Planning and Building Standards Committee

Item No. 5 (h)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

14th NOVEMBER 2011

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 11/00677/FUL OFFICER: Lucy Hoad WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Erection of 82 dwellinghouses incorporating affordable housing SITE: Land East And North East of 37 St Andrew's Close, West Linton APPLICANT: Mr Gareth Hollis (Springfield Properties Plc) AGENT: None

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site comprises relative flat and featureless farmland to the eastern edge of West Linton and forms part of the land holding of Robinsland Farm. The farmhouse and its steading buildings lie to the east of the site, to the west is the existing housing areas at The Smithy and St Andrews Close, to north is the housing areas of Robinsland Drive and St Mingo’s Lea, whilst the proposed new primary school will be constructed on the former playing fields immediate to the north west. To the south and east are open agricultural fields.

The site displays little in the form of tree cover or natural features and only has intermittent areas of hedgerow along the boundaries of the site. There is a drystane dyke along one side of the access route to the site from Deanfoot Road and the other key built features on the site are the existing buildings at Robinsland Farm. These consist of a combination of large modern agricultural buildings and traditional stone/rendered and slate roof steading buildings and farm house.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This is a full planning application for the erection of a total of 82 dwellinghouses, consisting of, as originally submitted, 49 detached houses, 9 pairs of semi’s, 7 terraced houses (split into two blocks of 4 and 3) and two blocks of flats containing 8 residential units.

The original layout plan illustrated a single access point from Deanfoot Road running between the new school site and the housing at Robinsland Drive and St Mungo’s Lea, coming into a central green square. From the square an internal loop road running to the west feeds a series of cul de sacs. A crescent of houses fronted onto a small landscaped area to the north west sweep of the access road. This internal access road continued along the southern boundary of the site eventually reconnecting with the central square. Off the northern corner of the central square is another cul de sac that contains the majority of the terraced houses and the flatted properties. Another access was proposed from the square to Robinsland Farm

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 House and this necessitated the removal of the majority of the existing farm buildings, both modern and traditional, to the west of the farmhouse,. Two pedestrian access points were shown to linking the development to St Andrews Close.

The revised layout still seeks approval for 82 residential units which now comprise 49 detached units, 13 pairs of semis and two terraces of three and fours units. The flats (House Type A) have been removed from the proposal. There are 9 basic house types that provide 13 two bed units, 40 three bed units, 25 four bed units and 4 five bedroomed units. The proposed house types are all two storeys, with smooth grey concrete tiles roof and external walls wet dash smooth K-rend render with elements of Scottish Larch natural cladding. The majority of the house types have integral garages with the largest unit The Spey incorporating a double garage.

The site layout has been modified so that the single access point enters a repositioned square, which has moved westerwards, and a more informal road layout has allowed for the introduction of two perimeter blocks to the west of the square that incorporate communal parking courts. The sweeping loop road has also been omitted from the design and along the northern boundary the houses now front or face the school site. A number of the terraced and semi detached houses now face onto the repositioned green. Enhanced landscaping is also incorporated along the western and southern boundaries and pedestrian and cycle access is provided to the school and thence the Smithy and a single such access point is now proposed to St Andrews Close.

PLANNING HISTORY

The planning history relevant to the consideration of this case is as follows: x 08/01107/FUL - Change of use from redundant agricultural buildings to form three dwellinghouses - Former Granary Parlour And Byre West Of Robinsland Cottage Deanfoot - Withdrawn x 08/01067/FUL- Change of use from stable/store to dwellinghouse - Disused Stable South Of Robinsland Cottage Deanfoot Road West Linton Scottish Borders EH46 7AT - Withdrawn x 92/01673/OUT - Erection of 3 dwellinghouses - Robinsland Farm West Linton – Refused x 92/01674/FUL - Change of use existing farm buildings for residential - Robinsland Farm West Linton – Approved x 98/00027/COU - Change of use to dwellinghouse - Former Stable Robinsland West - Approved x 98/00537/COU - Change of use of farm buildings to three residential units - Former Granary Parlour And Byre – Approved x 03/00598/COU - Change of use from farm buildings - Former Agricultural Buildings And Stables Robinsland West Linton - Approved x 08/01107/FUL - Change of use from redundant agricultural buildings to form three dwellinghouses - Former Granary Parlour And Byre West Of Robinsland Cottage Deanfoot - Withdrawn x 08/01067/FUL- Change of use from stable/store to dwellinghouse - Disused Stable South Of Robinsland Cottage Deanfoot Road West Linton Scottish Borders EH46 7AT - Withdrawn x 11/00056/FUL – erection of primary school - Sports Field East Of Health Centre Deanfoot Road West Linton Scottish Borders - Approved

