Item No. 4 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
MINUTE of MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 11 August 2008 at 10 a.m. ------
Present: - Councillors J. Houston (Chairman), C. J. Bhatia, J. Brown, N. Calvert, J. A. Fullarton, J. Hume, T. Jones, G. Logan, C. Riddell-Carre, N. Watson, T. Weatherston. Apologies:- Councillors D. Moffat, R. Smith. Also Present:- Councillor Paterson. In Attendance: - Senior Development Control Manager (West), Plans and Research Manager, Planning Officer (T. Connelly), Assistant Road User Manager, Senior Solicitor (Mrs. N. McKinlay), Senior Committee Officer
------
ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. The Chairman varied the order of business as shown on the agenda and the Minute reflects the order in which the items were considered at the meeting.
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE ON NEW HOUSING IN THE BORDERS COUNTRYSIDE 2. With reference to paragraph 4 of the Executive Minute of 10 August 2008, there had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards seeking approval for Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on New Housing in the Borders Countryside as a basis for public consultation. The report explained that the draft SPG sought to consolidate and update previous guidance and to clarify the position on the 100% Rule contained within the Local Plan Policy D2 – Housing in the Countryside. A copy of the draft SPG was appended to the report. Members discussed the draft SPG and noted that the Development Plans Working Group had contributed to its production.
DECISION AGREED:-
(a) to approve the Draft SPG, as contained in Appendix I to this Minute, as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period, and that if there were any substantive comments then they would be reported back to the committee; and
(b) that if there were no substantive comments arising from consultation that the SPG be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE ON REPLACEMENT WINDOWS 3. With reference to paragraph 7 of the Minute of 10 December 2007, there had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards seeking approval of the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Replacement Windows following public consultation. The report explained that following the request by Members that further flexibility was required an alternative approach to the policy particularly in relation to the category C(s) listed buildings and to the Prime Frontage/Core Areas of the conservation areas was drawn up and this was set out in Appendix B to the report. A 12 week consultation had been carried out and where appropriate the suggestions and comments received had been incorporated into the finished version of the SPG. Members generally supported the alternative policy approach set out in Appendix F to the report but asked that the wording of paragraph 1.2.2 be amended to ensure that applicants clearly understood that the replacement double glazed unit must match the original window in all respects.
DECISION AGREED:-
(a) that powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Standards, in consultation with the Chairman and Councillor Bhatia to agree appropriate wording in respect of paragraph 1.2.2; and
(b) to adopt the new supplementary planning guidance on “Replacement Windows” as amended and as set out in Appendix II to this Minute.
MINUTE 4. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 7 July 2008.
DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.
APPLICATIONS 5. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee, together with copies of representations which had been received.
DECISION DEALT with the applications as detailed in Appendix III to this Minute.
MEMBER Councillor Jones left the meeting following consideration of application 07/01379/FUL.
APPEALS 6. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers.
DECISION NOTED:-
(a) that appeals had been received in respect of:-
(i) Removal of condition 1 from planning consent 04/01523 (the annexe to be used as ancillary domestic accommodation related to Tantah House only, and not to be sold separately from Tantah House without the formal written consent of the Planning Authority) to provide independent dwellinghouse, Upper Flat, Tantah House, Peebles; and
(ii) Erection of three dwellinghouses, Whim Poultry Farm, Lamancha.
(b) that the Scottish Ministers had dismissed appeals in respect of:-
(i) Residential development, land north east and south of Cove Village, Cockburnspath; and
(ii) Erection of dwellinghouse, land north east of 14 Craig Brown Avenue, Selkirk.
(c) that the Scottish Ministers had sustained the appeal in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse, Kirkdean, Blyth bridge. SITE VISIT 7. DECISION AGREED that the Senior Committee Officer contact Members with a suitable date for the site visit to Airhouse, Oxton.
The meeting concluded at 11.15 a.m. PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE 11 AUGUST 2008 APPENDIX I
New Housing in the Borders Countryside
Policy and Guidance Note
June 2008
Planning and Economic Development Department Scottish Borders Council Contents
Foreword 3
1. National and Local Policy 4
2. Housing in the Countryside 8
2.a Conversion of Existing Buildings and Rebuilding on Existing Sites 8
2.b Building groups 10
2.c Isolated Housing and Housing for Local Needs 13
3. Siting and Design 15
4. Access and Servicing 21
5. Good Practice 22
6. Further Advice 23
7. Glossary of Terms 24
Appendix 1: Structure Plan Policies H4, H5 & H6, and Local Plan Policies H1, D1, D2 & G8 26
Appendix 2: Farm Steading Conversions Advice Note 36 Foreword
This guidance is intended to offer advice and assistance with the siting and design of new housing in the Borders countryside and updates the original 1993 guidance and later Council supporting statements.
In assessing any planning application relating to housing in the countryside, the overall design is of utmost importance. This includes the location and siting of new housing, housing design and associated landscaping.
This Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) seeks a long term sustainable pattern of rural housing development that reduces the development of inappropriate isolated housing in the countryside, and directs development to identifiable building groups or to remote rural anchor points. This is in line with Local Plan Principle 1 – Sustainability. The Borders countryside is a precious and finite asset and comprises some of the finest unspoilt scenery in the United Kingdom which is appreciated by both visitors and residents. The utmost care must be taken to reduce negative impacts of development on the countryside. Design of any new house in the countryside is important. If the house is sited in open countryside, it can be widely exposed to view and the design of the property may impact on neighbouring buildings and building patterns.
This guidance updates the previous 1993 guidance and working group reports from 2000 and 2004 to reflect recent national policy guidance, and the policies within the approved Structure Plan (2002) and the Local Plan (2008). It gives guidance on the selection of sites and demonstrates principles for appropriate designs. This guidance should not be seen as a constraint but rather an opportunity for innovative and carefully considered contemporary solutions to the design and construction of new housing in the countryside.
It should be noted that there are other policies and guidance notes which will also apply to development within the Scottish Borders Council area, along with Building Standards which must be applied. 1. National and Local Policy
National policy, and other guidance, is produced by the Scottish Government for a wide range of development proposals. This provides a framework within which local authorities can develop policies and guidance appropriate to their area. National policy and guidance is therefore the starting point in the development of any Housing in the Countryside Policy for the Scottish Borders area. Local policy and guidance should take consideration of national policy and advice.
National Policy and Advice: Scottish Planning Policy Planning Advice Notes Circulars Ļ Local Policy: Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance
1.1 Development of National Policy National Policy and Guidance is produced by the Scottish Government for a wide range of development proposals. This provides a framework within which local authorities can develop policies and guidance appropriate to their area. National policy and guidance is therefore the starting point in the development of any Housing in the Countryside Policy.
The main national policy and advice, and local policies are highlighted below:
Scottish Planning Policy 3: Planning for Housing This emphasises the importance of siting and design, guiding new housing development to the right locations and creating quality residential environments and has a key aim to “provide well located, high quality new housing”. It recommends that:
“Where possible, most housing requirements should be met within or adjacent to existing settlements. This prevents the sprawl and coalescence of settlements, makes efficient use of existing infrastructure and public services and helps to conserve natural heritage and rural amenity.”
Scottish Planning Policy 15: Planning for Rural Development With regard to Housing, this SPP “advances policy in respect of small scale rural housing developments including clusters and groups in close proximity to settlements, replacement housing, plots on which to build individually designed houses, and holiday homes.” Further guidance and criteria for suitable development is detailed within the document.
Planning Advice Note 72: Housing in the Countryside Published in 2005, this places a strong emphasis on design and quality:
“… sets out key design principles which need to be taken into account: by applicants when planning a new development and by planning authorities, when preparing development plans and supporting guidance, and determining applications.
The purpose is to create more opportunities for good quality rural housing which respects Scottish landscapes and building traditions. The advice should not, however, be seen as a constraint on architects and designers wishing to pursue innovative and carefully considered contemporary designs.”
In addition to policy and advice in the SPPs and PANs referred to above, Circular 5/1992 advises that particular care should be exercised when considering planning applications for houses within 400m of established intensive livestock units, to minimise the potential for future problems of nuisance. Summary: National policy and guidance with regard to housing in the countryside has been reviewed and favours development close or adjacent to existing settlements, but does allow for some rural development of housing providing the circumstances and locations are appropriate.
1.2 Development of Local Policy The Scottish Borders Councils’ Housing in the Countryside Policy has developed over a number of years in response to changing pressures and circumstances.
Scottish Borders Council first developed Housing in the Countryside policy in 1986 in response to Circular 24/1985 and a concern that countryside policy at that time was unduly restrictive. With the exception of Tweeddale District, this policy encouraged new housing development within and adjacent to existing building groups in the countryside subject to a number of criteria. Throughout the Borders, there was to be a presumption against single housing in the countryside unless an economic need for the development could be clearly substantiated.
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2002 In line with national policy guidance and advice, Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2002 states in chapter 4 – Housing – that ‘New Housing in the Borders Countryside’ polices are: “generally supportive of conversion and rebuilding proposals, while new housing is guided to existing ‘building groups’. Isolated housing development proposals are generally discouraged unless the economic need for the house can be clearly substantiated.” (See Appendix 1 for policies H4, H5 and H6).
Structure Plan Policy H4 – Housing in the Countryside – Conversion or Rebuilding aims to support the conversion of existing buildings in the countryside outwith defined settlements (subject to the policy criteria set out in Appendix 1).
Policy H5 ‘New Housing in the Countryside – Building Groups’ aims to support new housing in the countryside that is associated with existing building groups. The policy highlights that proposals which are readily accessible to the strategic public transport network, employ energy efficient and/or innovative design principles, incorporate employment-generating uses appropriate to a countryside setting will more likely be considered favourably (subject to the policy criteria set out in Appendix 1).
Policy H6 New Housing in the Countryside – Isolated Housing aims to support isolated housing in the countryside outwith defined settlements and unrelated to building groups where the house can be shown by the developer to be essential at that location for the needs of agriculture or other uses currently occupying or requiring an appropriate rural location, and the requirement for a house cannot be satisfied by Policy H5.
The Council have now approved a Finalised Structure Plan Alteration. This document has now been submitted to the Scottish Ministers for their approval.
Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 In line with Government policy and advice the Scottish Borders Council wishes to direct most new housing development to sites in existing settlements but recognises that there is demand for housing in the countryside. The Scottish Borders Council supports housing development in appropriate locations in rural areas but wishes to prevent a proliferation of sporadic developments in the countryside. (Refer to Appendix 1 for policies D1, D2 and G8).
