APPENDIX A: Matrices of Recommendations

1 General Objections & Policies Matrix

Reporter’s Policy Ref. Objection Objector Recommendation Considerations Council Report Recommendation Page Number

1-4 Plan Process These objectors are Du Bois, Dr & No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan concerned about the Mrs Humphries noted readability of the Plan CD ROM; the expense of the hard copy; the availability of objection forms; background material to the plan; the length of the consultation period on the Finalised Plan. Other concerns mentioned in these objections - in particular regarding the proposed re- instatement of the Waverley rail line and the prospect of major new housing in the Scottish Borders to serve Edinburgh’s needs. 1-5 Local Plan The public is being Wilson It is not our responsibility to assess Recommendation No change to plan Process pressurised to accept whether the Council has complied noted the Council’s views with statutory requirements for local on planning matters, plan preparation. However, looking at leading to a concern the process as a whole, we are for the erosion of satisfied that the Council has done as human rights. much as is practicable to take account of the various and frequently conflicting interests. 1-5 Local Plan Paragraph 4.3 (page Homes for This is a procedural issue which has Recommendation No change to plan 2 Process 94) makes no Scotland been addressed by the Council. noted reference to Strategic Environmental Appraisal, which will be a requirement for the plan. 1-5 Pages 5-6 : Pages 5/6 could Scottish We agree that it would be useful to Recommendation Paragraphs 1.12 Profile of the make reference to the Enterprise update paragraphs 1.12 (page 5) and accepted (page 5) and 4.7 Scottish role of the Borders in Borders 4.7 to reflect the revised (page 95) to be Borders; the Edinburgh arrangements for strategic planning in updated to reflect the Paragraph 4.7 Metropolitan Region. this area if the situation has been revised arrangements confirmed by the time that the local for strategic planning plan is ready for adoption. in this area if the situation has been confirmed by the time that the local plan is ready for adoption.

The following sentence to be added to the end of paragraph 1.12 to read :

“The Scottish Government is currently consulting on the make-up of authorities for the strategic development plan system. Currently Scottish Borders is identified as part of the City Region area”

Paragraph 4.7 to be amended to read :

3 “By 2008 a new regime for development planning could be in place in Scotland. This could mean a single Local Development Plan for the Scottish Borders incorporating strategic and local matters. Strategic and cross- border issues would be addressed through a new Strategic Development Plan for the Edinburgh city region area. There will no longer be a Scottish Borders Structure Plan. The new Strategic Development Plan, which could encompass the Scottish Borders, will be prepared by a consortium of Local Authorities “

1-6 Paragraph This paragraph Scottish These references should be added to Recommendation Paragraph 1.15 (page 1.15 (page 6): should mention Enterprise the paragraph. accepted 6) to be amended to Profile of the agriculture and Borders incorporate the Scottish forestry following references : Borders agriculture (5%), forestry (0.5%) 1-6 Paragraph The Plan programme J S Crawford, We agree that the paragraph should Recommendation The last two tables in 1.21 (page 7) set out in paragraph Homes for be updated to reflect the actual accepted paragragh 1.21 (page 1.21 is unachievable, Scotland timescale that has occurred. 7) to be amended to and adoption unlikely read : 4 in the timescale proposed PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRY (Winter 2006- 2007)

LOCAL PLAN ADOPTED BY COUNCIL & PUBLISHED (2007- 2008) 1-6 Table 2.1 - Table 2.1 requires J S Crawford Once the Council has decided the Recommendation All relevant summary (page 9), clarification and final content of the local plan, we accepted tables to be amended Table 2.6 amplification. agree that the various summary tables accordingly to reflect (page 13), - Table 2.6 and its should be amended to reflect changes prior to Table 5.2 footnote fail to identify changes. This would include any adoption of Local Plan (page 160) other emerging further education proposals in table school proposals as 2.6. the table does not create a clear picture of future requirements for facilities. - Table 5.2 should be altered to take into account objections to the local plan, because the plan does not allocate sufficient housing land to meet requirements in the Structure Plan. 1-7 Transport Table 2.7 on J S Crawford We agree that these items should be Recommendation Table 2.7 (page 13) to Proposals transport proposals included within table 2.7, for clarity accepted include ref to Reston Table 2.7 omits Reston Station and completeness, even if no figure Station and Selkirk (page 13) and Selkirk Bypass for the area is available. Bypass but refers to them as a note. 1-7 Action Plan/ The action plan Elborn We agree that some updating would Recommendation A new sub-section Monitoring requires review and be helpful here. accepted (xiii) to be added to 5 and Review findings in paragraph paragraph 4.3 to read (page 94) 4.3 to assist : understanding of the position. “Production of monitoring report for review and findings purposes” 1-7 Land Use Reference to Glen Taylor Objections to this site are considered Recommendation Summary tables to be Proposals Crescent site Woodrow in the Peebles chapter. As noted accepted amended accordingly Table 5.2 (TP13B) on page 167 Developments above, once the Council has decided to reflect changes (page 167) of the local plan Ltd the final content of the local plan, the prior to adoption of should be omitted. various summary tables should be Local Plan amended to reflect changes. 1-7 All policies: The Contributor Peebles Civic No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan References to objects to the Plan, Society noted supplementary stating that the guidance relevant Supplementary Guidance should be listed under the Justification of its policies.

1-7 References to The Civic Society Peebles Civic No change to the plan Recommendation No change to plan national policy objects to the use of Society noted guidance the word 'guidance' in relation to Scottish Planning Policy and National Planning Policy Guidelines, where reference should be to ' the relevant government policy'. 1-8 Compulsory The objection is to CALA Homes No change to the plan Recommendation No change to plan purchase the omission of a (Erroneously noted powers policy on referred to as implementation Redrow through the use of Homes Ltd in compulsory purchase Reporters 6 powers. report)

1-8 Consideration The Reporter should J S Crawford No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan of site consider all noted development outstanding briefs as part objections to of Development Briefs consideration as part of the inquiry of local plan process. There may objections be unresolved objections to the Development Brief which will materially affect the future development of a number of allocated sites

1-9 Entire Plan The entire plan is Lonie, Jones, These objections were considered by Recommendation No change to plan objected to because Biggar, Wild, means of oral evidence at the formal noted its proposals will have Moate, Clark, inquiry session, and written adverse impacts on Scott, submissions. They focus primarily on the environment, Galbraith, housing land allocations in the Central amenity, heritage, MacKnight, Borders and Peebles. The issue of the recreation, tourism Douglas- overall supply of housing land and the general Hamilton , allocations – and whether there identity of the area. Grandison, should be more or less – is covered in The plan will Biggar, Biggar, chapter 2. In summary chapter 2 introduce new people Long, Dorward, concluded that no further housing land to the area, making it Dorward, allocations beyond the amounts into a dormitory Weatheritt, allocated in the finalised plan are suburb, leading to Armstrong, required in the Central Borders HMA, congestion. There is Armstrong there is no pressing need to identify a lack of services additional land in the Central Borders including roads, car HMA to meet the policy H2 parking, water, requirement for a 5 year effective schools, sewerage, housing land supply at the point of hospitals, and adoption, subject to consideration of 7 dentists. The plan is the merits of individual sites that are being used as a subject of objections there is no need justification for the to identify further housing land in Waverley line. There south Tweeddale HMA and there is no is a projected pressing need to identify additional decrease in the land in the south Tweeddale HMA to Scottish population. meet the policy H2 requirement for a 5 year effective housing land supply at the point of adoption. In response to flexibility policy BE12 – Further Housing Land Safeguarding was introduced which is quoted in section 1-11 of this appendix. These conclusions on the overall level of housing land supply provide the context for consideration of the objections to individual sites which are reported in the corresponding location specific chapters on the Central Borders and South Tweeddale.

1-9 Housing The large amount of Save Scott’s These objections were considered by Recommendation No change to plan Allocations housing proposed Countryside, means of oral evidence at the formal noted (General) within the plan will Stewart, inquiry session, and written have adverse impacts Gaskell, submissions. They focus primarily on on the environment Stewart, housing land allocations in the Central including the Tweed Smith, Borders and Peebles. The issue of the Valley, the Eildon Carruthers overall supply of housing land Hills NSA, the Associates, allocations – and whether there Abbotsford Designed Vine, Doherty, should be more or less – is covered in Landscape, and the Gaskell, chapter 2. In summary chapter 2 general character of Lockie, Blain, concluded that no further housing land the area. The Barber, allocations beyond the amounts numbers of houses Simpson, allocated in the finalised plan are proposed are not Brown , required in the Central Borders HMA, required, would lead Cameron, there is no pressing need to identify to overdevelopment Webb, additional land in the Central Borders 8 and have not been Paterson, HMA to meet the policy H2 subject to Watson, Allan, requirement for a 5 year effective environmental Wild, housing land supply at the point of assessment. Any Colebrook, adoption, subject to consideration of houses required Stephenson, the merits of individual sites that are would be better fitted Martin, Lloyd, subject of objections there is no need into existing Ryrie, to identify further housing land in communities or on Cruikshank, south Tweeddale HMA and there is no brownfield sites. The Barr, Irving, pressing need to identify additional proposed housing will Allfrey, land in the south Tweeddale HMA to encourage Finlayson, meet the policy H2 requirement for a 5 commuting Illius, Polson, year effective housing land supply at particularly from Semmens, the point of adoption. In response to Edinburgh and will Hamilton flexibility policy BE12 – Further adversely impact on Housing Land Safeguarding was tourism, the introduced which is quoted in section community of the 1-11 of this appendix. These area, quality of life, conclusions on the overall level of the availability of housing land supply provide the services and will context for consideration of the contribute to flooding objections to individual sites which are issues. reported in the corresponding location specific chapters on the Central The proposed houses Borders and South Tweeddale. are being allocated to meet the requirements for the Waverley line and will also benefit the Council in terms of council tax. There is a disproportionate number of houses provided in the Central Borders that will have a negative impact on other locations in the Council area, and goes against the 9 Principal Aim, Key Elements and Founding Principles of the Structure Plan. Housing Land There is a shortfall in J S Crawford, These objections were considered by Recommendation No change to plan Allocations the supply of housing Homes for means of oral evidence at the formal noted Paragraphs land in numerical and Scotland, inquiry session, and written 2.5 and 2.12 qualitative terms. In CALA submissions. They focus primarily on the description of the Management housing land allocations in the Central Development Borders and Peebles. The issue of the Strategy in paragraph overall supply of housing land 2.5, the local plan allocations – and whether there compares the should be more or less – is covered in housing land chapter 2. In summary chapter 2 allocations with the concluded that no further housing land structure plan allocations beyond the amounts housing requirement. allocated in the finalised plan are The local plan should required in the Central Borders HMA, instead be comparing there is no pressing need to identify yield from additional land in the Central Borders completions with the HMA to meet the policy H2 strategic housing requirement for a 5 year effective requirement. housing land supply at the point of Paragraph 2.12 adoption, subject to consideration of states that most of the merits of individual sites that are the housing land subject of objections there is no need allocations are in to identify further housing land in Galashiels, but this south Tweeddale HMA and there is no may not yield the pressing need to identify additional necessary number of land in the south Tweeddale HMA to units to meet the meet the policy H2 requirement for a 5 structure plan year effective housing land supply at requirement. the point of adoption. In response to flexibility policy BE12 – Further Housing Land Safeguarding was introduced which is quoted in section 1-11 of this appendix. These conclusions on the overall level of housing land supply provide the context for consideration of the 10 objections to individual sites which are reported in the corresponding location specific chapters on the Central Borders and South Tweeddale.

1-11 Future The contributor Lennel Estates This issue is considered in chapter 2 Recommendation Policy BE12 should Settlement objects to the failure of this report, under the heading noted be incorporated into Expansion of the Finalised Plan Achieving Greater Flexibility which in the Plan which states to provide and summary states that a policy BE12 the following : articulate an should be introduced which provides appropriate policy greater flexibility to the plan. This is “Policy BE12 – framework, intended to safeguard and facilitate Further Housing Land circumstances and the release of additional housing as Safeguarding mechanism by which, necessary, including areas identified subject to satisfying for longer term development in the The areas indicated in certain listed criteria, settlement profiles, some of the sites the settlement profiles land identified as contained in the LP that are likely to for longer term areas for longer term become effective at a later date, the expansion and expansion could policy BE10/H1A safeguarded land at protection shall be effectively come Newtown St Boswells and some sites safeguarded forward for coming forward through objections. accordingly. development prior to This would provide a bridging supply Proposals for housing 2011 to meet any until a revised SP leads to further LP development in such identified shortfall. allocations. A new table should list expansion areas sites that could be brought into use coming forward in after 2011, subject to availability of advance of the infrastructure and conformity to other identification of a development plan policies. The new shortfall in the policy should state : effective housing land supply will be treated Policy BE12– Further Housing Land as premature Safeguarding Justification : This The areas indicated in the settlement policy is intended to profiles for longer term expansion and assist the Council to protection shall be safeguarded maintain the housing accordingly. Proposals for housing land supply at all development in such expansion areas times, while coming forward in advance of the safeguarding identification of a shortfall in the particularly sensitive 11 effective housing land supply will be areas from treated as premature development. The housing land audit Justification : This policy is intended to process will be used assist the Council to maintain the to monitor the need housing land supply at all times, while for any additional land safeguarding particularly sensitive release. These areas from development. The safeguarded housing land audit process will be expansion areas are used to monitor the need for any similar to but in additional land release. These addition to those safeguarded expansion areas are necessary to meet the similar to but in addition to those requirements of necessary to meet the requirements structure plan policy of structure plan policy H1A. Where H1A. Where possible, possible, safeguarded areas are safeguarded areas shown on the Proposals Maps. Any are shown on the proposals that come forward in these Proposals Maps. areas will be assessed against the Any proposals that policies in the approved development come forward in these plans. areas will be assessed against the policies in the approved development plans 1-11 Provision for a Council notes this Raitt The provision of a crematorium to Recommendation Council to continue to crematorium objection. The serve the Borders would clearly accepted investigate possible consideration of a reduce travel to such facilities outwith sites for a need for a the Borders, offering considerable crematorium in a crematorium to serve benefits. We agree that it would be future work the Borders, and desirable for the Council to pursue programme. exploration of this matter in a future work Director of Technical possible sites was not programme. Services to be sufficiently advanced informed of Reporter’s for this local plan. findings 1-12 Pentland Hills The Pentland Hills Friends of the Paragraph 5.27 of the structure plan Recommendation Consideration of Regional Park Regional Park should Pentlands commends the extension of the accepted extending the be extended into the Society regional park into the Scottish Pentlands Hills Scottish Borders, in Borders, leading to recommendation Regional Park into the line with structure C1 to the Council to investigate the Scottish Borders 12 plan recommendation matter in association with other should be further C1 (page 74 of the appropriate organisations. The investigated in a structure plan). Borders section of the Pentland Hills future work is quite small, but provides an programme attractive hinterland to West Linton. We agree that the Council should follow up the structure plan recommendation in a future work programme. 1-12 Policy G1 The word "new" to be Peebles Civic No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan defined in "new Society noted development". 1-12 Policy G1 Principle 1 point 12 of Crailing, No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy G1 highlights Eckford & noted the problem of Nisbet planning permissions Community changing at the time Council of development. 1-13 Policy G1 Objection is to the Homes for The last part of the first sentence of Recommendation The rewording of the reference to the "Six Scotland point 7 in Policy G1 after "current accepted. Open first sentence of point acre standard" in Council standards" should all be Space strategy in 7 in policy G1 will be point 7 of the policy deleted, and replaced with "pending Department work as follows : standards preparation of an up-to-date open programme space strategy and local standards” “It provides open space that wherever possible, links to existing open spaces and that is in accordance with current Council standards pending preparation of an up- to-date open space strategy and local standards.”

1-14 Policy G1 Unreasonable to Homes for Deletion of the second sentence of Recommendation The rewording of encourage full Scotland, J S Policy G1 along with the final accepted policy G1 and its planning applications Crawford sentence of the first paragraph of the justification to read : in Policy G1 Justification section following the 13 policy. “All new development will be expected to be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit with Scottish Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings. The standards which will apply to all development are that:”

The rewording of the first paragraph of the Justification of policy G1 to read:

“The policy is aimed at ensuring that all new development, not just housing, is of a high quality and respects the environment in which it is contained. The policy does not aim to restrict good quality modern or innovative design but does aim to ensure that it does not negatively impact on the existing buildings, or surrounding landscape and visual 14 amenity of the area. In some locations the local environment will be more sensitive to change than in others.”

1-16 Policy G1 The policy refers to a Homes for No change to the plan. Recommendation No change range of issues and Scotland noted criteria which are beyond the scope of the planning system 1-16 Policy G1 The finalised local SEPA The wording at the end of section 5 of Recommendation The rewording of plan should be clear Policy G1 should be amended to accepted section 5 of policy G1 about sustainable include the words… “in accordance to read : construction methods with supplementary planning guidance referred to in Appendix D”. “In terms of layout, orientation, construction and energy supply, the developer has demonstrated that appropriate measures have been taken to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, including the use of renewable energy and resources and the incorporation of sustainable construction techniques in accordance with supplementary planning guidance referred to in Appendix D”.

15 1-17 Policy G1 The standards for Peebles Civic No change Recommendation No change to plan energy conservation, Society noted use of renewable energy and sustainable construction may not be effective.

1-17 Policy G1 Policy G1 should be SEPA No change Recommendation No change to plan reworded as follows: noted "Provisions for the separation, recycling, composting and collection of waste should be incorporated into the overall layout and design of all new development 1-18 Policy G4 SEPA lodged a series SEPA All of the SEPA objections relating to Recommendation In respect of Policy Flooding of related objections flooding policy and related statements noted. H3, under the section on the subject of of the finalised local plan have been “Key policies to which flooding withdrawn, subject to the above this Policy should be statements and agreements being cross referenced” the implemented by the Council when the following text should local plan is adopted be added :

“Policy G4 (Flooding)”

Within Volume 2 of the Local Plan (Settlement Profiles) for settlement areas defined within the Council’s Flooding Contingency Plan the following text should be incorporated for Peebles, Innerleithen, Galashiels, Earlston, 16 Selkirk, Jedburgh, Hawick, Coldstream, Stow, Walkerburn,Greenlaw, Hermitage, Newcastleton, Lindean (Selkirk) and Eddleston to read :

“Scottish Borders Council maintains a Flooding Contingency Plan as part of its Emergency Planning Responsibilities. Within this plan reference is made to this settlement as being at risk of flooding. Any development proposals within this settlement should be subject of consultation with the Council’s flood prevention officer, and SEPA, having regard to the SEPA second generation flood risk maps, as part of the planning process. It is therefore recommended that early discussions take place to consider flood risk and the requirement for a flood risk assessment. It should be 17 acknowledged that the flood risk assessment may influence the scale and layout of any development at that particular location.” 1-20 Policy G4 Policy G4 would Homes for Amend the end of the last sentence of Recommendation The rewording of Flooding benefit from Scotland paragraph 2 of Policy G4, by replacing accepted. paragraph 2 of policy incorporating the Risk the words “… managed in accordance Reference to new G4 to read : Framework set out in with the risk framework set out in SPP7 Planning SPP7 Planning and current government guidance.” with and Flooding is “Only where, due to Flooding the following: appropriate unanticipated “… managed in accordance with the planning applications, principles set out in the Risk historical land use Framework provided in Scottish allocations or new Planning Policy SPP7 Planning and information on flood Flooding, or any subsequent risk emerging, government guidance which development is supersedes it.” proposed in locations where there is evidence of flood risk, will consideration be given to proposals where the risk should be managed in accordance with the principles set out in the Risk Framework provided in Scottish Planning Policy SPP7 Planning and Flooding, or any subsequent government guidance which supersedes it.”

1-21 Policy G4 the 3 opening Elborn No further amendments to the plan Recommendation No change to plan Flooding paragraphs of the noted policy need to be 18 restructured to assist understanding for the reader 1-22 Policy G4 : - makes no reference Royal Mail No further amendments to Policy G4 Recommendation No change to plan Flooding to any proposals or Group plc noted measures to be undertaken to address flood risk to existing properties and businesses such as the Royal Mail Delivery Office at St Georges Lane, Hawick. - policy should mention on-going flood risk assessment studies and potential future flood prevention measures. 1-23 Policy G4 - This paragraph Sheppard During the hearing of the Local Plan Recommendation Second paragraph of Flooding does not scan and Inquiry at Newcastleton it was agreed accepted Policy G4 to be requires rewording. to amend the wording of policy G4 to amended to read : - The policy suggests improve its coherence and that consideration of understanding “Only where, due to development unanticipated proposals will be planning applications, allowed on historical land use floodplains if the allocations or new planning application information on flood is unanticipated. risk emerging, development is proposed in locations where there is evidence of flood risk, will consideration be given to proposals where the risk should be managed in accordance with the 19 principles set out in the Risk Framework provided in Scottish Planning Policy SPP7 Planning and Flooding, or any subsequent government guidance which supersedes it.”

1-24 Policy G5 - The wording of J S Crawford Insert the phrase “public car parking” Substantive The rewording of item policy G5 is contrary Partnership, into item 3 of the list of 7 items on rejection of 3 of Policy G5 to read to Circular 12/1996, Homes for page 28 of the local plan, where objection noted. : which should be Scotland, B&Q contributions may be required. The minor change given more plc, Buccleuch proposed is “Off-site transport prominence. Estates, CALA Add new sentences at the end of the acceptable. infrastructure - The details of the Homes, second paragraph of policy G5 : Recommendation including new roads revised SPG should Peebles Civic accepted. or road be the subject of Society, Contributions will be required at the improvements, Safer consultation and Taylor time that they become necessary to Routes to School, agreement with the Woodrow ensure timeous provision of the road safety measures, development Developments improvement in question. The Council public car parking, industry. The will pursue a pragmatic approach, cycle-ways and other reference to the SPG taking account of the importance in access routes, should be deleted securing necessary developments, subsidy to public until the Council has and exceptional development costs transport operators; addressed fully the that may arise. Contributions are all in accordance with concerns of other intended to address matters resulting the Council’s stakeholders. from new proposals, not existing standards and the - The proposed deficiencies. In general, the Council provisions of any arrangements for does not intend to require Green Travel Plan.” contributions on large contributions arising from the needs of sites shared by affordable housing. Contributions Add new sentence at several developers towards maintenance will generally by the end of the second are unreasonable. commuted payments covering a 10 paragraph of Policy The position would be year period. G5 to read : much clearer if there is a master plan “Contributions will be 20 setting out what is required at the time proposed, and what that they become infrastructure necessary to ensure improvements will timeous provision of arise. the improvement in - The profits from question. The Council developments occur will pursue a towards the end of pragmatic approach, the process, so that it taking account of the is onerous to pay importance in contributions at the securing necessary start of the process, developments, and requiring advance exceptional borrowing. development costs - The list of items 1-7 that may arise. on page 28 of the Contributions are local plan is not intended to address necessary. matters resulting from Developers should new proposals, not not have to contribute existing deficiencies. to off-site works, as In general, the referred to in items 3, Council does not 4 and 6. intend to require - Some of the contributions arising settlement from the needs of statements give affordable housing. misleading Contributions towards information as to maintenance will what capacity is generally by currently available, commuted payments e.g. in schools. covering a 10 year period.”

1-27 Policy G5 Wording of the policy Homes for No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan to be acceptable but Scotland noted objects to the draft SPG Developer Contributions, and wishes this to be considered at the 21 public local inquiry. 1-27 Policy G6 - The policy should B & Q plc, No change to policy G6. Recommendation No change to plan be expanded to Buccleuch noted include all industrial, Estates, J S retail and commercial Crawford development as they Partnership, will all benefit from Wild, Homes the railway. for Scotland - The Council approved a scheme for the size and geographical extent for railway contributions in 2004. - - These details should be included in the local plan, at least as an appendix, to give clarity and certainty. - Developer contributions should not be funding the rail link but instead providing sufficient services for any new development. The policy should come into force until the bill authorising the railway receives Royal Assent. 1-29 Policy G7 The meaning and Peebles Civic The wording of the justification Recommendation The first sentence of limits of the terms Society, section, following the policy wording of accepted the second paragraph 'infill' and 'windfall' Grampian Policy G7 should be amended to for the Justification of are unclear Country Food incorporate a cross-reference to PAN Policy G7 to read : Group Ltd 38, to be inserted alongside the existing cross-reference that has been “The policy complies made to SPP3. with the Scottish Executive’s Scottish 22 Planning Policy SPP3 Housing and PAN 38 Structure Plans : Housing Land Requirements which acknowledge the contribution of infill development to the housing land supply but provide for its careful control, particularly within residential areas.”

1-30 Policy G8 Policy G8 should be Cala No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan more specific with Management noted respect to identifying land to accommodate long term settlement growth as the first port of call where a shortfall in the effective 5 year land supply is identified. 1-31 Policy G8 The policy allows for Crailing, No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan development outwith Eckford & noted the settlement Nisbet boundary, so Community rendering the Council development boundary to be of little relevance 1-32 Policy G8 The contributors Homes for No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan object to bullet point 8 Scotland, J S noted within the policy Crawford stating that there is no appropriate landscape study or assessment against which to evaluate this 23 criterion objectively 1-32 Policy G8 Delete reference to Homes for No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Scottish Borders Scotland, J S noted Council in paragraph Crawford 2 bullet point 3 to reflect that the annual audit is a joint exercise.

