Scottish Borders Council Planning and Building Standards Committee

Item No. 4 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

MINUTE of MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 3 June 2013 at 10.00 a.m. ------

Present: - Councillors R. Smith (Chairman), M. Ballantyne, S. Bell, J. Brown, A, Cranston. V. Davidson. J. Fullarton, I. Gillespie, D. Moffat, S. Mountford, B. White. Apology:- Councillors N. Buckingham, J. Campbell, . In Attendance:- Development Manager (Projects, Review and Performance), Development Manager (Applications), Senior Roads Planning Officers, Managing Solicitor – Commercial Services, Democratic Services Team Leader, Democratic Services Officer (Mrs F. Henderson).

MINUTE 1. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 29 April 2013.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

INTRODUCTION TO THE BUILT AND NATURAL HERITAGE SERVICE 2. The Chairman welcomed Mr Andy Millar, Built and Natural Heritage Manager to the meeting to introduce Members to the Built and Natural Heritage Service. Mr Millar explained that the Built and Natural Heritage Service came under the Planning and Regulatory Services whose Head of Service was Brian Frater. The other functions under the Planning and Regulatory section were Major Applications, Review and Enforcement; Regulatory Services; Development Standards and Plans and Research. The Built and Natural Heritage Service consisted of Access and Countryside; Archaeology; Conservation; Ecology; Kelso Townscape Heritage Initiative; Landscape; Paths to Health; Trees and Urban Design and was primarily charged with the protection, enhancement and promotion (PEP) of the considerable built and natural heritage assets of the Scottish Borders together with integrated countryside access. Mr Millar gave examples of workstreams under each category and answered Members questions.

DECISION AGREED to:-

(a) note the presentation;

(b) circulate the presentation to all members of the Planning and Building Standards Committee.

APPLICATIONS 3. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

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

MEMBERS Councillors Moffat and Davidson left the meeting and were not present for consideration of planning applications 13/00334/FUL and 13/00378/FUL.

1 Item No. 4 APPEALS AND REVIEWS 4. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews.

DECISION NOTED that:-

(a) the Scottish Ministers had sustained appeals in respect of the following;

(i) Erection of wind turbine 67m high to tip and ancillary buildings on land West of Bassendeanhil Farm, Gordon; and

(ii) Erection of ambulance station with wash bay canopy, workshop a associated car parking and hardstanding on Land North West of Borders General Hospital, Melrose.

(b) there remained 9 appeals outstanding in respect of the following:-

x Blackburn, Grantshouse, Duns x Penmanshiel, Grantshouse x (Corsbie Moor), Westruther x Whitmuir Hall, Selkirk x Buxton Road, Selkirk x Newburgh Farm, Ettrick Valley x Gilston Farm, Heriot x Thornbank, Broughton x Horn Burn Wind Farm

(i) Erection of a wind turbine 42m high to tip on land South East of Swinton Quarter Farmhouse, Swinton, Duns 12/01079/FUL;

(ii) Change of use to form garden ground, land South of Hartshaugh Farmhouse, Hawick 12/01374/FUL

(iii) Erection of Dwellinghouses on Land South of Swallow Cottage, Stichill, Kelso 12/01453/PPP

(iv) Erection of 2 no pigeon lofts, formation of access road and parking on Land South of 24 Lamberton Holding, Lamberton 12/01492/FUL

(v) Change of use, alterations and extension to provide dwellinghouse and garage on Land and Buildings North East of 1 Rutherford Mains Farm Cottage, Kelso 13/00102/FUL;

(vi) Erection of dwellinghouse on Land South West of Village Hall, Redpath 13/00245/PPP;

(vii) Erection of dwellinghouse on Land North East of Shawburn, Bleachfield Road, Selkirk 13/00388/FUL; and

(viii) Variation of condition No2 of planning consent 12/01378/FUL to omit hipped roof and replace with gable wall at Former Brydon’s Dairy, Scott Street, Galashiels 13/00394/FUL

(d) the Local Review Body had upheld the Appointed Officers decision in respect of the following:-

(i) to refuse the erection of dwellinghouses on land South of Swallow Cottage, Stichill, Kelso; and

2 Item No. 4

(ii) for replacement windows at 2 Scott’s Close, Selkirk

The meeting concluded at 12.55 p.m.

3 Item No. 4 APPENDIX

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Name and Address Nature of Development Location

13/00204/MIN Lafarge Tarmac Variation of condition No Land South West Of Cambusnethan House 14 and No 18 of planning Ingraston Farm Linnet Way consent T122/91 relating Dolphinton Strathclyde Business Park to upgrading of road Scottish Borders Belshill junction and completion time

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and Informative as follows:

1. The development to be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme of working, detailed in the method statement accompanying application T122/91, except in so far as the statement is amended by any of the following conditions. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site and to safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area.

2. Revised proposals for the working of phases 2, 4 and 6, including the retention of a bund along the edge of this part of the extraction area to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to the re- commencement of mineral extraction at the site. Reason: To provide enhanced opportunities for screen planting and to provide additional protection to Sandy Nick Cottage, both to safeguard the amenity of the area.

3. Workings shall be phased and controlled in such a manner that at any one time the minimum area is disturbed or left unrestored in a condition unfit for agricultural use. At no time shall an area of greater than 1 ha (excluding the areas designated for stockpiles, plant and machinery) be disturbed or left unrestored. Reason: To ensure the orderly development of the site; to reduce visual intrusion and to minimise the spread of dust particles in the interests of amenity.

4. No mineral extraction shall commence until all soils have been stripped to full available depth from the relevant extraction phase. Work routines for stripping operations shall be designed to minimise vehicle traffic on unstripped land and at all times the mechanical handling and compaction of soil shall be minimised. Top soil and sub-soils shall be carefully stored in separate dumps and prevented from mixing. Top soil dumps shall not exceed 6m in height and shall be grass seeded at the earliest opportunity. All dumps shall be evenly graded and tops shaped to prevent water ponding. At least 3 working days notice shall be given to the Planning Authority before work commences on the stripping or movement of soils and the Planning Authority reserves the right to suspend operations during adverse weather conditions. Reason: To prevent damage to the soil structure and to enable sound agricultural restoration.

5. Bind-free soil forming material found during the course of the operations shall be recovered where practicable and stored for use in the final restoration of the site. This material shall be used to replace shortages of sub-soil or top soil or to cap overburden sub-soil or top soil. Reason: To enable sound agricultural restoration.

6. All soils shall be retained on site and none shall be sold off or removed from the site. Reason: To enable sound agricultural restoration; to minimise the movement of soils and to minimise traffic movements outwith the site.

7. All injurious weeds (as defined in the Weeds Act 1959) on the site shall be treated with weedkiller or cut to prevent spreading within the site or to adjoining agricultural land. Reason: To protect agricultural land outwith the site from damage.

8. Measures shall be taken to control ground vermin within the site during the period of the operations. 4 Item No. 4 Reason: To protect agricultural land outwith the site from damage.

9. Prior to the commencement of any further extraction at the site, details shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority of all existing perimeter fences to be retained and new fences to be erected. All fences shall subsequently be maintained in a stockproof condition until restoration of the site is complete. Reason: To ensure that there is no unauthorised incursion of farm stock onto the site.

10. All areas within the site not subject to extraction, used for the siting of plant, machinery or stockpiles, or planted up in accordance with condition number 11 shall be fenced off to permit continued grazing during the period of the operations. Reason: To protect areas of nature conservation interest.

11. Details of a tree planting scheme shall be submitted before mineral extraction re-commences for approval by the Planning Authority, the planting to be carried out within the first planting season following approval of the application and to be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the adequate screening of the site to safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

12. The production rates at the site are limited to a maximum of 65,000 tonnes in any twelve month period, to be monitored by the production of appropriate measurements, which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority on an annual basis. In the event that the agreed tonnages are exceeded, no further material shall be removed from the site until the junction of the D14/1 Garvald road and the A702 trunk road is provided with a right turn lane on the trunk road in accordance with a scheme that shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Transport Scotland. Reason: The existing junction is not considered to be of the standard required for any additional vehicular movements from the quarry site in the interests of road safety

13. No mineral extraction shall re-commence at the site until details (including a timescale for implementation) have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority for the treatment and disposal of surface water and sewerage from the site, and for the maintenance interception or diversion of existing ditches, streams or watercourses passing through the site. Throughout the period of working and restoration all watercourses shall be protected and maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect agricultural land and watercourses from damage by impeded drainage or pollutants.

14. Any oil, fuel, lubricant, paint or solvent within the site shall be stored within a suitable bund or other means of enclosure, constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority to prevent such material from contaminating top soil or sub-soil or reaching any watercourse. Reason: To protect land and watercourses from damage by pollutant agents.

15. The development herby approved shall be completed, including all restoration works and the removal of all plant, machinery, hardstanding areas, roads and other construction works by no later than 31 October 2029. Reason: To permit excavation and restoration of the application site beyond the originally permitted timescale.

16. That in the event of operations on the site ceasing for a continuous period of 12 months or more, the Planning Authority shall deem the operations to have ceased permanently, and shall require the immediate implementation of the approved restoration scheme, or an alternative restoration scheme agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order that the Planning Authority may retain effective control of the development and to ensure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site.

17. That the hours of operation for all working, including extraction, loading, dispatching, maintenance and any other ancillary works shall be limited to 7.00am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays and that no operations shall be permitted outwith these hours without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. In addition no operations shall be permitted on 25th and 26th December and 1st and 2nd January.

5 Item No. 4 Reason: In the interests of amenity.

18. No plant or machinery shall operate at the site unless it is silenced so as to comply with the best practical standard, the details of any noise mitigation measure shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To reduce noise levels to the minimum reasonably achievable in the interests of amenity.

19. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority any pumps used on the site shall be electric powered. Reason: For the suppression of noise in the interests of amenity.

20. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority any generators used on the site shall be housed with sound attenuating material and mounted on vibration absorbing pads. Reason: For the suppression of noise in the interests of amenity.

21. No mineral extraction shall re- commence until details showing the methods to be adopted to control dust emissions from the site have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity.

22. All plant and machinery used on the site shall be installed and maintained in such a manner as to minimise the release of dust and shall wherever possible incorporate dust suppression and collection equipment. The details of the dust suppression measures shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

23. No vehicle shall enter or leave the site unless its payload is adequately covered in order to prevent the spread of dust. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

24. Notwithstanding the terms of Part 16 of Schedule 1 of the Town & Country Planning (General permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 no buildings, plant or machinery, including that of a temporary nature, other than that specified in the method statement accompanying this application, shall be erected, placed or installed within the site without the prior consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: In order that the Planning Authority may maintain effective control of the development in the interests of amenity.

25. The developer (a) shall give a minimum of two weeks notice in writing of commencement of works on each extraction phase to the Planning Authority and no works shall commence on site until the two weeks period has expired and (b) shall afford access to the site to the Regional Archaeologist at all reasonable times to allow the observation of excavations and the recording of items of interest and finds. Reason: The site is of archaeological interest.

26. Mineral extraction shall not re- commence until a revised restoration plan has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, showing the final contours to be achieved in restoration of the site, together with details of any associated drainage or other ground works and including written specifications for finished depths of soils, method of replacement soils and a programme for the monitoring and aftercare of restoration works. Reason: In order that the Planning Authority may retain effective control of the development and to ensure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site.

27. Before mineral extraction recommences the developer shall either lodge with the Planning Authority a bond of a value to be agreed in respect of the costs for restoration of the site or shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority to ensure adequate restoration of the site. Reason: To safeguard the satisfactory reinstatement of the site.

28. Prior to the re-commencement of mineral extraction, details showing the provision of adequate welfare facilities, including toilet provision, shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, the facilities, if required, shall be installed within 1 month of the re-commencement of development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity. 6 Item No. 4

29. Prior to the recommencement of mineral extraction at the site, the developer shall submit to, and have approved by the Planning Authority, a scheme of measures to ensure that right of way BT28 that lies to the eastern boundary of the application site is kept free from obstruction and available for use. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure that public access is maintained and protected during the period of operations at the site.

Informative

The roadside vegetation at the junction of the A702 and Garvald Road needs to be cut back to ensure that there is satisfactory visibility at this junction. The applicant is advised to take the appropriate steps to contact the land owner and ensure that the removal of vegetation takes place and that the required visibility is maintained.

13/00400/FUL Mr And Mrs Stark Equestrian centre Greenhill Farm, Kate Jenkins, Ericht comprising erection of Selkirk, Scottish Planning & Property indoor arena, formation Borders Consultants of outdoor arena, 40 Belgrave Road change of use of 2 No. Edinburgh agricultural buildings to form stables and cafe with retail space and associated works

Decision : Minded to approve. Decision delegated to Officers following discussions with Applicant in respect of the precise wording of condition 2.

Conditions:

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

2. If required passing places could be achieved within land over which applicant had control, then this condition would apply - Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme detailing the provision of new appropriately spaced and inter-visible passing places covering the section of C13 road from the A7 to the farm junction, and the private farm road from the C13 junction to the site, is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the works detailed in the approved scheme are to be provided in their entirety prior to the bringing into use of any part of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of road safety on the C13 between the A7 and the junction serving the site, and on the farm access road between the C13 and the application site.

If any passing places could not be achieved in land under applicant’s control, then the following condition would apply - No development shall take place until new appropriately spaced and inter- visible passing places covering the section of C13 road from the A7 to the farm junction and the private farm road from the C13 junction to the site have been provided in accordance with a scheme of details which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety on the C13 between the A7 and the junction serving the site, and on the farm access road between the C13 and the application site.

3. As indicated on the submitted “Site Layout Plan 131376/PL/02”, the 45 (+3 disabled) spaces to serve the arenas are to be provided prior to the bringing into use of those structures, and the 19 (+2 disabled) spaces to serve the café/shop building are to be provided prior to the bringing into use of that building. The respective spaces are to be provided with a surface finish first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority,

7 Item No. 4 Reason: To ensure provision of suitable parking provision within the development, in the interests of pedestrian safety.

4. Manure and other waste arising from the operation of the premises should be stored and disposed of away from nearby dwellings and suitable measures put in place for proper disposal of same in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Manure and waste storage areas should be constructed so as to ensure that contaminated run-off etc. does not cause public health nuisance or contaminate water courses. Adequate measures should be put in place to control insects and other pests. Reason: To ensure that the development does not cause a public health nuisance or contaminate watercourses

5. Notwithstanding the details submitted in support of the planning application, no development shall take place until drawings in cross section (North-to-South and East-to-West) showing the extent of any cutting and filling required to construct the consented outdoor riding arena, and outlining the full details of the outdoor arena, including materials, boundary treatments, drainage and lighting, have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development would have no unacceptable impact upon the surrounding landform, and to maintain effective control over the development.

6. Prior to the commencement of development, a sample of the slate and render to be used on the café and retail building is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

7. The external surfaces of the Indoor Riding Arena building hereby approved shall be of materials indicated on the submitted application form, and no other materials shall be used without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

8. In addition to the lighting details required by condition 5, a “Scheme of External Lighting Details” detailing the position, height, intensity and any sensors of all other external lighting serving the site is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to installation on the site. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development, and to prevent light nuisance.

9. Amplified music played on the premises, as described in the Applicant’s Business Plan should be inaudible in any noise sensitive premises. Reason: To ensure that the development does not cause a statutory nuisance.

10. Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within any noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). Reason: To protect the occupants of nearby housing from noise and disturbance late in the evening.

11. The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2. Reason: To protect the occupants of nearby housing from noise and disturbance.

12. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored iii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iv. soft and hard landscaping works v. existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations vi. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development. 8 Item No. 4

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

Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping is carried out as approved.

14. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development is to be completed in accordance with the submitted drainage scheme, and the drainage scheme to be implemented prior to the bringing into use of the premises hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the provision of suitable drainage arrangements within the site.

15. A scheme of details outlining the surfacing and marking of parking spaces is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The areas allocated for parking on the submitted plans shall be properly consolidated, surfaced and drained before the use of the site commences, and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles and for servicing and deliveries in connection with the development hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure there is adequate space within the site for the parking and turning of vehicles.

16. No development is to commence until a report, by a suitably qualified person, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, demonstrating the provision of an adequate water supply to the development in terms of quality, quantity and the impacts of this proposed supply on surrounding supplies or properties. The provisions of the approved report shall be implemented prior to the bringing into use of the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately serviced with water without a detrimental effect on the water supplies of surrounding properties.

17. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended) or any act revoking or re-enacting that order: a. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the areas identified as café, classroom and kitchen spaces on the approved plans 131376/PL202 and 131376/CMB/PL/01 are to be used solely for those purposes, on a basis ancillary to the wider riding centre business, and for no other purpose, including any use within class 1 (Retail). b. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the retailing space shown on the approved plan 131376/PL202 to be used for the sale of equestrian supplies and merchandise ancillary to the riding centre business, and for no other purpose, including any other retailing within class 1 (Retail). Reason: To comply with adopted local and national planning policy on retailing in rural locations.

Informatives:

For the information of the applicant:

1 The Economic Development Service of Scottish Borders Council would encourage the applicants to approach VisitScotland towards grading the facility as a visitor attraction and becoming quality assured. Economic Development would also suggest that the applicants supply visitor information such as leaflet racks. For further details please contact Kate Pearson, Economic Development Officer (Tourism) at Scottish Borders Council, Tel: 01835 826 778, email: [email protected].

2 All work within the public road boundary, must be undertaken by a Council approved contractor.

3 This permission does not convey any approval for the display of any signage or advertisements.

4 The path works included on the submitted masterplan are not subject to this planning consent, being outwith the red line planning application boundary. It appears however that they can be considered “Permitted Development” under the provisions of Class 18 (1) (b) of the General Permitted Development (Scotland) Order 1992 (As amended). The applicants are advised to 9 Item No. 4 provide further information on the makeup of these paths, and to seek written confirmation from the Planning Authority that they are exempt from the need for a further application for planning permission.

10 Item No. 4

13/00219/CON Arrow Developments Erection of Premises at Generals 13/00208/FUL c/o DMD Group dwellinghouse Wynd, St Ella’s Place The Berwyn Mill Eyemouth Old Holyhead Road Corwen LL21 9HW

13/00219/CON Decision: Approved subject to re-assignment of the legal agreement, conditions and informative for the following reason:

It is considered that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the Conservation Area of Eyemouth, in compliance with development plan policies N19 (Structure Plan 2009) and BE4 (Consolidated Local Plan, 2011)

Conditions:

1. The works of demolition hereby permitted shall not be begun until documentary evidence is produced to show that contracts have been entered into by the developer to ensure that building work is commenced within a period of 6 months following commencement of demolition. Reason: To prevent premature demolition in the interests of the character of the Conservation Area.

2. The buildings/structures to which this consent relates shall not be demolished until all details required by planning permission reference number 13/00208/FUL have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent premature demolition in the interests of the character of the Conservation Area.

3 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (which may include excavation) in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a Historic Building Survey which has been formulated by, or on behalf of, the applicant and submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow archaeological investigation, at all reasonable times, by a person or persons nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Historic Building Survey Report.

Reason: To preserve by record a building of historical interest.

Informative:

1 The developer’s attention is drawn to the separate, but related planning permission ref. 13/00208/FUL, which contains planning conditions over and above those included within this decision notice. It is incumbent on the developer to ensure that all requirements of said permission are fully discharged.

13/00208/FUL Decision: Approved subject to re-assignment of the legal agreement, conditions and informatives:

Conditions:

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

2 No development shall take place until a revised elevation drawing detailing the treatment of the north elevation, and a revised site plan is submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11 Item No. 4

3 Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external windows, doors, walls and roofs of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: The materials require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

4 The finished floor levels of the building hereby permitted shall be consistent with those indicated on a scheme of details, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall indicate the existing and proposed levels throughout the application site. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development meets with SEPA requirements relating to flood risk.

5 The development shall be undertaken only in strict accordance with any mitigation measures found to be necessary as a result of a site contamination investigation, which shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the health and safety of future occupiers and users of the site.

6 The location of any meter boxes to be installed externally shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Meter boxes must be fitted in accordance with the details of that scheme prior to the occupation of the development and retained. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the building in the Conservation Area.

7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or amendments or re-enactment or re-enactment thereof) no extension, enlargement; or other alteration of the dwelling shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Council, to whom a planning application must be made. Reason: The Local Planning Authority considers that the development hereby permitted is the maximum that can be reasonably allowed without causing detriment to the amenities of adjoining properties, and for this reason would wish to control any future proposals or alterations or extensions.

8 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent provisions amending or re-enacting that Order), no additional window or other opening shall be made in the rear courtyard elevations of the building(s) unless an application for planning permission in that behalf is first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

9 No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the removal and re-location of the life buoy to a place to be agreed in advance with the Authority and Neighbourhood Services has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the re-location of the life buoy shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of maintaining public safety

10 No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the removal and re-location of the CCTV column to a place to be agreed in advance with the Authority and Police has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the re-location of the CCTV camera shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of maintaining public safety

11 No development shall be commenced until a landscape scheme to include details of enclosure of the rooftop terrace has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in line with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the building in the Conservation Area.

12 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a Watching Brief. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded 12 Item No. 4 to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to observe relevant below ground excavation during development, investigate and record features of interest and recover finds and samples if necessary. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered below ground excavation should cease pending further consultation with the Planning Authority. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post-excavation analysis the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority

Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

Informative

1. The applicant is reminded that this permission does not convey approval for works affecting third party rights which may exist on the land or any adjoining. The applicant is therefore advised to seek the approval of any parties having an interest in any land affected by this permission.