The Local Plan policy D1 – Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside aims to allow appropriate employment generating development in the countryside whilst protecting the environment in the countryside and to ensure that business, tourism and leisure related developments are appropriate to their location.
Policy D2 – Housing in the Countryside restricts isolated new housing in the countryside in accordance with government guidance unless it can be satisfactorily substantiated by compliance with the above criteria. Any housing built under this justification as affordable housing will only be supported if it addresses an identified housing need, (as listed in policy H1 – Affordable Housing), or in a local housing needs survey, or in a Registered Social Landlord’s delivery programme.
Development that involves both employment and housing uses will be assessed against this policy and policy D2.
Policy G8 – Development outwith Development Boundaries of the Local Plan aims to ensure that most of the development that occurs in the Scottish Borders does so within the Development Boundary; any development that does occur outwith the Boundary should comply with the rigorous criteria contained within this policy. 2. Housing in the Countryside
The Housing in the Countryside Policy encourages new housing development in appropriate locations. Any development that takes place under the Housing in the Countryside Policy should meet the following standard criteria:
1. No adverse effect on the viability of a farming unit or conflict with the operations of a working farm; 2. Satisfactory access and other road requirements; 3. Satisfactory public or private water supply and drainage facilities; 4. No adverse effect on countryside amenity, landscape or nature conservation; 5. No adverse impact on ancient monuments, archaeological sites, or on gardens or designed landscapes in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland; 6. Appropriate siting, design and materials in accordance with the relevant Local Plan policies; 7. The safeguarding of known mineral resources from sterilisation unless this is acceptable following an assessment of the environmental implications.
2.a. Conversion of Existing Buildings and Rebuilding on Existing Sites
Rehabilitation of any available existing buildings should be considered as an alternative to new development and the Scottish Borders Council will look sympathetically at proposals for the sensitive reuse, conversion or rehabilitation of traditional buildings. There is, however, no automatic presumption in favour of redevelopment or replacement of derelict or dilapidated buildings in the countryside, particularly where the proposed housing is of a different scale and character to that which had existed previously.
2.a.1 Conversions In assessing proposals for the conversion of agricultural and other non-residential buildings to residential use, and in addition to policy D2 in the Local Plan, the following criteria will be applied:
1. No adverse effect on the viability of a farming unit or conflict with the operations of a working farm; 2. Satisfactory access and other road requirements; 3. Satisfactory public or private water supply and drainage facilities; 4. The building is structurally sound, in a reasonable state of repair, and capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding. A Structural Survey will be required where it appears that a building may not be capable of conversion. If it is incapable of conversion, any replacement building should reflect the form and character of the original structure. Significant alterations will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that these provide environmental benefits such as a more sustainable and energy efficient design; 5. The building can be converted without alterations to its external appearance which would detract from its character and attractiveness; 6. The building makes a positive contribution to the landscape and has no adverse effect on countryside amenity or nature conservation; 7. No adverse impact on ancient monuments or archaeological sites; 8. Appropriate siting, design and materials in accordance with the relevant Local Plan policies.
Where existing agricultural buildings are being lost to agricultural use, the applicant will be required to give information on any consequent need and proposals for siting new agricultural buildings to replace those which are redundant. Such buildings should not conflict with the residential use of the redundant buildings. (Refer to Appendix 2 for further advice on Farm Steading Conversions). Similarly, if existing agricultural uses are to be retained in buildings adjacent to or close to the proposed residential uses, consent will not normally be granted unless assurance can be given that conflict or nuisance will not occur.
2.a.2 Rebuilding In assessing proposals for the rebuilding of existing dwellings and for the construction of new dwellings on derelict residential sites, the standard policy criteria will be applied. In these cases there is also a requirement that:
x there is substantial evidence of residential use on site.
Substantial evidence would require that:
x the walls of the former residential property are substantially intact.
2.b. Building Groups
PAN 36 indicates that in addition to new housing development in settlements there is scope for adding to, or creating, small groups of housing in the countryside provided that they are sympathetic in terms of scale, proportion and materials to other buildings in the locality.
The Scottish Borders Council’s policy is that in the countryside new housing will be encouraged to locate within or adjacent to building groups. Such development must meet the standard criteria as listed on page 8.
All applications for new houses at existing building groups will be tested against an analysis of:
a) the presence or, otherwise of a group; and b) the suitability of that group to absorb new development.
The Scottish Borders Council considers that there are adequate opportunities for new development in the countryside at existing building groups and will resist the formation of new building groups.
2.b.1 Definition of a Building Group The existence of a group will be identifiable by a sense of place which will be contributed to by: x natural boundaries such as water courses, trees or enclosing landform, or x man-made boundaries such as existing buildings, roads, plantations or means of enclosure.
Sites should not normally break into previously undeveloped fields, particularly where there exists a definable natural boundary between the existing group and the field. Natural boundaries should take precedence over man-made boundaries when defining the extent of a building group.
Normally a group will consist of residential buildings comprising at least three dwelling units. Conversions may themselves constitute a complete building group. Building groups should not be allowed to expand by more than 100% from the baseline (see section 2.b.2), unless it can be demonstrated that additional development would provide overriding economic benefits.
Additionally, there may be locations where a more dispersed building pattern is the norm. These areas are referred to as “anchor points” and are found within the Southern Housing Market Area. A lower threshold may also be accepted in instances where the development would bring tangible environmental benefits. In all cases, the existence of a sense of place will be the primary consideration.
New housing within walled gardens will only be considered favourably if the walled garden is itself part of an existing building group.
In assessing the suitability of any particular group to accommodate new houses, other factors will also be taken into account:
x The scale and siting of new development should reflect and respect the character of the existing group; x New development should be limited to the area contained by that sense of place; x Proposals which involve the formation of new public roads for access (and public street lighting) will normally be of too large a scale; x Sites should not normally break into a previously undeveloped field or require the removal of mature trees in good condition; x Sites within 400m of existing intensive livestock units, will not normally be permitted unless required in connection with the farm or business itself; x Sites close to working farm buildings or other rural industries will be given careful consideration to ensure no potential conflict; x Existing groups may in themselves be complete, such as terraces of farm cottages and may not be suitable for further additions; x Extensions of ribbon development along public roads will not normally be permitted; x There will be a presumption against development which would result in the coalescence of a group with a nearby settlement; x The use of Section 75 Agreements will be considered, for example, to restrict further housing at a building group.
2.b.2 100% Rule Subject to amenity, environmental and built form considerations, housing in the countryside policy prohibits building groups from being developed by more than 100%.
In assessing planning applications that propose an extension to a building group, the Council will not approve development that would be visually intrusive in the landscape, or detrimental to landscape characteristics, scenic quality or attributes of the existing building group. Therefore only sites that have little or no amenity, environmental, landscape or sustainability constraints, and provide a building design suitable to the building group will be considered acceptable.
The Council will also consider whether building groups should support further development or whether they are considered to be complete.
A group will be considered to be complete where further development could result in a detrimental impact on the building group.
In particular, the Council will carefully consider the potential adverse impact of additional development on those groups that have already been subject to recent development under the housing in the countryside policy. The amenity of the existing properties and householders is a primary consideration. The aim is to ensure that building groups are not subject to development that impacts on the amenity or character of the group to the detriment of residents. Even where an appropriate site exists, no further development will be permitted where residential amenity is compromised.
The 100% rule is calculated in terms of the existing number of housing units within the group as at the start of the Local Plan period. Therefore if a building group is made up of three housing units, the maximum it can grow is by three units and only where an appropriate development opportunity exists.
2.c. Isolated Housing and Housing for Local Needs
Although the rural economy has changed dramatically in the last century and only a relatively few people now have an economic base in the countryside, there are still circumstances where a new house may be required for genuine circumstances of local need. In assessing such a proposal the Council will take into account a number of factors in addition to the standard criteria as listed on page 8:-
• Whether the need for the house is supported on an agricultural basis by the Scottish Agricultural College;
• Whether the need for the house is demonstrated to be essential for the running of an agricultural or rural business at that location;
• Whether there is a need for new accommodation for an existing local resident to suit changed and exceptional circumstances e.g. a retiring farmer or farm worker retaining an interest in the land;
• Whether the applicant has selected the most satisfactory site in terms of the standard policy criteria on page 8.
Anchor Points The Scottish Borders Council’s Local Plan identifies specified areas of the Borders where it is considered that isolated housing may be appropriate. Anchor points are areas that can be found within the Area of Dispersed Communities as shown in the Local Plan Policy Maps. The provision of anchor points has been formulated in response to concerns over rural depopulation in specific areas of the Southern Borders. Currently anchor points may be identified at Ettrick and Yarrow Feus, others may be identified during the lifetime of the Local Plan. Within these areas there will also be encouragement for new houses within or adjacent to building groups. New housing development in these areas will still be subject to the standard criteria listed on page 8. In addition the requirement for a high standard of siting and design will be rigorously applied where isolated sites are approved. Sites will generally require being inconspicuous, often well set back from the public road, and integrated into the landscape.
Isolated Housing – Economic Justification Although the general presumption in national guidance is that isolated housing development should be discouraged, development plans can, with reasoned justification adopt a more permissive approach to new housing development in clearly identified isolated locations. Where permission is sought for a house relating to a business, a Business Plan, supported by referees or independent business adjudication, will be required.
Hobby/Part-time Farming In the case of proposals for a new house based on the operation of a farm unit on a part-time or hobby basis, where farming represents only a proportion of household income, each case will be assessed taking into account the physical characteristics of the unit and the contribution of the farming element to the overall household income.
Mansion Houses In some circumstances, development of isolated housing not relating to the above criteria may be encouraged. When the proposed development is the rebuilding or restoration of a house within established policy/parkland settings, (not normally comprising part of a designed landscape) the development may be encouraged. There is a requirement for evidence to be provided to the satisfaction of the Council showing the existence of the building as described in policy D2, or documentary evidence relating to the siting and form of the previous house. The siting and design of new buildings should reflect and respect the historical building pattern and the character of the landscape setting. The extent of new building should not exceed the original historic building.
Guest Houses New guest houses within the Countryside should only be encouraged within an existing building group or within buildings that are capable for conversion. The same criteria as set out in Section 3: Building Groups will still apply.