1-33 Policy G8 Developments Scottish Power No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan outside development noted boundaries should be considered positively where there is 'specific locational need'. 1-34 Built Objects to the word Peebles Civic Insert the word ‘policy’ into the first Recommendation The rewording of the Environment "guidance" being Society phrase of the last paragraph of the accepted. Status final paragraph of the Policy BE1 used within the Justification for Policy BE1 on P34 of of Memorandum Justification of Policy justification of the the finalised plan so that it would now of Guidance on BE1 will be changed Policy BE1 read “The relevant government policy Listed Buildings to read : guidance is NPPG18 ….” - and the and Conservation same phrasing amendment would Areas produced “The relevant also be applicable at the end of the by Historic government policy Justification section of Policy BE4. Scotland is for guidance is NPPG 18: guidance only. Planning and the Historic Environment which aims to conserve the historic environment and Historic Scotland’s ‘Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’, last published in 1998. PAN 68 ‘Design Statements’ is also relevant.

24 The rewording of the final paragraph of the Justification of Policy BE4 to read:

“The relevant government policy guidance is NPPG 18: Planning and the Historic Environment which aims to conserve the historic environment and Historic Scotland’s ‘Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’, last published in 1998. PAN 68 ‘Design Statements’ and PAN 71 ‘The Management of Conservation Areas’ are also relevant.

1-34 Built The contributor Peebles Civic Amend text of section 6 of policy BE1 Recommendation The rewording of Environment objects to the use of Society by substituting “in accordance with” in accepted. Status section 6 of Policy Policy BE1 the words "taking place of “taking account of “ and of Memorandum BE1 to read : account of" instead of adding the word “full” before of Guidance on "in accordance with" “consultation”. Listed Buildings “Decisions on and to the use of the and Conservation proposals for any word "consultation" Areas produced alterations or instead of "full by Historic demolition of a Listed consultation" in the Scotland is for Building will be made last section (6) of the guidance only. in accordance with the Policy BE1, in advice contained comparison with the within the text of structure plan Memorandum of policy N17 Guidance on Listed 25 Buildings and Conservation Areas produced by Historic Scotland and in full consultation with the appropriate heritage bodies.”

1-35 Built The Contributor Peebles Civic Insert the word ‘policy’ into the first Recommendation The last paragraph of Environment objects to the word Society phrase of the last paragraph of the accepted. Status the Justification of Policy BE4 "guidance" being Justification for Policy BE4 on P39 of of Memorandum Policy BE4 amended used within the the finalised plan so that it would now of Guidance on to read : justification of the read “The relevant government policy Listed Buildings Policy BE4 guidance is NPPG18 ….” - and the and Conservation “The relevant same phrasing amendment would Areas produced government policy also be applicable at the end of the by Historic guidance is NPPG 18: Justification section of Policy BE1 Scotland is for Planning and the guidance Historic Environment which aims to conserve the historic environment and Historic Scotland’s ‘Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’ last published in 1998. PAN 68 ‘Design Statements’ and PAN 71 ’The Management of Conservation Areas’ are also relevant.”

The last paragraph of the Justification of Policy BE1 amended to read:

“The relevant 26 government policy guidance is NPPG 18: ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ which aims to conserve the historic environment and Historic Scotland’s ‘Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas’, last published in 1998. PAN 68 ‘Design Statements’ is also relevant.”

1-36 Built about detailed Peebles Civic No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Environment aspects of the Society noted Policy BE4 wording of Policy BE4 – Conservation Areas. 1-37 Built The Civic Society Peebles Civic Include a cross-reference in the It is noted policy is The following Environment objects, firstly, to the Society Justification section which follows supported by sentence to be added Policy BE5 wording of Policy BE5 Policy BE5 to Appendix D, where Reporter. to the second - Advertisements, there is a list of topics where Recommendation paragraph of the stating that the Supplementary Planning Guidance is accepted justification for Policy relevant either in existence already or BE5 to link it to Supplementary proposed. Appendix D (page Guidance should be 105) : specified and, secondly, argues that “The relevant Policy BE5 does not government guidance make clear if it covers is contained in shop front fascias Circulars: Circular within conservation 10/1984, Circular areas. 22/1986 and Circular 31/1992. Reference should also be made 27 to existing Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to Shop Fronts and Shop Signs, Tourist Advertising Signs and Tourism Signposting listed in Appendix D.”

1-38 Built Objects to loss of Leary No change to local plan Recommendation No change to plan Environment playing amenities in noted Policy BE6 Tweedbank on existing developments 1-38 Built The policy should Peebles Civic No change to local plan Recommendation No change to plan Environment include both private Society, Laing, noted Policy BE6 and public open J S Crawford, space as identified Crailing, within PAN 65 Eckford & Policy designation Nisbet CC, BE6 should be used Hunter, Homes to safeguard land at for Scotland Quarry Hill, Melrose Protected Open space and Protected Recreational Open Space should be identified Possible sites for a Central Borders Indoor Multi Sport Facility should be identified This policy should not be put into effect until the Council has produced an audit of open space and green space and 28 prepared a strategy 1-39 Built Policy discriminates Baillie, Smith, J Adjust the wording of Policy BE7 to Recommendation Te rewording of Policy Environment against the frailest S Crawford, include the phrase: ‘from those accepted BE7 to read : Policy BE7 members of society Homes for proposing to develop or extend care and is, in effect, Scotland homes’ to be inserted between the “Proposals for new or ageist words …required and in accordance extended care homes … or supported accommodation provision will only be supported where this meets an identified local need as defined by agreed joint strategies and commissioning plans by the Council and NHS Borders. Where local need has been identified, developer contributions to address deficiencies may be required from those proposing to develop or extend care homes in accordance with Policy G5.”

1-41 Built - Objectors opposed Buccleuch The various objections correspond to Support for The title of Policy Environment to the expansion of Estates & similar or identical objections that policies noted. BE10 to be altered to Policies BE10 Newtown St Elphinstone were considered in detail at the Recommendation read : + BE11 Boswells/St Boswells Land Ltd, J S inquiry sessions devoted to housing accepted on consider that policy Crawford, land supply, the proposed clarification of “H1A Safeguarding: BE10 should be Homes for safeguarding for a major expansion of titles and Expansion of deleted Scotland, Newtown St.Boswells and the location justification Newtown St Boswells” - Those seeking to Blain, Hogg specific hearing for Quarry Hill, bring forward more Melrose. These matters are reported The third paragraph of housing sites in in more detail in the corresponding the Justification to be advance of any chapters of this report where the amended to read: 29 structure plan review resulting recommendations are found. consider that policy Recommendations for amendments to “The indicative BE11 should be text are Policy BE10 : Alter title to boundaries of the land expanded to include read : safeguarded under all sites safeguarded POLICY BE10 : H1A LAND this Policy are for future SAFEGUARDING : EXPANSION OF illustrated on Policy development NEWTOWN ST BOSWELLS Map P7. It shows the - The safeguarding Third paragraph of justification : Line 3 likelihood of preferred policy should identify : Delete “considerably” Add new development areas specific sites for sentence at end of paragraph : Land based on current future expansion, not on the west side of the A68 and the information. Whilst the broad areas north side of the A699 will be kept free area identified for - The Quarry Hill site of built development to provide a safeguarding is at Melrose should be landscape setting for the proposed smaller than the included as a expansion, and to avoid coalescence previous area of safeguarded site with St Boswells. search (as shown in under Policy BE11. Policy BE11 : Alter title to read : Chapter 5 of the POLICY BE11 : H1A LAND Consultative Draft SAFEGUARDING : NORTH AND Local Plan), it is larger SOUTH ROXBURGH than will be required Delete third paragraph of the for the expansion. justification. This is because the We also conclude that the Council’s development proposals for land safeguarding at boundary will be Newtown St Boswells should be refined in consultation supported in principle, although with with local some adjustment of the priorities communities and shown on policy map 7; and that no includes land that will other additional land, such as the be required for Quarry Hill site at Melrose, should be landscape, open allocated or safeguarded in this local space and tree belts. plan to fulfil the policy H1A The indicative safeguarding for which provision is boundary does not made in the structure plan. therefore imply only built development. Land on the west side of the A68 and the north side of the A699 will be kept free of built development to 30 provide a landscape setting for the proposed expansion, and to avoid coalescence with St Boswells.”

The title of Policy BE11 to be amended to read:

“Policy BE11: H1A Land Safeguarding: North and South of Roxburgh.”

The third paragraph of the Justification for Policy BE11 to be deleted.

NOTE – In deleting the business park Recommendation Adjustments to be site at Broomilees, Darnick (chapter 4 accepted, made indicating the -29) the Reporter considered a although it is priorities of Policy smaller number of dispersed sites a considered that Map 7. more preferable means of providing although this land supply in the Central Charlesfield is an Borders. Specific reference to appropriate site alternative locations were made in for general respect of Charlesfield, the Newtown industrial use it is St Boswells expansion area and land not appropriate for to the west of Tweed Horizons at business park A new paragraph Newtown St Boswells. In respect of purposes and should be added after the Tweed Horizons site it was there may be paragraph 4 of the reported that the site had excellent limited justification of policy access and a high profile close to the opportunities in BE10 to read : trunk road. The site was earmarked the Newtown St as a possible expansion opportunity Boswells “Any development to for Newtown St Boswells and identified the west of Tweed employment here would be expansion area. Horizons would be 31 conveniently close to the residential Any development subject to an expansion proposed. to the west of the acceptable access Tweed Horizons onto the trunk road would be subject and appropriate to an acceptable screening, particularly access onto the the need for a trunk road and substantial buffer appropriate zone on land screening, adjoining the trunk particularly the road. The site forms need for a part of a sensitive substantial buffer landscape and any zone on land development must adjoining the trunk take cognisance of, road. The site for example, existing forms part of a woodland and sensitive hedgerows on the landscape and site, the River Tweed any development SAC/SSSI, Border must take Woods SAC/SSSI, cognisance of, for NSA and AGLV.” example, existing woodland and Land to the west of hedgerows on the Tweed Horizons to be site, the River identified as a Tweed SAC/SSSI, business park on Border Woods Policy Map 7 SAC/SSSI, NSA and AGLV. 1-42 Natural Policy NE1 does not Berwick Upon No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to the Environment sufficiently Tweed noted plan. Policy NE1 emphasise protection Borough of the wider Council landscape from undesirable built forms and detrimental visual impacts 1-43 Natural The whole of the H Usher No change to the plan Recommendation No change to the Environment Teviot Valley (and not noted plan. Policy NE1 just part of it) should 32 be designated as a Special Area of Conservation 1-44 Natural The whole of the T Usher No change to the plan Recommendation No change to plan Environment Borders should be noted Policy NE1 designated as a Special Area of Conservation and inconsistent definitions of the SAC boundaries should be addressed in the Policy Maps. 1-45 Natural Object to the use of CALA Homes The last sentence in paragraph 2 of Recommendation The rewording of Environment "Scottish Executive the policy “ … Major developments, as accepted paragraph 2 of policy Policy NE3 Returns" in paragraph defined by Scottish Executive returns, NE3 to read : 2 of the policy as an may require an Ecological Impact appropriate measure Assessment” should be replaced by “ “Where development to determine the need … Major developments, as defined by is proposed on a site for an Ecological the categories of development for which there is Impact Assessment identified in the Council’s biannual evidence to suggest Scottish Executive Planning that a habitat or Application Returns, may require an species of importance Ecological Impact Assessment.” exists, the developer may be required, at their own expense, to undertake a survey of the site’s natural environment. Major developments, as defined by the categories of development identified in the Council’s biannual Scottish Executive Planning Application Returns, may require an Ecological Impact Assessment.” 33

1-46 Natural The policy does not J S Crawford No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan. Environment reflect the purpose of Partnership noted Policy NE4 commercial woodland. Also the wording should be amended to refer to hedgerows of value, rather than hedgerows in general. 1-47 Natural The policy is worded Taylor No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan. Environment negatively. It should Woodrow noted Policy NE5 be rephrased to Developments express positive Ltd intentions 1-48 Natural The policy is worded Taylor No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan. Environment negatively. It should Woodrow noted Policy NE6 be rephrased to Developments express positive Ltd intentions 1-49 Environmental ese objections seek Adams, Usher, No change to local plan. Recommendation No change to plan. Protection better protection from Comins noted Policy EP1 development for the existing national scenic areas (especially the Eildon Hills area), and the extension of the NSA designation to additional areas, including Teviotdale. 1-50 Environmental These objections M. Ouldcott, A. On page 56 of the local plan (policy Recommendation A new sentence to be Protection seek additional areas Bailey, H. EP2), add a new sentence at the end accepted. Future added to the second Policy EP2 to be covered by the Usher, of the last (one line) paragraph of the work programme paragraph of the AGLV designation : Blackwood, justification : As the designation of of AGLV’s review Justification for Policy (a) Carter Bar – Laidlaw, these AGLVs took place many years in 2008/2009 EP2 to read: Ferniehirst – Lanton – Oates, ago, the Council proposes to carry out Minto Hills – Rubers Nicholson a review of the whole Council area, “As the designation of Law; Berwick Upon with a view to designating additional these AGLVs took 34 (b) The Rule Water Tweed Council areas where the operation of policy place many years Valley corridor EP2 would be desirable and ago, the Council (overlaps with a) appropriate. proposes to carry out (c) River Tweed and On pages 87-88 of the local plan a review of the whole the nearby landscape (Renewable Energy Development), on Council area, with a on the Scottish side page 87 in the section titled view to designating of the border, to Commercial Wind Farms: additional areas correspond the Add the following new text at the end where the operation of Tweed Valley Area of of item 1 : As noted in the justification Policy EP2 would be High Landscape of the local plan policy on Areas of desirable and Value on the English Great Landscape Value (page 56), the appropriate” side Council proposes to carry out a review of the whole Council area with a view to adding additional areas which merit safeguarding under policy EP2. The results of that review will also be The rewording of taken into account in assessing the policy D4, sections 1 suitability of locations for commercial and 5 relating to wind farms. Commercial Wind In item 5 (iii), end the second farms to read: sentence after the phrase “relevant research”, deleting the whole of the “Large scale remainder of the paragraph, including commercial wind farm the table and footnotes on page 88. development will Alternatively, if the Council strongly normally be more wishes to retain the reference to this acceptable in research and the accompanying table, locations within add a new sentence at the end of item “preferred areas” 5 (iii) : It should be noted that this outwith environmental research study provides only general designations as set guidance, which must be considered out in Structure Plan alongside other relevant research, Policy I 19. As noted local circumstances, the implications in the justification of of higher turbine heights, and the the local plan policy other criteria covered in this policy. on Areas of Great Landscape Value (page 56), the Council proposes to carry out a review of the whole Council area with a 35 view to adding additional areas which merit safeguarding under Policy EP2. The results of that review will also be taken into account in assessing the suitability of locations for commercial wind farms.”

In item 5 (iii), end the second sentence after the phrase “relevant research”, deleting the whole of the remainder of the paragraph, including the table and footnotes on page 88.

1-52 Environmental - EP3 should be J S Crawford, Retain extent of coverage of policy EP It is noted that Extend the coverage Protection deleted, as it is site Darnick Village 3 in Policy Map 6 of local plan, but planning of Policy EP3 on Policy EP3 specific to Committee, extend it westwards (washing over St application ref no Policy Map 6 to Darnick/Melrose Grigor, Helens and The Steading) to cover all 06/00351/OUT for extend it westwards - The area covered Murray, the land between the northern edge of a house on land (washing over St by policy EP3 should Strathie, Darnick (as defined by the immediately to the Helens and The be extended Robson, Weir, development boundary recommended north of Waverley Steading) to cover all westwards to include McLeish elsewhere in this report) and the River Road, to the west the land between the the area between Tweed, as far west as the road bridge of the access road northern edge of Waverley Road and at Lowood, and minor adjustment to to St Helens and Darnick (as defined by the River Tweed as coincide with the Darnick the Steading and the development far as the Bottle development boundary at the junction to the east of the boundary Bridge of Abbotsford Road and Chiefswood residential recommended - The Melrose Road. properties known elsewhere in this settlement boundary as Donnistmuir report) and the River should incorporate all and Bidston was Tweed, as far west as of Melrose, Darnick, approved on the road bridge at BGH, and the 15/8/07. Lowood, and minor 36 proposed industrial This site is adjustment to coincide site at Huntlyburn located within the with the Darnick - This area of land proposed development should be promoted extended EP3 boundary at the as a cricket pitch and Coalescence junction of Abbotsford as a route for a relief boundary map. Road and Chiefswood road between It is contended Road. Abbotsford Road and that the boundary Waverley Road. change is made as per the recommendation, although given there is a live planning consent on part of this area the permission is likely to be implemented at some stage. However, these particular circumstances will not set a precedent for any further intrusions into the extended EP3 policy area. 1-53 Environmental The objector wishes Wild No change to local plan Recommendation No change to plan Protection policy EP3 noted. Review Policy EP3 (Prevention of being progressed Settlement for future Council Coalescence) to be consideration. applied to the area between St Boswells and Newtown St Boswells. 1-53 Environmental These objectors wish Hogg, Morrison Adjust the section on Areas for Longer Recommendation Adjust the section on Protection Bowden to be Term Expansion and Protection to accepted. Areas for Longer Policy EP3 protected from read as follows (deleting all other Review being Term Expansion and 37 additional text): progressed for Protection to read as development by the future Council follows (deleting all designation of an Given the sensitivity of the character consideration other text): effective green belt and setting of Bowden, there is very around the little scope for additional development. Given the sensitivity settlement, protected of the character and by the Prevention of setting of Bowden, Coalescence policy there is very little EP3 that applies to scope for additional Darnick. Residents development wish to maintain the separate identity and character of Bowden, and its spatial separation from Newtown St Boswells. 1-54 Economic - Redrow Homes Redrow No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan in Development considers there may Homes, B&Q, noted. It is noted respect of this Policy ED1 be over allocation of Lidl UK that employment particular objection employment land in land use proposal Peebles. sEL17 at South - Objects to the policy Parks, Peebles precluding uses has been reduced outwith classes 4, 5 in size (refer to and 6 which generate settlement map) significant employment opportunities - The safeguarding for employment land allocation is not specific about what uses are expected. 1-55 Finalised Object to Cavalry Taylor No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Local Plan Park (Peebles) being Woodrow noted Policy ED1 identified under Developments Policy ED1 - Ltd Employment Land Safeguarding 38 1-56 Economic There should not be a J S Crawford No change to the plan Support for policy No change to plan Development general presumption noted. Policy ED1 against Class 4, 5 Recommendation and 6 development noted within the Development Boundary. This is contrary to the principles of Scottish Planning Policy 2 Economic Development. 1-57 Economic Policy ED3 should Lidl UK Amend the Justification section below Support for policy A sentence to be Development offer further detailed Policy ED3 to make cross-reference noted. added at the end of Policy ED3 guidance for to the terms of the relevant national Recommendation the first paragraph of proposed retail planning policy guidance set out in accepted in the Justification development in order SPP8 – Town Centres and Retailing. respect of section of Policy ED3 to provide greater justification to read: certainty to retailers “This principle is in accordance with SPP8 – Town Centres and Retailing which sets out policy for town centres and the key uses, particularly retailing, which contribute to their economic growth.” 1-58 Economic - One of the J S Crawford, Amend the Justification section below Support for policy A sentence to be Development objections is to the Lidl UK, Aldi Policy ED3 to make cross-reference noted. added at the end of Policy ED3 use of the word Stores to the terms of the relevant national Recommendation the first paragraph of "shopping" planning policy guidance set out in accepted in the Justification throughout this policy SPP8 – Town Centres and Retailing. respect of section of Policy ED3 and recommends it is justification to read : replaced with "retail". - Another objects to “This principle is in this policy's reliance accordance with on policies contained SPP8 – Town Centres within the structure and Retailing which 39 plan and considers sets out policy for that the local plan town centres and the should offer further key uses, particularly detailed guidance in retailing, which relation to proposed contribute to their retail development in economic growth.” order to provide greater certainty to retailers - Finally it is pointed out that the Finalised Plan does not specifically state in this policy that retail impact assessments will not be required for retail developments of 2,500 sq m gross floor space and below, as stated in NPPG8 1-60 Economic The contributor J S Crawford No change to the plan, except in the Support for policy In the Justification Development objects to the use of Partnership Justification section to quote the noted. part of Policy ED4 the Policy ED4 the word "shopping" correct title of NPPG8 as Town Recommendation final paragraph should throughout this policy Centres and Retailing, which is also accepted in read : and recommends it is the title of the more recent SPP8. respect of “The relevant replaced with "retail". justification government guidance is SPP8 – Town Centres and Retailing” 1-60 Economic Peebles Civic Society Peebles Civic No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Development objects to the Society noted Policy ED4 inclusion of "unacceptable" in "unacceptable adverse impact" in the policy wording especially as most Prime Retail Frontage areas are within 40 Conservation Areas. 1-61 Economic - One of the objectors Peebles Civic Amend the Justification section below General support The following text to Development is concerned solely Society , Lidl Policy ED5 to make cross-reference for policy noted. be added before the Policy ED5 about the word UK, Aldi Stores to the terms of the relevant national Recommendation last sentence at the "unacceptable" in planning policy guidance set out in in relation to end of the first "unacceptable SPP8, entitled Town Centres and Justification paragraph of the adverse impact Retailing. accepted Justification section of - Another contributor Policy ED5 to read : considers it inappropriate for the “This principle is in plan to specifically accordance with favour only retail SPP8 - Town Centres development within and Retailing which the town centres of sets out policy for the larger settlements town centres and the - The final contributor key uses, particularly objects to a lack of retailing, which designation of contribute to their specific retail economic growth. development sites in Development town centres and proposals…” edge of centre locations and the lack of town centre expansion areas 1-63 Housing Criticisms of the Homes for Change the first sentence of policy H1 General support The rewording of the Policy H1 policy include that it Scotland, to read : “...... , the Council will require noted. first sentence of does not contain Elliott and the provision of a proportion of land Recommendation Policy H1 to read : sufficient detail, is not Stephen Amos, for affordable or special needs accepted based on an Buccleuch housing, both on allocated or windfall “Where the Local adequate Housing Estates, sites.” Housing Strategy or Needs Study, does CALA, local needs not comply with Coldingham In the list of 3 ways that developers assessment identifies national guidance on Community may be required to make a local housing need, this subject, will be an Council, J S contributions, change the first (item 4) the Council will excessive burden that Crawford to read “the provision of a proportion require the provision will inhibit Partnership, of the site for affordable housing, or” of a proportion of land development; and Dunn, Hart, for affordable or that it gives Bowden special needs insufficient priority to Village housing, both on 41 the needs of first time Committee, allocated or windfall buyers, and the Ryrie, Taylor sites.” specific needs of Woodrow various local areas. Developments, The re-wording of Bell, Wild item 4 of Policy H1 to read :

“Developers may be required to make contributions through: 4. the provision of a proportion of the site for affordable housing affordable, or...”

1-68 Housing The policy is J S Crawford, No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy H3 unnecessary and Homes for noted potentially sterilises Scotland changes of use, thereby making the plan excessively rigid. The subject matter is already covered by other policies within the finalised plan.

1-69 Housing The large amount of Butter, No change to Policy H3 based on the Recommendation No change to plan Policy Policy housing proposed Stephenson, objections lodged. The concerns noted H3 within the plan will Thomas, expressed with regard to the amount have adverse impacts Dunlop, and location of housing land on the environment Sigston, allocations are matters dealt with in including the Tweed Carstairs, detail not in policy H3 but through Valley, the Eildon Chalmers, other policies of the Plan which have Hills NSA, the Thomson, been addressed in the Central Abbotsford Designed Nielson, Borders HMA core corridor part of the Landscape, and the Crombie, Reporter’s decision, as appropriate general character of Crombie, either on a policy or settlement- the area. The Campbell specific basis. numbers of houses Fraser, 42 proposed are not Kynoch, required, would lead Robertson, to overdevelopment Biggar, Hewie, and have not been Anderson, subject to Biggar, Ryrie environmental Dick, Scott, assessment. Anderson, Any houses required Biggar, Milne, would be better fitted Bruce, Barber, into existing Elliot, Black communities or on brownfield sites. The proposed housing will encourage commuting particularly from Edinburgh and will adversely impact on tourism, the community of the area, quality of life, the availability of services and will contribute to flooding issues The proposed houses are being allocated to meet the requirements for the Waverley line and will also benefit the Council in terms of council tax. There is a disproportionate number of houses provided in the Central Borders that will have a negative impact on other locations in the 43 Council area, and goes against the Principal Aim, Key Elements and Founding Principles of the Structure Plan. 1-70 Housing The Contributor Whittle No change to the plan. The overall Recommendation No change to plan Policy H3 states that too much scale of the land use allocations is noted house building takes considered in the Central Borders place without taking HMA core area and Peebles. account of road Development implications of specific infrastructure and sites are considered in the appropriate sewage capacity, HMA chapters. In general sufficient other facilities and attention has been given to ensuring adequate protection that roads, drainage and landscaping of open spaces and are adequately addressed in selecting trees. sites for allocation and in providing a policy basis for assessing likely impacts of development proposals at the development control stage.