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

A total of 36 letters of objection were received (although many objectors have sent in further letters in response to the revision of the application) and 2 letters that made a number of general comments about the development. A brief summary of the main planning issues raised is as follows: x The development will cause congestion in the village as the existing roads are already struggling to cope with current traffic levels. Highlight a safety issue with access for fire engines and general nature of the roads and junctions around the village. x The proposed number of houses is excessive and double that originally proposed. A reduction in the density would be more appropriate. x The infrastructure of the village can not cope with this scale of development - impact on the new school, the health centre and water and drainage services. x West Linton has already experienced rapid expansion to the detriment of its conservation village status. x Concern about impact on existing properties in terms of boundaries, privacy, noise and disturbance during construction. x Object to the creation of a footpath link to St Andrews Close and The Smithy. x There is a need to enhance planting on the boundaries of The Smithy and St Andrews Close x The form of the development is not consistent with government guidance on “designing streets” and should provide for greater connectivity. x Although many others object to the level of connectivity proposed and the associated security/safety hazard. x There should be houses overlooking and supervising public open space. x The development does not accord with the local plan in that it does not seek to retain and convert the existing traditional stone buildings and is not consisted with the number of houses specified in the plan. x The development does not meet the housing needs of locals. x Limited opportunities for jobs and housing alone is not sufficient. x Impact on trees and the wider environment of West Linton. x The layout of the site is poor and does not meet Council policies. x The application does is not supported by an Ecological Impact Assessment which is necessary before any decision is taken.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

In support of the application the applicant has submitted a number of reports including: x Drainage Assessment x Consultation report x Design and access Statement x Transport Assessment x Phase 1 report x Demolition and Refurbishment Study

All of which can be read in full on the Public Access.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Structure Plan 2011-2018

N7 Protection of Nature Conservation Interest N9 Maintaining Landscape Character N15 Regional and Local Archaeological Sites N16 Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording N20 Design H5 Brownfield Development H9 Affordable and Special Needs Housing C6 Open Space C7 Play Areas I5 Cycling I7 Walking I11 Parking Provision in New Development I14 Surface Water I18 Contaminated Land

Consolidated Local Plan 2011

G1 Quality Standards for New Development G2 Contaminated Land G5 Developer Contributions H1 Affordable Housing H2 Protection of Residential Amenity H3 Land Use Allocations Inf 3 Road Adoption Standards Inf 4 Parking Standards Inf 5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Inf 6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Inf 11 Development that generates Travel Demand BE2 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments NE3 Local Biodiversity EP5 Air Quality

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy PAN 44 Fitting New Housing into the Landscape PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 65 Planning and Open Space PAN 67 Housing Quality PAN 68 Design Statements PAN 71 Designing Safer Places PAN 75 Planning for Transport PAN 78 Inclusive Design PAN 79 Water and Drainage Designing Streets Designing Places SPG Biodiversity SPG Affordable Housing SPG Developer Contributions SPG Designing out Crime in the Scottish Borders

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 SPG Trees and Development SPG Landscape and Development SPG Green Space SPG Placemaking and Design Robinsland Planning Brief Approved April 2008

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Environmental Health Officer):

Contaminated Land

Has indicated that as the site has had a previous use for agricultural that it may have resulted in contamination. He recommends that further action is needed to investigate or assess potential contamination issues at the site the applicant should completed and submit his standards questionnaire.

In response to the submission of this document he states that any planning permission should be granted on condition that development is not be permitted to start until a site investigation and risk assessment has been carried out, submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority. Any requirement arising from this assessment for a remediation strategy and verification plan would become a condition of the planning consent, again to be submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority prior to development commencing.

Air Quality

The applicants should be required to submit an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development, with reference to the National Air Quality Objectives. The issues addressed should include pollution arising from the presence of additional road traffic and human occupancy, and the use of any proposed zero carbon/renewable technologies.

Noise Comments

Noise from Air Source Heat Pumps and other associated machinery should not give rise to levels, assessed within a dwelling or noise sensitive building in excess of Noise Rating Curve NR 30 between the hours of 0700-2200 and NR Curve 20 at all other times.

There should be no tonal character to the noise from the installation audible within any noise sensitive premises. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2.

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Heritage and Design Officer): No comments.