Section 75 Agreements Where a new house is permitted in these circumstances, the Scottish Borders Council will normally seek to enter into a Section 75 Agreement under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 with the landowner. The terms of such an agreement will depend upon the specific circumstances of the application but typically may: a) restrict further residential development on other land in the area in the owners control; or b) require that the land unit and the dwelling house be treated as a single indivisible unit in any future sale of the property.
Alternatively, any planning consent may be subject to a condition similarly restricting occupancy.
The Scottish Borders Council generally supports new rural development and proposals for agricultural diversification. Proposals for new houses related to prospective enterprises will require to be accompanied both by adequate evidence substantiating the viability of the project and justification that the provision of a house is essential to the enterprise. 3. Siting and Design
In recent years there has been growing concern about the lack of sensitivity in the siting of new housing in the countryside and about the introduction of house styles which are more characteristic of suburban rather than rural areas. Too often designs and styles are shuffled from one part of the country to the other with scant regard for regional identities. The result is a pastiche and a sad loss of identity.
The Council will encourage a full planning application in preference to an outline application for any housing in the countryside proposal - including rebuilding, conversions and mansion houses. This applies in particular to those proposals which may impact on a:
x National Scenic Area x Area of Great Landscape Value x Historic Garden or Designed Landscape x Special Protection Area x Special Area of Conservation x Site of Special Scientific Interest x Listed Building x Conservation Area
It is particularly important to establish the relationship that the proposed housing will have with existing buildings, and with the wider countryside. It is also important to identify the cumulative impact of housing in the countryside has on the area, particularly on the areas under the designations listed above.
As a consequence, the main criticisms of new housing in the countryside have been:
x the selection of obtrusive rather than sheltered sites; x the failure to integrate new housing with the surrounding landscape; x the introduction of suburban house types which, by virtue of their shape, shallow roof pitch, overhanging eaves and verges, window proportion, and general detailing including site layout are out of character with traditional rural building styles: x the use of excessive underbuilding, particularly on sloping sites, resulting in buildings which are unrelated to the existing landform; x the use of materials such as facing brick and some types of artificial stone which can be incongruous in a rural setting particularly when used in combination on the same building.
The advice given in this guidance seeks to reverse this trend.
In general, the guidance on siting acknowledges the range of circumstances which exist and the variation in the capacity of different landscapes within the Borders to absorb development. It does not, therefore, seek to impose standard solutions throughout the Borders. Equally, in formulating a set of principles on the design of new housing in the countryside the objective will not be to recreate the rural Borders of previous eras. This said, designers of new housing will be expected to respect and learn from what has gone before. This does not mean copying the buildings of the past, nor does it mean the mere application of a list of vernacular details in an attempt to achieve the necessary quality, but it does involve interpreting traditional forms and materials in a modern context.
A well designed and carefully sited house will not only look more pleasing and provide shelter from prevailing winds and rain, but may also provide a more interesting interior, lower maintenance costs and maintain its value better in the longer term. In essence, the building of new housing in the countryside should be regarded as an opportunity to contribute to, rather than detract from, the Borders countryside and heritage.
3.1 Siting
General Considerations The Borders area is not uniform in its landscape character. There is a wide variation from the well defined field systems of the Merse with its hedgerows and woodland copses to the open, rolling upland areas of the Cheviots, the Lammermuirs and the Tweedsmuir Hills with their deeply incised valleys. If new housing is to be absorbed successfully into a particular landscape it is important that the setting is selected by respecting the local landform, the field patterns and the tree and hedgerow cover. In addition, by observing the way in which traditional buildings have been set into a particular landscape a great deal can be learned on how new buildings can contribute to maintaining a sense of place and identity and, at the same time, integrate with the surrounding landscape.
Advice on siting is, therefore, primarily concerned with ensuring that, by respecting the local landform, the pattern of fields and the distribution of tree and hedgerow cover, new housing is in harmony with its immediate and wider surroundings. If a site is selected which is unduly prominent on a ridge or in a skyline position, then the task of designing a house which does not look out of place is made extremely difficult. In order to allow a proper assessment of the suitability of countryside sites, applicants will be encouraged to submit indicative plans of site layout, house type, means of access, servicing and landscape proposals even at outline application stage.
Terracing and Underbuilding Many sites selected for new houses are sloping in nature and, in some instances, their preparation to take a house conflicts with the surrounding Landform. This happens where excavations create a flat building platform out of a sloping site in order to accommodate a house style designed specifically for a flat site. The resultant distortion of the landform can be visually disruptive especially if retaining walls are required on the downhill side of the excavations. Similarly, visual disruption can occur where extensive underbuilding is required to create an artificial platform for the house. The use of contrasting colours or materials on the underbuilding can accentuate this problem.
Extensive excavation or underbuilding as described above should be avoided. As a general rule, to ensure that siting is sympathetic to landform, a new house should be parallel with the contours so that the house fits into the landform naturally rather than appearing to have been deposited on, or engineered into, the site. The use of split levels to achieve a stepped or terraced effect that fits into the landscape, particularly between the main ‘front’ of a house and service accommodation to the rear, can help reduce the amount of underbuilding where it is necessary.
Woodlands and Hedgerows Setting a building against a background of trees is one of the most successful means by which new development can be absorbed into the landscape. It is important, therefore, to retain existing trees wherever possible both within the site and on its boundaries. In addition to reducing the visual impact of the new development, the retention of existing trees can reduce the extent of new planting and landscaping which may be required. Where retained, trees should be a suitable distance from the proposed house and foundations should be designed to avoid any subsequent structural damage. Where new planting is necessary, care should also be taken to avoid damage to services and utilities, including drainage and to integrate any lighting scheme with landscape proposals. In parts of the Borders where there is little existing planting and limited scope for landscaping due to exposure, such as the Lammermuir or Tweedsmuir Hills, particular care should he taken in the selection of the site and the design of the house.
Tree and hedgerow planting can be invaluable to visually integrate development with the landscape. The purpose of landscaping however, should not be to screen or hide development, but to enhance its setting.
Outbuildings and Boundary Treatments Where new houses are proposed it is also important to consider the location and appearance of outbuildings such as garages and liquid gas and oil storage tanks. The position of these buildings and structures should be considered at the outset of the planning process and should be used to create a sense of enclosure, define spaces and, built in a style and with materials similar to the dwelling house.
Similarly, the space associated with a new house should be considered as an integral part of the development and not as an afterthought. Applicants should consider new boundary walls, bin recycling/housings, driveways, fences and hedging at an early stage in the design process and design them in keeping with local traditions. Concrete block walls, concrete kerbing, suburban ranch type fences and the use of fast growing conifers for hedgerows should be avoided.
Neighbourliness In addition to respecting its location in the countryside generally, a new building should be a good neighbour to existing buildings in two ways. Firstly, its siting should take account of and be sympathetic to the existing layout of other buildings in the area. Secondly, the new building should not detract from the setting, aspect or privacy of existing buildings. Government advice encourages planning authorities to exercise particular care when considering planning applications for new houses within 400 metres of established intensive livestock units because of the possible problems of nuisance. This principle will be extended by the Scottish Borders Council to take into account possible problems from any bad neighbour development and, where these problems appear too great, consent may be withheld.
3.2 Design
General Considerations The detailed design of buildings has varied in the past according to local climate, site conditions, materials, skills and traditions. Fashion, technology and economics have also played their part. Recently, building design has become increasingly homogeneous, often with suburban house designs, derived from regional styles from throughout Britain, being directly translated into locations within the Borders countryside. This lack of sensitivity and failure to refer to local design characteristics when considering house design, has led to many examples of intrusive housing developments in prominent locations, which now detract seriously from our rural environment.
Of particular concern, in recent years, has been the considerable increase in the use of standardised timber frame buildings or “kit houses”, which tend to ignore local building traditions. A well designed timber frame building can, of course, be as acceptable as a well designed building of traditional construction and many have already been constructed in the Borders. However, irrespective of style, a house requires to be designed for its setting and the importation of standard suburban “kit houses”, or the cosmetic modification of standard types, is never successful in a rural setting.
For this style of house to be successful, the designer should draw on the widely appreciated and accepted traditions of Border house design rather than from models more suited to a suburban context or from designs which derive from other regions. It is therefore important to be aware of the key elements of building design which characterise the indigenous architectural form. By referring to these key elements when considering the design of a house, it should he possible to ensure that the new building is sympathetic to, and compatible with, the traditional building form of the Borders.
This guidance should not, however, be applied unthinkingly nor across the board, as there will be circumstances where, with sound reasoned justification, a different solution, in terms of building form, proportion and materials, can legitimately be pursued. Innovative designs, therefore, which are sympathetic to their setting and to the general principles in respect of siting set out above, will also be encouraged. There are a number of examples of new buildings which relate well to neighbouring buildings of past styles without attempting to copy those styles.
A forthcoming SPG on design will provide additional information, guidance and advice.
Form and Proportion The satisfactory composition of a building depends, to a large extent, on there being a unity between its main constituent parts. In this respect, the main elements for houses of the “kit house” type are plan depth, wall height, roof pitch and length of frontage.
The majority of roofs on older houses in the Borders are pitched at between 40 and 45 degrees. This pitch is suitable for natural slate whereas modern lower pitched roof are technically unsuitable for slating and tend to be roofed with interlocking tiles. This tendency to have their roofs pitched lower, often as low as 25 degrees, is one of the reasons why modern houses can look so out of place in our countryside. The older house also has a relatively narrow plan depth and short frontage which allows a satisfactory overall composition when combined with a roof of between 40 and 45 degrees.
Modern houses vary greatly in size but are almost invariably larger than the traditional farmworkers’ cottages and, as a consequence, have both deeper plans and longer frontages. This makes it extremely difficult to achieve a satisfactory composition if a roof of between 40 and 45 degrees is to be used. The resultant house will inevitably have a ”long roof” from eaves to ridge and appear top heavy and clumsy. A top heavy appearance also occurs in many current designs for one and half storey houses where the plan is deep and the accommodation requirements result in rooms in the roofspace.
The size of house and its component parts can however, be kept in balance and within reasonable limits if the basic house plan is combined with suitably designed and proportioned extensions either to the side or rear. In this way the key elements of plan depth, wall height, roof pitch and length of frontage, can be both traditionally derived and in balance. This should also allow the prospective occupant to achieve the space standards necessary for a modern lifestyle.