1-71 Housing The local plan does SEPA No change to local plan. This is Recommendation No change to plan Policy H3 not demonstrate how essentially a strategic issue, noted the Council has taken concerned with the general the issue of climate distribution of new development change into which is covered in the structure plan consideration in development strategy. The purpose making land use of the local plan is to implement, not allocations in amend, that strategy. Concerns about accordance with the particular concerns of individual SPP17 - Planning for allocated sites are considered in the Transport location specific chapters of the report. 1-71 Housing Objection to 955 Gray The Structure Plan requires the Recommendation No change to plan Policy H3 houses identified Council to make substantial housing noted within Galashiels provision in this area. The concerns because of the lack of expressed in respect of housing industrial and allocations in Galashiels comprise commerce base for essentially location-specific objections employment, and the which have been reported elsewhere 44 lack of people to in the chapters covering Galashiels occupy them. objections in the context of the housing land supply in the whole Central Borders HMA core corridor. That chapter also contains recommendations for individual sites. 1-72 Housing Redevelopment Lidl UK No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy H3 allocations are not noted specific about what uses are expected. The plan should specify the preferred use for each site or establish a range of uses which are acceptable 1-73 Housing The proposed Redrow The issue of the adequacy of the Recommendation No change to plan Policy H3 allocations do not Homes overall supply of housing land is accepted provide sufficient land covered in chapter 2 of this report, supply and choice to while location specific concerns about meet structure plan housing allocations in Peebles have requirements, nor do been reported in the chapter covering the sites in Peebles the Peebles section of the South (TP7B and TP13B) Tweeddale HMA. offer an effective 5 year housing land supply in Peebles. 1-73 Infrastructure The Scottish Borders Campbell No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy Inf1 requires good Fraser, noted transport but the Hamilton, Illius railway will only serve those close to stations. Dualling A68/A7 and park and ride at Dalkeith/ Gorebridge would be better in the objector’s view. Furthermore it is argued that the 45 additional housing required by a railway will impact on the environment, and the finance for the proposed railway is shaky and will require subsidy. 1-74 Infrastructure - The safeguarding of Melrose No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy Inf1 and the proposed railway Community noted Appendix B line from the terminus Council, at Tweedbank Swanson, The onwards to Carlisle is Trimontium only a structure plan Trust, Barker aspiration with no committed resources or consideration of alternative routes. It will inflict uncertainty on other land uses in its vicinity and on the economy in general. - Mr Swanson objects that the proposed railway line is identified for protection within the justification, rather than within the policy itself. - The Trimontium Trust considers that it is premature to reserve the former Waverley line alignment without considering the problems of the Melrose corridor. Persisting with the old 46 line and not considering other options would be prejudicial to tourism, archaeology, the environment and landscape. 1-75 Infrastructure It is not considered Taylor No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy Inf2 that paying for the Woodrow noted provision of, or Developments improvements to, a Ltd path diversion is appropriate as the offer of land itself goes much further than what is required of a proposed development under Circular 12/1996. 1-76 Infrastructure The parking J S Crawford No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy Inf4 requirement in the noted finalised plan is higher than in the Consultative Draft Local Plan, and garages and driveways should be included in the assessment of parking provision. Visitor parking should be allowed on roads provided the carriageway width meets Scottish Borders Council standards. 1-77 Infrastructure New parking Lauderdale Re-name policy Inf4 to : PARKING Recommendation The renaming of Policy Inf4 provision appears to Community PROVISION AND STANDARDS accepted policy Inf4 to read: be restricted to new Council Add new paragraph to policy : In town 47 development. Lauder centres where there appear to be “Parking Provision and other similar parking difficulties, the Council will and Standards” towns would benefit consider the desirability of additional from specific public parking provision, in the context A new paragraph to additional parking of policies to promote the use of be added to policy allocations. sustainable travel modes. Inf4 to read: Add new paragraph to Justification: Paragraph 6.23 of the structure plan “In town centres identifies the need to consider parking where there appear to requirements on a settlement by be parking difficulties, settlement basis. the Council will consider the desirability of additional public parking provision, in the context of policies to promote the use of sustainable travel modes.”

A new paragraph to be added to the Justification for policy Inf4 to read:

“Paragraph 6.23 of the Structure Plan identifies the need to consider parking requirements on a settlement by settlement basis.”

1-78 Infrastructure Criteria 6 & 7 of JS Crawford, No change to the plan Recommendation No change to plan Policy Inf5 Policy Inf5 are Homes for noted unnecessary and Scotland should be deleted. These criteria relate to the proliferation of septic tanks and the 48 potential overloading of infrastructure. The criteria are unacceptable as there is insufficient capacity in the waste water treatment system, and practical solutions need to be encouraged. 1-79 Infrastructure * Recommend new SEPA * Re-placing the introductory phrase Recommendation The rewording of Policy Inf7 wording to policy to of Paragraph 2 of the policy, in accepted paragraph 2 of Policy reflect national and particular to replace the words Inf7 to read: local context as “Substantial new facilities should be follows located: ..” with the words ” In “In principle, the * Policy should give in principle, the Council will support Council will support principle support to all proposals for sustainable waste proposals for sustainable waste management facilities provided that sustainable waste facilities. Therefore, they are …" management facilities "substantial new * Re-wording of the phrasing of the provided that they are facilities should be remainder of the policy as appropriate : located" should be to address the Council’s concerns to 1. within or in easy deleted from the cover all intended circumstances reach of the identified policy, and replaced satisfactorily Structure Plan with the following: * Criterion 4 of the second sentence of Development Hubs, "The Council will the policy should be re-worded as 2. in potential growth support proposals for follows: “4. On vacant, derelict and areas identified by sustainable waste brownfield sites, including Structure Plan management facilities existing/allocated sites for Principle S3(v), provided that they are employment/industrial use, in 3. in locations …" preference to greenfield sites." that are convenient for * Criteria 4 should * litter should be added to criterion 1 the major road and include reference to of Paragraph 3 of the policy so that rail corridors, reflect suitability of the end of that criterion would now 4. On vacant, derelict industrial areas for read: “….in terms of noise, litter, and brownfield sites, waste management odours and traffic generation including facilities as follows- " * The end of the first sentence of existing/allocated 4. On vacant, derelict paragraph 2 of the Justification sites for and brownfield sites, section should be extended by adding employment/industrial or existing/allocated the phrase “and consistent with the use, in preference to 49 sites for principles of promoting sustainable greenfield sites." employment/industrial waste management and the other use, in preference to terms of the National Waste Strategy: The rewording of greenfield sites." Scotland, the National Waste Plan criteria 1 of paragraph * Part 2 of the policy and the Lothian and Border Area 3 to read: should be reworded Waste Plan.” to help promote “1. the impact on development local communities, * All existing and particularly adjacent proposed sites for to the site, in terms of waste management noise, litter, odours including Easter and traffic Langlee should be generation,” secured in the Plan to meet the Area Waste The end of the first Plan. sentence of paragraph 2 of the Justification section to be extended to read :

“This policy complements the Structure Plan Policy I17 which requires new facilities to be in accordance with the Area Waste Plan and Scottish Borders Waste Strategy and consistent with the principles of promoting sustainable waste management and the other terms of the National Waste Strategy: Scotland, the National Waste Plan and the Lothian and Border Area Waste Plan” 50

1-82 Infrastructure In order for Part 3 SEPA Amend the wording of the first part of Recommendation Amend the wording of Policy Inf7 (the final part ) of the last paragraph of Policy Inf7, accepted the first part of the last Policy Inf7 to be clear replacing: paragraph to read: about the supporting “All planning applications for waste information required, management facilities must be “All planning it is argued that it accompanied by supporting applications for waste should be re-worded documentation relevant to the type of management facilities as follows:- facility which may include some or all must be accompanied "Planning of the following: … “ with the by supporting applications for waste following: documentation management facilities “All planning applications for waste relevant to the type of should be supported management facilities must be facility. At the by additional accompanied by supporting discretion of the information as documentation relevant to the type of Planning Authority, appropriate, facility. At the discretion of the the supporting including: Planning Authority, the supporting information required 1. environmental information required may include may include some or impact some or all of the following: … “ all of the following: … assessment, [below this revised text the 5 bullets “ including water, points would remain unchanged as air and soil; set out in the existing text of the 2. Traffic impact policy] assessment; 3. building and landscape design strategy; site restoration strategy, including an assessment of the likely impact of the implementation of any remedial works."

1-83 Infrastructure It is argued that the SEPA No change to the text of Policy Inf7 Recommendation Replace the wording Policy Inf7 reference to 'bad but an amendment to the middle accepted of the middle section neighbour' section of the first paragraph of the of the first paragraph developments in the Justification for that policy as follows: of the Justification 51 Justification section Replace the sentence “Such from “Such following Policy Inf7 developments are classified as “bad developments should be deleted neighbour” developments in the …Agency” to read : because in the relevant legislation requiring objector’s view it is advertisement and consultation with “Any such unnecessary and Scottish Environmental Protection developments that are misleading in respect Agency.” with the following: classified as “bad of modern waste “Any such developments that are neighbour” management classified as “bad neighbour” developments in the facilities. developments in the relevant relevant legislation legislation would require would require advertisement and consultation with advertisement and Scottish Environment Protection consultation with Agency.” Scottish Environment Protection Agency.” 1-84 Infrastructure It is argued that it SEPA Amend text of the Justification of Recommendation Amend text of the Policy Inf7 would be preferable Policy Inf7 in order to substitute the accepted Justification of Policy to change the term “recycling centres” in place of Inf7 in order to wording (in the “recycling points”. substitute the term Justification following “recycling centres” in Policy Inf7) from place of “recycling 'recycling points' to points”. recycling centres'. 1-84 Infrastructure The indication given Mobile No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy Inf8 in Policy Inf8 that Operators noted siting would not Association normally be permitted: • in Conservation Areas: or • in the vicinity of Listed Buildings; or • in close proximity to schools is considered to be unduly restrictive. 52 1-85 Infrastructure The technology Mobile No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy Inf8 associated with 3G Operators noted coverage can be well Association managed and absorbed into existing streetscape. Design and siting of associated installations can often be successfully integrated with other similar structures or 'absorbed' with buildings in a streetscape. Innovative techniques are now available to 'disguise' installations. 1-86 Infrastructure The word "visual" Mobile Amend the wording of section 3(v) of Support noted Amend the wording of Policy Inf8 should be inserted Operators Policy Inf8 to replace the words “the subject to minor section 3(v) of Policy between "the" and Association arrangement for access during wording change. Inf8 to replace the "impact" in paragraph operation …” to read “the Recommendation words “the 3. arrangement for access during accepted. arrangement for In addition "the timing construction and operation …” [with access during and method of the rest of the original text of that operation…” to read construction" should sentence remaining altered]. “the arrangement for be deleted from this access during paragraph. construction and operation…” 1-87 Infrastructure Paragraph 4 should Mobile No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy Inf8 more accurately Operators noted reflect the guidance Association and advice contained in NPPG19 and PAN 62 regarding the necessity of a developer to demonstrate that there are no 53 alternative locations for an essential installation. 1-87 Infrastructure The Community Coldingham Amend the opening line of Policy Recommendation Amend the opening Policy Inf10 Council is concerned Community Inf10 to read as follows: accepted line of Policy Inf10 to about the lack of Council “1. The Council will encourage read as follows: explicit reference in improvements to the transport the finalised local network, particularly on east-west “1. The Council will plan to the need to links, that: ….” [with the remainder of encourage improve transport the policy wording being unaffected] improvements to the links across the area transport network, on east-west routes. particularly on east- west links, that: ….” [with the remainder of the policy wording being unaffected] 1-88 Infrastructure It is argued that Homes for No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan Policy Inf11 Policy Inf11, in Scotland, J S noted particular criterion 5 Crawford of the policy, should refer to Circular 12/1996 in terms of developer contributions needed - to reflect the scale and kind in terms of the development impact - as there is no reference to the level of contribution in the current policy wording. 1-89 Policy D1 Policy D1 of the Scottish Amend the first line of the first Recommendation First line of the first finalised plan places Enterprise paragraph of Policy D1 so that the accepted paragraph of Policy too much emphasis Borders introductory sentence “Proposals for D1 amended to read: on environmental business, tourism or leisure considerations and development in the countryside will be “Proposals for makes little reference approved provided that: ….” is business, tourism or to rural diversification replaced by the following “Proposals leisure development or the guidance in for business, tourism or leisure in the countryside will 54 PAN 73 development in the countryside will be be approved and rural approved and rural diversification diversification initiatives will be encouraged provided initiatives will be that: ….” [with the remainder of the encouraged provided text including bullets 1,2 and 3 that: ….” [with the immediately following the amendment remainder of the text would remain unaltered]. In addition including bullets 1,2 the last line of the Justification section and 3 immediately of the policy should be amended to following the also include reference to PAN73 in amendment would addition to the existing references to remain unaltered]. NPPG14 and SPP15. The last line of the Justification section of the policy to be amended to read:

“The relevant government guidance is NPPG 14 Natural Heritage, SPP15 – Planning For Rural Development and PAN 73 – Rural Diversification” 1-90 Policy D1 Consideration should Weymss & No change to the plan Recommendation No change to plan be given to March Estates noted specifically Management designating land at St Co Mary's Loch for tourist/ recreational development.

1-91 Policy D2 The contributor C Black No change to the plan Recommendation No change to plan objects to the noted Housing in the Countryside Policy, arguing that the conversion of redundant farm 55 buildings should not result in new buildings for agricultural workers being permitted in the vicinity for some years afterwards. In this context, it is the objector’s view that proposals for steading conversions should be legally bound to the farming operations.

1-92 Policy D2 Objection to the P Close No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan omission from Policy noted D2 of the allocation of: - The site of a former mansion house at Fishwick Mains, Paxton - A development opportunity for 6 dwellings with associated studios offices and car parking at the Old Farm Steading building at Fishwick Mains - 4 plots at Equestrian Holdings also at Fishwick Mains – planning application numbers 04/02383/OUT, 04/02384/OUT, 04/02385/OUT and 56 04/02386/OUT - when the Council has granted outline planning permission for a dwelling on the site of a former mansion house to the south of Fishwick Mains.

1-93 Policy D2 The policy does not Gainford No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan make clear where noted housing in the countryside is justifiable or what constitutes open countryside – noting that the Council wishes to promote development in village locations 1-94 Policy D2 The contributor Grampian No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan supports the terms of Country Food noted Policy D2 in wishing Group Ltd to promote rural residential development but considers that another criterion should be added to the categories of Housing in the Countryside set out within the policy for consideration for approval. This criterion would allow for the redevelopment of brownfield sites where the original 57 use is no longer required. It is considered that such a policy would be consistent with national planning policy and principles. 1-95 Policy D2 The contributor Lennel Estates No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan wishes to see the noted Lennel Estate properties, near Coldstream defined as an established "building group" which has the potential to accommodate further limited, small scale residential development. 1-96 Policy D2 Promoting housing in Lauderdale No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan the countryside in Community noted named areas Council precludes opportunistic rural housing in Lauderdale to the detriment of a fragile rural economy. 1-97 Policy D2 The contributor Homes for No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan objects to Policy D2 - Scotland noted Housing in the Countryside stating that only 2 anchor points have been identified and that for the policy to work it is crucial that all anchor points are identified. 1-98 Policy D4 Within Policy D4, the A Bailey, J For the reasons outlined above, we Recommendation The words ‘large 58 table "Effect of Smith, recommend deletion of the table at accepted. Future scale’ should be Distance on Blackwood, the top of page 88 from Policy D4, work programme deleted from the start Perceived Visual Nicholson, along with all references to it. of AGLV’s review of bullet 1 under the Impact”, (page 88) Scottish Power Reference should be made instead to in 2008/2009 heading of drawn from research reliance being placed on the national Commercial Wind by Macaulay planning policy and associated Farms. Enterprises Ltd., is guidance in NPPG6 and PAN45 flawed and will lead respectively as the starting point for Add the following new to unsound decision- assessing visual and other impacts of text at the end of item making because the wind farm proposals - with reference 1: distances shown for also made to consideration of the size "moderate", "low", and number of proposed turbines, and “As noted in the and "negligible" the position and number of receptors justification of the impacts are too low. affected, as well as the distance of the local plan policy on receptors from the turbines, in the Areas of Great overall assessment of visual impact. Landscape Value Furthermore, as agreed by the (page 56), the Council Council, the words ‘large scale’ should proposes to carry out be deleted from the start of bullet 1 a review of the whole under the heading of Commercial Council area with a Wind Farms. Finally, we recommend view to adding that the phrase “… in terms of their additional areas which being less visible … ” should be merit safeguarding deleted from the last sentence of under Policy EP2. The paragraph 1 of the Justification for the results of that review reasons given in our conclusions. will also be taken into The following additional account in assessing recommendations are derived from the suitability of consideration of objections relating to locations for policy EP2 (Areas of Great Landscape commercial wind Value) reported above: farms.” On pages 87-88 of the local plan (Renewable Energy Development), on A new bullet 6 should page 87 in the section titled be added under the Commercial Wind Farms: heading Commercial Add the following new text at the end Windfarms on page of item 1 : As noted in the justification 87 to read : of the local plan policy on Areas of Great Landscape Value (page 56), the Reference should be Council proposes to carry out a review made to NPPG6 59 of the whole Council area with a view Renewable Energy to adding additional areas which merit Developments safeguarding under policy EP2. The (reviewed 2000) and results of that review will also be PAN 45 Renewable taken into account in assessing the Energy Technologies suitability of locations for commercial (revised 2002) in wind farms. respect of assessing In item 5 (iii), end the second visual and other sentence after the phrase “relevant impacts of wind farm research”, deleting the whole of the proposals, giving remainder of the paragraph, including consideration to the the table and footnotes on page 88. size and the number Alternatively, if the Council strongly of proposed turbines, wishes to retain the reference to this the position and research and the accompanying table, number of receptors add a new sentence at the end of item affected and the 5 (iii) : It should be noted that this distance of the research study provides only general receptors from the guidance, which must be considered turbines alongside other relevant research, local circumstances, the implications In item 5 (iii), end the of higher turbine heights, and the second sentence after other criteria covered in this policy. the phrase “relevant research”, deleting the whole of the remainder of the paragraph, including the table and footnotes on page 88 and all references to it

The phrase “…in terms of their being less visible..” should be deleted from the last sentence of paragraph 1 of the Justification 1-100 Policy D4 - Policy D4 on J Smith, V M No change to the plan, beyond those Recommendation commercial wind Bailey amendments recommended in accepted 60 farms is not strong relation to the hearing concerning enough and should objections to the wording of Policy D4 state that commercial reported separately (2834/1/1) wind farms...will only be acceptable outwith environmental designations...and prominent skylines - The words "large scale" before "Commercial Windfarms" at the start of Bullet 1 should be deleted 1-101 Policy D4 • Objects on the Airtricity No change to the plan, beyond those Recommendation The words ‘large basis that the amendments recommended in noted scale’ should be 'Effect of Distance relation to the hearing concerning deleted from the start on Perceived objections to the wording of Policy D4 of bullet 1 under the Visual Impact' reported separately. heading of table does not Commercial Wind accurately reflect Farms. the government guidance and Add the following new advice. text at the end of item • The policy does 1: not allow for the consideration of “As noted in the other mitigating justification of the factors which may local plan policy on reduce the Areas of Great potential impact Landscape Value on development. (page 56), the Council proposes to carry out a review of the whole Council area with a view to adding additional areas which merit safeguarding under Policy EP2. The results of that review 61 will also be taken into account in assessing the suitability of locations for commercial wind farms.”

A new bullet 6 should be added under the heading Commercial Windfarms on page 87 to read :

Reference should be made to NPPG6 Renewable Energy Developments (reviewed 2000) and PAN 45 Renewable Energy Technologies (revised 2002) in respect of assessing visual and other impacts of wind farm proposals, giving consideration to the size and the number of proposed turbines, the position and number of receptors affected and the distance of the receptors from the turbines

In item 5 (iii), end the second sentence after the phrase “relevant research”, deleting the whole of the 62 remainder of the paragraph, including the table and footnotes on page 88 and all references to it

The phrase “…in terms of their being less visible..” should be deleted from the last sentence of paragraph 1 of the Justification 1-102 Policy D4 Objection on the Airtricity No change to the plan. Recommendation No change basis that statements noted contained within the policy prejudices the assessment of any wind farms by assuming they will inherently have an adverse effect and therefore negatively impact on tourism and recreation. 1-103 Policy D4 Policy D4 should be a British Wind No change to the plan, beyond those Recommendation The words ‘large renewable energy Energy amendments recommended in noted scale’ should be policy that follows the Association relation to the hearing concerning deleted from the start guidance of NPPG 6 objections to the wording of Policy D4 of bullet 1 under the and PAN 45. reported separately (2834/1/1). heading of The Finalised Local Commercial Wind Plan does not Farms. adequately reflect the national planning Add the following new guidance, which text at the end of item states that 1: development plans should provide a “As noted in the 'positive justification of the framework....'. local plan policy on 63 Areas of Great Landscape Value (page 56), the Council proposes to carry out a review of the whole Council area with a view to adding additional areas which merit safeguarding under Policy EP2. The results of that review will also be taken into account in assessing the suitability of locations for commercial wind farms.”

A new bullet 6 should be added under the heading Commercial Windfarms on page 87 to read :

Reference should be made to NPPG6 Renewable Energy Developments (reviewed 2000) and PAN 45 Renewable Energy Technologies (revised 2002) in respect of assessing visual and other impacts of wind farm proposals, giving consideration to the size and the number of proposed turbines, the position and 64 number of receptors affected and the distance of the receptors from the turbines

In item 5 (iii), end the second sentence after the phrase “relevant research”, deleting the whole of the remainder of the paragraph, including the table and footnotes on page 88 and all references to it

The phrase “…in terms of their being less visible..” should be deleted from the last sentence of paragraph 1 of the Justification 1-104 Policy D4 Developments Scottish Power No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan outside development noted boundaries should be considered positively where there is 'specific locational need'. 1-105 Policy D4 Objects to Policy D4 Scottish No change to the plan, beyond those Recommendation The words ‘large on the basis that it Renewables amendments recommended in noted scale’ should be does not properly Forum relation to the hearing concerning deleted from the start reflect national policy objections to the wording of Policy D4 of bullet 1 under the guidance in NPPG6. reported separately (2834/1/1). heading of Commercial Wind Farms.

Add the following new 65 text at the end of item 1:

“As noted in the justification of the local plan policy on Areas of Great Landscape Value (page 56), the Council proposes to carry out a review of the whole Council area with a view to adding additional areas which merit safeguarding under Policy EP2. The results of that review will also be taken into account in assessing the suitability of locations for commercial wind farms.”

A new bullet 6 should be added under the heading Commercial Windfarms on page 87 to read :

Reference should be made to NPPG6 Renewable Energy Developments (reviewed 2000) and PAN 45 Renewable Energy Technologies (revised 2002) in respect of assessing visual and other 66 impacts of wind farm proposals, giving consideration to the size and the number of proposed turbines, the position and number of receptors affected and the distance of the receptors from the turbines

In item 5 (iii), end the second sentence after the phrase “relevant research”, deleting the whole of the remainder of the paragraph, including the table and footnotes on page 88 and all references to it

The phrase “…in terms of their being less visible..” should be deleted from the last sentence of paragraph 1 of the Justification 1-105 Policy D4 Both of the above Scottish No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan objectors point out Renewables noted that the Introduction Forum, British to this policy makes Wind Energy reference to Association 'unacceptable adverse impacts' and 'significant adverse impacts'. It is argued that for the sake of 67 consistency and clarity the policy should refer to 'significant adverse impacts' throughout the local plan. 1-106 Policy D4 It is argued by both Scottish No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan objectors that Renewables noted clarification is Forum, British required on how Wind Energy impacts on tourism Association and recreation will be identified and their significance assessed – and that a more balanced view should be given in the policy regarding wind energy development and tourism. 1-107 Policy D4 Objection on the Scottish No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan basis that Policy D4 Renewables noted is trying to establish a Forum, British 'right to a view' in Wind Energy terms of wind farm Association development.

1-107 Policy D4 Objections on the Scottish No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan basis that in Policy Renewables noted D4 a distinction is Forum, British made between Wind Energy commercial and Association community wind farms. This distinction may prejudice planning decisions on the basis that community projects may be regarded as more 68 acceptable than commercial projects. 1-108 Policy D4 The policy should pay Scottish No change to the plan. Recommendation No change to plan more attention to Renewables noted other renewable Forum, British technologies and not Wind Energy just focus on wind Association development to the exclusion of micro- generation development.

1-108 Policy D4 Objection on the Scottish No change to the plan Recommendation No change to plan basis that the Renewables noted Renewables SPG will Forum not be subject to the same scrutiny as provided by the local plan review process. Scottish Renewables wishes to be consulted on the preparation of this SPG. 1-109 Policy R2 The policies do not AMS Amend Policies R2 and R3 of the Recommendation Amend Policy R2 to make detailed Associates finalised plan and the Policy Maps, as accepted read: reference to mineral necessary, to incorporate defined extraction areas search areas as appropriate and to “The Council will not located within the meet the other terms of the National grant planning Borders and there is Planning Policy Guidance, as updated permission for a need for a Minerals in SPP4 as summarised above - and development which Local Plan to set out to also incorporate in the Justification will sterilise reserves strategic policies sections of Policy R2 and Policy R3 of economically which balance the cross-references to SPP4 Planning for significant mineral demand for minerals Minerals, instead of to NPPG4. deposits unless against the need to - extraction of protect the the mineral is environment and unlikely to be local amenity, making environmentall reference to SPP4. y friendly 69 - there is an overriding need for development , and prior extraction of the mineral cannot reasonably be undertaken.”

Amend Policy R3 to read:

“Minerals extraction will not be permitted where:

1. It may affect areas designated or proposed for designation under European Directives (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) or Ramsar sites, except in the most exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated conclusively that:

• The proposed development will not adversely affect the 70 habitats or species being safeguarded or • There is an overriding national interest in allowing mineral extraction to take place, and no reasonable alternative exists.

2. It may affect National Nature Reserves, sites of special scientific interest or other environmental designations of national importance unless it can be demonstrated that:

• The underlying objectives and overall integrity of the designated area remain largely unaffected or • Any adverse affects on the environmental qualities for 71 which the site has been designated are outweighed significantly by the national benefits that could accrue from mineral extraction.