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Access Officer): There are no recorded Rights of Way on this area of land. He recommends that a development contribution (a nominal sum of £16,400 (£200 per dwelling house)) should be sought from the developer for the development and continued maintenance of a path network around West Linton. This contribution would be used to fund drainage work,

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 bridge maintenance, path surfacing and annual maintenance on the wider Core Path Network which would thus be strengthened through such a contribution from this development.

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Archaeology Officer): Indicates that there are two archaeological issues with this proposal.

Firstly, he notes that Masterplan for the site indicates a partial demolition of the farm steading at Robinsland. Robinsland has its origin in the latter half of the 18th or first half of the 19th century. It appears on maps as early as 1821, and the current configuration of the eastern half of the steading is evident by the 1860s on the 6 inch OS 1st edition map for Peeblesshire. The buildings in the western half of the steading represent a gradual extension during the late 19th and 20th century. The loss of buildings at this steading will have a locally significant effect of the historic environment. As such, he recommends that a historic building survey of all buildings in the group to a Level 1 English Heritage Standard is conducted prior to demolition. This would mitigate the effects through ‘preservation by record’ as outlined in PAN 42.

Secondly, the area around West Linton sits within an extensive area of underlaying deposits of sand and gravel. These landscape features often contain previously unknown archaeological features, sites and artefacts. The area around West Linton has proved to be rich in archaeological finds over the last two centuries. These finds have included a large number of prehistoric stone tools and human burials within stone-lined graves. The burials may date from the prehistoric through the early medieval period. While there is no immediate evidence of archaeological finds within the proposed development area, the heightened sensitivity of the area for archaeological discovery should be taken into account in any development proposals for West Linton.

In this case, as no mitigation was highlighted as part of the LDP or subsequent discussions he feels that would be difficult for me to recommend a further archaeological condition to that suggested above. However, if the developer wished to mitigate against any archaeological discoveries such as human remains that may incur later costs he would strongly urge that they consider an archaeological evaluation by geophysical survey and/or trial trenching to assess the total development area for its potential. He would be more than happy to advise accordingly. Otherwise, if during development any features or finds of possible ancient origin are discovered he is available for further consultation.

Given the above information, he recommends the imposition of suitable planning condition relating to the carrying out of a Developer Funded Historic Building Survey

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Plans & Research Section): Make detailed comments in respect of the application and whilst in principle an application for housing on the Consolidated Local Plan allocated housing sites TWL8B and AWEST009 is to be supported, the Plans and Research section have concerns in relation to the design and layout of the proposal brought forward through this application. In particular they consider that it fails to comply with the terms of supplementary planning guidance on Placemaking and Design, the Planning Brief for the site and the terms of the Local Plan relating to the retention and conversion of the existing steading buildings.

On Re-Consultation:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Firstly, whilst it is considered that the application has moved someway forward since the original submission, it is considered that not all of the points made in their previous consultation response have been dealt with. In particular Plans and Research have concerns with the proposed demolition of the traditional stone buildings. The Plans and Research section are therefore unable to support this revised application in its current form.

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Ecology Officer): As identified in the Scottish Borders Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance Robinsland, West Linton- Planning brief (2008), the planning application should be supported by an Ecological Impact Assessment (EIA). It is possible that protected species interest such as bats, badger and breeding birds may be affected by the development. He sets out the methodology for carrying out an EIA and that it should give particular reference to the Borders Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.

An ecological impact assessment to be carried out by a suitably qualified person is required including an extended Phase 1 habitat survey and any subsequent surveys required following this initial walkover survey. He states that the development of the existing steading buildings will require an assessment of impacts on bats and breeding birds. The assessment of impacts on bats must be carried out prior to determination.

He sets out the basis of required planning conditions to require the carrying out of a bat survey, Ecological Impact Assessment and a Landscape and Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan.

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Development Negotiator): Identifies the following requirements:

x Affordable Housing: 25% on-site provision policy requirement x Education and & Lifelong Learning ; the contribution levels have been up-dated to - £8,425/market house for primary school, £1,187/market house for high school (indexed) x Play/Open Spaces: opportunities exist to integrate, partially or fully, with facilities on the school site

x Access:. In the broader W Linton area, there are advanced plans to provide a more integrated network of footpaths in the surrounding area that will link nearby communities and workplaces in a sustainable manner. Contributions towards these objectives may be sought accordingly, though a specific sum has at this point not yet been identified