2. The applicant is advised that the Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) known as the “second generation flood mapping” prepared by SEPA indicates that the site is at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years. The Indicative Flood Mapping only shows a flood envelope which includes still water at high tide including a surge, there is no inclusion of wave action and the effects of wind. Eyemouth bay is directly affected by North to Easterly winds resulting in waves over topping the Bantry wall, this may have an effect on the proposed development.

3. Due to the developments close proximity to the coast, it is recommended that the applicant adopts water resilient materials and construction methods appropriate to the property as advised in PAN 69, be aware of the need to take into account the potential for flooding arising from other sources such as road drainage.

4. As access and egress to the development may also be affected by flood waters, the applicant should arrange to receive flood warnings from SEPA, the applicant is advised to sign up to FLOODLINE at www.sepa.org.uk or by telephone on 0845 988 1188. It would also be advisable for the applicant to develop an evacuation plan for the building during times of flood warning.

5. A number of flood protection products such as floodgates and air-vent covers are also commercially available for the adjacent property and details of these can be found by calling Emergency Planning on 01835 825056 who may be able to offer discounts for the products.

VOTE Councillor Ballantyne, seconded by Councillor Smith, moved approval of the application.

Councillor Bell, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, moved as an amendment that the application be refused as the proposed development would be contrary to Policy BE4 relating to the impact on the conservation area and in particular the character of St. Ella’s Wynd.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 7 Votes Amendment - 4 Votes The Motion was accordingly carried.

13/00309/FUL Ms Roy Formation of new St John’s Cottage, St c/o Stuart Aitchison access and replacement John’s Wynd, 3 Glenfield Crescent windows Newstead Galahsiels TD1 2AR

13 Item No. 4 Decision : Approved subject to the following conditions and ‘informative’ note.

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Authority under this consent, unless amended by other conditions in this schedule. Only the alteration to the wall specified on the approved site plan is permitted under this consent, and the remainder of the wall shall remain Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details in a manner that protects the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

3. All windows shall be white in external colour and of the glazing pattern identified on the approved elevation drawing, unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. The ground floor windows and pitch-roofed dormer windows shall be sash and case in operation, installed in accordance with the approved profile specifications, and shall not incorporate horns. The central dormer window shall not be installed until a dimensioned profile of the window is submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. In all windows, astragals/glazing bars shall be exposed externally, fixed permanently to the window and not stuck on. All existing windows, including boxes, shall be removed in their entirety before the replacement windows are installed Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

4. No works shall commence on the formation of the access or driveway/parking area until the section of wall alongside Planetree Cottage has been repositioned in accordance with the approved site plan to a design specification first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority Reason: To maintain road and pedestrian safety in a manner that does not detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

5. No works shall commence on the formation of the access or driveway/parking area until the following have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority:

i A plan clearly showing all trees within the site, those to be retained, those to be removed, and protective measures for those to remain. Only those trees approved by the Planning Authority for removal may be so removed, and all works on the access/driveway/parking area shall be carried out only with the approved protective measures in place ii A landscaping scheme specifying the location, number and species of replacement planting, in addition to grass seeding of exposed ground, a timescale for implementation and a maintenance programme. iii Details of the driveway tie-in with the existing lane (levels and surfacing arrangement) and a sample of the gravel finish iv A revised layout for the gravelled area alongside the turning head/house frontage and a sample of the gravel finish v An elevation of the access opening; of any proposed gates (including materials/colours); and a detailed plan and elevation of the approved new retaining wall, its material specification and coping detail. vi A surface water drainage scheme

Works may proceed only in accordance with the details approved under this condition Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and in the interests of road and pedestrian safety

Informative

1. It is recommended that removal of trees (once agreed with the Planning Authority) is carried out in the winter, outwith bird and bat breeding seasons. Any unauthorised disturbance to bat or bird breeding habitats is an offence under European and UK habitat legislation.

14 Item No. 4 2. It is matter for the applicant to ensure that the necessary legal entitlement to recess the wall at Planetree Cottage has been obtained. This consent does not override this requirement. 3. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that no damage is caused to neighbouring property during the construction of the works approved under this planning consent, and to remedy any damage that may have occurred. This consent does not account for the risk of damage to private neighbouring properties.

13/00309/FUL Jedburgh Community Installation of outdoor Land South West of Council gym equipment 12 Richmond Row, c/o Kevin Hill Jedburgh 26 Bongate Jedburgh TD8 6DX

Decision : Approved subject to the following conditions and ‘informative’ note.

Conditions:

2. Prior to the commencement of development, precise details of the gym equipment specifications, design and layout, are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development, and in the interests of visual amenity.

3. Within three months of the end of the useful life of the outdoor gym equipment hereby approved, all gym equipment and associated equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored to a grassed area, or other such condition as may be agreed in advance and in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The anticipated design life of the gym equipment has a limited life expectancy.

4. The maintenance of the outdoor gym equipment hereby approved, must be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the recreational facilities

Informative:

1. The applicant should be aware that all future maintenance and public insurance liability is not the responsibility of the Council and a lease must be arranged with the Council for the application sites, prior to any development commencing.

13/00378/FUL Peebles RFC Removal of existing Peebles RFC, Hay c/o Malcolm McLeman floodlights and Lodge Park, Peebles 4 Cherrytree Cottage installation of permanent Nether Horsburgh floodlighting posts (8No) Cottages Innerleithen

I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions and informative note:

15 Item No. 4

2. No lights approved by this permission shall be operated between the hours of 22:00 and 07:00. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

3. If it proves to be necessary upon operation of the floodlights, mitigating measures to control and reduce light spread to be carried out within an agreed timescale, in accordance with a scheme of details that has first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining residential properties and the safety of road users.

Informatives

The installation should be designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Engineers.

16 Item No. 6(a)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 JULY 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/00709/FUL OFFICER: Carlos Clarke WARD: Galashiels and District PROPOSAL: Erection of 42 dwellinghouses and associated infrastructure SITE: Coopersknowe Phase 4 and 5 APPLICANT: West Register (Realisations) Ltd AGENT: Yeoman McAllister Architects

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site comprises an undulating area of land sited alongside Coopersknowe Crescent, located at the easterly end of Galashiels. Coopersknowe Crescent is a residential development of 30 houses, comprising the first three phases of an incomplete development, of which this site has been intended to form part. The existing houses are served by a road network which has a junction with the C77 to the north, sweeps through Coopersknowe Crescent, incorporating a number of cul- de-sacs, and extends through the centre of the application site, before leading back to the C77 to the east. The road is incomplete in its construction as it passes through the application site. The site bounds the existing houses at Coopersknowe Crescent to the west and north, the gardens of a grouping of houses to the north-east, a commercial/industrial estate to the south-west and south, and the C77 public road to the east, the other side of which is an emerging housing development which will eventually comprise over 500 residential units.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application originally sought full consent for the erection of 41 houses, comprising five house types, within a development that would incorporate the existing sweeping central road, with houses accessed off it either by driveways or shared access roads. During the course of the planning application, and in response to issues raised by this department following the initial public consultation period, the proposal has been considerably revised. The layout now incorporates 42 houses, comprising ten house types, set within a layout which now incorporates a more angular road network which includes a rear lane serving several houses and communal parking spaces, and a small square just south-west of the junction with the C77. An area of public open space, designed to accommodate a play area, is now proposed on the site where two houses were proposed in the original scheme. The house types incorporate two and 13/4 storey detached, semi-detached and terraced units. The layout includes a surface water attenuation area to the south- east, alongside the C77. The amended application includes landscaping and boundary treatment proposals, including tree and hedge planting, fencing and walling.

The application is classed as a ‘Major’ development under the Hierarchy of Developments (Scotland) Regulations 2009 due to the size of the site. The applicants

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(a) publicised and held a public event prior to the application being submitted, which included invites and attendance of Galashiels and Langlee Community Council and the Coopersknowe and Easter Langlee Residents Association. The outcome of the public consultation exercise has been reported in a Statement of Participation submitted with the application. The requirements of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2008 have been satisfied.

PLANNING HISTORY

Planning consents for residential development of this area date back to 1990. The houses currently forming Coopersknowe Crescent were built under detailed planning consents granted (mainly) between 2001 and 2004. Thirty houses have been built, though the overall development was never completed as the construction company went into liquidation. This application incorporates the six unbuilt plots originally forming part of the third phase of the development.

In January 2008, full planning consent (06/01838/FUL) was granted for the erection of 50 houses on the same site as is the subject of this application. That consent was extant at the time this current application was submitted, though it has since expired.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

In response to the original submission, seven representations were received. A summary of the main concerns raised is noted as follows:

x Overprovision of housing in the area, without thought for infrastructure x Impact on water pressure x Impact on broadband speed x Increased traffic and no traffic calming pinch-point is incorporated x Insufficient room for plots 40 and 41, the former with a dangerous driveway x Poor quality architecture, not in keeping with Coopersknowe Crescent x Houses should be designed for the long term, not short term profit x Properties facing the C77 is mindless x Request controls over construction traffic x Lack of play space, which should be maintained by the Council and not residents. Open areas are a concern as Coopersknowe Crescent has no factor x Insufficient parking, with garages used for storage, and ‘home zone’ streets would be privately maintained and not adopted but too large to be cleared of snow x Septic tank tail drain will be affected

In response to the revised plan, five representations were received. At the time of writing this report, the consultation period has yet to expire. Members will be advised of any further representations that may be received prior to their determination of the application. Specific concerns resulting from the amended scheme include:

x That it is not possible to successfully link this development with the character and density of Coopersknowe Crescent. The amended proposal is criticised for its density, poor architectural design and lack of screening, being described as overbearing, out of scale and out of character. It would be better detached from Coopersknowe Crescent. However, one representation contends that the prospect of the site being developed and sold is possible with this scheme whereas, while a similar layout to the Coopersknowe

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(a)

Crescent would be optimal, in the current market the outcome would be empty houses. x There is no play area shown, just open space x Parking is insufficient

Copies of all representations can be viewed on ‘Public Access’

APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The original application was supported by a Design Statement and a Statement of Participation (Community Consultation). Copies can be viewed on ‘Public Access’.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

N7 Protection of Nature Conservation Interest N20 Design 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 Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

G1 Quality Standards for New Development G2 Contaminated Land G5 Developer Contributions G6 Developer Contributions related to Railway Reinstatement 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 NE3 Local Biodiversity NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy PAN 44 Fitting New Housing into the Landscape PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 65 Planning and Open Space PAN 67 Housing Quality Designing Streets Designing Places SPG Affordable Housing SPG Developer Contributions

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(a)

SPG Trees and Development SPG Landscape and Development SPG Green Space SPG Placemaking and Design SPG Guidance on Householder Development

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Urban Design Officer): Raised concerns regarding a number of significant deficiencies with the original scheme, including street design; over-dominance of frontage parking; lack of distinguishable sequence of space and relationship between buildings and spaces; lack of clear relationship to existing houses; poor frontage to the C77; lack of landscape layout and boundary treatments, with apparently left-over spaces. Recommended a comprehensive review of the layout based on these factors.

The UDO was subsequently involved in a series of discussions with the applicants and their agents and the revised application was submitted following these discussions. No formal comments in response to the amended proposals have, however, been received.

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Roads Planning Service): Unable to support the original scheme due to insufficient parking; unsuitable radii at several junctions; layout design and lack of accord with Designing Streets; badly located cul- de-sac at entrance; and need for connection into adjoining site. Recommended meeting the applicant to address these issues. Furthermore, if approved, contributions of £1000 per house will be required towards the Central Borders Traffic Study.

The RPS were subsequently involved in a series of discussions with the applicants and their agents and the revised application was submitted following these discussions. No formal comments in response to the amended proposals have been received though it is understood that the only matter outstanding is clarity regarding junction visibility.

Director of Environment and Infrastructure (Contaminated Land Officer): The development proposes redevelopment of agricultural land which previously included steading buildings and a sheepwash. In addition an apparently infilled mill pond and landfill are located in the vicinity of the site. This land use is potentially contaminative and it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose. It is recommended that planning permission should be granted subject to a condition requiring investigation, risk assessment, remediation and verification to address potential contamination.

Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: No reply

Director of Social Work (Housing Strategy): No reply

Statutory Consultees

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Refer to concerns raised regarding the Easter Langlee residential development in terms of proximity to the nearby landfill site and proposed recycling site. As per SEPA guidance, Planning Authorities should

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(a) make decisions based on full knowledge between the two land uses. Recognise this is located at a greater distance, but highlight the siting of sensitive development close to regulated processes, leading to tighter and more expensive controls for the businesses, and leading to unresolved complaints.

In response to the amended layout, noted that they have no objection, and that the surface water drainage proposal outlined is acceptable in terms of water quality as it provides the required level of treatment for surface water run-off from the development. The water quantity aspect has not been considered. It is recommended that the inlet and outlet levels of the detention pond are designed such that a permanent, shallow wetland is created in the basin to aid the treatment value

Galashiels and Langlee Community Council: Had no observations to make on the original proposal. In response to the amended application have not objected but raise matters regarding:

x Believe there was provision for a children’s play area within the overall plans but there is no provision within this application. Due to the amount of children likely to live in the completed development, feel this is an essential aspect which should be included. x Concerns regarding the amount of traffic likely to be using the C77 and ask that the traffic experts look at the whole area from the proposed new roundabout up the C77 in this regard to ensure all steps are taken to mitigate congestion. This is another reason for the play area, to avoid children crossing the C77 to the Persimmon area play facilities. x Issues regarding noise, traffic and odours emanating from the landfill site and proposed new thermal treatment plant need to be identified and steps taken to minimise any such issues

Scottish Water: No reply

Other Consultees

Coopersknowe and Easter Langlee Residents Association: In response to the original application noted that individual members have submitted comments and add only that, whilst they welcome the completion of Phases 4 and 5, they support objections already submitted by individuals and object on the same grounds.

In response to the revised submission noted that they object, stating that it is not possible to successfully link the existing housing at Coopersknowe Crescent to the proposed. The style of properties is in no way similar and suggest the application should become a stand alone development with no vehicular access to the existing development. This would then link it to the denser allocation of Persimmon houses across the road. This would be easier on the eye than trying to extend the less dense, American style of existing housing and be a more appealing to any buyer wishing to develop the land.

The CELRA also note that they see many possible difficulties with the roads and parking. (NB. This department asked for clarification of what these are but have received no response at the time of writing).

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

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

The key issues are whether the proposed development complies with development plan policies and planning policy guidance regarding the provision of a housing development on an allocated site, particularly accounting for matters of design, layout, land use compatibility, traffic and parking and, if not, whether material considerations would justify a departure from development plan policies

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION

Principle

This site is allocated for housing the Consolidated Local Plan, with potential to accommodate 50 houses. It has a history of planning consents dating back to 1990, with the most recent being a planning consent for 50 houses which has only recently expired. There have, however, been significant changes in policy guidance regarding the layout and design of housing developments, as contained within the Government’s Designing Streets and Designing Places documents, and the Council’s SPG Placemaking and Design. These are particular considerations to account for in assessing the design quality of the current application.

Land use

The site is allocated for housing. The principle of housing on it is well established. There have been no concerns raised regarding proximity of the industrial estate to the south-west. However, SEPA have concerns regarding the proximity of the site to landfill operations and proposed recycling activities at Easter Langlee. However, SEPA did not object to the previous application for which consent has only recently expired, despite the landfill site and consent for the recycling activities being in place at that time. Since then a detailed application for the recycling centre has accounted for the risk to residential areas, existing and proposed, and a current application for a thermal treatment facility is being considered with direct input from SEPA. It is not considered that there is any conflict with development plan policies with respect to this site and that the history of the site, and that of the landfill and recycling facilities, do not point to any justification for refusal of this application or imposition of conditions

Density and layout

The previous consent is a material consideration as regards density and layout, though subsequent changes to planning policy guidance, in terms of Designing Streets, Designing Places and Placemaking and Design, require a different approach to some aspects of the layout.

A key issue is the link to Coopersknowe Crescent. This development needs to comfortably relate to it since it would form part of the undeveloped cul-de-sac at the north-westerly end of the site. However, it is not necessary to require that this development either match precisely the layout and density of Coopersknowe Crescent, or to detach itself from it because it does not. The previous consent was granted having incorporated semi-detached houses on the nearest plots (rather than detached houses present within the existing development), albeit of a style which mimicked those in Coopersknowe Crescent. The remainder of the development, however, incorporated a higher density.

In this case, the application has been adjusted during its processing so that the final layout follows a similar theme to that previously approved. Semi-detached houses with staggered frontages are proposed on plots 1-4. The play area is now proposed

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(a) on what was originally proposed for two plots, thus providing a visual gap between the new development and the existing houses on this side of the road. Detached houses, incorporating the larger of the proposed range on the closest plots (5, 6 and 42), are proposed on the main street though the development. For houses closer to the C77, and the Easter Langlee housing development beyond it, a greater density is applied, with terraces and linked houses. It is considered that this layout and density provides for a reasonably sympathetic connection, and completion of, Coopersknowe Crescent, while maximising variety and visual connection to the new housing development emerging to the east.

The layout incorporates houses fronting the C77 to the east. This provides for a greater visual relationship to this road, though houses are buffered from it behind the attenuation area, planting, walling and paths. A full landscaping scheme is required and the paths in front of the houses needs to be specified as non-adoptable private surfacing (so avoiding street lighting). Overall, this arrangement presents a welcoming frontage to the main public road.

To the south, the site backs onto land which is likely to be subject to some form of redevelopment in the future. The layout allows room for a planted strip to screen the rear gardens of houses here. Again, more details will be required in a full landscaping plan.

The levels on the site are currently varied. The application submission includes selected sections, spot levels and finished house levels. The main change to levels appears to be a cut against the higher part of the site at the northerly end. Retaining walls will be behind houses and are otherwise limited throughout the site. Houses appear to relate generally well to levels and roads. Overall, however, the information on levels is not comprehensive enough – new and existing ground level contours need compared, and full sections and streetscenes are needed – in order to fully establish that houses relate comfortably to the street network and whether alterations to ground levels are sympathetic, particularly alongside the C77 (where the attenuation area will be raised and would benefit from a less pronounced slope) and along the southern boundary. A condition can require further information, and adjustments to levels if required.

The layout has been significantly improved during the course of the application such that the influence of the car on the layout, and the formality of the road network, has been less pronounced. The geometry of the main street is much more angular, with houses aligning with it, and with a square incorporated near the entrance to provide a recognisable townscape feature. Communal parking is set behind houses. Front garden parking is still very much a feature, but it is less of a dominant one, and hedging is proposed on frontages to reduce its impact (albeit there are opportunities to increase frontage hedging beyond that shown on the landscaping plan).

The layout is welcoming generally, with all houses facing streets, and open space is used effectively. The boundary treatment plan includes high and low fencing, walls, hedging and open frontages. The layout embraces the concept of ‘public fronts and private backs’, with walls used to frame rear gardens where appropriate. The information is not, however, precise enough to be determined as a complete scheme and detailed specifications will be necessary for all boundary treatments. Also, the extent and route of some boundary features need considered further still but, though not finalised, this matter can be addressed by planning condition for both boundary treatments and landscaping. A key area where landscaping needs particular care is the attenuation area and landscaped buffer alongside the C77. As well as

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(a) sympathetic arrangement of levels, a landscaping scheme is required here to ensure this area is attractive since it will be a prominent feature in this location.

Traffic and parking

The site is allocated for potentially more units than is proposed, and the number of proposed units is less than previously consented. The RPS has not sought an assessment of off-site traffic impacts. Contributions towards the Central Borders Traffic Study cannot reasonably be justified given that they were not sought under the previous consent which has only recently expired.

For similar reasons, it is not considered justifiable to control construction traffic. In any case, it is practically unenforceable to control how construction vehicles use the public road. The likelihood is that they would use the lower southerly access directly onto the site rather than choose to use the access via Coopersknowe Crescent. It is noted that the RPS raises no concerns in this regard.

The layout includes road and path links to the C77 and Coopersknowe Crescent, and safeguards a pedestrian link to the adjacent industrial estate. No further links have been regarded as being necessary. It is noted that the visibility splay onto the C77 is to be maintained though the application drawings require more information to demonstrate that the works to the south of the junction, including an attenuation area, will not disturb it (an adjacent large tree was retained under the previous consent and the RPS has no objections to its retention in this application despite its location in the visibility splay).

The layout has been redesigned during the course of the application to reduce the influence of the car. The main route though has a more angular geometry, with buildings designed around it. A square and rear lane, with communal parking, are incorporated. Overall, the layout will naturally reduce traffic speeds such that the ‘pinch-point’ on the road (required under the previous consent) is no longer necessary. The RPS has been consulted during the course of the development of the layout design and has no objections.

The revised scheme includes housing facing the C77, however, they are set behind path links, walling, planting and attenuation area. In this way, they will provide a street frontage to the C77 without having direct access.

The submitted plans suggest tarred links to the C77 and Coopersknowe Crescent, with the remainder of the network to be ‘’shared surface’. The principle of this is agreeable, though the plans are not clear on surfacing types and are inconsistent with one another. Furthermore, they do not distinguish the rear lane which should be identified as a very informal access route by means of its surfacing. Ultimately, the general principle is agreeable, and the arrangement of road network and driveways doesn’t appear to conflict with the Council’s adoptable standards. However, a condition will require greater clarity and control over finishes.

