SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
7 DECEMBER 2020
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 19/01454/FUL OFFICER: Mr Scott Shearer WARD: Mid Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Change of use of agricultural land to form holiday caravan and camping park with associated vehicular access roads, parking, landscaping, drainage infrastructure and public car charging points SITE: Land To South Of Dental Health Centre Kelso Road Coldstream APPLICANT: Mr Chris Gregg AGENT: Montgomery Forgan Associates
PLANNING PROCESSING AGREEMENT: This application has a Planning Processing Agreement which seeks determination at the Planning and Building Standards (P&BS) Committee on the 7th December 2020.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is known as the Hospital Field and it is located to the west of Coldstream on the southern side of the A698. The site is arable farm land which slopes gently towards the south west. A strip of trees have been planted down the western side of the site. A mature woodland encloses the southern boundary of the site with hedging and some areas of planting enclosing the northern, eastern and western boundaries. A residential property known as Greenloaning occupies ground directly to the east with a track down towards the River Tweed located to the west of the site. The town’s dentist and health centre lie on the opposite side of the A698.
The site does not fall within any designated landscape areas although The Hirsel Garden and Designed Landscape is located directly to the north. No sites of national ecological interest cover the land. The site is Prime Quality Agricultural Land (PQAL). A Scheduled Ancient Monument known as the Cottage Hospital, settlement lies within the south western corner of the site.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Planning permission is sought for the development of a caravan site and associated infrastructure which includes; 99 static caravans externally clad with a wood composite cladding (CanExel) coloured green, brown or beige. Each caravan will have an attached deck 14 berths for tourers 20 camping/glamping pitches Formation of a new access, internal roads 1 parking space is provided adjacent to each unit with two rows on visitor spaces close to the entrance Reception/Office building Small amenity block Play park Internal landscaping work
PLANNING HISTORY
There is no history of any planning applications being determined on the site.
The Hospital Field site was recently proposed for inclusion within the LDP2 as part of the ‘Call for Sites’. The site was not deemed to be suitable for residential development for a number of reasons which include the site being too remote from the well-defined Coldstream settlement boundary and the potential to adversely affect the Cottage Hospital Scheduled Monument.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
At the time of writing the following number of third party representations have been received; 165 comments of objection 156 comments of support 6 general comments
These comments are available in full on Public Access with the objection and support comments summarised below;
Grounds for objection; Adverse visual and landscape impacts, especially on western approach to Coldstream Not possible to adequately screen the development with planting/landscaping Other sites are better suited for the development i.e. Lennel Road and to north of town which are less visually conscious. Contrary to LDP Policies Local Plan advises against development to the west of Coldstream Inappropriate scale, design, mass and density which fails to integrate with rural character of surrounding area Loss of Prime Quality Agricultural Land Loss of trees and hedging. Inappropriate tree survey has been carried out Adversely affect wildlife and biodiversity Site is located outside of development boundary Light pollution Litter Smell The development will be adversely affected by noise from neighbouring traffic Overdevelopment which would increase current population of town from 1800 with a further 800 people Does not fit with town action plans which promoted a small camping or caravan development Road safety issues due to increased traffic Economic impacts are misleading Significant portions of expenditure brought by the development will take place out with Coldstream and the Scottish Borders Detrimental landscape and visual impacts are not outweighed by economic benefits Local infrastructure does not have capacity to service development. Sewage and waste would impact on town and River Tweed Increased burden on health centre Potential for accommodation to be used more permanently then intended holiday use, potentially as second homes Subletting could attract wrong clientele Visualisations are inaccurate. Fail to remove roadside hedging and during winter/spring proposed broadleaf planting will leave site more exposed that suggested. Adversely affect the residential amenity of Greenloaning. Proposals are not environmentally sustainable Adversely impact on a Scheduled Monument Over provision of facility in area
Grounds for support; Attract visitors to the town and expenditure which will support local business within the town and surrounding area Positive economic impact by directly creating permanent and seasonal time jobs at the development. Indirectly sustain existing jobs and provide opportunities for new jobs at businesses i.e. shops, restaurants, pubs etc. who will benefit from development Help reverse decline of town centre and regenerate the High Street There is a demand for tourist accommodation within the town and delivers an key objective of Coldstream Community Action Plan Additional accommodation may increase number of festivals and events held within and around the town Development compliments surrounding landscape Increase biodiversity at the site Site is strategically well positioned with good access to the town centre amenities and surrounding facilities i.e. The Hirsel Golf Course and Bowling Club Good design Holiday makers will require limited restrictions on their use of the development to maximise economic benefits
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Design and Access Statement Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Drainage Strategy Flood Risk Assessment Ecological Impact Assessment Tree Survey
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Scottish Borders Council Local Development Plan 2016
PMD2 Quality Standards for New Development PMD4 Development Out with Settlement Boundaries ED7 Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside ED8 Caravan and Camping Sites ED10 Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land and Carbon Rich Soils HD3 Protection of Residential Amenity EP1 International Conservation Sites and Protected Species EP2 National Nature Conservation Sites and Protected Species EP3 Local Biodiversity EP7 Listed Buildings EP8 Archaeology EP10 Gardens and Designed Landscapes EP13 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows EP15 Development Affecting the Water Environment IS7 Parking Provision and Standards IS8 Flooding IS9 Waste Water Treatments Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Waste Management 2015 Placemaking and Design 2010 Use of Timber in Sustainable Construction 2009 Trees and Development 2008 Landscape and Development 2008 Privacy and Sunlight Guide 2006 Biodiversity 2005 Local Biodiversity Action Plan: Biodiversity in the Scottish Borders 2001 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems 2020
Caravan Sites Act 1968
Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy (SBTS) 2013-2020
Scottish Borders Tourism Action Plan
Planning and Building Standards Committee Report for 18/01479/FUL dated 2nd September 2019
Circular 4/98 Use of Planning Conditions
Circular 3/2013: Development Management Procedures.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Archaeology Officer: 1st response 14 Nov 2019. Object. The Cottage Hospital, Scheduled Monument occupies the south west corner of the site. This comprises the buried remains of a likely late prehistoric enclosed settlement visible in aerial photos as cropmarks. The site has never been excavated and has been ploughed over for a number of years. There is another probable (undesignated) prehistoric settlement in the field to the north-west and there is a potential these are associated with one another. Recent discoveries archaeological discoveries nearby highlight the potential of the area to contain previously unknown archaeological deposits.
Identify key archaeological issues are; Adverse impacts on the Scheduled Monument Potential for encountering discrete features throughout the development site.
The development has been designed to be ‘light touch’ in and around the Scheduled Monument. Policy EP8 does not permit impacts to a Scheduled Monument unless the benefits of development clearly outweigh the value of the site. Insufficient information has been provided to determine the levels of impact. HES have not considered the impacts of creating reinforced grass, the post and wire fence, tree removal or the creation of a timber gate. All have potentially adverse impacts that may be objectionable.
Disagree with HES determination on setting as for the full year that the caravan park will impact views of the monument from the south, and interrupt views towards the undesignated settlement to the north which it is connected with. While monuments are cropmarks, it is still possible to appreciate and understand the relationship between the locations of the two sites. This relationship is perhaps not of nationally important impact, it is of regional importance and insufficient information has been provided which demonstrates that the development will offer regional benefits that clearly outweigh the detrimental impacts on its settings as required by EP8. A redesign of the proposals is encouraged. If consent is to be granted recommend conditions covering a WSI for archaeological works and the precise detail of the information board.