3. It may affect areas of regional or local nature conservation interest as defined in this local plan and the following other protected areas, namely Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Historic Gardens and Designated Landscapes, significant archaeological sites and where relevant, their settings, prime agricultural land, , areas of great landscape value, national scenic areas, peatland and water supply catchment areas, unless it can be demonstrated that:

• There is not materially 72 damaging impact; or • There is a public interest to be gained from mining which outweighs the underlying reasons for designating the site

4. It is within 500 m of a local settlement and may adversely affect residential and other sensitive property or other activities within that community or areas of locally important landscape character unless it can be demonstrated that there are other mitigating circumstances or a significant public interest to be gained from mining which outweighs this safeguarding.

5. It may damage the local economy in terms of tourism, leisure or recreation to an unacceptable

73 extent.

6. The local roads are unsuitable as mineral haulage routes by virtue of their design and construction, the nature of other usage and the relationship of residential and other sensitive property to the road.

7. It results in adverse effects which, when combined with the effects of other existing, consented and currently proposed nearby workings, would have a significantly adverse cumulative impact on the environment or local communities.

Where the Council is minded to permit development that affects any designated site of nature or other conservation value, appropriate mitigating measures will be sought to enhance and safeguard the remaining interest”

74 Amend relevant policy maps to incorporate defined search areas as identified in the Minerals Subject Local Plan Draft 1998

Amend the second paragraph of the Justification for policy R2 to read :

“The relevant government guidance is SPP4 Planning for Minerals and SPP16 Opencast Coal”

Amend the second paragraph of the Justification for policy R3 to read :

“The relevant government guidance is SPP4 Planning for Minerals” 1-111 Policy R2 In the context of the United Amend Policies R2 and R3 of the Recommendation In respect of policy R2 local plan policies R2 Quarries (Sand finalised plan and the Policy Maps, as accepted delete first paragraph and R3, which make & Gravel) Ltd necessary, to incorporate defined and SP policy E6 reference to the search areas as appropriate and to table and replace with relevant structure meet the other terms of the National : plan and national Planning Policy Guidance, as recently planning policies on updated in SPP4 as summarised “The Council will not minerals, it is argued above - and to also incorporate in the grant planning that the area of land Justification sections of Policy R2 and permission for at Tarfhaugh near Policy R3 a cross-reference to SPP4 development which West Linton should Planning for Minerals, instead of to will sterilise reserves be designated as an NPPG4. of economically area for future significant mineral 75 minerals extraction deposits unless - extraction of the mineral is unlikely to be environmentall y friendly - there is an overriding need for development , and prior extraction of the mineral cannot reasonably be undertaken.”

In respect of policy R3 delete first paragraph and SP policy 9 table and replace with :

“Minerals extraction will not be permitted where:

1. It may affect areas designated or proposed for designation under European Directives (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) or Ramsar sites, except in the most exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated 76 conclusively that:

• The proposed development will not adversely affect the habitats or species being safeguarded or • There is an overriding national interest in allowing mineral extraction to take place, and no reasonable alternative exists.

2. It may affect National Nature Reserves, sites of special scientific interest or other environmental designations of national importance unless it can be demonstrated that:

• The underlying objectives and overall integrity of the 77 designated area remain largely unaffected or • Any adverse affects on the environmental qualities for which the site has been designated are outweighed significantly by the national benefits that could accrue from mineral extraction.

3. It may affect areas of regional or local nature conservation interest as defined in this local plan and the following other protected areas, namely Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Historic Gardens and Designated Landscapes, significant archaeological sites and where relevant, their settings, prime agricultural land, Areas of Great Landscape value, 78 national scenic areas, peatland and water supply catchment areas, unless it can be demonstrated that:

• There is not materially damaging impact; or • There is a public interest to be gained from mining which outweighs the underlying reasons for designating the site

4. It is within 500 m of a local settlement and may adversely affect residential and other sensitive property or other activities within that community or areas of locally important landscape character unless it can be demonstrated that there are other mitigating circumstances or a significant public interest to be gained from mining which outweighs this

79 safeguarding.

5. It may damage the local economy in terms of tourism, leisure or recreation to an unacceptable extent.

6. The local roads are unsuitable as mineral haulage routes by virtue of their design and construction, the nature of other usage and the relationship of residential and other sensitive property to the road.

7. It results in adverse effects which, when combined with the effects of other existing, consented and currently proposed nearby workings, would have a significantly adverse cumulative impact on the environment or local communities.

Where the Council is minded to permit development that affects any designated site of nature or other 80 conservation value, appropriate mitigating measures will be sought to enhance and safeguard the remaining interest.”

Amend relevant policy maps to incorporate defined search areas as identified in the Minerals Subject Local Plan Draft 1998

Amend the second paragraph of the Justification for policy R2 to read :

“The relevant government guidance is SPP4 Planning for Minerals and SPP16 Opencast Coal”

Amend the second paragraph of the Justification for policy R3 to read :

“The relevant government guidance is SPP4 Planning for Minerals”

1-114 Policy R2 Objections are Midlothian Amend Policies R2 and R3 of the Recommendation Amend Policy R2 to submitted to the Council, West finalised plan and the Policy Maps, as accepted read: written statement and Lothian necessary, to incorporate defined map references Council search areas as appropriate and to “The Council will not 81 relating to the meet the other terms of the National grant planning minerals policies (RP Planning Policy guidance, as recently permission for 2 and RP3), pending updated in SPP4 as summarised development which clarification of certain above - and to also incorporate in the will sterilise reserves matters. Justification Justification sections of Policy R2 and of economically is sought for the Policy R3 a cross-reference to SPP4 significant mineral extensive "area of Planning for Minerals, instead of to deposits unless search" and also NPPG4. - extraction of details of the the mineral is intended coal unlikely to be haulage routes, environmentall should opencast y friendly workings be - there is an supported in this overriding general location. need for development , and prior extraction of the mineral cannot reasonably be undertaken.”

Amend Policy R3 to read:

“Minerals extraction will not be permitted where:

1. It may affect areas designated or proposed for designation under European Directives (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) or Ramsar sites, except in the 82 most exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated conclusively that:

• The proposed development will not adversely affect the habitats or species being safeguarded or • There is an overriding national interest in allowing mineral extraction to take place, and no reasonable alternative exists.

2. It may affect National Nature Reserves, sites of special scientific interest or other environmental designations of national importance unless it can be demonstrated that:

83 • The underlying objectives and overall integrity of the designated area remain largely unaffected or • Any adverse affects on the environmental qualities for which the site has been designated are outweighed significantly by the national benefits that could accrue from mineral extraction.

3. It may affect areas of regional or local nature conservation interest as defined in this local plan and the following other protected areas, namely Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Historic Gardens and Designated Landscapes, significant archaeological sites and where relevant, 84 their settings, prime agricultural land, , areas of great landscape value, national scenic areas, peatland and water supply catchment areas, unless it can be demonstrated that:

• There is not materially damaging impact; or • There is a public interest to be gained from mining which outweighs the underlying reasons for designating the site

4. It is within 500 m of a local settlement and may adversely affect residential and other sensitive property or other activities within that community or areas of locally important landscape character unless it can be demonstrated that there are other mitigating circumstances or a significant public 85 interest to be gained from mining which outweighs this safeguarding.

5. It may damage the local economy in terms of tourism, leisure or recreation to an unacceptable extent.

6. The local roads are unsuitable as mineral haulage routes by virtue of their design and construction, the nature of other usage and the relationship of residential and other sensitive property to the road.

7. It results in adverse effects which, when combined with the effects of other existing, consented and currently proposed nearby workings, would have a significantly adverse cumulative impact on the environment or local communities.

Where the Council is minded to permit development that 86 affects any designated site of nature or other conservation value, appropriate mitigating measures will be sought to enhance and safeguard the remaining interest”

Amend relevant policy maps to incorporate defined search areas as identified in the Minerals Subject Local Plan Draft 1998

Amend the second paragraph of the Justification for policy R2 to read :

“The relevant government guidance is SPP4 Planning for Minerals and SPP16 Opencast Coal”

Amend the second paragraph of the Justification for policy R3 to read :

“The relevant government guidance is SPP4 Planning for Minerals” 1-116 Local Plan Peebles Civic Society Peebles Civic No changes to Appendix A. Recommendation No change to plan Appendix A : Appendix A is Society, J S noted considered to be Crawford 87 misleading because the table in Part 2 is different to those in tables 5.3.1-7 for the housing market areas and settlements. The table also does not include completions which should be considered against the requirement. The Society objects to the excessive amount of land allocated for housing because the shortfall has been reduced by completions and windfalls, and further redevelopment opportunities will meet the shortfall. The Society objects to the apparent omission of an explanation of housing land allocation policy, the amount of flexibility, and the lack of acknowledgement of the conflict or potential conflict between this policy and other policies which place constraints upon housing development. J S Crawford : 88 Appendix A is not clear, and is predicated on the allocation of land as opposed to completions to meet strategic requirements for housing land. 1-118 Appendix B Lack of provision for Donald, No change to Appendix B in response Recommendation No change to plan an impact study and Lauderdale to this objection. noted action plan on road Community use (A68) particularly through Lauder 1-118 Appendix D J S Crawford is J S Crawford, On page 105, amend the list of Recommendation On page 105, amend concerned that Peebles Civic existing guidance to change 2005 to accepted the list of existing appendix D (page Society 2006 for Developer Contributions, and guidance to change 105) describes the add to the two missing items. 2005 to 2006 for SPG on Developer Developer Contributions as Contributions and add “Approved”, whereas to the existing objections to the SPG guidance list : still require to be addressed. Porches (1997) The Civic Society Conservatories (1997) considers that further supplementary planning guidance on a) doors and b) roof space conversions within conservation areas is necessary, and these topics should therefore be included in the list of proposed guidance, with the Indicative Priority A. The Civic Society also notes that the 89 Council’s existing advice notes on porches (1997) and conservatories (1997) have been omitted from the list of existing guidance. 1-119 Appendix E: Redrow Homes Ltd Redrow No change to Appendix E. Recommendation No change to plan objects to the Homes Ltd, noted approach taken by Reston & the Council in Berwick undertaking the Farming settlement appraisal Company Ltd and early planning work in relation to the industrial land allocation proposed for the South Parks site in Peebles (zEL17), both in terms of the consultation procedure with current and previous owner and the nature of the land use analysis. The Reston and Berwick Farming Company Ltd objects to the reference to Reston on page 133 of the local plan (part of Annex E of Appendix E, consisting of a report to the Council dated 13 October 2005, listing changes resulting from 90 consultation responses). The proposed primary school should not be included within the auction mart site. The objector suggests that the reference should be replaced with "The short term capacity issues of the school are to be met on land to the rear of the school, with future provision agreed through negotiation with landowners in the consideration of the wider development of Reston"

91 Housing Land Supply and Allocations Matrix

Reporter’s Policy/Site Objection Objector Reporter Recommendation Considerations Council Report Ref Recommendation Page Number

2-1 Housing Seeking more housing Homes for Reporters’ conclusions on The Reporter In relation to areas Land land. Scotland, housing land supply: recommendations indicated in the Supply and Seeking to reduce or Save Scotts • Subject to consideration are accepted. Settlement Profiles Allocations disperse the Housing Countryside, of the merits of individual for longer term Allocations. Peebles Civic sites that are the subject expansion and Achieving greater Society, of local plan objections, protection, the flexibility - a new policy + others no further housing land Council to adopt a BE12 for longer term allocations beyond the new Policy BE 12 development. amounts allocated in the as follows: finalised local plan are required in the Central “Policy BE12 – Borders HMA to meet the Further Housing requirements of structure Land Safeguarding plan housing policy H1. • There is no pressing need The areas indicated to identify additional land in the settlement in the Central Borders profiles for longer HMA to meet the policy term expansion and H2 requirement for a 5 protection shall be year effective housing safeguarded land supply at the point of accordingly. adoption. Proposals for • Subject to consideration housing of the merits of individual development in sites that are the subject such expansion of local plan objections, areas coming

92 there is similarly no need forward in advance to identify further housing of the identification land in the South of a shortfall in the Tweeddale HMA to meet effective housing the requirements of land supply will be structure plan housing treated as policy H1. premature. • There is no pressing need to identify additional land Justification : This in the South Tweeddale policy is intended to HMA to meet the policy assist the Council to H2 requirement for a 5 maintain the year effective housing housing land supply land supply at the point of at all times, while adoption. safeguarding particularly sensitive Recommendations areas from regarding new policies development. The relating to future housing housing land audit land supply: process will be used For the reasons outlined to monitor the need earlier, in relation to for any additional contingency formal land land release. These allocations to cover the safeguarded period 2011-2014, we expansion areas are recommend that the Council similar to but in makes no amendment to the addition to those local plan, but considers this necessary to meet issue as part of the structure the requirements of plan review of housing land structure plan Policy requirements and supply. H1A. Where possible,

93 In relation to areas indicated safeguarded areas in the Settlement Profiles for are shown on the longer term expansion and Proposals Maps. protection, we recommend Any proposals that the Council to adopt a policy come forward in derived from the these areas will be Housebuilders’ assessed against recommended new policy BE the policies in the 12 on the following lines: approved development plan.” Policy BE12 – Further Housing Land Safeguarding

The areas indicated in the settlement profiles for longer term expansion and protection shall be safeguarded accordingly. Proposals for housing development in such expansion areas coming forward in advance of the identification of a shortfall in the effective housing land supply will be treated as premature.

Justification : This policy is intended to assist the Council to maintain the housing land supply at all times, while safeguarding particularly

94 sensitive areas from development. The housing land audit process will be used to monitor the need for any additional land release. These safeguarded expansion areas are similar to but in addition to those necessary to meet the requirements of structure plan Policy H1A. Where possible, safeguarded areas are shown on the Proposals Maps. Any proposals that come forward in these areas will be assessed against the policies in the approved development plan.

95 Housing Land Safeguarding Matrix

Reporters’ Policy/Site Objection Objector Reporter Considerations Council Report Ref Recommendation Recommendation Page Number

3-1 Newtown H1A Oppose the principle Newtown Says we recommend that the The Reporter The following areas Safeguarding of locating the 900 No, Saves following areas should be recommendations are earmarked for for Additional units safeguarding Scotts deleted from the are substantially safeguarding for the Growth area in this general Countryside, proposed safeguarding accepted. It is felt master planned locality of Newtown St Charlesfield area shown on Policy that in order to development of the Boswells. Farms, Map P7 : achieve a cohesive Newtown St + others and coherent Boswells expansion Seeks that residential • Land to the west of development and to and shown on the safeguarding should Sergeants Park and optimise the Policy Map P7- take the form of a new the Sergeants Park II potential for the • The auction village adjoining the site (ENT15B). provision of mart site north and west sides • Land to the north of appropriate • Land to the of the Charlesfield NSB, between the structural west of employment site, as old Melrose road and landscaping, road Sergeants Park expanded, with most the old A68. and pedestrian and the of the other Policy • All land to the east of connectivity, and Sergeants Park Map 7 land being the A68. recreation II site (ENT15B) deleted. • Land on the west opportunities to • Land to the side of the A68, from serve the entire north and south Support for the the southern access area, it would be of the Bowden Council’s position, junction serving NSB, appropriate to Road, but arguing that the southwards to the include the areas to excluding the safeguarded area edge of St Boswells, the west of westernmost should make provision thence westwards Sergeant’s Park field currently for a westward and along the north side and Sergeant’s included in the southward expansion of the A699 Park II. In addition, pink shading on

96 of NSB, with most of (including all of the as suggested by Map P7 the other P7 land small hill) as far as the Reporters the • Land to the being deleted. These the shelter belt to the dene of Bowden south of the objectors also seek a west of the former Burn plus the field Bowden Burn specific allocation of route of the Waverley to the south and around Whitehill 200 houses, out of a line. one of the fields to Farm, between potential total of 1100 • All land to the south the north are also the western units, to come forward of the A699. safeguarded on the shelter belt and within the period of • The dene of the clear and explicit the vicinity of the local plan. Bowden Burn, plus basis that they will the garden the field to the south not be used to centre. Question whether the and one of the fields accommodate built proposed to the north. development. The following areas safeguarded area can should be deleted deliver the 200 units Alternatively the last 3 The safeguarded from the proposed of general housing areas listed above might area will be the safeguarding area land (under structure be retained in the subject of further shown on Policy plan policy H1) within safeguarded area, but on detailed discussion Map P7 : the timescale of the the clear and explicit with the local local plan (2011), basis that they will not be community as part • Land to the arguing that used to accommodate of the master north of NSB, alternative provision built development. planning exercise. between the old should be made at Melrose road other local plan This leaves the following The Reporters’ and the old A68. objection sites. In areas earmarked for reference to the • Land to the east addition, the text of development : potential use of the of the A68 not policies BE10 + 11 area to the south associated with requires • The auction mart site. west of Tweed the potential for rationalisation. • Land to the north and Horizons for high high amenity south of the Bowden amenity business business as Seeks a second Road, but excluding use is reflected in suggested by location for a the westernmost field the continued the Reporter

97 standalone new currently included in safeguarding of this • Land on the village and a separate the pink shading on land. (see also 4-29 west side of the new business area is Map P7. on Broomilees A68, from the proposed at Whitelee • Land to the south of Business Park) southern access and Camieston the Bowden Burn junction serving Farms, to the around Whitehill NSB, southwest of Farm, between the southwards to Newtown St Boswells. western shelter belt the edge of St and the vicinity of the Boswells, garden centre. thence westwards Regarding the phasing of along the north development, the auction side of the A699 mart redevelopment site (including all of should be given the the small hill) as highest priority (subject far as the to the approval of the shelter belt to new site for the mart). the west of the The choice between the former route of Bowden Road area and the Waverley the area to the south of line the Bowden Burn is a • All land to the matter for detailed south of the consideration in the A699 master plan and The dene of the community engagement Bowden Burn, plus process, but the former the field to the should perhaps come south and one of first, so that the the fields to the arrangements to cross north are kept in the the burn can be finalised safeguarding and put in place. zoning on Policy

98 Map P7 on the clear The allocation of land for and explicit basis the 200 additional units that they will not be to contribute to the used to current (policies H1 and accommodate built H2) supply would thus be development. (see at the auction mart site Policy Map 7 in and probably in the Appendix B) vicinity of the Bowden Road.

We note that should the relocation of the auction mart not proceed, this would have serious implications for the delivery of the improvements and regeneration benefits that underpin the Council’s case for expansion. We do not consider that the case for expansion would be negated, but it might be necessary to re-visit some of the details of the indicative plans. In any event, we remain of the view that neither of the two standalone village proposals would be a

99 desirable way to implement the safeguarding required by policy H1A. However the position on the auction mart relocation should be clearer by the time that our report is considered by the Council.

We do not agree with Save Scott’s Countryside that the safeguarding should automatically expire when the review of the structure plan takes place. The safeguarding is required to comply with the provisions of the current structure plan, and the local plan cannot anticipate what should or should not be included in any revised version of the structure plan.

Turning finally to the Reporter Policies BE10 and wording of policies BE10 recommendation BE11 to be altered and BE11 in the local accepted. as follows: plan, we agree with

100 objectors that some Policy BE10: Alter revision is necessary to title to read: improve clarity. Little change is needed to POLICY BE10: H1A policy BE10, except that LAND the title should make SAFEGUARDING: explicit reference to EXPANSION OF structure plan policy NEWTOWN ST H1A, and the third BOSWELLS paragraph of the justification should Third paragraph of explain that the justification: Line 3: safeguarded area has Delete been reduced to coincide “considerably” with the preferred area for the expansion of Add new sentence Newtown St Boswells. at end of paragraph: We agree that policy BE11 as it stands is “Land on the west somewhat confusing. We side of the A68 and suggest that the title is the north side of the amended to include A699 will be kept reference to North and free of built South Roxburgh, and development to that the third paragraph provide a landscape of the justification (which setting for the is a cross reference to proposed policy BE10 and expansion, and to Newtown St Boswells) is avoid coalescence deleted, so that the two with St Boswells.” policies are clearly seen

101 to be mutually exclusive Policy BE11: Alter and not overlapping. title to read:

POLICY BE11: H1A ………. we recommend LAND that Policy Map P7 is SAFEGUARDING: amended as set out NORTH AND above; and that policies SOUTH BE10 and BE11 are ROXBURGH altered as follows : Delete third Policy BE10 : Alter title paragraph of the to read : justification.

POLICY BE10 : H1A LAND SAFEGUARDING : EXPANSION OF NEWTOWN ST BOSWELLS

Third paragraph of justification : Line 3 : Delete “considerably” Add new sentence at end of paragraph : Land on the west side of the A68 and the north side of the A699 will be kept free of built development to provide a landscape setting for the proposed expansion, and to avoid

102 coalescence with St Boswells.

Policy BE11 : Alter title to read :

POLICY BE11 : H1A LAND SAFEGUARDING : NORTH AND SOUTH ROXBURGH

Delete third paragraph of the justification.

103 Berwickshire Matrix

Reporter’s Policy/Site Ref Objection Objector Reporter Considerations Council Report Recommendation Recommendation Page Number

11-3 BA6 Lynnfield, Inclusion of the RH & DH Allan per No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Ayton site Bain, Swan noted. Architects 11-4 AY20 Lawfield, Inclusion of the Berwickshire No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Ayton site Housing noted. Association 11-6 BBU5D Railway Errors and Burnmouth No change to the local Recommendation The rewording of the Field, Burnmouth omissions in Community plan in terms of housing accepted. The settlement profile in Burnmouth Council, Dickson & allocations or in respect Council agreed at paragraph 2 will be Settlement Profile Amos of a conservation area. the hearing to as follows: and establishment Recommend some re- provide a more of conservation wording of the positive statement “Burnmouth is made area settlement profile about Burnmouth’s up of a series of heritage and coastal dispersed coastal landscape setting in settlements located the Settlement on the rugged North Profile. Sea cliffs. It is based originally on the historic harbour set at the foot of a dramatic incline and the converted railway station located within the upper level. Other significant

104 listed buildings include the post-war council housing, designed to accommodate fishing activities and to take advantage of the sea views. The working harbour is an important landing stage between Eyemouth and Berwick. The main groupings of settlements comprise Partanhall, Lower Burnmouth, Cowdrait and Ross by the shore and Upper Burnmouth, by the main A1 and astride the main east coast railway line, at the higher level.”

11-8 BCH4 Chirnside Inclusion of site D Willison No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Associates noted. 11-9 BCH100 Inclusion of site S Swan per Smith No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Chirnside & Garratt Asset noted. Management 11-11 BC100, BC05 & Inclusion of either Caledonian No change to Recommendation Deletion of 2nd Settlement site Scottish development boundary. accepted. paragraph in Areas

105 Profile, Developments per The plan should direct for Longer Term Cockburnspath Turley Associates the preferred area of Development. Will be search to the north replaced by: and/or west of the existing village for the “Once the allocated long term expansion. It sites are fully should suggest the developed, the potential for limited preferred area for expansion between the future expansion development boundary beyond the period of and Pathead House. this Local plan Reference will be made (2011) will be the to development to the area between the south, west and east of development the settlement being boundary and resisted. Pathead House to the north of the settlement. Development to the west and east of the settlement should be resisted. Furthermore, expansion towards the south would be impractical due to the operational mineral workings and the topography.”

11-14 BCO4B – Delete from plan. Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Dunglass Park, Scotland noted.

106 Cockburnspath 11-14 BCO10B Delete from plan. Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Burnwood, Scotland noted. Cockburnspath 11-15 BCO100, Inclusion of sites A Findlay No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan BCO101, noted. BCO102 and Policy G8 Kinegar Quarry, Cockburnspath 11-16 ENFLP1 Station Allocation of site J Hay No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Yard, for employment noted. Cockburnspath use 11-17 Cockburnspath 2nd paragraph of J Hay The second paragraph Recommendation Change of settlement Settlement profile is incorrect of the profile is incorrect accepted. name in 2nd Profile as refers to as it refers to paragraph from Coldingham Coldingham. This will Coldingham to be changed to Cockburnspath. Cockburnspath.

11-17 BCL2B No objection Henry & Hamilton No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Bogangreen, noted. Coldingham 11-18 BCL12B, The No objection Henry & Hamilton No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Firs, Coldingham noted.

11-18 Coldingham Impact new Coldingham No change to the Recommendation No change to plan Settlement homes may have Community finalised plan. The accepted. for Coldingham. Profile on the Council strategic transport Conservation Area question of east-west Inf10 reworded as and lack of access should be follows: reference to acknowledged. It is not

107 importance of an issue for “1. The Council will improving east- Coldingham in isolation encourage west routes. but is of wider concern improvements to the Affordable in the strategic transport transport network, housing. context. This matter particularly on east- should therefore be west links, that: ….” addressed under the [with the remainder Infrastructure Policies of of the policy wording the finalised plan – being unaffected] perhaps in Policy Inf11.

11-19 Coldingham Omission of Coldingham No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Settlement reference to Safer Community noted. Profile Routes to School Council 11-20 Coldstream Settlement map is Forrest No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Settlement inaccurate noted. Profile Map 11-20 BCS5/5B West Expansion of the Douglas and Rejection of the Recommendation Deletion of allocated Paddock/ The 4.3ha allocated Angus Estates objection relating to accepted though it site BCS5B West Hirsel, site BCS5B BCS5 and deletion of is noted that this will Paddock, change to Coldstream southwards allocation BCS5B. The result in a very development long term expansion of limited supply of boundary accordingly the settlement might new housing sites (see settlement map need to be reworded to over and above for changes) and indicate expansion to those sites identified rewording of long the north of the as redevelopment term expansion to: settlement. opportunities. “Once the allocated sites are fully developed, the preferred areas for future expansion

108 beyond the period of this Local Plan (2011) will be to the north of the settlement.”