The proposal has not raised any particular concerns regarding accessibility for disabled persons. All houses appear to be accessed direct from the road/path network, and accessibility within buildings is a Building Standard matter. As regards security, all houses, paths and parking areas are open to view.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(a)

Design and materials

In terms of house designs and materials, the proposal now incorporates ten house types, incorporating detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. House types are mainly two storey, though incorporating two 1 ¾ storey types (i.e. incorporating dormers), and include hipped and gabled roofs. The arrangement of house types, their scale and form, are considered appropriate on this site. The larger hip-roofed houses are closer to Coopersknowe, and the arrangement provides for a transition between the existing houses here and the new housing being developed within the Easter Langlee development.

A key element has been with regard to how to merge houses with Coopersknowe Crescent. It is proposed that plots 1-4 be developed with a particular house type which, following amendments made during the course of the application, incorporates staggered frontages, hipped roofs with lower front eave, prominent front elevation dormers and similar fenestration. These house types are smaller than their neighbours in Coopersknowe Crescent, and they are semi-detached. They will not match the existing houses but will bear some resemblance to them. Their visual connection will be greatly increased by the use of matching slate roofs, render, artificial stone and coloured timber finishes. The final proposal is considered a reasonably sympathetic way to link the existing houses with the new development.

The remaining house types have been subject to amendments made during the processing of the application. Improvements to their proportions, fenestration and details have, for a number of them, rendered them appropriate in this particular context. A number would benefit from further refinements, however, to window proportions, fenestration and cladding arrangements. A slimmer eave/verge treatment for them all is considered appropriate, much like that used in the Easter Langlee housing development. In a number of cases, floor plan drawings do not fully match elevation drawings. In addition, though houses flow well together (following changes to the layout being agreed within the course of the application), houses on plots 17/18 and 25/26 would benefit from a step in the building line. Overall, the house designs are at a point where they can be endorsed as having accounted for planning policy guidance, but subject to further, relatively minor adjustments still being made. Conditions would be capable of addressing these requirements. The applicants have liaised closely with this department regarding improvements to the layout and, to some extent, there has been less focus on finalising house designs. The site has been derelict for some time, and it is considered that it would beneficial to allow this application to progress to a determination with these matters being addressed by conditions.

These house types are to be tiled and rendered with timber cladding. Subject to agreement on the tile type and colour, render range and distribution, and cladding arrangement and colour, this range of materials is considered appropriate in this context.

Neighbouring amenity

During the course of the application, amendments have been made to the position of houses nearest neighbours, incorporating plots 1-4. The development, as now proposed, should not lead to significant impacts on neighbours regarding outlook, privacy, sunlight or daylight loss.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(a)

Energy efficiency

Given the need to address particular urban design issues (and accounting for the previous consent) the matter of solar gain has been applied as far as it reasonably can. Ultimately, there are no concerns that the orientation of housing or their positions relative to nearby buildings or planting will keep solar gain low. Planting to the southern boundary is required to screen rear gardens, though this need not be particularly high. The previous consent imposed a requirement for energy efficiency within buildings, though this is now a matter within the remit of the Building Standards.

Open Space/Play area

Previous consents have applied a requirement for play area provision here, and the most recent consent for this site included an area to be developed for this purpose. The original three phases have never been provided with the play area required under previous consents. Applying current policy guidance, and accounting for the history of this site, as well as the lack of other facilities, and the potential risk of children crossing the C77 to access the facilities to be provided in the Easter Langlee housing development, suggests that a play area on site is justified. The amended application now allows for this. The site plan refers to ‘public open space’ and this is where a play area can be provided. A condition can require details. Future maintenance will either need factored or, preferably, a contribution is paid to the Council for it to be adopted. That way the burden of maintenance is not applied just to the residents of these particular phases of the overall development. This matter requires further discussion with the applicants and may require a legal agreement.

Trees

The previous consent accounted for one particular tree as being of sufficient value to merit protection. The tree is sited near the proposed entrance onto the C77. The applicants have advised that tree protection will be provided in accordance with the relevant British Standards. However, the protection area appears to be disturbed by works for the attenuation area and access works. A condition can be imposed which requires that it be demonstrated that the tree can be retained without risk of damage in accordance with BS5837:12. There are no other trees that were safeguarded under the previous consent, and there have been no changes to policy or site circumstances since that would necessitate further safeguards being applied for trees.

Ecology

The site is not designated and there are no nearby designations likely to be affected. There are no buildings to be removed, albeit there will be removal of some vegetation/trees and disturbance of the ground. An ‘informative’ is considered sufficient to advise the applicants of their obligations under protected species licensing.

Infrastructure and contributions

There are no development plan policies or guidance requiring the provision of services, such as shops. In any case, the development is relatively small and highly accessible, with nearby bus stops. The previous consent applied no requirement for amenities and there have been no changes to policies that would justify making such a requirement of this application.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(a)

In order to comply with development plan policies and guidance, the development is liable for the provision of affordable housing, and contributions to schools and the Waverley Line. The previous consent is a material consideration in this regard, albeit less so since it has expired in the time it has taken to process this application. The nature and extent of obligations to be imposed on the developer of this site, if granted, and which would need to be subject to a legal agreement, will require further discussion with the applicants following the committee’s determination of the application.

Concerns regarding impacts on broadband speeds are noted, however, the site is allocated and has received planning consent for a greater number of dwellinghouses than is now proposed. Broadband speed is a matter for service providers.

A phasing condition will be necessary to ensure delivery of all supporting works i.e. paths, roads, open space, play area, water and drainage.

Services

Mains water and drainage is proposed. A planning condition will be required to ensure that connections to these services will be achieved. Scottish Water have made no representation on this application, though they did not object to the previous consent. Ultimately, it will be up to the applicants to demonstrate that Scottish Water have granted consents to connect and service the proposed number of dwellinghouses.

Surface Water Drainage

An attenuation area is proposed in the south-east corner, thus contributing to a sustainable scheme of surface water disposal. SEPA also asked for source control drainage (i.e. porous driveways) in addition to the attenuation area. This can be addressed by condition when reviewing the detail of the driveways. SEPA appear content with the attenuation area. A condition can require that it be demonstrated that it will attenuate run-off to greenfield levels. Future maintenance of the area will need confirmed, whether this is to be by a factor or by Scottish Water.

Contaminated land

The Council’s Environmental Health Service seeks a condition requiring an assessment of potential contamination. However, the previous consent had no such requirement. Policies and site circumstances have not changed materially in the meantime. An ‘informative’, rather than a condition, is recommended.

Septic Tank

Direct impact on a neighbour’s septic tank is a private matter. The applicants are aware of it. An ‘informative’ is recommended for future reference.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development complies with development plan policies, having accounted for material planning considerations, subject to planning conditions and subject to a legal agreement addressing developer contributions and affordable housing. The submission has been adjusted during the course of processing the application principally in order to seek to address current policy guidance regarding

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6(a) design quality. Ultimately, this objective has been achieved, subject to a number of further refinements being required to house designs, as well as comprehensive treatment of levels, landscaping and boundary treatments, all of which are subject to planning conditions.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application be approved subject to a legal agreement covering affordable housing, Waverley line reinstatement, contributions to schools and, if required, future maintenance of communal open space and play area, and subject to the following conditions and informatives:

2. The layout of the site shall accord with the approved plan PL-01-Opt F, with the exception of Plots 17/18 and 25/26 which shall incorporate a step in the building line between each of the two pairs of houses of a specification to be first agreed with the Planning Authority Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved site layout with an adjustment to selected plots in the interests of enhancing the appearance of the development

3. No development shall commence until a phasing programme for the development has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. This shall include all buildings, roads, paths, parking areas, water, foul and surface water drainage services. Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing programme. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in a manner which ensures that occupied residential units are provided with necessary infrastructure and services

4. No development shall commence until - written evidence on behalf of Scottish Water that the development will be serviced by mains foul drainage and water supply; confirmation of future maintenance of communal surface water drainage, incorporating the SUDs attenuation area; and, evidence has been provided which demonstrates that surface water will be attenuated to pre- development greenfield levels, have all been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority Reason: To ensure the development can be adequately serviced and maintained, without flood risk to other properties

5. No development shall commence until a scheme of details of a children’s play area, which shall be developed on the site identified as ‘public open space’ on the approved site plan, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Details shall include the layout, specification, implementation date(s) and future maintenance of the play area. The play area shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme of details Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate children’s play space

6. No development shall commence until further information has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority demonstrating that the driver

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6(a)

visibility splay for the proposed junction onto the C77 (illustrated by the perforated red line on the approved plan PL-01 Opt F) will be provided free of obstruction prior to occupancy of the first dwellinghouse within the development and maintained free from obstruction thereafter (with the exception of the tree to be retained under Condition 7). Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety

7. The tree adjacent the proposed access from the C77, illustrated on the approved plans, shall not be lopped, felled or otherwise disturbed without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. No development shall commence until a tree protection plan has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority which demonstrates that the tree will be protected from damage in a manner consistent with BS5837:12. Development shall only proceed in accordance with any required protective measures Reason: To safeguard a tree of significant amenity value

8. No development shall commence, (notwithstanding the details provided in the approved drawings), until a revised and augmented scheme of levels (existing and proposed ground contours; proposed finished house floor levels; and all levels of paths and roads) has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme of details shall be sufficient to demonstrate how all proposed ground, path and road levels relate to existing levels and levels on land adjacent the site; how houses relate to the proposed levels; and how the SUDs attenuation area levels relate to existing and adjacent levels. Levels of all works within the visibility splay identified on the approved site layout plan PL-01 Opt F (red perforated line) shall be demonstrated to not interfere with driver visibility in accordance with Condition 6. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved scheme Reason: Further information is required to demonstrate that levels within the site have the most sympathetic visual impact and will not affect driver visibility

9. No development shall commence, (notwithstanding the details provided in the approved drawings), until a revised and augmented scheme of landscaping (incorporating layout, location, species, schedule, implementation date(s) and future maintenance of all new planting and communal open space within the site) has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with implementation and maintenance of the approved scheme Reason: Further information is required to achieve an acceptable landscape scheme for the site

10. No development shall commence, (notwithstanding the details provided in the approved drawings), until a revised and augmented scheme of boundary treatments, including retaining walls, walls and fencing, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the layout/route of all boundary treatments, and their detailed design, height and materials. All boundary treatments within the application site shall accord with the approved scheme Reason: Further information is required to achieve an acceptable boundary treatment scheme for the site

11. No development shall commence, (notwithstanding the details of house types approved under this consent), until a revised series of floor plans and elevations for all house types has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The revised series shall include consistent floor and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 6(a)

elevation drawings for all house types; amendments to window proportions and fenestration, and timber cladding (on house types to be first agreed with the Planning Authority); and revised eave and verge fascia treatments. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the revised series of plans and elevations Reason: Consistent floor and elevational drawings, and refinements to house types are required in order to achieve an acceptable, and enforceable, design quality for the development

12. No development shall commence until a scheme of external materials (including specifications and samples of materials and colours) for all houses within the development, and of all roads, paths and parking areas, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. External wall and roof finishes on plots 1-4 shall match those on the adjacent Coopersknowe Crescent development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme Reason: To ensure external materials are visually appropriate to the development and sympathetic to the surrounding area

13. With the exception of Plots 1-4, no development shall commence on external garages until dimensioned floor plans and elevations, including material specifications, have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The garages shall be constructed only in accordance with the approved plans/drawings and specifications Reason: Further information on garages is required to demonstrate they are of an appropriate design quality and specification

14. A site notice or sign shall be displayed in a prominent place at or in the vicinity of the site until the completion of the development, which shall be readily visible to the public, and printed on durable material. The Notice shall take the following form:

i. Development at (Note 1)

ii. Notice is hereby given that planning permission has been granted, subject to conditions (Note 2) to (Note 3) on (Note 4) by Scottish Borders Council.

iii. The development comprises (Note 5)

iv. Further information regarding the planning permission, including the conditions, if any, on which it has been granted can be obtained, at all reasonable hours at Scottish Borders Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells, Melrose. Telephone (01835) 825060, or by visiting http://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/publicaccess, using the application reference (Note 6). Reason: To ensure compliance with Section 27C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

Informatives

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6(a)

1. The Notes required of Condition 14 should be completed as follows:

Note 1: Insert address or describe the location of the development Note 2: Delete “subject to conditions” if the planning permission is not subject to any conditions Note 3: Insert the name and address of the developer Note 4: Insert the date on which planning permission was granted (normally the date of this Notice) Note 5: Insert the description of the development. Note 6: Insert the application reference number.

2. If future maintenance of the play area and communal open space planting/landscaping is to be adopted by the Council, this shall require a legal agreement to cover financial contributions for this arrangement.

3. Any unauthorised disturbance to protective species habitats is an offence under European and UK habitat legislation. The applicants/developers should ensure precautions are taken before commencing work on site and the advice of an ecologist is recommended.

4. This application proposes the redevelopment of agricultural land which previously included steading buildings and a sheepwash. In addition an apparently infilled mill pond and landfill are located in the vicinity of the site. This land use is potentially contaminative and it is the responsibility of the applicants/developers to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose. It is recommended that the applicants/developers satisfy themselves that the development is not at risk of contamination by commissioning a site investigation and risk assessment.

5. The Planning Authority has been advised by the owners of Rowallan that a tail drain for their septic tank is believed to fall within the site. The applicants/developers should address this matter directly with the owner.

DRAWING NUMBERS

LOC-01 REV / Location Plan PL-08 D Sections PL-01-OPT F Site Plan PL-02 C Other PL-14 B Landscaping REC'D 6 JUN 2012 Existing Layout PL 03D General PL 09C General PL15 A General PL 16 / General PL 10 C General PL 04 C General PL 06 C General PL 07 C General PL 11 B General PL 13 B General PL 12 B General

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6(a)

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 Carlos Clarke Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(a)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6(b)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 JULY 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00247/FUL OFFICER: Barry Fotheringham WARD: Mid Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Construction of 400kV Series Capacitor Bank Compound, associated access road, drainage and landscaping works SITE: Land East of Eccles Substation, Eccles APPLICANT: Scottish Power Transmission AGENT: Scottish Power Energy Networks

SITE DESCRIPTION

The existing Scottish Power substation is situated on the northern side of the A697 to the north west of Coldstream and to the east of Eccles. The application site is an area of low lying arable farmland (currently out of cultivation) located immediately to the east of the existing sub-station compound. The land is slightly undulating and descends to the north towards Todrig Burn. The eastern and southern field boundaries of the application site are formed by existing hedges and to the west is the existing substation. To the south of the application site and on the opposite side of the A697 Coldstream to Greenlaw road are several small woodland plantations, a commercial sawmill and 2 residential properties known as Woodside and Rossander. The existing Eccles substation comprises of 3 compounds operating at 33kV, 132kV and 400kV and currently extends to approximately 13Ha.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This planning application seeks consent for the erection of Series Capacitor Bank Compounds (SCBCs) immediately to the east of the existing Eccles substation. The proposed SCBCs will include two fenced compounds to the east of the existing substations, located either side of and connected to the outgoing 400kV overhead lines, accommodating Series Capacitor Units, control building and cooler units.

The site at Eccles is one of a number of sites required to accommodate new electrical equipment to provide improvements to the high voltage network and allow the integration of renewable electricity generation, which operates intermittently onto the network.

The proposed compounds will be enclosed by a 2.4m high steel palisade fence. Each compound will occupy an approximate area of 0.9Ha and comprise of a through circuit connection at a height of 12m above ground level to allow connection to the 400kV substation. The capacitor banks will be located on platforms measuring 27m by 8m and would have an overall height of 10.5m. Two single storey control buildings measuring 15m x 8m x 6.2m high is also proposed.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(b)

PLANNING HISTORY

The original 132kV substation was constructed in 1959 and as part of the Anglo- Scottish upgrade in the mid 1990’s, the 400kV substation was constructed and more recently in 2005, the 132kV substation was rebuilt. The following planning history is relevant:

B274/95 – Erection of 400kV substation and ancillary equipment. Approved 14 February 1996

03/02254/FUL – Installation of 132kV Electricity Substation. Approved 19 March 2004

04/02103/FUL – Installation of 132kV Electricity Substation. Approved 21 January 2005

12/00697/SCR – Request for Screening Opinion. Opinion issued 3 July 2012. The Council’s Opinion concluded that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required in this case. However the applicant was advised to supplement the application with additional supporting information including a landscape and visual impact assessment.

12/01332/PAN – Proposal of application notice for an extension to the existing substation was submitted on 25 October 2012.

Scottish Power Transmission (SPT) initially engaged in pre-application discussions with the Planning Authority in May 2012 where it was established that the proposed development would be classed as a ‘Major’ development (greater than 2Ha) as identified in The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Three letters of objection have been received in connection with this application. Of these letters, 2 were received from the same household. No other third party representations have been submitted.

The principal grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1. The construction of a banking with trees planted on it so close to the front of the dwellings at Woodside and Rossander would cause a loss of natural daylight and a significant loss of amenity. 2. The effect of light and noise pollution within the houses – this is notable from the existing compound. 3. The effect of electro magnetic field on people with epilepsy and new born infants – currently living at Woodside/Rossander. 4. Adverse impact on road safety as a result of additional traffic. 5. The existing field has drainage problems and remains constantly boggy and un- cultivated. Why has the field to the west not been identified as the preferred location? 6. The landscaping planned for the previous development is not pleasant and appears to be incomplete 7. The inability to let the nearby properties. 8. Adverse impact on amenity of neighbouring dwellings during construction.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(b)

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant has submitted a number of supporting documents along with the application and application drawings including a supporting Planning Statement, Noise Impact Assessment, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, preliminary Traffic Statement, Flood Risk Assessment and Pre-Application Consultation Report. All of these documents are available for Members to view via PublicAccess.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Principal Aim Principle S1 – Environmental Impact Principle S2 – Development Strategy

Policy N6 – Environmental Impact Policy N7 – Protection of Nature Conservation Interest Policy N8 – River Tweed System Policy N9 – Maintaining Landscape Character Policy N13 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy N20 – Design Policy E1 – Prime Quality Agricultural Land Policy I13 – Water Quality Policy I14 – Surface Water Policy I15 – Flood Risk Areas

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G3 – Hazardous Developments Policy G4 – Flooding Policy BE3 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy NE2 – National Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE5 – Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy Inf9 – Development within Exclusion Zones Policy R1 – Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy – February 2010 National Planning Framework 2 National Planning Framework 3 (Draft Framework) – Ambition · Opportunity · Place

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: No objections. The new development is adjacent to the existing substation and will use the existing access from the A697.

Environmental Health: It is recommended that the undernoted Conditions should be attached to any Consent that may be granted:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(b)

Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within any noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation).

The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2.

Any lighting installation installed in connection with the Development should be designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Engineers. If necessary, suitable shuttering should be provided for each lamp to prevent unwanted light affecting the occupiers of properties off site.

Landscape Architect: The Council’s Landscape Architect is satisfied that the effects on receptors will be as described. This is an unusual structure which may be seen as an interesting feature as much as a visual intrusion. Because of the height of the pylons, total screening from surrounding areas is not an option. The proposed mitigation measures will limit views from the A697 and provide, on maturity, a setting that relates to the surroundings. The recommendations for mitigation, as set out at Section 6.0 and Figure 1.8 of the LVIA are accepted.

One aspect that is not fully clear is the form and limits of any agricultural re-use of the site. Access to some of the ‘left over’ field may be restricted and further detail of the proposed agricultural use should be provided.

There are no objections to the application but the following comments should be taken into account:

1. All planting shall use cell grown or pot grown stock instead of the stated bare rooted plants. 2. All woodland planting be protected by tree tubes (Tubex type or similar) and hedging by spiral guards to enable total weed control within the planted areas for the first 3 years following planting or until establishment. 3. There shall be adequate provision through fencing or individual protection against damage by deer, rabbits or hares. 4. The proposed ash planting be substituted by another species - hornbeam or field maple are suggested as substitutes.

The applicant should submit updated detailed planting and seeding proposals for approval, to cover the above.

There are no objections to the proposal but a detailed Landscape Plan based on Figure 1.8, is required to cover the points raised above.

Flood Protection Officer: In terms of information that this Council has concerning flood risk to this site, that The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) known as the “second generation flood mapping” prepared by SEPA indicates that the site is at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years. That is the 0.5% annual risk of a flood occurring in any year.

This site appears to be in the flood envelope of the Todrig Burn however there is no information submitted in relation to flood risk at this site.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(b)

Compound 1 is completely within the flood envelope and it is noted that this area is being raised by approximately 1.200 -1.300m across the compound which should reduce the risk of the compound being flooded. As this is land raising on the functional flood plane this will result in displaced flood waters potentially increasing flooding downstream.

It is noted however that this is a rural area where the increase in flood risk is minimal; and this development can be deemed as essential infrastructure in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy.

The Council’s Flood Protection Officer does not oppose this application on flooding grounds but would ask that compensatory storage be provided if possible within the site to mitigate the affects of land raising.

The submitted information shows the new development to have a new drainage system discharging in to the Todrig Burn. The applicants should submit details of the Greenfield run off rate and how they propose to limit the discharge from the site to this rate.

It is recommended that the applicant adopts water resilient materials and construction methods appropriate as advised in PAN 69.

It should be noted that this information must be taken in the context of material that this Council holds in fulfilling its duties under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009.

Statutory Consultees

Leitholm, Eccles and Birgham Community Council: The CC has been well informed about the proposals and has no objections.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key planning issues with this application are whether the proposed development accords with development plan policy particularly with regards to landscape and visual impact, flooding, the loss of prime quality agricultural land and the impact on nearby residential properties.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

The principal aim of the Structure Plan is to encourage growth which supports the development of a sustainable Scottish Borders community and within it, the development of individual sustainable communities. Major infrastructure investment such as the proposed Series Capacitor Bank Compounds (SCBCs) at Eccles substation will support this aim.