2nd response 14th May 2020. Object. Redesign has not addressed original archaeological issues. Additional trees are proposed which could hinder below ground archaeology and hinder the setting of the monument and its relationship with the monument to the north.
3rd response 17th Sept 2020. Object. Despite the modifications the proposal remains a high density caravan park. The revised plans may have lessened some impacts, but the density of the caravan park and its extent still detract from the setting of the monument. The high density of caravans would significantly hinder the understanding and appreciation of the pastoral prehistoric past even if it were to be interpreted.
Ecology Officer: No objection. The development is unlikely to have any significant direct or indirect effects on the River Tweed SAC/SSSI. Habitats in the site are of low ecological value.
In terms of protected species, the trees to the south of the site have not been surveyed for bats, although the habitat survey indicates that the woodland is immature and unlikely to contain trees with potential roost features. Lighting from the development may impact on bats and it would have be preferable if caravans to the south of the site were positioned 10m away from the southern boundary to limit bat disturbance. A range of widespread breeding birds was recorded during the breeding bird surveys. Mitigation will be required to protect breeding birds. Significant badger activity was recorded with their being a risk during construction works. No evidence of other species were recorded. The impacts on protected species and the River Tweed SAC/SSSI are recommended to be mitigated by planning conditions covering; Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) Species Protection Plan for badger and breeding birds Landscape and Habitat Management Plan which incorporates provision for native trees/small woodland creation, wildflower areas and buffer areas A lighting scheme for bats
Economic Development: No objection. The development fits with Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy 2013-2020 by increasing volume of overnight visitors, visitor spend and ensuring that the regions accommodation offerings meet demand and act as an attraction themselves. Welcome proposal which is viewed to be strategically well located at a major tourist crossing point between Scotland and England. This development will replace the previous caravan site Coldstream ceased operation in early 2000s due to lack of facilities and flooding issues.
Environmental Health: No objection. The model standards of the caravans should comply with requirements of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Recommend conditions should be attached to ensure; Appropriate mains drainage connections are made The site is served by a suitable water supply Noise limits are set to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties All plant and machinery are suitably maintained
All lighting installations should be designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Professionals. If necessary, suitable shuttering should be provided for each lamp to prevent unwanted light affecting the occupiers of properties off site.
Flood Risk and Coastal Management: No objection. The site is not shown to be at risk of flooding from a 1 in 200 year fluvial flood event. There is a small pluvial (surface water) flood risk on the SW corner. No camping sites are located within the area which is at risk of being affected by a 1 in 200 year event and confirms that the development poses no flood risk issues.
Forward Planning: No objection. Background context of the site is provided to confirm its unsuccessful inclusion within LDP2 for residential development.
Identify relevant planning policy consideration which the application should be assessed against. The principle of the proposed development is considered to broadly meet policy requirements for Development Out with Development Boundaries (PMD4), Business Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside (ED7) and Caravan and Camping (ED8) because the proposal is judged to be a job-generating development in the countryside with an economic justification. There are a number of constraints within and adjacent to the site, including the potential scale and prominence of this proposal within the wider landscape. Careful consideration will be required, as to whether this proposal is suitable for this site and specifically whether it meets the additional criteria contained within Policies PMD4, ED7 & ED8. Other consultation responses will feed into this assessment process.
Landscape Architect: 1st response 31st Jan 2020. Did not support. The site is located within a sensitive location in the landscape with high scenic value on approach from the west adjacent to the Hirsel and Lees Estate GDLs. The development risks adverse impact on the character and setting of the ‘gateway’ approach to Coldstream and adjacent GDLs. Broadly agree with applicant’s viewpoint (VP) assessment and effects being contained from most directions by landform and broad band of woodland. Do not agree with assessment of VP10 Kelso Road Layby. Sensitive receptors will be road users including local residents and tourists who will be visiting the area for its scenic qualities. The scale and density of the development will appear prominent and incongruous and bring the development out with the natural containment of the town afforded by woodland policies of the GDLs. The proposed mitigation strategy does not address detrimental landscape and visual effects. The photomontage information fails to include the trees and hedgerow along the northern boundary of the site which require removal to create visibility splays. Their removal could pose short and long term issues. Six detailed points are noted to address landscape and visual impacts which relate to; Increased woodland planting to link the development to the GDLs More organic and less dense layout Diverse range of planting which includes evergreens for winter colour and screening Suitable pallet of external caravan colours and balcony treatments Requirement for site planting to be carried out early Agreement of detailed landscape plan with tree survey identifying tree removal, retention and adequate protection for retained trees
A further 3 responses were provided from the landscape architect between 18/5/20 and 23/9/20 in response to submitted revised layouts, tree surveys and photomontages. Points raised as summarised below; Reduction in number of caravans, removal of caravans from high ground and breaking up of long rows improves layout. Caravans still located close to each other Orientation of caravans side-on increases their mass on approach to Coldstream Planting proposals do not adequately screen and contain development Tree surveys are inaccurate. Failed to demonstrate potential risk to tree resource, particularly planting to the south, north and north east corner and whether trees adjacent to the site can be protected. These planting areas provide important screening and amenity resources. Visualisations haven’t been properly adjusted to show tree removal and appear optimistic.
5th Response 5/11/20: Do not object, subject to conditions. Revisions demonstrate reduced number of caravans and a less rigid structure enabling additional tree planting to be incorporated in the site which includes 10m woodland planting to the north which extends along the west and eastern boundary. Development will remain prominent for a number of years, provided planting is successfully established it will provide filtered screening to the development and contribute to the visual amenity of the wider landscape (including setting on approach from the west), connecting with the wooded features of the adjacent GDL’s and the valley floor.
Following minor adjustments are recommended; Increase size of planting areas as per pervious layouts with some groups between caravans omitted. Improved planting at entrance required. The caravan at NE corner appears prominent and should be omitted or along with others in this row, micro-sited 1-2m to the S with road curved to reduce prominence and reduced impact on planting strip. Caravans to the south may require underbuilding and could experience reduced amenity due to shadow from tree belt. Micro-siting road and caravans (including decks) could address issues and alleviate pressure on important planting belt to S. Footpath to the W may be better positioned nearer service block which will help maximise screening. To aid visual amenity and landscape integration suitable plant species are noted, including species to provide winter screening and use of large structure trees within woodland belt to N encouraged.
Conditions are recommended to cover; hard and soft landscape details which includes signage and incorporates a 5 year defects liability period for planting, materials, colours of caravans and tree retention in accordance with BS5873:2012 and the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment.
Roads Planning Service: No objection. The site has direct access to the main road and pedestrian links to the town centre. The existing path is narrow in places due to overgrown vegetation, this will be sought to be removed. The applicant’s proposals to extend the 30mph limit of the public road are supported by the Councils Road Safety Team. The internal layout is not a road planning matter however confirm that ample parking is provided.
Recommend that planning conditions are attached to agree; Surface materials of all roads paths and parking spaces. Ensure a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is obtained to reduce the speed limit of the A698 at the site from 40mph to 30mph with the developer implementing required signage and lining. The engineering details of the new access (the extent of visibility splays required will be dependent on the outcome of the TRO).
Note that the developer will be required to meet the cost of the TRO and all works within the public road boundary would need to be completed by an approved contractor. Statutory Consultees
Coldstream and District Community Council: No objection. Acknowledge that there are strong observations within the town to both support and oppose the proposed development. Having taken all views in to account, the economic benefit to the town, and delivery of one of the town’s Community Action Plan aspirations, outweigh the disadvantages of developing this site into a caravan park.