Director of Social Work (Housing Strategy Officer): This site is not currently identified and prioritised as an affordable housing project in the current agreed SBC Strategic Housing Investment Plan 2011/16[SHIP]. However he understand that there is affordable housing pressure in the West Linton area, and that Eildon HA have had some discussions with the developer with a view towards EHA securing a landbank site in order to delivering affordable housing when funding is available to facilitate this . He is not aware of the developer's attitude towards this, since they may prefer to deliver affordable housing by other delivery options included in the SBC AHP.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Since this is a new proposal , he anticipate that EHA will bring forward this site as a potential affordable housing site shortly for consideration thru the development of the next SHIP which is due to be submitted to Scottish Govt by 30 Nov 2011. SBC Planning Dept are also players in the consideration of sites for inclusion in the SHIP.I would hope that the situation may have clarified by the time the SHIP work needs to be delivered.

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Urban Designer): Identified major issues with respect to the developments compliance with the Placemaking and Design SPG and Designing Streets and recommended refusal of the application as initially submitted. In particular she had concerns in respect of the treatment of specific elements of the development namely: the entrance/arrival space, the loss of the existing steading buildings and the house types, secondary built fabric and levels.

On re-consultation:

States that some aspects of the revised layout show an improvement on the original submission, in particular: - incorporation of a clearer sequence of spaces - stronger use of ‘perimeter block’ housing with a range of parking provision - a variety of spaces, street widths and treatments and stronger relationship between the buildings and public spaces

However, there are fundamental concerns regarding the proposed development. The revised layout appears to incorporate a direct replication of elements included in a proposed layout from a recent planning application by Persimmon Homes for housing at Easter Langlee, Galashiels. This is of great concern as it is does not suggest the design is founded upon an understanding of the site and its surroundings which is contrary to policy requirements set out nationally and locally:

Local Policy Local Plan policy G1 – requires new development to ‘respect the character of the surrounding area’. SPG: Placemaking & Design – requires that the design of new development ‘relates to the site and demonstrates a contextual response’ and ‘creates a place that fits within the built context’ with a ‘strong sense of local identity’.

National Policy ‘Designing Places’ – Policy Statement states that new development should strive to create places that have a ‘distinct identity’ – this identity comes from ‘a thorough understanding of the place’. ‘Designing Streets’ – is a material consideration in the planning system and states ‘new development should be determined by a sensitive response to site conditions’.

- all of the above requirements can only come from a contextual approach. Local distinctiveness and identity can not come from retro-fitting development layouts from elsewhere.

She also has concerns that:

1 the layout has not been amended to reflect site analysis as was requested or to reflect the suggested sketch solution emailed to the applicant that showed a clearer relationship to the site.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 2 the developer has not demonstrate the role of the existing steading buildings have in the new development - either in their whole/partial retention, or in the interpretation of their footprint/form in the new build elements.

The applicant has confirmed they still wish to proceed with their revised layout. The applicant has also not brought forward any exploration of the whole/partial retention of, or the reuse of materials from, the existing Steading buildings despite repeated requests to do so to be in compliance with the Consolidated Local Plan (2011).

Recommendation

Given the issues outlined above about the approach taken generally, and the steading buildings specifically, the proposed development at Robinsland raises a number of significant concerns:

1 the application incorporates the duplication of a design from elsewhere in the Borders which as an approach is contrary to national and local policy requirements of local distinctiveness and identity. 2 the application does not demonstrate a sufficiently strong linkage between site analysis and proposed urban form (based on concerns outlined in point 1). 3 the application does not comply with Consolidated Local Plan (2011) policy requirements for ‘the retention and conversion of the traditional stone buildings on site’, nor does the application seek to justify and mitigate any loss of these buildings by respecting the footprint of the buildings and/or reusing the stone material on site.

On the basis of the above, she is unable to support this application, which is contrary to national and local policy objectives of local distinctiveness and site-sensitive design, as well as Local Plan requirements. I therefore recommend the application, in its current form, be refused.

Director of Environment & Infrastructure (Roads Planning Officer): The latest layout is much improved on the original submitted, there is now a selection of parking types available with row housing helping to create a real street presence.