The development strategy for the Scottish Borders is based on two founding principles setting out criteria which underpin the plan. Principle 1 – Environmental Impact is the overarching principle related to sustainability which protects the

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

environment and drives forward sustainable communities. Principle 2 – Development Strategy provides growth targets and a locational strategy for development.

It is considered, with the continued evolution of the renewable energy sector, of which the Scottish Borders is a significant contributor, the proposed extension of this primary substation will allow the Borders to develop sustainable communities in line with the development strategy.

Improvements in electricity transmission is specifically referred to in the current and draft revised iterations of the National Planning Framework, and a presumption is expressed in favour of improvements that improve the capacity of the grid network.

Landscape and visual impacts

The application site is located within the Lower Merse Landscape Character Type 15 – Lowland with Drumlins which is described as a rich landscape or arable fields and hedgerows with a strongly directional landform pattern of parallel ridges and hollows. Key characteristics within this landscape are notes as:

x Parallel elongated, gently undulating ridges and hollows; x Land cover dominated by a regular grid pattern of large arable fields divided by hedgerows, and scattered mainly broadleaf woodlands; x Densely settled, with scattered towns, villages and farmsteads served by an extensive grid like road network; x A productive, organised landscape of smooth gentle curves and a colourful, regular patchwork appearance, generally open in character but with locally intimate river corridors.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Merse is considered to be a large scale landscape, it is low lying and offers very little in the way of vertical relief that would accommodate this type of development without impacts on the surroundings. However, the application site is low lying and would be situated in a locally sparsely settled rural area of predominantly arable farmland immediately adjacent to an existing industrial scale substation where a number of large overhead lines converge. With the existing sawmill located on the south side of the A697, this low lying part of the Merse has a slightly industrial feel to it which can accommodate this development.

The applicant submitted a computer generated zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) with the application which shows the extent of visibility up to a distance of 5km of the tops of equipment, control buildings and fence. This is a bare landscape ZTV which represents a ‘worst case scenario’ of proposed visibility and does not include screening effects provided by hedges, hedgerow trees, vegetation, walls and buildings.

It does not include zones of theoretical visibility of the pylons, which are already a significant feature in the landscape, particularly in this location where they already converge at the existing substation.

It is considered that visibility of the proposed SCBCs will be largely contained within the immediate landscape with visibility being localised and restricted by the existing landform and surrounding tree belts, woodlands and landscaping. Wider, and longer views of the site will be available from beyond the immediate locale (> 3km) but it is considered that over this distance, the effects on the landscape will be negligible and will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding landscape

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

character. It is therefore likely that any landscape and visual impacts would be localised and experienced only in close proximity to the site.

The applicant has identified the main visual receptors within the study area to be residential (scattered farmsteads, dwellings), visitors (the Hirsel), recreational (walkers and cyclists), and travellers (A697, A698, B6461 and various minor roads). The effect on these receptors, as described in the landscape and visual assessment is accepted. It is clear that here will be open and uninterrupted views of the site but this would appear to be restricted to a short stretch on the A697 and the property known as Woodside. In the surrounding landscape, views of the proposed development will be restricted to partial views or glimpse views, with the majority of public roads in the locality having no views of the site.

The proposed mitigation measures will limit views from the A697 and provide, on maturity, a setting that relates to the surroundings. The mitigation measures – new planting and a landscape management plan, set out at Section 6.0 and Figure 1.8 of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) – are acceptable and should be incorporated into a detailed landscape plan covered by planning condition. In addition, it would also be appropriate to include landscaping to the south east corner of the application site, as well as along the east boundary (as far as development restrictions will allow) as there are partial and glimpse views from the corner of the A697 immediately to the east of the application site.

One aspect of the proposal that is not fully clear from the information submitted is the form and limits of any agricultural re-use of the remainder of the field (outwith the application site boundary). Some of this land may be restricted in terms of access when the site is developed but as this land is owned by the applicant, further details of the proposed use should be provided. It would be appropriate to add an applicant informative in this record so that it is included in the detailed landscape plan.

Policy N9 of the Structure Plan seeks both to protect areas covered by landscape designations (of which the application site is not part) and to conserve the wider landscape. The landscape character approach recognises that all landscapes have a value in terms of their unique character, that landscapes have different capacities to accept development and that degraded landscapes can be improved. It is accepted that the proposed SCBC development will not improve or enhance the landscape but it is argued that the proposals can be accommodated in this landscape without having an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape character. The proposals will clearly have an impact, particularly on a limited number of local receptors but it is felt that this would not outweigh the national benefits that this major infrastructure project will deliver.

Access

The proposed access to the new compounds would be via the existing vehicular access off the A697 Coldstream to Greenlaw road. The access for the proposed SCBC would be through this same junction, with a 5m wide access road branching to the east towards SCBC, within the existing site compound.

The design and access statement submitted by the applicant anticipates that there will be maximum hourly one way traffic movements of 6 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) for the initial earthworks phase (August – December 2013), utilising the trunk road network. Beyond this period it is anticipated there will be a maximum hourly one way traffic movements of 3 HGV. Operational hours for construction works will be between 8.00am and 5.00pm, Monday to Friday. Should Members be minded to

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(b) approve this application suitably worded conditions should be added restricting vehicles movements to these times, with no movements at the weekend or on public holidays. This would help protect the residential amenity of nearby dwellinghouses.

Beyond HGV movements, construction phase traffic will generally be contractors carrying out construction works. While exact vehicle movement figures will be dependent upon arrangements made by the contractor, it is anticipated this would result in a maximum number of 15 vehicles per day to site, to be detailed in a Contractor Travel Management Plan, also detailing routes to be used. This can also be covered by a suitably worded planning condition.

In the operational stage of the proposal, while the site is operational 24hours, due to the nature of the equipment to be installed, the access requirement is anticipated to be minimal. Compounds would only be accessed in the event of failures or for ongoing maintenance, estimated at once every quarter. This would not require HGV movements to site. Septic tank would be emptied periodically as required.

The Council’s Roads Planning Service has no objections to this proposal as the new compounds would utilise the existing vehicular access to/from the adjacent A Class public road. The new access road would be formed as per the technical specification set out on drawing reference 185F-2-5200-DA-IECEC-006 Rev C.

It would be appropriate to ensure that vehicle wheel washing facilities are provided within the site during the construction period to avoid unnecessary mud and debris being deposited in the public road. This can be controlled by condition through a construction method statement.

Design

The design of the proposed extension to the existing substation will clearly have an impact on the surrounding area, simply by the scale and the height of the development. The existing overhead line towers located immediately to the west and east of the proposed SCBC compounds have been constructed to accommodate connection to the compounds. These lines are covered by existing overhead line consents held by Scottish Power Transmissions. No additional pylons are proposed as part of this development.

The compounds are unusual structures for a rural location like this, but given the position of the proposed development immediately adjacent to an existing substation of similar scale, it is contended that the proposals will be compatible with the surrounding area and neighbouring uses.

The proposals will retain as much of the existing field boundaries as possible which is important to the amenity of the area as well as the biodiversity. Additional planting is proposed to the south of the site to help screen the development and this will add additional amenity and biodiversity benefits.

It is accepted that it would be impossible to hide this development, but the proposed bund to the south, coupled with additional landscape planting adjacent to the A697 would help to integrate the development with its surroundings and the wider environment.

The development would be functional and this is reflected in the design and layout of the equipment and the site. The proposals include the erection of two control buildings but no details of these buildings have been submitted. It would be

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(b) appropriate to condition the design and external materials of these buildings should consent be granted.

It is proposed to enclose the compounds using a 2.4m high palisade fence. This is consistent with the fencing used on the existing substation and would not give rise to any concerns.

Flooding

Policy G4 of the Local Plan and Policy I15 of the Structure Plan are intended to discourage development from taking place in areas which are, or may become, subject to flood risk. As a general principle, new development should be located in areas free from significant flood risk and development will not be permitted if it would materially increase the probability of flooding elsewhere.

Members will be aware from the application papers and consultation responses that the proposed development would be located within the flood envelope of the Todrig Burn to the north of the site. The Todrig Burn feeds into the Leet Water, a tributary of the River Tweed.

The Council’s Flood Protection Officer advises that The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) known as the “second generation flood mapping” prepared by SEPA indicates that the application site is at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years. That is the 0.5% annual risk of a flood occurring in any year.

Compound 1 would be located completely within the flood envelope and the application drawings show this area being raised by approximately 1.200 -1.300m across the compound. This should reduce the risk of the compound being flooded, however, as this would result in land raising within the functional flood plain of the Todrig Burn, displaced flood waters could potentially increase flooding downstream. The application site is located within a rural location where the increase in flood risk is minimal and the development is deemed to be essential infrastructure in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy.

The proposed development is not opposed on flooding grounds but compensatory flood storage should be provided within the site to mitigate the affects of land raising.

Following the comments made by the Council’s Flood Protection Officer, the applicant submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) on 13 May 2013 (which was undertaken in October 2011) to inform this development. The FRA concludes that the site is not at risk from flooding from the Todrig Burn. The predicted 1:200 year and 1:1000 year peak water levels adjacent to the site are 46.72mAOD and 46.83mAOD respectively. It is recommended that critical equipment is set no lower that 47.43mAOD. This assumes a 600mm freeboard for climate change.

The FRA also states that development site is outside the functional flood plain (1:200 year flood extent) of the Leet Water tributary so compensatory storage is not required.

The Council’s Flood Protection Officer confirms that he is content with the findings of the FRA and has no objections to the development from a flood risk perspective but requests that the Greenfield Run-off rates are submitted for the pre and post development for clarity. It is recommended that the discharge to the Todrig Burn is

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(b) kept to the existing Greenfield Run-off rate or 5l/s/ha whatever is lower. This can be covered by condition.

It is recommended that the applicant adopts water resilient materials and construction methods appropriate as advised in PAN 69.

Following the submission of the FRA it is accepted that the proposed development site is not at risk of flooding and the proposed land raising will not require on site compensatory storage. The proposed development will not be at risk from flooding and will not increase the probability of flooding elsewhere. In this case it is contended that the proposed development would comply with development plan policies covering flooding.

Water and Drainage

The proposals include details of surface water drainage within the site. It is proposed to discharge surface water to the north via the Todrig Burn and to the south via swale, making provision for sustainable urban drainage arrangements in accordance with advice from SEPA. There are no objections to this approach provided all work is carried out in accordance with up to date advice prepared by SEPA.

It is noted that there are no proposals for connection to the public water system and the application drawings do not indicate whether or not a private water supply is required to serve the control buildings. Private arrangements for foul drainage are being proposed. It would be appropriate therefore to ensure that details of foul water drainage and water supply are submitted to the planning authority for approval. This can be covered by condition.

Residential Amenity

Members will note that 3 letters of objection have been received in connection with this application. Of these letters, 2 have been received from the same household.

Whilst Policy H2 of the Local Plan is primarily aimed at residential development is residential areas, the basic principles remain the same. Policy H2 aims to protect the amenity of both established residential areas and proposed new housing developments and development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of these areas will not be permitted.

There are two dwellings within the immediate locality that are likely to be affected by this development – Woodside and Rossander. Woodside, which is located to the south of the application site and faces north, will have open views of the proposed development through an opening in the woodland. This is the dwelling most likely to be affected and this is reflected in the objections. However, it is proposed to erect a bund on the north side of the A697 and provide a landscape shelter belt along this boundary to help screen the development from the south. It is accepted that this will be far from ideal as the occupants of this property currently benefit from uninterrupted views to the north. However, as the right to a view is not a material planning consideration, this objection cannot be considered.

Rossander, which is located to the east of Woodside, faces north east and is set back from the A697. There will be intermittent views of the proposed substation from a short stretch of the public road immediately along the southern boundary of the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(b) property, but given the orientation of this dwelling in the plot and the existing roadside shelterbelt, Rossander will not have direct views over the site.

The scale and type of development, as discussed earlier, is considered to be acceptable for this low lying land immediately adjacent to the existing substation. It would clearly not be acceptable for a residential area, but given the wider context which includes large scale pylons and existing electrical equipment, it is considered that the development would be acceptable in this instance and the level of visual impact on the residential amenity of existing dwellings in the locale will be tolerable.

In addition, the representations object on the grounds that the proposed bund will result in the loss of natural daylight to the dwellings known as Woodside and Rossander. The proposed development would be located on the north side of the A697, on the opposite side of the road from both properties and therefore what limited impingement there might be would not be unacceptable in planning terms. Furthermore, there is a mature shelter belt which runs along the south side of the public road, into which the dwellings have been erected. It is considered that the orientation of the site relative to the existing properties, coupled with the existing woodland setting of the dwellings, would not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight as a result of this development.

Concerns have also been expressed by third parties over the effect on human health of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) being produced by the substation. The applicant, in his supporting statement confirms that EMFs can be produced naturally or through human activity and are always present when electricity is produced. They can be harmful at very high levels, but the fields produced by substations and the SCBC equipment are relatively low. The applicant is governed by tight government approved exposure guidelines and confirms that the equipment will have no additional effects on residential properties in the area or on members of the public. Owing to other legislation controlling this issue, it is not for the planning process to examine the issue any further.

Cultural heritage and archaeology

The application site is not located within an area of cultural heritage or archaeological interest. Within the 3km study area of the application site there are a number of assets including ancient monuments, listed buildings and the Hirsel Gardens and Designed Landscape.

Development Plan policies covering archaeological sites, gardens and designed landscapes and listed buildings give strong protection to these assets from potentially damaging development. It was identified at the Screening Stage of the application process that there are known heritage assets within 1.5km of the proposed development that appear as cropmarks indicating potential for buried archaeology in the area. There is therefore some potential for buried archaeology, but it was suggested at that time that this can be dealt with at a later stage in the application process. The Council’s Archaeologist proposes that the most appropriate way of dealing with potential archaeological interest on the site is by way of an evaluation. There are some cropmarks in the field to the south of the application site (on the opposite side of the A697) that look like they could be a pit alignment and field boundary. These are about 160m to the south of the development area. These have not been identified previously, but appear clear in the images available to the Council. This can be covered by condition.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6(b)

The site would be located approximately 1.5km from the Hirsel Estate at its nearest point but the Estate’s boundary is defined by mature woodland plantation and the development is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the setting or the appearance of the Garden and Designed Landscape.

There are several listed buildings within the 3km study area of the application site, including the Category A Listed Hirsel . The property dates from 1650 but is located within the heart of a garden and design landscape with two parks on either side of double avenue. The proposed development will not be visible from the Hirsel listed building and will not have an adverse effect on its setting. There are other listed properties closer to the application site, including Grizelrig, approximately 1km north of the proposed substation. However, given the wider context of the surrounding landscape which is characterised by pylons and transmission lines traversing the Merse, it is considered that the impact on this building, and the other listed structures in the area, will be neutral.

Natural heritage

There are no statutorily designated areas of nature conservation value, which would be affected directly by the proposed development. The nearest designated site is the Leet Water, a tributary of the River Tweed and included within the River Tweed Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a candidate Special Area of Conservation. The site is also close (2km) from the Hirsel SSSIs.

Policy NE2 of the Local Plan and Structure Plan N3 aim to give nature conservation sites of national importance adequate protection from potentially damaging development. Development that will have an adverse effect, either directly or indirectly on a SSSI will not be permitted.

Based on the survey work and supporting information submitted and reviewed in the applicant’s Screening Document, a number of species of common plant were recorded within the proposed development area and during the Phase 1 Survey, no nationally or regionally notable plant species or habitats were found. The protected species survey identified no notable species on site.

The proposed development is unlikely to lead to any significant ecological effects in the immediate locale and would therefore comply with development plan policies covering nature conservation and biodiversity. It is proposed that the landscape scheme should incorporate measures to protect and reinforce the existing habitats around the proposed SCBC site and adjacent substation, and enhance biodiversity in the area.

Enhancement options identified in the Screening Document (cross referenced in the LVIA) include the provision of bat boxes, buffer zones for water corridors, native hedgerow and tree establishment and the creation of Sustainable Urban Drainage ponds. These matters can be controlled by appropriately worded planning condition.

Prime Quality Agricultural Land

Policy R1 of the Local Plan and Policy E1 of the Structure Plan are aimed at protecting prime quality agricultural land for productive farming use. Prime quality agricultural land is a valuable resource which is in relatively short supply in Scotland. Paragraph 97 off SPP states:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6(b)

Prime quality agricultural land is a finite national resource. Development on prime agricultural land should not be permitted unless it is an essential component of the settlement strategy or is necessary to meet an established need, for example for major infrastructure development.

It is accepted that the proposed extension to the substation will result in the permanent loss of more than 2ha of prime quality agricultural land. However, the proposals are deemed to be essential for the implementation of the Development Strategy and are required to meet an identified need in infrastructure expansion. As electricity transmission is afforded national significance in the National Planning Framework, it is contended that the need to improve the grid to accommodate the large volume of renewable generation produced in Scotland (with a significant proportion coming from the Scottish Borders) would be significant enough to outweigh the need to protect this area of prime quality agricultural land.

Major Hazard Pipeline

To the north of the application site is the ’10 Feeder Bathgate/Lennel Tweed’ high pressure gas pipeline. The application site would be located within the ‘Outer Zone’ of the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) consultation distance for hazardous developments. The HSE Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations (PADHI) methodology confirms that the HSE do not advise against this development.

Policies G3 and Inf9 of the Local Plan ensure that the public and the environment are adequately protected from development that would cause pollution, be a nuisance or lead to a hazard and that any developments proposed close to hazardous installations are subject to careful scrutiny. The proposed SCBC does not fall within the specified consultation distance as it would be located in the outer zone of the pipeline. It is considered that the proposed development would not give rise to any adverse impacts on the installation and would therefore comply with development plan policy.

It should be noted that the applicant has consulted directly with National Grid, Scotia Gas and Scottish Gas Networks prior to submitting the application and advise that all works within the vicinity of the gas pipeline will be carried out in accordance with approved codes of practice and guidance.

Noise and Light

The proposed SCBC development is not considered to give rise to any significant noise impacts, particularly on nearby residential properties. The supporting information submitted with the application includes a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) to confirm background noise, and operational design limits have been placed on the equipment to be installed to ensure that it will not give rise to any noise complaint. It is clear that there will be increased noise levels during the construction phase of the development by the applicant has confirmed that contractors will be required to maintain low noise levels in accordance with BS5228.

The proposals have been examined by the Council’s Environmental Health service. It is recommended that conditions are applied to any grant of planning permission limiting noise emitted by plant and machinery to Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within any noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). The noise emanating

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 6(b) from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component.

The application of these conditions should ensure that the development will not give rise to any noise complaints from nearby dwellings ensuring that the development will comply in part (generation of traffic or noise), with Policy H2 of the Local Plan which seeks to protect residential amenity.

Members will note that objections have been raised in respect of potential light and noise pollution which is apparent from the existing installation. Provided that any lighting installation installed in connection with the development is designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Engineers then there should be no adverse effect on the amenity of nearby dwellings. If necessary, suitable shuttering should be provided for each lamp to prevent unwanted light affecting the occupiers of properties off site. Conditions restricting noise levels at certain times of the day will also protect the residential amenity of nearby dwellings.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development complies with national and development planning policies, having accounted for material planning considerations and subject to planning conditions and applicant informative.

The proposals will clearly have an effect on the landscape quality of the area but it is argued that the development can be accommodated in this location, immediately adjacent to an existing substation, without having an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape character. The proposals will affect a limited number of local receptors but it is felt that this would not outweigh the national benefits that this major infrastructure project will deliver.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

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

3. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in strict accordance with a programme of phasing which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development of the site proceeds in an orderly manner.

4. No development shall commence until detailed drawings of the proposed control buildings are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6(b)

authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with this details Reason: This information is missing from the application and to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting

5. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in strict accordance with details of the materials to be used on the external walls and roof of the proposed building(s) which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting

6. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works (based on Figure 1.8 contained within the Landscape and Visual Assessment dated 20 February 2013 and submitted as part of the application), which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate): i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored iii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iv. soft and hard landscaping works v. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

7. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the hedges to be retained on the land within the control of the applicant shall be protected in accordance with Part 6.2 Barriers and Ground Protection of BS 5837:2012 and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development the existing soil levels around the boles of the hedges so retained shall not be altered. Reason: In the interests of preserving the hedges which contribute to the visual amenity of the area.

8. No development shall commence until precise details of foul water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water.

9. No development is to commence until a report, by a suitably qualified person, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, demonstrating the provision of an adequate water supply to the development (if required) in terms of quality, quantity and the impacts of this proposed supply on surrounding supplies or properties. The provisions of the approved report shall be implemented prior to the bringing into use of the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately serviced with water without a detrimental effect on the water supplies of surrounding properties.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6(b)

10. Discharge rates from the surface water drainage system (as shown on drawing number 185F-2-5200-DA-IECEC-005 Rev C dated 30 Nov 2012) to the Todrig Burn shall be limited to the existing Greenfield Run-off Rate or 5 litres/second/hectare, whichever is lower. Reason: To ensure that surface water drainage from the site does not lead to flooding of the Todrig Burn.

11. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining an Archaeological Evaluation. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to conduct a programme of evaluation prior to development. This will include the below ground excavation of evaluation trenches and the full recording of archaeological features and finds. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered the nominated archaeologist(s) will contact the Archaeology Officer for further consultation. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post-excavation analysis the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

12. Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within any noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2. Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of nearby properties.

13. Any lighting installation installed in connection with the Development should be designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Engineers. If necessary, suitable shuttering should be provided for each lamp to prevent unwanted light affecting the occupiers of properties off site. Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

14. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the Species and Habitat Mitigation referred to in the Landscape and Visual Assessment dated 20 February 2013 and cross referenced with the Screening Document dated 4 May 2012. Reason: In order to protect and enhance protected species and habitats.