11-24 BCS9D Inclusion of site Lennel Estate per No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Gallowsknowe, Farningham noted. Coldstream McCreadie 11-26 BCS10D Lennel Inclusion of site Lennel Estate per No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Cottages, Farningham noted. Coldstream McCreadie 11-28 Future Area for longer Lennel Estate per No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Settlement term expansion to Farningham noted. Expansion, be included McCreadie Coldstream 11-29 Employment Allocation of D P Moffat Wording for Settlement Recommendation Include reference Land Policy ED1, employment land Profile amended to accepted. There has about the intended Coldstream include reference to been interest in the role of employment intended role of redevelopment sites and safeguarded sites. It would redevelopment employment sites and therefore be opportunities: redevelopment valuable for DC opportunities. Officers if the LP “Redevelopment was more specific Opportunities may be as to the use of used for housing, redevelopment land. with the possibility of employment or retailing uses, subject to the sequential test.

109 These sites may be developed for a single use.”

11-30 BD3 Hawthorn Allocation of BD3 Gavin Wood No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Bank, Duns for housing noted.

11-33 Development Amendment to the Mr & Mrs Bell Objection should be Recommendation Development boundary & development supported for a change accepted. This will boundary change BD17 Langton boundary and to the development have to be and allocated as a Edge, Duns allocation of boundary; a addressed housing site with an additional development brief sensitively. There indicative capacity of development land should be written for the are multiple 20 units (see whole area. applications in this settlement plan for area for small changes). Include housing plots. requirement for a development brief in Policy section Appendix D on Supplementary Planning Guidance and Standards. . 11-35 Development Amendment to Mr & Mrs Cook No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan boundary & development noted. BD22D Wellfield, boundary and Duns allocation of BD22D site for housing 11-37 H1R Non-allocation of Berwickshire No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan BD2B_Todlaw site BD2B Housing noted. Road II, Duns Association

110 11-38 Duns BD4B Site capacity Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Todlaw Road Scotland noted.

11-39 Duns BD5A Site is not Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Berrywell effective Scotland noted.

11-39 HR BD15 Inclusion of site R Lamont per No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Preston Road, Robinson noted. Duns Associates 11-41 Duns BD20B Site is not Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Bridgend II effective Scotland noted.

11-42 Duns Extension to Forrest No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Development development noted. Boundary boundary 11-43 Employment Object to site Grampian Country No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Land (zEL26) allocated as Food Group Ltd noted. Cheeklaw, Duns Employment Land 11-44 Omission BEC1 Inclusion of site Mr N Helliker per No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Eccles Barton Willmore noted. Partnership 11-45 Omission BEY1 Inclusion of site Park Resorts Ltd Include site. Recommendation Inclusion of site Barefoots, accepted. There is BEY1, Barefoots as Eyemouth planning permission a housing site in the for 20 dwellings on Plan and the the objection site adjustment of the which has been development granted permission boundary to include subject to a S75. it. The indicative The site was also housing capacity for allocated for this site will be 20 housing (as HSG.6) units (see settlement

111 in the adopted local plan for changes). plan for the area. The Council stated at the hearing that it now accepted that the site BEY1 should be included as a housing allocation in the finalised local plan.

11-47 BEY2B, Acredale BEY2B at George Wimpey, No change unless Recommendation The approved Farm Cottages, Acredale split into Homes for amendment to site accepted. The LP planning application Eyemouth 2 sites Scotland boundary needs to reflect the has a housing overall capacity for capacity of 158 units the two sites. This and the development will include the brief indicates a number of houses capacity for the permitted in the second phase at 86 planning application units. Therefore the Phase 1 and the total site has an indicative capacity indicative housing provided in the capacity of 244 units. development brief for Phase 2.

11-48 BEY8D Non-inclusion of SB Simpson No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Highlaws, the proposed noted. Eyemouth improvement to the Biglawburn Rd and inclusion of site

112 11-49 Eyemouth BEY15B is not Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan BEY15B, effective Scotland noted. Gunsgreenhill 11-50 Conservation Conservation area Peter Daniel Recommend Recommendation Amend the Area Boundary, should include incorporation of the rear accepted. settlement profile to Foulden The Spinney and garden and ha-ha wall include the rear the ha-ha wall at features of the Manse garden and ha-ha of the rear of The within the designated the Manse in the Manse’s garden conservation area conservation area boundary. At the (see settlement map hearing, the Council for changes). accepted that the words “it is thought that” could The words “it is be removed from the thought that” will be Settlement Profile text removed from the as suggested. Settlement Profile text as suggested.

11-51 Development Development Mrs C McGregor No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Area Boundary, boundary should per Edwin noted. Foulden not have excluded Thompson land shown in previous plan 11-52 Foulden Settlement Profile Foulden, No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Development fails to recognise Mordington & noted. Boundary and unusual Lamberton Settlement geographic nature Community Profile of community of Council Foulden and excludes over 59% of households.

113 11-53 BGA1 & BGA4B Inclusion of site RM & JF Seed per Objection site BGA1 is Recommendation Inclusion of BGA1 Gavinton Smith & Garratt allocated in preference accepted although it West Gavinton and Rural Asset to allocated site BGA4B is noted that the omit site BGA4B Management and development preferred site is Crimson Hill. BGA1 boundaries of village larger than the site will have an should be amended within the Finalised indicative density of accordingly. There may Local Plan and may 45 units. Change be the need for a have implications for development development brief. the integrity of boundary in settlement layout. accordance (see settlement plan for changes). Include a requirement for a development brief in Policy section Appendix D on Supplementary Planning Guidance and Standards. . 11-56 The Glebe Replacement of Gordon & Objection site BG09D is Recommendation Inclusion of site BGO7B & allocated site Westruther allocated in preference accepted. BG09D Larger Glebe omission Larger BGO7B (The Community to allocated site BG07B and omit site BG07B Glebe BG09D Glebe) either by Council, and development The Glebe. BG09D and site Eden site BGO9B (The Nicholson, boundaries of village will have an Road BGO11D, Larger Glebe) or Tweedie, Young, should be amended indicative capacity of Gordon by BGO11D Browne, accordingly. 18 units. Change (Eden Rd) Johnstone development boundary in accordance (see settlement plan for changes).

114

11-59 Gordon Objects to the Mrs R Barden No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Development development noted. Boundary boundary - should be extended west from Manse Road to the old railway line

11-60 Gordon Wording of the Mrs R Barden No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Settlement Settlement Profile noted. Profile 11-61 BG1B Church Deletion of the Mr & Mrs T BG1B should be Recommendation Inclusion of part of Hill & Omission allocated site and Culham deleted from plan when accepted. There are site BG7 Marchmont BG7, Greenlaw inclusion of new adopted and that possible constraints Road (1 hectare site allocation should be with access to the accessed from replaced by proposed site. Marchmont Road) approximately These will need to and omit site BG1B equivalent sized part of be addressed in the Church Hill. BG7 will objection site BG7 to be development brief. have an indicative accessed from capacity of 25 units. Marchmont Road. Change development Development brief boundary in should be drawn up. accordance (see settlement plan for changes). Include requirement for a development brief in Policy section Appendix D on Supplementary Planning Guidance

115 and Standards. . 11-64 zEL23 Extension Reallocation to Marchmont Farms No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan to Duns Road, housing land Ltd noted. Greenlaw 11-65 Greenlaw Poultry farm Grampian Country No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Development should be Food Group Ltd noted. Boundary included in boundary 11-67 Leitholm BLE2B Deletion of site Thomson & No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Main Street Skeldon noted.

11-68 Leitholm Main Replacement Leitholm Village No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Street shop needed to Shop Working noted. support new Group–M Ramsay housing 11-69 Leitholm, BLE2B, Traffic issues M Watt No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Main Street noted.

11-69 Paxton BPA4B Housing site not Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan The Orchard effective Scotland noted.

11-70 Paxton BPA4B Supports housing Hutton & Paxton No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan The Orchard site Community noted. Council 11-71 Paxton : Housing P Close No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Omissions at opportunities noted. Fishwick Mains 11-71 Preston, Profile should R Forrest No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Settlement include reference noted. Profile to Smiddy Field as area for future

116 growth 11-72 Profile & Objections Reston & Berwick No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan expansion area, withdrawn Farming Co, noted. Reston Reston Community Council 11-74 zRO13 Auction Objections to McLean & Forrest No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Mart, Reston whole site being noted. redeveloped 11-75 Reston BR6 Site should be Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Rear of Primary used for Scotland noted. School expansion of Primary School 11-76 Reston, West Planning Carmarthen Change to the finalised Recommendation West Reston site to Reston allocation permission would Developments per local plan to identify the accepted. be allocated for be granted for site Farningham objection site as a housing with an after Section 75 McCreadie formal allocation. Education now state indicative capacity of that they cannot 20 units. The support further development growth in Reston boundary changed without expansion to accordingly. See the local primary settlement plan for school. changes.

11-77 RSN100 New Alternative J Pennington No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Reston Station, location for the noted. Reston proposed Reston Station 11-77 Reston Rail Objections to site McLean, Expand the statement Recommendation Statement to be Station for safeguarding Pennington, at bottom of P373 of accepted. changed to include Safeguarding, Fowler Settlement Profile to aspiration for rail Policy H3, ZRS3 include reference longer station adjoining site term plans and zRS3:

117 aspirations for developing rail station “There is an on adjoining site zRS3. aspiration to develop the rail station on the land adjoining the Redevelopment site. This area will therefore be safeguarded for transport.”

11-79 Reston, Rail Object to McLean No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Station reference Settlement Profile noted. in Settlement reference to "long Profile term project" for rail station 11-79 Reston Inaccuracies Fowler No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Settlement within the noted. Profile settlement profile 11-80 Swinton, Site is not Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan BSW2B Well effective Scotland noted. Field 11-81 Swinton, BSW3D as a Ladykirk Estates, No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan BSW3D replacement for Birch noted. Coldstream Road the allocated site BSW2B 11-82 Swinton Profile Reference made Purvis Amend text of Recommendation Remove reference to in the Settlement Profile on accepted. Purves Hall from Conservation P405 of finalised plan to Conservation Area Statement to remove reference to Statement. "Purves Hall" Purves Hall in section headed Conservation

118 Area Statement.

119 Central Borders Matrix

Reporter’s Policy/ Objection Objector Reporter Considerations Council Report Site Ref Recommendation Recommendation Page Number

4-2 Galashiels: Seeks allocation of MDL Borders I find that this would be Recommendation Inclusion of North North Ryehaugh site Ltd, an effective housing accepted. The new Ryehaugh site as a (site EGL5) Murray & site, but that it would allocation site is to land use allocation Burrell have potentially serious exclude ten metre for housing and landscape and buffers along the change biodiversity implications north, west and east development unless the development boundaries to boundary in area is drawn well back protect landscape accordance. from the boundaries of and woodland. The (Refer to the site to provide detailed design settlement map.) green buffer areas to issue of the Include a site the east, north, and protection of trees capacity of 20. west (in addition to that on the allocation site proposed on the will be addressed at existing allocation to Development the south); and the Control stage. layout and massing of the new buildings is designed to retain important existing trees on the site and to minimise visual intrusion. This would considerably restrict the potential development

120 area. The ultimate number and size of houses that could be accommodated could not be determined until an agreed acceptable layout has been prepared. An assumed indicative capacity of 20 units would be reasonable for land supply calculations (only).

Allocate in Local Plan for 20 units. 4-4 Galashiels: Allocation should be Homes for No change Recommendation No change to plan. South deleted Scotland noted Ryehaugh (site EGL32B) 4-4 GalashielsDevel Seeks extension of Mitchell, No change Recommendation No change to plan. opment development Galashiels noted Boundary boundary to include Common part of the northwest Good Fund side of Ladhope glen 4-5 Galashiels: Seeks college site Borders Identify college site as Recommendation on Inclusion of Borders College to be allocated as a College + 2 a redevelopment redevelopment Melrose Road site redevelopment per opportunity on the opportunity as a land use opportunity. The Development Proposals Map, with accepted. allocation for a objection further Planning appropriate entry in redevelopment seeks the inclusion Partnership table on page 269, to Recommendation on opportunity. (Refer of the site within the include new site code, town centre to settlement map.)

121 defined town centre. reference to policy H3 boundary noted. Inclusion of a note but excluding use under the table of classes 5 and 6, and Allocated Land Use site area (2.1ha). Proposals (page269): “The Redevelopment No change to town Opportunity at centre boundary Melrose Road is to exclude Use Classes 5, general industrial, and 6, storage and distribution.”

No change to town centre boundary. 4-7 Galashiels: Indicated site Walker No change to local plan Recommendation No change to plan. Mossilee (site capacity is incorrect in respect of site noted EGL19B) or unlikely to be EGL19B. reached as this site is already partially developed.

Issue of site effectiveness. 4-8 Galashiels: The objector Walker No change to local Recommendation No change to plan. Forest Hill (site questions the plan. noted EGL42) potential capacity of this site.

Issue of site effectiveness.

122 4-8 Galashiels : Seeks allocation of Save Scott’s I conclude that this is a Recommendation The capacity of site Crotchetknowe lower part of site. Countryside, + well located site, where accepted. The EGL13B is to be (site EGL13B) others (subject to the various Reporter’s reduced to 75 Other objections provisos set out in the recommendation for units. related to: development brief the Local Plan The Strategy, effect and/or noted above) housing capacity on tourism, the development could take differs from the environment, place without having a approved Planning roads and traffic, significant adverse Brief for site infrastructure and impact on the setting of EGL13B which density. Galashiels and the recommends a surrounding rural area density of 92 units and protected on its net landscapes. developable area. Development here appears to be feasible and effective, in a sustainable and convenient location. The potential indicative capacity (for the purpose of land supply calculations only) appears to be in the order of 75 units.

Reduce indicative capacity 100 to 75. 4-11 Galashiels: Seeks site Hunter, Gray No change Recommendation In Appendix D South boundary to be accepted Supplementary Crotchetknowe extended to include A site development Planning Guidance (site EGL16B land to the north brief would be and Standards,

123 east, to give the site desirable, to ensure Development greater capacity. that the land is Briefs section developed in a (page107) note satisfactory manner. that a development brief is required for the South Crotchetknowe, Galashiels, housing allocation. 4-11/12 Galashiels: Allocation should be National Trust Development of the site Recommendation Deletion of Netherbarns deleted for Scotland, would be undesirable accepted allocated housing (site EGL2B) Bailie, Save because of the site EGL2B and Scott’s potential risk of amendment of the Countryside, + damage to very development others important landscape, boundary to follow historic, and cultural the boundary of the interests, and to the deleted site. contribution of tourism (Refer to to the Borders settlement map.) economy.

Delete from Plan. 4-15 Galashiels: Extent and location Dr + Mrs Subject to the various Recommendation In Appendix D Easter Langlee of this allocation Humphries provisos noted above, accepted. The Supplementary (site EGL14B) 1135/1/7, Save the site appears to be provisos referred to Planning Guidance Scott’s suitable and practicable by the Reporter and Standards, Countryside, for major housing include the provision Development Pavilion Estate development, and for of a master plan to Briefs section Ltd, + others extension to the determine site (page107) note northwest. capacity. He also that the Easter suggests that formal Langlee, accommodation Galashiels,

124 between the housing allocation developer, planning is to be subject to authority and the provision of a landowners is master plan. reached over the management of activities in and public access to Ellwynd Wood. Otherwise alternative recreational provision and buffer areas will need to be accommodated on site. 4-19 GalashielsSettle Scale of housing Grant, Driscoll, On page 269 of the Recommendation The rewording of ment Profile development that is Irving, The local plan, add a new accepted the Settlement proposed in the National Trust sentence at the end of Profile section on Galashiels area for Scotland the second paragraph Areas for Longer of the section on Areas Term Expansion for Longer Term and Protection (see Expansion and page 269), in Protection, as follows : second paragraph add a new “In addition, land in the sentence at the A7 corridor to the south end as follows: of Kingsknowe, within “In addition, land in the AGLV and close to the A7 corridor to Abbotsford House and the south of its designed landscape, Kingsknowe, within should be protected the AGLV and

125 from urban close to Abbotsford development.” House and its designed landscape, should be protected from urban development.”

4-21 Development Seeks the inclusion J S Crawford The second sentence Recommendation Include part of the boundary; of larger site. Partnership, Dr of the paragraph on accepted Gateside Meadows settlement C P & Mrs C M areas for longer term site as a land use profile; and Objects to any Humphries, expansion and allocation for Gateside extension of the Save Scott’s protection (page 275 of housing with a Meadows (sites development Countryside, + the local plan) should capacity of 25 units EGT11D + boundary others be deleted. and adjust the EGT13B) northwards to development facilitate future The development boundary expansion. boundary should accordingly. (Refer remain as proposed at to settlement map.) the top of Goat Brae.

Most of the area between the village and Gattonside Mains Road should be rejected as a potential area for additional housing development.

Allocate part of site only for 25 units. 4-24 Tweedbank Deletion of Stewart, Conclusions : Recommendation No change

126 ETW1B & Tweedbank IV, Doherty, + Tweedbank IV noted ETW2B : deletion of Cotgreen others Tweedbank IV, Road Planning permission Cotgreen Rd has been granted for the development of this site, and construction of the new housing estate is well under way, with some houses already occupied. Thus the objections to this site have been overtaken by events. However I agree with the Council that development of this land, which forms an integral part of the Tweedbank development area, would be unlikely to have the adverse local environmental consequences feared by objectors. Any problems due to increased pressure on local infrastructure and services will need to be addressed, and would not be affected by deleting or reducing the local plan housing

127 allocation.

Conclusions : Cotgreen Road

Planning permission has been granted for the development of this site, and construction of the new housing estate is well under way. Thus the objections to this site have been overtaken by events. Any problems due to increased pressure on local infrastructure and services will need to be addressed, and would not be affected by deleting or reducing the local plan housing allocation. The infringement of views from existing houses is regrettable, but I agree with the Council that this does not justify rejecting a site which is otherwise suitable for housing development. This also applies to any

128 effect on house values. None of these matters would be altered by deleting or reducing the local plan housing allocation at this stage.

No changes 4-26 Tweedbank Deletion of site Homes for I accept that access to Recommendation No change to plan. Killie Holes (site Scotland the site may well be noted ETW7B) achieved during the period of the local plan, either through site ETW1B or from the southeast. 4-27 Development Seeks to position the B&Q plc No changes to local Recommendation No change to plan. Boundary - development plan in relation to the noted Tweedbank ; boundary on the position of the policy ED1 outer side of the development boundary; woodland belt to the inclusion of this site allow more space for within the zEL39 a limited extension safeguarding; and the of development; and wording of policy ED1 to introduce more (Protection of flexibility in policy Employment Land). ED 1 to allow other types of use that No changes would bring employment. The B&Q land should be removed from the terms of policy ED1,

129 in the settlement profile and on the proposals map. 4-29 Broomilees Seeks deletion of Save Scott’s Delete all references to Recommendation Deletion of the land business park site Countryside, the Broomilees accepted. use allocation for (site EM40B) Dow, Darnick employment site from The requirements of Employment Village the local plan, Structure Plan Policy EM40B. (Refer to Committee, + explaining that further E15 - Inward settlement map.) others steps will be taken to Investment can be meet the requirements met by safeguarding In the Settlement of structure plan policy land for high amenity Profile amend the E 15 for business park employment use at Description section developments Tweed Horizons, (page 329) as elsewhere in the Newtown St follows: In the sixth Central Borders area. Boswells, in paragraph delete consultation with the fifth sentence public agencies starting “A new including Scottish business park”. Enterprise Borders, Also amend the Scottish Natural Information Heritage and Relevant to Transport Scotland. Potential Developer Contribution section (page 331), Transport paragraph by deleting the last sentence starting “The Broomilees”.

In Policy Map P7

130 safeguard a site by Tweed Horizons, Newtown St Boswells for high amenity employment use. (see also section 3- 1 on land safeguarding).

4-36 Darnick:Broomil Seeks allocation of J S Crawford This site appears to be Recommendation Include site at ees Road (site site Ltd suitable for residential accepted. The site Broomilees Road EM17) use, with a prospective has planning as a land use capacity of 8 units. permission for four allocation for units, due to access housing (Refer to Allocate in Local Plan constraints however settlement map). for 8 units. a new application may address this issue. 4-38 Darnick:Chiefsw Objections range Melrose CC, + Change 30 to 15 in the Recommendation Change capacity ood Road (site from deletion of site, others table on page 229 of accepted on site EM9B to 15 EM9B) density of site, flood the local plan, with units. Amend the risk, open space J S Crawford consequential development provision should be Ltd corresponding changes boundary on north protected, effect on elsewhere as side of Abbotsford tourism, roads and necessary. Road, opposite the infrastructure. entry to Amend development Chiefswood Road, Seeks a minor boundary on north side to include the extension of the of Abbotsford Road, cottage garden but Darnick opposite the entry to not the overgrown development Chiefswood Road, to land parcel to the

131 boundary include the cottage east (Refer to garden but not the settlement map). overgrown land parcel to the east.

Reduce indicative capacity from 30 to 15. 4-40 DarnickDevelop Seeks alteration of Darnick Village Reposition Darnick Recommendation Amend the ment Boundary the development Committee development boundary accepted. It is noted development boundary. The to follow the north side that planning boundary to follow boundary should of Waverley Road application ref no the north side of remain in its present eastwards from a point 06/00351/OUT for a Waverley Road position, to exclude opposite the junction house on land eastwards from a the field on the west with Fisher’s Lane. immediately to the point opposite the side of the St Helens north of Waverley junction with access road. The Road, to the west of Fisher’s Lane. area covered by the access road to (Refer to policy EP3 St Helens and the settlement map.) (Prevention of Steading and to the Settlement east of the Coalescence) residential properties should be extended known as westwards to cover Donnistmuir and the area between Bidston was the River Tweed and approved on Waverley Road. 15/8/07. This site is located within the proposed extended EP3 Coalescence boundary map. It is contended that the

132 boundary change is made as per the recommendation, although given there is a live planning consent on part of this area the permission is likely to be implemented at some stage. However, these particular circumstances will not set a precedent for any further intrusions into the extended EP3 policy area. 4-42 Darnick– Deletion of Policy J S Crawford Retain policy EP 3 in Recommendation Extend area Melrose : EP 3. local plan. accepted. identified as Policy Development Darnick Village EP3 in Policy Map boundary and The development Committee, + Retain extent of 6 (page 152). The Policy EP3 boundaries others coverage of policy EP 3 area is to be (Prevention of proposed for Darnick in Policy Map 6 of local extended Settlement and Melrose should plan, but extend it westwards Coalescence) be amended to westwards (washing (washing over St include the over St Helens and The Helens and The intervening area Steading) to cover all Steading) to cover covered by the the land between the all the land proposed policy EP3 northern edge of between the (as was the position Darnick (as defined by northern edge of in the previous local the development Darnick (as defined

133 plan), and to take in boundary by the further land to the recommended development south of the A 6091, elsewhere in this boundary including the report) and the River recommended proposed business Tweed, as far west as elsewhere in this park at Broomilees the road bridge at report) and the (proposal EM40B, Lowood, [and minor River Tweed, as far shown on the adjustment to coincide west as the road Melrose Proposals with the Darnick bridge at Lowood. Map), the Borders development boundary There is also a General Hospital at the junction of minor adjustment site, and land to the Abbotsford Road and to coincide with the east of Chiefswood Chiefswood Road]. Darnick Road including Development Huntlyburn House, No change to Boundary at the the Quarry Hill area, development junction of and land to the boundaries to take in Abbotsford Road southeast of the land between and Chiefswood Dingleton Road Darnick and Melrose, Road (Refer to forming an extension and the land to the settlement map). of The Croft site. south of the A 6091 (Broomilees, BGH, etc). There should be a (See also section on minor amendment of Darnick development the development boundary regarding boundary at the area in vicinity of St junction of Helens/The Steading.) Abbotsford Road and Chiefswood Road to take in the abandoned cottage there.

134

Seeks extension of area covered by Policy EP3.

Seeks positive recreational use of the area. 4-45 MelroseConserv Seeks exclusion of J S Crawford, No changes Recommendation No change to plan. ation Area the existing car park McLaren noted at the rear of the George and Abbotsford Hotel.

Seeks extension of the conservation area southwards to take in properties in Dingleton Road, Newlyn Road, Dundas Terrace, Douglas Road, and the proposed development site EM4B (The Croft). 4-46 Melrose : The Seeks inclusion of Miller No change to Recommendation on No change to the Priory Field the field within the development boundary development development (site ONFLP2) Melrose at objection site. boundary noted. boundary. development boundary, to provide Add new paragraph at Recommendation on In Settlement a car park. the end of the Settlement Profile Profile, Description description of Melrose accepted. section (page 329)

135 in the local plan (page add the following 329): new paragraph at Parking facilities the end: serving the town centre “Parking facilities and abbey area are serving the town very busy at peak centre and abbey periods, and some area are very busy further provision would at peak periods, be desirable, and some further compatible with provision would be maintaining the desirable, character, amenity and compatible with setting of the area, and maintaining the with adequate road and character, amenity pedestrian access. and setting of the area, and with adequate road and pedestrian access.” 4-48 Melrose:Quarry Seeks the inclusion J S Crawford, In the Central Borders Recommendation on No change to land Hill (site EM24) of land on the west Buccleuch Housing Market Area development use allocations or side of Quarry Hill, Estates, Save Housing Assessment boundary and development abutting Chiefswood Scott’s section, Chapter six, objection site noted. boundary in Road, as a Countryside, + the Reporter gives an respect of site safeguarded site for others overall assessment that Recommendation on EM24. 50 units under policy the Quarry Hill site is Settlement Profile BE11 and table 2.2, unacceptable and that accepted. Amend the to contribute if there the site should be Settlement Profile is a shortage of land discounted. section on Areas to meet the for Longer Term requirements of In addition, he Expansion and structure plan policy recommends that the Protection (page H1A. second sentence of the 330) by deleting

136 first paragraph of the the second The safeguarding of section on Areas for sentence of the the remaining land Longer Term first paragraph that at Quarry Hill under Expansion and starts “The Quarry local plan policy Protection on page 330 Hill”. BE6, as a valuable of the local plan should open space for the be deleted. local community.

