Item No. 4 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
MINUTE of MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 9 December 2013 at 10a.m. ------
Present: - Councillors R. Smith (Chairman), M. Ballantyne, S. Bell, J. Brown, J. Fullarton, I. Gillespie, D. Moffat, S. Mountford, B. White. In Attendance:- Development Standards Manager, Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager (paras 1-4), Senior Roads Planning Officers, Managing Solicitor – Commercial Services, Democratic Services Team Leader, Democratic Services Officer (F. Henderson).
WELCOME 1. The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and drew their attention to the displays which featured the Winners of the Scottish Borders Design Awards 2013. The Chairman explained that the award scheme was first established in 1984 and ran every two years. The Scheme was organised by the Built and Natural Heritage team from Planning and Regulatory Services and sought to recognise and publicise examples of good building design, educate and inspire all those involved in new developments and raise the overall standards of building design. A total of 30 entries were received across the various categories of building type and judged by an independent judging panel chaired by Ian Lindley with David Suttie representing the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland (RTPI) and John Lane representing the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS). The Chairman congratulated Mark Douglas and Andy Millar for their work in promoting and running the awards.
DECISION NOTED.
ORDER OF BUSINESS 2. The Chairman varied the order of business as shown on the agenda and the Minute reflects the order in which the items were considered at the meeting.
MINUTE 3. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 4 November 2013.
DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman, subject to an amendment in paragraph 5(e)(i).
PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2013/14 4. With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 7 October 2013, there had been circulated copies of a report by the Director of Environment and Infrastructure which proposed that members approve the Planning Performance Framework 2013/14 attached at Appendix I to the report, which had been re-drafted for submission to Scottish Ministers. The report explained that the Planning Performance Framework provided a comprehensive and co- ordinated approach to performance assessment in the Planning Service. A draft version of the original document had already been sent to Scottish Ministers as the deadline for submissions was the end of September 2013, and a finalised report would be forwarded once approval had been given by the Committee. The report had also been presented to the Environment & Infrastructure Committee on 3 October 2013. The Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager highlighted the key outcomes contained in the Appendix, the development projects the department were involved in and in particular the increase in pre- application discussion between Planning Officers and Applicants which subsequently 1 Item No. 4 improved the quality of applications brought to Committee. It was further reported that the Department would continue to hold staff workshops to enable further improvement of the process
DECISION AGREED to approve the Planning Performance Framework as detailed in Appendix I to the report for submission to Scottish Ministers.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST 5. Councillor Gillespie declared a non pecuniary interest in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct in respect of planning application 13/01098/FUL and left the meeting during its consideration.
APPLICATIONS 6. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.
DECISION DEALT with the applications as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.
WIND TURBINES IN BERWICKSHIRE – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE – LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL GUIDANCE FOR SINGLE AND GROUPS OF 2 OR 3 APPEALS AND REVIEWS 7. With reference to paragraph 3 of the Minute of 1 April 2013, there had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) entitled ‘Landscape and Visual Guidance on Single and Small Scale Groups of Wind Turbine Development in Berwickshire’. The Forward Planning Manager and Principal Planning Officer were present at the meeting to present the report and answer Members questions. The report explained that the purpose of the SPG was to inform both spatial planning and provide guidance for single and small scale groups of typically two or three wind turbine developments within Berwickshire in the Scottish Borders. The SPG provided detailed guidance for a range of users as to what scale of turbines may be appropriate within each Landscape Character Type (LCT) and where these could be located within them. The recommendations and guidance on capacity for each LCT took into consideration matters including the number of turbines and their respective heights already approved within the vicinity, cumulative impact issues and the characteristics of each LCT. Ultimately it identified the potential capacity of the landscape to accommodate turbines either as multiple single features or multiple small groups and stated the maximum height of turbine which could be acceptable within each LCT. The report explained that during the public consultation responses were received from 16no parties covering a range of issues which were detailed in Appendix B to the report, together with Council responses to the points raised and proposed consequent changes to the draft SPG where appropriate. Following consideration of the responses along with some and other issues raised, amendments had been made to the draft SPG identified in Appendix A including the following :
x The title of the SPG to be confirmed as “Landscape and Visual Guidance for Single and Groups of 2 or 3 Wind Turbines in Berwickshire”
x A text update regarding approved turbines since the initial document was prepared up until the end of September 2013 and any consequent cumulative impacts these might have which require addressing
x Due to recent approvals of turbines in the vicinity of Landscape Character Type 19a – Coastal Farmland, Cockburnspath the suggested maximum height for turbines had been reduced from 50m to 35m
x Confirmation of the relationship between this SPG and other Council wind energy related documents 2 Item No. 4
x Update of policy to include reference to new Strategic Development Plan renewable energy policy
x Confirmation of where newly designated Special Landscape Areas are within Berwickshire
DECISION (a) APPROVED the SPG on Landscape and Visual Guidance for Single and Groups of 2 and 3 Wind Turbines in Berwickshire in Appendix A to the report and agreed to its use as material consideration in determining planning applications.
(b) AGREED that the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services be delegated to approve an annual update of the SPG which would take cognisance of any cumulative impact issues resulting from any future turbine approvals.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST 8. Councillor Gillespie declared a non pecuniary interest in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct in respect of the following item and left the meeting during its consideration.
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE – DRAFT HARBOUR ROAD, EYEMOUTH DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 9. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on Supplementary Planning Guidance - Draft Harbour Road, Eyemouth Development Framework. The report proposed that the Committee approved the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) entitled “Draft Harbour Road, Eyemouth Development Framework” as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period. The report explained that the purpose of the SPG was to guide future redevelopment of the area between Harbour Road, Church Street and Manse Road (i.e. the harbourside). The area was located within the development boundary of Eyemouth and had been identified as a key regeneration site in the Proposed Local Development Plan. The aim of the SPG was to redevelop the harbourside to create a place which could help to achieve sustainable economic growth in Eyemouth, be welcoming and pleasant for visitors and residents alike, and restore the identity that the harbourside area of Eyemouth used to have. The SPG proposed a mixed use scheme which would contain a coherent scheme of development including usages such as housing, retail, small-scale food provision, offices, and other types of commercial buildings or attractions. Urban design principles were used to show how the scheme could be achieved while still providing a welcoming and pleasant place and restoring the identity of the harbourside. Elements discussed included pedestrian and vehicular movement, new buildings and the creation of an active frontage on Harbour Road which exploited the waterfront location.
DECISION APPROVED the SPG, as detailed in Appendix A of the report, as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period, and that any comments received be reported back to the Committee.
APPEALS AND REVIEW 10. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews.
DECISION NOTED that:-
(a) Appeals had been received in respect of:-
3 Item No. 4 (i) the construction of wind farm comprising eight turbines 100m high to tip and associated access tracks and ancillary infrastructure including borrow pit, erection of 1 permanent anemometer mast, temporary formation of construction compound and erection of 3 temporary reference/calibration masts on land north east of Blythe Farm (Brunta Hill), Lauder – 11/01444/FUL; and
(ii) a residential development including affordable housing and associated infrastructure on land south of 10 Springwell Brae, Broughton – 12/01068/PPP.
(b) the appeal in respect of Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk remained outstanding.
(c) a review request had been received in respect of Replacement Windows (retrospective) at 27 West High Street, Lauder – 13/00680/FUL;
(d) the Local Review Body had overturned the Appointed Officers decision to refuse the following:-
(i) formation of dormer extension at Dovecot Cottage, Kirkgate, Chirnside, Duns; and
(ii) Erection of 2 wind turbines 34.4m high to tip and ancillary infrastructure on Land North East of Ayton Mains Farmhouse, Eyemouth.
(e) the Local Review Body had upheld the Appointed Officers decision to refuse the erection of pigeon loft (retrospective) on Land South of 24 Lamberton Holding, Lamberton
(f) there remained 4 reviews outstanding in respect of the following:-
Vicars Knowe, Gattonside 12 Larkhall Burn, Jedburgh 2 Westfield Road, Earlston Whitton Farm, Morebattle
The meeting concluded at 1.35 p.m.
4 Item No. 4 APPENDIX
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Reference Name and Address Nature of Development Location
13/01098/FUL Earlston Community Formation of play park, Land South East of Council installation of play Rhymers Cottage, Mill Per The Sterry Walters equipment, erection of Road, Earlston Partnership Ltd boundary fence and Per Guy Walters associated landscaping Langskaill, Carlops Penicuik Edinburgh EH26 9NF
Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and applicant informatives:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. Notwithstanding the information submitted in support of the planning application, no development shall commence until the following details have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority: (a) precise details [including dimensions and finished materials and colours] of all apparatus and associated structures, including the gazebo and barbeque [please see Informative Note 1]; (b) precise details of all hard landscaping works, including fencing which shall correspond in full with the requirements identified by SEPA and the Flood Prevention Authority in their consultation responses [please see Informative Note 2]; (c) precise details of all soft landscaping works, including a full planting schedule [please see Informative Note 3]; (d) an updated version of the approved Site Plan [ECDT-LL(90)002 B], showing the apparatus, structures and landscaping works described in the details provided to address the requirements of criteria a, b and c, above, and with the apparatus, structures and hard landscaping set out in the same positions and stations as their indicative equivalents on the approved Site Plan; (e) precise details of the maintenance arrangements for the playpark, including those for the apparatus, the associated structures, and hard and soft landscaping [please see Informative Note 4]; The development shall then be implemented, and thereafter maintained in perpetuity, in accordance with the approved details. Any subsequent change or changes to the approved details shall first have been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the implementation of this change/these changes. Reason: To retain effective control over the development for the purposes of ensuring that the finished appearance, composition, layout and operation of the play park adhere as closely as possible to the details that have been approved at the time of the determination of the planning application, and do not have any unacceptable impacts upon the environment and/or amenity of the site and its surroundings. Further, to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place for the future maintenance of the play park facilities and landscaping to help safeguard as far as reasonably possible, the long-term future of the play park as a community facility, and by extension, ensure that it enhances the recreational use of the site.
3. Notwithstanding the information submitted in support of the planning application, existing ground levels shall be maintained, and no land raising shall occur at all in connection with the implementation of the development hereby approved. Furthermore, and 5 Item No. 4 notwithstanding the information submitted in support of the planning application, no development shall commence on-site until precise details of how all the structures, apparatus, surfacing and fencing are to be secured and anchored to the ground, have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented, and then thereafter maintained in perpetuity, in accordance with the approved details. Any subsequent change or changes to the approved details shall first have been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the implementation of this change/these changes. Reason: To ensure that the development does not have any unacceptable impacts upon flood risk at the site and in the surrounding area and to ensure that the equipment does not become removed from its location and float away during a large flood event.
4. The bank of the Leader Water shall be fenced off during construction works, to a minimum of 10m from the bank of the watercourse in accordance with a scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development operations. The scheme so approved shall provide for the separation of the watercourse and its bank from the building/landscaping operations hereby approved, and shall provide an undeveloped buffer strip which retains the existing natural vegetation. No work shall be carried out on the watercourse itself or its banks, and the fence required by this condition shall be removed upon completion of construction works. Reason: In the interests of the protection of the Leader Water and its banks from building operations, and to protect the River Tweed Catchment Special Area of Conservation.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, a method statement outlining steps to prevent the Contamination of the Leader Water with silt, building material and debris during construction works, or after their completion, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. There shall be no storage of materials and/or equipment on any areas that are vulnerable to flooding, the areas for such storage shall be agreed in advance and in writing with the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent any adverse impacts on the River Tweed Catchment Special Area of Conservation through siltation and other pollution.
6. Details of any Surface Water Drainage required to serve any part of this development are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development, and in the interests of the protection of the Leader Water.
7. During the period of construction (a) construction works shall only be carried out between the hours of one hour after dawn and one hour before dusk; and (b) during periods when construction works are not being actively progressed on-site, any temporarily exposed open pipes and/or cavities shall be capped or covered to prevent otters gaining access to them. Reason: To avoid impacts on a European Protected species (otter).
8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing in advance by the Planning Authority, all planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development, and shall be maintained thereafter and replaced as may be necessary for a period of two years from the date of completion of the planting, seeding or turfing. Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping is carried out as approved.
9. Notwithstanding the information submitted in support of the planning application, and unless a planning application is first submitted and approved in that behalf, no cycle track shall be established on the site. Reason: To retain effective control over the development. 6 Item No. 4
10. Notwithstanding any details shown on the approved drawings, no chimes or other equipment whose principal purpose is the creation of noise shall be installed within any part of the development hereby approved. Reason: To protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the nearby residential property.
11. No lighting shall be erected at the site unless a planning application is first submitted to the Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Council to consider the effect of the proposed lighting, including upon the living conditions of nearby residents.
Informatives
INFORMATIVE NOTE 1 – APPARATUS AND STRUCTURES
Please note that the description of each specific apparatus and structure will need to be assessed against the details that were provided to describe these indicatively at the time of the planning application. Until the specific details are provided and agreed, it cannot be ruled out that a new planning application might be required in the event that there is considered to be any significant changes between the details that were described indicatively in the application and those that are ultimately proposed. The Developer is invited to discuss any concerns in advance of the submission of the detailed information if any potentially significant differences arise.
INFORMATIVE NOTE 2 – HARD LANDSCAPING AND FENCING
Both SEPA and the Council’s Flood Prevention Section have sought the use of an enclosing fence with horizontal (and not vertical) wires to reduce the extent to which debris carried in flood waters might become trapped and build up to exaggerate flood impacts upon the site and surrounding area.
Additionally, the Council’s Flood Prevention Section requires that the enclosing fence be a bow-top fence with a minimum 200mm clearance from the lower rail.
INFORMATIVE NOTE 3 – SOFT LANDSCAPING
The following is standard advice and guidance given to Developers with regard to the detail that should be included to describe new planting:
Approved planting plans will provide sufficient information to be enforceable by detailing the following:
1 Plan to an identified true scale. (e.g. 1:200)
2 Boundary of the application site is clearly marked.
3 Site orientation is indicated by a North point or OS grid lines.
4 All existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be retained are clearly marked.
5 Take account of site factors such as slope, aspect, soil conditions, proximity of buildings and minimum distances from pipe and cable runs, when choosing planting positions. Where necessary, seek professional landscape advice.
6 Planting positions are clearly marked showing individual trees and shrubs and / or planting area boundaries using dimensions as necessary.
7 All species of plants identified using their full botanical name (e.g. oak – Quercus robur)
7 Item No. 4 8 All plant numbers to be identified individually or by group or area as appropriate. Species mixes can be identified by percentages and an overall number or a specified area and a planting density (e.g. Betula pendula 30%, Quercus robur 70%, 120 square metres @ 1 plant per 4 square metres = 9 B. pendula & 21 Q. robur)
9 A planting schedule identifies all the proposed planting by species and specification indicating size and nature of plants to be used (e.g.: Extra heavy standard tree 14-16cms girth or shrub 60-75cms high in 2 litre pot.)
10 Notes on the plan to describe how the planting is to be carried out and maintained to ensure successful establishment. 11 The plan indicates when the work will be completed and ready for inspection taking account of planting seasons. (e.g. November to end March each year for bare rooted plants.)
N.B. Planting conditions are only discharged following an inspection of the completed work.
INFORMATIVE NOTE 4 – MAINTENANCE
Maintenance arrangements should include advice about how potential noise nuisance from the musical chimes would be minimised.
INFORMATIVE NOTE 5 – CONTAMINATED LAND
Records held by the Council do not appear to indicate any development on the site or any formal use associated with Mid Mill. However, it is still possible that the site may have historically been used in association with Mid Mill. In this event, land contamination may have occurred. Should unexpected ground conditions (e.g. made ground extending to depth, discolouration or malodorous substances) or evidence of potential contamination (e.g. underground structures, remains of buried wastes or equipment) be encountered during site works, it is requested that Environmental Health be immediately consulted. Should the Developer wish to discuss this further, their enquiry should be directed to Environmental Health.
INFORMATIVE NOTE 6 – SEWER COVER
There appears to be a sewer manhole present at the site. This could potentially be a storm water overflow from a combined sewer system. Please note that this has the potential to contaminate the site should this surcharge in a flood event.
INFORMATIVE NOTE 7 – FLOOD PREVENTION
It is recommended that the Developer adopt water resilient materials and construction methods appropriate to the building as advised in PAN 69.
As access and egress to the development may also be affected by flood waters, it is recommended that the Developer arrange to receive flood warnings from SEPA, by signing up to FLOODLINE at www.sepa.org.uk, or by telephone on 0845 988 1188.
The proposed development is situated in a flood risk area, and for this reason it is advised that the materials and equipment used during construction are not stored in areas vulnerable to flooding to protect the high water quality standards of the River Tweed SAC. It is advised that SEPA guidelines for working in or near rivers should be followed during all construction work, and in the treatment of surface water runoff.
In its consultation response, SEPA has additionally advised that:
8 Item No. 4 “In accordance with SPP medium to high risk areas may be suitable for some recreation, sport and amenity uses provided there are appropriate evacuation procedures in place. We strongly recommend that measures are put in place such as warning signs and a floatation ring to ensure that the public are aware of the risk. The Scottish Borders Council Flood Prevention Officer has suggested that the applicant sign up to SEPA’s Floodline service in order to receive flood warning messages for the area. We would like to refer the applicant to the terms and conditions of this service as it states that SEPA “cannot take responsibility for any loss or damage caused by flooding; by issuing, or failing to issue, Alerts and Warnings; or by your failure to retrieve a Warning in time to take action”. Further information can be found at http://www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flooding_publications.aspx.”.
INFORMATIVE NOTE 8 – FOOTPATH ACCESS/DISABLED PARKING
While the play park hereby approved has ultimately been supported as an enhancement of the recreational value of an extant recreational area, it has been noted by statutory consultees and in representations, that certain users, and particularly disabled users, may experience some difficulties in accessing the site due to limitations to parking in the immediate vicinity and due to the nature and quality of the existing pedestrian access into the site.
While it could not reasonably be made a requirement of this planning consent, the Council’s Outdoor Access Officer has recommended that the first 100metres of footpath should be improved to the following specification: “Concrete heel kerbs set in concrete, either side of existing bitmac, providing a formation tray of (minimum) 1500mm width, with 2no new passing places for buggies and chairs spaced at equal intervals. Formation tray to be laid with dense bitumen macadam regulating course, tack coat between layers, and thereafter with close graded BTM surface course to a depth of 25mm.”
INFORMATIVE NOTE 9 – LIGHTING
It is noted that the Police have recommended lighting for the facility. However, please note that any such proposal would require to be discussed with the Planning Authority, since such a proposal may require planning permission.
INFORMATIVE NOTE 10 – EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
The Proposals Drawings indicate works to the existing pedestrian access. However, this area lies outwith the site boundary. It may be that the proposed works indicated are capable of being progressed as a permitted development but in the absence of any details to confirm this, it is advised that the Developer consult with the Planning Authority before progressing any such works.
NOTE Karen Richardson spoke on behalf of the objectors against the application. Lucy Cooper, Earlston Community Development Trust spoke in support of the application.
13/0089/FUL Heather Kieniewicz Erection of 70m wind Land South East of 13 Rutland Street monitor mast Shepherds Cottage, Edinburgh Falla, Jedburgh EH1 2AE
Decision : Approved subject to the following conditions and informative:
1. Approval is granted for a limited period of two years from the date of this consent and, unless application is made and consent obtained, the mast shall be removed and the ground reinstated to its original condition at the expiry of the three year period. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.
9 Item No. 4 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
3. The reinstatement of the site to be completed within 6 months of the decommissioning of the anemometer. Reason: To ensures the satisfactory restoration of the site.
4. The meteorological mast hereby approved shall be fitted with 25 candela omni directional infra-red lighting at the highest practicable point prior to the use of the mast commencing. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.
5. Prior to development commencing the details outlined below shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority following consultation with the Ministry of Defence: a. Precise location of development b. Date of commencement of the construction c. Date of completion of the construction d. The height above ground of the tallest structure e. The maximum extension height of any construction equipment. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety as the height of the development will necessitate that aeronautical charts and mapping records held by the Ministry of Defence are amended.
Informative:
Copy of the MoD response attached for the applicant’s attention. Copy of the Roads Planning Service response for the applicant’s attention
13/00252/AMC Murray & Burrell Ltd Approval of matter in all Plot 3 Land South of c/o Ferguson Planning conditions of outline Caddonhaugh, Roxburgh Street planning consent Caddonfoot Road, Galashiels 04/01022/OUT Clovenfords Scottish Borders TD1 1PE
Decision : Approved subject to the approval of the Scottish Ministers and to the following conditions and informative:
1. Prior to erection on site, further details of the materials and design of any fencing or walling to be erected are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development.
2. Further to the submitted materials specification, a detailed specification and sample of all external finishes of the houses of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the use of the finishes in the development. Thereafter, the external finishes of all of the houses and garages on the site shall be carried out in accordance with this co-ordinated scheme of materials and colours approved by the Planning Authority. The co-ordinated scheme shall promote wet dashed render as the predominant finish to the walls of the houses and natural slate to the roofs of the houses. Reason: To ensure the development is of a satisfactory appearance in the interest of the amenity surrounding area.
3. No development to take place other than in accordance with a report by a suitably qualified fluvial geomorphologist providing an overview, assessment and suitable confirmation as to the stability and engineering of the retained banks adjacent to the watercourses and across the adjoining wider compensatory storage area, which has first been submitted and agreed in 10 Item No. 4 writing by the Planning Authority in liaison with SNH, with any required amendments to the scheme incorporated prior to commencement of development, and carried out thereafter. The approved compensatory storage scheme and associated site levelling works set out in the approved plans 12/MAB/S/01/00/001-E, 12/MAB/S/01/00/002-C, 12/MAB/S/01/00/004-B, 12/MAB/S/01/00/005-D and 12/MAB/S/01/00/006-A, (subject to any subsequent required amenendments identified in the fluvial geomorphologic analysis) are to be implemented in their entirety prior to the commencement of construction of any of the dwellinghouses within the application site boundary. Reason: In the interests of flood prevention and to protect the qualifying interests of a Special Area of Conservation.
4. Prior to the commencement of any development, a full planting and seeding specification of the surface landscaping to be carried out on the completed re-graded compensatory storage area is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the scheme is to be implemented during the first available planting season after the completion of leveling works on the compensatory area, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure an adequate appearance of the completed compensatory flood storage area.
5. Prior to commencement of development, the three “category 1” trees identified in the ecological report by Findlay Ecology Services are to be examined for bat roots by a qualified climber to establish the presence of bats. Thereafter, confirmation on the outcome of the checking will be lodged with the Planning Authority. If bats are present, mitigation will thereafter be implemented as per section 5 of the Findlay Ecology Services report of May 2013. Reason: In order to protect European Protect Species
6. A full specification for the fencing to be erected under conditions 16 and 17 of the outline consent, including height, location and details of footings, is to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Reason: To ensure the protective fencing erected is suitably detailed.
Informatives
1. This consent conveys approval for the details of the dwellinghouse on plot no.3 only. Further submissions will be required in respect of the other plots subject to outline planning consent 04/01022/OUT.
2. Conditions [1(part), 2, 3, 5, 6(part), 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 19]* remain to be addressed, through further AMC submission and/or carrying out of obligations on site as appropriate. *to be amended as appropriate.
3. In terms of flooding, attention is drawn to the Consultation response of the Council Flood Protection Engineer. It is recommended that a more detailed flood risk assessment is undertaken with regard to the 2 westernmost plots, as a matter of good practice. Discussion with the engineer with regards to the finished floor levels of these plots is recommended.
4. The developer is reminded of the need to gain Roads Construction Consent and ensure appropriate security is lodged with the Council before building work commences on the house.
5. Attention is drawn to the Consultation Response of the Contaminated Land Officer. For further advice, please contact the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer.
11 Item No. 4 6. The trees within and beyond 3m of the development site to be felled should be felled in accordance with the recommendations of section 5 of the Findlay Ecology Services report May 2013.
For the avoidance of doubt, groundworks to form the site development table at the northern end of the site can be carried out concurrently with the compensatory storage area works.
13/01062/PPP Mr Andrew Douglas-Home Erection of 32 Bed Care Land East of 1 Kelso c/o Aitken Turnbull Home Road, Coldstream Architects Ltd 9 Bridge Place Galashiels Scottish Borders TD1 1SN
Decision: Refused for the following reasons:
1 The proposed care home would be contrary to Policy G8 – Development outwith Development Boundaries of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that the site is located outwith the development boundary of Coldstream as defined on the Local Plan Proposals Map and would represent an unjustified intrusion into the woodland and countryside beyond the settlement edge. Furthermore, the proposed care home is not considered to offer significant community benefits that outweigh the need to protect the development boundary which is strongly defined in this location.
2 The proposed care home would be contrary to Policy D1 – Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that the erection of a care home on this site in the countryside has not been adequately justified. An economic and operational need specific to Coldstream in general, and the application site in particular, has not been identified and it has not been demonstrated that the care home cannot reasonably be accommodated within the Development Boundary.
3 The proposed care home would be Contrary to Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that the development would cause the loss of, or serious damage to the woodland resource and the benefits of the development have not been demonstrated to outweigh the loss of landscape value.
4 The proposed care home would be contrary to Policy R1 – Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land of the Consolidated Local Plan in that the development would result in the permanent loss of prime quality agricultural land.
NOTE Councillor Greenwell spoke in support of the application. Mr Higgins spoke against the application. Mr A Douglas-Home, Applicant spoke in support of application.
VOTE Councillor Bell, seconded by Councillor Smith moved acceptance of the recommendation.
Councillor Ballantyne, seconded by Councillor Mountford, moved approval of the application on the basis that in terms of policy G8 the proposal was job generating, was a logical extension to Coldstream, in terms of Policy R1 it was only a small proportion of the field that would be lost and in terms of Policy NE4 that conditions could be put in place to minimise the impact on the trees and subject to condition that a ecological survey was carried out.
On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 5 Votes Amendment - 3 Votes The Motion was accordingly carried. 12 Item No. 4
08/00702/FUL Riverside Holiday Park Erection of portable Riverview Holiday Per TSADA Building office building Park, Mangerton, Design Services Newcastleton Crofthouse Newtown Carlisle Cumbria CFA6 4PF
Decision: Approved subject to the approval of the Scottish Ministers.
13 Item No. 5(a)
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
3 FEBRUARY 2014
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00299/FUL OFFICER: Mr Scott Shearer WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing nursing home and erection of two villas containing eight apartments SITE: The Shieling Nursing Home, Coldingham Sands Road, Coldingham APPLICANT: Mr Rob Cameron AGENT: Sutherland Hussey Architects
SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site occupies an area of ground extending to 0.19 ha on the north western side of Coldingham Sands Road, Coldingham. The site extends partly around the back of its neighbours and slopes towards the road from its rear. The site is flanked at either side by detached dwellinghouses, separated by hedging. An open field encloses the site to the rear. The site occupies an elevated position above the road and over Coldingham Bay.