Advise that since the caravan site at Tweed Green ceased operation there have been numerous efforts to find an alternative site with the need for this type of development promoted by local trusts and action plans for over 10 years. Acknowledge that the site is out with the development boundary however there are no other sites available to the north or east with the River Tweed limiting development to the south. Welcome planning conditions to seek suitable landscaping to screen the development to mitigate visual impacts and measures to mitigate ecological impacts.
Historic Environment Scotland (HES): No objection. The proposals would have direct and indirect impacts on the scheduled monument known as Cottage Hospital, settlement 250m SW of.
Acknowledge that the direct impacts which involve ground disturbance however previous works carried out at this site did not reveal any archaeological interests within the depth of ground which would be affected by this development. Confirm that SAM consent is required for the grass trackway and interpretation boards however pitching a tent will not require permission of HES.
The setting of the monument is characterised by this cliff-edge location and its relationship with the River and lands to the south. The use of the monument area itself for camping will alter its current setting, this impact is somewhat mitigated by its seasonal use and proposals for grass mowing to reflect the basic outline of the monument. The development around the monument will impact on its site however it will not disrupt its key relationship to the south.
The proposed development will have an impact on the monument and its setting but the impacts have been mitigated to a degree so it does not raise issues of national importance, conditions to protect the SAM during construction activities (including landscaping), agree suitable landscaping and the design and location of an interpretation board or the monument are required.
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA): No objection. Foul drainage is being discharged via the public sewer, Scottish Water can advise on this. The handling of surface water from the site should accord with SEPAs standing advice on SUDS. Advise that the applicant will be required to obtain authorisation is required under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR) for associated engineering works due to the proximity of the development to the River Tweed.
Scottish Water: No response received at the time of writing.
Visit Scotland: No response received at the time of writing.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The main determining issues are whether the proposal; represents a suitable and justified form of development out with the settlement boundary is of the highest quality and in keeping with the local environment provides safe vehicular and pedestrian access is free from flood risk does not have a detrimental impact on local infrastructure does not detract from the residential amenity of surrounding area results in the detrimental loss of Prime Quality Agricultural land has any detrimental impact on archaeology not outweighed by perceived benefits
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Planning policy
The application site is located out with the settlement boundary for Coldstream. The initial principle of the development must be assessed against Policy PMD4: Development out with Development Boundaries. This policy seeks to ensure that most development is located within defined development boundaries unless the proposal qualifies as one of the four exceptional forms of development, listed a) to d) which may take place outside of settlements.
The proposed development is judge to satisfy criteria a) policy PMD4 in that the proposal is a;
It is a job-generating development in the countryside that has an economic justification under Policy ED7.
Policy PMD4 then list four other criteria which consider whether the development; a) Represents a logical extension to the built up area b) Is an appropriate scale in relation to the size of the settlement c) Does not prejudice the character, visual cohesion or natural built up edge to the settlement, and d) Does not cause a significant adverse effect on the landscape setting of the settlement or the natural heritage of the surrounding area.
The site is sufficiently distant from the main settlement boundary that it wouldn’t conflict with criterion a). The site is also directly opposite the town’s health and dental centres which fall within an outlying area of development boundary designated by the LDP which fall outside of the town’s main boundary. Whilst the development is a significant scale, the size of the site is not necessarily out of keeping with a town the size of Coldstream, as stipulated in criterion b). The western edge of the main development boundary is also enclosed by a defined woodland belt, thus the development does not encroach on this natural edge of the town as required in criteria c). This point and criterion d) are matters which will be considered in relevant landscape and visual sections of this report.
In terms of Policy ED7 this development seeks to allow for specific appropriate employment generating development to take place in the countryside. This proposed development is judged to satisfy qualifying criterion b) of Policy ED7 in that this is a tourism development which is often found in rural parts of the Scottish Borders. Economic Development Officers (EDO) have also confirmed that the development complies with the Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy and Action Plan. Given that this is a new business it has been supported by a business plan. The Councils Economic Development team has no fundamental issues following their consideration of the submitted business plan. This suggests that the proposals are a form of tourism development which meets the main aspirations of Policy ED7. Against ED7 the development must also satisfy a range of environmental, amenity and access considerations.
Criteria c) of Policy ED7 seeks that where new business proposals come forward, a sequential test should be provided to consider whether other appropriate sites are available. The applicants have considered an alternative site to the north of Coldstream on Duns Road but this was discounted on access grounds due to the width of the public road.
The accommodation proposed meets the definition of a caravan as set out in section 13 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968; composed of no more than two sections and assembled on site using bolts, clamps or other devices physically capable of being transported by being towed or on a vehicle or trailer no longer than 60 feet (18.3m) no wider than 20 feet (6.1m) no higher than 10 feet (3m)
Clarification that the proposed accommodation is classed as caravans under the 1968 Act is important as this confirms that the development shall be determined principally against Policy ED8: Caravan and Camping Sites of the LDP. This is a new caravan development so it must be considered against Section (A) which seeks to support new caravan and camping developments that are in environmentally acceptable locations and fit with wider tourism, economic and regeneration objectives.
The applicants currently operate Blackadder Holiday Park in Greenlaw. Their development of a new caravan site in Coldstream will provide the following benefits; Secure existing jobs and facilitate new jobs both directly at the development and indirectly at other businesses and facilities which will benefit from this development, including businesses in the local area. Updated economic figures suggest that once the development is fully operational it will provide a positive annual economic impact of £1.3million which is the full time equivalent of 30 jobs created and sustained in the Scottish Borders. The development will positively impact on existing amenities within Coldstream and the surrounding area. The development responds to local aspirations for a new holiday park as promoted within the Coldstream Community Action Plan to replace the site at Tweed Green which closed in early 2000s as a result of flooding issues.
Objectors have questioned the accuracy of the financial projections, however the Councils EDO have not raised any issues with the figures presented. The business merits of the proposal and its compliance with the SBTS provide broad justification under planning policy that this is a viable form of development which would attract visitors to the area.
Policy ED8 does require that new caravan and camping developments must occupy locations which can support the local economy. Locations within or immediately out with development boundaries are considered to help support local shops and services and are favoured over remote countryside locations. The site does occupy a rural location but Coldstream is close to the site and is a settlement where a range of amenities which include shops, restaurants, bars, cafes museum, golf course, leisure centre are available. Whilst not adjoining the settlement boundary, it is considered to be so close as to qualify as being “immediately out with” as required in Policy ED8. Furthermore, the preamble to Policy ED8 states, in para 1.2, that such sites can complement town regeneration if within or “close to” towns. The site’s access is located approximately 500m from the main development boundary with the amenities on the High Street a further 400m away. A public footpath along the A698 directly links the site to the town. It is also pertinent to note that the town’s health and dental centres have been developed outside the town’s main development boundary which has established a connection with people already travelling to this location to and from the town.
The development does not include a shop, restaurant or bar. It is the applicant’s intention that tourists will use the amenities available within Coldstream and the surrounding area. Policy ED8 does not specify any distance to which a caravan and camping development should be located from a settlement boundary but in this case the site benefits from good vehicular and pedestrian connections to Coldstream allowing amenities in the town to be accessible. The proposed development is therefore considered to occupy a location which can readily support the local economy within Coldstream and fits with fits with the Councils tourism objectives as required by Policy ED8.
Criteria a) – c) of this Policy requires that new caravan and camping development must be of a high quality and be in keeping with their local environment and not result in adverse environmental impacts, have a suitable impact on infrastructure and be free from flood risk. These impacts are considered in detail in the relevant sections below in this report.
