Strategy Not accepted. The Alteration is prepared in the context No Change. The finalised alteration should be amended to reflect the of national policy and guidance in SPP3. The Alteration change in recent government policy announcements meets the projected housing requirement in full and which must now influence the development plan. The uses an additional flexibility provision of 20%. This Alteration should reflect the ambitions of Firm approach is supported by GROS. Foundations and associated policy statements which make it clear that increased housing construction is needed to meet need and demand, deal with affordability, and support economic development. This will require both development plans to allocate and release more land for housing, and an approach to development management which promotes development more effectively.

Scottish Borders, significant parts of which fall within the influence of the Edinburgh and Lothians housing market and travel-to-work area, will therefore have to accommodate its share of increased land allocations and house building. Paragraphs 1.2 – 1.6 should therefore reflect this changing national policy context and acknowledge that Scottish Borders Council will contribute to implementing the national policy agenda through its Structure Plan. The Alteration should also acknowledge at appropriate points the change under the new Act to city-region Strategic Development Plans. This is likely to impact on the development proposals for the Borders from 2013, and the likelihood of changes to the strategy thereafter should be acknowledged. Paragraphs 1.15. and 1.16 draw attention to the Council’s aspiration to halt and reverse the slowing rate of population growth, and to the range of strengths upon which the Borders could build to do this. Homes for Scotland support these paragraphs, but suggest that they also incorporate reference to the Government’s growth agendas. There should then be a recognition that one key factor in supporting that growth is to ensure 83 that housing is provided to meet all needs and demands. _ _ The Principal Aim Not accepted. The Principal Aim clearly supports the No Change. Paragraphs 1.19 – 1.24 discuss the principal aim of the development of a sustainable Borders community. (see strategy. Homes for Scotland do not dispute the also paragraphs 1.26 and 1.27. generality of the aim. However, neither paragraph 1.22 nor the box in paragraph 1.24 fully reflect the balance of environmental, social and economic factors which must combine in a sustainable approach. There is a sense running through the Alteration and the supporting Report of Survey that transport, infrastructure and landscape capacity strongly influence the choice and scale of locations for growth, but that demand factors are given little explicit weight. _ _ Key Elements of the Strategy Not accepted. See response above. The proposed No Change. The approved Structure Plan set out a reasonably clear strategy refinements reflect the full range of work case for three development hubs, and this appears to undertaken in the preparation of the Plan as set out in Homes for Scotland to remain valid. However, the the Report of Survey. The Structure Plan Alteration suggestion in the Alteration is that in both the Central builds upon the progress made by the approved Borders and Western Hubs there is a need for future Structure Plan. It recognises that the development dispersal of development across a wider area. In the hubs are still important to the delivery of the Council Western Hub, this is said to be due to high levels of strategy and seeks to spread the development development in the Peebles area and the need to opportunities across the range of principal settlements spread future development. Homes for Scotland within the central hub. This recognises that there are consider that this change of emphasis is misguided. The limited opportunities within the core hub to meet Plan seeks to allocate too much future land in locations development up to 2026. This recognises that the which are less marketable, thereby risking several approved structure plan was designed to meet consequences. development requirements only up to 2011. The In the Western Hub, the issue does not appear to be Structure Plan Alteration therefore proposes a one of available potential land, as demonstrated by the refinement to Principle S3 to take these matters into Landscape Capacity Studies, but rather a conscious account. The Structure Plan Alteration has been policy decision to reduce the proportion of development prepared in line with national policy as set out in SPP3 in and around Peebles, in spite of the market evidence Planning for Housing. The Plan therefore takes that demand is focussed there. In the Central Hub, the account of the current supply of housing land as set issue appears to be driven largely by out in the agreed housing land audit for 2006 and the landscape/environmental issues, whereas if demand household projections produced by GROS, along with were properly weighed against these issues then in flexibility provision of 20%. It should be noted that Homes for Scotland’s view some compromises on substantial land is already identified in the core hub of environmental impacts would be justified in order to the Central Borders through the Local Plan approved promote development in more marketable locations in for adoption by the Council, and that this has been support of economic growth and of the rail line. augmented through the Structure Plan Alteration, in The Principal Aim in paragraph 1.24 should therefore be particular by the proposed settlement expansion at amended to include a fourth bullet point reflecting Newtown St Boswells. 84 market demand issues. A suggested wording is: x Meet social and economic needs by: o Providing development in locations where people and businesses wish to locate o Addressing needs and demands where they arise Next to paragraph 1.33 is a box noting that the revised strategy aims to meet needs in each housing market area. Homes for Scotland disagree with the proposal to amend the Housing Market Areas.

Paragraph 1.40 introduces the key Principles of the strategy. Principle 1 is considered to be unduly weighted towards environmental factors over social and economic ones. It should be amended to read: “Principle 1 Proposals for substantial development will be assessed against relevant sustainability criteria with the aim of balancing social and economic benefits against potentially-harmful environmental impacts, in order to promote sustainable growth in the Scottish Borders.” What will now become Principle 2 is reasonable, but in deleting items (iv) and (v) the opportunity should be taken to introduce a new item (iv) acknowledging the importance of development locations which meet market demands and which support economic growth. _ _ Chapter 4 Housing Not accepted. The Housing Market Areas have been No Change. Housing Market Areas put forward on the basis of analysis in line with advice This Chapter begins by setting out proposals for revised and guidance provided by Communities Scotland. Housing Market Areas, consolidating the existing 7 Communities Scotland has expressed support to the HMAs into four new areas. Homes for Scotland reject proposed Housing Market Areas. The Housing Market the arguments for these changes and consider that the Areas included within the Plan fit much more closely to existing 7 areas should be retained. the Council’s development hub strategy than did the Given the impending change to a Strategic previous 7 housing market areas. It is noted that the Development Plan for the Lothians, Borders and Fife, it current Lothian Structure Plan has only one housing seems pointless to change the HMA areas at present, market area stretching from Livingston to Dunbar. when the new strategic planning body will require to review HMAs across the entire new plan area. In that context, it is entirely possible that revised HMAs will 85 result in cross-boundary HMAs between Scottish Borders and the Lothians Councils. There seems little point in altering data collection and presentation practices now only to change them again in the near future.

The evidence presented to justify the change in Appendix 2 to the Report of Survey is not convincing. The level of containment considered to represent a self- contained housing market area is 70% for larger urban areas and 75% for rural areas. The analysis of the existing 7 areas in Table 1 shows that only North Ettrick and Lauderdale fails to satisfy the test of containment in regard to purchasers from within the Borders. This is to be expected given the relationship of that area to the Lothians. The results for the various test areas, including the preferred option of 4 new areas, do not show significantly-increased levels of containment. Indeed, the Southern area fails the test. Homes for Scotland considers that the evidence in support of changes to the Housing Market Area framework is very weak, and does not justify the administrative changes in any event, and certainly not in the context where the Strategic Development Plan is likely to change them again. _ _ Housing Land Requirement Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration has been No Change. Paragraphs 4.6 onwards deal with the housing land prepared in line with national policy as set out in SPP3 requirement. The GRO(S) projections in themselves are Planning for Housing. The Plan therefore takes not disputed. Table 1 then makes adjustments in line account of the current supply of housing land as set with PAN38. However, this method of calculating out in the agreed housing land audit for 2006 and the requirements is simplistic, and is clearly recognised as household projections produced by GROS, along with such in the consultative revised SPP3. A far more flexibility provision of 20%. GROS support the sophisticated approach, encompassing market analysis proposed requirement and the way in which the Plan as well as demographic analysis, is proposed. In deals with flexibility. addition, it is made clear that it is no longer acceptable to assume that, at the base date of a plan, the housing system is in equilibrium. Factors such as backlog need and demand should be considered. Paragraph 4.9 hints at the need to consider backlog need for affordable housing, and other Councils are taking this into account. However, backlog demand for market housing should also be considered. A measure of that is the extent to which the housing requirements of the 2002 Plan have been met. The 2007 Housing Land Audit suggests that,

86 while at a Council-wide level the requirements have been matched, there are major variations at HMA level. In two HMAs, Central Borders and S Roxburgh, The Plan requirements have not been met. S Roxburgh has fallen short by 22% (albeit numerically the deficit is small at c.60). Central Borders, however, has fallen short by over 900 units, or 42%. Crucially, this means that the Business Case for the Waverley Rail Line is not being delivered as set out in the justification to the Scottish Parliament. In the other 5 HMAs there has been an overprovision against the Plan requirements, the largest proportionate overprovision occurring in the 3 HMAs making up the proposed new Northern HMA. This comes as no surprise given the market demands which exist in those areas. The market pressures in those areas represent aspirations and demand and cannot be ignored either in the Plan’s projections and calculations. It is not enough to say that all these factors can be dealt with by a flexibility allowance over the baseline requirement. Flexibility is intended to allow for matters such as range and choice and market demand. Homes for Scotland also considers that both windfall sites and small sites (less than 4 units) should be treated as additional flexibility in housing supply, since neither is, nor can be, explicitly identified as part of the strategic land supply. _ _ Considering Tables 4 and 5 together (and Not accepted. See responses above. No Change. notwithstanding the fundamental objection to the proposed HMA boundaries), Homes for Scotland is content that the requirements in Berwickshire and Southern are reasonable. The requirements for Central should be augmented to take up the historic backlogs in provision of both affordable and market housing. The real issue in Central Borders is delivery. House builders are clear that demand is there, but the Council has failed to secure delivery to meet that demand through its development plan and development management processes. . By contrast, the requirement in Northern is significantly lower than historic completions, despite the higher baseline projections used in the Alteration. House builders are clear that this approach fundamentally underestimates demand in the north of the Council area, and will have serious consequences in