A large two storey hipped roofed building with fronting corner and rear projections currently occupies the site. The structure is predominantly clad with beige rendered walls under slated roof. The building is known as The Shieling Nursing Home and appears to date from the 1920s. The building is currently empty and its garden overgrown. Access is afforded from the south eastern corner of the site from Coldingham Sands Road.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Full planning permission is sought to demolish the existing Shieling Nursing Home and construct two stand alone villas that each contain four apartments. Accommodation is split across three levels with the ground floor level buried into the sloping site.
The proposed buildings are contemporary in style with horizontal lines under a flat roof. East facing glazing and terraces are used to provide views across Coldingham Bay. A limited palette of materials is proposed with predominantly rendered walls offset by sections of glazing and some timber. The roofs are to be finished in sedum. The front of the structures will sit approximately 3.5m apart with a stepped path running between them.
The existing site access will remain, with a total of 14 communal parking spaces provided across out the site. The existing stepped access on the south western end of the site will be modified and access along the north eastern side retained.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(a)
PLANNING HISTORY
90/00240/FUL - Change of use from hotel to nursing home. Approved 27th June 1990.
91/00199/FUL - Extension to existing escape stair, staff room and boiler house. Approved 15th March 1991.
06/02293/FUL - Demolition of existing building and erection of 10 flats with associated parking. Withdrawn 10th July 2007.
The planning application, reference 13/00298/FUL, which was submitted in tandem with this submission for a single dwellinghouse on an area of ground opposite the application site next to Seaneuk has been withdrawn.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Objection comments have been received from 45 different addresses. The objection comments are available in full on Public Access and can be summarised as follows;
x Poor design x Breaches building line x Contrary to development plan policies x Contrary to New Housing in the Borders Countryside SPG x Insufficient parking x Construction traffic will damage access road x Overdevelopment x Impact on residential amenity x Deficiencies of submitted information; deceiving 3D images, lack of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) x Proposal would increase traffic as nursing home only catered for 6 parking spaces when in operation x Development is located outwith a settlement boundary x Adversely impinge on the privacy of neighbouring properties by causing overlooking from balconies into neighbours gardens and windows x Increased extent of hard and impermeable surfaces will intensify existing surface water run off problem from the site x Adverse impact on Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area x Widely and readily visible x Fails to respect character, appearance and setting of surrounding area x Proposal fails to meet requirements for Coastline development, Local Plan Policy EP4 x Siting and scale of development fails to respect plot ratios of neighbouring properties x Density of site x Road safety x A more traditional design would better fit the locality x Design is alien to Coldingham Bay x Over provision of accommodation in area x Inadequate access x Would result in demolition of the existing building
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(a)
x Site is an environmentally sensitive area which is internationally recognised for diversity and habitats proposal conflicts with requirements need to attain the Blue Flag Award x Subsidence x Capacity of water and sewage infrastructure to support this development x Height, bulk and mass represents overdevelopment x Litter x Noise nuisance x Loss of light x Development will be mostly used as holiday homes x Result in loss of open space
A petition has been submitted, signed by some 240 people. The petition invited signatories to object on the following grounds; x Architectural design of the proposal is out of character with the area x Detrimental and damaging impact upon an area of great landscape value x Directly conflicts with the development plan x Access road can not accommodate any further traffic x Access road was seriously damaged from construction of the Pavilion
In response to the re-neighbour notification and advertisement following the submission of revised plans, 7 addresses lodged further objection comments. Comments provided have already been summarised above. The petition was also resubmitted.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The applicant provided a Design Statement which was revised on submission of the amended scheme. This is available for Members to view in full on Public Access.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011
Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 Developer Contributions Policy G8 Development outwith Development Boundaries Policy NE3 Local Biodiversity Policy EP2 Areas of Great Landscape Value Policy EP4 Coastline Policy H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy D2 Housing in the Countryside Policy R1 Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Scottish Planning Policy 2010 Draft Scottish Planning Policy 2013 PAN 72 Housing in the Countryside
Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(a)
x Biodiversity 2005 x Privacy and Sunlight Guide 2006 x New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008 x Placemaking and Design 2010 x Development Contributions 2011 x Local Landscape Designations 2012
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Development Negotiator: Recommend that Commuted Sums towards the provision of off-site Affordable Housing should be sought in this instance. Under current policies this would necessitate £1,375 per unit, net of the first.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: The proposed development is located within the catchment area for Coldingham Primary School and Eyemouth High School. Within the updated consultation reply, it was confirmed that Developer Contributions of £4744 (£593per unit) are being sought towards the new Eyemouth High School which replaces a previous building that was under sever capacity pressure and with facilities unsuitable for further expansion. Payment of the contribution should be received on receipt of consent or at an agreed phased schedule. No contributions are being sought towards the primary school.
Ecology Officer: Satisfied with submitted Bat and Habitat surveys. The Bat survey confirmed the presence of bat roots and that the structures had potential to be used by bats for hibernation. Bats are a European protected species, if consent is obtained the developer will be required under direction of the European Commission to obtain a European Protected Species licence from SNH. It is advised that this licensing requirement is handled via an informative. In addition to this licensing requirement it is recommended that the provision of two integrated bat slates or bricks and two bat boxes are required with mitigation work carried out by a suitably qualified person.
The Habitat survey found breeding birds to be both nesting and present within the site. Mitigation is recommended in the form of; controlling demolition/conversion or clearance/disturbance to be undertaken outwith the breeding bird season and require the provision of nest cupts/ledges/boxes to be located within and around the site to cater for breeding birds observed with the site. All work should be carried out by a suitably qualified person.
The ivy covered conifer tree and hedgerow provide habitat opportunities and should be sought for retention. It is recommended that opportunities exist to enhance the site local habitat network for bats and breeding birds. It is suggested that SNH and SEPA are consulted to seek mitigation measures to control the impact of the sites surface water and waste water measures upon the adjacent Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC and Berwickshire Coast Intertidal SSSI.
Heritage and Design Officer: The existing building is not listed nor lies within as conservation area. The existing building is not considered to be of any particular architectural or historic significance, its proposed demolition and replacements with a high quality modern building is not opposed.
A key viewpoint of the proposal will be from the beach, in particular the high tide mark where the site will be visible. The development site already forms part of an
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(a)
overall “settlement”, with a varied range of building forms, heights and colours. The buildings which currently dominate this viewpoint are St Abbs Heaven and Dunlaverock as they are prominently sited and are brighter in colour.
The local area in terms of current building character is very varied with no dominant style. The preferred development choice proposes two buildings which are contemporary in style with horizontal lines under a flat roof. Their design refers to the seaside houses of the 1930s but not as simple copies of Art Deco Architecture but modern responses.
The revisions to the proposals which remove a projecting front element form the buildings reduce the built footprint of the new buildings as well as the visual impact when viewing from the approach road on both sides. These revisions significantly reduce the mass of the proposals while retaining their contemporary style. Care should be taken to ensure that the exact render colour of the new buildings is not to bright so the buildings can visually recede into the landscape, brilliant white would be too bright.
It is recommended that the proposed redevelopment of the site with a pair of contemporary villas is supported subject to a condition requiring samples of the external materials can be approved on site as this will continue the evolution of development at Coldingham Bay.
Local Plans (Re-consultation response): Do not support the application. Identify Local Plan Policy D2, section A Building Groups to be the primary policy consideration. On assessing the proposal against the numerical criteria of the specified policy, it is considered that; 1. The site is well related to a building group. 2. The existing building group consists of 17 housing dwellings and there has been no housing permissions granted during the current Local Plan period (after January 2011) at this group. Therefore a 30% increase in addition to the group would provide potential for 5 housing dwellings (17x30/100=5.1). Therefore the application for 8 dwelling units, even when treated on its own, would not be permissible under this policy point. 3. Content that the cumulative impact of the new development on the character of the building group, and on the landscape and amenity of the surrounding neighbours is not objectable. If approved, request that any render is not too prominent.
In response to policies NE1 international Nature Conservation Sites and NE2 National Conservation Sites, the recommendations of the Councils Ecologist should be adhered to.
From a policy perspective against Policy D2 Housing in the Countryside, section (A) Building Groups it is concluded that the proposal is not permissible as it would extend the building group beyond the 30% threshold.
Roads Planning Service: Acknowledge that concerns over the public road that serves the site have previously been raised; however this proposal is supportable on the basis that it represents the redevelopment of a brownfield site. The resulting traffic generated by the proposals is considered to be comparable to the vehicle movements associated with the nursing home. The development would still necessitate the need for improvements to the restricted section of road between Coldingham and the beach. A scheme of details for localised widening of the
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(a)
carriageway that allow two vehicles to pass at up to four locations will need to be implemented prior to construction work commencing on the site.
The proposed parking provision complies with our standard for communal parking of 175%. The parking spaces are not permitted to be allocated to individual properties. The parking must be a proper consolidated bituminous surface or approved equivalent with all bays clearly marked.
Concerns over the structural integrity of the public road are noted. It is recommended that if consent is granted, a condition survey of the road between the properties known as St Vedas and Dunlaverlock should be undertaken prior to development and after completion of the construction process. The developer must undertake any identified remedial work or emergency repairs in agreed timescales and at their own costs.
Urban Design: On assessment of the proposal against the Councils Placemaking and Design SPG, the proposal demonstrates a contextual design that fits within the landscape and works with the landform, site features and outward views. The scale, massing and form of the proposal achieve a balanced and clear design concept. It is recommended there are no grounds for refusal on matters of placemaking and design.
Statutory Consultees
Community Council: Express serious concern which is centred on design, inadequate parking provision and impact on public road. Following concerns were reflected in response; x Contemporary design is completely out of keeping with traditional character of dwellings and irreplaceable landscape value of Coldingham Sands. x 1.75 parking spaces per units is wholly inadequate. x Nature and volume of site construction traffic would be incompatible with present condition and on going deterioration of Coldingham Sands Road. x Impact of residential and construction traffic represent reasons for refusal. If any consent is granted conditions are needed to overcome these issues. x If consent given, development should be required to improve the public road and any changes/variation are requested to be brought to the attention of the community council and consultees.
A minority of the community council (2) felt design was acceptable, concerns over parking and construction traffic could be addressed by condition
Other Consultees
Berwickshire Civic Society: Object. Two well designed villas may have been acceptable but proposal for eight apartments which requires 14 parking spaces represents a much higher density of development than already present in site. Existing road is insufficient to cope with increased traffic. Question the stability of the site following construction of the nearby Pavilion. While there is no conservation area or Listed Buildings, the starkly modern and bulky pavilion has introduced a discordant element among its Victorian and Edwardian neighbours. This proposal would further detract from the character of the bay.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5(a)
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The main determining planning issues relevant to the consideration of this application are; x Whether the proposal represents a suitable re-development of the former Shieling Nursing home site against development plan policy relating specifically to New Housing in the Borders Countryside, including in terms of scale and number of units; x Whether the design of the proposal respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area; x Whether the proposal would adversely affect residential amenities; x Whether adequate access and parking can be achieved.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Planning Policy
The application site is located within an area which is often strongly associated with the village of Coldingham. The Local Plan process of identifying Development Boundaries of settlements in the Scottish Borders has not included this location within the Development Boundary of its own or that of Coldingham or the nearby village of St Abbs. For the purpose of planning policy, then, this location is rural and as the proposal relates to housing, it therefore falls that this proposed development must be primarily considered against Local Plan Policy D2 which specifically relates to the development of housing in the countryside.
Local Plan Policy G8 considers Development Outwith Development Boundaries, this policy applies to application sites that are on the edge or close to settlements and would represent a logical expansion of the settlement. This application site is too far detached from the settlement of Coldingham or St Abbs for policy G8 to apply.
The Forward Planning Section have identified Section A (Building Groups) of Policy D2 to be the primary consideration. This policy advises that additional dwelling units should only be permitted where the site relates well to an existing building group of at least three houses and will only result in the addition of two dwellings or a 30% increase to the group during the Local Plan period. The properties on Coldingham Sands Road stretching from St Vedas to St Abbs Heaven form a distinct building group of 17 dwellings, representing one of the larger Building Groups in the Borders. This application site is located firmly within this building group. Ordinarily, the percentage increase that a group of 17 houses could grow by would be 5 during the period of the Local Plan. Clearly a proposal for 8 units exceeds this growth capacity. However, this application is not a new build development on a green field site, instead representing the redevelopment of a building that itself may have the potential to be converted.
Housing in the countryside provision would permit for a building to be converted to residential units without policy placing a limitation on the number of permissible new units under Section C (Conversions) of Local Plan Policy D2. This is significant in establishing the baseline position in this particular building group and it is therefore prudent to consider the potential that the existing building has for conversion.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(a)
Conversion of the Existing Building
Policy D2 sets out the criteria against which a proposal to convert the existing building would be assessed.
Within the Design Statement, floor plans have been submitted illustrating how a conversion of the existing structure could be undertaken. These plans show a range of eight, 1 to 3 bedroom apartments being achievable from the existing structure. Each unit appears to provide a reasonable level of accommodation. This illustrates that the existing building is in fact physically suited to a residential use. This confirms that the first criterion is satisfied.
Criterion two of the conversion section of Policy D2 requires that the building stands substantially intact and the existing structure requires no significant demolition. Page 7 of the Design Statement lists the physical works required to be undertaken to the building. While some structural work is required, fundamentally the existing building meets the policy obligation of being suitably intact to provide potential for conversion. Criterion two is therefore fulfilled.
Criterion three requires any proposed extension or alteration to be in keeping with the scale and architectural character of the existing building. It is not suggested that any extension is required to secure the conversion of the Shieling building. This final criterion is therefore satisfied.
If such a conversion were achievable and acceptable, it is reasonable that the potential for expansion of the group is informed by the number of units of that conversion. It should not be necessary for an applicant to have to apply to convert the building (merely to establish suitable numbers) only to have to again apply for permission separately for their intended project.
In conclusion, this exercise has confirmed in physical terms that the principle of redeveloping this building through conversion can satisfactorily achieve up to 8 residential apartments within this structure.
If that is accepted, the figure becomes significantly material in determining further housing numbers both on the site and within the wider group.
Principle
The following sections will firstly appraise the natural and built context of the site. Thereafter, the report proceeds to consider the merits of the four development options referred to within the Design Statement principally in terms of scale, design and landscape and visual impact. This in turn leads to an assessment of the whether the preferred option represents an appropriate re-development of the site.
The Former Shieling Nursing Home is located within an established residential area and occupies a position midway along what is effectively a street. A proposal to create residential accommodation at the site would not, in principle, conflict with the established use of this area.
The site is located within the Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area SLA protected by Local Plan Policy EP2. The visual impact of the proposal will be seen within what is already a developed area of the SLA. The visual impact of the proposal
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(a) will generally been seen aside other existing buildings and not entirely on its own. However it is the impact, particularly on the character and appearance of the SLA and specifically as a result of its design, which is likely to be pivotal and will be considered in more detail later in this assessment.
The site also falls within the designated Coastline area, covered by Policy EP4. The proposed will not result in the development on any undeveloped part of the coast as an existing building has been long established on this site which generally Policy EP4 seeks to protect.
Having regard to the existence of a well-established and sizeable building group at Coldingham Sands and the presence of a not insubstantial building on the site already, the principle of some form of residential development here is considered acceptable.
The Design Statement which has been submitted to accompany the proposal provides four development Options, including the conversion of the existing building.
Landscape / Architectural Context
To understand the merits of the various development options that have been referred to within the Design Statement, it is important to first establish the context of the setting in which the proposals are being located within.
Coldingham Bay is specifically listed within the Berwickshire Coast SLA as being a very tranquil Bay set within an otherwise surrounding section of cliff features to provide a very distinctive and attractive section of the south east Scottish coast. This part of the coastal landscape is a valued tourist destination that is particularly popular with beach activities and walkers who in particular frequent the coastal path which runs along the beach.
Coldingham Sands Road extends upwards along the top of a steep embankment that descends down towards the beach. The rear of the site is visible from the B6438 (Coldingham to St Abbs road) across an open field. On approach to Coldingham Sands from the village the site is sporadically seen from points on this access. The application site can be seen from the beach, in particular from the high water mark. This is probably the principal view of the site within its surroundings that would be appreciated by most visitors. Moving towards the beach huts at the base of the slope, the site becomes less visible and then disappears owing to the height of the embankment.
The architectural character of the Coldingham Sands area is very varied with no single dominant style, a view expressed by the Heritage and Design Officer. In particular, there is a significant range of building styles on Coldingham Sands Road, ranging from traditional villas to pastiche replications of traditional buildings to modern houses and a converted hotel.
From the principal vantage point of Coldingham Bay back towards the site, St Vedas and St Abbs Haven at either end of the Building Group with, in between, Dunlaverock are the buildings that dominate the skyline from the beach. This is largely a result of their siting, scale and colour. The Shieling is one of the less prominent buildings, despite is relatively large scale.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(a)
Option 1 - Conversion of Existing Building
This option details the conversion of the existing building through its refurbishment with accommodated provided across three levels. Some significant work to the building is required to enable its conversion, in particular a new internal structure and new roof. There is however nothing to suggest that these works are not achievable and as previously confirmed the conversion option does seem to satisfy the determining criteria for conversions of existing buildings in the countryside., Section C (Conversions) of Local Plan Policy D2.
Visually, the existing building is not one of the dominant structures when viewed from the key vista from the beach. At closer quarters from within the building group, the elongated appearance of the building is inconsistent the scale of its neighbours. It is considered that the Shieling building has limited architectural value and contributes little to the built environment of Coldingham Bay. Therefore, while the physical condition of this building does lend itself favourably for conversion, the architectural contribution of the existing building is not judged to be as positive with the Heritage and Design Officer not opposing its demolition. There is therefore an argument that the conversion of a building that makes only limited contribution to the group is not the most satisfactory solution for the site.
Had the building been listed or otherwise considered worthy of retention, a decision to demolish may have been resisted but, for reasons already outlined, the principle of redevelopment is not considered inappropriate, in which case, attention turns to whether a new building is acceptable.
Option 2 – A New Single Volume Building
Option 2 entails removing the existing building and erecting almost a like for like replacement. It is suggested that this Option would be simpler than re-modelling work of the existing building associated with the conversion. In principle, this proposal would sit favourably against some of the tests applied by Local Plan Policy D2 Section (D) Rebuilding, as the proposal would likely be in keeping with the scale, form, extent and architectural character of the existing building which could be converted.
The developer has, however, decided against this approach and has dismissed the option.
As with each of these cases, it is not appropriate for the Council, as planning authority, to resist a proposal because it considers there to be better options. It must consider the development for which permission has been sought.
Option 3 – Two Smaller Volumes Containing 10 Apartments
Option 3 considers splitting the accommodation into two separate villas, each containing five apartments with accommodation provided on three levels. It is considered that the subdivision of development into two buildings as opposed to one singular large building does response better to the established built context of Coldingham Sands Road by re-enforcing the villa status of the street.
This Option does however provide for a volume of accommodation which extends to 10 residential units. This level of accommodation is clearly greater than the 8 residential units that the conversion of the Shieling has been demonstrated to
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(a) comfortably provide. It is therefore not considered that this is an appropriate redevelopment choice as the number of residential units exceeds the volume of accommodation that the conversion of the existing building can achieve, and may also fall foul of the accepted expansion of building groups allowed by policy.
Furthermore, in terms of appearance this Option does result in a development which is of a size and bulk which does not sensitively respect the scale and massing of the surrounding area and is judged to detract from the contribution Coldingham Bay makes to the Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area. It may therefore represent an overdevelopment of the site as well as raising other direct impacts.
Option 4 – Two Smaller Volumes Containing 8 Apartments
This is applicant’s preferred design and the Option which has been submitted for determination and will therefore form the bulk of this assessment.
Each villa will provide the following accommodation: x The ground floor level will supply a single, two bedroom apartment that is buried into the sloping site. Enclosed garden ground is provided at its front, which is also the point of this levels access. x The upper ground level provides two, two bedroom apartments with a shared fronting balcony. The access to each apartment is provided from the sides of the buildings. x At first floor level a single two bedroom apartment is proposed with uncovered terraced balcony at its side. Access to this level is provided via an external staircase.
Through the course of this submission, the proposals have been amended which has entailed the removal of ground floor projections from each of the buildings’ frontages.
The development provides a volume of accommodation that comprises of eight individual residential units, each with two bedrooms. On purely accommodation capacity terms, the current option provides a comparable level of accommodation that conversion of the Shieling building would achieve.
Turning to scale and mass of the proposals, this is a redevelopment of a site that should be considered in the context of the scale and mass of the existing building. The proposals achieve a reduction in height from the scale of the existing Shieling building as illustrated by Drawing Nos. GA-07, GA-10 and GA11. Concerns were expressed regarding the impact of a ground floor front projection to each building as these resulted in a proposal that exceeded the scale of the existing building, with these projections appearing inappropriately dominant on approach to the site. They also left little in the way of undeveloped amenity space around each building. The removal of these extensions reduced the footprint of the proposal to that of the extent of the existing building and also to reduce its mass. As the proposed redevelopment compares favourably to the extent and level of accommodation of the existing building, it cannot reasonably be adjudged to represent the overdevelopment of this site.
Having established that the broad principle and the scale and extent of the development is generally acceptable, attention turns to the issue of design, which is unarguably the most challenging aspect of this application.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(a)
The design the preferred Option is unashamedly contemporary in its approach. Its architecture is quite different to any of the architectural styles of the houses that are located on Coldingham Sands Road, particularly given the flat roofs proposed. In assessing traditional architecture against contemporary approaches, the Council’s Placemaking and Design SPG states;
“Contemporary forms without a firm design intent or contextual understanding can be often be ill fitted to their surroundings. Equally, attempts to reproduce historic styles with modern materials can result in a weak interpretation of the original character. All new housing should therefore seek to be clear and honest in its aspiration – the concept for any new design should be made clear from the outset. Regardless of the approach adopted, new housing development should always respect the most positive defining characteristics of the local area.” (page 52)
It has been established that there is in fact no prevailing architectural style which any new development at Coldingham Bay is automatically guided by. There are however key characteristics of the locality that influence development, including the seaside location. In this case, site specific factors are considered to be: Positioning within the site; orientation; building line and a general stepping in height of buildings down Coldingham Sands Road towards St Vedas.
In assessing how this proposal responds to these characteristics, it is considered that: x The sloping constraint of the site is handled by digging the rear of the ground floor accommodation into the embankment so this landform is exploited in a more responsive manner than the existing building. x The siting of the proposals remains towards the rear of the site with a south easterly orientation and outlook which corresponds with the positioning of its neighbours. x The roof heights retain the general stepping of heights down Coldingham Sands Road. The removal of the front extensions enables the proposals to fit in to the building line governed by the neighbouring buildings.
It is therefore considered that the proposal does account for contextual cues of the local area.
The Heritage and Design Officer supports the design approach of this Option which is judged to make reference to 1930s Art Deco villas which an observer would expect to find in other seaside locations. The proposal is however not seen to be a pastiche of this architectural style but a modern response, which is assisted by large glazed sections and sedum roofs.
Visually, the lower areas of the proposals will be screened when seen from the key viewpoint of the beach by the existing vegetation of the Bay’s embankment. This means that the whole of these buildings will not be visible, particularly as new planting establishes. The upper areas that will be visible fit into the general sequence of buildings stepping down the slope along the top of the embankment. From this view point the proposals do not appear to dominate the setting or character of Coldingham Bay. Their intended render colouring responds to some of the lighter finishes of the existing buildings. This physical appearance of the proposals is replicated from the longer view of the wider area from the B6438.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(a)
It is considered that through the removal of the front projections, significant improvements to these proposals have been made in shorter distance views on approach from both sides on Coldingham Sands Road. This reduction enables the scale and mass of the proposals to remain more in keeping with the scale of its neighbouring properties. The Heritage and Design Officer does however recommend that care will have to be taken with the exact render colour of the walls to ensure that its finish is not too bright and potentially overly apparent from the surrounding area. It is recommended that if Members are minded to approve this proposal then a condition should be added to require that samples of external materials are approved on site.
The visual impact of the contemporary design approach will without question introduce a different architectural style on Coldingham Sands Road. A degree of risk is always attached when undertaking something new; however, in this instance, the Heritage and Design Officer does consider this scheme to represent progress of architectural styles within the area. In line with the Council’s Placemaking and Design Guidance on contemporary proposals, the contemporary design is judged to be honest in its approach while accounting for the positive characteristics the locality.
The proposed design is a bold departure which will not be to everyone’s taste, that much is certain. Whether that makes the development unacceptable in design terms is, however, another matter. Having addressed other matters pertaining to scale, massing and extent of development, the determining factor will be that of design. Any assessment on this aspect must include a judgement over whether this is an appropriate location for contemporary design and, as noted, because of there is no single defining architectural style at Coldingham Sands, there is an argument that it is.
There undoubtedly reservations over the approach to design and Members may have sympathy with those reservations; however, whether these concerns amount to legitimate reasons for rejecting the proposal is key in reaching a decision. A decision on the appropriateness of design should not be driven by whether the design accords with individual taste. Members must therefore restrict their determination to whether the scheme is acceptable or unacceptable on its own merits.
It is considered that, on balance, the amended proposals represent a form and scale of development which accords with Placemaking and Design Guidance principles and does not detract from the setting of Coldingham Bay within the Berwickshire Coast SLA as protected by Local Plan Policy EP2 or the visual attraction of this area of the Coastline.
Protection of Residential Amenity
Policy H2 supplemented by the Council’s SPG on Privacy and Daylight seeks to ensure that development does not an adverse impact on the amenity of existing properties.
The SPG stipulates that new development should not result in unacceptable loss of daylight to habitable rooms of neighbouring properties. The proposed building is slightly closer to the neighbouring property of ‘The Gagen’ to the south west than the existing. However, the neighbouring property does not have any windows on its side elevation facing towards the proposed development. The proposed development is will not therefore cause any loss of light or sunlight to this neighbour. The north eastern side of the proposal is also marginally closer to ‘Ebbastrand’, the house to this side. This neighbour has windows of habitable rooms on its elevation facing
Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(a) towards the application site. However, the height of the proposal and the distance between the respective neighbours, ensures that the proposal will not result in causing any loss of light to any principal rooms of this property.
Turing to privacy, there are no windows on the side of these proposals that face towards any neighbours. Therefore, there will be no overlooking caused from any rooms of the proposed buildings. Balconies provide amenity space for the proposed accommodation. The central level accommodation of each villa has had its balcony area reduced as a result of a reduction to the front projections. There is still a narrow unobstructed outer edge to these balconies which could conceivably permit for views in to respective neighbour’s garden ground in the case of The Gagen and garden and habitable rooms of Ebbastrand. However, this negative impact can be readily overcome through the erection of a screen at the edges or small re-design to these sides by continuing the walls in a manner that does not detract from the architectural concept of the proposals. If Members are minded to approve these proposals it is recommended that these revisions can be agreed via an appropriately worded suspensive condition.