It is acknowledged that the Settlement Profile for Coldstream in the current LDP advises against development taking place to the west of the existing town. Such placemaking and design considerations are provided in the LDP to more commonly guide residential development. Clearly this application seeks consent for a different land use and it is therefore more appropriate that this proposal is considered against relevant LDP Policy provision covering caravan and camping proposals, outside of development boundaries which have in been considered above.
Prime Quality Agricultural Land (PQAL)
The application site is designated in the LDP as being PQAL. PQAL is a valuable and finite resource and Policy ED10 of the LDP seeks to resist development which cause its permanent loss.
The construction of the caravans including decked areas and access tracks may have a physical impact on the PQAL, however the physical works associated with the proposed development would not significantly disturb the ground in a manner which would remove its PQAL potential. If the development were to cease operation, the caravans and decks could be easily removed to enable the site to return to its original agricultural use. It could also be contended that the loss of the agricultural land has been justified to meet a need for an alternative use that has been unable to find other sites within or around the town. The development is therefore not considered to contravene the requirements of Policy ED10 which seek to guard against the permanent loss of PQAL.
Design and Layout Layout
Since pre-application discussions, the number of caravans proposed has been reduced and the layout has evolved. The pre-app proposal is illustrated in Document 1 of the Design and Access Statement. This proposal sought; 162 static caravans 10 camping pitches 10 touring pitches
This layout was not considered appropriate for the following reasons: the density of the development was too high on the rural edge of the town the layout appeared rigid and did not respond to the site’s topography and failed to provide a sense of place proposals included the siting of a number of caravans on high ground within the site which would be exposed to external views, particularly from the west the layout is required to be broken up with an internal planting framework needed to provide a more suitable context of the development and help to screen and filter external views the caravans were sited close together and may not provide for good amenity of users
The original layout within this application reduced the number of static caravans to 126 but this density was judged to represent an overdevelopment of the site. This layout included long unbroken rows of caravans, insufficient planting and poorly sited maintenance areas which resulted in a proposal which adversely affected the visual amenities of the surrounding area. This layout did not address the concerns listed above.
Following reductions, the current proposals now seek consent for 99 statics, 20 camping pitches and 14 touring spaces. While the number of touring and camping spaces has been increased the number of permanent static caravans has been meaningfully reduced. The removal of 63 caravans since pre-app has improved the density of the development with a more organic layout which appears a better fit within the site. More space is available within the site to achieve a better landscape framework which helps to break up the development and remove the long continuous rows of caravans shown in the earlier proposals. Once the proposed planting has established it will enhance the sense of place by helping to integrate the site with the character of the surrounding area.
Caravan and building design
The caravans proposed are of a standard design set on a narrow plan with a pitched roof. Their scale is limited by the size requirements stipulated by section 13 of the 1968 Act. Attempts were made by Officers to establish if different caravan styles or designs would be available throughout the proposals to add greater variety to the development.
The applicants subsequently provided an image board with typical caravan types which does show some variety in fenestration and deck arrangements. Whilst such details would add some interest, it would have been preferable if greater design variations were possible. It would appear that the range of designs of static caravans are limited when compared to holiday lodges which seem to offer wider possibilities for variation of their external appearances. The scale, design and materials of the proposed caravans are similar to those which are located within other caravan sites in the Borders. These structures would therefore not appear uncommon within the Scottish Borders and more specifically Berwickshire where there are other existing caravan sites. To ensure that these structures can integrate with the surrounding area it will be imperative that the external colour finishes of the caravans are suitable. The use of lighter colours which are seen at some of our older caravan sites should be avoided as these would be unsympathetic to the site’s positioning on the rural edge of Coldstream. Instead there would be a preference for the use of sensitive greens, browns and possibly dark grey tones for the walls and dark grey roofs. These shades would appear more suitable for this rural site helping to diminish the prominence of the caravans, especially once the landscape framework becomes established.
The reception/office and amenity block are also of a simple design. The reception/office building will be at the arrival point and its design and timber wall finishes do set it apart and provide variety from all other caravan type structures in the site.
The landscape and visual impact of the development will determine the suitability of the proposals and if Members are minded to approve the proposals it is recommended that agreement of a palette of materials and colour finishes for all buildings is recommended to suitably control the building appearance and ensure that the external finishes are sympathetic to the character of the rural area.
Landscape and Visual Impact
The development is required to be assessed against relevant landscape and visual amenity requirements of Policies ED8 and PMD2, ensuring successful integration into their local environment. The boundaries of the site are enclosed by a combination of hedges and woodland belts. Policy EP13 seeks to ensure that woodland resources are not lost where they contribute positively to the amenity of the area.
The site is not located in any designated landscape areas under the LDP. Despite this, the site occupies a sensitive location which has a high scenic value on the western fringe of the town. The arable field is seen on approach from the west where it rises up with the neighbouring woodland enclosures of the Hirsel GDL and Lees Designated Landscape. These natural resources act as a visual ‘gateway’ to the town.
The application was accompanied by an LVIA which assessed the impact of the development from a series of important viewpoints (VP) from surrounding public areas. Due to the intervening landscape which includes woodland belts and topographical changes the proposed development is generally screened from views from the south, east and north. The Landscape Architect advised general agreement with the conclusions of the LVIA from these locations, however concerns were raised about the visual impact of the proposal from VP10 which represents views on approach from the west on the A698.
When considering the impacts from the west, it should be noted that VP10 is close to the site from the layby which is located in a slight dip in the road. Moving slightly further west as the road rises the viewer can more fully experience the ‘gateway’ effect while having fuller views of the site. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the photomontages however Members will be aware that this information is for illustrative purposes and may not be an exact representation of the appearance of the development. The density and positioning of caravans on rising land appears incongruous within the attractive rural landscape setting for some 500m on approach to Coldstream on the A689. This view would be experienced regularly by residents or tourists, many of whom would be attracted to the area because of its scenic quality. The proposed planting was not judged to provide sufficient screening and insufficient information was provided to establish if the development would be able to protect and retain important hedging and tree planting. This assessment led officers to raise concerns about the impact of the proposals on the landscape and character of the surrounding area.
Subsequently a number of revised layouts, supporting visual information and arboricultural information have been received to address the landscape and visual concerns including tree and hedge impacts. While each revision resulted in an improvement on comparison to the original layout, the proposals remained to conflict with the visual amenities of the surrounding rural area as expressed by the Landscape Architect in their consultation responses.
The latest proposals have taken a number of positive steps with the changes described in the section above. When compared with the proposals presented to officers at Pre- app stage a total of 63 static caravans have been removed from the site layout but this has seen a slight increase in the number of camping and tourer pitches. This has enabled the following changes to the layout to be made which will be noticeable from the west and also when close to the site and leaving Coldstream; Removal of caravans from higher ground to ensure the development is not as visually prominent with Greenloaning now remaining the dominant building on approach. The re-orientation of some caravans so that their narrow ends face west towards the viewer on the A898 helps to reduce their mass. The reduction in the number of caravans provides more space for larger planting belts to the north, east and west to help screen and contain the development. Increased pockets of planting are provided throughout the site which breaks down density of the development into smaller clusters of caravans. This planting also helps to filter external views. The development is positioned further away from existing tree and hedge cover to allow for the recommendations of the Tree Protection Plan to be implemented during development works and secure their future retention to help screen the proposals.
