APPENDIX A

REPRESENTATIONS FROM PERSONS / CONSULTATIVE BODIES STIPULATED IN THE 2009 ACT AND 2010 REGULATIONS (i.e. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION)

From: Knight, Jim Sent: 14 March 2012 12:49 To: Price, Conor Cc: Millar, Andy Subject: RE: Selkirk FPS - Request for Screening Opinion on environmental impact of proposed modification to Scheme

Connor, I have checked the proposals indicated in the Scheme Operations Schedule and Drawings (Volumes 1a & 1b) and confirm that I am content with the principals of the design. From our discussion, I understand that the detail design is still to be carried out. I do have the following observations that you might consider at the detail design stage: • Selkirk Riverside - Sheet 3 - dwg no WN/SFPD/EWR/004 - consider the retention of the existing roadside hedge if possible? In which case some protective fencing will be required at the toe of the flood embankment and some infill hedge planting across the closed off access road. If not, please allow for a replacement hedge /tree planting scheme. • Selkirk Riverside - Sheet 4 - dwg no WN/SFPD/EWR/005 - allow for protective fencing around retained trees where new wall is constructed close to retained trees - here and generally! Reference is BS:5837:2005 for recommended fence locations and details. • Selkirk Riverside - Sheets 5 & 6 - dwg nos WN/SFPD/EWR/006 & 007 - Where riverside woodland is to be cleared as shown, allow for replacement planting of riparian type woodland (alder, birch, hazel etc, plus a proportion of evergreens, probably as cell grown trees in tree tubes). This will be especially useful to replace lost screening of the recycling depot and sewage works. • Long Philip Burn - Sheet 3 - dwg no WN/SFPD/LPB/004 - I propose woodland planting along the northern side of the river diversion to include and screen the flood defenc e embankment plus some clumps of further trees within the diversion area. Also propose treating the remaining areas with a suitable riparian grass / wildflower mix and then manage with a light touch to allow the development of a new semi-natural riparian habitat. The position of the proposed path should be adjusted to allow for acceptable dynamic variations in the watercourse as nature takes its course. • St Mary's Loch - Sheet 1 - dwg no WN/SFPD/SML/002 - The main landscape issue, which we cannot fully predict, will be how the lochside vegetation reacts / recolonises after the adjustments in water level. I think we just have to see how this progresses. Some related topics which we discussed include the future requirements / responsibility for passage of fish and potential for hydro generation both of which are currently under discussion. I also raised the separate issue of the poor forest edge along the eastern shoreline which may emphasise any undesirable tideline effects. At your suggestion, I shall contact Julie Nock at Southern Uplands Partnership to see if she can work some remedial planting into her plans for a footpath link along this shoreline.

I look forward to seeing further details of the various schemes once they are worked up.

Regards

Jim Knight Principal Officer ( Landscape ) Economic Development & Environment Environment & Infrastructure Council Newtown , Melrose TD6 0SA Telephone No: 01835 825148 email: [email protected]  Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary - SAVE PAPER

1

Longmore House Salisbury Place Edinburgh Ms Jane Webster EH9 1SH Scottish Borders Council Council Headquarters Direct Line: 0131 668 8704 Direct Fax: 0131 668 8722 MELROSE Switchboard: 0131 668 8600 TD6 0SA Virginia.Sharp@.gsi.gov.uk

By email:[email protected] Our ref: AMN/16/B Our Case ID: 201107503 201107504 Your ref: TS11/2B/IW/JW/IM

20 March 2012 Dear Ms Webster

Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 Flood Risk Management (Flood Protection Schemes, Potentially Vulnerable Areas and Local Plan Districts) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 Selkirk Flood Prevention Scheme 2012

Thank you for your correspondence of 17 January, seeking our comments on the Selkirk Flood Prevention Scheme 2012 and its accompanying Environmental Statement. Our comments here concentrate on our statutory remit at the national level for scheduled monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting, and battlefields and gardens and designed landscapes appearing in their respective Inventories.

Simply for information, you should note that some of the references to national guidance on page 203 are out of date; SPP23 has been superceded by the consolidated SPP, PAN 42 has been replaced by PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology, and SHEP was updated in December 2011.