The upper floor balcony of the villa which shares its boundary with ‘The Gagen’ has incorporated planting to prohibit any overlooking from this terraced level into this neighbours garden. If Members are minded to approve these proposals a condition is recommended that this screen is implemented prior to occupation of the unit.
Overall, the scale of this proposal (which is lower than the existing building) will not detrimentally affect the access to light or sunlight of any surrounding properties and the incorporation of the safeguarding conditions will ensure that the development will not cause any detrimental overlooking implications allowing the proposal to comply with Local Plan Policy H2.
Access and Parking
The Roads Planning Officer has not objected to these proposals on grounds that this application represents the re-development of a previously developed site. Comments made in representations by third parties suggest this proposal will result in more traffic to the detriment of the integrity and safety of the public road. However, the Roads Planning Officer advises that the traffic movements associated with the former nursing home should not be significantly dissimilar to those associated with this redevelopment. It should be borne in mind that the road leading to this application site is a public road where there is no limitation on the volume and size of traffic which can use this public way. Therefore opposing this development on grounds that this development may result in more traffic does not appear to be supported by evidence.
No concerns have been raised with regard to the site’s access from the Roads Planning Officer.
It has been acknowledged that this proposal would necessitate improvements to the restricted section of road between Coldingham Beach and Coldingham village. A scheme of details for localised widening of the carriageway to allow two vehicles the opportunity to pass, at a maximum of four locations is recommended to be required. It is understood the discussions upon this aspect have already been held by the developer’s representatives and the Roads Planning Officer, indicating a willingness to achieve these improvements.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(a)
The multi-occupancy type of development dictates that Council parking standards seek for Communal Parking provision to be provided within the site. The Roads Planning Officer is satisfied with the volume and layout of parking. It is recommended parking bays should not be allocated and all parking areas consolidated and marked to ensure they are utilised to their full potential.
Due to concerns of damage to the structural integrity of Coldingham Sands Road between St Vedas and Dunlaverock, as a result of its use by construction traffic unrelated to this site, it is recommended that this section of road is surveyed prior to and after development. If any remedial works or emergency repairs to the road as a result of damage by construction traffic are subsequently required, these works should be undertaken by the developer in agreement with the Planning Authority.
It is therefore considered that there are no grounds to oppose this proposed development against Local Plan Policy Inf4 or road safety grounds. If Members are minded to approve this proposal it is recommended that appropriately worded planning conditions can be used to require the undertaking of the Roads Planning Officers further recommendations relating to; road improvement works, construction and maintenance of parking areas and pre and post development survey undertakings with any attributable remediation works as a result of these surveys.
Ecology
The site has no natural heritage designations, the Berwickshire Coast and North Northumberland SAC and Berwickshire Coast intertidal SSSI are however close by. The Ecology Officer suggests a need to further consult with SNH and SEPA regarding the impact of surface water run off and waste management measures. Given that this proposal relates to the redevelopment of the site with a comparable level of development where it is not proposed to alter the drainage arrangements it does not appear proportionate for there to be any detrimental impacts as a result of waste disposal. In terms of surface water run off, it is acknowledged that there is potential for a lot of hard surfaces as a result if this development. Opportunity exists to use permeable ground surface to avoid any unwelcomed impact on the nearby designated areas. Further details can however be sought via condition if Members are minded to approve with a recourse to SNH and SEPA at this juncture. There is nothing to suggest this can not ultimately be overcome.
The submitted species surveys have concluded that the demolition of the existing building will not have a significant ecological effect, though the development will require a European Protected Species Licence from SNH, an informative can be used to advise of this. Provision of bat slates or bricks in the development and nest cups, ledges or boxes for breading birds around the development, are recommended. Any site clearance works is recommended to be controlled outwith the breeding bird season.
Development Contributions
The development of eight residential units will be required to comply with Local Plan Policy G5 on developer contributions and with the relevant SPG. The housing proposed does not constitute Affordable Housing; however, the Council’s Development Negotiator has intimated that a Commuted Sum financial contribution towards the provision of off site Affordable Housing is acceptable in this instance.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(a)
The Director of Education is seeking financial contribution towards the new Eyemouth High School. In addition a commuted will be required for play area provision amounting to £500 per unit.
If Members are minded to approve this proposal, these financial contributions will need to be secured through Legal Agreement.
CONCLUSION
Subject to conclusion of a legal agreement, and subject to compliance with the schedule of conditions, it is considered that, having regard to the existing building that occupies the site, there is potential for redevelopment of the scale proposed. On balance, the design of the proposed development considered acceptable within the setting of Coldingham Bay without causing significant demonstrable harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is considered consistent with the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance having accounted for other material considerations.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:
I recommend the application be approved subject to a legal agreement addressing affordable housing, schools, play space requirements, and subject to the following conditions and informative:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
3. No development shall commence until amended plans which incorporate measures to provide a screen on each of the north eastern and south western outer balcony edges has been submitted to and approved in writing with the Planning Authority. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties.
4. A sample of all materials to be used on all exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before development. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.
5. Prior to occupation of accommodation at Level 1, balcony screening intimated on Drawing Numbers GA-05, GA-09 and GA-11 shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5(a)
6 No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include; i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored iii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iv. soft and hard landscaping works v. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.
7. No development shall commence until a scheme of details for localised widening of the carriageway on the road between Coldingham Sands Road and Coldingham village has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The agreed improvements shall be completed prior to construction work commencing on site. Reason: To ensure sufficient access to the site can be achieved.
8. The parking illustrated on Drawing Numbers GA-05 shall be a properly consolidated bituminous surface or approved equivalent and must be provided within the site before the occupation of the first dwellinghouse and retained in perpetuity. The spaces shall be clearly marked and not allocated to individual property. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
9. No development shall commence until a survey of the condition of Coldingham Sands Road between St. Vedas and Dunlaverock has been undertaken and submitted to and verified by the Planning Authority. On completion of the development a post construction survey of this length of public road shall be undertaken and submitted to the Planning Authority, any remedial works to this road identified in the post construction survey which are a result of this development shall be undertaken by the developer to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within three months. During construction, any emergency repairs requiring to be undertaken to this length of Coldingham Sands Road as a result of damage from this construction must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority by the developer within one week of identification or any subsequently approved timescale. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
10. No demolition/conversion works or clearance/disturbance of habitats which could be used by breeding birds, such as hedgerows and trees, shall be carried out during the breeding bird season (March-September) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Checking surveys will be required if any demolition works or habitat clearance are to commence during the breeding bird season. Reason: To safeguard the ecological interests of the site.
11. The following ecological mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the development in suitable locations on the building or within the redevelopment site and must be carried out by a suitably qualified person; i. Two bat slates or bricks within the construction ii. Two Schwegler woodcrete boxes
Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5(a)
iii. Three nest cups or ledged for swallows iv. Three house martin nest boxes Reason: To safeguard the ecological interests of the site.
12. No development shall commence until detailed schemes to confirm the surface water drainage within the development and means of foul drainage have been submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the sustainable and suitable disposal of site services
Informatives
1. The developers will require a European Protected Species (EPS- bats) licence from Scottish Natural Heritage prior to the commencement of works and will need to meet the terms of such a licence.
2. With reference to Condition 11, opportunities exist to enhance the local habitat network for by incorporating bird nest boxes such as the Schwegler 1N Deep Nest Box can be attached to mature trees to provide nesting opportunities for a range of bird species which are likely to be present in the area, and provide protection against predators.
DRAWING NUMBERS
GA-01 Location Plan 18.10.2013 EX-01 Exiting Site Plan 13.03.2013 EX-02 Existing Sections 13.03.2013 GA-07 Existing Elevation 13.03.2013 GA-02 Site Plans 18.10.2013 GA-03 Site Plans 18.10.2013 GA-04 Site Plans 18.10.2013 GA-05 Floor Plans 18.10.2013 GA-06 Floor Plans 18.10.2013 GA-07 Floor Plans 18.10.2013 GA-08 Elevation/Section 18.10.2013 GA-09 Elevations 18.10.2013 GA-10 Elevation/Section 18.10.2013 GA-11 Elevation/Section 18.10.2013 GA-12 Section 18.10.2013 GA-13 Elevation 18.10.2013 GA-14 Elevation 18.10.2013 GA-15 Elevation 18.10.2013 GA-16 Floor Plan 18.10.2013 GA-17 Floor Plan 18.10.2013 GA-18 Floor Plan 18.10.2013
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 5(a)
The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Scott Shearer Assistant Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 5(a)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 20 Item No. 5 (b)
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
3 FEBRUARY 2014
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/01048/FUL OFFICER: Deborah Chalmers WARD: Jedburgh and District PROPOSAL: Change of Use from Class 4-6 (industry/storage) to Class 1 (retail) and alterations to entrance door SITE: Land and Building North of Riverside Works, Edinburgh Road, Jedburgh APPLICANT: Mark Fisher AGENT: Ferguson Planning
The application requires to be determined by the Planning and Building Standards Committee because the proposal is contrary to Policy ED1 and the recommendation is for approval. Under the adopted Scheme of Delegation, a Committee decision is required on applications where a favourable recommendation is made, for a proposal significantly contrary to the Development Plan.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located within an area allocated for ‘Safeguarded Employment Land: zEL33’ in Jedburgh, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. The application site is situated on the northern edge of Jedburgh and to the east of the A68. The site is the northernmost building within allocation ‘zEL33’, which is currently vacant and last occupied by Border Print and Packaging a number of years ago. The previous use fell within Use Classes 4-6. The overall application site is 0.083ha while the building itself is 293 square metres, with a hard standing area for parking and turning to the north. An overgrown area of land lies beyond the car park, to the east there is a public footpath, trees, Jed Water and Jedburgh Camping and Caravan Park, to the south are other buildings currently in use and on the western side is the A68 with Edinburgh and Jedburgh Woollen Mills beyond. The building includes a pitched roof, door on the north elevation and roller door on the east elevation. Access into the site is to the south beyond a row of buildings within the employment site.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposal is to change the use of the building from Class 4-6 to Class 1 for retail use and alterations to the entrance door. Borders Leisure is a Jedburgh based company and the owners currently have an on-line business and participate in road shows, they currently run the business from their house in Jedburgh. Borders Leisure specialise in caravan and outdoor accessories and have built up an enterprise from attending country/tourism shows. The proposal seeks to sub-divide the existing unit to include a display area for caravan awnings and related camping products which would take up approximately 50% (147 square metres) of the internal space. A further 30% (88 square metres) of the space would be used as a dedicated retail
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5 (b)
area for items such as caravan furniture, outdoor equipment, with the remaining 20% (59 square metres) being dedicated to storage/internet sales.
The applicant intends that significant time and investment would go into enhancing the external areas around the boundary of the site and an area cleared for customer and employee car parking. Operationally, the applicant indicates that the estimated total sales will be 60% visiting the unit and 40% internet based.
The alterations to the entrance door include removing the existing fly faced door and widening the opening. A new aluminium glazed door to be fitted measuring 1.8 metres in width on the north elevation. No other changes are proposed to the external appearance of the building or the existing access/parking/turning area. No details of signage have been submitted with the application.
PLANNING HISTORY
The planning history on the site relates to separate proposals and do not directly relate to the current application.
10/01201/PPP: Erection of retail foodstore with associated parking and access infrastructure; Former Oregon Timber Frame Ltd, Station Yard, Jedburgh. (Refused October 2011)
11/01455/PPP: Erection of retail foodstore with associated parking and access infrastructure; Former Oregon Timber Frame Ltd, Station Yard, Jedburgh. (Refused February 2012)
11/01121/PPP: Erection of retail food store with petrol filling station, associated parking and access road; Former Oregon Timber Frame Ltd and Riverside Workshops, Old Station Yard, Edinburgh Road (Refused April 2013)
05/00237/OUT: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of residential care home, Border Print and Packaging Ltd, Edinburgh Road, Jedburgh (Refused April 2005)
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
No representations have been received.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The following information has been submitted by the agent and is available for Members to view in full on the Public Access System.
The first supporting statement was received in September, a further letter was received on the 12th November and further sequential test information was submitted via e-mail on the 5th December. The agent highlights the following within the supporting statement.
The site has been redundant for some time and has achieved no sound interest from Class 4-6 businesses over that time, despite it being widely advertised by local agents. To enable the business to have a physical presence it seeks to invest and take occupancy of a warehouse unit in Jedburgh. When taking into account the proximity of the nearby caravan sites at Lilliardsedge Holiday Park and Jedwater
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5 (b)
Caravan Park, it provides the logical reasoning for the location. Those seeking a full range of outdoor leisure products currently have to travel to Galashiels and Berwick.
Borders Leisure seek to take occupancy of the existing building and upgrade it internally in line with their business needs. Borders Leisure is a bulky goods retailer meaning that a large building with relevant access and circulation space is a prerequisite. It would be no different to a number of other businesses in or around the area. The statement highlighted the policy context and examined whether there are any other possible town centre/edge of centre sites.
The second supporting statement highlighted the following points:
The agent states that what is somewhat disappointing is the lack of recognition of the creation of up to 6 new jobs within Jedburgh and the significant economic boost the proposal would bring to the town .The Planning Minister places significant weight and support to development that creates new employment and supports a sustainable economic recovery and thus should be clearly acknowledged when determining local planning applications of this nature. There is more adequate land supply within Jedburgh (e.g) Oxnam Road/Bankhead Industrial Estate) to meet the future demand for the next 20 years (based on the historically uptake) so again flexibility when a new business wishes to locate within a town of Jedburgh should be supported.
The applicant sees the retail sales area as being ancillary to the function of the building and in no way a threat to the Jedburgh town centre. In fact, introducing a business that currently does not exist, will attract new trade into the town which could have knock on benefits for the town centre via linked trips and retention of lost expenditure.
The function of the building is not such that it expects to see a significant intensification to that which has gone before and thus access and parking is considered sufficient.
They do not consider the previous supermarket applications on this site to be of significant relevance to this application. Firstly, each application should be determined on its individual merits and this proposal has no real or significant relationship to what has gone before.
There is a major difference between a supermarket proposal which will predominantly sell convenience food items and a proposal which is to be used for storage/distribution, the display of comparison/bulky goods products and which will have a retail sales area of 88 square metres. Previous applications should not be allowed to cloud opinion on the current proposal which is clearly not a supermarket. To provide comfort on this point the applicant would be willing to be conditioned on the products that could be sold within the unit.
This proposal is not a strategic employment site nor does it prejudice the long term supply of employment land. It has been marketed and continues to lie dormant to no benefit to the local community or economy.
When demand has been proven not to exist and where there is ample further employment land supply we believe it wrong to prohibit or restrict proposals that ultimately will bring inward investment and create employment.
The sequential test analysis found there to be two small vacant units along the High Street. However, the units are not large enough or suitable for the applicants needs.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5 (b)
The last statement on the 5th December addresses the most recent response from the Forward Planning section in respect of the sequential test.
The agent provided reasons as to why the re-development sites (RJEDB001 and RJEDB002) are not suitable as part of the sequential test. Lastly, the agent re- iterates that the proposal;
- will not prejudice the long term employment land supply within the area; - will have significant benefits to the community not least in the form of local employment; - falls within an area of mixed use and uses that fall beyond just Classes 4-6; - seeks to regenerate and bring back into use an existing building; - will respect the character and local amenity in which it is set.
They therefore continue to be of the clear position that there are no sequentially preferable sites available or suitable in Jedburgh for the proposed development and that the subject site provides the most logical position for Borders Leisure being adjacent to the existing Caravan Park.
Flood Risk Assessment
The Flood Risk Assessment details were submitted on the 4th December 2013. The full report is available for Members to view on the Public Access System.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Strategic Development Plan 2013:
Policy 2: Supply and Location of Employment Land Policy 3: Town Centres and Retail Policy 15: Water and Flooding
Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011:
Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4: Flooding Policy H3: Land Use Allocations Policy ED1: Protection of Employment Land Policy ED3: Shopping Development Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Scottish Borders Council Retail Study 2012 Scottish Borders Council Retail Bi-Annual Survey (Summer 2013) Scottish Borders Council Annual Employment Land Audit 2012
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5 (b)
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Roads Planning Service:
Advised that the proposed parking level is in excess of what they would normally require for this size of property, hence they have no objections to the proposal. As the road serving the site is a trunk road, the comments of Transport Scotland must be sought.
Forward Planning:
Initial Consultation (25th October 2013)
The proposed development is located within ‘zEL33’ which is allocated for Employment Land Safeguarding (ED1) within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. There have previously been three planning applications within the same allocated employment site which are of relevance to this proposal and raised similar issues. These applications are: 10/01201/PPP, 11/01121/PPP & 11/01455/PPP. These are outlined within the planning history section.
The above applications were refused on the grounds that they were contrary to Policy ED1 and ED3 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. It re-iterated that policy ED1 seeks to avoid the dilution of employment land supply in the Scottish Borders with a view to strengthening the Council’s position in this respect. The policy states that there is a presumption in favour of the retention of industrial and business use on strategic and other employment sites, including new land use proposals for employment land. In respect of established or proposed industrial estates, as identified on the Proposals Maps, and other industrial locations, these will be retained for industrial development primarily as set out in Classes 4, 5 and 6.
Whilst it is accepted that there has been limited demand for employment land in Jedburgh over recent years, the long term needs (20 years +) of the settlement must be considered. The site is high profile and highly accessible and attractive to employment. The loss of employment sites to alternative uses must be avoided; as once the sites are lost they cannot be replaced.
It is not considered that the proposed development would result in significant community benefits which would outweigh the need to retain the site in employment use. The proposal has no benefits for existing local businesses and detrimental effects on the town centre will have negative effects on services for the local community. There are no known constraints on the site which would mean that there is reasonable prospect of it becoming marketable for employment in the future. No evidence has been provided to the contrary in the supporting documentation. The predominant land use within the vicinity remains employment and in view of the overall policy, it is important to retain this. Policy ED1 clearly states that retail activity will not be permissible on employment land unless it is ancillary to some other acceptable activity, this is not the case in this instance.
Policy ED3 seeks to guide new shopping development to town centres and help protect and enhance the vitality and viability of those centres. Policy ED3 requires a sequential test to ensure that the first preference for retail development is given to town centre sites followed by edge of centre sites and only as a last resort, out of centre sites. An out of centre site can only be supported when there is no suitable
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5 (b) site available in a town centre or an edge of centre location. However, in this particular case, because the application is in relation to a site specifically protected from retail development, the outcome of the sequential test is only relevant in so far as it might identify other alternative sites for retail development. The potential of any town centre sites for retail development must be fully assessed before any edge of centre or out of centre sites are considered.
It is noted that the Planning Statement submitted with the application makes reference to Policy ED3 and the proposals impact upon the town centre. It is noted that the statement says the core products from the proposal are not available within he town centre with only two shops potentially having a marginal similarly in the type of specialised goods. Therefore, the proposal may have a limited impact on existing outlets within the town centre. It states that a significant proportion of the turnover is not available within Jedburgh. It is acknowledged that the proposal would not have the same significant adverse impact on the town centre as the previous three retail proposals. However, the Statement does not constitute a full sequential test of the settlement and other sequentially preferable sites may be suitable and require further consideration. The potential of other town centre and edge of centre sites must be fully assessed before nay out of centre sites are approved.
In summary it is considered that the proposal remains contrary to well established Local Plan policies ED1 and ED3 and should be refused.
Re-consultation (3rd December 2013)
It is acknowledged that the scale and operations of this proposal and previous supermarket proposals differ but the principle of them being fundamentally retail facilities remains the issue in terms of Policy ED1, which prevents retail development on allocated employment land, other than 10% floor space ancillary use. It is still contended that the protection of employment land under Policy ED1 remains important and the loss of this land to retail purposes will set an undesirable precedent for other uses such as retail which would result in the further loss of the supply of allocated employment land.
It is noted that the agent states they visited Jedburgh and undertook a survey of the town centre. In terms of the sequential test, have they looked at redevelopment opportunity RJEDB001 which is within the town centre and RJEDB002 which is just outwith the town centre as examples.
Economic Development:
Initial consultation (16th September 2013)
Economic Development raise concerns as this planned change of use, is in contravention of Policy ED1. Concerns are raised regarding the increased activity that would occur with the large floorspace. Concerns were also raised in respect of servicing, turning head and overspill onto the access road.
Despite the comments above, the Officer is conscious of the need for diversification and this use seems suitable due to its location next to an existing caravan site. Should, therefore, a decision be made to agree to this use against policy, it is recommended that proper consideration of vehicle access and turning, acceptable parking provision and vehicle priority exiting the site, be agreed in advance. This may require that additional parking is provided and that the applicants’ site boundary be
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5 (b) extended to include more space which is available at the site to be included. This, however, may require a fresh application.
Re-consultation (27th November 2013)
Economic Development appreciate the benefit of creating additional jobs and bringing vacant premises back into use. The flexibility in applying the ED1 policy rests with Development Management and Members. We could support this proposal, subject to strong conditions in the consent to restrict only an element of retail on this specific property, and to only caravan accessories; to avoid a general retail change of use taking place. This should restrict authorised increase in retail sales by any future occupier. We consider that this does not set a precedent and that our support against the normal policy is specific to this site and this operation, adjacent to an existing caravan site.
Despite the roads response, the section still has concerns about access, turning and parking within the area highlighted on the planning application site. There is additional land outwith the boundary and would seek assurance this is available to use as overspill and that the adjacent landowner, has given consent to use of the private access road through this land to what is ultimately a landlocked site.
Flood Protection Officer:
Initial response (15th October 2013)
The site is at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years. That is the 0.5% annual risk of a flood occurring in any year. The Jedburgh Flood Study prepared by JBA Consulting in May 2006, for this Council, also shows the proposed development area to be within both the 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 year inundation outlines for the Jed Water. This study is based on actual cross sections of the watercourse and is anticipated to be more accurate than the indicative mapping although no warranty is given.
On the basis of the above a Flood Risk Assessment is requested to accurately determine the flood risk to the site. The applicant should be aware that undertaking the FRA may demonstrate that this site is not suitable for development.
Re-Consultation (14th January 2014)
Confirms that they have no objections to the proposed development as the Flood Evacuation Plan and Warning System outlined within the FRA are appropriate for the site and highlights the importance of these in relation to the management and site safety in times of flooding.
Right of Way Officer:
According to records held there is a Core Path on and adjacent to the planning application site. The route Core Path 107 also forms part of a promoted countryside access route – Lanton Moor and Timpendean Tower – Route 4 in the Paths around Jedburgh booklet. It is also a link path from Jedburgh to New Mill footbridge and linking to Dere Street.
Pedestrian Access to retail outlet As this proposed development, if given planning permission, is likely to generate traffic and parking locations, it is requested that the routes for pedestrian use are
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5 (b) dedicated to non-vehicular traffic. Non vehicular access to the retail unit will be required for walkers and cyclists for example from the caravan park and paths and pavements from the town centre and nearby retail outlets. Pedestrian routes should be made up to a safe condition and one such route should allow access for pushchairs and less able people and therefore SBC Roads should be consulted. The development has implications for the ability of the public to exercise rights of access along the Core Path 107. It is essential that these rights are not obstructed by the development and that the public shall continue to enjoy access to the Core Path without risk from any aspect of this change of use.
Riverside Path A separate defined route away from traffic and parking area should be created. This should be located on the riverside edge of the land included in this application. This route would provide access along the edge of the vehicle access area between the access across the car parking area of the adjoining property and to the main door of the proposed retail outlet. It is reasonable to expect that there will be a need for vehicle and pedestrian access to the adjacent property.
Recommends planning conditions would be attached to any planning consent;
- The path indicated Core Path 107 must be maintained open and free from obstruction in the course of development and in perpetuity and shall not form part of the curtilage of the property. - A pedestrian route along the entire riverside edge of the property is incorporated into the parking design on the riverside edge of the property. - No additional stiles, gates, steps or barriers to access may be erected that could deter potential future use.
Environmental Health Officer:
The above application appears to involve the change of use of a property within an area which is already developed. There appears to be a possible historic use of the land as a sawmill and railway land (sidings) within the vicinity of this application. This land use is potentially contaminative and may have resulted in land contamination which could affect the welfare of users, the value of the property, and the liabilities the owner/ occupier may have.
The land is not currently identified as contaminated land and the Council is not aware of any information which indicates the level of risk the potential contamination presents.
The requirement for a full site assessment and potential remediation may not be practical or proportionate given the nature of the application and it is recommended that the applicant is advised of potential land contamination issues by way of an Informative Note.
The historic use of the site as a sawmill and railway land is recorded within a Council database. This database is used to prioritise land for inspection within the Council’s Contaminated Land duties. Should the applicant wish to discuss these duties their enquiry should be directed to Environmental Health.
Statutory Consultees:
Transport Scotland: No objections.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5 (b)
Community Council: Support the proposed development being in close proximity to the caravan park and would be of benefit and an asset in that area.
SEPA: No response to date.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The key planning issues are whether the proposed development complies with the Development Plan policies and planning guidance relating to the change of use and whether the material considerations posed by the development outweigh the loss of the unit for “employment” purposes. The key questions for the assessment of the proposal are whether the development:
- Complies with the Development Plan policies on the protection of employment land and retailing development in an out of centre location; - Would result in any adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the Jedburgh town centre; - Would have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring residential amenity or visual amenities of the wider area; - Includes satisfactory access, parking and servicing; - Can be safeguarded from flood risk without creating unmanageable problems elsewhere.
Employment Land Policy
The proposed development must be assessed against Policy 2 of the Strategic Development Plan and Policy ED1, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan.
Scottish Planning Policy states that Planning Authorities should ensure that there is a range and choice of marketable sites and locations for businesses allocated in development plans to meet anticipated requirements in terms of variety of size and quality. Marketable land should meet business requirements, be serviced or serviceable within 5 years, be accessible by walking, cycling and public transport and have a secure planning status.
Policy 2: Supply and Location of Employment Land, as contained within the Strategic Development Plan states that the SDP supports the development of a range of marketable sites of the size and quality to meet the requirements of business and industry within the SESplan area. Local Development Plans will support the delivery of the quantity of the established strategic employment land supply. LDP’s should also ensure that this provides a range and choice of marketable sites to meet anticipated requirements.
Policy ED1: Protection of Employment Land, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, states that there is a presumption in favour of the retention of industrial and business use on strategic and other employment sites, including new land proposals for employment use. Established industrial estates and other industrial locations will be retained for industrial development primarily as set out in Classes 4,5 and 6. Other uses will be refused unless;
- the loss of employment land does no prejudice the existing and predicted long term requirements for industrial and business land in the locality, and
Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5 (b)
- the alternative land use is considered to offer significant benefits to the surrounding area and community that outweigh the need to retain the site in employment use, and - there is a constraint on the site whereby there is no reasonable prospect of it becoming marketable for employment development in the future, or - the predominant land uses have changed owing to previous exceptions to policy such that a more mixed use land use pattern is now considered acceptable by the Council.