The ability to sensitively accommodate this development within the surrounding landscape rests with the establishment of a suitable landscape framework to mitigate its visual impact. Clearly planting will take time to become established within the site. However it is now the view of the Landscape Architect that provided suitable species are selected and the planting is carefully managed, in time, the proposed development will be sufficiently screened so that it will not detract from the character of the wider landscape and can integrate with the wooded features of the adjacent GDL and Lees landscapes. On providing this recommendation a number of detailed points are noted to further mitigate the visual impact of the development and alleviate its impact on the adjacent tree resource. These points relate to; Increase size of some planting areas as per previous layouts. Reduce the prominence of the caravan at the NE corner. Proximity of caravans and their decks along the south, close to tree belt may lead residents to seek for trees to be removed due to loss of amenity caused by shadow cast. the footpath to the W may be better positioned nearer service block which will help maximise screening. Agreement of suitable planting species is still required which include structure trees to provide immediate filtered screening, create mature canopies and species to aid winter screening.
Importantly there is capacity within the site to satisfy these requirements. These detailed points could be addressed by planning conditions which can include micro- siting the row of caravans in the north east corner towards lower ground and those along the south further within the site to address this point without compromising the overall layout.
The development will also require lighting so users can navigate the development in hours of darkness. There will be some lighting provided at night from Greenloaning and the adjacent health and dental centres. This development will increase lighting impact in the area, however this is not a completely dark sky area and is close to an urban area where there are considerable levels of lighting. Nevertheless the lighting from the development should seek to limit the visibility in the rural night sky. The precise details of the lighting specification can be agreed via a suspensive condition which seeks to agree a lighting management strategy.
It is clear that the application site is particularly sensitive in landscape and visual terms and given the scale of the proposed development a cautious approach is necessary to guard against any prospect of an incongruous form of development which would erode the special character of the western fringes of Coldstream. The latest revisions have provided a scale of development which can more suitably be accommodated within the application site and has demonstrated that this layout can be achieved without causing the loss of existing boundary planting identified for retention which plays an important role in assimilating the site into its surroundings. Due to the lack of landscaping within the site, the development will be visible for some time and during this period the visual impact of the development may well appear harmful. However, once the landscape framework becomes sufficiently established, views of the caravans will begin to diminish with site planting screening and filtering views of the development. At this point from the A698 the development will appear within a woodland environment which will enable the proposal to integrate more suitably with the rural approach to Coldstream.
Subject to the imposition of planning conditions to ensure that existing planting is retained, high specification soft landscaping framework (including defects period) is agreed, micro-siting of caravans, phasing, building colours and lighting management, it is contended that, on balance, the site can be developed over time in a sensitive manner which will not adversely affect the character and visual amenities of the surrounding area including Coldstream’s landscape setting. Relevant parts of Local Development Plan Policies PMD2, ED8 and EP13 are judged to be satisfied by the proposals.
Access and parking
Policy PMD2 requires safe access to be achieved. The suitability of the access will be one of the issues to consider if the site can support this form of caravan and camping development against Policy ED8. These polices are also supported by Policy IS7 which covers parking. The principal access concerns raised by this development are road safety issues created by a projected increase in traffic movements on the public road as well as the ability to access the development by sustainable means of transport. The site is positioned so that it is directly accessible from the A698. The Roads Planning Service (RPS) have not raised any issues about the capacity of the road network to support additional traffic movements as a result of the pressure from this proposal.
Footways on the A698 provide pedestrian connections from the development to Coldstream to enable users of the development to have easy access to the facilities and amenities available within the town, including local bus routes. The width of the existing footways are restricted in places by overgrown vegetation however this can be easily resolved by cutting back vegetation and ensuring this is adequately maintained thereafter. This matter can be covered as part of the site’s landscaping conditions.
The site’s access is located on a section of the A698 where the speed limit of the road is 60mph. understandably, this could pose issues for traffic on this road with vehicles entering and exiting the site. The town’s 30mph zone has recently been reduced to 20mph as part of the experimental Spaces for People trial programme. The zone is located approximately 100m to the west of the site at the health and dental centre. The applicants have suggested that the zone should be extended to include this development. The process for seeking to change the speed of a road is through a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which is determined by the Council’s Road Safety Team and falls out with the scope of planning control. RPS have liaised with our Road Safety Team and reported that they would prefer a reduction to 40mph buffer where the access is located with a slight alteration to the then 30mph limit to move it closer to the town.
A TRO is yet to be progressed and whether the speed of this section of the A698 could be reduced hinges on the outcome of this planning application. Although the final speed limit is not yet known, the impact of the development on road safety is a material consideration for this proposal. It is clear that the applicants are committed to reduce the speed of the road and the Councils Road Safety Team are reported to be supportive of this in principle. Importantly, Roads Planning have not opposed the development on road safety grounds albeit precise engineering details of the sites access remain to be agreed. The applicants have submitted details showing a junction access design with splays to serve the site entrance onto the A698 road if its speed was 30mph. Ultimately the decision of a TRO will determine the speed of the road and this process will inform the detailed design of the site access to ensure it provides safe access on to the A698. If Members are minded to approve this development it would not be possible to attach a condition which requires the agreement of a TRO as this is covered by a different legislative process. However a condition requiring the agreement of the detailed design of the new access on to the public road will be necessary with a related informative directing the developers to progress a TRO and its outcome will inform their final access requirements.
Turning to the internal layout of the site, this is not a roads planning matter, however the RPS have confirmed that the development provides appropriate parking levels to serve the accommodation which is proposed.
The proposed development is not considered to adversely affect road or pedestrian safety and will comply with relevant provisions of policies PMD2, ED8 and IS7 provided a combination of suspensive conditions and informatives are attached to agree the following forms of mitigation; a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is obtained to reduce the speed limit of the A698 at the site with the developer implementing required signage and lining. The engineering details of the new access (the extent of visibility splays required will be dependent on the outcome of the TRO). Surface materials of all roads paths and parking spaces.
Residential Amenity
The residential property of Greenloaning sits directly to the east on ground which overlooks the application site. Initially, it was felt that the original layout (which placed caravans near this property and play park directly to the southwest of the dwelling) would adversely affect its amenity. The revised proposals have now re-located the play park so that it is near the site entrance. The caravans which occupied a similar ground level to Greenloaning have been removed with a robust planting belt now proposed along the eastern side of the site to enhance the existing planting along this boundary.
Caravans are still located in the south eastern corner of the site, however they are at a much lower ground level than Greenloaning. Moving caravans and the play area away from this neighbour along with the provision of a woodland buffer helps to reduce the impacts of the proposal on the visual amenity of Greenloaning. This planting will need to be implemented early to help limit the impact on the neighbouring property as soon as possible. Environmental Health Officers have recommended that a planning condition can be attached to ensure that noise remains contained within appropriate levels depending on the time of day. Recommendations of the appropriate maintenance and servicing of plant and machinery used at the site to guard against the equipment causing a noise nuisance would be better served as an informative.
The change from the site being an agricultural field to a caravan park will undoubtedly impact on the amenity of Greenloaning. However the revised layout accompanied with the provision of a enhance woodland buffer and planning condition to control noise levels determines that the development does not adversely detract from the residential amenity of Greenloaning to levels which would contravene Policy HD3 of the LDP. Early implementation of the mitigating planting can be secured by planning condition.
Subject to the attachment of the required noise condition, this proposed development would not appear to impact on the residential amenity of any other neighbouring properties.
Impact on other surrounding uses
The towns dental and health centres are located to the north of the site. Provided that a suitable woodland buffer is provided along the north of the application site and safe vehicular access arrangements are in place, this proposal is not judged to pose any impacts which would make this development incompatible with these neighbouring uses. Planning conditions covering landscaping and access as referenced in the relevant sections of this report can adequately address these matters.
Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
Impact on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
Policy EP7 seeks to preserve protect and enhance the setting of Listed Buildings. Policy EP9 requires that developments within or adjacent to a Conservation Area are designed to preserve their special architectural or historic character.
There are no listed buildings which are located near to the application site. This proposal is therefore not considered to impact any listed buildings or their settings. The development is too far detached from the Coldstream conservation area to impact on its setting.
The proposed development therefore complies with Policy EP7 and EP9 of the LDP.
Impact on Archaeology
Policy EP8 aims to protect Scheduled Monuments and any other archaeological assets from potentially damaging forms of developments. When development is approved which would affect known or suspected archaeological assets the Council require that development is carried out in accordance with an approved strategy designed to minimise the impact upon the asset. The necessary mitigation will be influenced by the archaeological value of the site in national, regional or local terms which the development would impact.
The application area contains a Scheduled Monument (SM): a settlement 250m south west of the former Cottage Hospital. This is located in the south western corner of the site. The monument is a later prehistoric settlement enclosed and defined by two large ditches which enclose a semi-circular area. No remains are visible above ground although cropmarks define below ground remains. HES advises that “The setting of the monument is characterised by this cliff-edge location and its relationship with the River and lands to the south.”
HES and the Councils Archaeologist have provided specialist advice on the impact on the SM, both reaching different conclusions about the acceptability of the impacts. Consideration of the impacts are spilt into direct and indirect impacts below.
Direct Impacts
The installation of reinforced grass trackways which will provide access to the SM along with an interpretation board of the SM (which is proposed as a form of archaeological mitigation) will directly impact on the SM. Archaeological investigation works were carried out before the application was submitted. These works suggested that the physical works within the SM would not be of a depth which would encounter any archaeology. This suggests that buried archaeology would in fact be preserved in situ, which aligns with the requirements of EP8 as the proposal would not destroy or affect the fabric of the SM.
The Councils Archaeologist has correctly identified that HES have not considered the proposed post and wire fencing and adjacent tree planting which could also have a direct impact on archaeology of the SM. These are however issues for HES who have recently granted Scheduled Monument Consent for the works proposed within the SM. This consent is separate from the planning process, nevertheless it has been issued by HES who are the governing body regarding the management of SM’s, subject to conditions which seek to ensure that;
1. A barrier is installed around the SM when construction works are taking pace to avoid damage. 2. The precise details of the interpretation board are agreed.
HES also recommended such conditions should be attached to any planning consent. Although the Councils Archaeologist and HES do not necessarily agree on points of detail about the direct impacts, the Councils Archaeologist does not object on grounds of direct impacts. Members should be aware that part of the strip of young trees which were planted along the western part of the site are within the boundaries of the SM. Planting trees in this location should have obtained consent from HES and these trees are to be removed.
Indirect Impacts Paragraph 1.7 of EP8 states that “Setting is considered to be important to the way in which historic structures or places are understood, appreciated and experienced”.
The revised proposals have reduced the number of caravans, however this remains a dense development and due to its location for landscape reasons its visual impact requires planting to help screen the caravans. From an archaeological perspective this planting would interrupt views from the SM and as a consequence impact on its setting. In particular it is the introduction of these works around the SM which the Council’s archaeologist has correctly identified would adversely affect its relationship with “another probable prehistoric settlement in the field to the north-west and there is a potential these are associated with one another.” Because this other monument is not scheduled, it is not a matter which HES provide any advice on.
HES consider that “The main focus of the setting of the monument is its relationship with the Tweed to the south. While development around to the north and east will have an obvious impact on the site, it will not disrupt this key relationship.”
Undoubtedly, the development will impact on the setting of the SM and it is unfortunate that it will erode relationship with another archaeological site. A SM is a site of national archaeological significance where HES are a statutory consultee. Ultimately it is their opinion that the development does not affect the principal setting of the SM. While HES observations of the impacts of the development do not align with the views of the Council’s archaeologist given that HES do not suggest the impacts of the development on this SM will not raise issues of national importance, it is recommended that the development does not contravene the requirements of Criteria (A) of Policy EP8 which covers National Archaeological Sites. In the overall planning balance in assessing this Policy, it should also be noted that the economic benefits of the proposal and the lack of appropriate alternative sites carry some weight and meet one of the criteria.
If Members are minded to support this application it is recommended that planning conditions will be required to mitigate the direct impacts of the development on the SM. A WSI covering a further programme of archaeological investigation to ensure that any archaeological resources encountered during the development works are appropriately recorded, is recommended.
Impact on Gardens and Designed Landscapes
The site is located directly to the south of The Hirsel Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL). Policy EP10 aims to safeguard and enhance GDLs. The Lees Designed Landscape is located directly to the east of the site. This is an SBC designation which does not benefit from statutory protection under EP10. The impact on is setting is considered as part of the wider landscape assessment above.
The proposed development poses no physical impacts which would cause any direct harm or loss of the GDL. The development will impact on its setting, particularly for receptors on approach from the west. The development of the towns dental and health centres have previously occurred within the GDL. The site sits on land which generally slopes away from the GDL. The Landscape Architect originally raised concerns that the prominence and density of the original layout would detract from the setting of the GDLs. However the reduction in the density of the development and removal of caravans from high ground coupled with enhanced planting belt around the edges of site has addressed concerns about the impacts on the GDL. The precise design and species of the new planted areas requires further agreement, along with the agreement of caravan materials and colours. Final agreement of these detailed matters can ensure that once the planting becomes suitably established it will not detract from the setting of the GDL and should be able to integrate with the wooded features when visible on approach from the west. HES have not raised any concerns about the impact of the development on the setting of the GDL and provided suitable soft landscaping details and caravan colours are agreed, the proposals are not judged to adversely impact on the special character of the Hirsel GDL and satisfies the requirements of Policy EP10.
Flooding
Policy ED8 explicitly requires that new caravan sites are developed in locations which are free from flood risk. Discouragement of the development on locations which may be subject to flood risk is re-affirmed in the LDP Policy which covers Flooding, Policy IS8.
The site is not within an area which is identified by SEPAs national flood map at risk of fluvial flooding. A small portion of the site, to its south west corner (within the Cottage Hospital SAM) falls within an area at risk of surface water flooding. No caravans or camping pitches are positioned within this area therefore the Councils Flood and Coastal Management Officers who provide specialist advice on flooding along with SEPA are satisfied that this development poses no flood risk concerns. The proposed development complies with flood risk criteria contained within Policies ED8 and IS8.
Ecology
Policies EP1 to EP3 seek to protect sites and species afforded international and national protection from adverse forms of development and also aim to safeguard and enhance local biodiversity. The proposed development has been supported by an Ecological Impact Assessment (ECOS Countryside Services LLP, 8th October 2019).
The application site is not located within any international or nationally protected ecological sites. The River Tweed SAC/SSSI lies between 85m and 170m to the south of the site. Matters concerning site drainage and construction works could impact on the qualifying interests of these designations. The development seeks to discharge foul water to existing mains and surface water drainage to soakaways. Neither of these proposals pose any ecological concerns. This is a large development however its construction works are not as significant in comparison to those associated with, for example, a large housing development. Therefore the risk of this development affecting the SAC and SSSI are less. Nevertheless a standard planning condition is recommended to agree a Construction Environmental Management Plan which will ensure that site activities avoid any risk of pollution to the SAC and SSSI. SEPA will separately regulate this process via a CAR licences covering construction activities.