We note and concur with the findings of the Environmental Statement regarding the level of effect that this proposal will have on the site or setting of heritage assets within our remit. We do not consider that any issues of national significance are raised with respect to our historic environment interests. We therefore have no further comment to offer on the Scheme or the Environmental Statement.

Yours sincerely

Virginia Sharp Senior Heritage Management Officer, SEA

abcde abcdefgh www.historic-scotland.gov.uk

Our ref: PCS/118292 Your ref: TS11/28/IW/JW/VSA

Head of Legal and Democratic Services If telephoning ask for: Scottish Borders Council Angela Burke Council Headquarters Newtown St Boswells Melrose TD6 0SA

By email only to: [email protected] 20 March 2012

Dear Sir / Madam

Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 The Selkirk Flood Protection Scheme 2012

We have received notification that Scottish Borders Council are promoting the Selkirk Flood Protection Scheme 2012 under the terms of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and The Flood Risk Management (Flood Protection Scheme, Potentially Vulnerable Areas and Local Plan Districts) (Scotland) Regulations 2010. The revised statutory notice and associated Environmental Statement provides details of the proposed scheme.

We support the principle of the Flood Protection Scheme as it will reduce the flood risk to over 600 properties adjacent to the , , Long Phillip Burn and Shaw Burn.

1. Environmental regulation

1.1 The Selkirk Flood Protection Scheme will be licensed by us under the Controlled Activities (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Two applications have been submitted for the engineering works; one covers the river engineering works in and around Selkirk and the second coverings engineering activities at St Mary’s Loch. A third application has also been submitted to vary the existing water use licence authorising the abstraction and impoundment at St Mary’s Loch.

1.2 We are currently determining the applications, and can confirm that the scheme is capable of being authorised under the Controlled Activities (Scotland) Regulations 2011.

2. Flood risk management

2.1 The flood protection scheme will reduce the flood risk to over 600 properties adjacent to the Yarrow Water, Ettrick Water, Long Phillip Burn and Shaw Burn. We support the proposed scheme as a sustainable option to manage flood risk which should also provide future resilience to a changing climate. In respect of flood risk we have the following comments on the key elements of the flood protection scheme:

 The development of additional floodwater storage within St. Mary’s Loch by the modification to the existing infrastructure and water level controls. It is understood that

- 2 -

by creating up to 2.86 million m3 of available storage volume for floodwater peak flows in the Yarrow Water might be reduced by up to 20%. The reduction in peak flows downstream of the loch will provide benefit to not just Selkirk but also to properties adjacent to the Yarrow Water and adjacent to the Ettrick Water downstream of its confluence with the Yarrow Water. This attenuation of peak flows in the Ettrick Water will ensure that there will be no increase in the risk of flooding to properties downstream of Selkirk as a consequence of the proposed flood walls and embankments within the Selkirk reach.

 Flood walls and embankments will be erected along the Ettrick Water to further reduce the risk of flooding to properties in the , Bannerfield and Riverside areas. The proposed measures in the Riverside area should provide protection up to around a 0.02% AEP (1:500) flood event, including an allowance for future climate change impacts. The Philiphaugh and Bannerfield areas will be protected up to an estimated 0.5% (1:200) flood, including an allowance for future climate change impacts.

 The lower reach of the Long Philip Burn will be realigned to form a more natural channel and improve the conveyance capacity. The engineering works will include the replacement of the A707 road bridge, the removal of A708 road bridge and the construction of low flood walls and embankments to contain floodwaters. This will provide benefits to approximately 55 residential, business, community and agricultural properties in the Bannerfield and Philiphaugh areas. Protection in this area is proposed up to an estimated 1% AEP (1:100) flood event including an allowance for climate change.

 Flood walls and embankments and a bypass culvert will be constructed on the Shaw Burn. This element of the overall scheme will also include a diversion of the Scottish Water sewer infrastructure. The Shaw Burn mitigation works will reduce the risk of flooding to approximately 12 residential and business properties in the Riverside area of Selkirk.