There are still some issues that require to be resolved before I am able to fully support the application:

x The entrance square is off such a size that it will effectively work as a roundabout, this could lead to confusion and create a road safety issue. This should be reworked to have a much less formal layout, such as that suggested by the council’s Urban Designer in her email of 27 September. x The street connectivity in the western part of the site is excellent, however as good as the western part is, the eastern part is poor with a series of cul-de- sacs, with no connectivity. This should be reworked to provide better connectivity. x Surface treatments are essential to creating a good street network, and at the very least a condition should be imposed on any consent issued to have these agreed before work commences. x The new signage works identified in the Transport Assessment to be in place before the first house is occupied. x Pedestrian/cycle links to the Smithy and to Robinsland Drive, as identified through the planning brief, still need to be pursued. A vehicular link to

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Robinsland Drive is still recommended as such street connectivity would be in line with ‘Designing Streets’ principles and would assist with traffic dispersion. This would have the added benefit of allowing the turning area at the end of Robinsland Drive to be taken away and the land put to better use. x Visitor parking should be provided in groups of at least two and spread evenly through the site. x A maximum of two dwellinghouses can be served by a private access, there are instances through the site were this number is exceeded.

Director of Environment & Infrastructure (Parks): No reply

Director of Education & Lifelong learning: No reply.

Statutory Consultees

West Linton Community Council: Unanimously oppose the application even as amended. They believe that due to the continuing ongoing discussions between Scottish Borders Council and the developer the amended application is premature and requests it is retracted and resubmitted at a later date. This said the Community Council is of the opinion that the stone buildings within the farm steading should be retained and converted rather than demolished. The buildings are of historical interest and would provide a link to the past in the new development, they would also provide a break from new buildings within this large development; should it be approved. The CC are aware of at least one alternative development road layout to that which was provided to us and have heard talk of another affecting neighbouring roads. The CC cannot be expected to comment on this matter if the one provided is not the one which Council Officials will be working to. The Community Council reiterate its opposition to the allocation of the site, the linkage between the two allocated site and the increase in overall capacity. They also express concern and disappointment with the allocation process and the resultant impacts the development will have on the village. In respect to the current submission they raise concerns that it does not meet local housing need or provide necessary range and choice of affordable housing, the proposed vehicular access and its use by 184 vehicles in the application will impact on the residential amenity of houses adjoining the Robinsland Farm track, they also have concerns about privacy issues for these houses, the impacts of a proposed access through to Robinsland Drive and that there will be some degree of overlooking of existing properties. In terms of policy Policy H3: Housing Land Allocation states housing must meet the key sustainability and design requirements of the Council., WLCC submits these criteria are not met. On traffic generation they state there are limited employment opportunities locally which will inevitably result in the majority of the houses being supported by commuters relying on their own vehicles to journey to and from work. Retail provision in West Linton is limited which will result in increase in the number of journeys to larger towns to access a range of retailers. They query the assertions of the Transport Assessment, and quote Policy Inf 11 3. which states that “development will be refused where Transport Assessments and Travel Plans do not provide satisfactory sustainable solutions” and that is a likelihood of “increased reliance on private car”. There is provision for at least 184 vehicles and when

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 coupled with the poor public transport connections to/from West Linton it can only result in an increase in private vehicle usage. The Transport Assessment as provided with the application pays only lip service to alternatives to private vehicles use. On these points alone the application should be refused.

Scottish Natural Heritage: No objections to the development as there will be no impact on any designate sites and the proposals do not raise issues of national interest. They are not aware of any other natural heritage interest that would be adversely affected by the development.

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency: Ask that their specified planning condition be attached to any consent. If this will not be applied, then please consider this representation as an objection. They make the following additional comments:

Surface water drainage

There is very little information provided on proposed Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) measures for the development, and the developer needs to agree appropriate measures with us. We note from the design and access statement (by Springfield Properties Plc dated May 2011) that there are going to be porous parking areas to roads and courtyards with filtration below. It is not clear what the extent of these porous areas will be or whether all the road drainage will be directed towards these.

Roof drainage requires only one level of SUDS. Parking areas and roads will require two levels of SUDS. This can be achieved by using permeable block paving with a washed stone filled sub-base of minimum depth 0.5m.

Waste water drainage

A sewage pumping station is being proposed to direct sewage from the development to the public sewer. This system should be designed so that there is no need for an emergency overflow by provision of storage in the pump wet well and upstream sewers, by use of telemetry to warn of pump failure and/or high level, and agreeing an appropriate response time. (Should an emergency overflow be required the applicant will need to obtain CAR authorisation.) The pumping station should also be designed so that it meets the relevant criteria for later adoption of the asset by Scottish Water.

They also provide advice for the applicant and general advice on regulatory requirement s for the development.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key issues are whether the development complies with development plan policies and planning policy guidance regarding the provision of housing development on an allocated site, including matters of design, layout, tree protection, ecology, traffic, infrastructure and parking. A key issue is the compliance with national and local policy guidance documents Designing Streets and Placemaking and Design.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy Principle

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 The site lies within the Development Boundary of West Linton as identified in the Consolidated Local Plan and consists of the allocated housing site TWL8B Robinsland (indicative capacity of 46 units) and part of allocated housing site AWEST009 Robinsland Steading (indicative capacity of 40 units). Whilst the principle of some form of residential development of the land can not therefore be challenged the nature of form of the resultant development is of critical importance.