The site does provide for some protected species which include badgers and various breeding birds. The construction works could impact on the habitats for these species however these impacts can be mitigated via the agreement of a species protection plan as advised by the Council’s Ecologist. The boundary features of the site are considered to have the potential to support bats. A bat survey was undertaken which found that the trees surveyed had a low prospect of supporting bat roosts. The trees on the eastern boundary were omitted from the survey. While it is not clear why they weren’t included, information in the habitat survey indicated that this area of woodland is immature, therefore it is unlikely to contain trees with potential roost features. No further bat surveys were required by our Ecologist however lighting from the development could impact on bat foraging. The development is supported by lighting proposals. All lighting should be of a specification which does not adversely affect bats and accords with good practice. Agreement of a suitable lighting scheme which mitigates its impacts on bats can be agreed by planning condition.
The proposal seeks to protect habitats and the boundary features of the site. Habitat enhancement is proposed with the planting of native tree species and creation of a wildflower area, consistent with the aims of Policy EP3. There is potential for further enhancement with additional buffer areas along with retained boundaries and a suitable scheme of proposals agreed by a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan condition.
There is always the potential for development works to impact on ecological assets however in the case of this development both SEPA and the Councils Ecologist are satisfied that these impacts can be adequately mitigated through a series of suspensive planning conditions to control; CEMP, species protection plans, landscape and habitat management plans and a bat sensitive lighting scheme. Subject to the agreement of these conditional matters the proposed development is consider to comply with Policies EP1 to EP3 of the LDP.
Infrastructure
Policy IS9 seeks to ensure that developments adequately deal with waste water. This development will connect to the public mains. There are no apparent capacity issues in the system which currently serves this development and planning conditions are recommended to ensure that appropriate connections are made before the development becomes operational.
Regarding water supply, connections are to be provided from the public network. No response has been received from Scottish Water about the suitability of these proposals. Planning conditions can ensure that adequate water supply can be provided which does not adversely affect others and suitable connections are made before the site becomes operational.
Surface water drainage is to be handled by localised surface water soakaways which include swales within the site and stone soakaways at each caravan and adjacent to the internal access road. These proposals are SUDS compliant and meet surface water requirements of Policy IS9. The Councils Flood advisors have not raise any concerns that these methods would pose flooding issues.
Occupancy
The development is to be used to provide holiday accommodation. It is normal practice to seek to control occupancy by planning condition.
The majority of the caravans are available for sale. Para 1.3 of the Economic Impact Analysis - Talk Associates (August 2019) confirms that it is the intention that the caravans can welcome guests throughout the year with the camping and touring pitches operating from April to October.
During the processing of the application Officers have discussed the need to control the occupation of the accommodation with the Agent and Applicant to ensure that the development is being used for holiday purposes only. Parties agree that there is a need for a planning condition to be imposed to regulate the occupation of the development however an agreement on the terms of the occupation have not been agreed.
Historically a number of caravan and other holiday parks within the Scottish Borders operate with planning conditions which enable them to operate for 11 months of the year with a 1 month shut down. This closure was deemed necessary to ensure that owners/occupiers do not stay at the holiday park on a permanent basis. These conditions do raise the following issues; 1. A holiday maker could stay for very long periods (conceivably up to 11 months) which provides a strong degree of permanency not appropriate for a holiday use. 2. It did not enable the accommodation or facility to provide year round accommodation which is important in the current market as people are now less tied to traditional holiday periods and are seeking to take holiday breaks throughout the year.
In light of the above, the Council are now seeking to attach planning conditions to proposed holiday developments which allow the park/accommodation to be open all year round but place a limit on how often an individual can use the accommodation. Members will be familiar with this restriction which limits occupation of the accommodation to no more than 4 weeks in any 13 week period.
Having raised the prospect of attaching this type of condition with the applicants, the applicants advised that such a restriction would significantly hinder the viability of the development. The applicants have provided an Executive Summary of Holiday Occupancy Conditions Considerations (4th Sept 2020) which sets out their position, the following points are noted; Caravan purchasers are often semi-retired or retired people who wish to have flexible holiday options The local economy will benefit from year round visitors The applicants existing holiday park in Greenlaw operates successfully without a time period occupancy restriction. The development would be placed at a disadvantage with other holiday parks including within parks in the Scottish Borders which allowing tourists to stay for longer or more re-occurring periods. A recent decision of 19/00174/FUL at Riverside Caravan Park in Hawick modified occupancy conditions but did not restrict the duration of time a holiday maker was permitted to stay. Imposing an arbitrary and unreasonable occupancy period to this site would not meet the 6 tests of Planning Circular 4/1998 - The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. All holiday makers who use the development will be required to have a permanent address with a register kept for inspection by SBC. Anyone using their accommodation permanently would be in breach of the terms of their Purchase Agreement.
Instead the applicants proposed that occupancy should be regulated by the same two conditions which was imposed on consent 19/00174/FUL; 1. The static and touring caravans sited within the site shall be occupied for holiday use only, by holiday makers for leisure purposes, and shall not be used as a person’s sole or main residence. Reason: The accommodation is not designed for permanent occupying and permanent residential use would be contrary to development plan policies.
2. The owners/operators of the application site shall maintain an up to date register of the names of all owners and occupiers of individual caravans (static and touring) on the site, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the Planning Authority. Reason: The accommodation on site is not designed for permanent residential occupation
Members will be aware that each planning application must be considered on its own merits. In light of the applicants observations noted above it is important to understand the context of the conditions imposed on the Riverside Holiday Park in Hawick. The original planning conditions only required the holiday park to close each year for the month of February. While 19/00174/FUL has permitted the year round use of the site, previously the site was able to be used for 11 months of the year anyway, therefore the degree of change is not considered significant.
Similarly it is appropriate to consider a Reporter’s findings on an appeal for a new holiday lodge development at Whitmuir Hall near Selkirk (application ref; 14/00848/FUL). On granting consent the Reporter found that a condition which allowed holiday makers to stay for up to 3 months in a 12 month period was commensurate for holiday accommodation. It is understood that the accommodation at Whitmuir Hall would not be sold to individuals however the determination of the period of time which is suitable for holiday purposes is relevant in this case.
Officers are supportive of this development being operational all year round and to ensure that prospective users of the accommodation have sufficient flexibility when they can use the development to ensure that economic benefits are realised. Nevertheless, this has to be balanced against a suitable time period to ensure the accommodation is being used for holiday purposes only. A permanent form of occupation would conflict with the established planning policy for this rural area. Attaching a condition which would facilitate significant periods of permanence such as Condition 1 noted above by the applicant, may not provide the necessary control to ensure that the development is not used for excessive periods of occupation.
There are examples of holiday parks where restrictions are not placed on the frequency of occupation and how often a person may be permitted to use the accommodation, however, in the Borders, these tend to apply to older consents where the development may only have been limited by a short annual closure.
Against current LDP policies and considerations, a condition which restricts how often a particular person can use the development is required. Members will be aware that a similar condition was recommended to Committee on a recent application for a holiday lodge development at Foulden which stated that the number of days a person could use the development should be limited to 93 days within a 365 year period. It is noted from the Economic Impact Analysis that the average occupation of privately owned caravans would be 99 days each year. This figure was based on findings of the duration a person stays at other similar parks elsewhere in Scotland. It would therefore appear that limiting the number of days a person could reside at this development to 99 days within any calendar year would not adversely impact on the viability of the development while providing a period proportionate with normal holiday making. This condition would still enable the development to be used all year round and for caravan owners to allow other members of their family for example to use the accommodation. This limit is based on findings which support this application and is not considered to be unreasonable and is considered would comply with all 6 tests of a planning condition in Circular 4/1998.