2.2 Not included in the scheme but also under consideration are the provision of flood mitigation measures for properties at Lindean and natural flood management (NFM) within the Long Philip Burn catchment and the Ettrick and Yarrow Water catchments. It is proposed that the additional flood mitigation measures at Lindean and the NFM measures will be delivered outwith the formal Selkirk Flood Prevention Scheme by the Council’s Flood Protection Team.

2.3 Flood risk impacts arising from the proposed operation of St. Mary’s Loch for flood control have been considered, identified and measures will be put in place to address these. This includes measures to reduce impacts to the waterside interests of St. Mary’s Loch Sailing Club, Rondo House and Tibbie Shiels Inn and erosion control measures at the inflow channel from Loch of the Lowes.

2.4 We note that the scheme is still progressing with creating a flow path on the road network to divert high flows from the Long Philip Burn (it currently does this during high flows). We would highlight that roads fall under different legislation and therefore the maintenance of such a road, designed to convey flood water, should be agreed in perpetuity.

2.5 Flows have been agreed for the River Ettrick between Halcrow and SEPA. We would highlight that we do not have a record of receiving Technical Notes for confirmed flows for the Long Philip Burn and the Shaw Burn. That said, the information provided in the latest - 3 -

consultation indicates there will be no increase in flood risk as a consequence of these works.

2.6 We are satisfied that there is no increase in flood risk downstream as the proposed St Mary’s Loch component of the scheme will mitigate any detrimental impact the walls and embankments within Selkirk will have on non-defended reaches. It is understood that St Mary’s Loch will form part of the first phase and therefore we are satisfied there will be no increase in flood risk downstream during construction.

2.7 We would welcome discussion should Halcrow or Scottish Borders Council require further input into scheme design or flow information.

2.8 The advice contained in this letter is supplied to you by SEPA in terms of Section 72 (1) of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis of information held by SEPA as at the date hereof. It is intended as advice solely to Scottish Borders Council in terms of the said Section 72 (1). Our briefing note entitled: “Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Flood risk advice to planning authorities” outlines the transitional changes to the basis of our advice inline with the phases of this legislation and can be downloaded from www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_risk/planning__flooding.aspx.

The advice provided in this letter is given without prejudice to any decision made on elements of the proposal regulated by us, which may take into account factors not considered at this stage.

If you have any queries relating to this letter, please contact me by telephone on 0131 273 7334 or by e-mail [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Angela Burke Senior Planning Officer Planning Service

APPENDIX B

THE FLOOD & COAST PROTECTION PROGRAMME BUDGET FROM THE COUNCIL’S CAPITAL FINANCIAL PLAN (BETWEEN THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2012/13 and 2021/22)

Scottish Borders Council Capital Financial Plan 2012/13 - 2021/22

Engineering Infrastructure OPERATIONAL PLAN STRATEGIC PLAN Grand Total 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Total £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Flood & Coast Protection

Galashiels Flood Protection 679 2,277 333 3,289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,289 Selkirk Flood Protection 252 50 190 492 1,152 1,300 900 762 0 0 0 4,606 Hawick Flood Protection 75 25 25 125 70 74 0 96 500 700 670 2,235 Flood Protection Works, Efficiency and Emergency 150 100 110 360 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1,060 Measures

Total Flood & Coast Protection 1,156 2,452 658 4,266 1,322 1,474 1,000 958 600 800 770 11,190

Waste Management

Management of Closed Landfill Sites - Dunion 323 139 0 462 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 462 Management of Closed Landfill Sites - Cleugh 323 0 0 323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323 Easter Langlee Cell Provision 800 245 0 1,045 0 150 150 0 250 250 0 1,845 Waste Treatment Facility 781 25 0 806 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 806 Wheeled Bins 30 30 30 90 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 300 Easter Langlee Leachate Management 140 1,220 115 1,475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,475

Total Waste Management 2,397 1,659 145 4,201 30 180 180 30 280 280 30 5,211

Engineering & Infrastructure - Other

Contaminated Land 52 52 52 156 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 520 Borders Railway Project 1,259 0 0 1,259 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,259

Total E&I - Other 1,311 52 52 1,415 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 1,779

9 February 2012 1