15. Operational hours and vehicle movements for construction works shall be limited between 8.00am and 5.00pm, Monday to Friday, with no construction or vehicle movements at the weekend or on public holidays. Reason: To retain effective control of the development and protect the residential amenity of nearby dwellinghouses.

16. No development shall commence until a detail Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(b)

thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reasons: In the interests of road safety.

17. No development shall commence until a detailed Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure that the development of the site proceeds in an effective and orderly manner.

Informatives

1. In relation to condition No 6 above, the following points should be taken into account when preparing the landscaping plan:

x That all planting shall use cell grown or pot grown stock instead of the stated bare rooted plants. x That all woodland planting be protected by tree tubes (Tubex type or similar) and hedging by spiral guards to enable total weed control within the planted areas for the first 3 years following planting or until establishment. x That there shall be adequate provision through fencing or individual protection against damage by deer, rabbits or hares. x That the proposed ash planting is substituted by another species - hornbeam or field maple is suggested as substitutes.

2. It is recommended that the developers adopt water resilient materials and construction methods as appropriate as advised in PAN 69.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Reference No Plan Type SP4092253 Rev 6.0 Site Plan SP4091866 Rev 3.0 Elevations 185F-2-5200-DA-IECEC-0002 Rev 0C Setting Out Plan 185F-2-5200-DA-IECEC-0003 Rev 0B Sections 185F-2-5200-DA-IECEC-0004 Rev 0B Sections 185F-2-5200-DA-IECEC-0005 Rev 0C Drainage Layout 185F-2-5200-DA-IECEC-0006 Rev 0C Access Road

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 Barry Fotheringham Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6(b)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 6(c)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 JULY 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00101/FUL OFFICER: Mr Barry Fotheringham WARD: Mid Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Alterations and Extension to Pavilion, Erection of Grandstand, Perimeter Fence, Sports Fence and Gates SITE: Coldstream Football Pavilion, Home Park, Coldstream APPLICANT: Mr Tait AGENT: None

SITE DESCRIPTION

Home Park is the principal public park in Coldstream and is located towards the south west of the town, but close to the High Street. The football pitch, the subject of this application, is at the north end of the park, and is accessed principally from the north entrance off Home Place; other pedestrian accesses exist through the southern part of the park, where access is gained from the public car park adjacent to the Castle Hotel and adjacent to the Community Centre at the War Memorial.

The park is defined by mature policy woodland along the west boundary, with the remaining boundaries defined by a combination of stone boundary walls, hedgerows and domestic garden fencing. Coldstream Bowling Club is located towards the north of the park adjacent to the junction of Home Place and Park Side, and immediately to the west of Coldstream Football Club (FC) pavilion.

A public footpath runs along the east and south boundaries of the park, linking Home Place with the High Street.

The park has been engineered to create two distinct recreational areas with the main Coldstream FC pitch on the upper tier and 2 other pitches on the lower tier. An informal kickabout space and children’s play area are also located on the lower tier of the park, along with floodlighting serving the training/practice pitch.

The site is located adjacent to, but not within, the Coldstream Conservation Area. The existing pavilion, gates and walls are not listed.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development can be divided into 4 distinct but linked elements:

1. Alterations and extension to existing sports pavilion 2. Erection of grandstand 3. Erection of Perimeter fence 4. Erection of pitch side sports fence

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(c)

The proposed alterations and extension to the existing pavilion would provide additional changing facilities, and associated showers. Internal and external alterations would include the reconfiguration of rooms and facilities (considered permitted development) and the formation of new external doors and access ramps. The extension would be located on the south west elevation of the pavilion following the same building pattern and architectural language as the existing building. It would measure 9.5m by 7.5m and be finished externally using materials to match existing.

The proposed grandstand would be a steel portal framed construction measuring 9.8m by 2.9m by 2.7m high. It would be open on three sides with profile cladding the rear elevation and roof. The grandstand would have a tiered terrace for supporters and would be located between the pavilion and the existing football pitch.

The proposed perimeter fence would be located on 2 sides of the existing pitch in order to create a secure enclosure around the main football pitch. The fence would be a featheredge boarded type timber fence measuring 2m above ground level. It would be located towards the top of the existing slope, running from the corner of the bowling club boundary to a point on the north east boundary of the park. The proposed timber fence would also include double gates adjacent to the bowling club and towards the south east of the site adjacent to the public footpath to allow for vehicular access. It is also proposed to form pedestrian gates over the public footpath and to form a new pedestrian gate adjacent to the main entrance from Home Place. New iron gates and fencing would also be erected at the Home Place entrance to the park.

The proposed pitch side fence would be erected approximately 1.5m from the pitch on the north and east sides only as supporters would only be permitted to spectate from these sides of the ground. The fence would be a single top rail on posts (metal coloured white) and would be removable (in ground sockets).

It should be noted that the proposals are required by Coldstream FC to ensure continued membership of the Scottish Football Association (SFA).

PLANNING HISTORY

The following planning history is relevant:

B035/96 – Erection of Floodlights. Approved 14 March 1996

97/0270/D – Alterations and Extension to Pavilion. Approved 20 May 1997

08/00103/FUL – Extension and Part Change of Use to Form Lounge Bar. Approved 11 March 2008

Pre-application discussions and site meetings also took place between the applicant and the case officer in advance of the application being submitted.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

A total of 8 individual letters of objection have been received in connection with this application. Of these objections, 6 letters were received within the statutory period offered by the neighbour notification process, 5 of which were from separate households. 2 objection letters and a general comment were received after the statutory 21 day period.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(c)

In addition, 5 letters of support have also been received.

The principal grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

x Lord Home gifted the land for the park to all residents of Coldstream. The proposed enclosure will deny the right of access to the park as it will enclose part of the public footpath. x The visual aspect of the park will be destroyed by a permanent 2m high fence. x The proposed fence could lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour. x Landscape maintenance will be difficult. x The proposed fence would cause problems for events being held in the park over Civic Week. x The proposed fence and grandstand would lead to additional works being required by the Scottish Football Association, including a covered tunnel. x The gates would be closed during all home matches not just Scottish Cup matches. x The public park would be destroyed by the development. x Elderly people walking from the town through the park will be denied the opportunity to stop and sit in the park if this goes ahead. x There would be no opportunity for a local cricket team to be formed. x The Council only support football in the park. x Vehicular/machinery access for maintenance of the bowling green is required but the existing gate to the rear of the bowling club appears to have been omitted from the application drawings. x Contrary to Policy BE6 – Protection of Open Space of the Consolidated Local Plan in that it will restrict the open space which defines the centre of Coldstream and the enclosure will act as a deterrent on use of the space by other user groups. x Contrary to Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity in that the development is not in-keeping with the residential area and would result in the loss of open space. Both the fence and grandstand would have an adverse impact on surrounding properties in terms of over looking and loss of privacy and would have an adverse visual impact on the environment. x Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes. The proposed enclosure cuts across an existing footpath which is clearly a safe footpath to school. Moreover this is the only traffic free pedestrian route which links the north and south of the town. The fence will create a barrier which may diminish the sense of safety particularly during the hours of twilight and darkness. x Visual amenity – Views from and to the park will be obstructed by the fence. x The proposed materials and type of fence are inadequate. The council should be satisfied that the Football Club will be responsible for future maintenance. x The fence supports will be out of character with the surrounding buildings and walls which border the conservation area. x The supports for the fence will create a prison-like enclosure. x The fence will create a less than attractive view for users reducing public use of the park. x The proposed colour unacceptable x Fencing will attract anti-social behaviour and graffiti. x Fencing will restrict views and compromise child safety. x The fence is shown as being tied into the existing boundary wall with the Old School House – This is unacceptable.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(c)

x There will be an area of ground around the edge of the pitch that will be difficult to maintain. x The enclosure has the potential to trap litter. x The enclosure will amplify the noise generated during matches. The current language and noise is offensive and abusive and is not tolerable. x The fence will encourage other users to kick the ball against the enclosure. The noise generated by balls being kicked against this fence will be unacceptable. x There is a right of access to the Old School House from the park, this will be restricted by the fence and would place an intolerable restriction on the objectors rights of access. x The proposed gates at both ends of the public footpath are unacceptable and will act as an obstacle to pedestrians with prams and buggies as well as disabled persons. They will also impede against rights of access across the playing fields not just the footpath. x The proposed gates to the park will also restrict access to emergency vehicles. x The plan submitted for the grandstand is vague about dimensions and precise location. x Proposed materials for the grandstand are not in-keeping with the conservation plan. It will be an attraction for vandals and anti-social behaviour. x There are issues with the lease of the land. x There are issues over responsibility and future maintenance x It is not apparent why the proposals were not submitted in relation to the lower pitch on which the team train. The area is floodlight, has banking one side which would lend itself to seating.

The letters of support can be summarised as follows: x The proposals will be welcome improvements to the football structures in the town. x The proposals will not impact on the public to any great extent. x Access through the park will be impeded x Football has been played at Home Park for over 100years and there is no change of use proposed. x The new park gates off Home Place will be a major improvement. x The grandstand will be most welcome on wet days. x The portable fence will be an improvement over the existing timber posts and rope. x The fence will be visible but the club will help blend this in to its surroundings and three gates will ensure public access through the park. x The park is not used to its full potential by users other than those playing football. x The proposals will enhance the football clubs in the town and will not affect the activities enjoyed in the park. x 117 years of tradition will be jeopardised if the scheme does not proceed.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant has submitted a number of indicative images, sketches and narratives for the proposed fencing and grandstand, all of which are available for Members to view in PublicAccess.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(c)

A supporting statement (28 January 2013) was submitted when the application was initially submitted. This letter is available to view in PublicAccess but the main points can be summarised as follows:

The Scottish Football Association require that all member clubs improve their facilities, coaching, accommodation, health and safety etc with the smaller member clubs required to meet the ‘Entry’ Standard. The benefits of Entry standard will attract funding of around £7000 per annum, additional funding if successful in the early rounds of the Scottish Cup and continued full membership of the SFA.

The SFA criteria includes changes to the football ground, spectator and player safety, coaching, first aid, administration changes and the improvements to the accommodation. Additional changing facilities are required to accommodate ‘amateur’ and ‘senior’ football teams in the same pavilion, a 2m high perimeter fence is required and a sports pitch fence is also required to keep supporters clear of the pitch on match days. The SFA also require a covered area for supporters and have indicated that a detached ‘stand’ would be preferable over a canopy extending from the existing pavilion.

The Football Club also propose to install ‘historic’ gates over the existing north entrance to the park from Home Place and to form a secondary pedestrian gate to the left hand side of the existing opening.

The Football Club confirm that the proposals will not constitute a change of use of the public park and that it will continue to operate as such, albeit with some physical changes to allow for continued long term use as a football ground for Coldstream FC.

The Football Club engaged in a public consultation exercise beginning in September 2012 with a newsletter drop in Coldstream and a public meeting in October. Additional letters were issued along with indicative images of the proposals and letters of clarification sent to the Berwickshire News.

Vandalism was raised as a potential issue and the Football Club has stated that they would develop their anti-vandalism strategy with the Police, Community Council, the School and the Youth Club.

Following the initial consultation and neighbour notification process the applicant submitted an additional letter (8 March 2013) in an attempt to clarify some misinterpretations, namely:

Open Space – The club would not restrict a valuable open space in Home Park as the proposed gates will be open at all times allowing normal access to the park. It is proposed however to close these gates on match days with Committee Members supervising these gates, allowing non-supporting pedestrians safe passage through the park.

Impact on Residential Properties – It is contended that the Football Club will not be ‘damaging’ the park, and would have minimal impact on neighbouring properties in Home Place and along the public footpath through Home Park.

2m High Perimeter Fence – The proposed fence would be 2m and not 8 feet as has been suggested. It is proposed to erect the fence just off the top of the banking which would make the fence appear lower than 2m.

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

Fence not on footpath side – The proposed perimeter fence will only be located on the banking sides of the pitch, not the footpath side. The path side will have a portable pitch side fence.

Feather-boarding Fence – The Club is aware of the potential for vandalism but highlight the fact hat the existing pavilion has never been subject to vandalism since it was erected. The football goals are dismantled after every game, not to avoid vandalism but to protect the pitch from casual users.

Bowling Club Access – the Football Club has assured the Bowling Club that access to the bowling green will not be affected. This can be written into any agreement that maybe deemed necessary.

New Park Gates – The Club are aiming to enhance the appearance of this entrance to the park as well as enhance security on match days. The new gate will be closed at all times while the new pedestrian gate will allow for safe passage of pedestrians.

Stand – the proposals are not for a seated stand, only for standing spectators.

21 year Lease – Discussions are on-going with relevant parties.

The lower pitch – it is noted that an objector as suggested that the football ground should be on the lower pitch but this was discussed at the public meeting and confirmed that the SFA are not keen on this option as the changing facilities are remote, the grassy slopes may be dangerous, the perimeter fence would be at differing levels and pitch condition would be non-compliant.

Supporters – Match day attendances are higher than was suggested by an objector.

Planning policies – There must be support for community organisations to promote sport, fitness and inclusion.

In addition, a further supporting statement (29 May 2013) and a scheme of details for the proposed pedestrian access gates was submitted by the applicant following the consultation and neighbour notification process and following an on-site meeting with the Planning Officer.

Access to the park and to Coldstream Bowling Club will be maintained through the park entrance from Home Place. Double leaf timber gates will be provided in the north west corner of the site and adjacent to the public footpath beside the Old School wall. This will allow vehicular access to all parts of the park for maintenance purposes.

Pedestrian access gates (to the north and south of the ends of the public footpath) will be portable and will be stored in the pavilion when not in use. They will be installed on match days only for the duration of the game. The proposed pitch side fence will not impede the safe passage of pedestrians.

The historic entrance to the park and the gate piers at Home Place will be enhance by the installation of new gates, and the formation of a pedestrian gate to the left hand side of the existing opening. The main gates will remain closed but unlocked (except on match days when they will be locked) whereas the proposed new personnel gate will be locked open at all times except on match days when it will be closed and managed by a member of the football club committee. This will allow

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(c) safe passage of vehicles for maintenance purposes and will not restrict pedestrian access to the park.

The proposed covered standing area has been moved closer to the existing pavilion, away from the public footpath and the main entrance gates to the park. This will not impact on the views experienced by members of the public when entering the park from Home Place.

The amended fence design is acceptable to the football authorities and the football club is happy with this relaxation. The proposed fence would be close boarded with gaps between the vertical boards. This will have less impact on the amenity of the area, reducing the affect of an enclosure, will allow the wind to pass through and will reduce overall costs for the club. Sample images have been provided and are available on-line.

The applicant has confirmed that a long term lease of the land is not possible as Home Park is common good land. However, the SFA has confirmed that a long term lease is not required to comply with their regulations. They only require certainty that the club can continue to use the football pitch, and that the current booking system with SBC is sufficient.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N18 – Development Affecting Conservation Areas Policy N20 – Design Policy C4 – Sports Facilities Policy C5 – Protection of Playing Fields/Sports Pitches Policy C6 – Open Space Policy C8 – Access Network Policy I5 – Cycling Policy I7 – Walking

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy BE4 – Conservation Areas Policy BE6 – Protection of Open Space Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

None

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: Whilst there are no objections in principle to these proposals, concerns have been raised over the erection of gates over the path at either end of the football pitch.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(c)

The path which runs through the park is public in nature and provides an important pedestrian route for a number of users. It is understood that the gates are required by the SFA for Scottish Cup games to ensure an enclosed space during matches and are not required for normal league and cup games. The need for gates is questioned, if during cup games these entrance points will be manned by stewards of the club.

In order for Roads Planning to look more favourably upon this application, either of the following options must be incorporated into the design:

x The gate at the northern end to be removed completely to allow unrestricted access for pedestrians. The service gate at the southern end to be moved southwards so as not to impede the public path. Path to be kept free of obstruction. x Should the SFA insist on gates for Scottish Cup matches, which may only result in one match a year (possibly none at all in a year involving away ties), I would be open to the possibility of removable gates, which could be hung on these specific match days, for the duration of the match. This could be suitably conditioned as part of any planning approval.

Until these concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, Roads Planning is unable to offer their full support.

Neighbourhood Services: In principle, Neighbourhood Services has no objection to the proposal. However, the design does not clearly outline the opening and closing arrangements for the gates. Also, the future maintenance in and around the football area needs to be agreed and determined between SBC and the club.

Statutory Consultees

Coldstream Community Council: The CC acknowledges the lengths to which Coldstream Football Club has gone to in engaging with the residents to explain the proposed changes and the need for such alterations. The CC also acknowledges that these changes are not at the behest of Coldstream FC but are requirements imposed on the Club by the SFA in order for Coldstream to maintain ongoing full membership of that association. Given that the changes are proposed to take place in a public park the residents of Coldstream were polled for their views. The following question was posed “Should the proposed changes in Home Park go ahead?” The table below shows the outcome of that exercise:

Home Park Ballot Result Total Ballots Issued 1820 Total Ballots Returned (turnout) 790 - 43.41% Yes 400 - 50.63% No 340 - 43.04% No Opinion 33 - 4.18% Spoiled ballots17 - 2.15%

From the table, it is clear that there is a majority who are in favour of the proposals, and a significant portion of residents who object.

In addition to the comments submitted there have been a number of letters to the local press where concerns and support have been expressed. The CC recognise that these should have been submitted directly to the planning authority, and in some cases they have, but the CC request that where that has not been possible that you consider their contents. In light of all of the above factors we feel

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(c)

that the result of the ballot should be taken as an indication of the overall opinion of the residents of Coldstream and the community council makes no further observation on this planning application.

Other Consultees

Berwickshire Civic Society: No response.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key planning issues are:

x Whether the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the adjacent conservation area; x Whether the proposals will have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings; x Whether the proposals will result in the loss of public open space; and x Whether the proposals will prevent or restrict pedestrian access to and through the public park.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

Policy BE6 of the Consolidated Local Plan, as well as Policies C4 and C6 of the Consolidated Structure Plan, aim to give protection to a wide range of types of open space within settlements and to prevent their piecemeal loss to development. It also aims to ensure that where development is proposed, the loss is justified and that compensatory provisions are made.

The proposed erection of an extension to the existing pavilion will clearly result in the loss of a small area of the public park but it is considered that this loss will be inconsequential. The park will continue to function as public open space and the loss of this area of land will not affect the social value of the park, given the very small proportion of land affected and its position at the very northern extreme of the park. The design and materials of the proposed extension will be discussed later in this report.

It is accepted that the proposed erection of a timber fence around the principal football pitch to provide an enclosed space for the Football Club, and to comply with the ‘Entry’ standard required by the SFA for full membership, will undoubtedly change the appearance of this corner of Home Park. The existing open space is currently uninterrupted, with the exception of a change in ground level; however, the proposed fence will not compromise the use of this functional open space and will not result in the loss of existing outdoor sports facilities. Whilst it is proposed to close pedestrian gates in the fence during home matches, the park will continue to be open at all other times allowing the sports pitches to be used by members of the public. The open plan nature of this part of the park will to a certain extent be lost by the introduction of the fence but it is contended that the modified close boarded fence will not impact on the function of this space to the detriment of the landscape or townscape. In distant views from the southern end of the park, nearest the town centre, the fence would be read against a backdrop of existing buildings and boundary walls. It is contended that despite the introduction of this fence, the role of

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(c) the park as an area of public open space for use by the people of Coldstream will be retained.

Access

Members will note from the letters of objection received in connection with this application that concerns have been expressed over the rights of access through the park that are currently enjoyed by members of the public. The proposals would involve the erection of a perimeter fence which would prevent access to the football pitch at certain times. However, the proposals also include pedestrian access gates towards the south of the site but also a new pedestrian access adjacent to the existing gates in Home Place.

Policy Inf2 of the Local Plan and Policy C8 of the Structure Plan aim to protect and enhance all access routes including designated long distance routes, rights of way, walking paths, cycle ways and safe routes to school. The proposed scheme of details which has been submitted by the applicant is generally acceptable provided that the stipulations relating to public access through the park on match days are adhered to. The Council’s Roads Planning Service has confirmed no objections to this proposal provided that planning conditions applied to any grant of planning consent regarding the erection of portable gates are enforceable. However, precise details of how the proposed new pedestrian access and footpath extension to the north of the site should be agreed with the Roads Planning Officials as this path will ultimately form part of the adopted path network in the area. Should Members be minded to support this application, these matters can be controlled by suitably worded conditions.

It should also be noted that the football club has confirmed that the proposed new pedestrian gate adjacent to the existing north entrance to the park will be maintained locked in an open position to allow for uninterrupted access to the park. The gates will however be closed on match days and will be marshalled by a member of the club to ensure that access is maintained for the general public.

The proposed new fence and gates will not restrict access to the park and will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the continued access to or enjoyment of the public footpath. Whilst the proposed portable gates are not ideal, it is contended that the public footpath through the park will be no less attractive and will remain safe and convenient for public use.

Residential Amenity/Impact on Neighbours

Members will be aware that the majority of objections submitted against this application relate to the impact on the proposals on the public park and the loss of public open space. There are also concerns that the proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

As discussed earlier in this report, it is acknowledged that the proposed timber fence will have an effect on the open space characteristics of the park. However, it is contended that it will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings. The proposed fence will be visible from a number of dwellings in the locale, particularly those on Home Place and the south side of Park Side. The fence will be visible at a distance from the rear elevations of some properties in the High Street but is it felt that this impact will be negligible in terms of residential amenity.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(c)

Policy H2 of the Local Plan aims to protect the amenity of existing established residential areas and development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of these areas will not be permitted. The development must be of a scale, form and type of development that would fit in a residential area, there must be no adverse impact on surrounding properties in terms of over looking or loss of privacy and there must be no unacceptable increase in traffic. Development will also be assessed against the level of visual impact.