There are concerns that the subdivision of site AWEST009 and its “piecemeal” development, will make it more difficult to ensure the appropriate form development envisaged in the Local Plan. It would have been preferable that the entire site including the steading be looked as a whole, but the application must be considered on its own merits and measures taken in the design and layout of the proposed development to ensure that this objective is not prejudiced.

The introduction of key policy guidance in the form of Designing Streets and Placemaking and Design is significant factor in the determination of this application. These documents require a more considered approach to layout and design, requiring a focus on placemaking, making developments distinctive and pedestrian friendly, and reducing the influence of the car on the layout and appearance of the development. There must be a significant shift in emphasis away from standardised approaches to road and housing design, towards creating developments which have a distinctive sense of place.

Whilst it is appreciated that the planning policy has somewhat changed within the Robinsland area in recent years the Planning Brief produced for Local Plan sites zSS9 Deanfoot Road (Playing Field) (school site) and TWL8B Robinsland (housing site) it is still considered relevant to the consideration of this application.

They key elements of the development are discussed below within the context of the key policy and guidance documents:

Landscape Structure and Setting

The site does not benefit from any woodland or tree cover, is generally flat with an open aspect to the adjoining countryside. Landscaping is therefore an important component in the design of the site if an attractive development is to be achieved that integrates well with the existing settlement and the adjoining countryside. The Planning Brief highlights that the development should provide a sheltered environment for the new houses on what is a relatively exposed site. While the immediate environment of the site is not particularly special, the environmental quality of West Linton generally is very high and the new housing on this site should set a high standard.

There is a requirement in the Local Plan and the Planning Brief for Woodland planting along the east and south east part of the site with buffer areas alongside new and existing landscaping, which was not picked up on the initially proposed layout. In addition the Brief also proposed tree planting along the upgraded Robinsland Track which has also been ignored. The initial layout did not provide any landscape information and was therefore deficient and unacceptable.

The revised plan has sought to address these concerns and has been successful to a degree. The new layout provides indicative landscaping illustrating a higher level of planting in the specified areas and shows planting proposals within the streets and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 on the green. However, it still lacks the detail and content to give full satisfaction that the proposed landscaping meets the relevant policy aspirations.

In addition to the landscape areas, the layout also provides for areas of communal public space fronting onto the school (the form of which will be discussed later in this report), in the square and to the southern boundary of the site. Whilst the provision of these areas helps to soften the edges of the development, and in the case of the square a more attractive central focal point the scheme, the lack of a full landscaping plan has not assisted the assessment process. The omission of this level of detail lends substance to the concerns that the applicants have not approached the design of this scheme in a holistic way that is responsive to and respects the character of West Linton.

The long term maintenance of landscaped areas, open space and any play facilities must be addressed but this could be controlled through a section 75 agreement.

Townscape Layout & Design

The Development Vision in the SPG states that the “aspiration for the site is that it should provide a high quality, sustainable mixed residential development that integrates with its immediate surroundings and takes advantage of the long open views to the south. Despite the assertions in the applicants Design Statement it was patently obvious that the proposal, as originally submitted, did not come anywhere close to meeting the required standard and was very much a standard suburban layout with limited character and little charm. There appeared to be no attempt to design a development that was responsive to its context within the Borders or West Linton itself. There was significant opposition to the development from a number of consultees and local residents and the design was also heavily criticised by the Council’s project team and in particular by the urban designer.

There has been a significant dialogue with the developers regarding the layout and design of the proposed development and the need for fundamental changes to be made to the proposal to make it acceptable. To assist these discussions the Urban Designer provided a sketch proposal to illustrate the degree of change and improvement required and this resulted in a revised plan being submitted by the applicant in September for consideration. This revised layout has been the subject of fresh consultation and neighbour notification. However, despite some aspects of the revised layout showing an improvement on the original submission, in particular:

- incorporation of a clearer sequence of spaces - stronger use of ‘perimeter block’ housing with a range of parking provision - a variety of spaces, street widths and treatments and stronger relationship between the buildings and public spaces

The development does not incorporate all of the changes that the Urban Designer and other consultees had suggested and there are still significant concerns about the acceptability of the new layout. These are discussed below:

(a) Point of Arrival

To ensure legibility it is considered that the development must have a suitable and attractive point of arrival. This point is acknowledged by the applicant’s in their own site analysis but is not wholly realised in their proposals. Whilst the revised layout shows the houses on the north west part of the site facing towards school and there is a narrow landscape strip along the mutual boundary, it does not create the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 necessary entrance way to the site or provide a suitable relationship with the school and its playing fields. The layout therefore fails to provide a suitable point of arrival and interface with the new school side.