In all employment land site categories development must;
- respect the character and amenity of the surrounding area, and be landscaped accordingly, and - be compatible with neighbouring employment uses.
Shops and outright retail activities will not be allowed on any employment land category, the only retailing permissible will be that which is considered to be ancillary to some other acceptable activity (e.g) manufacturing or wholesale. For the purposes of this policy, ancillary of taken as being linked directly to the existing use of the unit and comprising no more than 10% of the total floor area.
Policy H3: Land Use Allocations, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 states that any other use allocated sites will be refused unless the developer can demonstrate that;
- it is ancillary to the proposed use and in the case of proposed housing, it still enables the site to be developed in accordance with the indicative capacity; - there is a constraint on the site and no reasonable prospect of its becoming available for the development of the proposed use within the Local Plan period; - the alternative use offers significant community benefits that are considered to outweigh the need to maintain the original proposed use; and - the proposal is otherwise acceptable under the criteria for infill development.
Site Choice
The applicant asserts that there are no suitable town centre or edge of centre locations for such a business (and the robustness of this assertion is assessed below). The applicant is therefore proposing to use a building located within the Safeguarded Employment Site, currently used for Classes 4-6. As stated above, Policy ED1 resists any outright retail development within safeguarded employment sites, which would result in the loss of the employment land supply.
Fundamentally, the issue is that the proposed change of use is contrary to Policy ED1, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. Therefore, the Planning Service must assess whether the benefits from the development, outweigh the loss of the employment unit to a retail use.
Consultation Responses
The Local Plans section state that the site is highly accessible and attractive and that the proposed use would not result in significant community benefits which would outweigh the need to retain the site in employment use. Furthermore, that the proposal has no benefit for existing local businesses and detrimental effects on the town centre. There are no known constraints on the site which would prevent this building becoming marketable in the future. The Economic Development Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5 (b) states that the proposal is contrary to Policy ED1, however, could support the proposal subject to strong conditions, restricting the use to only one element of retail within this property, to caravan accessories. They consider that this does not set a precedent and that their support is specific to this site and the operations and use proposed, adjacent to the caravan site.
In strict policy terms, the proposal is contrary to development plan policy in that it results in the loss of allocated and readily available employment land. However, it is an accepted principle that applications should not be refused solely on the grounds that it fails to meet policy criteria unless they also give rise to an identifiable and demonstrable harm. As such, it is also necessary to consider whether that there are any material considerations that may determine that the proposal would be acceptable. It is also relevant that, because there are no retail allocations within the development plan, even where a retail justification is established, any such proposal runs the risk of being contrary to one policy or another. In such circumstances, it is correct and proper to balance the effects of the development against each policy, to attach appropriate weight to each and, thereafter, to assess whether the overall impacts and effects of the proposal are acceptable or unacceptable in more general planning terms.
Employment Land Supply
The Scottish Borders (Employment Land Audit 2012) surveys undeveloped employment sites, therefore, this site is not included within the established land supply. The most up to date survey is 2012, which indicates there are 4 sites within Jedburgh which are established land supply, this account for 8.61ha, over 5ha of which is available immediately. The employment land take up rate in Jedburgh has been slow in recent years, with no land taken up between 2008 and 2011 and only 0.2ha taken up in 2012. This does not account for vacant buildings within employment sites. Therefore, it should be noted that the change of use would not impact upon the current established employment land supply within Jedburgh.
Nevertheless, the building exists and is available for use; weight should therefore be attached to the loss of a building that could be occupied immediately and this was a factor in the determination of recent applications. That, in turn, needs to be balanced against the fact that the building has been vacant for a period of years, despite significant periods of marketing. If this were to continue, the building may continue to deteriorate, becoming a less attractive proposition for future investors.
Supermarket Applications (History)
Members will be familiar with the recent applications for supermarket developments on this and adjoining sites which were recently refused on the grounds of loss of employment land and impact upon the town centre, for which neither reason could be mitigated. It is considered that this proposal raises different issues to the previous supermarket applications. The previous planning applications for the supermarkets covered a larger site, including a significant proportion of the allocated safeguarded site, in comparison to the current proposal for 293 square metres. The supermarket would have resulted in the permanent loss of a large section of the safeguarded allocation zEL33. Furthermore, the supermarket would have resulted in a negative impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre, particularly owing to the fact that the development would have been predominantly engaged in convenience (food) retail sales that are presently met by existing providers in the town centre. Moreover, it was not considered that any benefits of the supermarket outweighed the permanent loss of the employment allocation.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5 (b)
Other material factors
The current application must be assessed on its own merits and balance whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the loss of the unit for employment use. As discussed above, there remains 8.61ha of undeveloped employment land within Jedburgh and this does not account for the vacant employment building as well. Given the recent slow take up of employment land, it is considered that there is sufficient land supply for the long term requirements of Jedburgh, based on recent figures. It should be noted that the proposal would create 6 jobs and potentially attract visitors to the town from other settlements/local camp sites. This in turn, could have a positive impact for the vitality and viability of the town centre, because the specialist nature of the proposed sales is such that it may draw customers from a wide area, who would then make linked trips to retailers and other attractions in the town. These are not arguments that applied to the proposals for supermarkets.
Sequential Test
The proposed development is for the change of use from Class 4-6 to Class 1, within an allocated employment site, which is an out of centre site. The proposed development must be assessed firstly against Policy 3: Town Centres and Retail, as contained within the Strategic Development Plan and Policy ED3: Shopping Development, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011.
Scottish Planning Policy states that town centres should be the focus for a mix of uses including retail, leisure, entertainment, recreation, cultural and community facilities, as well as homes and businesses. SPP states that the sequential approach should be used when selecting locations for all retail uses unless the development plan identifies an exception. The sequential approach requires that locations are considered in the following order; town centre, edge of town centre and out of centre locations that are or can be made easily accessible. Where development proposals in edge or out of town centres are not consistent with the development plans, it is for applicants to demonstrate that more central options have been thoroughly assessed and that the impact on existing centres is acceptable. Out of centre locations should only be considered when all town centre and edge of town centre options have been assessed and discounted as unsuitable or unavailable, development of the scale proposed is appropriate and there will be no significant adverse effect on the vitality and viability of existing centres. All retail developments should be accessible by walking, cycling and public transport.
Policy 3:Town Centres and Retail, as contained within the Strategic Development Plan states that LDPs will;
a) identify town centres and commercial centres clearly defining their roles; b) support and promote the network of centres and identify measures necessary to protect these centres including setting out the criteria to be addressed when assessing development proposals, and c) promote a sequential approach to the selection of locations for retail and commercial leisure proposals. Any exceptions identified through LDP’s should be fully justified.
Policy ED3: Shopping Development, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, states that the aim of the policy is to guide new shopping development to town and village centre, thereby help protect and enhance the vitality and viability of these centres, particularly the defined centres in the larger settlements. A ‘sequential test’
Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5 (b) ensures that the first preference for retail development is given to town centre sites, followed by edge of centre sites and only as a last resort out of centre sites.
The Council will have regard to the following considerations in assessing any application for out of centre retail development;
- the individual or cumulative impact of the proposed development on the vitality and viability of the existing town centre; - the viability of a suitable town centre or edge of centre site; - the ability of the proposal to meet deficiencies in shopping provision which cannot be met in town centre or edge of centre locations; - the impact of the proposal on travel patterns and car usage; - the accessibility of the site by a choice of means of transport; - the location of the proposal. Sites will be located within existing settlements and, within them, preference will be given to applications on vacant or derelict sites, or on sites deemed to be surplus to requirements.
Town Centre sites
As per SPP and the Development Plan, the agent has undertaken a sequential test exploring the opportunities available within the town centre and edge of centre sites. Firstly the agent reviewed any vacant premises within the Jedburgh town centre and any sites on the edge of the town, which may be suitable for such a business. The agent identified two vacant units within the town centre, both of which were unsuitable and not large enough to accommodate such a business of this scale. Borders Leisure sells a number of bulky goods, including camping furniture, amongst other smaller items, therefore it would be unable to run efficiently from a small scale premises. The business also has an on-line retail element, therefore 20% of the space would be dedicated to storage and distribution. The display area would make up 50% of the unit, with the remaining 30% being dedicated to retail space. The agent concluded that there are no suitable vacant units within the town centre to meet his clients needs in respect of size and a lack of sites available in edge of town sites.
Redevelopment sites
There are a lack of available sites within the town centre boundary within Jedburgh, with only one site allocated for re-development ‘RJEDB001: The Anna’, measuring 0.4ha. The Consolidated Local Plan 2011 requires a full flood risk assessment for any development on this site and retail or commercial uses will be viewed more favourably than residential on the site. The applicant offered the following comments in respect of the site;
- The site would involve the purchase of varying pieces of land and this is not viable as not all parts are available for purchase; - The cost of doing so would be significant and beyond the means of the applicant; - There are significant unknowns in relation to flooding and mitigation works which again makes which development financially unfeasible; - There are significant operational constraints in the operation of any development on this site with the neighbouring Fire Station.
Further to a consultation response from the Local Plans section, it was suggested that the proposed re-development site ‘RJEDB002: Riverside Mill’, measuring 0.2ha, as identified within the proposed Local Development Plan 2013 should be examined. The proposed Local Development Plan 2013 requires a full flood risk assessment to
Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5 (b) inform development of the site, suitable access to the site would be determined by the proposed use and would require discussion with the Council’s Roads Planning team. The agent offered the following comments on the site:
This site does not fall within the current adopted Local Plan and therefore not a formally adopted re-development site. The agent acknowledges that it is within the proposed plan, however, it falls outwith the town centre boundary. The agent does not consider this site to be edge of centre but out of centre, on the basis of the distance to the town centre and barriers between it and the main shopping street, not least the Jed Water. The agent has stated that case law demonstrates that there is no requirement to test differing out of centre sites. Beyond this, the agent believes that:
- The site falling within multiple ownership is being pursued as a housing development and thus not available; - The costs of demolishing, remediating the site, addressing any possible flood mitigation and constructing the proposed development would make it financially unfeasible for the applicant; - Accessibility and servicing of the site would be via narrow and residential streets which give rise to operational and amenity concerns.
It is acknowledged that due to the scale and nature of the business that there are no suitable alternative sites within the town centre which would be suitable for the applicants needs. Furthermore, there is a lack of edge of centre sites within Jedburgh. The two re-development sites have been disregarded by the agent for the reasons above and this is acknowledged. It must be stated that there are no mixed use allocations within Jedburgh to which the applicant could be directed, with only employment allocations on the edge of the town. As such, the applicant has demonstrated a sequential test which examined the town centre, edge of centre and re-development opportunities within Jedburgh.
It is not considered that the proposed development would impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre. The agent has stated that the core products are not currently available within the town centre, with only two shops identified that may be remotely similar in some good types. Therefore, the business would provide a service which cannot currently be found within Jedburgh. As such, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a negative impact upon the vitality and viability of Jedburgh’s town centre. As the proposal would not involve selling convenience goods, it is not considered that a Retail Impact Assessment is required in this instance and that the proposal would not have a negative impact upon the expenditure within the Jedburgh town centre. It is not considered that the business would have any direct competition within the town centre and would likely attract customers from other towns who travel for certain products, including those staying at local camp sites.
The relationship with the adjoining caravan park is also a factor that adds weight to the suitability of the site in terms of site selection.
The site is accessible to members of the public by a variety of means of transport and is sited adjacent to the main road and Core Path. Overall, it is considered that the applicant has looked at other sites within the town, in compliance with Policy ED3 and there are no alternative suitable sites for their needs.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5 (b)
Discussion
Taking the above into consideration, it is considered that there are material factors that outweigh the loss of the unit for employment purposes, at least in the short term. It should be noted that this has taken account of the sequential test, the fact the unit has been marketed for a number of years, current employment sites within Jedburgh, job creation and ultimately the potential for this proposal to draw visitors into the town and contribute to the vitality and viability of Jedburgh.
This application has been assessed on its own merits and specifically relates to using the building for camping accessories by Borders Leisure. This does not set a precedent for similar future proposals. It is not considered that there are any other suitable sites within Jedburgh to accommodate the scale and requirement of the business, given the bulky nature of the goods. There is also some logic to the choice of site given its relationship with the nearby caravan park. Furthermore, taking into consideration the current economic climate, recent slow employment land take up, proposed job creation and the fact that the proposed use would not result in any negative impact upon the town centre, there are arguments in favour of the proposed change of use. If the proposed use is considered acceptable, the re-use of the existing building (even if only on a temporary basis) also becomes a factor, as to leave the building to remain empty is to no-one’s advantage. To allow it to be occupied may, in time, make it more attractive for use by other, more conforming businesses, when the economy picks up.
To ensure that the unit is used by Borders Leisure for the purposes stated, the following conditions will be attached to any planning consent;
- Restricting the consent solely to Borders Leisure. This will ensure that should the company cease trading the building reverts back to Use Class 4-6, thus the employment use is not being lost in perpetuity. Any other future Class 1 use would require to be assessed as part of a planning application; - Restricting the goods to be sold to camping accessories, this ensures that no convenience goods are sold which could have a negative impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre; - A time restriction to three years to strike a balance that will allow the business to establish but to allow re-assessment of the position in the future should demands for employment land increase.
Amenity
Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas will not be permitted. The site is located within an employment site and there are no residential properties within close proximity of the application site. Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any impacts upon the visual amenities of the wider area or surrounding land or properties, in compliance with Policy H2.
Parking and turning area
Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, ensures that development proposals incorporate adequate provision for car and cycle parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards. Although the Economic Development Officer raised concerns regarding the proposed parking and turning area, the Roads Planning Officer did not raise any
Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5 (b) concerns. He is satisfied that the existing parking and turning area are sufficient to meet the requirements of the proposal, in compliance with Policy Inf4.
Flooding
Policy 15: Water and Flooding, as contained within the Strategic Development Plan, states that the Local Development Plans will avoid any new development in areas at medium to high flood risk and safeguard areas which will help contribute to reducing overall flood risk. Policy G4: Flooding, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2001, intends to discourage development from taking place in areas which are, or may become subject to flood risk.
Further to a request from the Flood Risk Officer, a Flood Risk Assessment was submitted. The Officer has stated that they have no objections to the proposal, as the Flood Evacuation Plan and Warning System outlined within the FRA are appropriate for the site. An informative will be attached to planning consent to remind the applicant the importance of these measures.
Contaminated Land
Policy G2, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, aims to allow development on contaminated or potentially contaminated sites but in a manner that ensures that the re-use and restoration of such sites is made possible without any risk to public health and safety or to the environment. The Environmental Health Officer has advised that the land is not identified as contaminated. However, an informative note will be attached to planning consent to make the applicant aware that there appears to be a possible historic use of the land as a sawmill and railway land.
Rights of Way
The Right of Way Officer has advised raised concerns that the development will have negative implications for the ability of the public to exercise rights of access along Core Path 107. However, given that the proposal is merely concerned with the change of use of the building, it is not considered that the proposal would impact upon the Core Path 107. A condition will be attached to planning consent stating that Core Path 107 must be maintained open and free from obstruction in the course of development and in perpetuity and shall not form part of the curtilage of the property. No additional stiles, gate steps or barriers to access may be erected that could deter the potential future use.
The Officer has requested that a separate defined route away from traffic and parking area should be created along the riverside edge of the land. This would provide access along the edge of the vehicle access area between the access across the car parking area of the adjoining property and to the main door of the proposed retail outlet. The Planning Service take on board the comments of the Officer. However, this application is merely concerned with the change of use to the property and the Roads Planning Service have no raised no concerns regarding the access to the site. It is considered that the public have access to the site from the pavement and in this case the public will be able to gain access to the retail unit and there it is not considered that the proposal requires the formation of a separate path stretching along the riverside.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5 (b)
CONCLUSION
The proposed change of use to a retail unit is considered to be acceptable. The site lies within a safeguarded employment site and is contrary to Policy ED1. However, it is considered that there are mitigating factors that outweigh the loss of the unit to retail use, in that the applicant has demonstrated a sequential test confirming no other suitable sites are available, the proposal will create jobs and will not result in any negative impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre. Due to the current economic climate, it is considered that there is sufficient land supply with Jedburgh to meet long term demands based on recent take up figures and that the use of this building for a time-limited period will not prejudice the long term suitability and availability of the site for employment use. It is not considered that the proposal will harm the visual amenities or the amenities of neighbouring land and properties. Subject to planning conditions, the proposal is considered acceptable and complies with Policy G1, G4, H3, ED3, H2 and Inf4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:
I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions and approval of the Scottish Ministers.
Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. This permission shall exist for the benefit of Borders Leisure only and for no other business. Reason: This permission is granted exceptionally and only in view of the circumstances and nature of the business.
3. Consent is granted for a limited period of three years from the date of this consent and the approved use shall cease before the expiry of the period unless a planning application to retain the permitted use has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. In the event that no such planning application has been so approved, the use of the premises shall revert to its current lawful use under Classes 4-6 of the Use Class (Scotland) Order 1997. Reason: To ensure that the proposed use of building does not compromise the long term availability of available employment land in Jedburgh.
4. The goods to be sold from the premises shall be restricted to camping, caravan and associated outdoor accessories. No convenience goods (including food or drink) of any kind shall be sold from the premises. Reason: To ensure that the goods are related to Borders Leisure and no other goods are sold which may impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre.
5. The path indicated Core Path 107 must be maintained open and free from obstruction in the course of development and in perpetuity and shall not form part of the curtilage of the property. No stiles, gates, steps or barriers to access may be erected that would deter the potential future use. Reason: To protect access rights during and after development.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5 (b)
Informatives
1. Be advised that any signage in the future may require Advertisement Consent depending upon the proposed details.
2. A copy of the consultation response from Environmental Health regarding the potential contamination of the site is attached for the information of the applicant.
3. The measures contained in the Flood Warning and Evacuation Procedures submitted with this application to be implemented as part of the development. A copy of the consultation response from the Flood Protection Officer is attached for the information of the applicant. Reason: To safeguard persons and properties from flooding.
DRAWING NUMBERS
Location Plan General – 300813/01 (August 2013)
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Deborah Chalmers Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 5 (b)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 5(c)
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
3 FEBRUARY 2014
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 1. 13/00636/FUL 2. 13/01392/FUL OFFICER: Andrew Evans WARD: Tweeddale East PROPOSAL: 1. Erection of seven dwellinghouses (Change of house types to enable erection of an additional three dwellings in comparison to previous approval 06/01404/FUL) 2. Erection of two dwellinghouses (Amendment to dwellinghouse positions and type previously approved under application 06/01404/FUL) SITE: Land South of Meigle Row, Clovenfords APPLICANT: Barratt East Scotland AGENT: Halliday Fraser Munro (Edinburgh)
CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
The applications are presented to the Committee for determination as the first application (13/00636/FUL) was subject to Member call in. The second application (13/001392/FUL) is so intrinsically linked to the first, that it is considered appropriate that they be determined at the same time by Members.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The sites are located within a modern housing development, and are located within the Development Boundary at Clovenfords. The Barratt development is located on the southern side of the village on sloping land. The dwellings to the north of the site have largely been completed, with the new road, Lairburn Drive to the north of the sites.
The site of application 13/00636/FUL is located to the immediate west, and upslope of the 2 completed dwellings on Plots 69 and 70, now known as no.1 and no.3 Lairburn Drive. The site is on the eastern side of Todburn Way, the new road currently under construction which would serve the wider site.
The site of application 13/01392/FUL is further south, in an area currently cleared in preparation for future development, with development underway on neighbouring plots to the south and west. Again, the site would be accessed from the new road, Todburn Way, which is under construction.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Application 13/00636/FUL seeks consent to deviate from the existing approved development on the site. The 4 detached 2 storey dwellings approved on Plots 65, 66, 67, and 68 of the original approval would be replaced with two terraces, one of
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(c) three dwellings as a second terrace of 4 dwellings. The proposed terraces would be focused around a central parking courtyard.
Application 13/01392/FUL seeks consent to substitute two large detached dwellings for two smaller detached house types, and permit additional garden space for the proposed dwellings in the second terrace of 4 houses set out in application 13/00636/FUL. This revision has also permitted a greater distance to be achieved between dwellings.
PLANNING HISTORY
The site has a complex planning history. The main permission relating to the housing development is 06/01404/FUL, which was for the erection of 70 dwellinghouses with associated roads and landscaping. This application was determined by the Planning and Building Standards Committee. When originally submitted, approval was sought for 87 dwellings, though during the course of the processing of the application, this was reduced to the final figure of 70. The site had previously been allocated and a planning brief had been produced for the site which suggested a figure of 66 units would be appropriate.
Since this main approval, further applications were received to amend and alter a number of planning conditions of the consent. The following applications were made to revise house types within the development:
08/00966/FUL - Change of house type on Plots 5-23, 43-47 and 49-53 to incorporate timber deck and steps. This application was approved with Conditions
10/00832/FUL - Change of house type on Plots 66, 67 and 68 previously approved on consent 06/01404/FUL. Approved with Conditions
11/01181/FUL - Change of house type to plots 18, 19, 20 & 21 on previously approved consent 06/01404/FUL. This application was approved with Conditions
12/00294/FUL - Change of house type to plots 19 & 20 on previously approved consent 11/01181/FUL. This application was withdrawn prior to determination.
13/01019/FUL - Erection of dwellinghouse (change of house type on Plot 64 previously approved under consent 13/01019/FUL). This application was withdrawn prior to determination, as it was superseded by the current application 13/01392/FUL.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
At the time of writing, one objection had been received in response to the public consultation, to application 13/00636/FUL. The objection can be viewed in full on the public access website raises the following issues:
x Loss of light x Ongoing drainage and flooding issues affecting the objectors plot x Noise x Overlooking and Privacy – specifically in relation to the proposed terrace of three dwellings in application 13/00636/FUL and their relationship to the objectors dwelling. x Road Safety x Impact on property value
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(c)
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The submitted elevations include an assessment from neighbouring windows in terms of the angles set out in the Council SPG on Householder Development, and the privacy and amenity standards therein.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Education and Lifelong Learning: A contribution of £8612 per unit is sought for the Primary school, and £3956 per unit for the Academy. This would require a total per unit contribution of £12568. Note – The Development negotiator has subsequently clarified that these contributions apply for any additional units consented.
Development Negotiator: Contributions would apply on the following pro rata basis for each additional dwelling:
Affordable Housing - Commuted Sum @ £3,875/house
Borders Railway - £1,631/house
Central Borders Road Traffic Management Project - £1,000/house
Play Facility Contribution - Off-site Commuted Sum @ £532/house
Roads Planning:
13/00636/FUL - The amended plans for this application read in conjunction with application 13/01392/FUL are satisfactory. There is an increase in units to that previously approved, rising from 4 to 7. The 3 extra units over and above the original consent will require a £1,000 per unit increase in the original contribution towards the Central Borders Traffic Model.
When read alongside application 13/01392/FUL the proposal provides 14 spaces for the 7 dwellings proposed, with 13 communal spaces and 1 curtilage space for plot 65. I am more than satisfied that provided all the communal parking remains unallocated that there is adequate parking provision provided. The footway crossing will have to be formed as per the approved Road Construction consent for the site.
13/01392/FUL - I have no objection to the slight repositioning of these units. The footway crossings must be constructed as per the detail in the approved Road Construction Consent for the site.
Statutory Consultees
Clovenfords and District Community Council:
13/00636/FUL - Object to this application, citing concerns over the density and elevation of the site and detriment to residential amenity for neighbouring properties through loss of light.
13/01392/FUL - Comments awaited.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(c)
Other Consultees
None
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011
G1 Quality Standards for New Development G5 Developer Contributions G6 Developer Contributions related to Railway Reinstatement G7 Infill Development H1 Affordable Housing H2 Protection of Residential Amenity H3 Land Use Allocations Inf 3 Road Adoption Standards Inf 4 Parking Standards Inf 5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Inf 6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Inf 11 Development that generates Travel Demand
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Scottish Planning Policy PAN 44 Fitting New Housing into the Landscape PAN 65 Planning and Open Space PAN 67 Housing Quality Designing Streets Designing Places
Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing Developer Contributions Placemaking and Design Guidance on Householder Development
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The key issues are whether the proposed development complies with development plan policies and planning policy guidance regarding the provision of a housing development on an allocated site, particularly accounting for matters of design, layout, land use compatibility, traffic and parking.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATIONS:
Planning Policy
The sites are located within the development boundary of Clovenfords. The sites are part of a larger allocation for housing the Consolidated Local Plan. A significant proportion of the development of the site has been undertaken and completed.
There have, since the grant of permission, been significant changes in planning policy and guidance regarding the layout and design of new housing developments, as contained within the Government’s Designing Streets and Designing Places
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(c) documents, and the Council’s SPG Placemaking and Design. These are particular considerations for members to take into account in assessing the design quality of the current application.
The principle of housing on the site is, however, well established.
Density and layout
The previous permission is a material consideration as regards density and layout, though subsequent significant changes to planning policy guidance, in terms of Designing Streets, Designing Places and Placemaking and Design, require a different approach to some aspects of the layout, as far as they are able to address relatively small scale changes.
The approved housing scheme for the wider site pre-dates these recent changes in planning policy regarding housing layouts.
Planning permission was approved for the erection of 70 dwellinghouses with associated roads and landscaping. The current, combined, proposals would result in the erection of 73 dwellings on the planning application site. That proportionately small increase should not, in itself, raise any specific concern, provided that the changes do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts.
Dealing first with layout, the submitted applications have been adjusted during their processing so that the final layout permits more space to the dwellings than originally suggested by the applicants.
It is considered that the density of the scheme in visual terms is appropriate and will contribute to an enhanced sense of place. The increased density and introduction of terraces within the development is to be welcomed in Placemaking and Design terms, the changes assisting in the breaking up of the expanses of detached dwellings within the site, and introducing suitable variation in the building form found within the development.
Residential Amenity
Given the sloping topography of the site, care has been taken to ensure consideration is given to the impacts of these proposed revision on existing housing within the development.
The resident of 1 Laburnum Drive has objected to the application on grounds of the impact of the proposed northern terrace in application 13/00636/FUL. The location of this terrace has been revised from its originally suggested location, with a revised block plan being submitted, moving the terrace back from Plots 69 and 70 and showing the compliance with the 25 degree line as required by the adopted SPG to meet daylighting standards. There is a minimum of 22 metres between the rear of the existing houses in Laburnum Drive and those now proposed which, even allowing for the change in levels (a 1.5m difference) between the two, meets the requirements to avoid overlooking in set out in the same SPG.