3.3 The Elements of Buildings
Doors and Porches Traditionally doors were broad and short, framed and lined or panelled, often with fanlights inserted above and in most cases with the same types of surround as the windows on the property i.e. rybats with rybats, and margins with margins. Every effort should be made to follow these styles for house doors and also to use appropriate timber doors for garages. Where double garage doors are proposed a solid pier should be introduced to maintain as strong a vertical emphasis as possible. Porches have also become a common feature and a variety of styles has evolved often for decorative rather than for functional reasons. There are a number of traditional styles which are repeated throughout the Borders and reference to these is encouraged where porches are proposed.
Windows and Dormers. Windows have traditionally been designed with a strong vertical emphasis. This is generally achieved by vertically proportioned window openings and panes. Where a room does require a large area of glazing the window should be divided by the use of mullions to retain this vertical emphasis. Where the roof space is required for accommodation, roof lights with vertical proportions or traditional dormers should be used in preference to box dormers which look unattractive, can be noisy and can suffer from maintenance problems.
Chimneys, Eaves and Verges Chimneys were normally provided on traditional buildings and their absence from a roofline removes interest. Normally stacks should be located on the gables or on the ridge line. Chimneys breaking roof pitches will be discouraged. Stacks should normally be stone (natural or artificial), wet-dash or fireclay brick, with a coping and chimney cans. Eaves are generally either kept to a minimum with the gutter kept to the wall face (and fixed with rafter straps, not to a painted fascia board) or oversailing open rafters. The use of box soffits and barge boarding will therefore be discouraged.
Verges are generally either finished against a stone skew (or coping) or the slating projects beyond the gable wall below, sometimes with a decorative barge board and these details should be used wherever possible.
Materials and Colours Sensitive use of materials and colour is essential to ensure that a building blends into the landscape. Appropriate materials are particularly important in the two main elements of design, roofs and walls. The use of appropriate natural slate or clay pantiles will be encouraged in areas where they are traditional. There is also an extensive range of artificial slates and concrete tiles now available and these will be acceptable in less sensitive locations. The use of appropriate natural stone and wet dash render for external walls will be encouraged. In certain instances timber facings will be considered as an external finish. The use of facing brick is not traditional in the Borders and its use will not normally be encouraged.
The selection of appropriate colours is important and a well designed house may still fail to blend with its setting if its colours are badly chosen. Colours based on local stone and soil will complement the natural environment and contribute to the sense of regional identity. Looking at older traditional buildings can be a useful starting point. The imaginative use of colour which adds interest to a design is not precluded where this is sensitive to the wider setting. 4. Access and Servicing
4.1 Roads and Access Just as the rural economy has changed in the past century so has the pattern and volume of traffic on rural roads. Yet, despite some improvements the road network in rural areas and the geometry of minor rural roads is largely unchanged. In the interests of public safety it is therefore important that any new houses in the countryside are served by a vehicular access of a safe standard and provided with adequate on site facilities for vehicle movement and parking. Unless such provision can be made, planning consent will not normally be granted for development.
The vehicular access to the site will require to be of adequate width and gradient and have visibility splays appropriate to both the location and the speed of traffic on the adjoining road system.
Within the site a minimum of two car parking spaces will be required. A garage will not be accepted as contributing a parking space to the development. Where access is direct on to a classified road a turning space will also be required within the site and a lay-by may be required for visiting service vehicles where the public road might otherwise be obstructed.
Where five or more houses are served by a new access the Scottish Borders Council normally requires that the access be constructed to a public road standard. As part of public road standards, street lighting will be required when at least 5 units are constructed. In some cases, such new roads and street lighting are urban in character and development of a scale involving such infrastructure could be inappropriate in terms of the example of the daytime impact of standard lamp columns and lanterns, or by night through light intrusions and pollution and planning consent may be withheld.
4.2 Water and Drainage No matter where a new house is located, it is essential that it can be provided with a wholesome and adequate water supply and be serviced by a satisfactory system of drainage.
Whilst it is preferable that a public water supply or drainage system should be available, in many rural areas this is not possible. Proposals for new houses in the countryside which cannot connect to a public service will require to be accompanied by adequate evidence to demonstrate that private facilities for water supply and drainage are available. The advice of the Scottish Borders Council’s Building Standards Officer, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Health Officer on the technical suitability of such proposals will be sought. Although this may involve the applicant in survey work to test a water supply or a soakaway drainage system, there is a little to be gained by the Planning Authority granting planning consent for sites which are technically unsuitable for development. Such information should therefore be lodged with the application to avoid delay in processing. 5. Good Practice
General good practice advice is provided in PAN 72 – Housing in the Countryside. The PAN provides advice and background information that should be taken into consideration when building housing in the countryside.
Location 3 factors that influence location: Landscape, Layout and Access.
Design 3 factors that influence design: Scale, Materials, Details
Examples of good practice in developments and design are included in the PAN.
The Scottish Borders Council supports the principles of development in the countryside stated in Tomorrow’s Architectural Heritage - landscape and Buildings in the Countryside’ by J M Fladmark, GY Mulvagh and BM Evans. That publication highlights the following principles:
Respect the Natural and Cultural Heritage: x observe the time-honoured response to climate and landform in vernacular architecture x respect original style and detailing when converting old buildings, and demolish only as a last resort
Locate Development in a Sustainable Manner: x use locations near settlements rather than remote sites x work with the climate, contours and scale of the locality
Design the setting to be in Character with the Surroundings: x treat the whole site as an entity, and design buildings and landscape together x use planting and walls to create enclosure, and to tie the buildings into the landscape
Built Form and Layout should be Functional and Appropriate: x use style and scale consistently throughout a site x design both internal and external spaces so that their functions and relationships are easily perceived
Use a Limited Range of Colours and Materials for Visual Unity x use complementary and earth colours for harmony, and bold colours for contrast and emphasis x consider the life expectancy and the maintenance of both buildings and landscaping
Further advice on Farm Steading Conversions can be found in the advice note in Appendix 2. 6. Further Advice
This guidance is intended to provide the first steps for building a house in the Borders countryside. If you are interested in any particular location or have a particular site in mind you should contact the Planning and Economic Development Department for an informal assessment of the suitability of your proposal. (See page 25)
Whilst the Council will encourage a full planning application in preference to an outline application for any housing in the countryside proposal, you may prefer to submit an application for outline consent in order to get a formal decision from the Scottish Borders Council on whether your proposed site is acceptable in principle. However, even at the outline stage, sketch proposals for sensitive sites or an explanation of the circumstances justifying a house based on special need will be important to assist in the processing of the application.
All applications for full planning consent for a new house will require to provide information on all aspects of the proposal including details of external materials and their colours, floor and site levels, landscaping and boundary treatments, means of access and means of servicing.
For further advice on the detailed design of a new house it is recommended that you consult an architect with experience in the design of new houses in the countryside or a local builder with similar experience.
Publications
Further information on building in the countryside is also available in recent publications:
Scottish Executive Scottish Planning Policy 3 - Housing Scottish Executive Scottish Planning Policy 15 – Planning for Rural Development Scottish Executive Planning Advice Note 72 – Housing in the Countryside Scottish Office National Planning Policy Guideline 14 – Natural Heritage Tomorrow’s Architectural Heritage - Landscape and Buildings in the Countryside - JM Fladmark, GY Mulvagh and BM Evans 7. Glossary Of Terms
Anchor Point: A dispersed community that is located within the Southern Housing Market Area.
Building Group: A group of residential buildings comprising at least three dwelling units which are situated closely together and which are identifiable by a sense of place. Natural boundaries such as water courses, trees or enclosing landform, or man-made boundaries such as existing buildings, roads, plantations or means of enclosure contribute to the group.
Housing in the Countryside: Housing located outside the development boundaries of settlements included in the Local Plan.
Isolated Housing: Individual houses in the countryside which are not considered to be part of a building group.
Local Policy: Policy that is formed at the local level. Local policy must comply with national policy.
National Policy and Advice: National Policy and Advice which is produced at national level and that local policy must adhere to.
PAN/ Planning Advice Note: A series of documents that are produced at the national level and which provide advice on good practice.
Section 75 Agreement: A legal agreement which regulates the development or use of land and is entered into by the Planning Authority and any person interested in the land to which it relates.
SPG/ Supplementary Planning Guidance: Documents which summarise the Planning Authority's detailed advice on its planning policy.
SPP/ Scottish Planning Policy: A series of documents that provide statements of Scottish Government policy on nationally important land use and other planning matters. Contact Addresses
Advice from the Planning and Economic Development Department can be obtained at the appropriate offices as follows: Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells TD6 0SA Telephone: 01835 825060
Galashiels Area Office Albert Place, Galashiels TD1 3DL Telephone: 01896 662705
Berwickshire Area Office, Newtown Street, Duns TD11 3DT Telephone: 01361 886105
Peebles Area Office, Rosetta Road, Peebles EH45 8HQ Telephone: 01721 726305
Hawick Area Office Town Hall High Street Hawick TD9 9EF Telephone: 01450 364705 APPENDIX 1: STRUCTURE PLAN POLICIES H4, H5 & H6, AND LOCAL PLAN POLICIES H1, D1, D2 & G8
POLICY H4 HOUSING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE – CONVERSION OR REBUILDING Proposals for the conversion of existing buildings to residential use and the rebuilding of existing dwellings in the countryside outwith defined settlements will normally be supported where they are in accordance with the provisions of the policy guidance 'New Housing in the Borders Countryside'.
POLICY H5 NEW HOUSING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE – BUILDING GROUPS Proposals for new housing in the countryside outwith defined settlements but associated with existing building groups will normally be supported where they are in accordance with the provisions of the policy guidance 'New Housing in the Borders Countryside'. Favourable consideration is more likely where development proposals: (i) are readily accessible to the strategic public transport network, (ii) employ energy efficient and/or innovative design principles, (iii) incorporate employment-generating uses appropriate to a countryside setting.
POLICY H6 NEW HOUSING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE – ISOLATED HOUSING Proposals for new housing in the countryside, outwith defined settlements and unrelated to building groups, will only be supported where: (i) the house can be shown by the developer to be essential at that location for the needs of agriculture or other uses currently occupying or requiring an appropriate rural location, and (ii) the requirement for a house cannot be satisfied by Policy H5.
POLICY H1 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Where the Local Housing Strategy or local needs assessment identifies a local housing need, the Council will require the provision of a proportion of land for affordable or special needs housing, both on allocated or windfall sites. The final scale of such affordable and/or special needs housing will be assessed against: 1. ongoing local housing needs assessment work being carried out by the Council, 2. the location and size of the site, and 3. the availability of other such housing in the locality.