Whilst the application site is not wholly within a residential area – there is clearly a mix of uses in this area including recreation, residential, business and light industrial – the same principles that cover Policy H2 will also be relevant to this development.

The use of the land is not altered by this proposal; the site is a football field and will remains so. It is contended that the perimeter fence, which is of a domestic scale in terms of its height, style and material, will be an appropriate type of development in terms of its fit within a residential area. There will be no loss of privacy or over looking as a result of the proposed fence and the generation of traffic or noise will be unchanged. As stated earlier, the proposed fence will have a visual impact on the appearance of the park but it is considered that the proposed fence will not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of nearby properties as a result of the level of visual impact.

The proposed extension to the existing pavilion will be of a scale, form and type of development appropriate to this area and would be appropriate to the host building. The impact on the residential amenity of nearby properties, particularly those on Home Place will be negligible as it would be located to the south of the pavilion and will be separated from the existing dwellings by a stone boundary wall, mature hedging and trees, the bowling club and the existing pavilion. There will be no over looking or overshadowing as a result of this aspect of the development and the level of visual impact will be minimal.

The proposed grandstand will be visible from several properties in Home Place but as with the proposed extension to the pavilion, and the fact that the stand will be located in front of the existing pavilion, which stands between the site and the existing housing, it is felt that the impact on the residential amenity of nearby properties will also be insignificant. The stand will be of a scale and mass comparable to the existing buildings, would be viewed in the wider context with the pavilion, bowling clubhouse and Coldstream Workshops, and would not result in over looking or loss of privacy.

Members will note from the third party letters of objection that there are concerns regarding littering, anti-social behaviour, an increase in noise etc as a result of the proposed fence and grandstand. The current use of the application site as a public park allows for general use of this area by members of the public and it is accepted that these areas of open space can attract anti-social behaviour and littering. Litter bins are provided within the park and it is anticipated that littering will not increase as a result of this development. Anti-social behaviour on the other hand can occur in the park at present and it would be the responsibility of the park users, the police, Council Wardens and the football club to ensure that this is kept to a minimum. However, it is contended that the proposed development will not encourage anti- social behaviour as the fence details have been amended from a feather boarded fence to a close boarded fence. Anti-social behaviour is likely to occur when there is the chance that someone will not be seen. However, in this case it is considered that

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6(c) the amended fence type will not lead to anti-social behaviour to the detriment of the amenity of the area or the neighbouring dwellings.

It is contended that the proposals are consistent with Development Plan Policy H2.

Design

Policy G1 of the Local Plan and Policy N20 of the Structure Plan are aimed at ensuring that all new development, not just housing, is of a high quality and respects the environment in which it is contained. All new development is expected to fit with the existing townscape and to integrate with its surroundings.

The proposed development can be accommodated within the site, and will not represent over development of the park. The development will continue to allow uninterrupted use (except on home match days) of the park by members of the public and will not restrict access to users of the public footpath.

The proposals, in particular the proposed extension to pavilion, would be of a scale, mass, height and material appropriate to the host building and would be acceptable in terms of its fit within the surroundings. External finishes would match existing. In addition, the proposed grandstand, whilst not being of any great architectural merit, would sit comfortably adjacent to the existing pavilion, and the wider locale which includes the bowling club and Coldstream Workshops. This would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the character or appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposals take into account existing, non-football related, users of the park and would incorporate access to Home Park for those with mobility issues.

The proposed gates at Home Place would enhance the appearance of the principal entrance to the park from the north. It would create a focal point and formality to the historic entrance and would have a positive impact on the character and appearance of the surroundings. The proposed new pedestrian access gate is acceptable however the new footpath link must be completed to the specification of the planning authority to ensure it forms part of the adopted path network. This matter can be controlled by condition. For the avoidance of doubt, precise details of how the proposed personnel gate (including the proposed gate to the south of the site) is to be operated on match days should also be agreed through an appropriately worded planning condition

It was felt that the proposed feather-board timber fence as originally submitted would be oppressive and would create an enclosure that would restrict views to and from the park while at the same time potentially creating opportunities for anti-social behaviour. The amended close boarded fence with gaps between the vertical boards will provide a ‘lighter’ structure allowing for intermittent views through without creating an enclosure where members of the public will feel unsafe.

The proposed colour of the fence (stained green) is deemed to be acceptable in principle but this may have implications for future maintenance. It may be more appropriate for the fence to remain untreated and to weather naturally rather than to stain it green. The precise finish of the fence can be controlled by a suitably worded planning condition.

The proposed pitch side fence, whilst being temporary in nature, will be in situ for the duration of the football season and will be removed over the summer months. It will

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6(c) be located within the perimeter enclosure and will not impact on the character or appearance of the neighbouring conservation and will not be visible from the wider public domain. There are no objections to this aspect of the development as it is temporary in nature.

Conservation Area

Whilst the proposed development site is located outside the conservation area, Policy BE4 aims to preserve or enhance that character or appearance of Conservation Areas and development within or adjacent to these areas that would have an unacceptable adverse impact will be refused.

It is accepted that the proposals will not necessarily enhance the character or appearance of the nearby conservation area but it is argued that the proposed development will have a neutral impact. The scale, proportions, materials and boundary treatments of the proposed extension and perimeter fence are consistent with the general pattern of development in the locality and are not considered to be inappropriate development for this location adjacent to the conservation area.

In any event, the proposed perimeter fence, which is clearly the most controversial element of the development is reversible and could potentially be removed at a later date, reinstating the park to its current condition.

Purpose of Development

The developments being sought arise largely from the requirements set out by the Scottish Football Association for Coldstream Football Club to remain an affiliated club. In turn, affiliation allows the club to continue to participate in the East of Scotland League. This is a consideration which should be afforded some weight in the determination of this application, in the context of policies that seek to encourage safeguard and improve sports facilities, which will include for spectators as well as participants.

While there are some disadvantages arising from this development, not least in connection with the erection of the fence, these need to be balanced against these wider benefits.

It should be noted that the proposed perimeter fence, gates and grandstand would be similar to other football grounds in towns across the Borders. In particular, the facilities enjoyed by Vale of Leithen FC in Victoria Park, Innerleithen are almost identical to that being proposed under the current application. The existing football pitch is located just outside the conservation area and is defined by a high perimeter fence and gates which continue to allow for public access through the park.

The current proposals sought for Coldstream reflect the facilities permitted in Innerleithen and that already exist at other affiliated grounds at Selkirk and Galashiels.

Maintenance/Access

The Council’s Neighbourhood Services confirm no objections to this proposal. The proposed perimeter fence include 2 double leaf gates (one to the north of the site and one to the south of the site) that will allow for access by the Council for maintenance purposes of the upper and lower tiers of the park. It is noted however that the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 6(c) designs submitted as part of the application do not clearly outline the opening and closing arrangements for the gates. This matter can be controlled by condition. Also, future maintenance arrangements in and around the football pitch should be agreed by the Council and the Football Club. This is not a planning matter and can be covered by an applicant informative should members be minded to support this application.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable and in accordance with development plan policies. The proposed extension to the pavilion would be appropriate to the host building and would be consistent with the general pattern of development in the locale. Also, the proposed grandstand, whilst being a stand alone structure, would be modest in scale and appropriate for this location adjacent to the pavilion, bowling club and workshops. This will not represent an unacceptable addition to the park and will not result in a significant loss of open space.

The proposed pitch side fence will have limited, if any impact on the wider landscape and townscape, and it will be removable, will not have a permanent effect on the character, appearance or use of the public park.

It is contended that the proposed perimeter fence, whilst clearly having an effect on the open plan nature of the park, will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character or appearance of the adjoining conservation area or the residential amenity of nearby properties. The proposed fence has been modified so that it would appear ‘lighter’ in its appearance than previously proposed, and it is considered that this would be more acceptable in this location. The local and neighbourhood importance of the park is acknowledged and the proposals will not result in the loss of this public amenity space in the heart of Coldstream.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

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

3. No development shall commence on the erection of the perimeter fence hereby approved until precise details of the fence, including finish, micro-siting and a programme for future maintenance, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter, no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of development.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6(c)

4. No development shall commence on the pavilion extension hereby approved until precise details of all external materials have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter, no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of development.

5. The temporary pedestrian gates over the existing public footpath to the south of the application site shall be kept open and free from obstruction at all times except during periods on home match days in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the public footpath is available for all users.

6. The proposed pedestrian gate to the north of the application and adjacent to the existing park entrance on Home Place site shall be kept open and free from obstruction at all times except during periods on home match days in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the public footpath is available for all users.

7. No development shall commence until precise details of the pedestrian entrance and footpath extension to the rear of the gates hereby approved (adjacent to the Home Park entrance from Home Place) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. The proposed footpath extension shall tie into the existing path which will form part of adopted path network in the area. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety and to ensure that the proposed path is formed to the specification of the Planning Authority.

8. No development shall commence until precise details of the grandstand hereby approved, including all external materials and micro-siting, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter, no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of development.

Informatives

The applicant should contact the Council’s Neighbourhood Services team at the earliest possible opportunity in order to agree details for future maintenance of the football ground and public park.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Reference No Plan Type 2012/02 Rev D Layout LT SUPER 75 EX01 Elevations P1 Elevations Various Indicative Images

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6(c)

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 Barry Fotheringham Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(c)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6(d)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

20 JUNE 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00108/FUL OFFICER: Euan Calvert WARD: Leaderdale and Melrose PROPOSAL: Erection of two wind turbines 24.8m high to tip SITE: Land East Of Mossbank Langshaw Galashiels Scottish Borders APPLICANT: Mr W Hall AGENT: Gaia-Wind Ltd

SITE DESCRIPTION

The building group of Langshaw at the junction of the C77/ C65 minor roads is located to the north of Galashiels, on the road connecting Lauder and Easter Langlee. The steading group at Mossbank comprises two, differently sized, steel portal agriculture buildings, both with pitched roofs, one with lean-to annexes on both elevations. These sheds are set back from the C65 minor road providing an enclosed area for a variety of stock handling pens and a grain silo.

The proposed turbine would be part of this holding. The turbine site is in the adjacent field, 170m east of the steading, some 440m from the road junction, setback about 80metres south of the C65 minor road. The elevation of the land on which the turbine would occupy would be approximately 210m AOD. The land cover is improved grassland which the applicant ues for livestock rearing. The field enclosures are mostly bounded by drystone dykes, with the addition of contemporary stock fencing in places.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application received by the council was initially for two turbines, built on lattice towers. Officers sought to mitigate effects of this proposal during consideration of the application, and the proposal is now for a single turbine.

The submission for permission comprises one, two blade turbine, mounted on an 18metre monopole tower. The hub height would be 18.4m with a diameter between blade tips of 13m giving an overall height to blade tip of 24.8m. The turbines would sit on a reinforced concrete foundation 5m squared, with a finished height of 450mm below ground level.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(d)

PLANNING HISTORY

Previous or neighbouring planning decisions relating to the site of this application:

A planning permission has recently been issued to the same applicant (13/00109/FUL) following determination by this Committee in April this year, to develop a ground mounted solar panel array, beside the agriculture sheds, in the paddock immediately to the west of this site.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

6 objections have been received, including one from the “Langshaw Area Residents” Group. This group comprises 11 signatories from 7 households object.

The objections received from the five individual parties are on the following grounds: 1. The proximity of the proposal to the building group of Langshaw 2. Cumulative effects damaging the amenity of the landscape character 3. Proliferation of turbines within the valley rather than on isolated hills

Langshaw Area Residents:

Although there is reference to the contemporaneous application for the solar panels, the main body of objection surrounding this proposal comprise:

1. Concerns about the balance between the amounts of electricity generated against the landscape impact. 2. Cumulative effect. Concerns about further proliferation of turbines around this area which could damage the landscape setting by imposing development of turbines on another vista. 3. Little requirement for electricity on this small farm. The land at Langshaw is only used for grazing stock and the sheds are seldom used. 4. Concerns regarding the landscape setting of the three Historic Buildings and the building group of Langshaw, although this has not been echoed by Historic Scotland. 5. Noise concerns a. The number of receptors in the Langshaw being as great as nine residences, plus three outlying houses and five farms. b. The applicant understating the noise impact.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

x The applicant has supplied wireframe diagrams, photo montages from key viewpoints and a Foundation Specification. x A Noise Report is provided in addition to a Supporting Statement. x Further supporting information was received in support of the application, and further to consultation, including a Cumulative Noise Report and a RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS rebuttal.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(d)

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018:

Policies N9, N14, I19, I20, I21.

Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 (Consolidated):

Policies G1, H2, D4.

Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance:

- Landscape and Development (March 2008) - Renewable Energy (March 2007) - Wind Energy (May 2011) - Scottish Borders Landscape and Visual Guidance on single and small groups of wind turbines in - Berwickshire SPG (At consultation in April 2013) - Scottish Borders Local Landscape Designations (August 2012)

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning:

No objections to the development proposal.

Environmental Health:

The Environmental Health Officer requested further information regarding noise sensitive receptors and cumulative noise from other turbine in the vicinity. Having been provided with this information, the Officer is happy that development will meet with these requirements and the application may be approved subject to the imposition of the following planning condition:

“Noise from the installation should not exceed 35dBA L90,10 min up to wind speeds of 10 metres per second measured at 10m height, when assessed in free field conditions outside any noise sensitive premises having Planning Consent at the time of determining this Application. This limit shall include the cumulative noise from any other turbines in the vicinity. There should be no tonal character to the noise from the installation, audible within any noise sensitive premises. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445. In the event of a justified noise complaint, the installation shall be shut down or limited in operation so as to ensure compliance with the above noise limit. Noise measurements shall be taken using the methodology contained in ETSU-R- 97.”

Statutory Consultees

Melrose and District Community Council responded to advise that they had no comments to make about the proposal.

Historic Scotland: Do not object to this development proposal.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(d)

Ministry of Defence: No objections are raised to the proposal

Joint Radio Company: No objection to the proposal. Cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by Scottish Power and Scotia Gas Networks.

Scotland Gas Networks: No consultation was requested as it is not within an identified protected area.

NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL"): No objection, with confirmation that there is no conflict with Aviation infrastructure.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Whether the proposed development would be appropriate in the proposed setting, having accounted principally for development plan policies and having also had regard to other supplementary planning guidance.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Principle

Structure Plan Policies l20 and l21 support small scale renewable energy developments where they have no significant adverse impact on the natural and built environment or amenity of an area. This is classified as a small scale development in the context of Local Plan Policy D4. This application seeks permission for one wind turbine on farmland 4km north of Langlee, Galashiels, on improved grazing land around the building group of Langshaw.

Although not directly relevant to this case, the Scottish Borders Landscape and Visual Guidance on single and small groups of wind turbines in Berwickshire SPG provides some helpful guidance on turbine types and appropriateness; it identifies the height of this development as being at the lower end of the medium scale turbine typology. Furthermore, this site would be considered as being within an area of Moderate (Higher) constraints. The landscape (Undulating Grassland Typology) has been attributed a high sensitivity for “external visibility” and also for the “visual sensitivity” of the receptors; A68, A7 and A6091. In this intimate landscape, none of these identified receptors are affected, but the landscape character type nevertheless requires careful consideration of landscape and visual impact.

Visual and Amenity Considerations

Policy H2, which is concerned with protection of residential amenity, specifies that where development makes an adverse impact on the residential amenity of an existing residential development, it will not be permitted.

Neighbouring properties

Regard is to be had to the magnitude of impact on overlooking properties, their privacy, and their gardens. The outlook from several residential properties in the Langshaw building grouping may be affected by this development, but the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(d) significance of that impact requires to be assessed. As Members will know there is no overriding right to a view in planning law. It is the interrelationship of this building group and the scenic value of this landscape setting that needs examined further.

The nearest residential property, Mossbank, is in the order of 125m away from the turbine location and is contained by existing trees within its own garden, which will largely reduce any direct visibility. Beyond this property, the turbine will be sufficiently detached from the houses in the Langshaw group, sitting lower down the hill, that only distant, indirect, views will be had from window views and garden ground of these properties. In most cases, the principal outlook from these properties is away from the turbine site. The intervening topography and presence of the existing agricultural buildings assists in minimising these impacts.

The relatively small scale of the remaining turbine is significant in limiting the potential impacts, including the more distant properties on higher ground to the east. Immediate views (those in the foreground and with direct alignment of overlooking windows) will be few therefore the resulting impact may only be described as moderate at most. Furthermore, siting on the east side of the farm buildings will screen these views to a certain degree.

By reducing the scheme to a single turbine by removing the turbine closest to the building group, and allowing for the distance between the proposal and the intervening agricultural steading, any impacts will be less visually intrusive on houses at Langshaw. It is therefore considered that the magnitude of impact has been reduced to an acceptable level.

Although views from the three towers in Langshaw are all affected to a varying degree, there is no evidence from Historic Scotland to suggest that the scale of the turbine is over bearing or dominating on the landscape setting of these towers.

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

The scale of the turbine is not considered to be inappropriate for this landscape setting. It would be considerably smaller than those granted permission at Long Park Wind Farm and is smaller in height and typology to that already existing at Over Langshaw but slightly taller than that nearby at Mosshouses.

Policy N9 of the Structure Plan seeks to maintain the integrity of the Borders landscape character and enhance its quality. The Scottish Borders Landscape Character Assessment 1995 identifies this area as Landscape Typology 12. Langshaw building group fits the description of this typology well; “localised enclosure and a more intimate character within narrow steep sided valleys” even though this area quickly develops into predominantly open and exposed with distant views over surrounding valleys.

There are no landscape designations specific to this site, the nearest being the National Scenic Area some 5 km or so to the south, which is sufficiently distant from a small scale development of this nature as not to give rise to concern on landscape protection grounds. In terms of landscape impact, the site lies on the slope of a range of hills which flank minor watercourses, punctuated by plantations. The site’s

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6(d) prominence as a hillside changes depending on the approach taken to it, its most prominent aspect being towards the south and west.

The addition of this turbine to the landscape needs to be assessed in terms of combined, simultaneous and sequential effects of others in the vicinity. Cumulative effects will be had with neighbouring approved applications as follows; From the south, this development will be inter-visible with the existing 39.5m hilltop turbine at Over Langshaw (09/01140/FUL), which occupies a higher position. From the C77 approaching from the south (Langlee), the turbine would be visible on the immediate skyline and in the direct line of view at the corner in the road, framed by a copse of Scots Pine, larch, pine and scrub found at the foot of slope in the valley foreground. Combined views will be had of this turbine and Over Langshaw (09/01140/FUL). Sequential views would be had of this, Over Langshaw (09/01140/FUL) and Longpark. Although this is the most significantly impacted view, it is considered that because of the limited period in time and distance that direct views are experienced, and the fact that the turbine is viewed in a hillside backdrop, it is not a significant landscape impact. For the most part the turbine will be in the peripheral (indirect) views of drivers on the C77.

From the C77, approaching Langshaw from the north, the turbine would avoid skylining as Easter Housebyres hill would afford a hillside backdrop. Again, combined views will be had of this and Over Langshaw (09/01140/FUL). The addition of this turbine is not considered to significantly detrimental on this view, again because of the hillside backdrop.

Travelling east on the C65 to Clackmae, sequential views would be had of these, plus a third turbine at Mosshouses (11/00123/FUL), which sits lower on the hillside and is smaller than the proposed turbine, at 17.5m to tip. The nature of the undulating landscape combined with the relatively limited usage of the road suggests that these impacts would minor in nature.

Approaching this site from the east, on the C65, the turbines would similarly avoid skylining, being framed by the distant woodland of Ladhope Moor and William Law. Combined views will be had of this and Over Langshaw (09/01140/FUL), but these are minimal due to the wide breadth of view required to experience both. Looking east from the C64, the turbines would not skyline, but would be part of a wide, undulating landscape, with scatterings of woodlands and would associate with the steading grouping. As such, the scale of turbine in the wider scale of the landscape means that it would not appear as an unduly dominant feature. Again, combined views will be had of this and Over Langshaw (09/01140/FUL). No views would be had from the Southern Upland Way which is obscured by the intervening hill.

The scale of cumulative landscape impact is therefore considered to be minor due to the relatively minor usage levels of the surrounding roads and because of the short time periods that the turbine will be in the direct view of motorists on the C77, Galashiels to Lauder road.

The introduction of a vertical element into the landscape needs to be considered in the context of existing structures and the proposed turbine will have significantly less impact, in relative terms, as a result of the existing pylons a little distance to the west and so too must consideration be applied to the extent to which the site forms part of a wider landscape when viewed from the north, east and south, and the range of undulations, building clusters, and tree groupings in the area.

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

It is considered that what impacts are likely to occur will be quite localised and unlikely to be unacceptable in a wider landscape context.

Future concerns can be overcome by assessing future applications on their own merits, and against a cumulative backdrop.

Introducing a variety of turbines designs to the landscape could result in natural features and landforms becoming, in time, subservient to industrial or manmade features. Twin blade turbines can appear unusual, owing to the different sweep of the blade from the more common three-bladed model. However, this would not be an unacceptable impact in visual terms. The addition of this turbine is not considered to significantly impact this landscape setting.

The applicant has agreed to change to a monopole tower from a lattice design. A lattice structure is industrial in character, much like a pylon, and not in keeping with the turbine typology already granted. A light grey colouring to a monopole tower and blades etc would be the most appropriate approach and a suspensive condition should be imposed to reflect this.