During the course of the application, amendments have been made to the position of houses’ nearest neighbours to the south. Further revisions to the relationship between proposed plots 64 and 65 have been carried out. The revised relationship here is now acceptable. The rear of plot 65 has more than one window serving the
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(c) room affected by plot 64, and as such, the proposals are not considered to be in breach of the adopted SPG on Householder Development.
The development, as now proposed, should not lead to significant impacts on neighbours regarding outlook, privacy, sunlight or daylight loss.
Road safety concerns are listed in the reasons for the objection from the neighbour to the site. Much of the content of the objection however relates to ongoing disputes with the developer regarding drainage provision, and issues the objector has encountered. In terms of the specific concerns relating this planning application, it is not felt that these are directly relevant grounds that would give rise to an objection to these applications.
The drainage arrangements for these revised proposals for the sites will be subject to standard planning conditions on services. The specific details of the drainage arrangements will require consideration and approval through the Building Standards process.
Road Safety, Access and Parking
The RPS has not sought an assessment of off-site traffic impacts. Contribution towards the Central Borders Traffic Study has been identified. The increased number of units does not give rise to any road safety concerns.
Design and materials
The context for the site is provided exclusively by the surrounding housing development. As noted above, much of this development pre-dates recent policy with regards to Placemaking and Design. The introduction of terraces is however an opportunity to introduce some variation in the built form and street pattern of the housing development, and is welcomed.
In terms of house designs and materials, the proposals reflect generally the neighbouring palette and architectural detailing. The terraced dwellings would be completed with rendered walls, tiled roofs and uPVC windows and doors. 3 options are tabled for the render finish. A condition will require submission and agreement of the details of the final finish to be used on site.
Infrastructure and contributions
In order to comply with development plan policies and guidance, the development is liable for development contributions.
Negotiations had taken place with between the Council Development Negotiator and the developer regarding a re-assessment of the contributions liable across the whole of the Barratt development, though no agreement could be concluded.
Contributions are applicable on additional dwellings beyond the existing planning consent on the site. The Development Negotiator has advised the applicants on the policy position previously. There is currently no justification to deviate from this position. The current proposals set out in applications 13/00636/FUL and 13/01392/FUL would involve the construction of an additional 3 dwellings on the site, over and above the existing consent. This would attract contributions as follows:
Education
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5(c)
Contributions within local catchments would be as follows:
Clovenfords PS Development Contributions are currently being sought at the new build rate, this equating to £8,612/market house. Contributions in line with this policy position would be sought for any additional units consented.
£8,612 x 3 = £25,836
Galashiels HS Development Contributions are currently being sought at the new build rate, this equating to £3,956/market house. Contributions in line with this policy position would be sought for any additional units consented. 7 year spend deadlines would be sought in respect of contributions for all primary schools within Galashiels town boundaries as well as Gala Academy.
£3,956 x 3 = £11,868
Borders Railway
Borders Railway contributions are currently £1,631/market unit (house or flat) for each additional unit over and above those already consented.
£1,631/unit x 3 = £4,893
Central Borders traffic
Contributions towards the Central Borders Road Traffic Management Project (The Road Network Contribution) will be required in respect of each additional residential unit at a rate of £1,000/market unit.
£1,000 x 3 = £3,000
Play provision
Contributions towards the enhancement of the local play facility would be sought. These are sought at a rate of £532/unit (irrespective of whether market or affordable), this rate being derived from the amount agreed in respect of the consented application (and rounded to the nearest whole pound).
£532 x 3 = £1596
Affordable Housing
Adopted affordable housing policy guidance currently requires that 25% of all the development (excluding the first unit) should comprise affordable housing. It is noted that in respect of the original planning application, commuted sums towards the provision of off-site affordable housing were accepted. A similar approach in terms of the contribution for Affordable Housing would currently work out at: no. of units @ 25% x £15,500.
This works out as follows:
£3,875 x 3 = £11,625
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(c)
Confirmation has been requested from Barratt’s that they are content to proceed on the above basis with these planning applications, and Members will be updated on the developers response at the time of the Committee meeting.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development set out in the applications would comply with development plan policies, subject to a legal agreement addressing the identified developer contributions and affordable housing. The submissions have been adjusted during the course of processing the application principally in order to seek to address current policy guidance
RECOMMENDATIONS BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:
APPLICATION 13/00636/FUL
I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. Further details of the road, ground and finished floor levels, including retaining walls and banking to the northern edge of the site, shall be submitted for the approval of the planning authority before the development commences Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area
3. The layout of the site shall accord with the approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved site layout.
4. A sample of all materials to be used on all exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before development. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.
5. Further information shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before development commences regarding water supply and foul drainage Reason: To ensure that the development can be adequately serviced.
6. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(c)
iii. soft and hard landscaping works iv. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.
APPLICATION 13/01392/FUL
I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. The layout of the site shall accord with the approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved site layout.
3. The elevations and materials of the “Ascot” House type hereby approved shall be in accordance with the details previously approved by the Planning Authority under drawing CLOV/ASC/01A of planning approval 06/01404/FUL and associated approved details of materials. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development.
4. Further information shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before development commences regarding water supply and foul drainage. Reason: To ensure that the development can be adequately serviced.
5. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iii. soft and hard landscaping works iv. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.
DRAWING NUMBERS
APPLICATION 13/00636/FUL
Drawing Number Title E2516/L(2)01 BLOCK ELEVATIONS E2516/L(2)02 BLOCK PLANS E2357/L(--)201 (09 Dec 2013) LOCATION PLAN, SITE LAYOUT AND DAYLIGHT STUDIES
Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(c)
APPLICATION 13/1392/FUL
Drawing Number Title E2357/L(--)310 LOCATION PLAN, SITE LAYOUT
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Andrew Evans Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(c)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(d)
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
3 FEBRUARY 2014
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00800/PPP OFFICER: Carlos Clarke WARD: Galashiels and District PROPOSAL: Residential development SITE: Land East, West And South West Of Easter Langlee House, Galashiels APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs L Niven And Mr & Mrs I MacDonald AGENT: Aitken Turnbull Architects Ltd
SITE DESCRIPTION
This application seeks Planning Permission in Principle for residential development. The original application included an indicative plan specifying fifteen houses. In response to queries raised during the course of the application on various matters, this plan has since been withdrawn and been replaced by a boundary plan which illustrates ‘site developable areas’ only, along with proposed tree removals. Common to both the original indicative plan and the current plan, however, is a proposed new vehicular access incorporating a right turn lane, from the C77, Langshaw road, closure of an existing access from the same road, and removal of existing stables, yard and access.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The site is located at the easterly end of Galashiels, alongside and currently accessed from the C77 Langshaw road. The site is L-shaped and is described in the application submission as amounting to 1.08 hectares. It comprises a detached house (Easter Langlee House) and grounds to its east and west. The residential property occupies an elevated position above agricultural land to its north and south, land which is subject to major residential development (including recently occupied properties in what is now referred to as Stable Gardens). The south-westerly portion of the site comprises rising land within which are existing stables buildings. The site includes trees subject to Tree Preservation Order under an existing Easter Langlee TPO and, during the course of processing this application, a further Order was imposed on the site itself with a number of other trees within it being designated for protection under it.
The house is currently accessed from the C77 by a driveway located at its northerly end, alongside which is a neighbouring cottage (Aislinn, 1 Easter Langlee Cottages). On the opposite side of the C77 to the west is a group of residential properties, and the undeveloped portion of the Coopersknowe residential development (granted consent, pending legal agreement, for 42 houses in 2013)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(d)
PLANNING HISTORY
There is no relevant planning history for the site, though the surrounding area has been subject to significant planning consents in the recent past including:
10/00165/AMC Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant and 13/00445/FUL Advanced Thermal Treatment Plant (Easter Langlee Landfill Site) 11/00832/FUL Erection of 118 residential units (Easter Langlee Phase 1) 12/00803/FUL Erection of 396 dwellinghouses (Easter Langlee Phase 2) 12/00709/FUL Erection of 42 dwellinghouses (Coopersknowe Phases 4 and 5)
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Nine representations have been received, copies of which can be viewed in full on Public Access. A summary of the main concerns raised is as follows:
x Queries have been raised regarding extent of neighbour notification x Query whether the existing building is listed x Affecting privacy and light of neighbouring properties x Existing properties already suffer water saturation and this development will exacerbate this x The site is outwith the housing allocation within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 x Increase in traffic would be dangerous. It would be unacceptable for new vehicles to be introduced onto this road, which is too narrow for large lorries. There would be traffic congestion and effects on road safety and the road cannot cope. Proposals to widen the road are queried, including lack of clarity on the detail of these and land-take requirements. The turning lane is just above the Easter Langlee development’s turning lane and would cause delays. It would not alleviate danger. The visibility lines are too short, including for cyclists. The roundabout should go in and a bond provided to cover the cost. The details and lack of footpath links are also queried x Effects on bats and badgers x Noise and dust pollution x The development would eat up land changing the adjoining residential development into a completely ‘urbanised’ development and the development of properties in place of the existing old buildings would be detrimental to the rural environment x Loss of protected trees, and there is no mention of evergreen trees, the removal of which would affect a dry stone wall x There is a lack of open space and play space, insufficient garden ground for a number of plots, and the development does not incorporate a vista to Easter Langlee House, in conflict with the new residential development x The development contradicts/exacerbates concerns raised by the owners regarding effects resulting from the adjacent residential development on Easter Langlee House x The future of Easter Langlee House is not clarified x Drainage capacity is queried x There is no SUDs provision x Effects of road on adjacent retaining structure x Clarity sought regarding particular boundaries and regarding boundary treatments
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(d)
Neighbour Notification
As regards this particular matter, notification of the application to neighbours was provided to all those within 20 metres of the application site boundary, as required by the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and included those properties recently occupied (at the time of submission of the application) within the adjacent residential development, including a number of properties in Stable Gardens. The application was also advertised in the Southern Reporter to account for land on which there was no address to serve a notice to. Again, all in accordance with the Regulations.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
In support of the original application, the following were submitted:
x Supporting Statement x Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints x Walkover Survey (i.e. ecological survey)
During the processing of the application, the following were submitted:
x Bat Survey x Transport Statement
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011
G1 Quality Standards for New Development G2 Contaminated Land G5 Developer Contributions G6 Developer Contributions related to Railway Reinstatement G7 Infill Development H1 Affordable Housing H2 Protection of Residential Amenity H3 Land Use Allocations Inf 3 Road Adoption Standards Inf 4 Parking Standards Inf 5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Inf 6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Inf 11 Development that generates Travel Demand NE3 Local Biodiversity NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows EP5 Air Quality
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Scottish Planning Policy PAN 44 Fitting New Housing into the Landscape PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage PAN 67 Housing Quality Designing Streets Designing Places Supplementary Planning Guidance: Biodiversity 2005
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(d)
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing 2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Developer Contributions 2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Trees and Development 2008 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Landscape and Development 2008 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Green Space 2009 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Placemaking and Design 2010 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Guidance on Householder Development 2006
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Roads Planning Service:
Due to several access and topographical constraints which this site suffers from, a considerable amount of consultation and negotiation regarding access and road safety has already taken place. Furthermore, a number of site meetings and site visits have also been undertaken, with the resulting drawings being designed to such a stage that Roads may consider supporting the principle of residential development at this location.
When assessing the principle of developing this site for residential units, the existing uses and current access arrangements were taken into consideration. Firstly, the private access serving Easter Langlee House has several road safety issues. As you enter the site from the south, forward visibility is severely restricted due to the brow of the hill and the bend in the road. It should also be noted that this right turn manoeuvre is from the steep section of public road, and on occasion, will create stacking of vehicles back towards Gala when the southbound lane is busy. As you exit the site onto the C77 public road the visibility to the north is very poor, due to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the public road at this location. Furthermore, there are no pedestrian footways between the adjacent Persimmon residential development below, and the Coopersknowe residential development above. The only way pedestrians can access this house (and other houses in the vicinity) is by utilising the public road verges which are uneven and sloping either side of this access. Secondly, there is another private access slightly further down the hill which serves a stable block that houses several horses, a storage barn and an amenity grazing paddock area. Although the visibility sightlines are much better than that of the house access above, it does access onto the steepest part of the public road. Furthermore, the lack of any suitable vehicular turning facility within the stables site is quite disconcerting, particularly for the horse boxes, trailers and delivery vehicles that frequent these premises. Concerns are further compounded by the lack of any pedestrian footways, and by the fairly frequent use of the public road by horses and their riders accessing and exiting the site.
Requires: x the existing accesses serving Easter Langlee House and the stables to be stopped up, and all equestrian uses to cease; x a new and safer adoptable designed junction (incorporating a right turn lane) to be provided on the C77 to the south of the old barn (at least 70m from the bend), to maximise visibility to the north; x a new pedestrian footway on the C77 between the site and the housing site below, eventually leading to a path link on the northern boundary; x a street lighting scheme; x a robust Transport Statement is also required.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(d)
The only point which has not been taken into consideration in this submission is the footpath link to northern boundary, without which the application is recommended for refusal.
Landscape Architect:
This site is visually prominent and sensitive because it is elevated above surroundings areas and visible from the Langshaw Road. The eastern section of tree structure has been covered by TPO (Tree Preservation Order); however, there are other trees nearer the road that also make a significant contribution.
The adjoining residential development benefits from surrounding woodland including trees on this site as they provide setting and screening.
Found a number of important errors and omissions in the submitted tree survey, which is not considered adequate. The indicative site layout would result in substantial reduction in visible tree canopy and leave Easter Langlee House framed on either side by houses rather than trees as at present. There would associated loss of visual setting for the adjoining area currently under development and the potential for visual coalescence between the sites.
There is the potential for housing on the site in a way that would avoid much of the adverse impact. A more detailed tree survey should be used to inform a revised layout with a reduced number of houses, perhaps roughly half the number currently proposed.
In conclusion, while the principle of some development can be supported, the indicative layout would cause loss of amenity through loss of existing tree cover in an elevated position and resulting in a degree of visual coalescence with adjoining houses. A smaller development would be more appropriate to the site and situation.
Environmental Health:
Written communication should be provided from Scottish Water that they will/intend to service the new development. If Scottish Water will not be providing mains water and foul drainage for the site then further information will need to be provided. Given that the site is in close proximity to residential houses recommend that the applicant prepare a management plan to minimise noise from construction and nuisance from dust, odour etc. Any noise mitigation measures should be in line with BS 5228:2009 Also recommend that a condition be imposed requiring evidence of water supply.
An agricultural land questionnaire has raised no issues regarding contamination. However, the site is in proximity to an area previously used for land filling. This land use is potentially contaminative and it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose. Recommend a condition requiring an investigation and risk assessment, including remediation and verification strategy
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning:
Contributions of £8612 and £3956, per house, are required towards St Peter’s Primary School and Galashiels Academy respectively
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(d)
Statutory Consultees
Scottish Environment Protection Agency:
Have no objection. Waste operations at Easter Langlee are authorised by SEPA. While they ensure, as far as possible, that no offensive odours beyond the site boundary are detectable, they do receive complaints at times from residents in Coopersknowe. SEPA also regulates the aggregates recycling facility. However, the majority of complaints relating to noise and dust from this facility have been investigated by the Council and operators. The development may compromise the waste handling operations at the sites. SEPA recommends consultation with the Council’s Environmental Health Service and the operators on this planning application, as well as the operators of other facilities in the area. SEPA does not object, as it’s a decision for the planning authority, having first had regard to the interaction between the uses. The Council may wish to consider if this proposal is compatible with the existing authorised site/process. Due to the nature of the adjacent activity, it is possible there may be residual odour, and such odour may not necessarily represent non-compliance with site licence conditions.
As regards foul drainage, the site should be discharged to the public sewer. The applicant should consult Scottish Water. The discharge of surface water should be in compliance with SUDs principles. Surface water during construction should also be dealt with by SUDs.
Galashiels and Langlee Community Council:
No objections but wanted to raise that this is yet more traffic on the road. No doubt the roads people will factor this into their plans.
Scottish Natural Heritage:
A species licence under protected species legislation for the destruction of bat roosts associated with the stables/steading building will be required. Advise that a detailed mitigation plan should be produced that includes a method statement for how works will avoid death or injury to bats and how replacement roosts will be incorporated into the proposal.
Other Consultees
None
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
Whether the development complies with the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 with respect to residential development within an existing settlement, particularly having had regard to landscape and visual impacts, road safety matters and relationship to adjoining and emerging developments (including residential and waste management uses) and, if not, whether there are material considerations that would justify a departure from the development plan.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5(d)
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
PRINCIPLE
The site is within the town’s settlement boundary, as defined in the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, and is not subject to any safeguarding designations. The south- westerly portion of the site is included in the allocated housing site currently being developed to the south. The broad principle of residential development here will not conflict with the Local Plan. Policy G7 principally applies with respect to more detailed examination of the merits of development on the site and the matters it, and other policies, raise are considered below. The site itself is not a public facility nor does it comprise open space of public value.
LAND USE CONFLICT
The nearby landfill and recycling activities to the north pose a potential risk to the amenity of prospective residents within a development on this site. The site is, however, alongside existing houses and further away than an intervening portion of the larger residential development consented under 12/00803/FUL. Approval of that development was granted only after detailed consideration of noise and dust impacts from the landfill/recycling site and was, ultimately, permitted subject to a condition requiring infill planting directly within the landfill site/recycling facility extent. The required planting will also benefit development on this application site. The Environmental Health Service (EHS) raise no additional issues with respect to this current application. Given the location of this site relative to existing properties, it is not considered necessary that this planting also be a condition of consent for development on this site.
The site’s proximity to the landfill site also generates concerns regarding possible ground contamination. The site’s elevation and the fact it is further than the intervening consented residential development (granted subject to a condition requiring an investigation and remediation scheme) suggests less risk than the approved development but one which the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer reasonably considers should be addressed. A condition can be applied.
LANDSCAPE, DENSITY AND LAYOUT
The stables are not Listed, neither is the main house itself. However, there are trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order and others that are worthy of retention. The original application included a tree survey, constraints and protection plan. The resulting proposal, illustrated in the indicative layout, would have been to remove a large number of trees, significantly changing the character of the site. This was considered to be unacceptable in its own right, quite apart from concerns over the robustness of the tree survey itself. As a result, the Council then designated a more comprehensive TPO as a means of ensuring that the wider character of the site and its setting could be maintained, even if it were later agreed that trees could be removed. Following that, the applicants have withdrawn the indicative plan in favour of a revised site plan which now includes a less intensive extent of tree removal, with their root protection areas kept free of development. The tree constraints alone have led to what are referred to as ‘site developable areas’ within the site plan.
The extent of tree removal is now limited to trees already identified for removal due to their condition, and to some removal to allow for potential access between the south- westerly portion of the site and the western portion. This arrangement therefore minimises tree loss and establishes a more sympathetic baseline for possible
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(d) development of the ‘developable’ areas. It is important to note, however, that identifying ‘developable areas’ is purely designed to account for tree constraints, and nothing further than that, as there are other considerations to apply, as noted later in this section and other parts of this assessment.
The site rises from the south-west, and levels out to the west of the main house, with a more undulating topography on its easterly side. The distinct eastern and western parts occupy an elevated position above the land to their north and south. These aspects must be considered when designing a road layout and siting houses. The indicative proposal submitted with the application did not account for topographical changes or the likely prominence of higher level houses and, thus, could not be endorsed. The revised site plan, in identifying ‘developable areas’, will need to be developed further in terms of topographical information to support a detailed development layout for the site. This could be best guided by a development brief which first establishes the key topographical changes associated with the roads and houses, and in turn identifies acceptable positions for houses to be sited in terms of landscape exposure.
The site boundaries have been clarified a little further in the revised site plan, and they generally follow existing features. There is an unfortunate gap between the southern boundary and the northern extent of the neighbouring development that cannot be overcome because it is under a different ownership. It is not a significant failing, but some care over boundary treatment and building line will be needed to try to reduce the visual effect of the gap. Detailed boundary treatment proposals are, however, reasonably addressed at the detailed application stage. It is noted that the site now appears to account for a path leading to the adjacent cottage to the north west of the site, albeit not conclusively so. Ultimately, this is a private matter, though an ‘informative’ is noted for the applicants’ attention in this regard.
The original indicative layout contained some positive aspects in terms of design and layout, including an irregular street pattern, C77 frontage and a difference in density between the southerly and northerly portions of the site. However, applying tree constraints makes its execution altogether more challenging. The plan also limits access to the easterly part by means of the existing driveway (although this does have landscape and visual impact benefits). Other aspects, including topographical information and landscape exposure, as well as neighbouring amenity, require to be accounted for before endorsing a layout, even indicatively. This is all before matters of density, house type, plot size etc are even considered. In these regards, it would be appropriate to encourage lower density development alongside the house, certainly to its east, and the basic concept of using the existing driveway to access those plots will achieve that.
The site plan also safeguards the frontage of the main house from development. It is considered that the following features would be a sympathetic approach to this part of the site:
x maximising the frontage of the site to the C77; x flowing with the existing housing development building line as far as possible; x a less formal, but relatively high density, steading type arrangement commencing from the south-westerly portion of the site.
It is considered that the originally indicated layout could not be supported but that the site can potentially accommodate a sympathetically designed development. The most appropriate method of addressing this particular site’s constraints is to produce
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(d) a development brief, prior to the submission of detailed proposals. This would account for these key considerations, allowing the development’s key features to be designed as a whole, before progressing to detailed house designs and plot layouts.
TRAFFIC
The development of the site includes a proposal for a right-turning-lane off the C77, closing off the existing accesses to the house itself and stables. The Roads Planning Service (RPS) support the principle of the development, recognising the potential road safety benefits to be derived from closure of the existing restricted junction, and removal of the second access supporting the existing stables.
A Transport Statement has been submitted which contends that this development will generate relatively little traffic, when considered in the context of traffic to be generated by nearby residential development currently being constructed or which has the benefit of planning permission. The C77 is considered capable of coping with the development. The RPS broadly accepts these findings, though acceptance of the proposal would be subject to the provision of the improved access arrangement, including right-turn-lane and path link to the existing path.
Information on the right-turning-lane is neither clear nor detailed enough to be granted unreserved consent, especially as a little flexibility is required in its precise positioning to allow for an appropriate building layout on the site. It is also not clear what work needs carried out to the existing road and land either side. However, the RPS is content that it can be provided, and adequate visibility sightlines achieved, without affecting third-party land. Conditions can, therefore, control these matters.
A pedestrian path is required at the northern end of the site, though beyond the site boundary this will be a matter for the RPS to address if a link to the housing development beyond is to be achieved. This can be addressed by condition. No other off-site path links are considered necessary.
As already noted, access to the east side of the development site will be achieved by using the existing access. This will restrict development to that side to two houses, as only two can be agreed off a private road. This will result in a less intensive road network, leaving only the more directly accessible south-westerly/westerly parts of the site potentially subject to the need for an adoptable road network, the specification for which will need to be designed to account for a ‘Designing Streets’ philosophy. A development brief for the site could incorporate a more detailed strategy for designing the basic street network, as well as considering parking requirements. Street lighting, however, is ultimately a matter restricted to the adoptable road network and one for the roads authority.
ECOLOGY
The site has no natural heritage designations and there are none nearby. The original application was accompanied by a survey which found no signs of protected species, albeit it noted the potential for bat and bird habitat within the site. A further survey was subsequently undertaken and this identifies no signs of badgers and no bird nests, though does identify bat activity around the stables and Easter Langlee House. It contends that demolition of the stables will not have a significant ecological effect, though a roost destruction licence will be required. Provision of bat boxes in trees, and bat bricks in the development, are recommended. Because of the identification of the need for a licence, this department consulted Scottish Natural
Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(d)
Heritage who confirm that a licence is required but that it is likely to be granted. A condition can require the mitigation plan recommended by SNH.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
A Section 75 agreement will be required in order to make provision for 25% of the development (counting all but one) to comprise affordable housing, as defined by the Council’s Affordable Housing SPG. A development of 5 or more would require the affordable housing on site, and a smaller development would require commuted payments. In addition, contributions towards local schools and the reinstatement of the Borders Railway will also be required. Again, these will accounted for in a legal agreement before any permission is granted. There would be no likely on-site play area requirement for a development on this site given its size and development potential. However, possible off-site contributions will need factored into a legal agreement depending on the number of units.
NEIGHBOURING AMENITY
Dust and noise impacts, and other amenity implications, will inevitably arise during construction. However, this site is alongside sites where substantial construction is already underway and will be ongoing for the foreseeable future. This is ordinarily a matter regulated by the Environmental Health Service (EHS). That said, this development is close to neighbouring cottages, and it does not incorporate the same type of ‘buffers’ applied to the larger development. It would be reasonable, in this case, for prospective developers to demonstrate that construction activity on site is capable of complying with the British Standard, as recommended by our EHS, before a detailed scheme is progressed on site.
The indicative layout raised some concerns regarding the impact of the development on neighbours by way of privacy, light and outlook loss. The indicative plan, however, does not form part of the formal application submission and, in any case, it is not possible to conclusively establish impacts on neighbouring amenity in the above regards without considering detailed matters, including relative heights and layouts. It is considered that this site can potentially accommodate a development that will safeguard residential amenity, provided care in these regards is applied when designing the detailed scheme. It is considered that these matters should form part of the considerations applied to a development brief for the site when considering matters of siting of houses and their broad scale and relative level.
On a related note, the future of Easter Langlee House itself is not clear, albeit the supporting statement submitted with the application refers to its potential redevelopment or conversion. At present, however, it is in a single residential use and, until a planning application is submitted and approved which would permit a material change in its use, then it is the current use that guides consideration as part of this application. The site plan also excludes its frontage for consideration as a ‘developable area’ under this application. On this basis, its amenity will not be undermined by a sympathetically designed residential development.
SERVICES
Mains water and foul drainage services will need to be confirmed by condition. A surface water drainage scheme, based on SUDs principles will be required for the detailed layout. However, given the elevation of the site above neighbours, this should also be required for the construction phase. In addition, given the potential
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(d) implications a long terms SUDs scheme may have on the layout of the site, it is important that a strategy is agreed as part of drafting a development brief for the site. Conditions can address these matters.
OTHER MATTERS
Energy efficiency, accessibility and security issues cannot be addressed at this PPP stage, and will be considerations at the detailed stage applying relevant policy considerations at that time albeit they also may be matters to be factored into a development brief.
The physical effect of the development on another party’s property (such as an existing retaining wall) is not a material planning consideration.