Developers may be required to make contributions through: 4. the provision of a proportion of the site for affordable housing affordable, or 5. the provision of additional land elsewhere to accommodate the required number of affordable housing units, or 6. the provision of commuted payments.
JUSTIFICATION The aim of the policy is to ensure that new housing development provides an appropriate range and choice of “affordable” units as well as mainstream market housing. The provision of affordable housing is a material consideration in the planning system, and the development plan is recognised as an appropriate vehicle through which it may be facilitated by planning authorities.
The requirement set by this policy, and the means of meeting it, will vary between settlements and between sites. Negotiation on a site by site basis at the time of an application will determine the precise requirements relating to any specific development proposal. Ongoing research as part of the local housing needs assessment has identified, and will continue to identify, areas where there is a demonstrable need for affordable housing. Where surveys have been undertaken on local housing need, this is indicated in the Settlement Profiles.
Decision making will be guided by the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing which, at the time of writing, provides for a minimum 10-25% in line with the SPG on Affordable Housing. These percentages may be revised upwards depending on the site or the information available on local need. “Affordable” housing is broadly defined as housing that is available for rent or sale that meets local identified needs of people who cannot afford to buy or rent housing for their requirements that is generally available on the open market. A fuller definition is given in the Supplementary Planning Guidance.
POLICY D1 – BUSINESS, TOURISM AND LEISURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE
Proposals for business, tourism or leisure development in the countryside will be approved provided that: 1. the development is to be used directly for agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations, or for uses which by their nature are appropriate to the rural character of the area, or 2. the development is to be used directly for leisure, recreation or tourism appropriate to a countryside location and is in accordance with the Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy, or 3. the development is to be used for other business or employment generating uses, provided that the Council is satisfied that there is an economic and/or operational need for the particular countryside location, and that it cannot reasonably be accommodated within the Development Boundary of a settlement.
In all cases: 4. the development must respect the amenity and character of the surrounding area, 5. the development must have no significant adverse impact on nearby uses, particularly housing, 6. where a new building is proposed, the developer will be required to provide evidence that no appropriate existing building or brownfield site is available, and where conversion of an existing building is proposed, evidence that the building is capable of conversion without substantial demolition and rebuilding, 7. the expansion or intensification of uses will be approved , in principle, where the use and scale of development are appropriate to the rural character of the area, 8. the development must take account of accessibility considerations in accordance with Policy Inf11.
JUSTIFICATION The aim of the policy is to allow for appropriate employment generating development in the countryside whilst protecting the environment in the countryside and to ensure that business, tourism and leisure related developments are appropriate to their location. This policy will be applied to any applications that involve economic diversification in rural areas, for example diversification of agricultural land. Any diversification must involve land uses that are complementary to or appropriate for the area.
Developments that involve both employment and housing uses will be assessed against this policy and Policy D2.
The policy recognises that some tourism related developments may not be able to be easily accommodated within settlements and may be satisfactorily located in certain countryside locations subject to compliance with environmental policies. Decision making will be guided by reference to the Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy which requires all tourism developments to be of high quality, sustainable and customer focussed.
The relevant government guidance is NPPG14 and SPP 15 – Planning for Rural Development.
POLICY D2 – HOUSING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE
The Council wishes to promote appropriate rural housing development: (a) in village locations in preference to open countryside, and (b) in dispersed communities in the southern Borders that are experiencing depopulation in preference to areas under significant commuter pressure in the Northern Borders, Central Borders and Berwickshire. These general principles will be the starting point for the consideration of applications for housing in the countryside which will be assessed against the Council’s Policy Guidance Note “New Housing in the Borders Countryside” 1993, as amended 2000 and 2004 and Structure Plan policies H5 and H6. This policy should be read in conjunction with these other policy statements which give more detailed guidance on siting, design and interpretation.
Housing in the countryside may be approved provided that: EITHER
(Building Group) 1. The Council is satisfied that the site is well related to an existing group of at least three houses or building(s) capable of conversion to residential use. Where conversion is required to establish a cohesive group of at least three houses, no additional housing will be approved until such conversion has been implemented. 2. In a small number of areas of the Borders where there are few building groups comprising 3 houses and a more dispersed pattern is the norm, a lower threshold may be appropriate. A lower threshold may also be accepted in instances where the development would bring tangible environmental benefits. In these cases the existence of a sense of place will be the primary consideration. 3. Any consents for new build granted under this part of this policy should not exceed 100% of the existing number of housing units in the group. No further development above this threshold should be permitted. 4. The cumulative impact of new development on the landscape and amenity of the surrounding area will be taken into account when determining new applications. Additional development within a building group will be refused if, in conjunction with other developments in the area, it will cause unacceptable adverse impacts on the landscape or the natural heritage, unless it can be shown that development is merited through other criteria as set out below.
OR (Anchor point) The Council is satisfied that the site lies within a recognised “dispersed community” that functions effectively as an anchor point in the southern Borders. These dispersed communities are to be found in areas of rural depopulation and comprise the Ettrick and Yarrow valleys and southern Borders as indicated on Policy Maps P0-P5. Any consents granted under this part of this policy will not normally exceed 100% of the existing number of housing units in the dispersed group. The design of housing will be subject to the same considerations as other types of housing in the countryside proposals.
OR (Economic Requirement) The Council is satisfied that: 1. the housing development is a direct operational requirement of an agricultural, horticultural, forestry or other enterprise which is itself appropriate to the countryside; such could include businesses that would cause disturbance or loss of amenity if located within an existing settlement, or 2. the housing development would help support a business that results in a clear social or environmental benefit to the area, including the retention or provision of employment or the provision of affordable or local needs housing
AND 3. no appropriate site exists within a building group, and 4. there is no suitable existing house or other building capable of conversion for the required residential use, and
EITHER 5. a) it is for a worker predominantly employed in an enterprise which is itself appropriate to the countryside and the presence of that worker on-site is essential to the efficient operation of the enterprise,
OR b) it is for use of a person last employed in an agricultural, horticultural, forestry or other enterprise which is itself appropriate to the countryside, and also employed on the unit that is the subject of the application, and the development will release another house for continued use by an agricultural, horticultural, forestry or other enterprise which is itself appropriate to the countryside.
The applicant and, where different, the landowner, may be required to enter into a Section 75 agreement with the planning authority: to tie the proposed house (or, in the case of 5b). above, any existing house) to the business for which it is justified and to restrict the occupancy of the house to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in that specific business, and their dependants. A Business Plan, supported by referees or independent business adjudication, may be required in some cases.
OR (Conversion) The proposed development is a change of use of a building to a house, provided that: 1. the Council is satisfied that the building has architectural or historic merit or is physically suited for residential use; and 2. the building stands substantially intact (normally at least to wallhead height) and the existing structure requires no significant demolition. A structural survey will be required where in the opinion of the Council it appears that the building may not be capable of conversion; and 3. the conversion and any proposed extension or alteration is in keeping with the scale and architectural character of the existing building.
OR (Rebuilding) The proposed development is the rebuilding or restoration of a house, provided that either: 1. the existing building makes a positive contribution to the landscape 2. the walls of the former residential property stand substantially intact (normally at least to wallhead height), and 3. no significant demolition is required (A structural survey will be required where it is proposed to fully demolish the building, showing that it is incapable of being restored); and 4. the restoration/rebuilding and any proposed extension or alteration is in keeping with the scale, form and architectural character of the existing or original building, 5. Significant alterations to the original character will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that these provide environmental benefits such as a more sustainable and energy efficient design or: 6. the proposal relates to an established policy/parkland setting, not normally comprising part of a designed landscape, and 7. there is evidence of the existence of the building in terms of criteria 1-3 above, or, alternatively, sufficient documentary evidence exists relating to the siting and form of the previous house and this evidence is provided to the satisfaction of the Council, and 8. the siting and design of new buildings reflects and respects the historical building pattern and the character of the landscape setting, and 9. the extent of new building does not exceed what is to be replaced.
In ALL instances there shall be compliance with the Council’s Policy and Guidance Note on ‘New Housing in the Borders Countryside’ and must not negatively impact on landscape and existing developments. The cumulative effect of applications under this policy will be taken into account when determining impact.
JUSTIFICATION The aims of the policy are: to encourage a long-term sustainable pattern of appropriate rural housing development that restricts development outwith defined settlements in accordance with the need to support existing services and facilities in villages and the promotion of sustainable travel patterns; to support rural businesses; to protect the environment from inappropriate and sporadic new housing development; and to direct new housing in the countryside development into identifiable building groups or to remote rural anchor points. Any housing built under this policy will not be treated as a new anchor point or building group within this local plan period. The provisions regarding anchor points within the Policy have been formulated in response to concerns over rural depopulation in specific areas of the Southern Borders. Currently, anchor points may be identified at Ettrick and Yarrow Feus. Further anchor points may be identified during the lifetime of the Local Plan. Detailed evidence on the relationship to the anchor point should accompany planning applications seeking approval under this provision.
The policy restricts isolated new housing in the countryside in accordance with government guidance unless it can be satisfactorily substantiated by an economic justification. Any housing built under this justification as affordable housing will only be supported if it addresses an identified housing need, as listed in policy H1, or in a local housing needs survey, or in a Registered Social Landlord’s delivery programme. Further information on this can be found in Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing.
The Council intends to consolidate its policy guidance on housing in the countryside by producing Supplementary Planning Guidance on Rural Development.
The relevant Scottish Executive Planning Policy Guidance is SPP3 – Planning for Housing and SPP15 – Planning for Rural Development which supports appropriate housing in the countryside. This refers to Planning Advice Note (PAN) 72– Housing in the Countryside (which states that development in the countryside will be determined by a number of factors including context, identity and connection). It also states that Housing in the Countryside developments must also comply with the six key qualities identified in “Designing Places” which make a successful place - one major consideration is the requirement for new development to fit within the landscape. PAN 36 – Siting Housing in the Countryside is also relevant.
POLICY G8 – DEVELOPMENT OUTWITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES Where Development Boundaries are defined on Proposals Maps, they indicate the extent to which towns and villages should be allowed to expand during the Local Plan period to 2011. Development should be contained within the Development Boundary and proposals for new development outwith this boundary and not on allocated sites identified on the proposals maps will normally be refused.
Exceptional approvals may be granted provided strong reasons can be given that: 1. it is a job-generating development in the countryside that has an economic justification under Policy D1 or D2, OR 2. it is an affordable housing development that can be justified under in terms of Policy H1, OR 3. there is a shortfall identified by Scottish Borders Council through the housing land audit with regard to the provision of an effective 5 year housing land supply; OR 4. It is a development that it is considered would offer significant community benefits that outweigh the need to protect the Development Boundary.