87 terms of house price inflation, affordability and the delivery of affordable housing via enabling private development. _ _ Paragraph 4.20 and Table 6 consider the distribution of Not accepted. The Plan seeks to ensure that supply is No Change. housing. Homes for Scotland consider that the broad provided within each of the Housing Market Areas, and distribution is flawed, and that some of the assumptions within those areas it provides a reasonable distribution at settlement/sub-area level are unjustified. In terms of of housing supply within the main settlements. The locational issues, Homes for Scotland would raise the proposed allowances take into account the full range of following issues: factors as set out in the Report of Survey. It also takes into account the current effective and potential housing x Paragraph 4.20 stresses the increasing supply as at the 2006 housing land audit. In Hawick marketability of Hawick/Jedburgh and settlements and Jedburgh there are limited additional allowances outwith the core corridor. However, while Hawick may proposed in the period up to 2018. This will ensure the have seen some increase in demand, it is still seen by continued availability of land. In Kelso there is a the industry as serving a localised market with a limited substantial effective and potential land supply of over overspill of demand when supply is constrained in more 450 units. In the Northern Housing Market Area the marketable locations. Other settlements outwith the core requirement and additional flexibility is met in full. The corridor are not seen as having significant new growth proposed allowances are based on consideration of a potential wide range of factors including infrastructure, services, x Kelso is a regional centre in a rural area; as flooding, and natural heritage including landscape. such it is the key settlement in its area and requires a This is set out in the Report of Survey. sustained supply throughout the Plan period x The assertion of limited landscape capacity in Northern HMA is disputed. The Landscape Capacity studies suggest 95 Ha suitable land for housing in Northern including c. 50 Ha in Peebles; this is clearly not reflected in land allocations x There is a need to take a more balanced view of social, economic and environmental issues in the core corridor – dispersal away from the rail line/stations weakens both the Waverley Rail Business Case and the Hub strategy. Some compromises are needed on environmental issues. The landscape capacity studies are not a balanced view of sustainability issues, rather a partial look at environmental issues only. If a systematic methodology for selecting locations taking account of a full range of sustainability factors has been employed, it is not transparent in the Report of Survey. The rationale for determining housing allocations should be set out in an Appendix to the Report of Survey. _ _ Homes for Scotland agree with paragraph 4.21 – longer Noted. The Structure Plan Alteration policy H2 states The longer term allowances will be expressed term sites should be identified in the Local Plan. that the longer term allowances will be reviewed as in the Plan by Housing Market Area rather However, the long-term allocations 2019 – 2026 are part of the Strategic Development Plan for Edinburgh than by settlement. Amend Key Diagram 88 ambiguous, in that they are not allocated to specific and the South of Scotland. The allowances set out in accordingly. This will require a rewording of settlements and they leave open the issue of whether or table 6 is to assist communities, infrastructure and policy H2 to remove the requirement to not a new settlement might be appropriate. Local Plans service providers, and developers in their long term identify land for potential longer term cannot identify specific sites in the absence of this planning. It is accepted, however, that the appropriate development within the Local Plan strategic guidance. SPP3 is clear that any proposal for a approach would be to put forward these allowances Amendment. new settlement should be identified in the Structure (subject to review) by housing market area. This will Policy H2 to be reworded as follows: replace Plan, not the Local Plan. . The Council has undertaken require a rewording of policy H2 to remove the ‘should’ with ‘may’. landscape capacity and urban capacity studies with the requirement to identify land for potential longer term Replace Para 4.21 with the following wording: intention of identifying long-term development capacity, development within the Local Plan Amendment. ‘Longer term allowances are expressed by but appears to be unwilling to utilise that research to housing market area to provide an indicative make locational choices. view of future housing requirement, subject to review by the future Strategic Development _ _ Plan. Assuming that long-term locations are identified in the Not accepted. Policy H4 deals with the five year supply No Change. Finalised Structure Plan and sites then allocated in the matter. Local Plan, there needs to be a mechanism for bringing these sites forward in the event of emerging shortfalls, and this should be stated in Policy H2 by adding a second sentence: “Longer term allocations can be brought forward and granted planning consent if monitoring shows that there is a shortfall of effective housing land against the 5-year minimum requirement at any time”. _ Policy H3 would benefit from 2 changes: Agreed. Sustainable construction should be removed The following changes to be made to the 1. In item (i), sustainable construction is not a from criteria (i).It would also be helpful to add the criteria in Policy H3. Sustainable construction locational criteria, and should be deleted proposed text to criteria (xi) in the interests of clarity. should be removed from criteria (i). In item 2. In item (xi), after “development” add “or to (xi), after “development” add “or to overcome overcome constraints efficiently”, in order to constraints efficiently”, make clear that existing thresholds/constraints need not limit development if effective solutions can be found. _ _ Homes for Scotland disagree with paragraph 4.24 and Not accepted. The policy is introduced to give clear No Change. Policy H4. While it is accepted that some redirection of direction to future planning in the Northern Housing demand may be possible and desirable, constraining Market Area, and in recognition of the potential for demand to the degree proposed will have adverse unsustainable development in the Northern Housing effects on house prices, affordability and delivery of Market Area without a planned approach. It should be affordable housing. The Plan should take a more noted that the Plan proposes to meet the projected realistic view of the need for housing in the northern shortfall (including the 20 per cent flexibility) in full. HMAs. _ _ The end of the first sentence of Policy H9 is unclear. It Agreed. The policy should be reworded to take the Policy H9 to be reworded as follows- after would assist if the words “by the mechanisms used to points on board. This will assist the clarity and ‘areas of need’ replace text with ‘identified assist delivery of” were replaced by “in”. A second implementation of the policy. through the Local Housing Strategy. This will sentence could point to the role of the Local Plan and/or 89 Supplementary Guidance. In the final sentence, it is not be further detailed through the Local Plan always possible to secure affordable housing in and supplementary planning guidance. Such perpetuity, for instance where it is privately-built and housing should where possible be secured funded as shared equity. The final sentence should for successive as well as initial occupants.’ therefore begin “Wherever possible, such……”. Para 4.35 remove ‘the mechanisms used to assit the delivery of the’ from the first sentence. Add ‘where possible’ after ‘it is important’. _ _ Chapter 7 Noted. The update box will be augmented to provide Update box alongside paragraph 7.2 to be Homes for Scotland note the intention to produce a more detail on the proposed Local Plan Amendment. amended by adding ‘The draft Local Plan Local Plan amendment to take forward the provisions of Amendment will be produced in 2008.’ the Structure Plan Alteration. It would be helpful to state the deadlines by which this amendment must proceed in order to be prepared under the existing regulations. It is understood that a consultative document and parallel Strategic Environmental Assessment must appear before October 2008. _ _ Homes for Scotland, while clearly supporting the Not accepted. The proposed strategy refinements No Change. reintroduction of the line, was and remains sceptical that reflect the full range of work undertaken in the the Council’s development plan framework or preparation of the Plan as set out in the Report of performance on implementation will deliver the Survey. The Structure Plan Alteration builds upon the necessary housing. The Structure Plan Alteration does progress made by the approved Structure Plan. It nothing to change that view. The Structure Plan recognises that the development hubs are still Alteration, therefore, does not support the Waverley important to the delivery of the Council strategy and Line Business Case. This in itself would justify further seeks to spread the development opportunities across land allocations in the corridor. The case for further land the range of principal settlements within the central allocations is wider than this, however, encompassing hub. This recognises that there are limited dealing with backlog needs and demand, better opportunities within the core hub to meet development reflecting the realities of market demand and reflecting up to 2026. This recognises that the approved the Government’s aspirations to increase substantially structure plan was designed to meet development the rate of house building. requirements only up to 2011. The Structure Plan Alteration therefore proposes a refinement to Principle S3 to take these matters into account. The Structure Plan Alteration has been prepared in line with national policy as set out in SPP3 Planning for Housing. The Plan therefore takes account of the current supply of housing land as set out in the agreed housing land audit for 2006 and the household projections produced by GROS, along with flexibility provision of 20%. It should be noted that substantial land is already identified in the core hub of the Central Borders through the Local Plan approved for adoption by the Council, and that this has been augmented through the

90 Structure Plan Alteration, in particular by the proposed settlement expansion at Newtown St Boswells.

Warren Consultants on behalf of Redrow Homes (161) Not accepted. The Structure Plan Alteration has been No Change. The contributor endorses the comments made by prepared in line with national policy as set out in SPP3 Homes for Scotland that the housing land requirement Planning for Housing. The Plan therefore takes for the whole Structure Plan area should be increased. account of the current supply of housing land as set The contributor also supports the Scottish Ministers in out in the agreed housing land audit for 2006 and the their approval of the current Structure Plan and opposes household projections produced by GROS, along with the new Structure Plan in the way that the Hubs are flexibility provision of 20%. being interpreted. In respect of the Western Hub The proposed strategy refinements reflect the full focused on Peebles and the Northern housing Market range of work undertaken in the preparation of the Area, we consider that development focused on Plan as set out in the Report of Survey. The Structure Peebles is preferable to the other settlements referred Plan Alteration builds upon the progress made by the to e.g. Innerleithen and Walkerburn. The contributor approved Structure Plan. It recognises that the endorses the policy changes recommended by Homes development hubs are still important to the delivery of for Scotland in respect of for example bringing forward the Council strategy and seeks to spread the long term if required to meet the 5 year supply including development opportunities across the range of for the Northern Housing Market Area and in areas such principal settlements within the central hub. This as Peebles where the Council is supporting economic recognises that there are limited opportunities within improvements and job creation. The contributor also the core hub to meet development up to 2026. This wish to endorse most of the comments of Homes for recognises that the approved structure plan was Scotland which argues that the overall housing land designed to meet development requirements only up to requirement is inadequate regardless of the individual 2011. requirement in particular HMA (whether old or new). Policy H4 is introduced to give clear direction to future planning in the Northern Housing Market Area, and in recognition of the potential for unsustainable development in the Northern Housing Market Area without a planned approach. It should be noted that the Plan proposes to meet the projected shortfall (including the 20 per cent flexibility) in full.

Structure Plan Alteration: Bulk Contributors on Peebles

Title Forename Surname Mr John Sloggie Mr James Sloggie Ms Shirley Sloggie Mrs Sheryl Illingworth Ms Donna Williams Mr Andy Pearson 91 Shirley Murray Robert Chapman Eileen Kidd Alison Peck David Peck Miss Joan Todd Pierre-Alban Guy Michelle Law Yvonne Gordon Keri O'Neill Sinclair Short Dorothy Mathers Andruna Mathers Marcos Morillas Miss G Parker David Morgan Emma Hamilton Linda Paton Michael Pringle Kiupa Turske Donald Paton Zoe Edmonds Enid Thomson Sean Thomson Sam French Doreen French Colin Caughie Mr H Willems Maria Geen A Thomson Deborah Chapman Mrs Nancy Thomson Sheila. E. Horsburgh Sheila Cuthbertson Mrs Maureen Laidlaw Graeme Chapman David Geen Mrs Lesley Ireland Mr David Bryson Mrs Fiona Bryson Ann Goodburn 92 Alistair Wilson G Brown A. B Brown G. R Cochrane S. Caughie A Glendinning Evelyn Inglis A. L. Deek W. Davidson Shelagh McLagan Mrs B Thomson Mr H Peat Mrs Helen Peat Norma Hunter Mrs Irene Muir R Watts Jill Watts Robert Luke Helen Luke James Clyde Elizabeth Clyde James Ritchie M Ritchie Lorraine Harley Craig Hall James Murray Mrs Avril Murray Mrs Jane Brown Caroline Brand Colin Brand George Muir Mrs A Wilson Moira Ramsay Dr Susan Gray Thomas Ramsay Alan Urquhart Mr Robert Morrice Robert Paton R Drummond Mrs Margaret Wightman W S Wightman 93 Suzanne Paton Mrs Elizabeth Taylor Christine Fraser Andrew Fraser David Caulton Francesca Caulton Fay Lenore Scott Bosco Santimano Hanisa Santimano Ian Farmer Mrs Elma Farmer Alistair MacDonald Margaret MacDonald Maureen White Hendry White W B Robertson William M Goodburn M Blot Simon Neville Ms May Somerville

94 Scottish Borders Council Structure Plan Alteration Environmental Report Post-Adoption Statement

1. Key Facts

Responsible Authority Scottish Borders Council

Title of Plan/Programme Scottish Borders Structure Plan Alteration (SPA)

What prompted the plan? The Structure Plan contains a commitment to review the land released for housing under Policy H1A. This commitment is dependent on:

(i) there being a reasonable prospect of the reinstatement of rail links between Edinburgh and central Borders being operational during or soon after the end of the Plan period (by 2011); and (ii) the terms of any Structure Plan Alteration following on from an interim review (by 2006) of housing policies, progress on the implementation of rail links and future projected growth requirements.

Plan subject The SPA principally focuses on housing land policy issues.

Period covered by plan The Structure Plan covers the period 2001-2011.

Frequency of plan updates The Structure Plan is reviewed in line with requirements of the Planning Act.

Plan area The SPA will cover the entire Scottish Borders Council area: 4743km².