The site is accessed via a long access road from Deanfoot Road, which in the proposed plan terminates at the square. It is argued that there is a need to provide an earlier point of arrival on the edge of the site adjoining the school playing field. It is important that there is a greater interrelationship between these elements so that the development and the school are both physically and visually linked. This can be done, as was suggested to the applicant in their analysis, by creating a larger public space adjoining the playing fields and working closing with the school project team to ensure compatibility of planting, boundary treatments and deal with any access/security issues.

The applicant has remained unresponsive to this request and this is major deficiency in the design of the development.

(b) Central Focus/Square

Whilst there are no objections, as such, to the creation of a central feature within the development, indeed this is to be encouraged in many instances, the provision of a square is not felt to be appropriate within the context of this site, and there are concerns about how it would function from a traffic management point of view as well. The creation of such a formal square appears alien in a village like West Linton and is not reflective of the other public open spaces in the settlement. The design fails to respond to the local context.

The applicant has been asked to modify the layout to introduce a more informal modest central space that reflects a more intimate street arrangement, but they are insistent that they wish a determination on the revised layout as submitted.

(c ) Traditional Stone Buildings

The Local Plan highlights that the retention and conversion of traditional stone buildings on site will be required in order to retain a traditional historic edge to the settlement. Members will be aware form the Planning History that the buildings have been subject of planning permission for conversion in the past and were considered suitable and capable for conversion by the planning authority.

The applicant has been very reluctant to contemplate the conversion of the buildings and recently submitted a Demolition and Refurbishment Report to try to justify the removal of these buildings. However, as this was effectively only an asbestos report further information has been requested in terms of the buildings structural capacity for conversion and their viability for this purpose. These will be submitted in advance of the Committee and an oral report will be made on their content at the meeting.

It is argued however that even the removal of the buildings is ultimately accepted the development at this locus should reflect the layout, form and pattern of the buildings in the redevelopment of this part of the site. This is not proposed and the layout does not provide for a suitable relationship to the remaining farmhouse and outbuildings. Again the applicant has been reluctant to change the design of this part of the site to reflect this requirement.

(d) House Mix and Design

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 The application provides for 82 houses of two storey design that follow a similar design and palate of external materials. Whilst they are broadly acceptable, taking account of the context of housing immediate adjoining the site, there is a concern that the layout provides for a significant number of detached houses and this contributes to the feeling of a suburban form of the development. Some attempt has been made to focus the terraces and semi detached houses to help create features in the street scenes but this has not been wholly successful. Attention will need to be taken with respect to the external wall colours of the houses and the secondary fabric such as wall and boundary treatments so that they integrate with the adjoining proerties and reflect the rural edge of the village.

In summary, there are still fundamental concerns about the design and layout of the development and the applicant appears unwilling to modify the scheme to meet the design standards being requested. It is worth noting that in other schemes considered by the Council where there has been an increase in the density, the underlying reason for the increase has been to facility a high quality development that is consistent with the authority’s design aspirations. This is not the case here.

Neighbouring Amenity

It is not considered that the development will have a significant impact on the amenity or privacy of neighbouring residents. The revised layout has provided for a more suitable orientation of houses plus spacing and planted buffer zones to adjoining residential properties particularly at St Andrews Close and The Smithy. A planted buffer currently exists between the site and the houses on Robinsland Drive. The securing of a suitable full landscape plan will address any issues and can be controlled by a planning condition.

Traffic Infrastructure, Movement & Parking

The Consolidated Local Plan states that “Housing site TWL8B will require vehicular access through school site zSS9, from Robinsland Drive and probably also from Deanfoot Road”. However, the proposal brought forward only seeks access from the upgraded Robinsland track. In terms of access, the Planning Brief states that “The main vehicular access should be taken from Deanfoot Road (see plan). This should be at least 5.5 wide. A secondary vehicular access off Deanfoot Road adjacent the Health Centre can also serve the site”. In addition to the text the plan within the brief shows a possible vehicular link with Robinsland Drive.