AND the development of the site:
5. represents a logical extension of the built-up area, and 6. is of an appropriate scale in relation to the size of the settlement, and 7. does not prejudice the character, visual cohesion or natural built up edge of the settlement, and 8. does not cause a significant adverse effect on the landscape setting of the settlement or the natural heritage of the surrounding area.
The decision on whether to grant exceptional approvals will take account of:
1. any indicators regarding restrictions on, or encouragement of, development in the longer term that may be set out in the settlement profile in Section 4; 2. the cumulative effect of any other developments outwith the Development Boundary within the current Local Plan period; 3. the infrastructure and service capacity of the settlement.
JUSTIFICATION The aim of the policy is to ensure that most development is located within defined Development Boundaries. Any development proposals outwith the boundary would have to comply with the rigorous exceptions criteria contained within this policy. It is considered that development outwith the Development Boundary should not be seen as an alternative to allocated sites where these are available and therefore, should only be an “exceptional” occurrence.
The policy recognises that it is not practicable to provide detailed development boundaries for every settlement. It also recognises that within the lifetime of the local plan, it is inevitable that unanticipated or windfall developments will arise immediately outwith development boundary and that on occasion these might be acceptable provided they are in line with the Plan’s other policies. Examples of developments offering significant community benefits might be a school, community or health centre or in the case of a village, there might be community support for housing development that could help provide a population to support local services. For clarification, any development for affordable housing must meet the requirements of policy H1, namely, there must be evidence that the proposed development meets an identified housing need for the settlement and that it will provide housing defined as affordable under the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing.
This policy is supported by Scottish Executive Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)3 and Planning Advice Note (PAN) 44 which set out development control criteria for expansions to existing settlements and guidance on fitting new housing development into the landscape. APPENDIX 2: FARM STEADING CONVERSIONS ADVICE NOTE
Farm Steading Conversions
This note may also be useful when dealing with the conversion of other buildings found in the countryside, such as derelict cottages and stables.
Scottish Borders Council has seen a significant rise in the number of planning applications for housing in the countryside. The annual average of planning approvals relating to Housing in the Countryside is 247. Many of these applications are for farm steading conversions or associated new build. Due to a significant increase in steading conversions, it has become increasingly important to ensure that these planning applications are dealt with appropriately.
The topics covered by this Advice Note are:
1. Rural Character 2. Policy 3. Steading Conversions – Design Landscape Access Planning Control 4. New Build Associated with Steading Conversions – Building Groups Access & Roads Layout & Design Planning Controls 5. Appendice – The Appendice is a checklist to assist in reminding Officers of the various issues covered in this Advice Note. It also includes key words as reminders.
1 Rural Character The Scottish Borders like many other parts of Scotland has a range of rural buildings that can be found in attractive settings. Where these buildings become redundant it may be considered appropriate that they be re-used to keep the appearance and character of the rural farm buildings as well as the rural countryside. A balance needs to found to accommodate the requirements for the new use yet retain the rural character and setting of the steading. Only buildings that the Council are satisfied have a design merit and the character of traditional farm buildings will be supported for conversion.
Where any pre-application discussions take place, Officers should encourage applicants to submit a Full Planning Application for a proposal of this type, and this should be supported by a full set of drawings to demonstrate how the conversion will be carried out. This is in line with Finalised Local Plan Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development. Some proposals may also require Listed Building Consent.
2 Policy Finalised Local Plan Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside makes it clear that the conversion and any proposed extension (although this should normally be discouraged) or alteration is in keeping with the scale and architectural character of the existing building. The policy also makes it clear that in terms of an addition to a Building Group, the cumulative impact of new development on the landscape and amenity of the surrounding area will be taken into account when determining new applications. The policy continues by stating that additional development within a Building Group will be refused if, in conjunction with other developments in the area, it will cause unacceptable adverse impacts on the landscape or natural heritage, unless it can be shown that the development is merited through other criteria as set out in the Policy.
Q: Is the building still capable of its original use? If not – possibility for change of use to residential or business diversification?
It is important to establish that the building is no longer suitable for its intended use and to consider all the possible alternative uses. Whilst most proposals relate to conversion for residential use, it may be possible with minor repairs and amendments to utilise the building for modern agricultural, commercial or community purposes. The Scottish Executive, through SPP 15: Planning for Rural Development states that “planning authorities should support a wide range of economic activity in rural areas and seek environmental enhancement through development at every opportunity.”
Rural buildings have an important economic role to play in providing valuable workspace for rural businesses; or may provide the opportunity for diversification into self-contained holiday accommodation thus reducing the demand for new buildings in the countryside. SPP 15 also states that “Diversification is often most successful where activities are complementary and are carefully targeted”. This document also states that local enterprise companies are a good sources of expertise on what type of business development is likely to succeed in an area as well as where there may be potential for further development.
Q: Is there an existing agricultural operation on the site? If so, is it intended that this operation will remain within the area?
If this agricultural operation is to stay, can the two uses co-exist? If not, Environmental Health may need to be consulted specifically in relation to noise and smell. Often rural buildings such as steadings have their own private water supply; the quality and quantity of this supply may also need testing.
3 Steading Conversion Where an applicant or enquirer proposes significant changes to a steading building, such as using modern design and materials or raising wallheads, consultation with the Heritage and Design Section is encouraged at the outset and in particular if the property is a listed building.
Design Any alterations to the existing steading should be carried out in a sensitive manner in order to retain the architecturally important features of the traditional building. Where possible all of the buildings should be used within the conversion and only in exceptional circumstances where buildings have deteriorated excessively will demolition be acceptable.
Your attention should also be drawn to “Guide for Traditional Practitioners 1: Rural Buildings of the Lothians Conservation and Conversion” - a copy of which you should have in your Area Office.
It should also be noted that where the Development Management Officer feel that they require further guidance on issues such as Public Rights of Way, access, biodiversity, archaeology, trees and roads, the relevant sections of the Council should also be consulted.
Detailed proposals should conform to the following criteria:
Q: Is the structure capable of conversion?
Careful consideration should be given to whether the building is structurally sound, and readily capable of conversion without the need for substantial rebuilding or alterations.
The Finalised Local Plan Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside states the building should be substantially intact (normally at least to wallhead height) and the existing structure requires no significant extension (including increase in height) or demolition. It also states that a structural survey will be required where the council is of the opinion that the building may not be capable of conversion.
Details such as the retention of traditional features including roof timber, the positioning of new windows and doors, the accommodation of garage space and vehicular parking, and the provision of domestic gardens are important features and should be considered at the outset. Retaining the original structure is obviously an essential part of any conversion as removing prominent features and characteristics will cumulatively result in a deterioration of the character of the original steading.
All associated storage provision should be included in the original buildings to avoid where possible the need for additional garden sheds and other out-buildings to be erected once the conversion is complete.
Where applications are approved, conditions must be applied to remove permitted development rights (for both alterations and outbuildings), and to ensure that any works purporting to be necessary for the purposes of conversion do not amount to a rebuilding of the existing buildings.
The following standard condition should be applied in all cases:
RS15 Conversion to Dwelling – No Rebuilding
This permission shall only permit the conversion and adaptation of the existing structure as a single dwelling unit. It shall not purport to grant permission for the erection of a new dwelling nor for any extensive rebuilding which would be tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling.
Reason: Permission has been granted for the conversion of an existing building to habitable accommodation in a location where a new dwelling would not otherwise be appropriate.
A proliferation of new outbuildings provided through permitted development rights can ultimately have an adverse affect on the appearance of the completed conversion. Careful consideration should be given to the need to storage space for garden equipment, bicycles, and other items. The developer should be encouraged to address the issues of ancillary sheds etc as part of the title deeds.
Q: Can the steading accommodate an extension?
Generally speaking, conversion of buildings should only normally be acceptable without recourse to significant extension. Remember, the underlying principle is that the justification for conversion in the first place is that the building is deemed to be worthy and capable of conversion, rather than that the Council is allowing residential development in a location where it would not ordinarily be acceptable.
Extensions ancillary to conversion schemes will only be accepted where it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to secure the restoration of the existing building, without adversely affecting its character. They should be subordinate in scale and should also relate to the character of the farmstead group. This is especially the case where the existing building(s) are listed. Extensions after conversion will be discouraged and removal of permitted development rights for later extensions should be considered.
Where acceptable extension or alteration is proposed to the steading, it is preferable if these are accommodated on ‘private’ elevations.
It should be encouraged that any extension proposed to steading should look “obviously new” allowing for a clear distinction to be made. They may take the form of a contemporary design or one based on an existing outbuilding.
Q: What materials, finishes and colours are appropriate?
Retention of existing material must be a priority when considering the conversion of any rural building. Replacing traditional materials such as timber windows and doors to modern uPVC will inevitably result in a significant loss in the character of the property. Where part demolition takes place, materials should be salvaged for re-use where possible. The original finishes of the steading should be retained and repaired where necessary and appropriate. In the event of an extension to a steading the original finishes should be respected. Materials commonly used were local stone, harl, slate and timber.
Where new mortar is to be used, careful colour matching to the existing should be undertaken and nature of pointing must be specified.
Where roofing materials are concerned it may be difficult to source the original roofing material – be it slate or pantile, where this is the case all of the original covering should be reused on the main elevations thereby allowing a similar slate/ pantile to be then used on the minor elevations.
Traditional finishes such as cobbles or setts should be retained and repaired where necessary.
Where painting is required – traditional, natural or ‘earthy’ colours should be used, for example on doors and windows – dark greens and dark reds were traditionally common colours. The use of an “estate” colour for all external openings should be encouraged as a means of unifying the development. The use of white or cream is seldom successful.
Q: How do you deal with new and proposed Openings, Windows and Doors?
All original openings should be retained in a form were they can be easily read as “original openings”. Where these are to be ‘filled-in’ – glazing or a timber infill is preferred.
Keeping the original doors and windows, or replacing them with ‘like for like’ will ensure that alterations to the steading are kept to a minimum.
In all cases, doors and windows should be recessed from the wall face, rather than flush. Normally a recess of 100mm will suffice however, Development Management Officers should check existing recess dimensions to obtain the most appropriate.