Objects to the local plan reference to the future re- examination of Quarry Hill as a potential area for future expansion. 4-51 Melrose:The Seeks enlargement JS Crawford, The capacity of the site Recommendation Amend capacity of Croft (site of the residential Hardwick, The is likely to be below 50 accepted. The site EM4B to 25 EM4B) allocation to take in Croft Steering units, and may well be reporter’s units. the adjoining land on Group, Save nearer to 25, which recommended Local 3 sides (site EM26) Scott’s would correspond to Plan housing with increased Countryside, + about 10 units/ha. This capacity differs from density. others would be a reasonable the approved density, in keeping with Planning Brief for Seeks deletion of the character of the site EM4B which allocation, reduction area. However the recommends a of density. ultimate number of density of 45 units houses that can be on its net accommodated can developable area. only be determined when a feasible and acceptable layout and

137 design has been agreed by the Council.

Reduce indicative capacity from 50 to 25. 4-55 Melrose:The Seeks allocation of J S Crawford, In the Central Borders Recommendation No change to plan. extended Croft extended Croft Site. Hardwick, The Housing Market Area noted (site EM26) Croft Steering Housing Assessment Object to proposed Group, Save section, Chapter six, enlargement of site. Scott’s the Reporter gives an Countryside + overall assessment that others the Extended Croft site is unacceptable and that the site should be discounted.

4-57 Melrose:Dinglet Contests the Hardwick, + No change Recommendation No change to plan. on Hospital (site capacity allocation of others noted EM32B) 230 units for the site.

Other objections relating to the development of the site. 4-59 NewsteadConse Object to the Melrose Revert to original Recommendation Amend Newstead rvation Area : exclusion of Community boundary of the accepted. For the Conservation Area Back Road properties on the Council, + conservation area in sentence to read by reverting to the south side of Back others the vicinity of Back well after the original boundary Road from the Road, and change the removal of the in the Ettrick and Newstead second line of the reference to Back Lauderdale Local Conservation Area paragraph on Road the removal of Plan 1995 in the

138 alterations to the additional words are vicinity of Back conservation area needed as follows: Road. (Refer to boundary (p348) to after “consist of” settlement map.) omit the words : delete “the exclusion “properties along the of the” In the Settlement Back Road to the south Profile, Alterations of the Conservation to the Conservation Area and”. Area Boundary section (page 348) after the words “consist of” delete the words: “the exclusion of the properties along the Back Road to the south of the Conservation Area and”. 4-60 NewtownSt Seeks deletion of Stewart, This site would form an Recommendation No change to plan. Boswells : site site Pears, Homes acceptable extension of noted ENT4B, Melrose for Scotland the urban area, and Road appears to be likely to be substantially effective within the period of the local plan. 4-61 NewtownSt Seeks allocation of Scott The development of Recommendation No change to plan. Boswells : site this site for housing noted Earlston Road would be unduly (site ENT8) obtrusive.

4-61 NewtownSt Seeks deletion of Stewart, Pears No change Recommendation No change to plan.

139 Boswells : site site noted ENT8B Sprouston Cottages 4-62 NewtownSt Support for Newtown Says This site appears to be Recommendation No change to plan. Boswells allocation but No, Buccleuch well suited to noted ENT15B questions capacity. Estates, + residential Sergeant’s Park others development, subject to II Issues of access detailed consideration and views. of the various issues that have been raised. Seek deletion of site. None of these seem to present insurmountable problems. The indicated capacity remains appropriate for inclusion in the local plan. 4-64 BaxterJohnson Seeks allocation of Newtown & No change Recommendation No change to plan. oil depot, this site for Eildon Action noted Newtown St redevelopment. Group Boswells 4-65 Housingproposa Seeks deletion of Newtown Says The development of There is a recent Amendment of the l ENT14B site No, this site would be planning permission capacity of site (Hawkslee) + others unduly obtrusive, and for twenty houses on ENT14B to 20. Seeks allocation of could give rise to road this site which site safety problems. should be reflected The site capacity in the Plan. should not exceed 10 units.

Delete from Plan

140 4-66 NewtownSt Seek amendments Scott, Page 352 : Areas for Recommendation Amend the Boswells : to the guidance on Morrison, Longer Term accepted Settlement Profile, Settlement Areas for Longer Newtown & Expansion and Areas for Longer Term Expansion and Eildon Action Protection: Term Expansion Protection. Group and Protection End first sentence after Section (Page 352) Objects that the “west”. Follow by new as follows: local plan contains sentence : “Areas to no measures to the north, and to the End first sentence overcome the east of the A68, are after “west”. Follow current or future considered to be by new sentence : traffic problems in unsuitable for “Areas to the north, the village. residential expansion.” and to the east of the A68, are Add in new paragraph considered to be after second paragraph unsuitable for : “Where possible, the residential relocation to more expansion.” suitable sites of various existing uses in the Add in new village that generate paragraph after HGV and other second paragraph : commercial vehicle “Where possible, movements will be the relocation to supported, in the more suitable sites interests of road safety, of various existing local amenity, and uses in the village regeneration.” that generate heavy goods vehicles and other commercial vehicle movements will be

141 supported, in the interests of road safety, local amenity, and regeneration.”

4-68 StBoswells – Seeks policy EP3 Wild No change Recommendationnot No change to plan. Newtown St (Prevention of ed. Boswells : Settlement Policy EP3 Coalescence) to be (Prevention of applied to the area Settlement between St Boswells Coalescence) and Newtown St Boswells. 4-69 StBoswells : Oppose the further Blain, Sijmons, No change Recommendation No change to plan. village expansion of St Maslin, noted expansion Boswells. Runcie, Sitwell 4-70 StBoswells: Seeks deletion of A MacLay, R & No change Recommendation No change to plan. Extension to site zEL19 E Marshall noted Charlesfield Industrial 5-1 Earlston : HR Requests that the Campbell No change Recommendationnot No change to plan. EEA1 Gun Field site is kept in mind in ed the future as a suitable site for housing. 5-2 Earlston:Protecti Seeks the J Rutherford West of Mill Road : No Recommendation Include Earlston on of reallocation of some (Earlston) Ltd change to local plan. accepted Mill site as a land Employment of the industrial East of Mill Road : use allocation for Land ZEL57 Mill allocation for Deletion of this part of housing with a Rd, EEA102 residential use, the zEL57 allocation capacity of 15 Rhymer’s View, along with adjoining and in the Central units. Reduce the

142 HR EEA14 land in the same Borders Housing area of Policy ED1 Rhymer’s ownership but Market Area Housing Employment Land Avenue outwith the industrial Sites Assessment, Safeguarding at allocation Chapter 6, the ZEL57 Mill Road Reporters include a by deleting the land use allocation for area south east of housing at Earlston Mill Mill Road (Refer to (EEA14 : eastern part settlement map). of zEL57) for 15 units

5-4 Earlston:Land at Seeks allocation of A & R Brownlie Allocate Mill Road, Recommendation Include Mill Road Rhymer’s Mill the site for housing Ltd Earlston (EEA101) for accepted site as a land use 20 units (land adjacent allocation for to Mill Road) housing with a capacity of 20 units and change development boundary accordingly. (Refer to settlement map.) 5-5 Earlstonhousing Seeks deletion of Mr J Hyslop, Both allocations to Recommendation No change to plan. allocations: sites Homes for remain in local plan. noted EEA12B The Scotland, Glebe and + others EEA15A – Thistle Cottage 5-6 Earlstonsettlem Request that the Education & I recommend the Recommendation Include High ent profile : site new site for the high Lifelong following amendments accepted. The School Site at for the new high school at Tufford Learning to the settlement profile objection site related Turfford Park as a school Park is included in Department, for Earlston : to an outline land use allocation the local plan, and J S Crawford planning permission for a school and the settlement profile • Add the new school however there is amend the

143 adjusted site to the list of now a full planning development accordingly. External allocated land use permission. boundary and Council proposals (p241). Therefore the site accordingly. (Refer consultees advise • Amend the text of the with full planning to settlement map.) that there are no third paragraph on permission, as insurmountable Areas for Longer Term amended, is to be In the Settlement obstacles to Expansion (p242) to shown in the plan. Profile amend the development at that read : Improved Areas for Longer site, which will also secondary school Term Expansion reduce traffic facilities are required in section (p242), problems at the Earlston. The Council’s third paragraph. existing school site. preferred location is a Replace the first new site at Tufford sentence with the Park, to the southeast following: of the town. “Improved secondary school facilities are On the same basis, I required in recommend that the Earlston. The new site is shown on Council’s preferred the settlement map location is a new (p243), and that the site at Tufford development boundary Park, to the is extended to embrace southeast of the the school site. town.”

5-7 EarlstonSettlem Land at Georgefield J S Crawford No change to local plan Recommendation No change to plan. ent Profile : Farm should be text in the second noted Areas for longer identified for housing paragraph on areas for term expansion development in the longer term expansion medium term (post at Earlston (p242). 2012) on the

144 proposals map and in the settlement profile. Insufficient effective land has been safeguarded to meet the requirements of Policy H1A in the Central Borders Housing Market Area. A new policy BE12 should be added to the local plan, to provide additional land in the event of a shortfall in the supply of effective land.

Seeks locating the new secondary school site on land in their ownership at Georgefield Farm (see preceding section of this report). If this proposal comes to fruition, the objector wishes the remainder of the land at the farm to

145 be earmarked for residential development in the medium term. This would be linked to the proposed new policy BE12, which would provide a mechanism to release more housing land if the effective supply falls short of the 5 year requirement. The land at Georgefield should also be identified as part of the safeguarding required under structure plan policy H1A. 5-8 Earlston : Seeks the inclusion Mr J Hyslop No change Recommendation No change to plan. Former rail of the land within the noted trackbed to development south of river boundary, as a bridge housing site. 5-10 RedpathDevelo Seeks that the Mr & Mrs No change Recommendation No change to plan. pment Boundary development Kirkland noted boundary to the south east of settlement should be reinstated to the

146 boundary of the previous Redpath Village Plan 5-11 EildonDevelopm Seeks the inclusion Swinton Redraw the Recommendation Extend the ent Boundary of this concave development boundary accepted. development recess within the to extend the boundary development settlement northwards northwards to boundary. to include the objection include the site. objection site. (Refer to settlement map.)

5-11 BowdenConserv Seeks Conservation Mrs V Baillie No change to sections Recommendation No change to plan ation Area Area Statement in on conservation area (p noted in relation to the Bowden 191). Conservation Area settlement profile statement (For (p191) to be For recommendations Bowen Future strengthened. on areas for future Expansion refer to expansion and page 5-11 below). protection, see section of this report on Bowden Future Expansion. 5-12 Bowden Future Seeks the Bowden Adjust the section on Recommendation Replace the Expansion identification for Village Areas for Longer Term accepted Settlement Profile, longer term Committee, Expansion and Areas for Longer protection to include Hogg, Hogg, Protection to read as Term Expansion land to the north, Morrison, follows (deleting all and Protection east, and west of the Morrison other text): Given the section (page 192) village as well as sensitivity of the with the following that to the south. An character and setting of text: “Given the effective green belt Bowden, there is very sensitivity of the

147 should be allocated little scope for character and around the additional development. setting of Bowden, settlement, there is very little protected by the scope for additional Prevention of development.” Coalescence policy EP3 that applies to Darnick. 5-14 MidlemDevelop Seeks inclusion of: Henderson Extend Recommendation Extend the ment Boundary Plot 1 : The site is developmentboundary accepted in respect development owned by the to include plot 1. No of plot one. boundary to objector, was change to local plan in Recommendation include Plot one in included in the draft respect of plot 2. noted in respect of the east of the local plan, has plot two. settlement. (Refer suitable access and to settlement map.) all services nearby and should be No change in reinstated within the respect of Plot two. development boundary. Plot 2 : The inclusion of the disused farm buildings in the development boundary would provide an opportunity for further housing. 5-15 Lilliesleaf:Allocat Seek deletion of Homes for No changes to local Recommendation No change to plan. ed sites at sites EL12B and Scotland, plan in respect of the noted Muselie Drive EL16B. Amos, allocated sites EL12B (site ELI6B) and + others and EL16B.

148 St Dunstans Seek allocation of (site ELI2B): site at the southwest [In the Central Borders alternative site of the village. This is Housing Market Area at West described in the Housing Assessment Lilliesleaf objection submission section, Chapter six, as being to the east the Reporter gives an of the B6359 and overall assessment that extending to 6 acres. the West Lilliesleaf site is unacceptable and that the site should be discounted]

5-17 Selkirk:Philiphau Seeks the inclusion Kendal Fish No change to Recommendation No change to the gh Mill fish farm of the whole site Farms development boundary noted in respect of development (site ESE19D) within the and no allocation the Development boundary. development outwith that boundary. Boundary. boundary as a Recommendation Inclusion of the redevelopment Section of the objection accepted in respect Philiphaugh Mill opportunity. site within the of the site within the development boundary redevelopment development to be identified as a opportunity. boundary as a land redevelopment Development use allocation opportunity for housing proposals would redevelopment use, recorded in the need a flood risk opportunity. (Refer table of land use assessment at to settlement map.) proposals (page 381) Development Inclusion of a note and on the Proposals Control stage. under the table of Map (page 382). Allocated Land Use Proposals (page 381): “The Redevelopment

149 Opportunity at Philiphaugh Mill is for housing use.” 5-18 Selkirk:Linglie Seeks deletion of Homes for No change to local Recommendation No change to plan. Road II (site site. Scotland plan, but potential non- noted. ESE26B) effectiveness (10 units) is noted for inclusion in the land supply chapter. 5-19 Selkirk:Cannon Seeks deletion of Smith, The area covered by Recommendation The reduction in Street/Linglie site. Smith, allocation ESE9B accepted. extent of the Road (allocated Gibb, should retain the land allocated housing site ESE9B) + others use allocations and site ESE9B to a corresponding smaller site. guidance contained in Amend the site the currently adopted capacity to eight Ettrick and Lauderdale units. (Refer to Local Plan (1995). settlement map.)

Site ESE9B (Linglie Road/Bridge Street/Cannon Street, Selkirk) is reduced in extent and capacity (20 reduced to 8).

5-21 Selkirk:Linglie Seeks deletion of Moffat, Reduce allocated site Recommendation The reduction in Road (allocated site. Wood, area on the Proposals accepted. The extent of the site ESE10B) + others Map to about 0.75ha at Reporter’s allocation site the west end of the site, assessment is that ESE10B to a redrawing the the smaller site smaller site (Refer development boundary should be identified to settlement map).

150 accordingly; and on the western part Amend the change the site entry in of the existing site capacity of the site the table on page 381 that is not in the to 30 units. of the local plan to flood plain. show 30 units and an Therefore the site area of 0.75ha. This that has been reduction in capacity is identified largely noted for inclusion in avoids the the chapter on housing floodplain, as land supply. defined by the area at risk of 1 in 200 Reduce indicative year flooding in the capacity from 100 to flood risk 30. assessment for a recent planning application on the site. 5-23 Selkirk : Seeks deletion of Homes for Change indicative Recommendation Change capacity of Comelybank site. Scotland capacity for this site accepted. site ESE13B to (site ESE13B) from 6 to 2 on page two. (Refer to 381 of the local plan. settlement map.)

5-23 Selkirk:Murison Seeks deletion of Mason, I conclude that the Recommendation Delete land use Hill (site site. Heatlie, proposed housing accepted. allocation ESE27B ESE27B) Inglis, allocation would have and change + others very serious development disadvantages in terms boundary in of pedestrian and accordance. vehicle safety, and due (Refer to to visual intrusion within settlement map.) the AGLV.

151 Delete from Plan 5-25 Selkirk:Deer Seeks allocation of Mr & Mrs A I consider that the Recommendation No change to plan. Park (site site for housing. Moffat proposed extension of noted. ESE100) the development boundary at this location would be unacceptable, irrespective of any shortcomings of allocated sites. 5-26 Selkirk:Goslawd Seeks deletion of Homes for In the Central Borders Recommendation No change to plan. ales (site site. Scotland, Housing Market Area, noted. Despite the ESE6B) Peden,Lingstä Peripheral Area Reporter’s specific dt, Fairbairn, chapter, 5, the Reporter conclusions on this Wood concludes that it would site his be undesirable to use recommendations in this site for additional Chapter six, Central housing, due to the Borders Housing inadequate access market Area roadway. However in Housing Sites the Central Borders Assessment take Housing Market Area precedence and do Housing Assessment, not recommend this Chapter six, the site for deletion. Reporters consider that the access problems at Goslawdales (Selkirk) could be accepted, in the context of the otherwise favourable location of this site; the small site capacity (5

152 units) and the short section of road affected.

5-27 Selkirk:Kerr's Seeks allocation of J S Crawford I conclude that this site Recommendation Include site at Land (site site for housing. Partnership would provide housing accepted. Kerr’s Land as a ESE2) (around 20 units) at a land use allocation convenient and for housing with a sustainable location, capacity of 24 units very well related to and change local services in Selkirk development and to public transport. boundary in It appears to be accordance. available and effective (Refer to to contribute to the settlement map.) housing supply within the primary development hub. It also appears to be compatible with the safeguarding of the route for the Selkirk bypass, and that a satisfactory and acceptable access to the existing A7 can be formed. The development would extend the urban area into the countryside, but this is inevitable if greenfield sites are

153 required on the edge of settlements. This would be within the designated Area of Great Landscape Value, but no especially sensitive view appears to be affected.

Allocate Kerr’s Land, Selkirk (ESE2) for 24 units. 5-29 Clarilawmuir, Seeks allocation of Buccleuch This is an essentially Recommendation No change to plan. near Selkirk site. Estates Ltd unsustainable location, noted. (site ESE23D) where a fairly small housing development would be poorly placed for convenient access to employment and community services. As such, it would be contrary to the structure plan development strategy. 5-31 Ashkirk:Cranfiel Seeks allocation of Mr + Mrs Extend Ashkirk Recommendation Inclusion of d (site EA1) site. Hunter development boundary accepted. Cranfield site as a to include this objection land use allocation site, making allowance for housing with a for structural capacity of 12 units landscaping along the and change northern perimeter. development boundary in

154 Allocate Cranfield, accordance (Refer Ashkirk (EA1) for 12 to settlement map). units. 5-32 Ashkirk,Manse Seeks the inclusion Miss I Amos Extend Ashkirk Recommendation Amend the Field of the site within the development boundary accepted. There is development village development to include objection currently an access boundary to boundary site; revisit merits of the constraint on the include the southernmost objection site. objection site and extension of the SEPA’s 1 in 200 remove the development boundary. year flood event southernmost maps show that extension (Refer to most of the settlement map). southernmost extension to the development boundary is at risk of flooding. 5-33 Yarrowford : Seeks inclusion of Mr & Mrs A Finally, with regard to Recommendation No change to plan. sites EYE4B & land immediately to Telfer, the objections to the noted. EYE5B the west of the L J two allocated sites, on Minchmoor western site EY4B. Beveridge’s grounds of Road Executry, effectiveness, location, Seeks the + others and access limitations, enlargement and I agree that most of the increased capacity criticisms noted above of the eastern site apply equally to the two (EY5B). allocations proposed in the local plan. It would Support for appear that the west allocations as within site is intended to be FLP. developed by a registered social

155 Oppose proposed landlord, but this new allocation at the location seems east end of the inappropriate for village. households who may well not have access to Concern at future private transport. In my proposals. view it would be preferable for Question the affordable housing to effectiveness of the be located in or close to proposed allocations the settlements, such and the suitability of as Selkirk or the larger the locations. villages, where employment, primary schools, and local services (such as shops and health centres) are more likely to be available within walking distance or served by a better bus service. However I acknowledge the desirability of providing for small scale growth at small settlements such as Yarrowford, and that these allocations have the support of the community council. Accordingly, on

156 balance, I support the retention of the two proposed housing allocations EY4B and EY5B, but question the suitability of either site for affordable housing unless specifically related to Yarrowford residents 5-36 Clovenfords: Seeks the inclusion Murray & For these reasons, I Recommendation Allocate development of a small piece of Burrell conclude that this accepted. Caddonhaugh site boundary at additional land at modest extension of for 6 units and Caddonhaugh Caddonhaugh within the development include within the the settlement boundary (to development boundary. accommodate around 6 boundary. (Refer houses) would be to settlement map.) acceptable.

I am able to reach this conclusion without reference to the objector’s criticisms of the allocated site EC13B, but these points are noted for consideration elsewhere.

Allocate Clovenfords Caddonhaugh for 6 units.

157 5-38 Clovenfords: Seeks deletion of Homes for No change Recommendation No change to plan. site EC8B (by site. Scotland noted. Woodburnside House) 5-38 Clovenfords Seeks deletion of Birch, This site appears to be Recommendation No change to plan. Meigle (Site site. CALA unsuited to residential noted. EC13B) Management development in several Seeks deletion of Ltd, important respects, but Application site or provision of Murray & offers some approved for landscape treatment Burrell Ltd, advantages. Erection of 70 at north side of site. + others Development of the site dwellinghouses with in an acceptable associated roads Seeks enlargement manner is likely to and landscaping - of the site. involve some 06/01404/FUL challenging design and Seeks increased management issues. density of site. The size of the site and indicative capacity should not be increased. 5-42 Clovenfords Seeks a new Mr & Mrs R & No change Recent planning Change the new school site dedicated access KG Harvey approval for school southern boundary ( ZSS5) road from the centre 07/00261/SBC, of the School site of the village via the boundary of school zSS5 to accord new housing to join site now extends with the recent the school on its further south. planning approval eastern side. and amend the development boundary accordingly. (Refer to settlement map.) 5-43 Clovenfords seeks a new James Pate This site appears to be Recommendation Allocate

158 West (site EC6) housing allocation and Cala well suited to accepted. Clovenfords West Management residential site for 60 units Ltd development, subject to and adjust detailed consideration development of the various issues boundary that have been raised. accordingly. (Refer None of these seem to to settlement map.) present insurmountable problems.

Allocate Clovenfords West (EC6) for 60 units

159 North Ettrick and Lauderdale Matrix

Reporter’s Policy/Site Objection Objector Reporter Considerations Council Report Ref Recommendation Recommendation Page Number

10-1 Oxton Seeks the following Oxton & No change to Oxton Recommendation No change to the Settlement changes in the local Channelkirk settlement profile in noted in respect Profile’s Information Profile plan settlement profile: Community relation to developers’ of the Information Relevant to Potential (1) Provision for Council contributions. Relevant to Developer developers’ Potential Contributions section. contributions towards Delete the first two Developer the refurbishment and sentences of the Contributions Amend the Settlement permanent extension of paragraph on areas section. Profile, Areas for Channelkirk Primary for longer term Longer Term School. expansion and Recommendation Expansion and (2) Adjustment of protection on page accepted in Protection section development boundary 358. relation to Areas (page 358) as follows: to avoid division of the for Longer Term Delete the first two “Coventry for Fencing” No change to Expansion and sentences of the site, currently on offer development Protection section paragraph starting at for redevelopment. boundary at former the words “The (3) Reconsideration of Coventry for Fencing Recommendation preferred”. areas for longer term site. noted in respect expansion, due to of the No change to Oxton presence of the gas Development Development main to the south and Boundary. Boundary. west of the settlement. 10-3 Oxton: Seeks the allocation of Greenwell No change to local Recommendation No change to plan. Oxton land on the west side of plan at Oxwell Mains noted. Mains (site the village for housing EO100) development, including

160 affordable and low cost housing. 10-4 Stow : These objections by Stow Recommendation (2) Recommendation Amend the Settlement Settlement the Community Council Community Scottish Borders accepted. Stow Profile, Conservation profile relate to : Council Council to consider Community Area Statement specific corrections to Council provided sections (page 402) to (1-2) Various items in descriptive text in a list of read as follows: the settlement profile settlement profile to be suggested description require put forward by Stow amendments to In the first paragraph, correction. Community Council, the wording of the first sentence replace for possible Settlement the words “Old Stow adjustments. Profile. Bridge and the Old Stow Kirk” with “Subscription Bridge and the Church of St Mary of Wedale”. In the second paragraph, second sentence replace the words “Old Stow Kirk” with “Old Parish Church”. In the third paragraph replace the words “Old Stow Kirk and the Old Stow Bridge” with the words “Old Parish Church and the Subscription Bridge”.

Amend the Settlement Profile, Alterations to Conservation Area

161 Boundary section (page 403), second sentence to replace the words “caravan park” with “Quoiting Green.”

10-4 Stow : These objections by Stow Recommendation (3) Recommendation No change to plan. Settlement the Community Council Community No change to noted. profile relate to : Council conservation area (3) The conservation boundary as area should not be proposed. reduced in size. Part of Townhead, 20 Lauder Road, and Haypark House should be retained within the conservation area.

10-4 Stow : These objections by Stow Recommendation (4) Recommendation No change to plan. Settlement the Community Council Community No specific allocation noted. profile relate to : Council of land for affordable (4) Provision should be housing. made in the village for rented accommodation.