There are no direct cultural heritage implications, although Historic Scotland have analysed the site and note the Scheduled Monuments of Langshaw Tower and Colmsie Tower and Listed Building of Hillslap Tower. The Council’s Archaeology Officer goes further to state that; the development is within 250 metres of the Scheduled Langshaw Tower and 560 metres of the Scheduled Colmslie Tower and there will be impacts on the settings of these two monuments. However, given scale and location of the proposed turbine, at these are not sufficiently adverse to merit refusal based on Structure Plan Policy N14.

There are no natural heritage designations on the site or directly alongside (the nearest, an SSSI to the north-west, and is sufficiently divorced from the site not to be at risk). No watercourse is near the site and it is 160m from scrub/ gorse and woodland. There would be no clear ecological impacts suggesting a need for particular assessment.

Consultation with NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") confirms that there is no conflict with Aviation.

Shadow flicker should not be an issue, applying Government guidance, and accounting that the nearest neighbouring house is 150m to the north west of the proposed site.

One objection is concerned about the proliferation of turbines within the valley rather than on isolated hills. However, proposals need to be considered on their own merits and on individual landscape and visual impacts. There is no blanket policy that seeks to resist developments in these settings.

Again, the following are not considered as material planning considerations; 1. Concerns about the balance between the amounts of electricity generated against the landscape impact. 2. Any suggestion that there is no need for the development.

Subject to the imposition of the planning conditions identified below (number, siting, height, design and materials proposed), this application meets planning policy objectives relating to design/development quality, landscape protection, protection of residential amenity and policies specific to renewable energy developments.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(d)

Noise and Roads

Policy H2 on protection of residential amenity deals with the generation of traffic and noise. It is noted that no access tracks or ancillary works are proposed hence the (adopted) roads planning section raised no concerns about this development.

The applicant had submitted an assessment for a similar product on a different site, which assists in understanding potential noise impacts. Further information on cumulative noise impact was provided for scrutiny by Environmental Health. The Officer is satisfied that, with the latest noise assessment submission, a planning condition will ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties in Langshaw is not compromised; this is attached to the recommendation below.

CONCLUSION

Taking into consideration the scale of the proposed turbine and accounting for the particular attributes of the surrounding landscape, together with the extent of visual impact of the proposal, the proposed development is considered compliant with development plan policies, in this particular case, subject to compliance with the schedule of conditions

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions and ‘applicant informative’

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

3 Noise from the installation should not exceed 35dBA L90,10 min up to wind speeds of 10 metres per second measured at 10m height, when assessed in free field conditions outside any noise sensitive premises having Planning Consent at the time of determining this Application. This limit shall include the cumulative noise from any other turbines in the vicinity. There should be no tonal character to the noise from the installation, audible within any noise sensitive premises. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445. In the event of a justified noise complaint, the installation shall be shut down or limited in operation so as to ensure compliance with the above noise limit. Noise measurements shall be taken using the methodology contained in ETSU-R-97. Reason: To protect the private amenity of householders living in the vicinity of the development.

5 A location and site plan, showing the exact location of the turbine and foundation, shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(d)

Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The foundations shall then be constructed, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of the surrounding area, the appearance and location of the development hereby consented requires to be as sympathetic as possible to the rural character and setting of the site.

6 The colour and finish of the turbine and tower hereby permitted shall accord with details that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. No symbols, signs, logos or other lettering, other than those required for health and safety management, shall be displayed on any part of the turbines, or any related ancillary structure(s), without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the approved drawings, the turbine shall be mounted on a monopole structure (as opposed to lattice tower), precise details of which shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority prior to installation on site. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of the surrounding area, and to ensure that the development hereby consented is appropriate to the rural character and setting of the site.

7 In the event that the wind turbine hereby consented cease to be required for the purposes of electricity generation, the wind turbine concerned, and any ancillary equipment or structures no longer required for the purposes of electricity generation (including any foundations), shall be dismantled and removed from the site, and the site, or that part of the site no longer in use for electricity generation, shall then be restored to its former condition within 6 months of the cessation of operation of the turbine(s) concerned. In any event, the turbine hereby permitted and any ancillary equipment or structures associated with it and no longer required for the purposes of electricity generation (including any foundations) shall be removed from the site, and the site restored to its former condition, within 25 years of the date of this planning permission unless a further planning permission is achieved that allows for their retention on the site beyond this period. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area so that when the turbine hereby permitted reaches the end of its operational life, these will be removed to avoid any unnecessary environmental impact resulting from the retention of a non-operational turbine on the site.

8 Any temporary structures or equipment installed or used during the commissioning or decommissioning of the wind turbine hereby permitted, shall be completely removed from the site, and from the accesses to the site, upon the completion of the commissioning/decommissioning works, such that no temporary structures or equipment relating to the commissioning or decommissioning works shall be left in situ during or after the period of operation of the turbine hereby permitted. Reason: To retain effective control over the development hereby consented; and, in the interests of protecting the amenity of the surrounding area, the appearance of the development hereby consented requires to be as sympathetic as possible to the rural character and setting of the site. It is therefore appropriate to require that all temporary structures and equipment are removed from the site and the access to the site, when their presence is no longer required.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(d)

9. No development shall commence until the developer has provided the Planning Authority with the date of commencement of construction; the date of completion of construction; the maximum height of construction equipment; the latitude and longitude of the turbine. Reason: The Planning Authority is required to provide the MoD with this information to enable military air crews to avoid overflight of the site.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Proposed Turbine 1/ 352026, 639539 AMD LOCATION PLAN GAIA WIND 18IT AMD ELEVATIONS GAIA WIND DRAWINGS 110-8000-000E & 110-840-000E Foundation specification

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 Euan Calvert Assistant Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(d)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6 (e)

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 JULY 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER:13/00572/FUL OFFICER: Dorothy Amyes WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Variation of conditions 14 and 17 of planning consent 08/01397/FUL SITE: Land North, East And South Of Rutherford House West Linton APPLICANT: Manor Kingdom (Scotland) Ltd And De Vere Ltd AGENT: None

SITE DESCRIPTION

Rutherford Castle Golf Club sits to the north of West Linton, to the South of Carlops and to the East of the A702. The site is located approximately 24.5 km to the south of Edinburgh city centre and lies approximately 2.6km to the north of West Linton.

The application site is situated on agricultural grazing land adjacent to the existing Rutherford Castle Golf Club. The site is relatively flat but it does slope from the public road towards the golf course. A mature shelter belt defines the north boundary of the site and separates the site from Rutherford House and the adjoining development site. The remaining site boundaries are defined by stone boundary walls and stock proof fencing.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application proposes that conditions 14 and 17 on consent 08/01397/FUL are varied. Details of the original consent are given in the Planning History below.

Condition 14 states: Prior to the commencement of any development a barrier of a type approved by the planning authority, after consultation with the Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate, shall be provided and maintained along the proposed boundary of the site with the trunk road. Reason: To minimise the risk of pedestrians and animals gaining uncontrolled access to the trunk road.

Condition 17 states: Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with SEPA. The alternate foul drainage arrangements (private waste water treatment facility) must be carried out fully as agreed with SEPA Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6 (e)

Both of these conditions require that work is carried out prior to commencement of development. The application seeks to vary these conditions to:

‘the required works on the barrier and drainage to be completed within one month after commencement of the development and to the satisfaction of the council.’

PLANNING HISTORY

Planning consent 08/01397/FUL:

This consent was granted in December 2008 (subject to conditions and a legal agreement) for the erection of a 150 bedroom 5 star hotel, conference and leisure facility towards the north of the application site. This permission is valid until 18 December 2013. The site would be extensively landscaped and would include car parking in the south west corner of the site. The proposed hotel would be accessed via the existing junction on the A702 which currently serves the golf club and a new vehicular access along an improved track to the south of the application site.

Details of the proposals were outlined in the supporting statement and these were as follows: The proposed hotel takes a contemporary slant on early 20th century Scottish rendered country houses. It would be primarily white painted wet-dash render with dressed sandstone features under a slate roof. The elevations would include white painted projecting balconies and summer rooms reminiscent of Scottish hotel conservatory architecture. The hotel would have an elongated t-shape and would be arranged over 3 floors with a basement level towards the north east corner. A stone port cochere would form the entrance to the hotel on the south east facing elevation.

A flat roof section would project from the rear elevation of the hotel. This would be the grand ball room and conferencing facilities. It would be finished using cedar timber cladding.

The proposal would represent a £50 million pound investment in the Scottish Borders.

Planning consent 09/01746/FUL:

This was to amend the above application in relation to a revised access to the site. It is the applicant’s intention that this revised access would still apply.

Other relevant applications:

An outline application for 6 dwelling houses (00/01 033/0UT) and a detailed planning application for the erection of a clubhouse with 36 bedrooms and conference facilities (01/00046/FUL) were both approved at the Tweeddale Area Committee on 10 September 2001. The approvals were subject to the conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement that related to phasing of development and precluding further housing development. Planning consent was never formally issued because the Section 75 Agreements was never signed.

In 1999 two further applications were submitted, one was a detailed planning application for the erection of a golf clubhouse, accommodation and seminar/conference facilities (99/00557/FUL). The other was an outline application

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6 (e) for residential development. Both planning applications were withdrawn in April 2000 prior to their consideration at the Tweeddale area committee.

A detailed application was also submitted for the reconstruction and upgrading of the golf course, the erection of clubhouse, 28 dwellings and the relocation of a maintenance shed (03/00776/FUL). This application was refused at committee on 5 July 2004.

On 23 April 2007, the Tweeddale Area Committee granted planning consent for a new clubhouse and the erection of 6 dwellings. This approval was subject to 6 planning conditions and the conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement (05/02117/FUL). This planning consent has been implemented.

Detailed planning consent (07/02147/FUL) was granted for a change of house type on the nearby housing development at Rutherford Castle. This was approved on 22 January 2008.

Planning consent has been granted for extension to the existing properties and additional residential properties at Rutherford Gardens immediately to the north of the proposed hotel.

One application (06/01520/FUL) incorporated modern Huf Haus designs. An application for two additional dwellinghouses of a similar Huf Haus design was approved in July 2007 (07/01001/FUL) and the consent issued in February 2008.

Two further outline consent have been granted for additional house plots (12/00143/ PPP and 12/00142/PPP).

There is also an application, currently under consideration, for a change of house type from the one approved under 07/01001/FUL.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

One letter of comment has been received which raises issues relating to the boundaries as shown on the plans submitted with the application.

This relates to land ownership boundaries rather than the actual site boundary and therefore does not affect the assessment of this application.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

None

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N9 – Maintaining Landscape Character Policy N20 – Design Policy E16 – Rural Economic Development Policy E21 – Tourism Development Policy E22 – Protection of the Tourist Industry Policy C8 – Access Network Policy I5 – Cycling Policy I7 – Walking

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6 (e)

Policy I11 – Parking Provision in New Development Policy I14 – Surface Water

Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf3 – Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4 – Parking Standards Policy Inf5 – Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy Inf11 – Developments that Generate Travel Demand Policy D1 – Building, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development Policy R2 – Safeguarding of Mineral Deposits

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2010 Draft Scottish Planning Policy 2013

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

None

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Officer: No objections

Statutory Consultees

Transport Scotland: No objections

SEPA: No objections

Carlops Community Council: There has been very little support for this development throughout its planning history and this still remains the case. In response to the particular details of this application please note the following points:

Condition 14: It seems very sensible to erect a proper barrier between the site and the trunk road before the development begins. Once development has started, or as machinery are moved onto the site there is an increased chance of scaring deer across the road which would pose an unnecessary risk to motorists travelling at 60 mph. If access is required then we are sure that a gateway could be constructed if required. We do not believe that the reasons given by the developer are sufficient to justify changing these conditions. A barrier will be required so it would be safer and more sensible to erect this before works starts rather than afterwards.

Condition 17: Similarly ensuring that the site is able to deal with run off and not

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6 (e) contaminate the surface waters in the area before work starts on the building site seems sensible and reasonable. In the last few summers we have had burst of exceptionally intense rainfall and failure to plan for this type of event could lead to a high degree of siltation and run off if not carefully planned.

The developer appears to want to alter these conditions purely on the basis of their own convenience. This appears to be a poor justification when weighed up against a potential safety risk on the A 702 and pollution of the local waterways. We therefore oppose these changes.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Whether the proposal to vary conditions 14 and 17 on planning consent 08/01397/FUL is appropriate and reasonable and whether the proposed changes will result any demonstrable adverse impact.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

The original application for the hotel with leisure and conference facilities together with the associated infrastructure was approved by the Planning and Building Standards Committee on 8 December 2008 and the consent was issued on 18 December 2008. The consent has a 5 year time limit and therefore it does not expire until 18 December 2013.

The principle of the proposals has, therefore, been agreed and both Government and Scottish Borders policy is to encourage high quality tourism developments. This is again emphasised in the draft Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) which highlights the need for planning authorities to enable key opportunities for investment and to take full account of the economic benefits of the proposed development.

As the conditions currently apply the works required on the erection of the barrier and on the drainage are likely to take place immediately before any major work on the site begins. The proposal to undertake the required work within one month of development commencing is likely to result in only a relatively short delay. Both Transport Scotland and SEPA have indicated that they have no objections to the conditions being varied. The local community council do not support the application. However, in relation to a barrier being erected before development starts, any development site should be secured by Heres fencing or other appropriate fencing for health and safety reasons before any work starts and it is expected that this would be the case for this site.

In relation to drainage this type of work, which is part of the basic infrastructure of the site, is usually undertaken at the early stages of any construction project and the timescale of one month for its delivery is not a significant delay.

It is considered that the request to vary the conditions is not unreasonable and should be supported. The varied conditions will read as follows:

14. Within one month of commencement of development a barrier of a type approved by the planning authority, after consultation with the Transport

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

Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate, shall be provided and maintained along the proposed boundary of the site with the trunk road. Reason: To minimise the risk of pedestrians and animals gaining uncontrolled access to the trunk road.

17. All drainage works shall be completed within one month of the development commencing in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with SEPA. The alternate foul drainage arrangements (private waste water treatment facility) must be carried out fully as agreed with SEPA Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the request to vary the conditions can be supported as both the required drainage of the site and the safety barrier on the A702 will be put in place with potentially only a limited change to the timescale for their delivery. It does not affect the proposals as originally approved or the access, as amended.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES::

I recommend that the application to vary conditions 14 and 17 on planning consent 08/01397/FUL is approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: The materials require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

2. A sample of all materials to be used on all exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

3. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate): i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored iii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iv. soft and hard landscaping works v. existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations vi. other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, play equipment

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

vii. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

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

5. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced detailed drawings showing which trees are to be retained on the site shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and none of the trees so shown shall be felled, thinned, lopped, topped, lifted or disturbed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings, and to ensure that those existing tree(s) representing an important visual feature are retained and maintained.

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

7. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, any hedges to be retained on the site shall be protected by a chestnut paling fence 1.5 metres high placed at a minimum distance of 2.0 metres from the edge of the hedge, and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development the existing soil levels around the boles of the hedges so retained shall not be altered. Reason: In the interests of preserving the hedges which contribute to the visual amenity of the area.

8. Only the trees identified on site and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be removed. Reason: The existing trees represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considers should be substantially maintained.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6 (e)

9. The area allocated for parking on the submitted plan shall be properly consolidated, surfaced and drained before the use of the site commences/the buildings are occupied, and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway.

10. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the integrated provision of suitable motorcycle and bicycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter permanently retained. Reason: To ensure that a comprehensive range of on-site vehicle parking facilities are made available to users of the development.

11. Prior to the commencement of any development on site a comprehensive Green Travel Plan that sets out proposals for reducing dependency on the private car shall he submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate. The Travel Plan shall identify measures to be implemented; the system of management, monitoring, review and reporting; and the duration of the plan. Reason: In order to meet the requirements of the Scottish Executive Planning for Transport Documents SPP17 – Planning and Transport and PAN75 – Planning and Transport

12. The development hereby permitted shall not exceed a maximum parking provision of 390 spaces. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to be consistent with the requirements of the Scottish Executive Planning for Transport Documents SPP 17 – Planning and Transport and PAN75 – Planning and Transport

13. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development, bus stops shall be provided on both sides of the A702(T), located adjacent to the site generally as indicated in Arup Drawing Number 125383.00 (SK 001), to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to be consistent with the requirements of the Scottish Executive Planning for Transport Documents SPP 17 – Planning and Transport and PAN75 – Planning and Transport

14. Within one month of commencement of development a barrier of a type approved by the planning authority, after consultation with the Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate, shall be provided and maintained along the proposed boundary of the site with the trunk road. Reason: To minimise the risk of pedestrians and animals gaining uncontrolled access to the trunk road.

15. The nature and location of all advertising and external lighting within the site shall he approved by the planning authority, after consultation with the Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate. Reason: To ensure that there is no distraction to drivers on the trunk road network.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6 (e)

16. The proposed development shall incorporate measures to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, and the incorporation of sustainable building techniques and renewable energy technologies, in accordance with a scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. This should include demonstration of a reduction of 15% in CO2 emissions beyond the 2007 building regulations carbon dioxide emissions standard through incorporation of on-site low or zero carbon technologies (LZCT) where technically feasible. Reason: To ensure the development minimises any environmental impact

18. Detailed documented construction method statements for the site to be agreed by the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA, before development commences. This method statement must address the temporary measures proposed to deal with surface water run-off during construction in accordance with the requirements of CAR and the relevant General Binding Rules (GBRs) prior to the operation of the final SUDS. It must ensure that the SUDS performance is not compromised during construction, either by avoiding use of the final SUDS or completely reinstating the SUDS used. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water.

19. Details of the proposed finalised SUDS which meets the requirements of GBRs and provides sufficient attenuation that the development would not cause or exacerbate flooding within the receiving catchment, contact should be made with your Roads Department regarding the water quantity issues of SUDS Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water.

20. No trees identified for removal will be felled during the breeding bird season (March- August) Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

21. An ecologist will inspect the trees on the day of removal to ensure that no protected species are using those trees. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest)

22. Trees identified for removal will be felled and removed in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust guidelines. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

23. A detailed Landscape and Habitat Management Plan is required, to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before any works commence. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

24. No works shall commence during the breeding bird season without the express written permission of the Planning Authority.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6 (e)

Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

25. Scrub and tree clearance should occur outside of the breeding bird season (breeding bird season March-August). Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

26. Checking surveys for bats, badgers, otters and breeding birds to be carried out prior to the commencement of work. The survey reports are to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

27. Measures to protect badgers and otters on construction sites to be implemented: covering of trenches overnight or provision of escape ramps, capping of any temporarily exposed pipe systems to prevent animals gaining access, safe storage of chemicals. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

28. SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 (general guidance and works affecting watercourses), PPG 3, 4, 7, 13 (site drainage), PPG 2, 8 (oil storage) and PPG 6 (construction and demolition) shall be adopted by the developer as appropriate. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

29. SUDS proposals should use new ponds and not existing ponds on the site. SUDS provide an opportunity to enhance the local habitat network, connecting with Forest Habitat Network and Wetland Habitat network and provision of habitats for bats. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

DRAWING NUMBERS

(00)002 Rev a Proposed site layout (00)003 Rev a Proposed ground floor plan (00)004 Rev a Proposed basement floor plan (00)005 Rev a Proposed first floor plan (00)006 Rev a Proposed second floor plan (00)007 Rev a Proposed roof plan (00)008 Rev a Proposed south & east elevations (00)009 Rev a Proposed north & west elevations (00)010 Rev a Proposed sections a-a, b-b & c-c (00)011 Rev a Neighbour notification plan (00)018 Rev a Site plan showing bicycle & motor cy... 117.17.08c Entrance area landscape 117.17.09c Car park landscape and wall detail 117.17.10 Composite landscape areas

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.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6 (e)

Author(s) Name Designation Dorothy Amyes Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6 (e)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6(f)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 JULY 2013

APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF A PLANNING OBLIGATION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00660/MOD75 OFFICER: Andrew Evans WARD: Hawick and Denholm PROPOSAL: Modification of planning obligation SITE: The Bothy, Farmhouse and Agricultural Land, Westcote, Hawick APPLICANT: Mr Drew Glendinning AGENT: Mr N Wright, Buccleluch Rural Solutions

SITE DESCRIPTION

Westcote Farm is located to the North East of Hawick. The Farmhouse is located at the end of a 600m long access track. It is part of a small building group of dwellings, comprising “Westcote Farmhouse”, “The Bothy”, and “The Auld Byre”. Also within the group are 2 approved open market house plots to the north-west, one of which is currently under construction. These plots are on the site of the former farm buildings, now demolished.

The building group dwellings are located 500m to the south of the A698, and are on the site of the former farm steading. A replacement large agricultural shed is located to the north of the group of dwellings.