CONCLUSION
Subject to conclusion of a legal agreement, and subject to compliance with the schedule of conditions, the principle of development on this site is considered compliant with the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, having accounted for other material considerations
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:
I recommend the application be approved subject to a legal agreement addressing affordable housing, schools, Waverley Line and, potentially, play space requirements, and subject to the following conditions and informative:
1. Approval of the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s); the means of vehicular and pedestrian access thereto and of closing existing public road accesses to the site; finished ground and building levels (relative to existing and adjacent levels); parking provision; boundary treatments; and, the landscaping of the site shall be obtained from the Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. Application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision shall be made to the Planning Authority before whichever is the latest of the following: i. the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or ii. the expiration of six months from the date on which an earlier application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision notice was refused or dismissed following an appeal. Only one application may be submitted under paragraph (b) of this condition, where such an application is made later than three years after the date of this consent. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(d)
3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
4. Prior to, or concurrently with, any submission to the Planning Authority seeking approval of matters referred to in Condition 1, a Development Brief shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. The Development Brief shall address those matters referred to in Informative Note 1. All relevant matters referred to in Condition 1 (such as, inter alia, the siting and layout of buildings) shall comply with the Development Brief as approved by the Planning Authority Reason: To ensure the development has the most sympathetic landscape and visual impacts by strategically considering matters including the siting, design and layout of the site, having accounted for the particular site constraints and context
5. The vehicular and pedestrian accesses referred to in Condition 1 shall include a right hand turning lane onto the C77; incorporating a footpath link to the existing footpath on the C77; and a footpath link to the northern boundary, all of which shall be specified to comply with the Council’s adoptable standards. The approved means of access shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, and the existing accesses onto the C77 shall be closed, prior to the occupancy of any dwellinghouse within the development, unless an alternative timescale is otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety and in maximising pedestrian connectivity
6. All trees identified in blue and hedging groups 2 and 3 on plan AT2052-02A shall be protected during the construction of the development and retained thereafter, and shall not be lopped or felled unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. No development shall commence until a Tree Protection Plan, specifying dimensioned root protection areas and the full detailed site layout approved under Condition 1, and measures to protect the trees during the construction period in accordance with BS5837:12 has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only with the protective measures in place Reason: To safeguard trees and hedging considered beneficial to public amenity
7. No development shall commence until a scheme to identify and assess potential contamination on site, in addition to measures for its treatment/removal, validation and monitoring, and a timescale for implementation of the same, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Once approved, the development shall only proceed in accordance with the approved scheme Reason: To ensure that potential contamination within the site, in particular that potentially arising from the nearby waste management activities, has been assessed and treated and that the treatment has been validated and monitored in a manner which ensures the site is appropriate for the approved residential development
Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(d)
8. No development shall commence until written evidence is provided on behalf of Scottish Water to confirm that mains water and foul drainage systems shall be made available to serve the development, Reason: To ensure the development can be adequately serviced
9. No development shall commence until a bat mitigation scheme, which includes measures to minimise risk to bats during the works and includes the specification and location of replacement roosts and timescale for implementation, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme (in addition to any separate licence requirements) unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority Reason: To minimise potential effects on bat habitat
10. No development shall commence until a construction management plan, which includes measures to minimise noise and nuisance arising during construction to achieve compliance with BS5228:2009, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the construction management plan Reason: To minimise potential noise and nuisance disturbance to residential neighbours during the construction period
11. No development shall commence until detailed schemes to manage site drainage during construction, and surface water drainage within the development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The measures shall be based on SUDs principles and shall demonstrate that construction and post-development run-off to neighbouring properties and the public road will not exceed pre-development levels. The surface water drainage scheme shall include maintenance measures for communal drainage, unless evidence is provided that the scheme will be adopted by Scottish Water. Development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved site drainage and surface water drainage scheme(s) Reason: To protect neighbouring properties from potential surface water run- off during and after construction and to ensure the sustainable disposal of surface water
Informatives
1. The Development Brief required by Condition 4 should address matters including:
I. Block building layout, general massing of buildings and basic street pattern: This should include frontages to the C77, complementing existing road- facing building lines; a steading type arrangement of buildings within an informal road network (applying ‘Designing Streets’ and related guidance to its design and specification) in the south-westerly/westerly portion of the site of a scale to complement surroundings buildings; and, a maximum of two houses to the east of Easter Langlee House, designed to relate sympathetically in character and scale to the existing house, and accessed by means of using the existing drive to its rear. A public footpath link to the northern boundary will need to be incorporated. II. Consideration of the key topographical changes associated with the road network and buildings, and consideration of visual exposure of parts of the site when siting and designing buildings, incorporating new structural landscaping where necessary to augment existing planting.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(d)
III. Account for tree constraints and hedge protection requirements, as required under Condition 6, and the setting of Easter Langlee House - development shall not extend beyond the ‘developable areas’ identified within the plan approved under this consent. (Development within these areas is, however, subject to addressing other landscape, visual and amenity constraints to be addressed in the Brief and detailed applications). IV. Consideration of neighbouring amenity in the layout of the site and siting and scale of buildings, including outlook, daylight, sunlight and privacy loss. V. SUDs strategy VI. Parking strategy, designed to minimise the visual impact of parking within the development while achieving parking standards (in accordance with the Consolidated Local Plan 2011) VII. Solar gain; accessibility; and, security issues in the layout and topography of the development
2. Retention of the private pathway alongside Aislinn, 1 Easter Langlee Cottages, is sought by its owners. It is recommended that the applicants/developers discuss this directly with the owners before progressing with detailed proposals for the north- westerly part of the site.
3. A bat roost destruction licence shall be required separately from the planning consent. With respect to Condition 9, replacement roosts should be provided on a like-for-like basis for those lost. Scottish Natural Heritage also recommend that landscaping be incorporated in the mitigation proposals to improve commuting routes for bats.
4. Though no bird nests have been found within the site, breeding birds are protected under natural heritage legislation and it is recommended that a checking survey be carried out in advance of works commencing, should it be intended that works are carried out during the bird breeding season (March to August). Advice should be sought from Scottish Natural Heritage in the event that nests are found.
DRAWING NUMBERS
AT2052-02A SITE PLAN
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Carlos Clarke Principal Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(d)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(e)
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
3 FEBRUARY 2014
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 08/00931/OUT OFFICER: Barry Fotheringham WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Erection of dwellinghouse (extension to previous consent 05/00592/OUT) SITE: Garden Ground Of Oaklands, High Street, Ayton APPLICANT: Mr And Mrs W Stewart AGENT: Bain Swan Architects
SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site is located within the village of Ayton, Berwickshire. It is located towards the western end of the historic core of the village, on the south side of High Street, and presently forms the rear walled garden to a Category C listed building known as ‘Oaklands’. Oaklands has been subdivided in the past and now contains more than one dwelling.
The site is visible from the High Street in the backdrop to the principal building; this view includes the proposed access route to the site, which would align with the western boundary of the curtilage to Oaklands. It constitutes an enclosed walled garden laid out to lawn with shrubs and small trees.
The site is adjoined on the west and north-west by a residential development known as Lawfield Drive, and to the east by the rear garden of the neighbouring dwelling known as The Rowans.
It should be noted that the western and north-western site boundaries of the site are contiguous with the Conservation Area boundary.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application seeks outline planning permission (now planning permission in principle), although it is supported by supporting documentation identifying a single storey ‘house type’. The application seeks to extend the permission granted under planning application 05/00592/OUT.
Access to the site would be achieved via the existing vehicular access serving Oaklands.
CONSIDERATION BY BERWICKSHIRE AREA COMMITTEE
The application was considered by the Berwickshire Area Committee at its meeting on 23 September 2008 where it resolved to continue the application to a future meeting.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(e)
Members should be aware that this application was initially recommended for refusal on the following grounds:
The proposed development is contrary to Policies G1, G7, BE1 and BE4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008, in that:
The information submitted with the application is deficient, and as a result fails to demonstrate how a high quality development may be achieved in the setting, which is within the Conservation Area of Ayton and within the curtilage of a Category C(S) Listed Building. Approval of the application would give rise to uncertainty relating to the acceptability of the development principle, in this sensitive conservation location.
Members should also be aware that this recommendation was subject to an applicant informative which states:
Favourable consideration may be given to an application submitted in full detail, clearly identifying the development principles envisaged. The detail may include a Design Statement and full drawings identifying an appropriate form of development. This may enable the application to accord with the objectives of the aforementioned Policies.
The application was continued to allow the applicant/agent to submit additional supporting information that would demonstrate how an acceptable level of development could be achieved on the application site which is situated within Ayton Conservation Area, and within the curtilage of a listed building.
PLANNING HISTORY
05/00902/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse – Approved 30 May 2005 subject to four conditions.
There is no other planning history associated with this site although the following consents were granted in respect of alterations to Oaklands:
02/01587/LBC – Replacement windows – Approved 28.January 2003
05/00284/LBC & 05/00285/FUL - Alterations to form one flat from two, replacement windows and installation of velux rooflight – Approved 4May 2005
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
There has been no third party representations following the initial neighbour notification process in 2008 or the re-notification of neighbouring properties carried out on 29 November 2013.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The applicant submitted an extract from a local house builders’ brochure, identifying a possible house type for the plot. The initially indicated house type was a modern detached timber kit bungalow.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(e)
Following consideration by the Berwickshire Area Committee in September 2008 the agent finally submitted a design statement on 7 October 2013. This statement identifies the architectural and historic context in which the application site is located and sets out the key design issues that have been adopted in this case. The design principles are complemented by detailed sketch elevations and floor plans which now depict a one and a half storey property orientated to follow the linear form of the garden. The scale is secondary to Oaklands and is designed to reflect a traditional stable mews type building which would be linear in form, open on its long side and set against the west boundary wall. Historic precedent would suggest a simple rectangular building anchored to the boundary wall by a flat roof link and a narrow 1.5 storey pitched roof over a shallow gable. External materials could be traditional and respectful of the context, but equally, could be contemporary to reflect its time.
The applicants design statement and sketch drawings are available for Members to view in full on public access.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011
Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 – Development Contributions Policy G7 – Infill Development Policy BE1 – Listed Buildings Policy BE4 – Conservation Areas Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4 – Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance – Developer Contributions
SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance – Placemaking and Design
Historic Scotland Guidance – Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Setting
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads): No objection to the principle, subject to alterations to widen the access and extend the dropped kerb.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: Financial contribution required towards Eyemouth High School.
Statutory Consultees
Ayton Community Council: No comment.
Other Consultees
None
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(e)
RE- CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Roads Planning Service: My previous comments, dated 30th June 2008, are still applicable:
‘I have no objections in principle to this application as my access turning, parking and visibility requirements can all be met at the site.
Remedial measures will be required to the access i.e.
x Widening of the access to 5.5 metres that will allow two vehicles to pass without affecting main road traffic flow. x Extension to the dropped kerb to accommodate the above.’
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: No response
Statutory Consultees
Ayton Community Council: No response
Other Consultees
None
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
Whether the proposed extension of the original outline planning permission may be supported, in light of the advice and policy framework that is established through the Consolidated Local Plan.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Planning Policy
The development proposed clearly represents an example of ‘backland’ development. This form of infill development is generally considered to be undesirable, as it promotes a new tier of development in the hinterland of street frontage buildings, and does not accord with traditional, sympathetic patterns of development within settlements. In Ayton, particularly on the street frontage associated with this site, a strong, linear row of substantial buildings lines the High Street and represents a positive element of the local built environment. This effect may be undermined by the placing of a development in the rear garden.
Although planning permission was obtained under ref. 05/00592/OUT, it is important to appraise the policy position (i) when that application was considered, and (ii) at the current time, now that the applicant seeks to extend the permission. It is necessary to assess the application against prevailing development plan policy and establish whether here has been a material shift in policy or a change in circumstances that would warrant a different recommendation in this case.
The original 2005 application was assessed principally against policy contained within the 1994 Berwickshire Local Plan (BLP). Policy 2 ‘Infill Development Permitted’ was particularly relevant as it identified Ayton as a settlement suitable for
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(e) infill development, although this is subject to additional criteria focussing on the development impact. Under the terms of that Policy, any new development would have to be compatible with the character and form of the settlement. Furthermore, other policies within the BLP would have to remain unprejudiced by the development.
At that time, it was considered acceptable in principle to erect a dwellinghouse within the rear garden of Oaklands. However, it is worth noting in the case officer’s report that “Scottish Borders Council is in general not supportive of what is classified backland development within the settlement boundary of a town or village. However, over the years there have been a number of dwellings built or granted consent behind the building line of the High Street. On the basis of this and the fact that the visual amenity of the area and the privacy of neighbouring properties will not be affected, the Planning Department supports the proposal.”
It is therefore acknowledged that a precedent of backland development has been set by earlier planning consents and housing developments on land to the rear of neighbouring properties and the strong historical street frontage within Ayton conservation area. In addition, it is significant that this site is at the end of a line of properties in Main Street with houses in Lawfield Drive already wrapping around the rear garden of the property which, to some extent, mitigate the overall effect of the backland relationship.
Members will be aware that the 1994 BLP was superseded by the Scottish Borders Local Plan (SBLP) in Sept 2008 and that this was then replaced by the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan (SBCLP) in 2011. As the application has been in the system for a number of years and covers a period when development plans have expired and updated versions have been adopted, it is appropriate to appraise the revised policy position and assess the application against prevailing development plan policy at this time.
The principle of infill development on this site, however, has clearly been established by the earlier grant of planning permission. Since the 2005 application was approved, there has been a positive shift in policy which aims to drive up quality standards for new development, ensuring that all proposals are appropriate to its location and setting.
Policy G1 of the SBCLP is of particular importance, as it sets out planning authority’s expectations of any new development, listing a number of criteria that must be taken into consideration when assessing planning applications. Criteria 1, 3, 4, 12 and 13 are of particular relevance, each relating to the visual impact of any new development.
Worthy of special note is the closing text within Policy G1, stating that ‘Developers may be required to provide design statements, design briefs or landscape plans as appropriate’. As a general rule, the Council will encourage full planning applications in preference to outline, particularly in conservation areas and within the setting of listed buildings, as this gives the Council some additional strength when considering whether the principle of development can be accepted. The intentions of this Policy are clearly to ensure that all development is of high quality and conforms to the Council’s aspiration to improve all new development. Unfortunately, a robust design statement aimed at justifying the proposed development was not available at the time the application was originally considered.
Policy G7 – Infill Development, supports development on non-allocated, infill or windfall sites provided certain criteria can be met. In the case of garden ground or
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(e) backland development sites, the proposals must be justified under Policy H2 to safeguard the amenity of residential areas. All applications will be considered against the Council’s supplementary planning guidance on placemaking and design.
Policy BE1 – Listed Buildings gives assurance that new development affecting Listed Buildings and their setting must be carefully assessed, and that applications relating to development in their setting must be properly supported, in some cases by a Design Statement. The requirement for additional and robust supporting information is also reflected in Policy BE4 – Conservation Areas.
Policy BE4 aims to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. Criterion 5 of BE4 reaffirms the wording of Policy G1, in giving an opportunity for full applications to be requested in some cases. It states that “where outline applications are submitted, the Council will require a ‘Design Statement’ to be submitted at the same time, which should explain and illustrate the design principles and design concepts of the proposals.”
Design
Given the importance of the site in its setting, within the curtilage of category C listed building and the Ayton conservation area, it is important to be able to understand how a development could be delivered and be compatible with the location and setting. The additional submitted information helps to demonstrate how development might integrate successfully with the locale.
It is contended that the traditional form of the proposed dwelling shown on the additional supporting information received in October 2013 would be compatible with, and respect the character of the surrounding area, neighbouring uses and neighbouring built form. It is clear that the proposed dwelling can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site and would be of a scale, massing, height and material appropriate to its surroundings.
The design of the proposed dwelling now indicated is of a high quality and would respect the environment in which it is contained and would not impact negatively on existing buildings, particularly Oaklands, or the visual amenity of the wider area. The design and architectural language used is a clear attempt to ensure that the development respects and reflects the historic pattern of development within the conservation area and to protect the setting of the listed building.
It is felt that the additional supporting information, particularly the indicative sketches, demonstrates that a high quality development can be achieved within the curtilage of a Listed Building and Conservation Area without having an unacceptable adverse effect on the setting or character of the locale.
Whilst the submissions are only intended to be indicative, it is considered that they illustrate a successful means of both accommodating a sensitive development on the plot and also addressing relationship issues. It is therefore considered that any detailed application should be directed toward the illustrative arrangements that have now been submitted.
Listed Building
The principal aim of Policy BE1 – Listed Buildings is to protect listed buildings from works that would spoil their character. The erection of a standard bungalow within the rear garden ground of Oakland, as was originally submitted in support of this
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5(e) application, would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the setting of the listed building. It would not be compatible with integrity or character of the listed building and would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the setting of this historic building. The detailed supporting statement and revised sketch elevations however, demonstrate that design principles and concepts adopted by the agent will allow for the proper integration of the development without resulting in an unacceptable adverse effect on the setting of this Category C Listed Building.
It is contended that the traditional approach to the form, location, scale, mass and material adopted in the sketch proposals will not have a detrimental effect in the setting of this building and will therefore comply with the terms of Policy BE1.
Conservation Area
As previously mentioned in this report, Policy BE4 of the Local Plan aims to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. Development within or adjacent to a conservation area that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on its character and appearance will normally be refused.
The strengthening of Conservation Area and Listed Building policies through the adoption of the SBCLP, coupled with improved guidance covering quality standards for new development, allows the planning authority to seek additional supporting information from applicants to demonstrate the acceptability, or otherwise, of proposals within designated areas and settings of listed buildings. It is contended that the supporting design statement and indicative sketch proposals submitted in connection with this application demonstrate that the erection of a dwelling within the rear curtilage of Oaklands can be accommodated and designed to preserve and enhance the special architectural and historic character of the conservation area.
Access
Access to the proposed dwelling would make use of the existing vehicular entrance to the west of Oaklands and the proposed layout would make use of the informal parking space current used by the occupants. Car parking could be provided in courtyard style layout to the north west of the proposed dwelling. The Council’s Roads Planning Service has no objections in principle to this application provided turning, parking and visibility requirements can be met. Remedial measures to increase the width of the access and an extension of the dropped kerb are required but these matters, along with parking and turning for two vehicles can be covered by condition should Members be minded to approve this application.
Protection of Residential Amenity
Policy H2 ensures that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas will not be permitted. The proposed dwelling would be located towards the western edge of the site and would abut the high stone boundary wall between the site and the neighbouring dwellings in Lawfield Drive.
Oaklands has window openings on the south elevation which currently overlook the garden ground associated with the property, but the proposed dwelling shown on the indicative sketches would be in the region of 30m from the house with the majority of windows on the new house facing south east. Given the location of the dwelling within the plot and the distance between properties there would be no unacceptable
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(e) adverse effects on the residential amenity of these dwellings as a result of over looking or loss of privacy.
The nearest houses in Lawfield Drive are located approximately 12m from the application on the opposite side of the high boundary wall. The proposed dwelling on the indicative sketches would be set back from this boundary wall by a flat roof section and would have no windows overlooking neighbouring gardens. 2 small velux windows are shown on the west roof slope approximately 15m from the rear elevation of 9 Lawfield Drive but these could be finished in obscure glass to avoid over looking.
However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the current submissions are only indicative and the appropriate time for consideration of these matters will be at the detailed submission stage.
It is accepted that the majority of residential properties are overlooked to some degree, particularly in historic town centres such as Ayton where densities are generally high. The extent of overlooking and the level of privacy that residents enjoy will be dependent on a range of factors including the proximity, height and orientation of other properties, visibility from public spaces and the existence of intervening boundaries and screens.
As a rule, a minimum of 18m is generally required between principal rooms when directly opposite. As there are no principal rooms on the west elevation of the proposed dwelling it is accepted that the level of privacy currently enjoyed by the dwellings on Lawfield drive will be no worse than current levels from existing neighbouring dwellings.
When applying the Council’s standards for access to daylight (25 degree rule) to the properties on Lawfield Drive (Particularly No 9) it is demonstrated that the proposed new dwelling will not have an unacceptable adverse on the amount of natural daylight currently enjoyed by the current owners/occupiers. The 25 degree approach is used when a new building or extension directly faces the window of an existing property. Suitable daylight for habitable (principal) rooms is achieved when a 25 degree vertical angle taken from the centre of the lowest window is kept unobstructed.
It is contended that the development will not have an adverse effect on the amenity of existing dwellings. The proposals are of a scale, form and type of development that fits within a residential area and would not impact on the surrounding properties in terms of over looking or loss of privacy. This is particularly important especially in relation to garden ground or ‘backland’ developments such as this where the majority of residential properties are overlooked to some degree.
Development Contributions
At the time the original application was submitted, the Council had not adopted development contributions policies and as such, contributions were not required. However, in the intervening period, Policy G5 has been adopted and contributions are now required to address deficiencies in service provision that may be exacerbated by proposed development. Although the current application was submitted prior to the 2005 consent expiring, the application needs to be assessed against prevailing policy. It would be appropriate to seek contributions in this case. As such, development contributions towards Eyemouth High School are required and these should be secured through legal agreement.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(e)
CONCLUSION
Crucially, the change in Policy from May 2005, when 05/00592/OUT was considered, to the Policy in operation in 2008 and ultimately the policy in place now under the SBCLP bolsters the Council’s position when faced with applications deficient in detail, as this was when originally submitted. The development pattern and integrity of Ayton has already been eroded to some extent by the permitting of several ‘backland’ developments, of varying design quality, but it remains imperative that new developments are justified without unacceptable adverse effects on the Conservation Area or setting of listed buildings.
Although the granting of planning permission under 05/00592/OUT must be considered as material to the assessment of this latest application, with the aforementioned strengthening of the Policy, the Council must ensure that any attempt to extend or renew unimplemented permissions accords with prevailing policy.
The design statement and indicative sketches submitted in support of the application now demonstrate how a high quality development can be accommodated on this backland site within the conservation area and setting of a listed building. The design statement acknowledges the historic core of the village and the evolution of development characterised by a strong street frontage with long narrow, linear ‘lands’. The traditional form and layout of the development draws on key contextual issues and historic precedents, including more recent ‘backland’ developments nearby. However, Oaklands occupies a position at the end of a line of traditional properties and newer development already extends around its rear garden.
Although the application has been submitted in outline (PPP) favourable consideration can now be given to the proposals following the submission of robust supporting information which clearly identifies key development principles and design concepts. It is concluded that the proposed development, as shown on the supporting sketch elevations, and explained in the design statement can sit comfortably on this site without having an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area or the setting of the listed building. In fact, the proposed ‘subservient’ dwelling is considered to be of sufficiently high quality that it would enhance the setting of the listed building and would enhance the special architectural and historic character of the conservation area.
It would therefore be appropriate in this instance to ensure that any forthcoming detailed or reserved matters application strictly adheres to the design statement and drawings. This can be controlled by an appropriately worded planning condition.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:
I recommend the application is approved subject to a legal agreement addressing contributions towards Education and Lifelong Learning and the following conditions:
1. No development shall commence until the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(e)
2. Application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision shall be made to the Planning Authority before whichever is the latest of the following: (a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or (b) the expiration of six months from the date on which an earlier application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision notice was refused or dismissed following an appeal. Only one application may be submitted under paragraph (b) of this condition, where such an application is made later than three years after the date of this consent. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
3. No development shall commence until all matters specified in conditions have, where required, been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall only take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
5. Any application for the Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions or Full Planning Permission pursuant to this Planning Permission in Principle shall accord strictly with the design concepts and principles established in the Design Statement (Bain Swan Architects – 4 October 2013) and indicative sketches 1, 2 and 3 (Bain Swan Architects (September 2013) agreed as part of this permission. Reason: The Design Statement makes proper recognition of the sensitivities of the development site, in terms of its relationship with the nearby listed building, the location within the conservation area and the amenity of neighbouring properties. It is essential that any future development is based on the principles established in this outline planning permission.
6. The dwellinghouse hereby approved shall be constructed of natural slate on the roof. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.
7. Any application for the approval of matters specified in conditions must incorporate the following items, as identified by the Scottish Borders Council Roads Planning Service: (a) Parking and turning for a minimum of two vehicles, not including garages, must be provided for both the existing and the proposed dwelling; (b) Widening of the access to 5.5 metres that will allow two vehicles to pass without affecting main road traffic flow. (c) Extension to the dropped kerb to accommodate the above. Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(e)
8. The means of foul and surface water drainage to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before the development commences; surface water drainage requiring to be based upon established SUDS guidance and principles. The approved scheme to be completed before the dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily serviced.
9. The means of water supply to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before the development commences. If a private water supply is to be used, no development to be commenced until a report by a qualified person has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, demonstrating the provision of water to the development in terms of quantity, quality and impacts on other supplies in the vicinity. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.
DRAWING NUMBERS
Plan Reference No Plan Type L/02 Location Plan Cheviot House Type Floor Plan L/1 Location Plan Sketch 1 Site Plan Sketch 2 Floor Plans & Sections Sketch 3 Elevations and Views Design Statement
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Barry Fotheringham Principal Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(e)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 ITEM 6
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT CHARTER SECOND EDITION
Report by Director of Environment and Infrastructure
PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS
3 FEBRUARY 2014
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks Member approval of the second edition of the Planning and Building Standards Enforcement Charter, attached as Appendix 1 to this report.
1.2 The Planning and Building Standards Enforcement Charter provides a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the delivery of the enforcement function relating to both Planning and Building Standards breaches. The charter has been out to public consultation and has been updated to reflect the observations received during the consultation process.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 I recommend that the Planning and Building Standards Committee approves the second edition of the Planning and Building Standards Enforcement Charter as detailed in Appendix 1 to this report.
Planning & Building Standards – 3 February 2014 1 3 PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS ENFORCMENT CHARTER (SECOND EDITION) 3.1 The Planning and Building Standards Enforcement Charter provides a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the delivery of the enforcement function relating to both Planning and Building Standards breaches. The Council is required to review and publish a Planning enforcement charter biannually.
3.2 The second edition of the charter builds on the original charter which was published in January 2008 and now includes sections specific to the team’s role in enforcing unauthorised building works. The charter has been written in two sections addressing breaches of Planning control and unauthorised building works will be dealt with. Each section sets out the key points of the enforcement process and the level of priority that will be given to a specific case. It also provides detail on how a breach of Planning control or unauthorised building works will be investigated and the available outcomes which exist to resolve the case.
3.3 The charter highlights the commitment to improve the delivery of the enforcement function to ensure that development accords with the approvals and thereby assisting in preserving and enhancing the environment of the Borders. The charter sets out to the public and developers alike, how breaches will be investigated and resolved.
4 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Financial There are no direct costs attached to any of the recommendations contained in this report.
4.2 Risk and Mitigations There is s statutory requirement on the Council to review and publish an Enforcement Charter on a biannual basis which could result in a challenge should the Council not publish a revised charter.
4.3 Equalities The approval of this report has no equalities implications
4.4 Acting Sustainably There are no direct economic, social or environmental issues with this report.
4.5 Carbon Management There are no direct carbon emissions impacts as a result of this report.
4.6 Rural Proofing It is anticipated there will be no adverse impact on the rural area from the proposals contained in this report.
4.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation No changes to the Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation are required as a result of this report.