Purpose of the plan / plan objectives The Structure Plan sets the strategic policy framework for land use within the Scottish Borders. The objectives of the SPA are to: (i) update the housing land requirement and spatial allocation; (ii) update the affordable housing policy; (iii) update the housing in the countryside policy; and to (iv) update as appropriate the development strategy. 2. Assessment process

2.1 The Scottish Borders Structure Plan Alteration has been subject to a process of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), as required under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004. The following activities have been undertaken to produce the Environmental Report:

x Consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Ministers (Historic Scotland) regarding the scope and level of detail appropriate for the Environmental Report.

x The preparation of an Environmental Report that assesses the likely significant effects on the environment of the draft plan which included consideration of: i. the baseline data relating to the current state of the environment; ii. links between the plan and other relevant policies, plans, programmes and environmental objectives; iii. existing environmental problems affecting the plan; iv. the plan’s likely significant effects on the environment (positive and negative); v. the mitigation measures envisaged; vi. an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives chosen; vii. monitoring measures to ensure that any unforeseen environmental effects will be identified allowing for appropriate remedial action to be taken.

x A twelve week consultation period on the Environmental Report followed by an analysis of all comments and any recommended changes.

x Taking into account the environmental report and the results in making final decisions regarding the plan / programme.

x Committing to monitoring the significant environmental effects of the implementation of the plan to identify any unforeseen adverse significant environmental effects and to taking appropriate remedial action. 3. Integration of environmental considerations into the Structure Plan Alteration

Table 1: Integration of environmental considerations into the Structure Plan Alteration Environmental Integrated into How Integrated/Taken into Account or Reasons for not being taken into Considerations and Plan account Findings from Yes/No Environmental Report Biodiversity, fauna and flora Yes Policy H3 lists the impact on biodiversity as one of the criteria to be assessed – loss of habitats when allocating housing sites. Environmental policies N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6 and N7 in the Structure Plan also aim to conserve and enhance species and habitats within the Scottish Borders.

The Finalised Local Plan which designates specific housing sites continues this aim with polices NE1, NE2, NE3, NE4 and NE5. These seek to safeguard and enhance habitats and species through careful development control. Major applications and sites identified with important habitats/species may be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Population and human health Yes Policy H3 lists the capacity of individual settlements to absorb development, – rise of waste and use of with specific regard for water, sewerage and education as criteria to be recreational facilities assessed when allocating housing sites.

In the Finalised Local Plan, Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development requires the provision of “recycling, re-using and composting waste”. Furthermore, Policy G5 – Developer Contributions lists recycling as one area that might require contributions.

Soil – sealing of greenfield Yes Policy H3 lists the re-use of vacant, derelict, previously developed or land contaminated “brownfield” sites and the scope for more productive use of under-utilised town centre property as criteria to be assessed when allocating housing sites.

Water – rise of pollution Yes Policy H3 now has specific reference to this as a result of the public incidents in areas near the consultation. Tweed The Structure Plan Policy N8 “River Tweed System” acknowledges the need to protect and enhance the Tweed and states that development considered to have an adverse impact will be subject to rigorous examination under the nature conservation policies.

In the Finalised Local Plan, Policy NE5 – Development Affecting the Water Environment aims to protect the water resource and to ensure that developers consider the impact of their proposals and build in measures to minimise impacts and enhance and restore the water environment.

Air – rise in car usage Yes Policy H3 lists accessibility to public transport and in particular, strategic public transport and accessibility to services and facilities by foot, cycle or public transport as criteria to be assessed when allocating housing sites.

In the Finalised Local Plan, Policy EP – Air Quality aims to protect air quality and minimise development impact.

Climate Change – higher Yes Policy H3 lists energy efficiency in terms of location, aspect, orientation and demand of energy sustainable construction and the avoidance of flooding as criteria to be assessed when allocating housing sites.

The Scottish Borders Council published Supplementary Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy in 2007 which has stated a requirement for all developments of 500m² floorspace or over to achieve a 15% reduction beyond the 2007 Building Regulation carbon dioxide emission levels. Consideration for this should first be given to energy efficiency and building design measures.

Material assets – impact on Yes Policy H3 lists the need to retain open space within settlements to prevent open space/mineral deposits own or village “cramming” and the non-sterilisation of mineral deposits as around settlements criteria to be assessed when allocating housing sites. In the Finalised Local Plan, Policy G7 – Infill Development aims to prevent “town & village cramming” and Policy BE6 – Protection of Open Space aims to protect a wide range of open space and prevent piecemeal loss to development. Furthermore, Policy EP3 – Prevention of Settlement Coalescence aims to protect identified areas from losing breathing space between settlements. Policy R2 – Safeguarding of Mineral Deposits aims to ensure that mineral deposits are not unnecessarily sterilised through inappropriate development.

Cultural Heritage – damage Yes Policy H3 lists the impact on man-made environment including archaeology to historical settlement as criteria to be assessed when allocating housing sites. pattern In the Finalised Local Plan, Policy BE1 – Listed Buildings aims to protect works from spoiling their character and Policy BE2 – Archaeological Sites & Ancient Monuments aims to give them strong protection from damaging development.

Landscape – impact on Yes Policy H3 the capacity of the landscape to absorb development as criteria to landscape around be assessed when allocating housing sites. settlements In the Finalised Local Plan, Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development requires development to be compatible with its surrounding area, can be accommodated satisfactorily in the site and retains the physical and natural features of the area. 3. Consultee Responses

3.1 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) 3.1.1 Generally, SEPA supported the approach taken by the Council to proactively engage with the Consultative Authorities and considers that the Environmental Report provides a thorough assessment of the potential significant environmental effects of the Structure Plan Alteration.

3.1.2 A number of comments made suggested the need for clarification in the SEA statement regarding the following:

x Likely evolution of the Structure Plan Alteration x Difficulties during the assessment x Mitigation measures and their implementation

3.1.3 SEPA also raised concern over the secondary, synergist and cumulative effects required by Schedule 3(6) of the Act. This was specifically with regards to waste generation, flooding and climatic factors. Improvements have now been made to section 4 of the Environmental Report and to Appendix B to address these concerns. A number of additional indicators were further suggested. These have been taken on board in cases where the required data could be sourced.

3.2 Scottish Ministers (Historic Scotland) 3.2.1 Historic Scotland commented that the Environmental Report was well-written and succinct and set out a number of suggestions to improve the document, although nothing that constituted a legal requirement of the SEA Act. Nevertheless, a number of changes have been made to the Report based on Historic Scotland’s suggestions including: reference to SHEPs 1 & 2; minor changes to the wording in the objectives; changes to some of the indicators proposed for the cultural heritage section.

3.3 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) 3.3.1 SNH acknowledged that the Environmental Report considers the likely environmental impacts of the proposed Structure Plan Alteration, and reflected previous discussions in meetings held by the Scottish borders Council with the Consultative Authorities. Overall, they agreed with the assessments made in the Environmental Report and the proposals for monitoring.

3.3.2 The only concern that was raised by SNH was the wording in the Environmental Report about the wording in sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the Appropriate Assessment. This wording has now been changed to reflect the legislative requirements for Natura sites. 4. Reasons for choosing Structure Plan Alteration Strategy

This section summarises the alternatives and the reasons for choosing the strategy.

4.1 Development in Key Hubs Strategy

Table 2: Development in Key Hubs Strategy Alternative Implications for PPS Reasons for choosing alternative Development in Key Hubs Housing land directed to Development in key hubs would ensure that identified growth areas specific growth areas. were sited in areas that can support additional households through the provision of infrastructure and services. It would also encourage the development of brownfield land within settlements, a strategy highlighted in the Environmental Report to have a potentially positive impact on the Soil Headline Objective. This option was therefore chosen but with a review of the towns within key hubs to address the constraining features of settlements.

Revising development Housing land directed to This strategy would provide housing where there most demand but strategy to reflect areas where demand has might place a heavy burden on local infrastructure and services. development trends been most apparent. This was identified in the Environmental Report as potentially having a negative impact on objectives from the Population & Human Health Headline Objective, with specific reference to services & infrastructure. This option was not taken.

Development of new Housing land directed into This strategy would provide opportunities for housing in areas single/standalone new settlements as main where there are less physical constraints but would involve the settlements as part of an source of provision. need to improve infrastructure and services to ensure local overall settlement strategy provision was adequately met. The Environmental Report identified potential negative impacts on the Soil Headline Objective. Nevertheless, this option has been identified as a long term strategy to ensure that the housing requirement is met. 4.2 Housing in the Countryside Strategy

Table 3: Housing in the Countryside Strategy Alternative Implications for PPS Reasons for choosing alternative A continuation of existing Directs housing to This strategy seeks to direct new housing towards sites within Structure Plan policies settlements but supports existing settlements. This supports essential services and makes conversions and buildings best use of the local infrastructure. It supports conversions and groups in rural locations. buildings groups in rural locations to allow for the regeneration of vacant/derelict buildings but prevents isolated housing. This strategy encourages the re-use of derelict buildings, an objective highlighted under the Cultural Heritage Headline Objective. This option has been chosen.

An approach of constraint of Prevent housing in rural An approach of constraint on development in the countryside would development within the locations. only impact negatively on the provision of family homes. This would countryside be very minimal, however, as development in the countryside will generally only provide very limited numbers of housing. This was likely to have a minimal negative impact on Population & Human Health. This option has not been chosen.

The relaxation of Allow greater opportunity to A relaxation on development in the countryside would probably development within the build housing in rural areas. have the greatest cumulative negative impact on the environmental countryside objectives. This would likely see a slightly increased risk of damage to biodiversity, soil and landscape as it would produce larger numbers of housing in rural areas that had limited infrastructure and services, therefore increasing car usage. This was identified as likely to have a minimal negative impact on the Air Headline Objective but a potentially positive impact on Population & Human Health. This option has not been chosen. 4.3 Affordable Housing Strategy

Table 4: Affordable Housing Strategy Alternative Implications for PPS Reasons for choosing alternative Continuation of existing SP Affordable housing should be The existing strategy would assess the proportion of affordable policy assessed on proportion, housing required for each development based on the identified requirement and exceptions need. This strategy was chosen in conjunction with more in-depth that meet an identified local guidance on affordable housing requirements in t he Affordable need. Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Should a percentage The Affordable Housing This would ensure that developers provide a percentage of requirement be identified strategy would provide a affordable housing for each site. This option was not chosen within the Structure Plan percentage requirement. because the Affordable Housing SPG is a more effective in terms Alteration? of frequent update.

Should a variation of The strategy would vary the This would direct affordable housing requirements to the HMAs that percentage requirement percentage requirement needed the greatest input. This is built into the Affordable Housing across Housing Market depending on the Housing SPG at present and therefore was not chosen. Areas be identified? Market Area.

4.4 The Development Strategy

Table 5: The Development Strategy Alternative Implications for PPS Reasons for choosing alternative Continuation of existing This strategy involves the Development is directed to the 3 key hubs and substantial new Structure Plan Development development hubs, housing growth will be discouraged out with the primary hub area. Housing Hub Strategy in the countryside and the in the countryside is carefully controlled in terms of location and regeneration of brownfield design. The development of brownfield sites is supported when it opportunities. can be achieved without town cramming. This strategy was highlighted in the Environmental Report to have a potentially positive impact on the Soil Headline Objective. This option was chosen but with alterations to incorporate the findings of the alternatives.

Identification of alternative This strategy would provide Development is directed to alternative Hubs. This might help to Core Hubs alternative Core Hubs for exploit settlements with less constraints regarding brownfield land, development. a strategy highlighted in the Environmental Report to have a potentially positive impact on the Soil Headline Objective.. Nevertheless, Core Hubs must be able to provide the necessary infrastructure and services. This was highlighted as potentially negative for Population & Human Health. As many of the Borders key towns are already located within the Key Hubs, this option was not chosen.

Regeneration Areas This strategy would identify This would direct housing to areas already serviced but it might regeneration areas to meet exacerbate flooding and could damage the historical landscape of the housing requirement. settlements. Any loss of open space would also add to town cramming issues. This option would not meet the housing requirement and therefore was not chosen although the re-use of brownfield land is encouraged through the chosen option.