Outline planning permission (07/00074/OUT) was granted for the erection of a new farmhouse at Westcote in May 2008. This new farm house will be located on lower lying land than the building group, in an isolated position to the north of the building group, and south of the access track. This position is quite well related to the new agricultural building, which is 250m to the North East of the new farmhouse site.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

A Section 75 agreement was originally entered into in April 2008 in the course of determination of that 2007 application. The effects of this agreement are set out later in this report. The application seeks to modify the Section 75 Agreement in connection with the planning permission for the erection of the new farmhouse on the site. The applicant seeks to remove the neighbouring dwellings and land from the agreement, to permit the division of assets.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has a complex planning history, with the applications relevant to the current proposal being as follows:

Application Ref Site / Proposal Decision 07/00074/OUT Erection of dwellinghouse Approved subject to conditions Land NW Of Westcote Farmhouse 01.05.2008

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(f)

(The outline permission for the farmhouse) 08/00852/FUL Erection of general purpose/workshop Approved subject to conditions agricultural building 16.06.2008 Westcote Farm 08/01278/REM Erection of dwellinghouse with integral Approved subject to conditions garage 17.09.2008 (The detail of the Land NW Of Westcote Farmhouse new farmhouse, following the 2007 outline) 10/00938/FUL Change of use from disused bothy and Approved subject to conditions alterations to form dwellinghouse & Informatives 07.10.2011 Disused Bothy West Of Westcote Farmhouse

There have been, in addition, applications for conversion of traditional farm buildings to housing, together with permissions for two new houses at the existing farm steading. These applications are not affected by the legal agreement which is the subject of this application, but are referred to in the assessment later in this report.

Effect of Current Legal Agreement

The main provisions of the Agreement is that outwith an identified “development area” the remaining land shall be held as a single unit (Clause 3). Whilst the agreement excludes the new build plots and one of the conversions, it includes “The Farmhouse”, which was the original dwelling on the site and “The Bothy”, the adjacent conversion.

The underlying reasoning behind this legal agreement would have been to ensure retention of sufficient agricultural land to justify a single dwellinghouse for a worker in a location not part of a building group.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

No representations have been received.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A supporting statement has been submitted by the agent for Mr Glendinning, the current landowner. It confirms the following:

x The applicant Mr Glendinning has now seeks to exclude the original Westcote farmhouse, Bothy, and 1.5ha of land excluded from the 2008 Section 75 agreement. x The original farmhouse, which originally included the Bothy, was included in the agreement. Since then, two further conversions, the Bothy, and two new build plots have been developed on the site of the original farm steading. x This has created an attractive residential building group, and to leave the original farmhouse tied to the land, and risk the use of the adjacent area to agriculture would detract from the development now created. x Full planning permission has been granted for an alternative farmhouse more suitably located for the agricultural activities of the holding.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(f)

x Owing to a significant change in the personal circumstances of the applicant, a modification of the legal agreements as suggested will allow for a division of the assets, not possible under the present restrictions.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy H7: Housing in the Countryside: Building Groups Policy H8: Housing in the Countryside: Isolated Housing

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy D1: Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Planning Circular 1/2010: Planning Agreements.

Supplementary Planning Guidance: New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Legal Services: Reply Awaited.

Statutory Consultees

None

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether the removal of the modification of the legal agreement as suggested would comply with the Council’s Housing in the Countryside; and Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside policies;

x What the impacts of the variation of the land subject to the legal agreement would be.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Scope of Application

This application seeks to modify the Section 75 Agreement to amend Clause 3 which required all the subjects affected by the agreement to be kept together. The applicant seeks modification of the agreement to remove that burden from the land.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(f)

Planning Policy

Planning Circular 1/2010 sets out Scottish Government policy on the use of planning agreements. It confirms that once concluded a planning agreement forms a legal contract between the planning authority and the developer, along with any other signatory (e.g. landowner). As such it may be modified only by mutual agreement.

The proposal in this case is to remove certain land and properties from the planning agreement. In order to determine the acceptability of this, it is necessary to consider the current situation against the Council’s housing in the countryside policies.

The new housing at this location and within the application boundary has already been assessed against policy H7 of the Structure Plan (Housing in the Countryside: Building Groups) and policy D2 (A) (Housing in the Countryside: Building Groups) of the Local Plan when consented.

Policy H7 states that proposals for housing associated with existing building groups will be supported where they fit the character of the surrounding group, avoid overdevelopment and meet sustainable construction requirements.

Policy D2 (A): Building Groups of the Local Plan allows housing in such locations. The plan allows for housing of up to a total of 2 further additional dwellings, or 30%, whichever the greater.

The farmhouse granted permission in 2007 was accepted on the basis of exceptional justification, on the basis of need in a location where unrestricted residential development would not have complied with prevailing policy. At that point in time, the only house at the site was the original Westcote Farmhouse.

As a result, and in accordance with normal practice, the permission was subject to a legal agreement requiring that neither the original farmhouse nor the new one were separated from any of the farmland that was the basis for the justification for the new house.

Since that permission was granted, a building group has subsequently been formed by the conversion of redundant traditional agricultural buildings to form 2 dwellings. These converted properties are “The Bothy”, and “The Auld Byre”. This development took place after the grant of permission for the new farmhouse. Importantly, the group was then capable of addition, with 2 dwellings then being consented on land adjacent to the newly converted group.

“The Bothy” falls within the area of land covered by the legal agreement, but the “Auld Byre” does not.

All of the dwellings within this building group were considered acceptable in their own rights, and their acceptability in planning terms would not have been dependant upon a legal agreement.

A third newbuild was originally approved at the building group, but following changes to the Housing in the Countryside Policy in recent years, this approval has been lost, with the current policy now restricting numbers of new build units beyond that previously permitted.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(f)

The consented replacement farmhouse to the north remains a different proposition. It is remote from the building group, and is acceptable under policy D1 only subject to its occupation being in connection with the agricultural operations on the farmland, permitted by part E (Economic Requirement) of Policy D2.

Although originally granted permission in 2007, the planning permission for this farmhouse has been safeguarded by the discharging of planning conditions and the commencement of the build on site. Land levels have been altered, foundations have been laid, and services connected. Accordingly, the applicant has taken the necessary steps to commence development, and hence to secure the consent for the new farmhouse.

Assessment of request and impacts of proposed variation

The modification of the legal agreement would allow the land and housing subject to the application to be removed from the original agreement. Owing to the development of a building group at the site, the justification for these new houses – and the original farmhouse, which is now the focus of a building group – is now acceptable without the need for recourse to an agreement to restrict occupancy or tying to any land.

The current proposals to divide off land subject to the agreement are acceptable in principle. The majority of the agricultural land would be served by the new farmhouse. The new farmhouse dwelling should remain tied to sufficient remaining land for the farm to remain viable, and to maintain the justification for an on site dwelling, remote from the building group.

Developer Contributions

Policy G5 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 states that where a site is acceptable but cannot proceed due to deficiencies in infrastructure or due to environmental impacts the Council will require developers to make contributions towards the cost of addressing such deficiencies.

No developer contributions arise as a result of the proposed modification of the legal agreement.

CONCLUSION

It is accepted that the circumstances surrounding this case have changed significantly since the new farmhouse was approved in 2007. It is accepted that the building group at Westcote includes both “The Bothy” and “Westcote Farmhouse”, and the Clause preventing separate sale is no longer appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

In respect of 13/00660/MOD75 I recommend that the application for the modification of planning obligations is approved and the Section 75 Agreement be amended as follows:

x The properties known as “The Bothy” and “Westcote Farmhouse” should be removed from the agreement. x The new house plot subject to planning permission 07/00704/OUT and the remainder of the agricultural land which provides the justification for that dwelling are to remain subject to the amended legal agreement. The

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

agreement will then ensure that sufficient land remains with the dwelling to justify the erection of a dwelling under Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Policy D2 Housing in the Countryside (E) Economic Requirement; and Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018 Policy H8 (Housing in the Countryside: Isolated Housing).

DRAWING NUMBERS

Promap Site Plan 1 received 9th November 2012. Promap Site Plan 2 received 9th November 2012.

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Andrew Evans Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(f)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 ITEM 7

PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS

Briefing Note by Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1st July 2013

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this briefing note is to give details of Appeals and Local Reviews which have been received and determined during the last month.

2 APPEALS RECEIVED

2.1 Planning Applications

2.1.1 Reference: 12/00191/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind energy development comprising of eight turbines 125m high to tip and associated infrastructure including: hardstandings, control building, compound and transformers, borrow pit, access tracks and temporary construction compounds Site: Land South West of Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk Appellant: ABO Wind UK LTD Matt Braund

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The development conflicts with Policy I20 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018 and Policy D4 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders 2011 Local Plan, in that by virtue of its adverse impact on the Ministry of Defence operations at: (i) Eskedalemuir Seismological Recording Station; and (ii) Deadwater Fell ATC Radar at RAF Spadeadam it would be incompatible with Ministry of Defence objectives relating to protection of public safety at a UK level and the obligations set out in international treaties. 2. The development conflicts with Policies N9, N20, I19 and I20 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018, Principle S1 and Policies G1 and D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated 2011 Local Plan, in that the development, by virtue of: (i) its vertical scale in relation to the scale of the receiving landscape; (ii) its prominent and dominant appearance in local, adjacent and wider landscapes; (iii) its poorly designed appearance from a range of vantage points due to overlapping and variation in heights viewed in relation to underlying topography; (iv) the intensification of adverse landscape and visual impacts due to cumulative visibility with the approved Langhope Rig wind farm, particularly from the area around the William Ogilvie Cairn on the road to Roberton (but also from a range of other areas/point of visibility) (v) the vertical scale of the turbines, combined with their elevated position in the landscape on what appears as a ridgetop from certain vantage Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st July 2013 1 points; (vi) the proximity of the development/turbines to residences and their environs, in particular Easter Alemoor and to a lesser extent Hawksnest (Whitslaid) and Wester Alemoor; and the inability to mitigate against the dominating presence of the development in relation to said residences would unacceptably erode landscape character and quality, thereby harming the landscape and visual environment of the Borders and would cause unreasonable prejudice to the private amenity currently experienced by residents.

Grounds of Appeal: The Proposal is outside all the officially designated statutory consultation areas for the Spadeadam Range and the Deadwater Fell radar. Consequently the MoD is not a statutory consultee in relation to the Proposal and there is no basis for a refusal of the application on the grounds that it would be contrary to the provisions of the official safeguarding system in respect of the Deadwater Fell radar and the Spadeadam Range. The Appellant submits that the Proposal should be allowed since it will not have a significant impact on the operation of the Deadwater Fell radar nor on the operations of RAF Spadeadam, that any impacts can be managed by the use of normal air traffic control operating procedures, and that no technical mitigation of the impacts is required. The Proposal is well-designed and sensitively sited. The concerns of the MOD are overly cautious and do not withstand careful scrutiny. The Proposal therefore complies with the development plan and the material considerations.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

2.1.2 Reference: 12/01545/MOD75 Proposal: Modification of planning obligation pursuant to planning permission reference 02/00963/OUT Site: Creag an Airidh Venlaw Farm, Edinburgh Road, Peebles Appellant: Mr and Mrs G Goldstraw

Reason for Refusal: There is no justification to vary the clause on the Section 75 Agreement as the restriction remains necessary to prevent the land from being inappropriately developed and pressurised from adjoining settlement and building group boundaries - and to respect and reflect the unrestricted planning permission granted for the retirement farmhouse previously granted on the land, safeguarding against repeated attempts for further dwellinghouses.

Grounds of Appeal: Clause 2(b) does not meet with all the policy tests contained within Planning Circular 3/2012. Provision 2(b) is considered to be unnecessary to prohibit further development on the farm, in order to make the development of Creag an Airidh acceptable in planning terms. Given the presence of a clear building group at Venlaw which comprises 5 dwellinghouses, the prohibition of construction of further dwellinghouse(s) with the Section 75 agreement is now considered to be unreasonable.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

2.2 Enforcements

Nil

Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st July 2013 2 3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

3.1.1 Reference: 12/00967/FUL Proposal: Change of use of agricultural land to incorporate the siting of 6 yurt tents, shop and associated parking Site: Land North East of Newburgh Farm Steading, Ettrick Valley Appellant: Mr Nicholas Weeks

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policies H2 and INF11 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that: The proposal involves the development of an isolated and exposed site, which will be intrusive even with planting. The adverse landscape and visual impact will be particularly noticeable on the approach to the site from the North, where the development will be clearly visible from the road. Due to the isolated nature site, the development is likely to generate significant noise disruption that will adversely affect the amenity of local residents. This is due to the lack of amenities at the locus and the resultant level of traffic coming and going from the site. The traffic generation problem is also exacerbated by a lack of public transport and the significant distance from the nearest amenities (8miles to Ettrickbridge where there is only a public house and 15 miles from the nearest town for shops etc). The development, if permitted, would be harmful to the amenities of residents living near the site and the scenic qualities of the area more generally.

Grounds of Appeal: The proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area but would be a sympathetic and compatible use in the countryside. It complies with the land use planning policy framework set out in the most up to date Development Plan for the area. The Council planning officer, in the Committee Report recommending that the planning application be approved, considered that the development was “an acceptable use in a rural location which will add to rural diversification and help to bring visitors to the area. It does not conflict with the Tourism Strategy for the Scottish Borders and this type of development can be supported. It will not have a significant adverse impact on residential development or on the ecology and hydrology of the area. It is located in a prominent location but on balance, it is considered that the impact on the landscape will not be so significant as to warrant refusal and, in the longer term, there will be landscape and ecological benefits gained from the development.”

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

Reporter’s Decision: Sustained

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Dan Jackman, granted planning permissions with 8 conditions and 3 advisory notes and concluding that traffic generated from 6 yurts would not be a significant concern. Although the landscaping would take several years to mature, he considered that once they were mature the development would be compatible with an open landscape inter-dispersed with groups of trees and with appropriate landscaping conditions, would be a positive outcome for the site. The reporter did not consider that the noise assessment based on 100% occupancy of all yurts and the conversion of the three steadings to be realistic. The reported felt that the proposed small shop Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st July 2013 3 would be a benefit to the area and would not be unacceptably harmful to the amenity of nearby residents or to the scenic qualities of the area. The Claim for Expenses was declined.

3.2 Enforcements

3.2.1 Reference: 12/00064/UNDEV Proposal: Erection of a camera which looks onto the complainer’s property but is for the purpose of recording another neighbours stable block Site: Eastfield Buxton, Buxton Road, Selkirk Appellant: Hugh & Violet Lovatt

Reason for Notice: A camera has been erected which looks onto a neighbour’s property

Grounds of Appeal: The Appellant believes that by presenting to the SBC planning office circumstances and happenings demonstrating why CCTV cameras were required and the manner they were installed so as not to cause any inconvenience 'as far as practicable' to there neighbour that the installation does not need 'planning'. Additionally the information submitted by the planning officer supporting his Enforcement Notice is fundamentally flawed to such an extent as to make it unacceptable for the purpose it has been submitted and therefore the Enforcement Notice should be thrown out and considered invalid.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

Reporter’s Decision: Sustained

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Dan Jackman, concluded that when the particular circumstances of the case were considered, both cameras 1 and 2 comply with condition 3(c) of class 72. Therefore, both cameras are permitted development and the appeal under ground (c) succeeds as there is no breach of planning control.

4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING

4.1 There remained 7 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 18th June 2013. This relates to sites at:

x Blackburn, Grantshouse, Duns x Penmanshiel, Grantshouse x (Corsbie Moor), Westruther x Whitmuir Hall, Selkirk x Gilston Farm, Heriot x Thornbank, Broughton x Horn Burn Wind Farm x

5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED

5.1 Reference: 12/00943/FUL Proposal: Erection of Farmhouse Site: Land North West of Lynedale, West Linton Appellant: Jonathan James & Sharron Vass

Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st July 2013 4 Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy H8 of Consolidated Structure Plan 2001-2018 and Policy D2 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, in that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that there is a sufficient operational requirement for the business to require a dwelling house to ensure its efficient operation, that the business is sufficiently sustainable to support a permanent dwellinghouse and that there is no alternative accommodation or housing site available closeby, within the settlement boundary. 2. The proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policy G8 - Development outwith Development Boundaries in that the applicants have failed to provide an economic justification for the development, it would not offer any significant community benefits and it does not represent a logical extension of the built-up area.

5.2 Reference: 12/01546/PPP Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Land South West of Creag an Airidh, Venlaw, Edinburgh Road, Peebles Appellant: Mr and Mrs G Goldstraw

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The application is contrary to Policies H7 and H8 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2018, Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and the “New Housing in the Borders Countryside” SPG in that the site lies outwith the natural boundaries of the identified building group and the need for the house has not been adequately substantiated. 2. The application is contrary to Policies H7 and H8 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2018, Policies D2 and Inf3 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and the “New Housing in the Borders Countryside” SPG in that the site would represent an additional dwellinghouse above the Policy threshold set for dwellinghouses accessing off a private road outwith settlements, to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety.

5.3 Reference: 13/00003/PPP Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Land North West of Paddockmyre, Coldingham Appellant: Mr and Mrs J White

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would be contrary to Policies H7 and H8 of Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policy D2 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, in that the proposed development would not relate sympathetically to an existing building group in a manner which is compliant with development plan policies and New Housing in the Borders Countryside Guidance Note 2008 and that, while the proposed business requires a rural location, the proposal has failed to demonstrate that there is a sufficient operational requirement for the business to require a dwelling house to ensure its efficient operation and that the business is sufficiently sustainable to support a permanent dwellinghouse.

5.4 Reference: 13/00104/PPP Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Land South of Easter Lilliesleaf House, Back Road, Lilliesleaf Appellant: Mrs Carole Andrew

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy G8 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 in that the site lies outwith the Development Boundary at Lilliesleaf, with no suitable exceptional Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st July 2013 5 justification for development in this location. 2. The proposed housing development is contrary to Approved Structure Plan Policies H7 and H8; Adopted Local Plan Policy D2; and the advice of Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside (December 2008), in that the site lies outwith the Development Boundary, and the need for new dwellinghouses on this site has not been adequately substantiated in terms of the requirements of this policy and guidance. 3. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact upon road safety on Back Road, Lilliesleaf.

5.5 Reference: 13/00227/FUL Proposal: Two storey extension to dwellinghouse Site: 2 Crown Crescent, Earlston Appellant: Mr & Mrs Colin Elliot

Reason for Refusal: The proposed extension would fail to comply with Policy H2 of the Adopted Local Plan 2011 and with the advice of the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Householder Developments (July 2006), in that it would have unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of two surrounding residential properties, more specifically in terms of: (i) its impact upon the amount of daylight that would be available to ground floor rooms lit by windows on the rear elevation of the dwellinghouses at both No 1 and No 3 Crown Crescent, which in the case of the latter would contribute to a cumulative impact on daylighting in conjunction with the existing offshoot at No 4; and (ii) its impact upon the amenity of ground floor and first floor rooms lit by windows on the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse at No 3 Crown Crescent as a consequence of the overbearing relationship that would arise from the West Elevation of the proposed extension being realised in such close proximity to the boundary with No 3 Crown Crescent, particularly in respect to its contribution to a cumulative impact that would be produced in association with the existing two-storey rear offshoot at No 4 Crown Crescent, which it would essentially mirror in projection, height and proximity to the east of No 3.

6 REVIEWS DETERMINED

6.1 Reference: 12/01079/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind turbine 42m high to tip Site: Land South East of Swinton Quarter Farmhouse, Swinton, Duns Appellant: Mr Joel Prentice

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would be contrary to Policies D4 and G1of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and Policies N9, I19, I20 and I21 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 in that the proposed turbine would introduce and single dominant feature in the landscape breaching the sky line and resulting in a significant adverse impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area when viewed from key viewpoints.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld

6.2 Reference: 12/01374/FUL Proposal: Change of use to form garden ground Site: Land South of Hartshaugh Farmhouse, Hawick Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st July 2013 6 Appellant: T W & E Tennant & Sons

Conditions Imposed: Review against Condition 2 - Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing on site, a scheme will be submitted by the Developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site. No construction work shall commence until the scheme has been submitted to, and approved, by the Council, and is thereafter implemented in accordance with the scheme so approved. The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with the advice of relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination and must include:- a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model including (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c, d, and, e of this condition and thereafter b) Where required by the desk study, undertaking a detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of risk such contamination presents. c) Remedial Strategy (if required) to treat/remove contamination to ensure that the site is fit for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works, and proposed validation plan). d) Submission of a Validation Report (should remedial action be required) by the developer which will validate and verify the completion of works to a satisfaction of the Council. e) Submission, if necessary, of monitoring statements at periods to be agreed with the Council for such time period as is considered appropriate by the Council. Written confirmation from the Council, that the scheme has been implemented completed and (if appropriate), monitoring measures are satisfactorily in place, shall be required by the Developer before any development hereby approved commences. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Council. Reason: To ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and, ecological systems arising from any identified land contamination have been adequately addressed.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld

6.3 Reference: 12/01492/FUL Proposal: Erection of 2 no pigeon lofts, formation of access road and parking Site: Land South of 24 Lamberton Holding, Lamberton Appellant: Mr William Holland

Reasons for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to development plan policies N20, N12 (Structure Plan 2009) and D1, EP4, G1 and H2 (Consolidated Local Plan 2011) in that development of the site in this manner would break into a prominent, hillside field outwith the northern edge of the building group, promoting a poor form of development layout in relation to the group, and presenting a dominant addition to the local landscape. By virtue of size, prominence, and design the lofts are incompatible with the local landscape setting/visual environment. The Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st July 2013 7 proposed development would be detrimental to the established amenity of residential properties in the surrounding area.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld

6.4 Reference: 13/00245/PPP Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Land South West of Village Hall, Redpath Appellant: Mr Miles Browne

Review against non-determination of Application.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld (Terms of Refusal Varied)

7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING

7.1 There remained 3 reviews previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 18th June 2013. This relates to sites at:

x 1 Rutherford Mains Farm Cottages, x Bleachfield Road, Selkirk Kelso x Former Brydons Dairy, Galashiels x

Approved by

Brian Frater Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

Signature …………………………………..

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Wemyss Administrative Assistant 01835 824000 Ext 5409

Background Papers: None. Previous Minute Reference: None.

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

Contact us at Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Tel. No. 01835 825431 Fax No. 01835 825071 Email: [email protected]

Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st July 2013 8