Windows: Existing windows may not be necessarily sash and case, these were commonly found in the cottages, houses or in farm buildings of the highest architectural pretensions, or on those parts of the steading that were of residential use. It is not uncommon to find fixed windows (i.e. those that do not open) as their purpose was simply to provide light. Casement windows can sometimes also be found and quite often with astragals. On occasion casement windows with an inward opening can be found, where this is the case they should be retained.
When inserting windows into existing openings where these were originally unfilled, no attempt should be made to enlarge the opening. New windows in these situations should be kept simple and less fussy in design.
When inserting new windows or doors into existing or new openings it is important to ensure the continued simplicity of design by using traditional materials, to retain the character of the building. The shape of any new window opening should be influenced by the existing openings of the building. Therefore they may be vertically proportioned or square, and their size and style should also take reference from existing windows, including details of cills, lintels and margins. The frames should be timber, but painted or stained a darker colour. The number of new windows should be minimised and large areas of unbroken masonry walls should be retained to avoid change to the character of the building.
Doors: Traditionally all doors were painted timber. The most common type is the vertical ‘boarded’ doors although their exact sizes can vary. Boarded doors tended to be used in majority of rural buildings with the exception of the most prestigious. Generally ‘panelled doors’ are inappropriate on steadings.
Boarded doors that were split into two sections and are capable of being opened independent of each other were usually only found on stable or other similar situations. Conversion of door opening to windows: to deal with this situation there are various acceptable options.
1. The existing door can be retained and used as a shutter, where this is the case the door should open outwards, and the opening should be recessed deeply and simply glazed on the inside. 2. The original door should be retained but be partially glazed. The style of glazing will depend on the type of door although it is best that the glazing is retained to the upper half only. 3. The door surround should be retained unaltered and a window placed neatly to the upper section of the opening. The lower section should then be filled with recessed blocking, preferably matching stone or render.
Q: Can new rooflights be inserted and if so what type?
Traditionally rooflights had a more vertical emphasis and tended to have a vertical astragal running down the centre. Where rooflights are proposed for replacement this feature should be retained. Where new rooflights are to be inserted, it is essential that they mirror the traditional form and should be kept to a minimum. The use of conservation type ‘Velux’ rooflights that sit flush on the roof surface should be a requirement. There may be instances where there is a desire by the applicant to have larger area of glazing within the roof structure, where this is the case a more ‘agricultural’ style of opening should be encouraged. Where this is a necessity, the opening should be placed on less prominent parts of the building.
Q: Are Dormers appropriate on steading conversions?
The insertion of new dormers will alter the appearance of a steading considerably and will be most obvious even from a distance. They tend to be rare on existing steadings with the exception of being on more formal elevations, whereas granary or hayloft loading doors are a relatively common feature. For that reason, new dormers should generally be avoided unless very well designed in the context of the building.
Q: How should proposed new Chimneystacks, Flues and Aerials be dealt with?
Chimneystacks generally are not found on steading buildings with the exception of those parts that were originally of residential use. For that reason new chimneystacks on steading conversions should be avoided. The use of a small metal flue on a low position would be more acceptable and should be located on the least prominent elevation or preferably within the building it self. Painting the flue a matt black or grey may minimise character change.
Aerials and satellite dishes should also be placed on low levels or preferably within the building. It may be that a discreetly located free-standing dish or aerial away from the building will be preferable. Where conversion is to more than one unit, communal dish/aerial should be considered to avoid proliferation.
Q: Where should new rainwater goods be located?
Many traditional rural buildings did not have a rainwater drainage system. Therefore new down pipes should be discreetly located and where possible on the least visible elevation. They should be bracket mounted as opposed to being on new fascia boards. Material should preferably be painted metal in a traditional design.
Q: Are new garages appropriate within the steading Development? Buildings such as former cartsheds or granaries may provide an opportunity for garaging due to their large openings. Proposed new garages should be resisted. Parking should be allowed for discreetly on ‘private’ elevations.
Landscape Whilst it is important that the detail of the steading conversion is carried out appropriately, it is equally important to ensure that the setting of the steading is not compromised. With any conversion, the impact on the setting of the building is a vital aspect of how successful the project is. A sensitive conversion will be to respect and bring together the building and its landscape setting. This will require some understanding of the features that characterise the setting and their relationship with the surrounding landscape.
Q: How should open spaces and courtyards be dealt within the development?
Open spaces such as court yards should be retained as open space. They should not be subdivided in any instance even where the steading is proposed to be converted into multiple residential units.
Q: How should the steading and garden curtilage, landscaping and fuel tanks be treated?
The curtilage of the overall steading conversion/development or garden should be defined by the use of a low hedge, timber post and rail fence or stone wall. Each case however, will require to be assessed individually.
Care should be taken not to over-domesticate an agricultural setting with new fences, walls and hedges particularly in new materials. Reference to existing boundary treatments should be considered and replicated where appropriate.
Oil or gas tanks may require to be sited within the garden or nearby the steading. This should preferably be located to the rear of the building or in the least visible part of the garden. Access for servicing should be considered. Planting of hedgerows of native species may provide acceptable screening for tanks.
Q: How should the landscaping of the steading be treated?
A landscape scheme may be requested as part of the planning application. The garden space should be integral to and of a scale proportionate with the building.
Landscape design and specification should be appropriate to the context. Existing trees and hedgerows should be retained and enhanced where necessary with native species. Traditional boundary walls where they exist should be retained or repaired where necessary. New boundary treatments should be simple in design – in most instances planting can be the most successful if sufficiently varied and understated.
Where a new fence is proposed a simple post and rail fence should be preferred. The dimensions for the posts should be approximately 1200mm in height (above ground) and 80mm x 80mm in section, while the rails should be approximately 1600mm in length and 80mm x 40 in section. All timber to be used must have the bark removed.
As noted above, traditional finishes such as cobbles or setts should be retained and repaired where necessary.
Where areas of the site are in common ownership - a management scheme should be put in place to ensure the regular maintenance is undertaken.
Development Management Officers should also refer to the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Landscape and Development; and Trees and Development.
Access Vehicular access can have minimal impact when a steading is converted with careful landscaping. Farm tracks can be retained and parking can be accommodated within cart-sheds or other outbuildings if they exist. Roads standards such as large visibility splays, turning circles and street lighting should be avoided if at all possible.
Q: How much change to allow suitable access into the steading is acceptable?
The means of access into a steading development should be appropriate in scale and design to the rural context. ‘Over engineered’ roads or drives should be avoided where possible, although it is appreciated that Technical Services and Building Standards may largely dictate the standard. Traditional track/drive finishes should be retained where possible. Modern ‘street’ finishes such as tarmac and kerbs should be avoided. Although perhaps more related to associated new build the requirement of an adoptable road in itself, may be reason to refuse an application due to the detrimental effect that, for example, associated lighting will have on the rural landscape.
Q: Is there likely to be a conflict of access through the courtyard between new residents and farm traffic?
Where there is likely to be a conflict of access through courtyard between new residents and farm traffic – Roads should be consulted. However, where there is a likelihood of this occurring re-routing the farming traffic should be encouraged, but subject to the principles set out in the question above.
Planning Control The retention of planning control even after full planning approval has been issued can aid in retaining the character and setting of the steading development.
Q: Should any new build take place before the Steading Conversion is complete?
As a rule, no. However, if there is already an established building group (without the conversion), it will not be possible or reasonable to prevent this. In other cases, the use of a Suspensive Grampian Condition will prevent any new build from taking place before the Steading Conversion is complete, but this will only be appropriate where both conversion and new build form part of the same application, or are within the same ownership. In other situations, a Section 75 Agreement is likely to be required, but careful consideration will need to be given to whether this approach is reasonable to the circumstances. This condition should be a “standard condition” for any steading conversion with associated new build.
However, such a condition cannot be used to justify new build: if a simultaneous proposal for conversion would need to be completed in order to establish a “building group”, the application for new build should be refused, or withdrawal invited. Only once the conversion is substantially complete could an application for new build be considered appropriate. Q: Should Permitted Development Rights be removed?
Permitted Development Rights should be removed so as to discourage further extensions and alterations from taking place. In doing this, the Council can retain control of any future development which could potentially threaten the character of the steading. The following standard condition should be used on all applications:
PD11 Barn Conversion
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent Order amending, revoking or re- enacting that Order); (i) There shall be no addition or extension to the dwellings (including the insertion of dormer windows or chimneys); (ii) There shall be no further building, structure or other enclosure constructed or placed on the site; (iii) No additional window or other opening shall be made in any elevation; unless an application for planning permission in that behalf has first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; (iv) No alteration to windows, doors or other opening shall be made.
Reason: To safeguard the character, appearance and setting of the building to be converted.
4 New Build Associated with Steading Conversions Whilst it is important to ensure that all design details of a steading conversion are right, it defeats the entire purpose to then allow inappropriate new builds to take place that are associated with the steading conversion but have an adverse affect on the overall character of the setting. New ancillary development should only be accepted where it can be demonstrated as being achievable without adversely affecting the character and setting of the steading.
Building Groups The SPG on New Housing in the Borders Countryside defines a Building Group as: “The existence of a group which is identifiable by a sense of place which will be contributed to by natural boundaries such as water courses, trees or enclosing landform or manmade boundaries such as existing buildings, roads, plantations or means of enclosure. Normally a group will consist of residential buildings comprising at least three dwelling units, including existing buildings capable of conversion to residential uses.”
Q: Is the Steading Building Group a completed Building Group?
It should be emphasised that in relation to Building Groups, Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside states that consents for new build granted under this part of the policy should not exceed 100%. This does not necessarily mean that all Building Groups can increase by this amount. It may be that many Building Groups are already considered complete, and by adding further would result in detrimentally affecting the character and setting of that Building Group.
Sites that require the removal of attractive hedgerows and trees should be avoided.
Access & Roads With the introduction of new residential units, access can have a minimal impact with careful landscaping however, multiple units can have greater impact, and the increase in vehicle numbers can trigger the need to upgrade both the access and local roads. Q: Can the required roads standards be met on site without detrimentally affecting the character of the Steading?
The means of access into the steading development should be appropriate in scale and design to the rural context. ‘Over engineered’ roads or drives should be avoided where possible, although it is appreciated that Technical Services and Building Standards may largely dictate the standard. Traditional track/drive finishes should be retained where possible. Modern ‘street’ finishes such as tarmac should be avoided where possible. The requirement of an adoptable road in itself may be reason to refuse an application due to the detrimental affect that for example associated lighting will have on the rural landscape.
Q: Is all of the land in the control of the developer that will be required to upgrade the local road infrastructure?