It is recommended that a condition to this effect should be imposed on this development to ensure that the occupation of all static caravans complies with Policy ED8.
CONCLUSION
It is clear from the representations received that the public opinion on this development is finely balanced within the local community. Having thoroughly considered the merits of the proposal, the application site occupies a location close to Coldstream where it has the potential to accommodate a suitable form of tourism development. The development is likely to create an economic benefit for the area which could prompt further regeneration and inward investment into the local economy which is encouraged by LDP policy covering new caravan and camping developments. It is acknowledged that the scale of the development is significant on this rural edge of the town and its resulting impacts have been carefully considered within this sensitive landscape setting. It is considered that, subject to planning conditions which include the agreement of an improved landscape framework, micro-siting and sensitive pallet of external materials and colours finishes, once the site’s landscaping matures, proposals will be sympathetic to the character and amenity of the rural location. Subject to compliance with the schedule of conditions and informatives, the development will accord with the relevant provisions of the Local Development Plan 2016 and there are no material considerations that would justify a departure from these provisions.
RECOMMENDATION BY CHIEF PLANNING AND HOUSING OFFICER:
I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions and informatives:
1. The occupation of the caravans hereby approved shall be restricted to genuine holidaymakers only staying for a maximum of 99 days in total within any consecutive period of 365 days commencing on the 1st of January. A register of holidaymakers shall be kept and made available for inspection by an authorised officer of the Council at all reasonable times. Reason: A permanent residential site in this location would conflict with the established planning policy for this rural area.
2. No development shall be commenced until samples including colour finishes of all external materials to be used on all buildings (including caravans and their decks) throughout the site are submitted to, and approved by in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall take place in accordance with the approved samples. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and the character of the landscape.
3. Notwithstanding the layout illustrated on approved Site Plan Drawing No 5773 – C – 02 Rev E, no development shall commence until a revised site plan (supplemented by updated visualisations) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority which seeks to microsite; i. Caravans in the north eastern part of the site towards lower ground levels ii. Caravans and their associated decks and access roads in the south of the site away from the adjacent tree belt to the south. iii. The footpath at the north eastern corner which links to the track to the west of the site shall be repositioned to link with the site services further south. Reason: A revised positioning of proposed caravans is required to ensure that the development integrates with the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
4. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and shall include (as appropriate): i. Location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas ii. Increased the number of planted areas between caravans and the width and length of those shown on approved Drawing No L(90)0002 iii. Schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density which includes a three year Defects Liability Period iv. Location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings and respect the setting of the Scheduled Monument.
5. No development shall commence until protective fencing in accordance with BS537:2012 has been erected in accordance with the approved Tree Protection Plan, Drawing No 20_5837_10_39. The protective barrier shall only be removed when the development has been completed. All works to existing trees shall comply with the works specified within the Arboricultural Implications Assessment and other than those identified for removal shown on approved Drawing No 20_5837_10_39, no trees within or around the application site shall be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: The existing tree(s) represent an important visual feature which the Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained.
6. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in strict accordance with a programme of phasing which includes phasing of all soft landscape works which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development of the proceeds in an appropriate manner which respects the landscape setting of the holiday park.
7. No development shall commence until precise details surfacing materials to be used on all roads, footpaths and parking spaces has first been submitted to, and approved by in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall take place in accordance with the approved materials. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and the character of the landscape.
8. No development shall commence until an engineering drawing of the new access onto the public road has first been submitted to and approved by in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall take place wholly in accordance with the agreed details and the new access shall be completed prior to the development becoming operational. Reason: To ensure the access into the site is formed to an appropriate standard
9. No development shall take place within the development site as outlined in red on the approved plan until the developer has secured a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) detailing a programme of archaeological works. The WSI shall be formulated and implemented by a contracted archaeological organisation working to the standards of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). The WSI shall be submitted by the developer no later than 1 month prior to the start of development works and approved by the Planning Authority before the commencement of any development. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording, recovery of archaeological resources within the development site, post-excavation assessment, reporting and dissemination of results are undertaken per the WSI. Reason: The site is within an area where development may damage or destroy archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.
10. No development shall commence until precise details of the location and design of a protective barrier of temporary fencing which shall be erected around the boundary of the Cottage Hospital, settlement 250m SE of, Scheduled Monument has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority and thereafter the barrier shall be erected before development works commence and shall only be removed once development works have been completed unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the Scheduled Monument is protected from construction works.
11. Prior to installation, precise details of the location and design (including text) of the interpretation board to be erected within the Scheduled Monument shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority and thereafter the interpretation board shall be installed in accordance with the agreed details prior to the caravan and camp site becoming operational. Reason: To preserve the archaeological interest of the Scheduled Monument.
12. No development shall commence until the following Ecological Mitigation Measures 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. The submitted details shall include a) Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) b) A Species Protection Plan for badger and breeding birds which shall incorporate a pre-development supplementary survey and mitigation plan c) A Landscape and Habitat Management Plan (LHMP) Points a) – c) shall address measures identified in the Ecological Impact Assessment, ECOS Countryside Services LLP, 8th October 2019. Once approved, the proposed development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that species and habitats affected by the development are afforded suitable protection in accordance with previously approved details.
13. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved a detailed Lighting Management Strategy for all exterior lighting throughout the site (including those attached to buildings and free standing) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Lighting Management Strategy shall include lighting provisions for bats. Thereafter the development shall take place in complete accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and mitigate the impact of lighting on local biodiversity.
14. No drainage system other than the public mains sewer shall be used to service the development without the written consent of the Planning Authority and written evidence shall be supplied to the planning authority that the site is connected to the public water drainage network prior to the development becoming operational. Reason: To ensure that the development does not have a detrimental effect on public health.
15. No development shall commence until a report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority that the public mains water supply is available and can be provided for the development. Written evidence shall be supplied to the planning authority that the site is connected to the public mains water supply prior to the development becoming operational. Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately serviced with a sufficient supply of wholesome water and there are no unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of any neighbouring properties.
16. Any noise emitted by plant and machinery used on the premises will not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within all noise sensitive properties (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: To protect the residential amenity of nearby properties.
Informatives
1. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) should be pursued with the Councils Road Safety Team prior to development commencing on site. The TRO should seek to reduce the speed limit on the A698 for the section of road where the site access is provided. The conclusion of the TRO will inform the detailed design requirements for the site access including associated visibility splays which require to be agreed by Condition 8. Any signage and lining required to by the TRO will be required to be implemented before the development becomes operational.
2. All plant and machinery shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions so as to stay in compliance with the aforementioned noise limits specified in Condition 17.
DRAWING NUMBERS
Drawing Number Plan Description Date 5773-C-01 LOCATION PLAN 08.10.2019 5773-C-04 AMENITY BLOCK 08.10.2019 5773-C-05 RECEPTION GENERAL 08.10.2019 ARRANGEMENTS 5773/C/03 SITE ENTRANCE WALL 08.10.2019 5773-C-02 Rev E Site Plan 29.20.2020 20_5837_10_39 Rev 1 Tree Protection Plan 29.20.2020 20_5837_10_39 Rev 1 Tree Constraints Plan 29.20.2020 1911-100-100 Site Levels 02.11.2020
Approved by Name Designation Signature Ian Aikman Chief Planning and Housing Officer
The original version of this report has been signed by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Scott Shearer Peripatetic Planning Officer