10-4 Stow : These objections by Stow Conclusions Recommendation Amend the text of Settlement the Community Council Community (5) -- If this approach accepted. Policy ED4 - Prime profile relate to : Council were to be adopted, it Retail Frontage (5) The only remaining would be necessary to (page64) as follows: retail outlet in the amend local plan add the words “or village (the post office) policy ED4 by adding village” to the end of should have specific the words “or village” the second sentence.

162 protection for the at the end of the retention of retail use. policy; and to amend Also amend the the justification text by justification of Policy inserting “and villages” ED4 as follows: in the after “larger first sentence after the settlements” in line 1; words “larger the deletion of “town settlements” insert “and centre” in line 3; and villages”. In the third the deletion of the sentence after the word “town” in line 4. words “shop uses in” delete the words “town Recommendations centre” and after the (5) Wording of local words “viability of the” plan policy ED4 and delete the word “town”. supporting text to be adjusted as Include the Post Office recommended above; at Stow as prime retail policy ED4 frontage. (Refer to safeguarding to be settlement map.) applied to present post office/shop in Stow.

10-4 Stow : These objections by Stow Conclusions (6) -- Recommendation No change to plan. Settlement the Community Council Community One way forward noted. Note the requirement profile relate to : Council would be for the local for discussion with the (6) Provision should be community, in local community and made within the village consultation with the enterprise to accommodate small Scottish Borders organisations on industrial businesses. Council and the employment land in enterprise Stow. organisations, to identify and promote

163 the use of suitable sites for local business activities (both office and industrial services).

Recommendations (6) No change to local plan but suggestions at (6) above to be considered by Scottish Borders Council.

10-4 Stow : These objections by Stow Conclusions (7) -- Recommendation No change to plan. Settlement the Community Council Community These are detailed noted. profile relate to : Council issues on which there (7) The local plan is insufficient should identify policy information to put areas within the village forward changes to for Protected the current local plan. Recreational Open However these Space, Protected Open matters need to be Space, Area of Mixed taken forward (along Uses, and Industrial with the desirability of Allocation. making some modest provision for employment land) as part of the next round of planning work for the future of Stow.

Recommendations

164 (7) No change to local plan but suggestions at (7) above to be considered by Scottish Borders Council. 10-7 Stow : Seeks the inclusion of Bailey No change Recommendation No change to plan. Craigend the field on the noted. Road northeast side of Stow adjacent to Craigend Road. 10-8 Stow : Seeks the inclusion of Weir No change Recommendation No change to plan. Torsonce the land as a housing noted. Mains (site site. ESO13) 10-9 Lauder : Site should be Thirlestane No change to local Recommendation No change to plan. Economic allocated for Estates plan in relation to site noted. and economic/business ENFLP4. business purposes. developmen t at Edinburgh Road (site ENFLP4) 10-11 Lauder Seeks the inclusion of Lauderdale No change to Lauder Recommendation No change to plan. Conservatio additional wording in Community Conservation Area noted. n Area the Conservation Area Council Statement. Statement (page 316) to promote detailed, sensitive redevelopment in the vicinity of the Market

165 Place. 10-12 Lauder : Opposition to Holwill, No change to local Recommendation No change to plan. Land use Allanbank for Roberts, plan land use noted. allocations development. + others proposals ELA11B, at Allanbank Alternative site for the zSS3, and ELA12B. : housing new school at site ELA11B Wyndhead has already No change to position and new been accepted, and of the development school site should be preferred. boundary at zSS3; and Support for Allanbank Allanbank. as area for housing and new longer term school. Retain reference to expansion; Locating the school the west in the and housing here could have paragraph on Areas allocation advantages for the for Longer Term ELA12B community. Expansion and (Wyndhead) If development is to Protection on page . take place, the setting 317 of local plan. of Allanbank House should be protected by screen planting.

10-15 Lauder Seeks removal of Thirlestane Retain last sentence Recommendation No change to plan. Settlement statement within Profile Estates of first paragraph of noted. Profile : - “development to the section on Areas for Eastward east of the settlement, Longer Term expansion in the Thirlestane Expansion and and tourist Castle Garden and Protection (page 317). developmen Designed Landscape, t within will be resisted if it No specific Thirlestane would adversely affect designation of land Estate it”. within Thirlestane

166 Consideration should Estate for be given to specifically tourist/recreational designate land within development. Thirlestane Estate for tourist/ recreational development.

10-16 Lauder : The site capacity is Homes for No change to Recommendation No change to plan. Wyndhead incorrect. It should be Scotland indicative capacity noted. (site reduced from 135 to figure in local plan. ELA9B) 114 units in the various references.

10-17 Lauder : Seeks the inclusion of Thirlestane No change to Recommendation No change to land south land to the south of Estates, development noted for Development of Wyndhead Farm within Cala boundary south of Development Boundary. Wyndhead the settlement Management Wyndhead. Boundary. (site development boundary, Ltd Amend Settlement ELA10D) for use for residential Amend paragraph on Recommendation Profile, Areas for development during the Areas for Longer Term accepted for Longer Term period 2006-2011; and Expansion to omit Areas for Longer Expansion and also for this location to reference to the south Term Expansion Protection section be confirmed in the of the settlement, and Protection (page 317) first settlement profile as changing plural to section. sentence after the the preferred direction singular as necessary. words “to the west” by for longer term deleting the words “and development. south”. Counter objection to above - opposing new development in this area, as Cala is promoting an

167 alternative development site at Allanbank (objections reported separately). 10-19 St Seeks the inclusion of Miller Homes No change Recommendation No change to plan. Leonards, the land as a local plan Ltd noted. near Lauder residential allocation. (site ELA3) 10-20 Fountainhall Seeks provision for Stow No change Recommendation No change to plan. : Settlement affordable housing, Community noted. Profile : particularly rented Council Provision of housing at affordable Fountainhall. housing 10-21 Fountainhall Seeks allocation of site. Miller No change Recommendation No change to plan. : Housing Developments noted. provision Ltd (site EFO100)

168 North Roxburgh Matrix

Reporter’s Policy/Site Ref Objection Objector Reporter Considerations Council response Report Recommendation Page Number

12-3 Ancrum, RA1B Capacity unrealistic Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan South for housing site Scotland noted. Myrescroft 12-4 Development Development Davidson, No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Boundary, boundary should not Henderson noted. Crailing have been extended 12-5 Omission Inclusion of a new Buccleuch No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan REC100 site (REC100) for Estates noted. Hillview, Eckford housing allocation 12-10 Development Site REC2B is F L Jenkins Minor amendment to Recommendation Site REC2B will be site capacity allocated for housing the indicative housing accepted. allocated with an REC2B Hillview, with an indicative capacity of site REC2B indicative capacity of Eckford housing capacity of if the Council now has 5 units. 12 units – can it take a more realistic, lower this many? figure to substitute in the light of the developments to date.

12-11 Ednam Profile Inclusion of a new A Stewart, No change to the Recommendation Recommended site RE1B & site, RE2, for Ednamhill Ltd existing allocation for accepted. wording input to Omission RE2, housing allocation Ednam in local plan, amend settlement Ednam but an amendment to statement: wording of settlement statement, under “Once the allocated heading Areas for site is fully

169 Longer Term developed the Expansion and preferred area for Protection. future expansion beyond the period of this Local Plan (2011), if required, will be to the east side of the village. There is no structure plan requirement to allocate any further land in the village at the present time. The area suggested for future growth is indicative only and will require further detailed assessment during the next Local Plan Review.”

12-14 Omission Site Inclusion of site P Hottinger No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan north of Eden noted. Park (RE3), Ednam 12-16 Heiton RHE2B, Effectiveness of site Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Heiton Mains Scotland noted. 12-17 Dev Boundary & Inclusion of site and Ian Borthwick, No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Omission Site allocation for Neil Heggie, noted. RJ21D housing Colin Ladylands Dr, Buchanan & Jedburgh Partners

170 12-20 Omission Site Inclusion of site Mr H Jones, No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RJ22D RJ22D Sturrock noted. Hemphole, Galahill, Jedburgh 12-23 Development Inclusion of site James Spence Recommend that Recommendation Section of objection Boundary & finalised local plan be accepted. site RJ27D will be Omission amended to incorporated to allow RJ27D Wildcat incorporate lowest for 5-6 houses and Cleuch, lying part of objection development Jedburgh site only to enable boundary adjusted single row of 5-6 accordingly. Site houses to be built should be accessed parallel with Wildcat off Wildcat Cleuch Cleuch and (see settlement plan development boundary for changes). amended accordingly. Recommend that remainder of objection site is excluded from revised development boundary and remains undeveloped. Recommend strictly limited housing development which is permitted should be accessed off Wildcat Cleuch not Lanton Road.

12-26 Jedburgh Changes to H Wight No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan

171 Settlement statement noted. Allocations and Profile 12-27 Jedburgh Development D J Irvine No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Rejected boundary of noted. Housing Site Jedburgh should be RJ9 Oxnam extended to include Road site RJ9. 12-28 Objection to Site Allocation of site for Wood, Brown, Recommend that the Recommendation Site RJ10B Mayfield RJ10B Mayfield, housing Durwood, site RJ10B is not accepted. will be excluded from Jedburgh development, Butler allocated for housing development principally because and that the boundary and no the associated traffic development boundary longer allocated for generation. of Jedburgh is housing. Settlement amended to exclude boundary will be site RJ10B. adjusted accordingly. See settlement plan for changes.

12-30 Objection to site Allocation of site for Wood, Brown, No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RJ20B housing Butler noted. Sharplaw Road, development, Jedburgh principally because the associated traffic generation. 12-31 ZEL33 Formally withdrawn Oregon Timber No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Edinburgh Frame Ltd noted. Road, Jedburgh 12-32 Housing Inclusion of site CWP Scotland No change to the Recommendation No change to the LP allocation Ltd, Stormonth finalised local plan, but accepted. There is but DC case officer Abbotsford Darling, Smith for the Council to currently a planning to be alerted to Allotments Design explore the scope for application in for 25 Reporter’s

172 RKE18D, Kelso Associates, granting permission for houses on this site. recommendations. Kaya some infill housing as It is noted that there Consulting, part of a mixed use are a number of Steer Davies development of the objections to the Gleave Traffic site, including part of pending application. Engineers the site being retained Consideration of for allotments. this application should include the retention of space for allotments on land nearest the river and a much lower number of units on the site.

12-37 Spylaw Farm Inclusion of site Mr K Redpath, No change to the Recommendation No change to plan housing and RKE13 Spylaw Farm finalised local plan, noted. employment beyond that land allocations recommended in the RKE13, section of this report ONFLP4, EL13 relating to the formal & ENFLP2, session of the inquiry Kelso at Kelso.

12-41 Kelso Housing Number of local Kelso and No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Association concerns of a District Amenity noted. general nature in Society respect of Kelso and the policies and proposals 12-42 Kelso RKE8C Inclusion of site and Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan (Wallacenick 3) site capacities Scotland, J S noted.

173 & RKE15F Crawford (Wallacenick 2) Partnership 12-44 Kelso, zRO11 Allocated site Royal Mail Recommend that the Recommendation Site zRO11 Henderson’s incorporates land area shown in plan as accepted. Planning Henderson’s Buildings owned by the Royal zRO11, including the permission Buildings will be Mail which is not plan on P311 should 05/00184/FUL on amended to exclude included in the be amended to part of the site. land owned by the planning permission exclude any land Royal Mail. The new for the within the ownership of site boundary will redevelopment of Royal Mail. Once therefore encompass Henderson's amended it would be the area granted with Buildings limited in area to planning permission. geographical See settlement plan boundaries of planning for changes. permission granted in respect of planning application 05.00184/FUL - in other words related solely to the red-line development of the Henderson’s Buildings property.

13-1 Kelso Retail • ‘Keltek’ site at CWP Scotland Conclude that the Recommendations An additional note Sites PIE, which and Sainsbury most suitable location accepted. shall be added under includes part of plc for providing the the Allocated Land the Forbes appropriate scale of Use proposals factory premises, Kelso Chamber food superstore for relating to the retail should be of Trade Kelso would be on and employment allocated for a what is known as the allocations: 5,000sqm gross futureKelso & Keltek/Forbes site at

174 floor area (GFA) Councillor A Pinnaclehill. “The Keltec/Forbes retail superstore Nicol site is allocated for a together with a Accordingly I food superstore (with petrol filling Kelso recommend that the associated parking, station, access Community Keltek/Forbes site, as servicing and roundabout and Council & T proposed by CWP in landscaping as well associated Weatherston its outline planning as a petrol filling landscaping, in application, is station). This place of the allocated in the local superstore will not zRD2 (Spylaw plan for a food exceed 4,500sqm Farm) site shown superstore (with gross floor area and for Kelso in the associated parking, with no more than finalised local servicing and 20% of its sales area plan landscaping as well as being devoted to • This objection is a petrol filling station). non-food comparison linked to a In order to safeguard goods. proposal by the the shops of Kelso same objector to town centre from A new 5 arm access provide higher unacceptable levels of roundabout at standard impacts from the new Spylaw will serve the replacement land store development at new food store and for the Pinnaclehill, I its associated petrol Keltek/Forbes recommend that the filling station and land affected, as size of the single also be designed to well as new supermarket to be remove the existing employment land permitted at double T junctions of on a site (which Pinnaclehill should not Yetholm Rd and is also in the exceed 4,500sqm Station Rd onto the control of the gross floor area and A698. objector) with no more than 20% immediately to of its sales area being An area of land has the south of the devoted to non-food been allocated for a

175 existing PIE comparison goods. planned extension of • It is argued that the Pinnaclehill this proposed A new 5 arm access Industrial Estate. southward roundabout which This land will be extension of the would not only serve allocated for PIE should be the new foodstore and Employment and allocated in place its associated petrol allow for the of zEL29 (which filling station but would development of adjoins zRD2) in also be designed to Class 4, 5 & 6 uses. the finalised local remove the existing Any planning plan double T junctions of application for a • These combined Yetholm Rd and superstore will only proposals, if Station Rd onto the be considered if the accepted, would A698 (all as shown in retail site and the necessitate the access roundabout industrial site changes to other design put forward by extension are policies, CWP as part of its brought forward in a proposals and package of proposals) single package of statements in the proposals.” finalised plan A landscaping related to Kelso scheme, in particular The allocations retailing and to provide buffer zRD2 and zEL29 at employment. screen planting along Spylaw Farm will be the boundaries of the deleted from the Keltek site, to a Local Plan. standard approved by the planning authority See settlement plan for allocation An allocation for a changes. planned extension of the Pinnaclehill Industrial Estate, all as

176 proposed in the package put forward on behalf of CWP.

There would be no need or justification for allocations zRD2 and zEL29 at Spylaw Farm as shown in the finalised local plan and on that basis I would recommend their deletion from the local plan when it is adopted.

13-40 Food Removal of the Deanway These combined Recommendations The 2nd paragraph in Supermarket allocation zRD2 for a Development conclusions and accepted. the Areas for Longer Allocation supermarket on the Ltd, G H Millar recommendations, if Term Expansion and (zRD2), Kelso south-western edge (West Foulden) accepted, would Protection will be of Kelso at Spylaw Ltd, Trevor W necessitate changed as follows: Farm. Some of the Black, Colin consequential changes objectors also McGrath, Tom by the Council to “A retail site has seeking an allocation Weatherston, related policies, been allocated at for alternative The Mill proposals and Pinnaclehill on the supermarket sites in Warehouse (G statements in the former Keltek/Forbes and around Kelso. At Russell), finalised local plan site. The the hearing the sites Andrew Haig, concerning Kelso safeguarded that were being Archie and retailing and employment site at promoted were at Maggie employment – Pinnaclehill is Sprouston Rd Stewart, Louise including, but not protected under

177 (Deanway) and at Oliphant, CWP restricted to, changes ED1, allowing for Ednam Rd (Miller) Scotland Ltd, to: the allocations Class 4, 5 & 6 uses with support Miller zRD2 and zEL29; the to be developed. expressed in written Dev/Tesco references to Expansion of this objections for a Stores Pinnaclehill Industrial employment area will variety of other sites. Estate (zEL30) and to be to the south-east the Spylaw of the site. The Roundabout on the Prime Retail Kelso Settlement Frontage Profile proposals map: designations on the the wording of Policy Kelso Central map ED1, including its are protected by Justification section. Policy ED4.”

12-45 Amendment to Inclusion of site Mr & Mrs D No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Development RLA5 Orchard Wells Page noted. Boundary & Omission Site RLA5 Orchard Wells, Lanton 12-49 Morebattle, Non-allocation of site W G Walker No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RMO1 RM01 for housing noted. Templehall development 12-51 Conservation Sandwood should D M Harris No change to plan in Recommendation No change to plan Area Boundary not be within the Burland response to objection, accepted. There is adjoining site boundary of the but possible planning permission RN14, Nisbet conservation area of consideration of on this site for Nisbet. extension of housing and the conservation area demolition of boundary southwards buildings. to incorporate old barn

178 structure located immediately to south of Sandwood, adjoining western end of the old track corridor. 12-53 RSP2B Church Impact of the Sprouston No change to plan, Recommendation Indicative capacities Field, Sprouston Council’s proposed Community beyond minor accepted. Planning should be changed housing allocation at Council amendments to the permission for all 3 for RSP2B Church RSP2B on the indicative housing sites already Field and RSP3B character of capacities shown on approved. Teasel Bank should Sprouston P391 of finalised plan be 18 units each. for sites RSP2B (to 18 There is a further RSP4D Dean Road units) and RSP3B (to application for 8 should also be 18 units) as well as affordable housing included as a formal inclusion of site units, at the land housing allocation RSP4D as a housing west of the primary with an indicative allocation for 9 units. school, planning capacity of 9 units application no: (see settlement plan 04/02160/FUL. for changes).

12-55 Stichill, RST4B Site boundary of Eildon Housing No change to plan Whilst the Based on the Bogle Foot allocation RST4B in Association except for a marginal recommendation is Reporter Stichill requires adjustment to eastern accepted for the recommendation, the adjustment to extend boundary of the purposes of the eastern boundary marginally beyond allocation beyond modification will be slightly the Council’s extent of Council’s process, the adjusted to allocate ownership at this land ownership of site Reporter’s land only within the location RST4B to new line put recommendation is Council’s ownership. forward by objector, to a misinterpretation (see settlement plan incorporate additional of the actual for changes). narrow wedge of land objection which was

179 which has not been that the boundary contested. should be adjusted (and reduced) on the eastern side and an additional wedge incorporated on the north western side of the site, to form an L- shaped site. It would be anticipated that the objector would make their case further as an objection to the proposed modification.

12-56 Conservation Omission of the Yetholm • there is justification Recommendations The conservation Area & Recreation Ground Community to amend the accepted. area boundary will Development of Town Yetholm Council, D G conservation area be changed to Area from the Beveridge, W boundary to incorporate the Boundaries, conservation area E and G incorporate the Recreation Ground Yetholm Brooker, G Recreation Ground and the northern end Harding and B and at the northern of the Haugh. Mellor, A J end of the Haugh Nicol, Broad, • there is justification RY1B site off Aitchison, Lee, to allocate only Deanfield Court Homes for one new housing (erroneously named Scotland area, namely RY4B in previous RY4B, in addition matrix) will be

180 to RY1B, and to retained as an amend the allocated housing development site and RY4B boundary at the Morebattle Road southern end of (erroneously named Yetholm RY1B site adjacent accordingly. None to Woodbank Row in of the other sites previous matrix) will put forward for also be allocated for allocation are housing and the justified in my view development • there is justification boundary will be to amend the adjusted accordingly. development boundary to The development incorporate the boundary will be areas affected by changed to the planning incorporate the permission already areas affected by the granted at Blunty’s planning permission Mill. There is no granted at Blunty’s justification to Mill (see settlement make any other plan for all above amendments to the changes). development boundary in my view.

12-60 Sites RY3 Allocation of sites Wauchope, I recommend the Recommendations Changes repeated (Blunty’s Mill) RY3 and RY4B for Yetholm appropriate and accepted. from previous and RY4B housing Community necessary changes to recommendations: (Morebattle Rd), development Council, D G the local plan in

181 Yetholm Beveridge, W response each of the The conservation E and G last 3 bullet points area boundary will Brooker, G above, which be changed to Harding and B summarise my overall incorporate the Mellor, A J conclusions and Recreation Ground Nicol, Broad, recommendations. and the northern end Aitchison, Lee, • the only currently of the Haugh. Homes for allocated site, Scotland RY1B, is being RY1B site off promoted solely for Deanfield Court affordable houses (erroneously named once access RY4B in previous issues are matrix) will be resolved; retained as an • there are allocated housing limitations on the site and RY4B scope for infill and Morebattle Road brownfield (erroneously named developments RY1B site adjacent within the to Woodbank Row in development previous matrix) will boundary - quite also be allocated for rightly, in my view, housing with an the development indicative capacity of boundary has been 18 units and the tightly drawn to development safeguard the boundary will be setting and adjusted accordingly. distinctive character of Town The development Yetholm and Kirk boundary will be Yetholm; changed to

182 • in most areas of incorporate the the settlement any areas affected by the development planning permission proposals would granted at Blunty’s also need to be Mill (see settlement assessed in the plan for all above context of the changes). conservation area status of much of Yetholm.

183 South Roxburgh Matrix

Reporter’s Policy/Site Objection Objector Reporter Considerations Council Report Ref Recommendations Recommendations Page Number

14-2 Bonchester Inclusion of site McLean May No change to plan. Recommendation No change to plan Bridge, RB6D noted. Hob's Burn 14-3 Development Denholm Mill area Nicholas Cook Correct the Recommendation Error to be corrected. Boundary, and the Manse typographical error accepted. The profile’s reference Denholm Field should not be referred to in respect to south-west in Areas within the of profile’s reference for Longer Term development to south-west in Expansion and boundary Areas for Longer Protection will be Term Expansion and changed to read “south Protection which east” instead. should read “south east” instead.

14-5 Denholm Indicative capacity N Cook No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RD3B & of these allocated noted. RD4B, sites increased to Denholm allow terraced housing 14-6 Settlement Inclusion of site Andrew Haddon No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Profile & noted. Manse Field, Denholm 14-7 Hawick Extension of the Mr & Mrs J No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Development development Turnbull noted.

18479 Boundary : boundary in the Longbaulk vicinity of Longbaulk Rd 14-9 Hawick Development Mr B Emmerson No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Development boundary in the noted. Boundary : vicinity of Wellogate Wellogate on the southern edge of Hawick 14-10 Hawick Development Mr B Emmerson No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Development boundary in the noted. Boundary : vicinity of Wilton Wilton Dean Dean excludes Wilton Dean 14-11 Hawick Site Site not effective Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RHA2A : Scotland noted. Heronhill 14-12 Hawick Site Site not effective Homes fro No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RHA10A : Scotland noted. Galabrae 14-12 Hawick Site Site not effective Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RHA25B : Scotland noted. Stirches 2 14-13 Hawick Site Site not effective Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RHA27B : Scotland noted. Gala Law 14-13 Hawick Site Site not effective Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RHA27C : Scotland noted. Gala Law 14-14 Hawick, Definition of the Lidl UK No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Central Area Central Area of noted. and retailing Hawick to include

18580 site zR08 the site (zR08) of the Lidl Store there and secondly, by designating its store site there for retailing. 14-15 Hawick Protected area Hawick No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Settlement was not included Community noted. Profile : Policy for further Council BE9 education 14-16 Hawick Sites Site not effective Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RHA12B & Scotland, Scot noted. RHA13B (Summerfield 1 & 2) 14-17 Hawick Sites Inclusion of site JS Crawford No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RHA15 : Partnership, noted. Miller’s Knowe Buccleuch Estates 14-18 Hawick Site area of JS Crawford No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Allocated Site RHA21B should Partnership, noted. RHA21B : have an indicative Buccleuch Leaburn 2 housing capacity of Estates, Hawick 40 units. Community Council 14-19 Hawick Inclusion of site G Hamilton No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan Allocated Site noted. RHA21: Broomlands 14-20 Hawick Site Site not effective Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RHA24A : Scotland, noted. Crumhaughill Hawick

18681 Community Council 14-21 Hawick Objects to the National Grid Possible changes to Recommendation No changes to plan at Employment protection of the (NG) & Scotland the plan, pending noted. The site has no present. Further Land Policy Mansfield Rd site Gas Networks more detailed current planning discussions to take site zEL50 : zEL50 under discussions and application on it. A place regarding site Mansfield Rd Policy ED1 - assessment by the large part of it has allocation before plan Employment Land Council in advance been identified as adoption. Safeguarding of the local plan back in use in the being adopted. Vacant & Derelict Land Survey 2007.

14-22 Hawick Policy Objection to Hawick Knitwear No change to local Recommendations No change to plan ED1 Site safeguarding of Ltd plan but there is noted. No current zEL52 : employment land need for more application for this Liddesdale Rd detailed site. Site not identified consideration and in Vacant & Derelict assessment of the Land Survey 2007. case put forward by objectors in respect of this particular site than appears to have been undertaken by Council to date.

14-25 Profile, Action Newcastleton Newcastleton & No change to the Recommendations Development boundary Plan 4.3 and settlement profile; District finalised local plan, accepted. will be altered slightly G4 Flooding, drainage Community except in in accordance with Newcastleton constraints in the Council regularisation of recommendation. village; and how development Please see settlement the procedures boundary as plan for changes.

18782 and resulting proposed by evaluations are objectors and in Policy G4 will be undertaken in redrafting of Policy changed as follows: terms of Ch.4 G4 to make policy Action Plan wording more “Only where, due to coherent and unanticipated planning understandable, applications, historical without changing its land use allocations or scope, including a new information on cross reference to flood risk emerging, SPP7 paragraph 15. development is proposed in locations where there is evidence of flood risk, will consideration be given to proposals where the risk should be managed in accordance with the principles set out in the Risk Framework provided in Scottish Planning Policy SPP7 Planning and Flooding, or any subsequent government guidance which supersedes it.”