Development in the Provide greater opportunities The development in the countryside strategy would see more Countryside to allow development within limited numbers of houses and therefore less impact on the countryside. environmental objectives. It would provide good opportunities for reuse of vacant or derelict buildings and supply limited numbers of homes for families but would not meet the housing requirement. This option was not chosen. 5. Measures to monitor significant environmental impacts from Structure Plan Alteration

5.1 Any plan should be monitored for the environmental outcomes, helping to identify the need for future corrective actions and its compliance with the SEA objectives. This can be integrated into the regular plan cycle or any plan revisions. Existing monitoring arrangements can therefore be used to obtain the required information. This can be from the plan in question or from other plans being undertaken within the Council.

5.2 The majority of monitoring for the SEA objectives is already undertaken by the Council or by other government bodies or agencies. Any new identified data can be incorporated into the monitoring arrangements for the Structure Plan Alteration. This allows SEA monitoring to be incorporated into the existing performance monitoring.

5.3 A Monitoring Report is currently being undertaken for the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan. This is will incorporate many of the monitoring needs identified within this SEA.

Table 6: Monitoring measures of significant environmental impacts Issue/impact Mitigation Underpinning PPS Method and timescale identified in measure to be monitored or Environmental agency Report responsible Loss of habitats Housing site Scottish Borders Sites will be assessed for proposals Council Local Plan the biodiversity impacts designated housing sites. on each site and highlight ensuring minimal mitigation and damage and compensation methods in identify Local Plan Amendment. enhancements.

Rise of waste Provision of Scottish Borders Quarterly. Monitoring of recycling Council Waste recycling levels which services. Management feed into the Strategy. Strategy. Sealing of The development Local Plan provision Vacant & derelict land greenfield land of brownfield sites of redevelopment survey undertaken within settlements opportunities. annually. This should to reduce the support the future need for identification of potential greenfield sites. brownfield sites for the Local Plan Land Use Allocations. Rise of pollution Minimal number Local Plan housing Sites for the Local Plan incidents in of housing sites sites. Amendment will be areas near the designated in assessed to ensure that River Tweed close proximity to they are not designated River Tweed. within the floodplain and are identified when close to the Tweed. This will help to assess cumulative impact on the Tweed and its tributaries. Rise in car Locating housing Local Plan housing Sites will be assessed for usage sites near public sites. the sustainability of the transport and key site based on proximity to services to key services and public discourage car transport in Local Plan usage. Amendment.

Higher demand Building should Local Plan Policy D4 Meeting of targets through of energy be designed to on Renewable planning applications. reduce carbon Energy emissions by Development & SPG 15%. on Renewable Energy. Impact on open Housing site Local Plan housing Sites will not be in located space/mineral proposals sites. in areas protected by deposits around designated Local Plan Policies EP3 settlements ensuring the and R2 in the Local Plan prevention of Amendment. settlement coalescence and the protection of mineral deposits.

Damage to Housing site Local Plan housing Sites will be assessed for historical proposals sites. their potential integration settlement designated into the settlement in pattern ensuring minimal Local Plan Amendment damage and proposed for 2008. identify Heritage & Design enhancements. Officers will be consulted on proposed sites. Impact on Housing site Development & Proposed areas identified landscape proposals Landscape Capacity in the study will be around designated Studies undertaken assessed in Local Plan settlements ensuring minimal as background Amendment. damage and survey for the identify Structure Plan enhancements. Alteration and their application in the designation of Local Plan housing sites. 6. Conclusions

6.1 This statement demonstrates that the likely environmental impacts of the Structure Plan Alteration’s aims and objectives have been assessed through the Environmental Report and adjustments have been made to the strategies based on the findings of the environmental assessment. It is made clear from the assessment that the Structure Plan Alteration is overarching and therefore many of the environmental issues identified in the assessment will require to be assessed in more detail as the Plan is implemented through further plans & policies, in particular, the Local Plan Amendment.

6.2 Findings from the assessment have fed into the Structure Plan Alteration and helped to shape the preferred option. This is demonstrated in Tables 2, 3, 4 & 5. There were a number of key issues highlighted though the Structure Plan Alteration that will need to be monitored. Table 6 in the Post Adoption Statement highlights the means with which to monitor these issues through further plans and policies. Many of these monitoring issues will be implemented through the Local Plan Amendment that will be undertaken this year. The procedure for site assessments has been designed to incorporate the required monitoring measures. An Access database and a GIS project have been constructed to support this process and address the issues raised in Table 6.

6.3 There is an aspiration to monitor Structure Plan policies annually, as part of a larger monitoring programme. The Local Plan Monitoring Report is already currently being undertaken. This will be widen to incorporate the more strategic overview provided in the Structure Plan in the following year. SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL ITEM 8

22 May 2008

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

LOCAL PLAN AMENDMENT: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PREPARE

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To agree that the Council should prepare a Local Plan Amendment, and that the necessary formal advertisement should be undertaken.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Scottish Borders Structure Plan was approved by Scottish Ministers in September 2002. It was agreed by the Council’s Executive on 27 June 2006 to recommend to full Council that a Structure Plan Alteration (SPA) be prepared. Notice of intention to prepare the SPA was advertised in February 2007.

2.2 The Scottish Borders Local Plan was agreed by the Council for adoption on 20 March 2008.

2.3 On 27 September 2007 the Council agreed a draft SPA and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as a basis for consultation. The documents were advertised in November 2007 and they were subject to a 12 week consultation period running through to 25 January 2008.

2.4 The proposed finalised SPA is reported to this Council meeting.

2.5 There is now a requirement to proceed with a Local Plan Amendment (LPA) to detail the SPA policies and proposals.

2.6 This requires that the Council formally advertises its intention to prepare the LPA.

2.7 It is anticipated that the LPA will include policies and land allocation proposals on housing and employment land. There may also be an opportunity to incorporate any significant infrastructure or service opportunities that currently exist.

2.8 It is further anticipated that the draft LPA for public consultation will be brought to the Council in early autumn of 2008. Following printing, public consultation, and analysis of the public response, it is likely that the Council would be in a position to consider a finalised LPA in spring 2009. There would then be a further period for public objection and this would be followed by a Local Plan Inquiry to consider any outstanding objections. 3 CONSULTATION

4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 There are financial implications in respect of the advertising costs for the notice of intention to prepare. Budget is available to cover these costs.

5 RISK COMMENTARY

5.1 The primary output from this report is the recommendation to agree to advertise the Council’s intention to prepare an LPA. The risk associated with this is minimal in that there is an outstanding requirement to set out the detail in the Council’s SPA, particularly with regard to housing policy and housing land allocation. The recommended approach is a proactive response to the provision of housing land to meet demand and need.

5.2 However, there is risk if the Council does not proceed with due diligence on the preparation of a LPA on housing land matters. The current Structure Plan and Local Plan were based on figures provided up to 10 years ago. The upward trend in projections and the current approved Structure Plan Horizon of 2011 means that the Council should take steps to ensure the continuing adequate provision of housing land to meet projected requirements. It will be important for the Council to take forward the Local Plan Amendment consequential on the SPA to identify the detailed sites to meet requirements up to 2018.

5.3 There is similar risk if the Council does not proceed to update its requirement for employment land to seek to ensure the economic viability of the area.

5 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK

6.1 The Local Plan is a key document in prioritising the environmental framework related to the future development in the area. Environmental implications related to development policy are an important consideration in the preparation and consultation on the Plan. An Environmental Report will be required under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act.

7 EQUALITIES

7.1 The primary focus of a Local Plan is to provide opportunity for appropriate development in terms of the social, economic and environmental context of the area. It therefore handles equalities by seeking to provide adequate land for reasonable needs related to housing land and affordable housing.

7.2 The rural proofing exercise will be appropriate at the draft stage of the LPA.

8 SUMMARY

8.1 The report seeks the agreement of Council to undertake a Local Plan Amendment and to formally advertise that intention. 9 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 It is recommended that the Council agrees:

(a) That a Local Plan Amendment be prepared,

(b) That the Council’s intention to prepare a Local Plan Amendment should be formally advertised.

Approved by Name Designation Ian Lindley Director of Planning and Economic Development

Author(s) Name Designation Martin Wanless Plans and Research Manager

Background Papers: Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Previous Minute Reference: None

22 May 2008

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE RESOURCES

ALLOWANCES PAID TO MEMBERS DURING 2007/08

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The Council must by 1 June publish the allowances and expenses paid to its Members during the previous financial year. [Regulation 6(5) of the Local Government (Allowances and Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 apply]. This report, together with information to be posted on the Council’s website, fulfils the statutory publication requirements for 2007/08.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 This year’s report has to cover payments made under two sets of statutory arrangements. We have to report on each, which adds somewhat to the complexity of the data.

2.2 Until 3 May 2007, “allowances” included the Basic Allowance set by the Scottish Executive and payable to all Councillors; Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA) determined by the Council and paid to specific post-holders; and payments towards Councillors’ travel, subsistence and administrative expenses such as telephones and surgeries. Income Tax and National Insurance deductions were made as appropriate.

2.3 The Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee (SLARC) “Review of Remuneration Arrangements for Local Authority Councillors” led to the introduction of an entirely new scheme of allowances described in the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 (Remuneration) Regulations 2007 and the Local Government (Allowances and Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2007, which came into force on 2 May 2007 and took effect on 3 May 2007.

2.4 With effect from 3 May 2007, £15,452 per annum is payable to each Councillor unless he or she is entitled to one of the higher amounts payable to the Leader of the Council, the Convener and Senior Councillors.

2.5 The Leader of the Council is paid £30,905 per annum and the Convener £23,179 per annum, these amounts being specified in the Regulations.

2.6 The number of Senior Councillors and the amounts payable were for determination by each local authority in accordance with criteria specified in the Regulations. This was done at the Scottish Borders Council meeting on 24 May 2007.

1 3 ALLOWANCES PAID IN 2007/08

3.1 Appendix 1 details the allowances paid to Councillors up to 3 May 2007 and Appendix 2 details the expenditure for which they were reimbursed for the same period. These Appendixes are in the same format as previous years with the addition of a column in Appendix 1 detailing Severance Payments paid to outgoing Members under the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 (Severance Payments) Regulations 2006. The sum of £120,000 in respect of Severance Payments was funded by the Scottish Executive and was not a direct cost to Scottish Borders Council.

3.2 Appendix 3 details remuneration and expenses from 3 May 2007 in a format that is prescribed in the Local Government (Allowances and Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2007. The Regulations require the amount of Council-provided telephone links and calls to be included. This was not previously reported; only costs incurred by Councillors for which they were reimbursed directly were included (see Appendix 2, note 4). From 3 May 2007 all Councillors now have a Council-provided telephone link.

3.3 The changes to the payment structure and reporting requirements make direct comparisons between 2006/07 and 2007/08 difficult. However, the main points of note are as follows:- (i) Basic Allowances and Special Responsibility Allowances in 2006/07 amounted to £424,863. This compares with £56,812 for the same allowances in the early part of 2007/08 together with £530,312 in salary payments under the new Regulations from 3 May 2007, a total of £587,124 and an increase in cost of 38.2%.

(ii) Travel and Subsistence expenses in 2007/08 amounted to £74,455, a 20.7% increase on the 2006/07 figure of £61,695. The rate payable for mileage undertaken on approved Council business was standardised at 49.3p per mile where previously lower rates were payable for vehicles with smaller engine sizes. The new regulations also introduced a passenger supplement of 5p per passenger per mile.

(iii) The cost of Telephone & ICT Expenses in 2007/08 is shown as £35,076. Comparable data is not available for 2006/07 as it was not required to be reported until the new Regulations came into force.