Planning & Building Standards – 3 February 2014 2 5 CONSULTATION 5.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Corporate Governance, the Head of Strategic Policy, the Head of Audit and Risk, the HR Manager and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and any comments have been incorporated into the report. 5.2 The Charter has been out to public consultation and has been updated to reflect the observations received during the consultation process.
Approved by
Head of Planning & Regulatory Services Signature …………………………….
Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Alan Gueldner Principal Officer Enforcement TEL : 01835 824000 Ext 5285
Background Papers: None
Previous Minute Reference: None
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at Jacqueline Whitelaw, Environment and Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA, Tel 01835 825431, Fax 01835 825071, email [email protected].
Planning & Building Standards – 3 February 2014 3 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES
ENFORCEMENT CHARTER
V 1.0 08 November 2013 FOREWORD
The purpose of this charter is to explain the role of Enforcement within the Planning and Regulatory Service of the Environment and Infrastructure Department, to set out the standards of service to be expected, and to show what happens at each stage in the process.
The service provided by the enforcement team covers two specific disciplines namely Planning and Building Standards.
The planning process is made up of three constituent elements:
x development planning – setting out future development proposals x development management – assessing and determining planning applications x planning enforcement – ensuring that developments are built in accordance with approved plans and pursuing unauthorised development.
The building standards process is made up of two constituent elements:
x building standards – assessing and determining building warrant applications and responding to reports dangerous buildings. x building standards enforcement – ensuring that developments are built in accordance with approved plans, pursuing unauthorised development, assisting owners with repairs to defective buildings and dealing with dangerous buildings.
On the whole both the planning system and the building standards system operates well, but there are times when things go wrong – developments are not completed in accordance with the approved plans, conditions are not complied with, or ignored; work is undertaken without first seeking the required statutory consents from either the Planning Authority and or Building Standards. In these circumstances it is important that alleged breaches are properly investigated and where appropriate, that significant breaches are pursued. Members of the public and community groups have a valuable role in alerting the Council to potential breaches of planning control or works without warrant.
I hope you will find this Charter informative and of assistance.
Councillor Ron Smith Executive Member for Planning and Regulatory Services and Chairman of the Development management and Building Standards Committee, Scottish Borders Council
2 The Charter – Our Commitment
To the Public
x We undertake to treat all enforcement cases in a fair and even-handed manner balancing the desires of the complainant against the rights of the other parties to resolve the situation.
x We will maintain the confidentiality of all correspondents, at least until a case is referred to the Procurator Fiscal or an appeal is lodged. In such cases it may be necessary to divulge details about complainants.
x We will acknowledge receipt, in writing, of complaints about contraventions within twenty working days.
x Formal Enforcement procedures will be used in appropriate circumstances.
x You should feel free to contact the case officer or the Principal Officer Enforcement, at any time, to obtain information about the progress of a case.
To persons undertaking works
x In situations were the Council believes the contravention was not intentional, every effort will be made to seek a negotiated solution.
x We will undertake an inspection of the site or premises alleged in the contravention and prepare appropriate papers for the case.
x Formal Enforcement procedures will be used in appropriate circumstances.
x You should feel free to contact the case officer or the Principal Officer Enforcement, at any time, to obtain information about the progress of a case.
3 CONTENTS PAGE
Introduction Key Points of Planning Enforcement Key Points of Building Standards Enforcement The Enforcement Service How to contact the Enforcement Service Identification of possible breaches of planning control Identification of possible breaches of building standards Investigations Powers available to the Planning Authority and Building Standards Enforcement tools Trees, Listed Buildings and Advertisements Service standards Customer care Useful contacts
4 INTRODUCTION
Planning permission and a building warrant is required for most development that takes place in Scotland, with the exception of some minor works. Sometimes, however, developers or householders undertake work without the required permissions or fail to keep to the permissions they have been given.
The Council has powers to enforce planning and building standards requirements in such cases, if they consider it is in the public interest to do so. The Council will endeavour to monitor ongoing development, where resources permit, to ensure planning and building standards approvals are being followed but there is a role for the public in alerting the council to any problems they become aware of.
Whilst enforcement is an integral part of the Planning and Building Standards system it is also one of the most complex parts. The aim of this Charter is to ensure that adopted procedures are fair and reasonable, and that interested parties are kept informed and made aware of what is required. The Charter will set out the current powers available to the planning authority and to building standards. These powers are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 as amended.
KEY POINTS ON PLANNING ENFORCEMENT
A breach of planning control is not a criminal offence. The purpose of planning enforcement is to resolve the problem rather than to punish the mistake. In addition, any action taken has to be appropriate to the scale of the breach.
The Council has statutory powers to investigate unauthorised works, non compliance with approvals and breaches of conditions attached to a planning consent, and to take formal action where a satisfactory outcome cannot be achieved by negotiation.
It should be noted that enforcement is a discretionary power. That means that, even where there is a breach of planning control, the Council has to consider if it is in the public interest to take enforcement action. The Council is not required to take any particular action in relation to a specific breach of planning control and, indeed, can decide that no action is necessary.
Planning enforcement also covers the physical display of advertisements such as billboards and advertisement hoardings, although slightly different procedures apply. These are set out later in this document. The actual content of an advertisement is not covered by planning control. Any complaint about the content of an advertisement should be made to the Advertising Standards Authority.
5 KEY POINTS ON BUILDING STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
Where a building warrant is required for building works the carrying out of these works without a building warrant is a criminal offence. The purpose of building standards enforcement is to resolve the problem rather than to punish the mistake. In addition, any action taken should be appropriate to the scale of the offence.
The Council has statutory powers to investigate unauthorised works or works not in accordance with the building warrant, and to take formal action where a satisfactory outcome cannot be achieved through negotiation.
It should be noted that enforcement is a discretionary power. That means that, even where an offence has taken place, the Council has to consider if it is appropriate to take enforcement action. The Council is not required to take any particular action in relation to a specific offence and, indeed, can decide that no action is necessary.
Building standards enforcement also covers defective buildings and dangerous buildings the procedures for which will be set out later in this document.
With regard to Dangerous Buildings the Council has a duty to act to ensure the health, Safety and Welfare and Convenience of persons in or about buildings and others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings. These powers are not discretionary.
6 THE ENFORCEMENT SERVICE
The Planning Acts give Planning Authorities discretionary powers in relation to Planning Enforcement. In Scottish Borders the majority of powers conferred to the Planning Authority have been delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services, who in turn has authorised his officers to act on his behalf The integrity of the Development Management process depends on the Planning Authority’s readiness to take effective enforcement action when it is considered necessary to so do. It will not always be necessary or appropriate to pursue formal enforcement action, however, it is important that potential breaches are investigated and that explanations are available as to why action is, or is not taken. Public confidence in the Development Management process is quickly undermined if unauthorised development, which is unacceptable on planning merits, is allowed to proceed without any apparent attempt from the Planning Authority to intervene.
The Building (Scotland) Act 2003 gives the Council discretionary powers in relation to Building Standards Enforcement. In Scottish Borders the majority of powers conferred to the Council have been delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services, who in turn has authorised his officers to act on his behalf. The integrity of the building standards process depends on the Council’s readiness to take effective enforcement action when it is considered necessary to so do. However, it is important that those potential offences are investigated and that explanations are available as to why action is, or is not taken. Public confidence in the Building Standards process is quickly undermined if unauthorised development, which is unacceptable in terms of the building regulations, is allowed to proceed without any apparent attempt from the Council to intervene.
It is the policy of this Council to exercise enforcement powers responsibly to ensure that development takes place in accordance with the appropriate legislation and any planning conditions imposed by the Council. In recognition of this policy Scottish Borders Council has produced an Enforcement Charter to ensure that we have something to measure our progress against, and provide some clarity and consistency to the Enforcement process.
By implementing an Enforcement Policy and publishing this Charter we aim to make our work more understandable and accessible. The public are our main source of information when it comes to enforcement, so it is very important that they see how we operate and understand when we can or can not take action. Enforcement can be a complex process with varying timescales. The aim of the Charter is to ensure that adopted procedures are fair and reasonable to all parties and that the outcome of any investigation is commensurate with the breach of control or the offence.
7 HOW TO CONTACT THE ENFORCEMENT SERVICE
Whilst the Council endeavours to monitor development to the best of its abilities with the resources it has available, it relies to a large extent on members of the public bringing potential breaches of planning control and building regulations to our attention. A breach of planning control or an offence under the Building (Scotland) Act can take several different forms:
x works being undertaken without planning consent or a building warrant x an unauthorised change of use of a building or land x a condition attached to a planning consent which is not being adhered to x departing from the approved planning or building warrant plans x unauthorised works to a Listed Building x works to protected trees without first obtaining consent.
If you consider that a possible breach of planning control or an offence under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 has taken place within the Scottish Borders, you are encouraged to contact the Enforcement Service of Scottish Borders Council. The most efficient way to do this is by means of the online complaints form which can be found on the Planning Enforcement and Building Standards Enforcement pages of Scottish Borders Council internet site under Planning and Building.
The purpose of the online form is two fold; firstly all complaints will be recorded in a consistent manner and secondly the information required by the Enforcement Service, to allow an investigation to commence, will have been provided.
The Enforcement Service will investigate all complaints about contraventions and unauthorised works it receives from completed online forms or in writing and allocate a priority level to the case. On receipt of a written complaint, the complaint will be assessed to establish if a potential breach or offence exists and if one exists it will be registered. Once registered the person making the complaint will receive a letter confirming the case will be investigated. This letter will contain the name of the case officer and the case reference number. Some complaints, such as neighbour disputes over boundaries or complaints over anti social behaviour relate to matters over which the enforcement service has no control and cannot be investigated by the enforcement team. Wherever possible those complaints will be passed to the most appropriate team within the Council or other agency.
While we will do our utmost to honour any requests for confidentiality, you should be aware that it may not be possible to respect such a request in all cases. Some information may require to be released under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, subject to meeting our obligations under the Data Protection Act. At present, requests for total confidentiality with regard to the information supplied limits the ability of the authority to take formal action on the matter, and cannot be guaranteed if the case were to be considered at Appeal or in the Courts.
8 Anonymous complaints about contraventions and unauthorised works will NOT be investigated. IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL
Planning enforcement involves two issues – whether a breach of planning control has taken place, and whether it is expedient or appropriate to take enforcement action. That decision is within the planning authority’s sole discretion.
Monitoring of Conditions
Monitoring of conditions is required to ensure that development complies with the terms of the consent granted. Details of the conditions are included within the decision notice attached to the permission. It is first and foremost the responsibility of the developer to ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and any conditions. Monitoring of conditions is undertaken by the Council’s Planning Authority, however conditions associated with Major developments will be monitored by the Enforcement Service and will be given a priority level for action.
Where it is believed that the conditions attached to the consent are not being complied with or have not been discharged in a satisfactory way, members of the public can provide information to the Planning Authority. The large number of permissions granted each year makes the involvement of members of the public invaluable in the monitoring process. It should however be recognised that there are a large number of permissions granted each year and it is not practical, nor is it expected, that the Council monitor all conditions at all times.
When breaches of conditions are identified, they are investigated in the same way as other breaches of planning control.
9 Priority / Risk Assessment
The Planning Authority faces an ever-increasing demand on its services and is obliged to demonstrate that it is offering best value in the use of these resources. All enforcement cases will be prioritised and risk assessed against known hazards.
Highest priority cases are dealt with first, to ensure that the Enforcement Officer’s time is spent effectively on cases that either significantly affects the amenity and / or the public. The Enforcement Officers will aim to complete the investigation phase (including site visit) within 12 weeks.
Priority A
1. A breach of planning control which could lead to irreversible harm being caused to land and/or buildings. (unauthorised quarry activity)
2. A breach in planning control which results in unauthorised works to a Listed Building
3. Unauthorised works to trees covered by a tree preservation order, or in a conservation area.
4. Special Projects (assisting with regeneration or removal of blighted properties or restoring listed buildings) 5. Breaches which may cause danger to the general public, neighbours or highway users. (e.g. traffic hazard, storage of hazardous substances, development creating pollution problems) 6. A breach of planning control which is likely to result in serious ongoing environmental harm or nuisance.
7. Breaches within a Conservation Area, which may have irreversible effect on its appearance.
8. Reported breaches of conditions which would fall into categories (1-6 above).
10 Priority B
1. The pro-active monitoring of planning conditions relating to major or large scale developments and developments which require tree or other existing landscaping items to be retained.
2. Unauthorised development likely to cause significant interference with the running of a business.
3. The pursuance of cases where a retrospective planning application has been refused.
4. Breaches which seriously affect the amenity of neighbours.
5. Breaches which are significant in planning terms but no harm will be caused by a delay in investigating.
6. Business from home not falling within higher priorities.
7. Unauthorised development or use with a significant prospect of obtaining a retrospective approval.
8. Unauthorised development or use likely to cause limited or infrequent harm or use.
9. Advertisements (including fly posting).
10. Minor developments, i.e. gates, walls, fences, domestic outbuildings, aerials and satellite dishes.
11. Untidy land.
11 IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE OFFENCES UNDER THE BUILDING (SCOTLAND) ACT 2003
Building Standards enforcement have to consider two issues – whether an offence has taken place, and whether it is expedient or appropriate to take enforcement action. That decision is within the Councils sole discretion.
Priority / Risk Assessment – Unauthorised and Non Complainant works
The Council faces an ever-increasing demand on its services and is obliged to demonstrate that it is offering best value in the use of these resources. All enforcement cases will be prioritised and risk assessed against known hazards.
Highest priority cases are dealt with first, to ensure that the Enforcement Officer’s time is spent effectively on cases that either significantly affects the amenity and / or the public. The Enforcement Officers will aim to complete the investigation phase (including site visit) within 12 weeks.
Priority A
1) An offence which could have a direct impact on life safety. 2) Offences which may cause danger to the general public, neighbours or highway users. (e.g. dangerous buildings)
Priority B
1) Works not in accordance with the warrant approvals or without Building Warrant approval but does not have a direct impact on life safety
2) Defective Buildings which cause damage to a third party
General
Finally, it is recognised that some breaches of planning control and offences under the Building (Scotland) Act which are of a temporary or irregular nature may require immediate action. These may not necessarily be determined by the above categories of priorities.
12 INVESTIGATIONS
Preliminary Investigations
On receipt of a completed enforcement enquiry form, the complaint will be registered and allocated to an Enforcement officer. An initial desktop investigation into the history of the property will be undertaken. Depending on the outcome of this initial assessment a site visit may be required. The priority allocated to each case will be established by considering the effect of the breach or offence and the significance of the breach on the amenity of the area.
As part of the registration process, the individual who has contacted the Enforcement Service will be sent an acknowledgement within 20 days of receipt of the completed form or letter, unless they have specifically requested not to be contacted.
Once a determination has been reached about the complaint we will contact you again to advise you what action is to be taken. If your information does not concern a planning matter or a Building Standards matter, you will be advised accordingly and we will endeavour to direct your concerns to the most appropriate section within the Council.
It is not always possible to anticipate the length of time required for a determination or for action on a case, nor for a case to be resolved. Progress can be delayed for a number of reasons, for example where evidence must be collected and verified over a period of time, where negotiations take place, or where formal procedures have to be used. Where an application is submitted to regularise the matter, or where an appeal is made to the Scottish Ministers or the Sheriff Court against a formal Notice, this will affect the timescale for resolution of the case.
The Council recognises that delays can be a source of considerable frustration to those submitting information particularly if they consider that their amenity is affected. The Enforcement Service will not enter into correspondence with a complainant about an investigation to avoid prejudicing any potential court action. However, if a complainant makes contact with the service we will provide a general overview of the case without discussing the specifics of the case.
13 Confirmed Breaches of Planning Control and Offences under the Building (Scotland) Act
Where a breach of planning control or an offence under the Building (Scotland) Act has been established, the Council will invite the developer / land owner / occupier into negotiations to resolve the issue. However, these must be balanced against harm to the amenity, Scottish Borders Council’s Planning Policies and to life safety. The Council will not let protracted negotiation prevent effective enforcement.
Advice from an Enforcement Officer will be put clearly and simply and will be confirmed in writing to the relevant parties, explaining where the breach or offence has occurred and what action is required to remedy the matter and over what time scale.
Resolution of a case prior to further action being sought
In some instances, even though a breach or offence has occurred, it may not be appropriate to take further action. This is because the planning authority has to consider whether, having regard to the development plan and material considerations, the nature of the offence and to the circumstances of each case, it is appropriate to issue a Notice. It should be recognised that most enforcement cases are resolved without formal action.
Where the unauthorised development is likely to be acceptable, it may be appropriate to seek the submission of a planning application or a late building warrant. There are provisions in the Planning Acts and the Building (Scotland) Act for applications to be made in retrospect. If following discussions with the relevant parties an application is made the enforcement case would be suspended until a decision is made on the application.
14 Formal Action
Only a small number of cases require to be dealt with by formal enforcement action. Formal action is instigated by the service of a Notice. All Notice’s include the following information:
x a description of the breach or offence which has taken place x the steps which should be taken to remedy the breach or offence x the consequences of failure to comply with the Notice x rights of appeal where appropriate.
If an appeal is lodged against a Notice, this appeal is submitted to and considered by Scottish Ministers (Planning) or the Sheriff (Building Standards). In almost all cases appeals against a Planning Enforcement Notice are dealt with by Reporters from the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). There is no right of appeal against a breach of condition notice. Anyone who has submitted information on a breach of planning control is advised of the appeal. The Planning Authority has additional powers, including the use of Interdicts, which complement the serving of Notices. For more detail, please see the ‘section on Enforcement Tools further on in the Charter.
Planning Register
Details of enforcement notices, breach of condition notices and stop notices are entered into an Enforcement Register, which forms part of the Planning Register. These documents are available for inspection at Legal Services, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells or an abridged version can be accessed via the Council’s online Portal. http://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/online- applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application
Building Standards Register
Details of Section 27 Notices (Building Warrant Enforcement Notice), Section 28 Notices (Defective Buildings), and Section 29/30 Notices (dangerous Buildings) are entered into an Enforcement Register, which forms part of the Building Standards Register. These documents are available for inspection at Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells or an abridged version can accessed via the Council’s online Portal. http://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/online- applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application
15 AVAILABLE POWERS
Planning
Deciding whether to take Formal Enforcement Action
The power to issue an Enforcement Notice (S127. Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) is discretionary and is dependent on a number of factors to confirm that it is ‘expedient’ to issue a notice. A notice requires remedial steps to be taken within a specified time scale.
In serving a notice, the Enforcement Service will have regard to:
x its own Planning Policy contained within the Scottish Borders Council Development Plans
x Central Government advice in the form of Scottish Planning Policy Guidance (SPPG’s), National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG’s), Planning Advise Notes (PANS), Circulars and the Enforcement Circular 4 of 1999
x the decision must not be ‘unreasonable’ (that is, must not be based on irrational factors; or taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts and planning issues; or based on non-planning grounds)
x whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land or buildings meriting protection in the public interest
x to relevant judicial authority
x any other material considerations.
The Enforcement Service will keep a properly documented record of the investigation of each case and of the reasons why we decided to take, or not to take, enforcement action.
The decision to instigate enforcement action or not, will normally be made by the Principal Officer (Enforcement) in consultation, where necessary, with the Major Applications, Review and Enforcement manager.
16 TREES, LISTED BUILDINGS AND ADVERTISEMENTS
Some breaches of Planning Control are subject to separate legislative codes, these include Tree Preservation Orders, works to trees in a Conservation Area, Listed Buildings and Advertisement Control.
Works to a protected tree or Listed Building require prior consent from the Planning Authority and failure to obtain the necessary consents is a criminal offence. The Council may refer the owner of a Listed Building or protected tree, the contractor carrying out the work, or any person with an interest in the land where an offence takes place to the Procurators Fiscal for consideration of a prosecution under summary proceedings in the Sheriff Court.
The display of advertisements is covered by the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984. Many advertisements are displayed with what is called 'deemed consent' which means they do not require planning permission if they meet the criteria and conditions set out in the regulations. One of these conditions is that the landowner has given permission for the advertisement to be displayed on their land.
Displaying an advertisement in contravention of the regulations is an offence and, if convicted in court, an offender can be fined. The court can impose further fines for each day the breach of the regulations continues.
The Council has the power to serve an enforcement notice. This specifies a time period (normally 28 days) for compliance with the notice. However, this period can be reduced to seven days if the Council believes there is an urgent need for the advertisement to be removed or altered in the interests of public safety, or if the advertisement can be removed without any other work being required.
An enforcement notice can also require that a particular piece of land should not be used to display advertisements. This remains in force even if the original advertisement is removed. Any subsequent advertising on this site would amount to a breach of the notice.
The Council also has powers to remove or destroy placards and posters that do not have planning permission or deemed consent. If the person who put up the poster can be identified, they have to be given at least two days' notice that the Council intends to take the poster down. If they cannot be readily identified, then the advert can be removed immediately.
Council officials can enter unoccupied land, if necessary, to remove an advertisement. However they have no powers to remove advertisements displayed within a building to which there is no public access.
17 The Council regularly removes unauthorised advertisements on the highway. The Planning Enforcement Service will pursue action against advertisements, which are harmful to the visual amenity of the region.
18 Time Limits for Enforcement
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 set out clear time limits for taking enforcement action against a breach of planning control. These time limits are set out below and where a breach has existing from longer than the specified time period no action can be taken.
x erection of buildings and other works - 4 years
x changes of use of buildings or land - 10 years
x non-compliance with planning conditions - 10 years
There are exceptions to these periods and questions of interpretation should be discussed directly with the appropriate Enforcement Officer or the Development Management officer for the area.
Securing Compliance with a Notice
The Planning Acts provides that a criminal offence occurs when the requirements of an extant Enforcement Notice are contravened after the date by which the compliance period stated in the notice expires.
The Council may take action to ensure compliance with an Enforcement Notice. Such action may include:
x prosecution through the Sheriff Court
x carrying out works in 'default' of an Enforcement Notice. In other words the Enforcement Service may arrange for works required by an Enforcement Notice to be carried out and then recover the cost of this work from the recipient of the notice.
The Council will consider the most effective way of ensuring that someone who is contravening an Enforcement Notice complies with its requirements. It may, for example, be expedient to initiate prosecution proceeding and take 'direct' action, especially if the offence is blatant and causes serious environmental harm.
If an owner / occupier is found guilty, a maximum fine of £20,000 may be imposed by the Courts. If the Notice is still not complied with, a second prosecution may be sought with a recommendation that the courts impose a 'continuance fine', which will apply every day the Notice is in breach.
When a Notice has been complied with, the fact will be confirmed with the owner / occupier of the land / building and to anyone who has complained about the development or activity.
19 Building Standards
Deciding whether to take Formal Enforcement Action
Building Works, which have not been specifically granted exemption, required a Building Warrant before the works can start and failure to obtain the necessary consent is a criminal offence. The Council may refer the owner of the building, the contractor carrying out the work, or any person with an interest in the works where an offence has taken place to the Procurators Fiscal for consideration of a prosecution under summary proceedings in the Sheriff Court.
The power to issue a Building Warrant Enforcement Notice (S27 Building (Scotland) Act 2003) and Defective Buildings Notice (S28 Building (Scotland) Act 2003) are discretionary. The specifics of the case will determine if it is ‘expedient’ to issue a notice. A notice will require remedial steps to be taken within a specified time scale.
In serving a Notice, the Enforcement Service will have regard to:
x the implications of the offence
x if it is considered to be in the public interest to serve a Notice.
x the decision must not be ‘unreasonable’ (that is, must not be based on irrational factors; or taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts)
x to relevant judicial authority
The Enforcement Service will keep a properly documented record of the investigation of each case and of the reasons why we decided to take, or not to take, enforcement action.
The decision to instigate enforcement action or not, will normally be made by the Principal Officer Enforcement in consultation, where necessary, with the Major applications, Review and Enforcement manager.
20 Dangerous Buildings
If Building Standards become aware that a building constitutes a danger to members of the public, then we have a duty to act. An Officer from the Building Standards team will visit the dangerous building and make an assessment of the risk to the public. Section 29 and 30 are the relevant sections within the Act that determine how a dangerous building will be dealt with.
There are two types of danger, the first requiring immediate action and the second requiring urgent action. A detailed explanation of the powers available in relation to dangerous building can be found under Enforcement Tools – Building Standards
Securing Compliance with a Notice
The Building (Scotland) Act 2003 provides that a criminal offence occurs when the requirements of an extant Enforcement Notice are contravened after the date by which the compliance period stated in the notice expires.
The Council may take action to ensure compliance with an Enforcement Notice. Such action may include:
x Referring the matter to the Procurator Fiscal for consideration
x carrying out works in 'default' of an Enforcement Notice. In other words the Enforcement Service may arrange for works required by an Enforcement Notice to be carried out and then recover the cost of this work from the recipient of the notice.
The Council will consider the most effective way of ensuring that someone who is contravening an Enforcement Notice complies with its requirements. It may, for example, be expedient to initiate prosecution proceeding and or take 'direct' action, especially if the offence is blatant and causes serious harm.
If an owner / occupier is found guilty, a maximum fine of £20,000 may be imposed. If the Notice is still not complied with, a second prosecution may be sought with a recommendation that the courts impose a 'continuance fine', which will apply every day the Notice is in breach.
When a Notice has been complied with, the fact will be confirmed with the owner / occupier of the land / building and to anyone who has complained about the development or activity.
21 ENFORCEMENT TOOLS - Planning
The planning enforcement powers available to the planning authority are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. Listed Building enforcement notices are covered by the Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. The Planning Acts are available from HMSO, 71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh and can be viewed online at the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) website: http//www.opsi.gov.uk/
Government policy on planning enforcement is set out in Planning Circular 10/2009: Planning Enforcement. The circular is published on the Scottish Government website and can be views at www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built- Environment/Planning/opublications/circulars.
Powers of Entry
The Council has powers to enter land to:
x establish if there has been a breach of planning control x to check whether there has been compliance with a formal notice x to check whether a breach or an offence has been satisfactorily resolved.
Certificates of Lawfulness
Section 150 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 allows for the issuing of a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development. This means that where unauthorised development has taken place, but is outside time scales within which enforcement actions can be taken, the owner of the land is given the possibility of obtaining a statutory document confirming that the use, operation or activity named in it is lawful for planning control purposes. Once granted, the certificate will remain valid for the use or development described in it, on the land identified in the application.
Retrospective Planning Applications
Some forms of unauthorised development may not significantly breach planning policy or can be made acceptable by imposing planning conditions. In such cases the Local Planning Authority may invite the owner to submit a retrospective planning application. The planning process for retrospective applications is exactly the same as normal planning applications and is consulted upon in the same way. The fact that the development has already commenced should not be allowed to influence the outcome of the Planning process. Where proposals are less clear cut, or it appears that a retrospective application is unlikely to be successful, care should be taken to ensure that, even though it remains their
22 right, a developer is not being encouraged to submit an application that has no prospect of success.