14-29 Newcastleton Site not effective Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RNE1B – West Scotland noted. of North Hermitage

18883 Square 14-29 Newcastleton Site not effective Homes for No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RNE2B – Scotland noted. South of Holmhead 14-30 Profile, No requirement for Newcastleton & Deletion of the Recommendation Deletion of Open Developer open space, District reference made in accepted. Space, Recreation and Contributions, recreation and play Community profile to need for Play Area Provision Newcastleton areas in settlement Council additional play area section in Information because of existing in Newcastleton Relevant to Potential play park, playing under heading Developers fields, polysport Information Relevant Contributions. facilities and to Potential school grounds. Developer Contributions.

14-30 Newcastleton Inclusion of site Buccleuch No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RNE5D – Estates noted. Deep Dale 14-32 Newcastleton Inclusion of site Buccleuch No change to plan Recommendation No change to plan RNE100 – Estates noted. Railway Field

18984 South Tweeddale Matrix

Reporter’s Policy/ Objection Objector Recommendation Considerations Council Recommendation Report Site Ref Page Number

7-1 Neidpath Inclusion of Kerr, SBC No change to plan. Planning approval Allocate school site within the School Site school site was received on 28 plan and adjust development May 2007 boundary accordingly. (Refer (07/00469/SBC) for a to settlement map.) school on this site. This approval was also reviewed by the Scottish Executive. The detailed planning consent reviewed by the Scottish Executive show very significant variations from the initial designs discussed at the Local Plan Inquiry with the objectors. The Education and Lifelong Learning Department have worked in partnership with the five adjoining residents to deliver specific solutions on access that mitigate their concerns which

190 has been recognised by the residents.

A detailed school travel plan has been developed with parents, pupils and the school that deals with the concerns raised by the reporter in this regard.

A further traffic assessment has been undertaken that corrects some of the inconsistencies in the assessment discussed at the hearing.

An Option Appraisal report was produced that evaluated the two sites Neidpath Grazings and Violet Bank. From that report Neidpath Grazings came out as being the most favoured site.

191 Having evaluated the new proposal as a viable option and considered the outcome of the previous consultation, the Council agreed in January 2006 that Halyrude would move into Kingsland’s existing building in Rosetta Road and a further consultation would be held on use of Neidpath Grazings. In April 2006 following the second consultation the Council approved the use of Neidpath Grazings subject to four conditions being met.

Three of the four conditions relating to road safety for children, planning and Scottish Executive consent are being met and

192 the final condition is to validate whether use of Neidpath Grazings presents best value for the Council. 7-7 Peebles: Seeks provision Clay I have concluded in the Recommendations Amend the development Proposed for housing previous section of this noted. boundary to include the Violet school site at development at report that the primary Bank field for housing Violet Bank Violet Bank. school proposal at Violet It is recommended to purposes (subject to further (site zSS4) Bank should be retained. accept the Reporters’ consultation with SEPA) with recommendation for an indicative capacity of 40 For the reasons given the purposes of the units. (Refer to settlement above, I recommend that proposed map.) the playing field at Violet modification process. Bank should retain the school allocation on all or In response to the part of the area, the Reporters’ remainder becoming Recommendation, it available for school should be noted that sports facilities or other the site has appropriate use within considerable issues the development related to flooding as boundary. A test layout well as accessibility. would be required to Therefore further ensure that access to the consultation will take remainder of the land is place with SEPA to maintained. be considered by Council at the Add the Violet Bank adoption stage of the (field) site to the land use Plan. proposals in the local

193 plan, with an indicative capacity of 40 units on an area of 2ha. 7-9 Peebles Deletion of site. Peebles Golf Delete Elliot’s Park Recommendation Omit housing allocation on housing site Reallocation of Club, Anderson (TP6B) as housing accepted. siteTP6B from settlement map TP6B: Elliot’s site to amenity allocations from the local and land use proposals table. Park space. plan land use proposals. Refer to settlement map.

Note no change to the No change in Development development boundary at Boundary. Elliot’s Park. 7-11 Peebles: Seeks Clyde & Forth Add the Venlaw site to Recommendation Inclusion of the Venlaw site Venlaw (site allocation of Homes Ltd the land use proposals in accepted. TP11 on settlement map and TP11) site. the local plan, as a within land use proposals table housing allocation, with It should be noted with an indicative capacity of an indicative capacity of that there remain 45 units. 45 units. concerns with regard to impact on the Change development Change development landscape as well as boundary in accordance. boundary to include the access into this site, (Refer to settlement map.) Venlaw site. and possible impact on archaeology.

The proposed modification will now be subject to the formal consultation process. 7-13 Peebles: Seeks deletion Homes for No change to plan. Recommendation No change to plan. March of site. Scotland noted. Street/George Street : site

194 zRO7 7-13 Peebles: Allocation of Tweed Homes, Reduce extent of Recommendation Reduce extent development Kerfield: site site. Peebles Civic development boundary to accepted. boundary to exclude Kerfield TP18 and Objects to Society, exclude Kerfield Farmhouse and steading. eastward statement of Smith, farmhouse and steading. Outline planning Refer to settlement map. expansion longer term Leeson consent for the expansion. In the text on Areas for erection of a The rewording of the Seeks Longer Term Expansion dwellinghouse was settlement profile on Areas for exclusion of (page 364), delete the approved by the Longer Term Expansion will be Kerfield word “predominantly” in Tweeddale Area as follows: farmhouse and the first sentence, and Committee on 25 steading within end the sentence after June 2005 subject to “Once the allocated sites are the the word “Tweed”. conditions and the fully developed the preferred development modification of an areas for future expansion boundary. No change to existing section 75 beyond the period of this Local Objects to development boundary, agreement. Plan (2011) will be to the east housing in relation to proposed of Peebles, on the south side development at housing sites at the Members should note of the Tweed. Expansion of this site. Kerfield. that a planning the town to the East is application has been identified in the Scottish Note also the reductions approved on part of Borders in the extent of the the objection site for Structure Plan 2001-2011 (see development boundary house however the Page 13, paragraph 1.31 of already recommended at consent has yet to be the Scottish Borders Structure Kerfield farmhouse and to be issued - Plan). Expansion in this steading in preceding 07/00596/REM. direction will be dependant sections. upon the tackling of various issues including, but not limited to, congestion in the town centre, schools capacity, the provision of a second crossing

195 over the River Tweed, sewerage constraints, and the outcome of SEPA’s second generation of flood maps. Development to the North, South and West of the settlement will be resisted. The area for future growth that is indicated in this profile will require further detailed assessment during the next Local Plan Review.” 7-16 Peebles: Seeks deletion Redrow Homes, Reduce land use Recommendation Reduce land use proposal Employment of allocation + others proposal zEL17 to omit accepted. zEL17 to omit the two larger land site and the two larger fields on fields on the west side, zEL17: South safeguarding of the west side, retaining retaining the allocation Parks site for the allocation immediately to the west of residential immediately to the west allocation zEL46, as far west development. of allocation zEL46, as as the field boundary. Various far west as the field objections to boundary. Reduce development the location and boundary. (Refer to scale of this Note also the reductions settlement map.) employment in the extent of the land proposal. development boundary already recommended at South Parks (site zEL17). 7-20 Peebles: Seeks housing Redrow Homes, In relation to the request Recommendation No change to plan. Auction Mart allocation. + others to re-draw the noted. (site TP1) development boundary to

196 embrace the other 6 fields, for the reasons given above I conclude that it would be inappropriate to do so, as such a major commitment would be in conflict with the provisions of the structure plan strategy, and would also require consideration of several important issues which lie outwith the remit of this local plan.

No change to development boundary in relation to the wider area of objection (7 fields).

No change to text on Areas for Longer Term Expansion and Protection, in relation to this area.

No change to development boundary, in relation to proposed housing sites at the Auction Mart (TP1).

197 7-23 Peebles: Seeks Standard Life I find that sites (c) and Recommendation No change to plan. Sites at allocation of Assurance (d), at Kingsmeadows noted. Kingsmeadow housing. Company Stables, due to their s House small size and complex local settings, are inappropriate for specific land use allocation for housing development. Any proposals here should be considered in the context of the relevant policy provisions of the local plan.

No change to local plan in relation to the two sites at Kingsmeadows Stables.

7-25 Peebles: Seeks the Mr & Mrs D No change to Recommendation No change to plan. Development reinstatement Coltman development boundary, noted. boundary at within the in relation to proposed Bonnington development housing sites at Road boundary of Bonnington Road. land between Craigerne Road and Bonnington Road 7-27 Peebles: Glen Supports the CALA Delete Glen Crescent Since the Local Plan No change to plan. Crescent (site housing Management (TP13B) as housing Inquiry took place, TP13B) allocation but Ltd, allocation from the local planning permission seeks to raise Redrow Homes plan land use proposals. has been granted for

198 the indicative Change development 50 units on the 16 capacity of the boundary to exclude the April 2007. site above the Glen Crescent site. Development of site 45 units. has also Seeks deletion commenced. It is of allocation therefore considered stating that it that the above are should be pragmatic reasons to replaced by a retain the site within new allocation the development at the Auction boundary and its Mart site. allocation. 7-29 Peebles: Objects to site. Redrow Homes, In addition, if the Recommendation No change to plan. Whitehaugh: Objects to no Peebles Civic allocation is to be noted. housing site development Society, retained, I conclude that TP7B brief having Taylor the site boundary should been produced Woodrow not be changed, nor the for site. Developments indicative capacity (106) Objects to Ltd unless a detailed further planning permission has development of been issued for a Peebles. significantly different figure.

The objection relating to the longer term context for development east of Peebles is considered in the next section. 7-31 Peebles: Seek a more Taylor At the end of the first Recommendation Amend settlement profile Safeguarding explicit Woodrow paragraph on Areas for accepted. wording as follows: for eastward commitment Developments Longer Term Expansion

199 expansion: and Ltd, and Protection (page At the end of the first east of safeguarding + others 364), delete the last 5 paragraph on Areas for Longer Whitehaugh for the words of the last Term Expansion and (site TP39D) expansion of sentence. Continue text Protection (page 364), delete and Hunters’ Peebles to the as follows: the last 5 words of the last Park (site east, on the sentence. Continue text as TP36D) south side of To this end, the Council follows: the river. will promote the necessary studies of the “To this end, the Council will relevant issues, including promote the necessary studies those noted above, with of the relevant issues, a view to bringing including those noted above, forward an alteration to with a view to bringing forward the local plan to set out an alteration to the local plan the planning framework to set out the planning for the expansion area, framework for the expansion to the form the basis of area, to the form the basis of land allocations and land allocations and phasing, phasing, and and arrangements for arrangements for contributions to the necessary contributions to the infrastructure improvements.” necessary infrastructure improvements.

7-35 Peebles: Objections are Peebles Civic No change to plan. Recommendation No change to plan. Settlement to overall scale Society, noted. profile: scale of allocation of Collier of housing land for housing provision in Peebles.

Seeks the settlement

200 profile to state more clearly its implied implication that no further sites will be allocated for housing within the period of the local plan, even if there is a shortfall in the 5 year land supply. 7-37 Peebles: Seeks that Peebles Civic On page 28 of the local Recommendation NOTE: This issue has also Settlement edge-of-town- Society plan, insert the phrase accepted. been dealt with under Policy profile: centre public “public car parking” into G5 – Developer Contributions. developer car parks item 3 of the list where contributions should be contributions may be Amend settlement profile as to edge-of- added to the list required. follows: town-centre of items (on car parks page 365) On page 28 of the local plan, where insert the phrase “public car developers’ parking” into item 3 of the list contributions where contributions may be will be required. required. 7-38 Peebles: Omission of Peebles Civic No change to Town Recommendation No change to plan. Various Tweed Green Society Centre boundary at noted. objections by from the town Tweed Green. Peebles Civic centre Society boundary.

201 Peebles Peebles Civic No changes to Recommendation No change to plan. Conservation Society conservation area noted. Area: boundary at Rosetta adjustments to Road and boundary. Kingsmeadows Road.

Information Peebles Civic No change to local plan Recommendation No change to plan. about new Society noted. housing sites.

Peebles Peebles Civic No change to Recommendation No change to plan. Common Good Society development boundary in noted. Lands. relation to the Common Good Land.

Peebles Peebles Civic No change to the Recommendation No change to plan. development Society development boundary at noted. boundary. the two woodland sites, Whitehaugh Farm steading, and Soonhope Stables, but restrict boundary at Kerfield to exclude the farm steading, as recommended in Kerfield section above.

202 Peebles Peebles Civic Restrict development Recommendation Restrict the development development Society boundary at Rosetta accepted. boundary at Rosetta Caravan boundary. Caravan Park to exclude Park to exclude the two upper two upper fields. Members should note fields. (Refer to settlement that a planning map.) consent for Change of use of land to site 60 static caravans and or a tent field on part of the objection site has been approved – 07/00004/FUL. Hoever it is considered that this use is still compatible with countryside uses and as such does not need to be included in the development boundary.

203

8-1 Brought Seeks the inclusion Lewin, Delete site TB9 from Recommendation Delete allocation of site TB9 on: Land of a site (TB5) at + others local plan (all references) accepted. and amend development at Dreva Dreva Road as a and amend development boundary accordingly. Road local plan housing boundary accordingly. Members should note southea allocation. that whilst site TB9 Amend the development st of Seek the exclusion of No change to has an extant boundary to include the lower Springw allocated housing site development boundary at planning consent, (southwestern) half of the ell Brae TB9. Corstane and Calzeat. that consent dates objection site TB5, the (site from the 1970’s and northeastern boundary to be TB5); Amend development no developer interest aligned with the northeastern boundary to include the has been shown on limit of the properties in Brought lower (southwestern) half the site. It is Springwell Brae. Allocate site on: Land of objection site TB5, the therefore considered for 10 units. (Refer to at Dreva northeastern boundary to appropriate to accept settlement map.) Road : be aligned with the the Reporters’ Elmsfiel northeastern limit of the recommendation. d (site properties in Springwell TB9 Brae. Whilst it is …the site to the recommended that southeast of Springwell the Reporters’ Brae could be accepted recommendation is for a limited development followed, it should be of up to 10 houses. noted that site TB5 at Dreva Road has an issues which will require addressing in terms of accessibility onto the A701 and would need to be resolved at application stage and

204 before any development could commence. 8-3 Brought Opposed to Lewin, Amend text on Areas for Recommendation The rewording of the on: development of the Dunlop Longer Term Expansion accepted. settlement profile on Areas for expansi field adjoining the (page 194) to include the Longer Term Expansion will be on west west side of the phrase “adjoining the as follows: at A701. Biggar Road” after “at Corstan Supports Corstane”. “The preferred area for future e development expansion beyond the period elsewhere in the No change to of this Local Plan (2011) will village, including development boundary at be the area to the West of the possibly at Corstane. Corstane. A701 at Corstane adjoining the Supports land at Biggar Road. The area for Corstane, with a future growth that is indicated potential capacity of in this profile will require 40 units, to be further detailed assessment included within the during the next Local Plan development Review.” boundary. Questions the effectiveness of allocated housing site TB9 (40 units), which is served by the Dreva Road. 8-5 Brought Seeks the inclusion Warnoc No change to Recommendation No change to plan. on: of land at the south k development boundary at noted. Develop end of Calzeat. ment Broughton/Calzeat boundar within the y at development

205 Calzeat boundary, with a view to residential use. 8-7 Propose Oppose the Pye, No change to the Recommendation Amend Allocated Land Use d allocation of the site The finalised plan but accepted. Proposals Table within the housing at Burnside for Walker consideration given to settlement profile stating: site housing. Family, phasing of development It should be noted TE6B Supports the + others of site TE6B. that whilst it is “Consideration is to be given (Burnsid allocation. recommended that to phasing of development of e), the Reporters’ site.” Eddlesto recommendation is n accepted, the site is of a small scale and phasing of development may not be possible. 8-9 Propose Seeks allocation of Hudson, No change to plan. Recommendation No change to plan. d the Darnhall Farm Paschke noted. housing site (TE4). , site TE4 Seeks exclusion of + others (Darnhal the Darnhall site from l Farm), allocation. Eddlesto n 8-11 Propose Seeks allocation of Grierson No change to plan. Recommendation No change to plan. d Bellfield instead of or noted. housing in addition to site at Burnside Bellfield, Eddlesto n 8-15 Site at Seeks the inclusion Forsyth No change to plan. Recommendation No change to plan. Haltoun, of the site within the noted.

206 Meldons development Road, boundary. Eddlesto n 8-16 Develop Objector is Paschke No change to plan. Recommendation No change to plan. ment concerned because noted. Boundar an area of garden y ground of 5 Station Amend Lye has been ment, excluded from the Eddlesto finalised local plan, n whereas that land was previously included in the Development Boundary in the Tweeddale Local Plan 1996. 8-17 Propose Seeks the allocation Glenrath No change to plan. Recommendation No change to plan. d of a site at Lyne Farms noted. housing Station for housing. Ltd site at Lyne Station 8-18 Cardron Seeks the allocation CALA No change to Recommendation The rewording of the a of land to the Manage development boundary. accepted. settlement profile on Areas for expansi southwest of the ment Longer Term Expansion will be on: B7062 for Ltd, Replace text in section as follows: Plumer's development in the + others on Areas for Longer Knowe current local plan, to Term Expansion and “Given the constraints and (site replace the reference Protection with the sensitivity of the setting of TCO3) to longer term following: Cardrona, it has not been

207 expansion in this Given the constraints possible to identify an area for area. and sensitivity of the longer term expansion.” Objections from the setting of Cardrona, it community council has not been possible to and the Peebles identify an area for Civic Society oppose longer term expansion. the identification of the area to the southwest of the B7062 for longer term expansion, the PCS also opposing in principle any enlargement of Cardrona, and any continuing role for the settlement in accommodating a significant level of housing development in the HMA. Local residents at Cardrona have written to oppose the enlargement of Cardrona to the west of the road. 8-22 Innerleit Seek to omit the Clark, Increase indicative Recommendation Increase the indicative hen: indicative figure of 30 + others capacity of site TI6B to accepted. capacity of site TI6B to 55 and Kirkland units for site TI6B, 55, and make any update land use proposal s (site leaving the number to necessary consequential It should be noted tables. TI6B) be determined by the changes to tables that the increase in

208 and preparation of an elsewhere. capacity Amend the site boundary of future agreed master plan; recommended is in TI6B to take in the narrow strip expansi and for the Amend allocation line with the of land alongside the Burn. on settlement proposals boundary to include strip approved planning (Refer to settlement map.) map to identify the of land owned by Mr brief which has been expansion area to the Hughes for potential undertaken by the Site TI6B to be renamed as west of the Kirklands pedestrian link to Leithen Council. “Kirklands/ Willowbank” in site, to give a context Road. Land Use Proposals Table. for the preparation of the master plan. No subdivision of site Objects to the T16B in local plan, but allocation of all of the name could be amended area to the west of to Kirklands/ Willowbank Kirklands for housing. to reflect local names. Objects to the lack of differentiation No specification of between the northern potential area for longer and southern parts of term expansion on the allocation. Proposals Map. Seeks that access through to the northern part site should be safeguarded, and the density increased. 8-24 Innerleit Seeks the Glenfinn No change to position of Recommendation No change to plan. hen: reinstatement within Contract proposed development noted. Leithen the Innerleithen s Ltd boundary in relation to Road development objection site T12. (site boundary of land T12) previously included within the

209 development boundary. 8-26 Innerleit Objector states that Hamilto On page 301 of the local Recommendation The rewording of the hen the SEPA flood risk n plan, in the section on accepted. settlement profile on Areas for Profile: map, which has Areas for Longer Term Longer Term Expansion will be Future influenced the Expansion and as follows: expansi selection of areas for Protection, delete “up to on to longer term 2m in height” at the end “The SEPA Flood Plan south: expansion and of the first sentence. identifies all of the river flood protection, is corridor and the land beyond risk inaccurate. A revised the existing development accurate basis boundary to the south as being should recognise that at risk of floods. This land between significantly limits the Innerleithen and the possibilities for direction of River Tweed should expansion. be considered for development. Once the allocated sites are fully developed the preferred areas for future expansion beyond the period of this Local Plan (2011) will be the area to the west of the current allocation at Kirklands. Development of the allocated site should take this into account. It is likely that significant upgrades to the wider road network will be required to facilitate such future expansion. The areas suggested for future growth in

210 this profile are indicative only; they will require further detailed assessment during the next Local Plan Review. The River Tweed is a Special Area of Conservation, a wildlife site of international importance and is also a designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).” 8-27 Innerleit Seek the reallocation AMS Retain sites zEL16 and Recommendation Retain sites zEL16 and zEL58, hen: of these employment Associat zEL58, but exclude Mr accepted. but exclude area of land Employ sites for housing, es, Davidson’s objection site covered by planning ment covering the land to Davidso from zEL58. Members should note permission (06/01194/OUT) on land at the east of Traquair n that a planning site zEL58. (Refer to Traquair Road. approval for the settlement map.) Road Site zEL58 to the erection of three (sites west of Traquair dwelling houses - zEL16 & Road should be 06/01194/OUT has zEL58) retained for been granted on the employment objection site zEL58. safeguarding, with the opportunity to increase the area, subject to need. Seeks re-allocation to residential use, for a small part of site zEL58, adjoining Traquair Road on the east side. The

211 objection site has existing residential uses/allocations on 3 sides, and has planning permission for the erection of a house. 8-28 Walkerb Seek either the Brett, Primary Recommendation Retain Housing allocation urn: deletion of the + others recommendation: delete accepted within the Plan at Caberston Caberst proposed housing housing site TW1B, and (secondary). Farm Land but excluding on allocation, or the make consequential garden ground within the Farm: preparation of a adjustments to housing The Reporter has a cartilage of Caberston House. sites development brief land supply tables. division views on the TW1B which protects the inclusion and Exclude land within the and setting, amenity and Secondary exclusion of site curtilage of Caberston House zRO5 privacy of Caberston recommendation: retain TW1B. from Redevelopment House. The steading housing site TW1B, but Opportunity site zRO5. (Refer redevelopment site adjust boundary to It is therefore to settlement map.) should be developed exclude land within the recommended that prior to housing site curtilage of Caberston the Reporters’ Add site to Appendix D of the TW1B. House. Commission secondary Local Plan as Supplementary Seek a northward preparation of recommendation is Planning Guidance and extension of the development brief for site accepted. Standards for the preparation development TW1B. of a development brief. boundary. The reasoning for the Also, counter Whichever option is support of the representations selected, adjust Reporters’ secondary generally supporting boundary of allocation recommendation is what is proposed in zRO5 to exclude land that while the the local plan and within the curtilage of Redevelopment opposing the Caberston House. Opportunity site is additional housing being retained

212 allocations sought on (although with minor behalf of Mr amendments – see Thomson. below), that site is subject to constraints particularly in relation to neighbouring uses and a recent temporary planning consent – 07/01317/FUL for a change of use from car park to a car wash and car sales with the erection of portacabin. As a result of these current constraints on the Redevelopment site, Walkerburn would be unable to accommodate further growth without the retention of the Housing Allocation at Caberston Farm Land.

It should be noted that the boundary of the Redevelopment Opportunity site zRO5 and the

213 boundary of the Housing allocation site is recommended for adjustment as the sites shown within the Finalised Local

214 North Tweeddale Matrix

Reporter’s Policy/ Objection Objector Reporter Considerations Council Report Site Ref Recommendation Recommendation Page Number

9-1 West Linton Seeks the Johnstone/ Extend development Recommendation Extend Development Development extension of the Anderson boundary to take in accepted. Boundary to land at Boundary: development objection site. Carnethy. (Refer to Carnethy, boundary to settlement map.) Medwyn Rd include land at Carnethy. 9-3 West Linton: Objector seeks Mrs Bell Delete employment land Recommendation Replace Employment Robinsland a residential allocation zEL18 at accepted. allocation zEL18 with a area (sites allocation to site Deanfoot Road, and housing allocation with an TWL8B, zEL18. replace with a housing The objection site indicative capacity of 10 zEL18, zSS9, allocation for 0.7ha, with is currently subject units. (Refer to settlement and additional an indicative capacity of 10 to a Section 75 map.) land) units. Agreement retaining this site for employment uses. Objector seeks Mrs Bell No change to school Recommendation No change to plan. a residential allocation zSS9. noted. allocation on school site (zSS9).

215 Seeks increase Mrs Bell No change to development Recommendation No change to plan. of density to boundary at Robinsland, noted. site TWL8B and no additional housing from 20 units/ha allocations outwith to 25 units /ha development boundary. (ie from 46 units to 58), and the No change to text in West removal of the Linton settlement profile on indentation of Areas for Longer Term the eastern Expansion and Protection. boundary of the site, which the No change to indicative objector wishes capacity of housing site to see removed, TWL8B. provides a setback in the No change to position of vicinity of eastern boundary of Robinsland housing site TWL8B. farm steading.

216 Seeks that site Mrs Bell Additional entry in section Recommendation Include an additional entry TWL8B be on Information Relevant to accepted. in the Settlement Profile, accessed from Potential Developer Information Relevant to Robinsland Contributions: Potential Developer Drive, in the Road Access Contributions Section northeast Housing site TWL8B will (page 417) as follows: corner. require vehicular access through school site zSS9, “ Road Access from Robinsland Drive and Housing site TWL8B will probably also from require vehicular access Deanfoot Road. A through school site zSS9, developer contribution from Robinsland Drive and towards road access will probably also from be required. Deanfoot Road. A developer contribution towards road access will be required.”

217