4 CONSULTATION

4.1 The Heads of Corporate Administration, Legal Services and Corporate Finance have been consulted and their views incorporated.

5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The report is concerned with reporting actual expenditure in the last financial year. There are no specific financial implications arising from the report itself.

6 RISK COMMENTARY

6.1 Members will understand that the report is intended to advise the public of payments made to Councillors and accordingly public reaction and media comment are to be expected. There are no other specific risk issues arising.

6.2 The report has no environmental implications.

2 7 EQUALITY

7.1 The report raises no equality issues.

8 SUMMARY

8.1 The Council must publish information on payments made to Councillors. The Appendices include the required information.

9 RECOMMENDATION

9.1 The Council is asked to note the information in the Appendixes and acknowledge these, together with information to be posted on the Council’s website, as meeting the publicity requirements of the Local Government (Allowances and Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2007.

Approved by Name Designation Signature John I Campbell Director of Corporate Resources

Author(s) Name Designation Alan Bowman Head of Financial Administration

Background Papers: Payroll records and Invoice file maintained by Corporate Administration;

Previous Minute Reference: Council 24 May 2007

3 Appendix 1

Allowances paid to Scottish Borders Council Members to 3 May 2007

Special Basic Responsibility Total Councillor Notes Allowance Allowance Severance Payments £ £ £ £ M BECK 895 162 0 1,057 CJ BHATIA See note 3 876 514 0 1,390 M BROWNE 895 55 10,000 10,950 N CALVERT See note 3 876 1,704 0 2,580 MJ COOK See note 3 876 1,893 0 2,769 VM DAVIDSON See note 3 876 0 0 876 RG EDGAR 895 1,704 0 2,599 JB ELLIOT 895 1,704 20,000 22,599 AI FARQUHAR 895 1,704 0 2,599 JA FULLARTON See note 3 876 162 0 1,038 GHT GARVIE See note 3 876 162 0 1,038 WO HERD See note 3 876 0 0 876 JB HOUSTON See note 3 876 0 0 876 AH HUTTON See note 3 876 1,704 0 2,580 FKJ LACKENBY See note 3 876 162 0 1,038 WF LAMB 895 0 20,000 20,895 J LAW 895 514 10,000 11,409 KW MCCARTNEY 895 514 0 1,409 MA MCCRAVE 895 514 0 1,409 JG MITCHELL See note 3 876 0 0 876 AJ NICOL See note 3 876 1,224 0 2,100 NM NORMAN 895 55 0 950 D PARKER See note 3 876 2,525 0 3,401 D PATERSON See note 3 876 1,704 0 2,580 PS PURVES 895 0 0 895 D RICHARDSON 895 0 15,000 15,895 CA RIDDELL-CARRE See note 3 876 1,704 0 2,580 VM ROBSON 895 1,704 20,000 22,599 GW RUSSELL 895 0 0 895 AA SCOTT See note 3 876 1,704 0 2,580 WD SMITH 895 514 15,000 16,409 AW THOMSON 895 514 0 1,409 JHK WIGHT 895 162 10,000 11,057 DH YOUNGER 895 1,704 0 2,599 Totals 30,126 26,686 120,000 176,812

Notes 1. All figures are rounded to nearest £1. 2. Outgoing Members were entitled to payment of Basic Allowance up to and including 3 May. 3. Re-elected Members were due to be paid under the new regulations from 3 May and therefore their Basic Allowance was only paid up to and including 2 May.

4 Appendix 2

Expenses Reimbursed to Scottish Borders Council Members to 3 May 2007

Travel and Other Total Name Subsistence Expenses Expenses £ £ £ M BECK 389 0 389 CJ BHATIA 199 0 199 M BROWNE 87 36 123 N CALVERT 1,006 12 1,018 MJ COOK 583 0 583 VM DAVIDSON 1,000 0 1,000 RG EDGAR 506 47 553 JB ELLIOT 505 44 549 AI FARQUHAR 465 0 465 JA FULLARTON 1,002 0 1,002 GHT GARVIE 297 6 303 WO HERD 158 0 158 JB HOUSTON 504 0 504 AH HUTTON 855 88 943 FKJ LACKENBY 0 0 0 WF LAMB 36 36 72 J LAW 133 0 133 KW MCCARTNEY 150 4 154 MA MCCRAVE 164 0 164 JG MITCHELL 185 38 223 AJ NICOL 1,160 146 1,306 NM NORMAN 114 0 114 D PARKER 0 0 0 D PATERSON 323 44 367 PS PURVES 323 0 323 D RICHARDSON 164 0 164 CA RIDDELL-CARRE 120 0 120 VM ROBSON 970 0 970 GW RUSSELL 213 0 213 AA SCOTT 295 0 295 WD SMITH 38 36 74 AW THOMSON 339 0 339 JHK WIGHT 176 36 212 DH YOUNGER 543 19 562 Totals 13,002 592 13,594

Notes 1. All figures are rounded to nearest £1. 2. Councillor Parker, the Council Leader is registered partially sighted and is unable to drive. In the above period a total of £14 was paid to a taxi firm and £94 to a Council employee in respect of journeys undertaken by Councillor Parker on Council business. 3. Councillors had the choice between 2 types of telephone link for use at home on Council business. Those who opted to use their own home line received a telephone allowance, which is included under “Other Expenses”. Those who opted to use a separate, Council- provided link to their home did not receive a telephone allowance and hence no payments are included above.

5 Appendix 3

Scottish Borders Council Members Salaries and Expenses from 3 May 2007 Re-imbursement of Expenses Telephone & Information Communication Salary & Travel Subsistence Technology Other Total Expenses Name Designation Salary Expenses Expenses (ICT) Expenses Expenses Expenses Total £ £ £ £ £ £ £ AK AITCHISON COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,066 0 1,071 7 2,144 15,579 WK ARCHIBALD COUNCILLOR 13,435 2,450 0 892 38 3,380 16,815 CJ BHATIA SENIOR COUNCILLOR 19,562 2,701 0 1,088 0 3,789 23,351 JAS BROWN COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,444 0 1,064 0 2,508 15,943 N CALVERT SENIOR COUNCILLOR 19,853 5,551 0 1,039 0 6,590 26,443 MJ COOK SENIOR COUNCILLOR 19,562 3,265 0 1,037 52 4,354 23,916 VM DAVIDSON SENIOR COUNCILLOR 17,127 609 0 1,052 14 1,675 18,802 Z ELLIOT COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,392 0 1,024 0 2,416 15,851 JA FULLARTON SENIOR COUNCILLOR 17,127 4,983 75 1,625 0 6,683 23,810 GHT GARVIE SENIOR COUNCILLOR 17,127 2,916 0 995 17 3,928 21,055 WK GUNN COUNCILLOR 13,435 934 0 1,036 0 1,970 15,405 WO HERD COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,067 0 1,047 0 2,114 15,549 JB HOUSTON SENIOR COUNCILLOR 14,928 812 0 1,059 0 1,871 16,799 JR HUME COUNCILLOR 13,435 0 0 921 0 921 14,356 AH HUTTON CIVIC HEAD 19,853 2,417 0 1,004 103 3,524 23,377 T JONES COUNCILLOR 13,435 2,905 0 1,055 1 3,961 17,396 FKJ LACKENBY COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,031 0 1,052 0 2,083 15,518 RG LOGAN COUNCILLOR 13,435 2,199 24 1,067 0 3,290 16,725 S MARSHALL COUNCILLOR 13,435 786 0 1,081 0 1,867 15,302 JG MITCHELL COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,392 30 979 6 2,407 15,842 DP MOFFAT SENIOR COUNCILLOR 14,928 2,999 0 1,103 0 4,102 19,030 AJ NICOL SENIOR COUNCILLOR 19,853 0 0 750 0 750 20,603 D PARKER LEADER 26,271 0 0 1,028 0 1,028 27,299 D PATERSON COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,439 0 1,051 0 2,490 15,925 JA PATON-DAY COUNCILLOR 13,435 2,134 0 1,024 19 3,177 16,612

6 JD RAW SENIOR COUNCILLOR 19,562 2,735 0 1,042 0 3,777 23,339 FA RENTON COUNCILLOR 13,435 2,362 0 799 0 3,161 16,596 CA RIDDELL-CARRE SENIOR COUNCILLOR 17,127 1,269 4 994 0 2,267 19,394 AA SCOTT COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,611 0 1,021 0 2,632 16,067 RH SMITH SENIOR COUNCILLOR 15,040 1,789 0 1,025 0 2,814 17,854 G TURNBULL COUNCILLOR 13,435 2,028 0 1,024 16 3,068 16,503 NA WATSON COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,520 4 903 5 2,432 15,867 T WEATHERSTON COUNCILLOR 13,435 1,173 0 1,069 13 2,255 15,690 JL WYSE SENIOR COUNCILLOR 17,127 1,262 75 1,055 0 2,392 19,519 Totals 530,312 62,241 212 35,076 291 97,820 628,132

Notes 1. All figures are rounded to nearest £1. 2. Income Tax and National Insurance deductions are made as appropriate. 3. Receipts are provided in respect of expenses claimed. 4. Councillor Parker, the Council Leader, is registered partially sighted and is unable to drive. In the above period a total of £1,474 was paid to a taxi firm and £458 to a Council employee in respect of journeys undertaken by Councillor Parker on Council business. 5. £243 was paid direct to service providers for a journey abroad by a Councillor which is not included above because the expense was not incurred by and reimbursed to the Councillor concerned.

Note – You can get this report on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below from which you can also obtain information on other language translations as well as obtain additional copies.

Contact: Alan Bowman, Head of Financial Administration, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825010 Fax 01835 825166

7 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL ITEM 10

22 MAY 2008

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WORK

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF SOCIAL WORK OFFICER 2007

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To provide Council with the first annual report of the Chief Social Work Officer on the statutory work undertaken on the Council’s behalf. The report also provides Council with an overview of regulation and inspection, workforce issues and significant social policy themes current over the past year.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 The requirement that every local authority should have a professionally qualified Chief Social Work Officer is contained within Section 45 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994. The particular qualifications are set down in regulations. This is one of a number of officers, roles or duties with which local authorities have to comply.

2.2 The role replaced the requirement in Section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for each Local Authority to appoint a Director of Social Work.

2.3 The Changing Lives 21st Century Social Work Report made 13 separate recommendations to the Scottish Executive. One of these was to strengthen the governance and leadership roles of the chief social work officer;

2.4 The Scottish Executive responded quickly and in favour of the review’s findings through the publication of the Changing Lives Implementation Plan in June 2006.

2.5 The Council agreed at its meeting on 27 September 2007 to receive an annual report from the Director of Social Work fulfilling his statutory role as Chief Social Work Officer.

3 STATUTORY DUTIES AND DECISIONS

3.1 The Council’s scheme of delegation as amended in 2006 identifies the Director of Social Work as the Agency Decision Maker to make the final decision in certain legal matters: 3.2 FOSTERING AND ADOPTION

a) 4 children have been adopted in the last year.

b) There are currently 9 children placed with prospective adopters.

c) The Chief Social Work Officer is also the Agency Decision Maker (ADM) in terms of Fostering and Permanence decisions – Regulation 12 C(S) Act 1995.

d) It is the Agency Decision Makers responsibility to make decisions based on recommendations by the Fostering or Permanence Panels. In Scottish Borders Council these panels are held on a monthly basis and consider the following:

i. Fostering assessments ii. Foster carers reviews iii. Assessment of Prospective Adoptive Parents iv. Children being considered for Permanence ( Long term fostering and Adoption) v. Matching of children with prospective adopters of long term foster carers vi. Advice & guidance on complex situations that may be considered for permanence.