It is clear however that there are problems about the delivery of an access on to Robinsland Drive due to land ownership issues. The existence of a ransom strip means that it is outwith the control of the applicant to deliver this link. In the circumstances the Road Planning Officer is prepared to accept a single access to the site from Deanfoot road and whilst there are still some issues that require to be resolved before he is able to fully support the application, in principle he is accept the application. The key outstanding issues relate to:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 sacs, with no connectivity. This should be reworked to provide better connectivity. x Pedestrian/cycle links to the Smithy and to Robinsland Drive, as identified through the planning brief, still need to be pursued. A vehicular link to Robinsland Drive is still recommended as such street connectivity would be in line with ‘Designing Streets’ principles and would assist with traffic dispersion. This would have the added benefit of allowing the turning area at the end of Robinsland Drive to be taken away and the land put to better use. x Visitor parking should be provided in groups of at least two and spread evenly through the site. x A maximum of two dwellinghouses can be served by a private access, there are instances through the site were this number is exceeded.

There have been continued concerns expressed by local residents about the proposed pedestrian access to adjoining residential areas but these are seen as an essential requirement to ensure connectively and integration of the development with the settlement and must be provided.

A number of objectors have highlighted the potential for congestion in the village if the development proceeds but the Roads planning Officer is generally content with then terms of the Transport Assessment and does not object on the basis of the development’s impact on the wider road network.

Developer Contributions

The Development Negotiator has been progressing discussions with the developer in respect of the contributions that would be generated by the application and the current position is

Affordable Housing:

x 21 AH units - combination of 2 and 3 bed semis x 10 units to be taken by Eildon Housing Association (EHA) after 12 months from commencement of works - delivery mechanism. x 11 units to be sold as Discounted Units – x If EHA not taken after 3 years from commencement of works, then Springfield can, but is not compelled, to invoke "secondary" delivery mechanism for these 10 units, this comprising Discounted Units on same terms as above

Education:

x contributions will be settled at a rate of £8,425/market unit (i.e. not AH units) towards the provision of the new primary school at West Linton plus £1,187/market unit towards the expansion of the high school at Peebles. x E & LL contributions are index linked annually with effect from 1 April x The E & LL will be settled in 3 equal tranches upon sale/occupation of the 10th, 30th and 50th market units (provisional phasing to be confirmed)

Play Facilities: x If provided on site mechanism for delivery and on-going maintenance must be agreed. If off site a contribution will be necessary to upgrade other play facilities in the village.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Access Contributions x Contribution to wider footpath network

Other considerations

It is considered that matters such as ecology, archaeology, heritage, air quality, contaminated land, can be adequately mitigated or addressed through the imposition of planning conditions and in themselves do not constitute matter that would merit the refusal of the application.

CONCLUSION

Whilst the application has shown some degree of improvement during the negotiation process it is clear that the applicant is not prepared to accede fully to the design changes being asked for by officers and that they wish a determination as now submitted. The development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance set out very clearly the Council’s aspirations to improve the design quality of housing developments in the Scottish Borders and have developments that are fully responsive to and integrate well with existing settlements. Unfortunately this is not the case in this instance and the application can not be supported.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend that the application is refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy N20 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2011-18, Policies G1 and H3 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and the provisions of Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking and Design and the Robinsland Planning Brief 2008 in that:

(a) it fails to meet the required design standards to produce a high quality and attractive residential expansion of West Linton that is fully integrated into the village displaying necessary elements of local distinctiveness and identity. (b) it does not provide sufficient justification for the removal of the existing traditional stone buildings at Robinsland Farm or why, in the event of their removal, the proposed development can not seek to mitigate such loss by respecting the footprint of the buildings in the design and/or reusing the stone material on site.

If approved, the development would be harmful to the appearance and character of his part of West Linton.

DRAWING NUMBERS

B 2-4/MVP13/01 B TYPE - FLOOR, FOUNDATION & ROOF PLANS B 2-4/MVP13/02 B TYPE - ELEVATIONS BEAULY/R/PL01 FLOOR, ROOF & FOUNDATION PLANS CROMARTY/R/PL01 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS CULBIN/L/PL01 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 HUNTLY/R/PL01 PLANS & SECTIONS RWL/LP/01 LOCATION PLAN SPEY/L/PL01 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS WL/AB/PL01 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS WL/CR/PL01 FLOOR PLANS & ELEVATIONS WL/SP/01_REV.B Site Plan

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Ian Aikman Major Applications, Review & Enforcement Manager

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Planning and Building Standards Committee 19