Planning Contravention Notice (Section 125)
This is appropriate where the Planning Authority wish to know more before making a final decision on action or where they think an agreement might be reached. The Notice is served if it appears to the Planning Authority that there may have been a breach of planning control. It may be served on the owner, occupier, or any other person with an interest in the land, or anybody using it or carrying out operations on the land in question. These persons may be required to give information on:
(i) operations or activities being carried out, or the use of the land (ii) any matter relating to any conditions or limitations of a relevant permission.
The Notice may also give formal notice of a time and place when the Planning Authority will hear and consider:
a) any offer by a person served with the Notice to apply for permission, refrain from operations or activities or undertake remedial works b) any representations the person may wish to make.
There is no appeal against this Notice and if it is not complied with, an offence is committed. The penalty for the first and subsequent summary convictions is a fine to the maximum of level 3 on the standard scale (Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997). However, making a false or misleading response carries a level 5 fine (Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997).
Stop Notice (Section 140)
These are issued only in extreme cases. This is an interim measure only available after the service of an Enforcement Notice and before all appeals against such a notice is resolved. It can forbid the continuation of operations and, but not all, uses. There is no appeal and penalties are as for the breach of an Enforcement Notice (see below). Mistaken use of a Stop Notice by the Planning Authority can render the Council liable for certain costs.
Temporary Stop Notice (section 144A)
These would be used to require the immediate halt of an activity which breaches planning control. The provisions make an exception in that a Temporary Stop Notice cannot prohibit the use of a building or a caravan as a dwellinghouse. Temporary Stop Notices are enforceable for 28 days, after which they time they expire. They may, however, be followed by further enforcement action such as an
23 Enforcement Notice and Stop Notice. There is no provision to appeal against a Temporary Stop Notice.
Fixed Penalty Notice (Section 145A)
This provides planning authorities with an alternative process, in addition to the option to seek prosecution, to address situations where a person has failed to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice (EN) or a breach of condition notice (BCN). By paying the penalty imposed by the FPN, the person will discharge any liability for prosecution for the offence. They will not, however, discharge the obligation to comply with the terms of the EN or BCN and the planning authority will retain the power to take direct action to remedy the breach and recover the costs of such work from that person. The planning authority is not required to offer the option of paying a fixed penalty. Any decision to do so would be dependant on considerations such as the scale of the breach and its impact on local amenity.
Notice Requiring Application for Planning Permission for Development Already carried out (Section 33A)
Where the planning authority considers that a development which does not have planning permission may be acceptable (i.e. they consider that it might be granted planning permission) they may issue a notice requiring the landowner or developer to submit a retrospective planning application. This application will be considered on its planning merits and handled in the same way as any other planning application. Issuing such a notice does not guarantee that permission will be granted; the planning authority may, on consideration of the application, decide instead to refuse permission, or to grant permission subject to conditions or alterations to make the development acceptable.
Enforcement Notice (Section 127)
This may be issued when it appears to the Planning Authority:
(a) that there has been a breach in planning control and (b) that it is expedient to issue the Notice having regard to the development plan and other material considerations.
A copy of the Notice is served on:
(i) the owner and the occupier of the land to which it relates (ii) any other person with an interest in the land, being an interest, which in the opinion of the Planning Authority, is materially affected by the Notice. 24 The Notice must specify the steps necessary to secure compliance and the period for compliance must be at least 28 days.
It should be noted that once an Enforcement Notice has been served it will remain on the land or property indefinitely.
Breach of Condition Notice
This may be served if any of the conditions or limitations of the relevant permission are not complied with. It comes into effect 28 days after being served. Again, the Notice must specify the steps necessary to secure compliance, and the period for compliance must be at least 28 days.
There is no appeal against the Notice except by way of judicial review. Contravention of a breach of condition notice can result in the Council deciding to prosecute, with a fine up to £1000 (level 3 fine).
Interdicts (Section 146)
An interdict is imposed by the courts and is used to stop or prevent a breach before it has occurred, for example undertaking mineral extraction in a disused quarry. It can also be used as an alternative to Enforcement Notices or Breach of Condition Notice. However, it is generally used as a final resort if all the other methods fail to deter. Penalties are flexible and at the court’s discretion. The granting of an interdict is at the Court’s discretion and a failure to obtain an interdict is likely to carry a heavy cost for the Council.
Appeals
There is a limited right of appeal to the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA), with the possibility of subsequently taking points of law to the Court of Session.
There are six grounds for an enforcement appeal, as follows:
a) that those matters have not occurred, (ground [a])
b) that those matters (if they occurred) do not constitute a breach in planning control, (ground [b])
c) that, at the date when the Notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters, (ground [c])
25 d) that copies of the Enforcement Notice were not served as required under Section 172, of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, (ground [d])
e) that the steps required by the Notice to be taken, or the activities required by the Notice, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach, (ground [e])
f) that any period specified on the Notice in accordance with section 173(9) falls short of what should reasonably be allowed, (ground [f]).
All complainants, neighbours and local elected Members will be made aware that an appeal has been lodged against an Enforcement Notice, together with any arrangements made for a Public Inquiry or Hearing. The Council will advise all parties of the outcome of an appeal. If an appeal is successful and the Enforcement Notice quashed, the investigation is closed.
26 ENFORCEMENT TOOLS – Building Standards
The Building Standards enforcement powers available to the Council are set out in the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 as amended. The Building (Scotland) Act is available from The Stationary office (TSO) at www.tsoshop.co.uk and can be views online at the Legislation.gov.uk website: http//www.legislation.gov.uk/
Building Warrant Enforcement Notice (Section 27)
In circumstances where work for which a building warrant is required has started without a warrant an offence has been committed. However, to deal with these cases where work has started without a warrant, perhaps through ignorance of the law, a mechanism exists to allow the owner to secure statutory approval for the works. The Act, therefore, allows a late application for warrant to be submitted at any time before the works on site are complete. The Late Application for Building Warrant process requires full drawings, as for a normal application. If the construction is well advanced the verifier may request parts to be exposed so that adequate checks can be made and a higher fee is charged to cover such difficulties (125% of the normal fee). These disadvantages to starting work before obtaining a warrant are not designed as a penalty, which would arise from any action taken in relation to the offence, but are necessary to allow proper consideration of the work.
Section 27 also provides for the provision to require works to be halted until a Building Warrant has been approved.
Defective Buildings Notice (Section 28)
In circumstances were a building defect exits within in a property owned by several different parties i.e. a tenemental property, the Council may use it discretionary powers under the above section to address the defect. It should also be recognised that the Council may determine NOT to take action. As this power is discretionary the Council will require to be satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to try and get the cooperation of the various owners. Only in such cases that these steps can be demonstrated will the Council consider becoming involved. It should be recognised that due to the nature and potential complexity of these works the process of arriving at a satisfactory outcome may take a considerable period of time.
27 If the Council has to undertake works to make a building safe the Council will seek to recover these costs (including an administration, tendering and contract charge) from the owners of the property.
Dangerous Buildings Notice (section 29 / 30)
Section 29: Dangerous Buildings (immediate action
Under Section 29 where a building constitutes an immediate danger to persons in or about it or to the public generally or to adjacent buildings or places, we must carry out such work (including, if necessary, demolition) as it considers necessary: (a) To prevent access to the dangerous building and to any adjacent parts of any road or public place which appear to us to be dangerous by reason of the state of the building, and (b) For the protection of the public and of persons or property in places adjacent to the dangerous building. In respect of immediate action the Council must remove the danger and will, when possible, notify the owner.
In certain instances, the nature of the danger/emergency work required may prevent the occupiers from remaining in the building; in that situation, occupants will have to move out immediately, and we can apply to the Sheriff for a warrant for removal if necessary.
If the Council has to undertake works to make a building safe the Council will seek to recover these costs (including an administration, tendering and contract charge) from the owners of the property.
Section 30: Dangerous Buildings (urgent action) In respect of urgent action, we must notify the owner by serving a notice under Section 30 to give the owner(s) the opportunity to carry out the necessary work. If this fails, we may take action and will reclaim the costs and expenses from the owner(s).
The powers given to us by the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 does not reduce the owner responsibility; however, they do provide a safety net that the Council can use to protect the public when it appears to the Council that, for whatever reason, building owners have failed to fulfill their legal responsibilities.
If the Council has to undertake works to make a building safe the Council will seek to recover these costs (including an administration, tendering and contract charge) from the owners of the property. 28 Powers of Entry ( Section 39)
This provision of this section of the Act allows the Council to enter a property to verify if work have or have not been carried out without a Building Warrant. In addition it also confers powers to the Council to allow them to undertake works to comply with the terms of a Notice served under Section 27, 28 and 30 of the Act.
Evacuation of Buildings (Section 42)
In situations where a building is dangerous and it is considered that the risk to person in the building or adjacent buildings to be such that they would be at risk the Council has the power to require those persons to be evacuated from the relevant buildings.
Appeals (section 47)
A person on whom a Notice has been served may appeal the Notice to the Sheriff Court.
Interdict (section 21)
An interdict can be imposed by the courts prevent a building from being occupied Prior to a completion certificate being issued in order to prevent an offence occurring.
29 SUMMARY
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT
Planning permission is required for most development, with the exception of certain types of work specified by Act of Parliament that takes place in Scotland. Sometimes, however, developers or householders undertake work without planning permission or fail to keep to the permission they have been given. The Council have powers to act in such cases and will investigate breaches of planning control. These can include:
x work being carried out without planning permission x an unauthorised change of use x not following conditions imposed by a planning consent x not following plans approved by a planning consent
The public can play a vital role in reporting such incidents to the Council. Any report of an alleged breach will need to include:
x the address of the property concerned; x details of the suspected breach of planning control, (with times and dates if x relevant); x contact details for the person providing the information; x whether that person wishes the matter to be treated confidentially.
The Council will do their best to honour such requests but anonymity cannot be guaranteed where statutory enforcement action is undertaken, particularly where court action is required and that person may be called as a witness. The purpose of planning enforcement is to resolve the problem rather than to punish the mistake. Action can involve negotiating a solution, asking for a retrospective planning application to be made, or more formal action such as the issue of an enforcement notice or a breach of condition notice. Formal action may require the agreement of the Council's Planning and Building Standards Committee. This can include serving an enforcement notice on the relevant people, spelling out the action they are required to take. They can challenge this notice, through an appeal to Scottish Ministers. If an appeal is made, enforcement action is
30 suspended until a decision is issued. Failure to comply with an enforcement notice can result in prosecution.
In some cases, the Council is time-barred from taking action. Generally, work carried out more than four years ago or a change of use that took place more than 10 years ago is considered lawful and immune from action. It is not always possible to anticipate how a particular case will develop, nor how long it will take. The Council will try to keep people informed of progress.
BUILDING STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
Building Works
A building warrant is required for most development, with the exception of certain types of work specified by Act of parliament, which takes place in Scotland. Sometimes, however, developers or householders undertake work without first obtaining a Building Warrant or fails to keep to the permission they have been given. The Councils have powers to act in such cases and will investigate alleged unauthorised building works. These can include:
x work being carried out without a Building Warrant x an unauthorised change of use x not following plans approved by a Building Warrant
Defective Buildings
The Council have powers to act in situations were an owner of a building is suffering for example water ingress from a common element of the building and the owners of the building have not been able to agree on the repairs. The Council will only consider utilising these powers if it can be clearly demonstrated that all reasonable steps have been taken to try and resolve the matter between the owners.
Dangerous Buildings
The Council has a duty to act in situations where a building posses a risk to the public or person using the building. An initial assessment will be undertaken by a Building Standards office, who may require urgent works to be undertaken. However in situations where a danger exists but NO urgent works are required the Enforcement team will be advised of the situation. The Enforcement team will contact the owners and afford an opportunity for the works required to be undertaken. If, however the owners do not undertake the works required powers exist for the Council to serve formal Notice requiring the specified works to be
31 done. If the Notice is not complied with the Council may undertake the works and seek to recover the cost plus any reasonable expenses incurred.
The public can play a vital role in reporting such incidents to the Council. Any report of an alleged unauthorised works will need to include:
x the address of the property concerned; x details of the suspected works, (with times and dates if x relevant); x contact details for the person providing the information; x whether that person wishes the matter to be treated confidentially.
The Council will do their best to honour such requests but anonymity cannot be guaranteed where statutory enforcement action is undertaken; particularly where court action is required and that person may be called as a witness. The purpose of Building Standards Enforcement is to resolve the problem rather than to punish the mistake. Action can involve negotiating a solution, asking for a late Building Warrant application to be made, or more formal action such as the issue of an enforcement notice. Formal action may require the agreement of the Council's Planning and Building Standards Committee. This can include serving an enforcement notice on the relevant people, spelling out the action they are required to take. They can challenge this notice, through an appeal to the Sherriff Court. If so, enforcement action is suspended until a decision is issued. Failure to comply with an enforcement notice can result in prosecution.
It is not always possible to anticipate how a particular case will develop, nor how long it will take. The Council will try to keep people informed of progress.
32 SERVICE STANDARDS
By publishing our standards and targets, we aim to improve our enforcement service and make it responsive to the needs of our customers. We will monitor the contents of this Charter to ensure that standards and targets are being met.
Further copies of this Charter are available on the Council’s website, in local libraries and at Council Offices (please see Useful contacts).
Following receipt of a written complaint about contraventions, you will receive a formal acknowledgement to your letter or e-mail within 20 working days. The acknowledgement noted above will include a reference number and contact details for the investigating officer. If the matter does not involve a possible breach of planning control, you will be advised accordingly.
Priority will be given to significant breaches of planning control and Building Regulations which may include:
x works being undertaken in contravention of the requirements of an enforcement notice x irreversible damage to Listed Buildings x unauthorised felling of trees and matters affecting trees protected by Tree Protection Orders x breaches of condition for major development x unauthorised development that may lead to substantial and or permanent damage to sites of National Importance, for example Scheduled Ancient Monuments. x Unauthorised works which result in life safety implications x Dangerous Buildings
33 Where a planning breach cannot be resolved and action is justified, a formal notice will be served. This will be either an enforcement notice or, if a condition of planning consent has been breached the Council may issue a breach of condition notice instead. If it is decided to serve a formal notice, we will write to the recipient to explain what is required, the timescales involved and the available options to resolve the issue.
Where a issue under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 cannot be resolved and action is justified, a formal notice will be served. This will be either an enforcement notice, a defective buildings Notice or a Dangerous Buildings Notice. If it is decided to serve a formal notice, we will write to the recipient to explain what is required, the timescales involved and the available options to resolve the issue.
Where the terms of any enforcement notice are not complied with, every effort will be made to resolve the case to the satisfaction of the Council. Options include:
x direct action by the Council and / or x the matter being referred to the Procurator Fiscal for possible prosecution.
CUSTOMER CARE
The Council will disseminate information about planning enforcement by publishing and making an Enforcement Charter available to all it's customers by means of the internet. Specialist 'in-house' leaflets may be produced to assist complainants, owner / occupiers and businesses that are subject to the enforcement procedure.
The Council aims to provide a service that is courteous and efficient. Staff will identify themselves by name and provide a contact point and telephone number for future dealings with the organisation.
We will seek to ensure that all communications are in Plain English with interpretation / translation services available when requested.
We will seek to act in a co-ordinated manner with other departments of the Council and with outside agencies, to minimise overlapping actions and time delays.
Making a suggestion or complaint about the service
The Council hopes the public will be satisfied with the planning enforcement service. However, if you have any suggestions, concerns or difficulties, we want to hear from you. We are committed to improving our service and dealing promptly with any failures.
34 The Council recognises that there may be occasions when things go wrong and the customer’s complaint is the first step in helping to put matters right.
We will consider all complaints made about the way an enforcement enquiry was dealt with. Some people may disagree with the outcome of an investigation but, of itself, that is not grounds for complaint.
In the first instance, please discuss the matter with the member of staff involved. If you are still dissatisfied, talk to the Principal Officer (Enforcement) (see list of contacts).
If that officer is unable to help, you will be given the name of a more senior manager who will investigate the matter.
If you are still unhappy about how the complaint has been handled, a formal complaint can be made.
The Council has a corporate complaint procedure, which is followed when a complaint is received. Complaints about the service can be made by: x by letter to the Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager (see list of contacts) x in person or by telephone – our staff will be able to take the generic details of the complaint and make sure it is dealt with. x Logging on to www.scotborders.gov.uk/complaints
All complaints regarding the service will be recorded. If the problem can not be resolved immediately it will be passed on for further investigation and action. We will acknowledge the complaint within three working days and every effort will be made to fully resolve the complaint within 20 working days.
Ultimately the complainant has the right to contact the Local Government Ombudsman and leaflets / forms are available either in hard copy format from all our Area Offices or at our reception facility at headquarters, in addition the forms are also available on the Councils internet site to facilitate this process.
35 USEFUL CONTACTS
For all enquires about the Enforcement Service and Enforcement Investigations
Alan Gueldner Principal Officer Enforcement Scottish Borders Council Council Headquarters Newtown St. Boswells TD6 0SA Telephone 01835 825060 Ext 5285
For complaints about the service
Ian Aikman Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager Scottish Borders Council Council Headquarters Newtown St. Boswells TD6 0SA Telephone 01835 825060 Ext 6510
Planning and Building Standards Internet Site: 36 www.scotborders.gov.uk/life/planningandbuilding/index.html
Planning Enforcement Internet Site: http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/info/180/planning_applications/101/planning_enfor cement
Building Standards Enforcement Internet Site: http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/info/162/building_standards/440/dangerous_struct ures_and_enforcement
You can get this document on tape, in large print, and various other formats by contacting us at the address below. In addition, contact the address below for information on language translations, additional copies, or to arrange for an officer to meet with you to explain any areas of the publication that you would like clarified. Contact – Jacqueline Whitelaw, Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells TD6 0SA Tel. No. 0300 100 1800
37 ITEM 7
PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS
Briefing Note by Head of Planning & Regulatory Services
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
3rd February 2014
1 PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this briefing note is to give details of Appeals and Local Reviews which have been received and determined during the last month.
2 APPEALS RECEIVED
2.1 Planning Applications
2.1.1 Reference: 11/01175/FUL Proposal: Erection of 9 No wind turbines 100m high to tip and associated infrastructure Site: Land North West and West of Allanshaws Farmhouse (Shawpark), Galashiels Appellant: J G Shanks & Son
Reasons for Refusal: 1. The development would interfere with the operational functionality of the Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station, contrary to Policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011. 2. The development would both individually and cumulatively with other wind farms, unacceptably impact on landscape character, particularly with respect to the landscape setting of Stow (which includes its Conservation Area and B Listed Stow Parish Church) and the landscape incorporating Lauder Common contrary to Policies G1, BE1, BE4 and D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011. 3. The development would have unacceptable visual impacts, both individually and cumulatively with other wind farms, on a range of receptors, particularly the village of Stow and users of the A7, Stagehall Road, B6362 and Lauder Common, Southern Upland Way and A697, contrary to Policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011.
Grounds of Appeal: This proposal is at the outer edge of the 50km consultation zone set by the Ministry of Defence to safeguard the seismometer array at Eskdalemuir from interference from seismic ground vibration from wind turbines. It is contended that, given the continuing expectation that a solution will be found, either from the release of quota or a technical solution, a suspensive condition attached to the planning permission for the development would be appropriate. In regard to the Landscape & Visual Impacts the Appellant contends that these are acceptable with modest impacts on the landscape character and sensitive Planning & Building Standards Committee 3rd February 2014 1 receptors that are not unacceptable. The Local Planning Authority’s refusal reasons, despite thorough consideration, do not properly assess the facts of the application against the relevant provisions of the local development plan as required by Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The impacts of the development are modest and acceptable and the benefits clearly outweigh any residual adverse impacts.
Method of Appeal: Written Representations
2.2 Enforcements
Nil
3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED
3.1 Planning Applications
Nil
3.2 Enforcements
Nil
4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING
4.1 There remained 3 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 22nd January 2014. This relates to sites at:
x Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk x Blythe Farm (Brunta Hill), Lauder x 10 Springwell Brae, Broughton x
5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED
5.1 Reference: 13/00823/FUL Proposal: Erection of replacement blacksmith's workshop and associated dwellinghouse Site: Land North West and West of Greenlaw, Deanfoot Road, West Linton Appellant: Sandy Perfect Trading Ltd
Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy D2 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is an operational requirement for a dwelling house to ensure the efficient operation of the business and that there is no alternative accommodation or housing site available close by, in a building group or within the settlement boundary. 2. The proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policy D1 - Business, Tourism and Leisure Developments in the Countryside in that the applicants have failed to demonstrate the need for a replacement workshop at this location as no information has been provided on any potential brownfield or other sites within the settlement boundary nor that the existing building is incapable of re-use.
5.2 Reference: 13/00892/FUL Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse and outbuilding/stables Planning & Building Standards Committee 3rd February 2014 2 Site: Plot 2 (Site 2) Land at Huntshaw Farm Steading, Huntshaw Road, Earlston Appellant: Mr Spencer Pitman
Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would fail to comply with Policies G1 and D2 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan, as well as with the advice of approved Supplementary Planning Guidance notes on New Housing in the Borders Countryside (2008) and on Placemaking and Design (2010), in that the proposed dwellinghouse would represent an isolated form of development whose siting and layout would fail to respect the character and sense of place of the existing building group.
5.3 Reference: 13/00944/FUL Proposal: Change of use from former school to form auction sale room/storage Site: Halyrude School, Old Church Road, Peebles Appellant: Lynsey Rennie
Reason for Refusal: The proposed auction sale room/storage use is contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policies G1, G7 and H2 in that it would result in the generation of a type, volume and flow of traffic that would not be compatible with, or capable of accommodation within, the site and/or surrounding area, and which would have an unacceptably adverse impact upon the amenity of surrounding residential properties.
5.4 Reference: 13/00996/FUL Proposal: Extension to dwellinghouse Site: 29 Headrig, Jedburgh Appellant: Mr and Mrs G Scott
Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policy G1 and Policy H2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Placemaking & Design 2010, in that the scale, form and design of the extension would be unsympathetic to the character of the existing dwellinghouse and would result in a negative impact upon the visual amenities of the surrounding area.
6 REVIEWS DETERMINED
6.1 Reference: 09/01162/FUL Proposal: Erection 5 No wind turbines 110m high to tip, formation of access road and ancillary structure Site: Land North and South West of Whitton Farm, Morebattle Appellant: Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd
Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposal would be contrary to policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Wind Energy May 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Local Landscape Designations August 2012 in that: • The proposal would have a significantly adverse effect on local landscape character, by virtue of its scale and the height of the turbines, introducing a commercial wind farm into an intermediate scale landscape, which due to its open nature, lack of containment and screening and high external visibility, is of an inappropriate scale and character to accommodate the proposal successfully. • The proposal Planning & Building Standards Committee 3rd February 2014 3 would have a significant detrimental visual impact on the area as a result of uninterrupted views and prominent skyline impacts across a range of sensitive road, footpath and landscape receptors. • The proposal would have a significantly adverse landscape and visual impact by introducing a commercial wind farm into an landscape that is currently unaffected by this type of development and spreading the extent of the wind farm influenced landscape over a wider area reducing the extent of landscapes in the Borders that are wind farm free. 2. The proposal would be contrary to policy BE2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 in that the proposal would adversely affect nationally important archaeological sites and their setting and archaeological sites of regional and local significance and it has not been demonstrated that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the archaeological value of the site or feature.
Method of Review: Review of Papers, Site Visit & Hearing
Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld
6.2 Reference: 13/00342/FUL Proposal: Extension to dwellinghouse Site: 2 Westfield Road, Earlston Appellant: Steven Cockburn
Reason for Refusal: The proposed extension fails to comply with Policy H2 of the Adopted Local Plan 2011 in that it would have a significantly adverse impact upon (a) the outlook available to windows on the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse at No 3 Westfield Street, and (b) the amenity of the rear garden area at the same property, both as a consequence of the overbearing relationship that would arise from the West Elevation of the proposed extension being realised in such close proximity to, and for almost the entire length of, the boundary shared between the site and this neighbouring property.
Method of Review: Review of Papers & Hearing
Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned (Subject to Conditions)
6.3 Reference: 13/00677/FUL Proposal: Removal of condition No 1 from planning consent R313/93 relating to non-use as residential accommodation Site: 12 Larkhall Burn, Jedburgh Appellant: Derek Edwards
Reason for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to Policies G7, Inf3 and Inf4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011, in that the road cannot be upgraded to the Council’s adoptable standards to provide an adequate access, the residential use of the building would exceed the Council’s standards for the number of residential properties served via a private access and sufficient parking and a turning area cannot be provided to serve the development, to the detriment of road safety.
Method of Review: Review of Papers
Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld
Planning & Building Standards Committee 3rd February 2014 4 6.4 Reference: 13/00680/FUL Proposal: Replacement windows (retrospective) Site: 27 West High Street, Lauder Appellant: Darren Ainslie
Reason for Refusal: The proposed scheme is contrary to Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan Policies BE4 and H2 and the advice of the Council's Approved SPG on Replacement Windows, in that (a) all of the proposed windows on the front elevation of the building at No 27 West High Street, and (b) the most northwesterly of the proposed windows at first floor level on the rear elevation of the building at No 27 West High Street, have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area at Lauder, including the special architectural character and historic character of this same Conservation Area.
Method of Review: Review of Papers
Review Decision: Split Decision: a) Windows to Front Elevation – Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld b) Windows to the Rear Elevation – Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned
6.5 Reference: 13/00760/FUL Proposal: Installation of 12 No solar panels Site: Vicars Knowe, The Loan, Gattonside Appellant: K L Grant
Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would detract from the character and appearance of the existing building and its contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policies G1, BE4 and D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011
Method of Review: Review of Papers
Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld
6.6 Reference: 13/00944/FUL Proposal: Change of use from former school to form auction sale room/storage Site: Halyrude School, Old Church Road, Peebles Appellant: Lynsey Rennie
Reason for Refusal: The proposed auction sale room/storage use is contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policies G1, G7 and H2 in that it would result in the generation of a type, volume and flow of traffic that would not be compatible with, or capable of accommodation within, the site and/or surrounding area, and which would have an unacceptably adverse impact upon the amenity of surrounding residential properties.
Method of Review: Review of Papers
Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned (Subject to Conditions)
Planning & Building Standards Committee 3rd February 2014 5 7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING
7.1 There remained no reviews previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 22nd January 2014.
Approved by
Brian Frater Head of Planning & Regulatory Services
Signature ……………………………………
Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Wemyss Administrative Assistant 01835 824000 Ext 5409
Background Papers: None. Previous Minute Reference: None.
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Tel. No. 01835 825431 Fax No. 01835 825071 Email: [email protected]
Planning & Building Standards Committee 3rd February 2014 6