The Agency Decision Makers receives minutes of the meetings, meets with the chair of the meeting, if required, and makes decisions based on the recommendations.

In 2007

i. 18 children were registered for permanence – 10 of whom were under 5 years of age. 14 of these children have already been placed, and 10 of these placements were with prospective adoptive parents. ii. 4 Prospective adopters were approved iii. 2 Prospective Adopters were not approved iv. 1 Long term (permanent) foster carer was approved v. 7 Foster carers were approved vi. 3 Foster carers were de registered vii. 15 foster carers / short breaks carers were reviewed

3.3 CHILD PROTECTION

As of 31 March 2008 there are 30 children on the Child Protection register, one of the lowest levels of registration for 7 years, and significantly lower than the 63 children that were registered at the start of the year, as a total of 40 children were registered over the course of the year, and 73 were de-registered.

The average age of children on the Child Protection register has dropped slightly, with 50% of children currently registered aged 4 or under, compared with 43% at the same time last year. The average length of time that children spend on the register has also been dropping, with an average length of 40 weeks in 2006/07 reducing to 38 weeks in 2007/08. 3.4 SECURE ORDERS

Only one child has been made the subject of a Secure Order by the Children’s Hearing process. This was a short 4-month placement in Aycliffe, Co. Durham, and is one of only 4 secure placements made in the last 6 years.

Secure Orders are used very infrequently in Scottish Borders, and more early- intervention and community-based support packages are considered to be a better approach to these complex cases.

3.5 VULNERABLE ADULT PROTECTION

i. A total of 79 referrals were received during 2007. These were evenly split between male and female clients. (48% male, 52% female)

ii. Referrals are significantly higher for the younger age groups, with 28% of referrals being received for the 16-30 age groups, and over 50% being received for the 16-50 age groups.

iii. Clients with Learning Disabilities are by far the largest client group being referred, accounting for 64% of the referrals received. Older People and people with Dementia account for most of the other referrals.

iv. The reasons for referrals are quite diverse, with physical abuse (27%) and psychological abuse (24%) being the most common, but significant numbers of referrals for sexual abuse (17%), financial abuse (14%) and neglect (14%).

v. The majority of cases result in some ongoing involvement from the Social Work department (37%) or no further action (22%), but significant numbers result in a full investigation (13%) or the result that the claims made were unsubstantiated (14%) and 2 cases have resulted in an application for Welfare Guardianship under Adults with Incapacity Act guidelines.

vi. There were 25 initial case conferences and 27 review case conferences carried out during the year.

3.6 ADULTS WITH INCAPACITY

Over the year 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2008, the following orders were granted

i. 5 Guardianship – Welfare ii. 1 Interim Guardianship – Financial and Welfare iii. 11 Interim Guardianship – Welfare iv. 3 Interim Variation v. 1 Welfare Power of Attorney

Currently we monitor 6 Private Guardianships, and the Chief Social Work Officer has responsibility for 24 Guardianships.

3.7 MENTAL HEALTH

There were 23 new Care and Treatment Orders issued in the last year. 4 REGULATION AND INSPECTION

4.1 Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care (SCRC) The Care Commission was established in April 2002 under the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 to regulate all adult, child and independent healthcare services in Scotland. The Care Commission are responsible for ensuring that care service providers meet the Scottish Government’s National Care Standards and work to improve the quality of care. They are also responsible for monitoring the Scottish Social Service Council’s (SSSC) Codes of Practice. Their key function is to protect people who use care services by identifying poor practice and asking for action to be taken by service providers.

4.2 During the period 1st April 2007 – 31st March 2008 the Care Commission undertook twenty-eight formal inspections of SBC provided services (see Appendix 1). These consisted of both announced and unannounced inspections and covered all of the following services:-

i. Care Home services for Older People x 7. ii. Day Support services for Older People x 8. iii. Home Care services x 4. iv. Day Support services for people with a Learning Disability x 4. v. Day Support services for people with a Physical Disability x 1. vi. Day Support services for people with a Mental Health problem x 1. vii. Care Home services for Young People x 1. viii. Fostering Service x 1. ix. Adoption Service x 1.

4.3 Following each inspection, the Care Commission produces an inspection report for each service respectively. The report sets out the strengths of the service as well as those areas which can be further developed. Towards the end of each inspection report the Care Commission clearly set out any ‘Requirements’ and/or ‘Recommendations’ the service should undertake prior to its next formal inspection. Over the period of this report (April 2007 – March 2008) the Care Commission identified a total of 47 x Requirements and 102 x Recommendations for our services. These are currently being progressed by our respective services in order to improve the quality of care being provided to service users. The inspection reports for each service are public documents and are published on the SCRC website.

4.4 The Care Commission also undertook at least sixty additional inspections of care services provided by the independent sector within the Scottish Borders during 2007/8. These are set out in Appendix 2. The SCRC inspections identified 86 x Requirements and 119 x Recommendations for these services. Progress on requirements and recommendations are reported in subsequent inspection reports.

4.5 A proprietor notified intention to close a private care home in November 2007 due to business failure. Social work staff worked closely with the Care Commission and the staff at the home to ensure the smooth transfer of residents to suitable alternative accommodation and the home closed in January 2008. The closure has led to consideration of the further powers that might be necessary to ensure the financial viability of a business where this has an adverse impact on care provision. 4.6 HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIe) In March 2007 HMIe published its Joint inspection of services to protect children and young people in the Scottish Borders Council area. This formal inspection was undertaken by the Services for Children Unit.

4.7 The joint inspection report was a positive account of the work undertaken to protect children in the Borders. It identified a number of key strengths:-

i. The multi-agency Child Protection & Review Unit (CPRU); ii. Effective child protection procedures and policies, operated consistently by staff; iii. Multi-agency staff awareness raising and training in child protection which has led to high levels of confidence and competence among staff across services; iv. Safe recruitment procedures; v. Leadership and direction provided by the Chief Executives of the Council and Health Board and the police Chief Superintendent which resulted in a culture of collective responsibility and the promotion of partnership working; vi. Leadership provided by the independent chair of the Child Protection Committee.

4.8 Communities Scotland – Inspection of Homelessness Services Under section 72 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, Communities Scotland undertook a formal inspection of the department’s Homelessness Services during June 2007. The purpose of the inspection was to provide an independent external assessment of the effectiveness of homelessness services delivery and make recommendations to help service improvement. Communities Scotland published its report in October 2007 and gave the service an overall rating of FAIR. The report set out a number of key strengths of the service as well as key areas for improvement. In response to the inspection’s findings, the department has developed an improvement plan for its Homelessness services.

4.9 Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA) SWIA is an independent Government Agency tasked with inspecting all Social Work services in Scotland and report publicly and to the Scottish Parliament on the quality of those services.

4.10 SBC Social Work Services will undergo a formal Performance Inspection by SWIA in the summer of 2008. This is an important and comprehensive inspection of social work services. A significant amount of time and effort is required to prepare for the inspection process.

4.11 During the fieldwork phase of the inspection in August/September, SWIA are likely to want to interview a selection of members. This may be an individual or group discussion.

4.12 The Performance Inspection will take place in August 2008 with the final Report due in early 2009.

5 WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Theme 1: Required Growth in Social Services Workforce

In Social Work Services we face a challenge to recruit, retain and develop a balanced, multi skilled, flexible, committed workforce capable of delivering the ever-developing, high quality services needed by service user’s year on year. 5.1.1 The wider social services workforce nationally is growing at an unprecedented rate – between 1995 and 2004 the social services workforce in Scotland grew by 43% from 97,000 to 139,000 (the voluntary sector more than doubled, the private sector grew by over 75% and local authorities by 7%). 3 out of 5 workers in 1995 were employed by local authorities but by 2004 this figure had dropped to 2 out of 5.

5.1.2 The need for Workforce Planning is critical given that further growth is required to meet the level of need for social services in the future. Skills for Care and Development: Sector Skills Agreement: Stage 3 Scotland reports a requirement for 27% more full time equivalent staff in social services by 2017.

5.1.3 Building on The Range and Capacity Review report (Scottish Executive 2004) approach it has been possible to identify the following projected increases in adult care staffing by 2017:

i. Residential care – 37% ii. Day care – 32% iii. Domiciliary care 32%

5.1.4 The demand for Criminal Justice Social Work and Children and Families Social Work is less clear but not thought likely to decrease!

5.1.5 The Scottish “expansion demand” predicted of a further 27,000 full time equivalent jobs in Community Care alone will translate to around 500 to 700 full time jobs in Scottish Borders or 800+ new workers given the higher levels of part time working within the sector.

5.1.6 Locally this requires us to take a more proactive role in working with other agencies in workforce planning, not just for the Department’s staffing requirements. This will place significant pressure on our financial resources over the coming years. In 2008/9 social work officers will work with their corporate colleagues and national bodies to provide an assessment on the impact of this predicted growth in order to plan accordingly.

5.2 Theme 2: Staff Development and Training

Developing and training the social work and social care workforce is a major priority to enable the provision of quality services to users and carers. Training and Development plays a vital role in the life of any Social Work Department. Everybody employed by the Department needs to continually review and update the skills and competencies they require to be truly effective in the performance of their job.

5.2.1 The Department regularly recruits staff without formal qualifications and then provides opportunities to attain the skills and qualifications necessary to enable registration with the Scottish Social Services Council.

5.2.2 Each year the Department’s Annual Awards Ceremony celebrates the success of staff of the Department and foster carers who have achieved a qualification and in 2007 this event celebrated the achievements of around 150 members of staff.

5.3 Theme 3: Infrastructure for Learning and Development

The Department runs a very successful Assessment Centre for Scottish Vocational Qualifications in partnership with Midlothian Council with over 170 candidates working through their care awards with the support of either an in-house or peripatetic assessor and internal verifiers. A joint programme with NHS Borders is being piloted with a view to NHS Borders becoming a partner in the Centre – making this one of only two NHS /Local authority joint centres in Scotland.

5.3.1 The Staff Development Team are well placed to take a leading role in this agenda – the Workforce Planning and Development Manager chairs the Scottish Social Services Network: South East and Staff Development Officers contribute to other regional and national bodies – External Verification for the SQA, Board of Examiners at Edinburgh University etc.

5.4 Theme 4: Developing a People Plan / Business Transformation The development of a People Plan for Social Work Services will provide the strategic framework within which workforce development activities will be taken forward over the next three to five years. The implementation of the new corporate pay and grading scheme will be used as an opportunity to drive this work forward and the Plan will be in place later in 2008.

6 PUBLIC POLICY

6.1 Free Personal Care Free personal care received much publicity again this year consequent upon the judgement of Lord McPhail last October. Members will recall that the Director reported to Executive on November 13 2007. The report set out the issues and seeking support to work with COSLA and Scottish Ministers towards a clarification of areas in dispute including meal preparation, waiting lists and eligibility criteria. At the same time the Council’s current policy on meal preparation was re-affirmed pending further national changes. Whilst this report was in preparation Lord Sutherland concluded his independent review of free personal care and COSLA commenced work on proposals for reform. This work will be reported to Executive in due course and included in the 2008 report of the Chief Social Work Officer.

6.2 Migrant Workers The issue of Scottish Borders as an increasingly popular destination for European migration has been an important issue of public policy for social work services in working to our strategic outcome of diversity and social inclusion. In April the Director took part in a visit to Dungannon in Northern Ireland to learn from experience there of managing this inflow and ensuring it is a positive experience for all.

6.2.1 In December the Director launched a handbook for migrants living in Scottish Borders which has been written in three languages, Polish, Russian (for the Baltic states) and Portuguese.

6.2.2 The draft single outcome agreement has been written to include local outcomes for migrants under the national outcome 7. Our bid for Fairer Scotland Funding includes a sum for the continuance of the support service.

6.3 Kinship Care The National Fostering and Kinship Care strategy 2006 was launched by Scottish Government in December 2007 In light of this a local working group was established to develop internal policies and procedures in relation to Kinship care – The working group will conclude the draft materials and present these to Executive in summer 2008.

6.3.1 Social Work Services want to ensure that Kinship carers feel valued and that they receive the full range of necessary support and resources to look after the children or young people in their care. For many children and young people, living with family or friends will be their first choice of placement, if they have to leave their parents. The aim of the work will be to remove any unnecessary barriers and identify safeguards that offer the best chance of success.

6.3.2 Scottish Borders Council Social Work Services currently financially support 20 families which represents 27 children. Payments range from £10 per week to £80.22 per week. In addition ‘one off’ payments can be authorised.

7 CONSULTATION

7.1 The Head of Corporate Finance has been consulted and is in agreement with the report.

7.2 The Head of Legal Services has been consulted and is in agreement with the report.

7.3 The Head of Financial Administration has been consulted and is in agreement with the report.

7.4 The Head of Corporate Administration has been consulted and is in agreement with the report.

7.5 The Head of Human Resources has been consulted.

8 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8.1 There are no financial implications flowing immediately from this report. The Director identifies a range of potential future financial pressures and these will be subject to separate reports as necessary.

9 RISK COMMENTARY

9.1 There are no risks associated with this report.

10 EQUALITIES

10.1 It is anticipated there will be no adverse impact due to race disability, gender, age sexual orientation or religion arising from the proposals contained in this report.

11 SUMMARY

11.1 This is the first annual report of the work undertaken on the Council’s behalf by the Chief Social Work Officer and is provided in pursuit of a recommendation of Council at its meeting on 27 September 2007. 11.2 The report provides Council with an account of decisions taken by the Director of Social Work in his statutory role as Chief Social Work Officer as well as an overview of regulation and inspection, workforce issues and significant social policy themes current over the past year.

12 RECOMMENDATION

12.1 It is recommended that Council

a) Note the number and range of decisions taken by the Director of Social Work as the Council’s Chief Social Work Officer (para 3) . b) Note the summary outcomes of inspections in services provided by and commissioned by Social Work. (para 4) c) Note the work in hand to bring forward a refreshed workforce plan. (para 5) d) Note the resource implications likely to follow demographic changes in Scottish Borders (para 5) e) Note the intention of the Director to bring forward proposals: 1. To revise Free Personal Care Policy during 2008 subsequent to Scottish Government clarification (6.1). 2. To support the Migrant Workers Support Service via the Fairer Scotland fund (6.2) 3. To propose a new policy on Kinship Care (6.3)

Approved by Name Designation Signature Andrew Lowe Director of Social Work Report approved by the Director.

Author(s) Name Designation

Background Papers:

Previous Minute Reference: Council 27 September 2007

Appendix 1 - Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for SBC provided services (April 2007 – March 2008)

Appendix 2 – Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports on services provided by the Independent Sector within the Scottish Borders area. (April 2007 – March 2008). Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for SBC provided services (April 2007 – March 2008)

Report of the Chief Social Work Officer 2007

Appendix 1 Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for SBC provided services (April 2007 – March 2008) Name Service Date of Regulatory Enforcement No. of No. of Key areas of discussion type Inspection Support Action since Requirements Recommendations Assessment last inspection? 1 Deanfield Care 24/04/07 LOW NO 3 4 Enhanced level of Disclosure. Check of staff qualifications. Training for staff on Home dementia. 2 Grove House Care 31/08/07 LOW NO 0 4 Training programme. Procedure on access to Primary Healthcare Team. CP Home policy. 3 St. Ronans Care 18/09/07 LOW NO 1 1 Risk assessment in shower areas. Hand- Home washing facilities. 4 Waverley Care 10/09/07 MEDIUM NO 0 0 Home 5 Saltgreens Care 26/07/07 LOW NO 2 1 Infection control. Home Security of main entrance. 6 Deanfield Care 17/10/07 LOW NO 1 6 Staffing levels. CP policy req’d. Assessment of menus by dietician. Home Introductory pack. 7 Dunwhinny Care 11/10/07 LOW NO 1 7 CP policy. Training needs analysis/plan. Procedure on access to Primary Lodge Home Healthcare Team. Assessment of menus by dietician. 8 Deanfield Day 11/06/07 LOW NO 2 4 Policy and training on restraint. Centre Training needs analysis/plan. 9 Ability Centre Day 01/10/07 MEDIUM NO 3 5 Policy on restraint & training. Availability Centre of Adult Protection policy. 10 Mungo Park Day 14/11/07 LOW NO 0 4 CP policy. Adult protection Policy. Centre Training programme. 11 Berwickshire Day 14/6/07 LOW NO 2 2 Policy and training on restraint. “Safe to wander” MWC guidance. Dementia Centre Training needs analysis/plan. Day Service 12 Dunwhinny Day 13/09/07 LOW NO 0 4 CP policy. Adult protection Policy. Training programme. S.U. involvement in Lodge Centre personal plan. 13 Kelso Day Day 11/09/07 LOW NO 1 2 CP policy. Adult protection Policy. Centre Centre Policies & procedures. 14 Jedburgh Day 15/10/07 LOW NO 0 3 CP policy. Adult protection Policy. Day Centre Centre Training needs analysis/plan. 15 Oakview Day 4/10/07 LOW NO 0 3 CP policy. Adult protection Policy. Centre Training needs analysis/plan. Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for SBC provided services (April 2007 – March 2008) Name Service Date of Regulatory Enforcement No. of No. of Key areas of discussion type Inspection Support Action since Requirements Recommendations Assessment last inspection? 16 Traquair Day Day 30/01/08 LOW NO 3 5 Policy and training on restraint. Risk assessments. Centre Centre Training needs analysis/plan. Guidelines for food, fluids and nutrition. Choice of fruit/veg. Toilet provision.

17 Victoria Park Day 29/06/07 LOW NO 0 2 Support Plans to detail ‘restraint techniques’ if appropriate. Training needs Centre of one staff member. 18 Lanark Day 7/06/07 LOW NO 2 2 Policy and training on restraint. Training needs analysis/plan. Lodge Centre Review of medication information forms. 19 Hawick Support 26/09/07 LOW NO 1 1 Develop an Adult Protection/Adult Abuse policy. Training on the administration of Community Service PRN medication for one service user. Support Service 20 Katharine Day 26/06/07 LOW NO 2 2 Policy and training on restraint. Training needs analysis/plan. Elliot Centre Centre Implement MWC best practice guidance on “Safe to Wander”, & “Rights, Risks and Limits to Freedom”. 21 Glenview Care 10/07/07 LOW NO 7 6 Transition to adult services. Care planning. CP policy/ training, Restraint is Home written into Care Plan where req’d. Restraint incidents are recorded. Policy on administration of medicines. Safeguards in management of YP financial affairs. Diet and nutrition. Availability of Laptops. 22 SBC Fostering 22/08/07 MEDIUM NO 9 10 Record of all placements within case file. Service Foster Carer Agreements. Reviews of all Fostering foster carers within 12 months. Personal Service risk assessments. Support and advice – Throughcare & aftercare. Complaints procedure. Foster carers are used in accordance with their approval. Independent judgement of reviews. Records of training. 23 SBC Adoption 22/08/07 MEDIUM NO 4 8 Provision of written information to Service adoptive parents of background, Adoption parentage, health, mental and emotional Service development etc. Plans for contact. Post placement support. Assess H & S of living arrangements of adoptive parents. Adhere to procedures on Linking & Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for SBC provided services (April 2007 – March 2008) Matching. Background information to children on their birth and genetic history. Overview of Team members training in Child Protection.

24 SBC Home Housing 26/11/07 HIGH NO 0 2 Service should adopt LD policy on Care Service Support restraint. Policy and training on restraint. Service MWC good practice guidance “ Rights, - Galashiels Risks and limits to Freedom”. 25 SBC Home Housing 7/11/07 HIGH NO 0 3 Service should adopt LD policy on Care Service Support restraint. Policy and training on restraint. Service MWC good practice guidance “ Rights, - Hawick Risks and limits to Freedom”. Develop a system of consultation with service users. 26 SBC Home Housing 11/12/07 MEDIUM NO 0 3 Service should adopt LD policy on Care Service Support restraint. Policy and training on restraint. Service MWC good practice guidance “ Rights, - Duns Risks and limits to Freedom”. Develop a system of consultation with service users. 27 SBC Home Housing 19/11/07 MEDIUM NO 0 3 Service should adopt LD policy on Care Service Support restraint. Policy and training on restraint. Service MWC good practice guidance “ Rights, - Kelso Risks and limits to Freedom”. Develop a system of consultation with service users. 28 Galashiels Support 17/12/07 MEDIUM NO 3 5 Risk assessments to be developed. service Restraint training. Complaints procedure Resource to include information on Care Centre Commission. A Quality Assurance system to be developed for the service. Review all policies and procedures. TOTAL 47 102 Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for independent sector provided services (April 2007 – March 2008)

Report of the Chief Social Work Officer 2007

Appendix 2 Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for independent sector provided services (April 2007 – March 2008) Name Service Date of Regulatory Enforcement No. of No. of Key areas of discussion type Inspection Support Action since Requirements Recommendations Assessment last inspection? 1 Ark (Hawick Care 29/01/08 LOW NO 0 0 Project) Home 2 Ark Community Housing 10/09/07 LOW NO 0 0 Networks Kelso Support Housing Service Support 3 Ark HA Housing 23/1/08 LOW NO 2 0 Training on restraint. Howdenbank Support Staff fatigue on sleepover shifts. House Service 4 Ark HA Housing 31/10/07 MEDIUM NO 3 0 Training on restraint. Support Robust staffing arrangements. Region 4 Staff access to training and support. Service 5 Ark Kelso Care 31/10/07 LOW NO 0 0 Project Home 6 Bield – Care 29/10/07 LOW NO 0 0 Milfield Home Gardens 7 Bield – Care 14/05/07 LOW NO 1 5 Training records to be held locally. Palliative care training. CP policy. Milfield Home MWC “Safe to Wander” document. Gardens Risk assessment re: restraint to be developed. 8 Border Support 25/09/07 LOW NO 0 0 Caring Service Services 9 SAMH – Housing 14/12/07 LOW NO 2 0 Risk assessments to be completed. Borders Support Adult Protection Policy to be developed. Support Service Service 10 Brothers of Housing 18/09/07 LOW NO 1 2 Training in restraint. Charity – Support CP policy to be developed. Cover arrangements to facilitate access to Together Service Borders Area 1 training. 11 Brothers of Housing 29/11/07 LOW NO 2 2 Training in restraint. Charity – Support CP policy to be developed. Risk Assessments to be audited. Together Service Borders Area 3 All incidents involving service users to be recorded. Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for independent sector provided services (April 2007 – March 2008) Name Service Date of Regulatory Enforcement No. of No. of Key areas of discussion type Inspection Support Action since Requirements Recommendations Assessment last inspection? 12 Brothers of Housing 7/9/07 LOW NO 1 2 Training in restraint. Charity – Support CP policy to be developed. Cover arrangements to facilitate access to Together Service Borders Area 2 training. 13 Brothers of Housing 20/11/07 MEDIUM NO 4 1 Policy on restraint. Training on restraint Charity – Support Training on adult abuse issues. Training in the care of individuals with epilepsy. Together Plus Service 14 Buccleuch Care 29/1/08 LOW NO 0 1 Training on national practice statements Care Centre Home on palliative care. 15 Buccleuch Care 17/7/07 LOW NO 0 2 Training on national practice statements on palliative care. Care Centre Home Home’s policy on visiting children to be shared with visitors. 16 Buccleuch Care 11/04/07 LOW NO 0 0 Care Centre Home 17 Caddon Support 15/11/07 LOW NO 1 2 Policy & procedure on restraint. CP policy. healthcare- service Training policy to include induction care at home training and how to access training courses. 18 Castle Craig Drug & 17/09/07 HIGH NO 0 0 Independent Alcohol healthcare 19 Choices: Care 14/02/08 MEDIUM NO 4 0 Robust staff cover req’d to cover absences. Review criteria for the Hawick Home responsibility of the Shift Leader. Audit of project the physical environment (safety and maintenance). Chemicals stored securely. 20 Choices: Care 29/05/08 MEDIUM NO 1 2 Policy & procedure on restraint. Hawick Home Training on palliative care. project 21 Eildon H.A. Care 31/07/07 LOW NO 2 2 Assessment & record keeping associated with restraint. Review adult protection Craw Wood Home policy. CP policy on visiting children. Local interagency policy. 22 Eildon HA Care at 14/08/07 LOW NO 1 2 Training on restraint. CP policy. Consider Home Station Ave. additional office space. Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for independent sector provided services (April 2007 – March 2008) Name Service Date of Regulatory Enforcement No. of No. of Key areas of discussion type Inspection Support Action since Requirements Recommendations Assessment last inspection? 23 Eildon H.A. Housing 6/09/07 LOW NO 0 1 CP policy. Tenancy Support Support Service Service 24 Streets Care 06/03/07 LOW NO 0 0 Ahead Home 25 Streets Care at Ahead Home 26 Gala Day Support 22/2/08 LOW NO 2 3 Expand on current restraint policy Service Adult protection policy. CP policy. MWC Services Ltd “Rights, Risk & Limits to Freedom” guidance. Staff training plan to be reviewed, developed and formalised. 27 Galahill Care 16/08/07 LOW NO 3 2 Develop a policy on restraint. Home Individual risk assessments re: restraint to House be developed. Adult protection policy. CP policy. . Local interagency policy. 28 Galashiels Care 1/11/07 MEDIUM NO 0 2 Staff updated on infection control Home procedures. Nursing Review method of transporting laundry. Home 29 Garvald Care 26/11/07 MEDIUM NO 1 5 Training plan for all staff, Recruitment Home checks. CP policy to be expanded. Home Farm Training in restraint. Care Plans to be expanded. 30 Garvald Care 31/05/07 MEDIUM NO 0 0 Home Farm Home 31 Garvald Care 29/1/08 LOW NO 0 0 Home 32 Garvald Care 14/9/07 LOW NO 0 0 Home 33 Grange Hall Care 6/12/07 LOW NO 0 0 Home 34 Grange Hall Care 21/6/07 LOW NO 1 0 Safe recruitment practices. Home 35 Knowesouth Care 21/6/07 LOW NO 0 1 Training on “Making Good Care Better” – Home best practice statements. 36 Lennel Care 31/1/08 MEDIUM NO 0 0 House Home Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for independent sector provided services (April 2007 – March 2008) Name Service Date of Regulatory Enforcement No. of No. of Key areas of discussion type Inspection Support Action since Requirements Recommendations Assessment last inspection? 37 Lennel Care 2/5/07 HIGH NO 2 1 Upgrade nurse call system. Food hygiene Home training. Keep staff informed of House developments. 38 Mount View Care 15/1/08 LOW NO 0 0 Home 39 Mount View 7/8/07 LOW NO 0 4 Review policy on restraint. Develop a Visitors Policy. Access & Support from Primary Healthcare Team. 40 Nightingales Care at 6/2/08 LOW NO 2 2 Develop a policy on restraint. Develop Home training associated with restraint. CP Policy. Provide staff supervision and staff meeting support. 41 Peebles Care 10/9/07 MEDIUM NO 3 0 Review medication admin arrangements. Home Ensure staffing schedule is met. Care Nursing Plans clearly and accurately identify Home individuals’ needs. 42 Peebles Care 24/4/07 HIGH NO 0 4 Moving & Handling training. Care Plans Home reviewed and updated, to include use of Nursing restraint. Continence management. Home 43 Penumbra Housing 18/6/07 LOW NO 0 5 Implement MWC’s “Rights, Risks & Limits Supported Support to Freedom” and “Safe to Wander”. Service Risk assessments within service users Living Support Plans on use of restraint. (Galashiels) Review Policies and Procedures. Update CP policy. Maintain Complaints records. 44 Queens Care 30/1/08 LOW NO 0 1 Wound charts to be instigated. House Home 45 Queens Care 14/8/07 LOW NO 2 2 Restraint – training on assessment and Home record keeping. House Adult Protection Policy to be developed. How to access advice and support from PHCT. CP policy for children visiting the service. 46 Riverside Care 11/12/07 HIGH NO 10 5 Restraint training. M & H. Management of Home food, fluid and nutritional care. Review Healthcare eating and drinking care plans. Pressure Centre ulcer prevention and wound management – review of care plans. Ensure staffing numbers are sufficient at meal times. 47 Riverside Care 12/6/07 HIGH NO 10 10 Refer to inspection report. Healthcare Home Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for independent sector provided services (April 2007 – March 2008) Name Service Date of Regulatory Enforcement No. of No. of Key areas of discussion type Inspection Support Action since Requirements Recommendations Assessment last inspection? 48 Riverside Support 2/10/07 LOW NO 1 5 Training on the assessment and record service keeping associated with restraint. Healthcare – Develop a training programme for staff. Ettrick Day CP Policy for children visiting the service. Centre Review Adult Protection procedures. Develop a programme of supervision for staff. 49 SAMH Support 20/11/07 LOW NO 0 0 Crisis service Support 50 St Johns Care 7/8/07 LOW NO 3 6 Training on the assessment and record Home keeping associated with restraint. Undertake a Training Needs Analysis and develop a training programme for staff. CP Policy for children visiting the service. Review Adult Protection procedures. Review policy on eating well. Nutritional risk screening to be informed by a recognised risk assessment tool. 51 St. Andrew’s Care 16/1/08 HIGH NO 1 5 Develop CP policy. Expand policy on Home restraint. Review menus. Review activities and enable service users to be supported to leave the home to make use of local facilities. 52 St. Andrew’s Care 31/5/07 MEDIUM NO 0 0 Home 53 Streets Ahead Housing 20/12/07 LOW NO 0 1 Get a copy of local inter-agency adult Eildonburn Support protection procedures. 54 Streets Care 20/11/07 LOW NO 1 2 Develop a policy on restraint. Home Obtain a copy of “Making Good Care Ahead Better”. West Core Staff to read Palliative Care Statements and make training opportunities available to staff. 55 Thornfield Care 29/10/07 MEDIUM NO 1 6 Staff to receive training in relation to Home restraint including assessment and record House keeping. CP policy. Risk assessments to be signed by resident. Review and develop an Adult Protection policy. How to access advice and support from PHCT. 56 Thornfield Care 27/4/07 MEDIUM NO 0 1 Provision of seated scales to ensure there Home are systems in place to identify if service House users are at risk of under nutrition. Version 2 (16/4/08) Overview of SCRC Inspection Reports for independent sector provided services (April 2007 – March 2008) Name Service Date of Regulatory Enforcement No. of No. of Key areas of discussion type Inspection Support Action since Requirements Recommendations Assessment last inspection? 57 Victoria Care 31/10/07 MEDIUM NO 4 8 Review staffing levels. Restraint policy. Home Individual risk assessments on restraint. Lodge CP policy. Training Needs Analysis. Staff training and development policy. Training on palliative care. How to access advice and support from PHCT. Supervision. 58 Victoria Care 15/5/07 MEDIUM NO 0 4 Supervision. Complaints log to be Home maintained. Staff training in the area of Lodge personal planning. 59 Weens Care 5/12/07 HIGH NO 2 3 Staff to receive training in restraint. Home Audit personal plans and risk House assessments. Training in specific palliative care initiatives. Communication skills around issues of death and dying. 60 Weens Care 24/5/07 HIGH NO 12 7 Smokers lounge to meet statutory criteria. Home Administration of medication. Review House staffing levels. Policy and procedure on restraint. Review adult protection policy. Audit M & H practice including availability of equipment. Review menus. Obtain a copy of “Making Good Care Better”. Consistency of care to service users.

TOTAL 86 119 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL ITEM 11

22 MAY 2008

REPORT BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

ATTENDANCE AT THE JOINT NORTH SEA COMMISSION/BALTIC SEA CONFERENCE IN HERNING, DENMARK, ON 11 – 13 JUNE 2008

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval for Councillor Michael Cook and an official to attend the Joint North Sea Commission/Baltic Sea Conference in Herning, Denmark, on 11 – 13 June 2008.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council have a joint membership of the European Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (CPMR). This has also allowed Scottish Borders Council to become a member of the North Sea Commission, which is a network of local authorities around the North Sea. The North Sea Commission has developed a major lobbying role in marine and regional development matters.

2.2 Councillor Michael Cook is currently the Vice President of the Fisheries (FIFG) Group of CPMR covering the Northern Europe. This work with CPMR is part of a process of increasing lobbying and representation of the local fishing industry at Scottish/UK and EU levels.

2.3 The Joint North Sea Commission/Baltic Sea is holding its Annual Conference in Herning, Demark, on 11 – 13 June 2008 and is looking at the key topics for discussion will include sustainable regional development and the future of the CPMR. The Conference will also provide an opportunity to begin a review our continued involvement in this body.

2.4 The Council is seeking to develop an enhanced profile in Europe and it is both a considerable honour and an opportunity for the Council that Councillor Cook is Vice President of Fisheries (FIFG) within the CPMR.

3 CONSULTATION

3.1 The Director of Planning and Economic Development, Heads of Corporate Finance, Corporate Administration, Financial Administration and Legal Services have been consulted and comments have been incorporated into this final report.

4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The cost for Councillor Cook and an official to attend this meeting will be around £1600 for the North Sea/Baltic Sea Commission Annual Conference. This amount can be covered by the European Budget held by the Business Improvement Unit. 1 5 RISK COMMENTARY

5.1 The Council’s profile in the North Commission will be much reduced if the Council does not attend its Annual Conference. Also the Council’s significant interests in this fishing and regional development will not be represented.

5.2 There are no environmental risks arising from this report.

6 EQUALITIES

6.1 There are no equalities issues arising from this report. The Council’s European profile on rural issues in relation to fishing and regional development will be significantly enhanced by attending this conference.

7 SUMMARY

7.1 The Joint North Sea Commission/Baltic Sea Conference in Herning, Denmark, on 11 – 13 June 2008. Councillor Michael Cook is the CPMR Vice President of Fisheries (FIFG) Group covering Northern Europe. It is important that he is able to make an effective part in this role and for the Council to have a high profile in North Sea matters. The North Sea Commission Conference will also provide an opportunity to begin a review the Council’s continued involvement in this body.

8 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 It is recommended that Councillor Cook and the Rural Development Officer in the Planning and Economic Development Department attend the Joint North Sea Commission/Baltic Sea Conference in Herning, Denmark, on 11 – 13 June 2008 at a cost of around £1600.

Approved by Name Designation David Hume Chief Executive

This report has been signed by the Chief Executive and the signed copy is retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Douglas Scott Team Leader - Working with the Borders Community

Background Papers: Previous Minute Reference:

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Douglas Scott can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at the Business Improvement Unit, Chief Executive’s Department, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells TD6 0SA Tel. No. 01835-825155.