Where some new build is seen as acceptable alongside a steading conversion, loss of hedgerows may be inevitable to achieve junction visibility splays. Where this is to occur, new hedgerow planting setback from the original hedgerow line should be required and required to be maintained.
Passing places on the local road network may also be required; where this is the case loss of hedgerows will be inevitable however, replacement planting of native species setback of the original hedgerow line will be required. Conditions should be used to achieve this, but this is only normally appropriate where the area concerned falls within the application site, or is otherwise within the control of the applicant. If not, if there is still a reasonable prospect of the works being achieved, in exceptional circumstances a “Grampian” condition may be used.
Layout & Design New build, be it in a contemporary, sympathetic or a design that mimics that of the steading itself, should be subordinate in scale and relate to the character of the steading. The new build should not compromise the setting and therefore careful thought needs to be given to their siting and layout.
Q: Does the layout of the new build proposed complement that of the existing steading layout?
Standard suburban layout and designs are inappropriate where associated new build is to take place. The layout of any proposed new build should therefore respect the form of the existing steading, detached properties will not be acceptable. As with any other site the simple basics should be applied - shelter, passive solar gain and privacy.
Issues such as safe access and drainage should also be considered. If at all possible, cars should be located out of sight - to the rear.
Q: What type of design is acceptable?
The shape of the new build should be simple, whilst the design particularly on the more prominent ‘front’ elevation should also follow this practice. The design of the new build should be developed to integrate the features of the locality; this includes being well proportioned, good quality materials and absence of frills. None of these should inhibit the opportunity for quality modern design.
The Heritage and Design section should be consulted where the Development Management Officer considers they require further advice on this aspect. Q: What materials finishes and colours are appropriate?
As above, to ensure a quality design it is essential that good quality materials are used, for example the proliferation of inappropriate white plastic particularly in windows and doors is not in keeping of the rural Borders. The use of materials such as local stone, harl and timber cladding should be encouraged.
Q: What size is acceptable for a proposed new build?
The site and the existing steading should inform shape and size of the new development. The existing steading should always remain integral to the overall site and any new development should therefore not be over dominant.
Planning Control The retention of planning control even after full planning approval has been issued can aid in retaining the character and setting of the overall steading development.
Q: Should Permitted Development Rights be removed?
Permitted Development Rights should be removed so as to discourage further extensions and alterations from taking place. In doing this, the Council can retain control of any future development which could potentially threaten the character of the steading. Appendix
Steading Checklist
Q: Is the building still capable of its original use? If not – possibility for change of use to residential or business diversification? Minor repairs, Possible alternatives, Diversification
Q: Is there an existing agricultural operation on the site? If so, is it intended that this operation will remain within the area? Uses co-exist, Noise & smell, Water supply
Q: Is the structure capable of conversion? Structurally sound, Capable of conversion, Retention of Features, Associated storage
Q: Is the steading listed? Character and Appearance, Consultation with Historic Scotland?
Q: Can the steading accommodate an extension? Secure restoration, Retaining character, Obviously new
Q: What materials finishes and colours are appropriate? Retention & repair of existing materials, Salvaged, Mortar, Cobbles or Setts, Traditional, natural or earthy colours
Q: How do you deal with new and proposed Openings, Windows and Doors? Retention of original openings, Like for like, No enlargement of openings, Cill, lintel & margin details, Retention of large unbroken masonary walls
Q: Can new rooflights be inserted and if so what type? Vertical emphasis, Central astragal, “Agricultural” style
Q: Are Dormers appropriate on steading conversions? Formal elevations
Q: How should proposed new Chimneystacks, Flues and Aerials be dealt with? Small metal flues, Communal dishes & aerials
Q: Where should new rainwater goods be located? Discreetly located, Bracket Mounted, Metal
Q: Are new garages appropriate within the steading Development? Cartshed, Granaries, Parking on private elevations
Q: How should open spaces and courtyards be dealt within the development? Not subdivided
Q: How should the steading and garden curtilage, landscaping and fuel tanks be treated? Low hedge, timber post & rail and stone walls, Screening of fuel tanks
Q: How should the landscaping of the steading be treated? Integral, Proportion & scale, Retention of hedgerows, trees, & boundary walls, Traditional finishes, Management scheme
Q: How much change to allow suitable access into the steading is acceptable? Scale & design to rural context, Keeping traditional tracks, Impact on rural setting Q: Is there likely to be a conflict of access through the courtyard between new residents and farm traffic? Re-routing farm traffic
Q: Should any new build take place before the Steading Conversion is complete? Suspensive Grampian Condition
Q: Should Permitted Development Rights be removed? PD11 Barn Conversion New Build Associated with Steading Conversions
Q: Is the Steading Building Group a completed Building Group? Not exceed 100%, Already complete?, Character & Setting
Q: Can the required roads standards be met on site without detrimentally affecting the character of the Steading? Appropriate design & scale to rural context, ‘Over engineered’, Traditional track finishes, Impact on rural setting
Q: Is all of the land in the control of the developer that will be required to upgrade the local road infrastructure? New hedgerow planting, Native species
Q: Does the layout of the new build proposed complements that of the existing steading layout? Inappropriate ‘standard suburban layout’, Respect form of existing steading, Access & drainage, Discreet parking
Q: What type of design is acceptable? Simple, features of locality, Quality materials
Q: What materials finishes and colours are appropriate? Proliferation of white plastic, Local materials
Q: What size is acceptable for a proposed new build? Existing steading integral to development
Q: Should Permitted Development Rights be removed? Discourage further extensions, Character & setting PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE 11 AUGUST 2008 APPENDIX III
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Reference Name and Address Nature of Development Location
08/00940/FUL Mr. S. Davies Change of use of 1st and Hawick Sport and Per Aitken & Turnbull 2nd floors and Social Club, 80 High (Hawick) alterations to form ten Street, Hawick. 22 Buccleuch Street flats. Hawick, TD9 0HW
Decision: Approved, subject to the completion of a legal agreement in respect of affordable housing and education contribution and subject to the following conditions:
1 The proposed development shall incorporate measures to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, and the incorporation of sustainable building techniques and renewable energy technologies, in accordance with the scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure the development minimises any environmental impact 2. Samples of all external materials to be used in the repair and conversion of the building are to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority prior to use on the building. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the Hawick Conservation Area. 3. The lower panes of the windows highlighted in blue on the approved plans are to be obscured glazed to the satisfaction of the planning authority, and maintained as such in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity. 4. The existing windows are to be retained and repaired where necessary. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the Hawick Conservation Area. 5. Full details of all proposed windows to be inserted into the building are to be submitted and agreed by the planning authority prior to the commencement of development. These details are to include a scaled section and profile, details of proposed material and method of opening. Thereafter all new windows inserted into the building are to be in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the Hawick Conservation Area. 6. Prior to the commencement of development, details of communal bin and recycling storage facilities are to be agreed. Thereafter the agreed facilities are to be provided prior to the occupation of the first flat. Reason. To ensure adequate provision for storage of waste and recycling. 7. Prior to commencement of development, a landscaping and boundary treatment scheme for the treatment of the undercroft below the rear elevation of the extension, and overgrown area below the rear fire stair is to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the agreed scheme is to be implemented prior to the occupation of the first flat. Reason: in the interests of visual amenity and the appearance of the Hawick Conservation Area. 8. The first floor stone balcony on the corner of the building is to be repaired and reinstated in accordance with a scheme of restorative stone working and of a detail first submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority. All works in connection with this repair and reinstatement are to be carried out prior to the occupation of the first flat approved by this consent. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the Hawick Conservation Area. 9. Details of a communal digital terrestrial television aerial or satellite system are to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority prior to the commencement of development. Thereafter the agreed scheme is to be incorporated into the development and provided prior to the occupation of the first flat. Reason: To avoid the proliferation of multiple antennae and dish systems on the building, and in the interests of the appearance of the Hawick Conservation Area.
Informatives: It is recommended that the existing floor tiling in the entrance vestibule is retained and repaired where necessary. 07/01379/FUL Chris Grant Property Erection of 14 Redundant Station Per J & E Shepherd dwellinghouses Yard and Associated Chartered Surveyors Grounds, Dolphinton. 18 Castle Street Dumfries DG1 1DR
Decision: Refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposal would be contrary to Policy H9 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Principle One and Policy H1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised December 2005 and Policy 10 of the Tweeddale Local Plan 1996 in that the remote location of the site from essential strategic services is not sustainable. The erection of affordable housing on this site would put an excessive strain the existing infrastructure and lead to an unacceptable precedent for other similar developments in the area. 2. The proposal would be contrary to Policy N20 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy G1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised December 2005 in that it would not be compatible with or respect the character pattern and style of dwellings in the surrounding area. The design and materials proposed for this site would have an adverse effect on the appearance of the group and would set an unacceptable precedent for other housing developments in the area. 3. The proposal would be contrary to Policy H5 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policy 7 of the Tweeddale Local Plan 1996 and Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised December 2005 in that it would not represent a logical expansion of the existing building group leading to an adverse effect on the landscape character and amenity of the area. This would have an adverse effect on the natural group and would set an unacceptable precedent.
08/00020/FUL Tweed Homes Erection of 10 Land East of Dryburn Rowan Court dwellinghouses Park, Deanfoot Road, Cavalry Park West Linton Peebles
Decision: Refused for the following reason:
1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy E12 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001- 2011, Policy 21 of the Tweeddale Local Plan 1996 and Policy H3 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised December 2005 on the grounds that the erection of dwellings on this land, which is allocated for employment uses, would represent a significant departure from the Development Plan. The erection of dwellings on this site would result in the loss of available employment land and would lead to an unacceptable precedent for development on land not allocated for housing.
08/00753/FUL Ternion Joinery Ltd Erection of Plot 10, Steading Per Gordon Melrose dwellinghouse Building, Huntshaw Building Design Farm, Huntshaw 6 Market Place Road, Earlston Selkirk TD7 4BT
Decision: Refused for the following reason:
1. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy H5 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 - 2011, Policy 7 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan 1995, the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy 1993 (as amended 2000 and 2004) and Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 (now advertised for adoption) in that the proposal would exceed 100% of the existing group at the commencement of adoption of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan 1995 and would therefore constitute development which does not relate sympathetically to the scale and character of the group. Scottish Borders Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows August 2008 This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Replacement Windows
August 2008
Introduction
Windows are one of the key elements in any building, not only do they provide light and ventilation, but they also make a major contribution to the appearance of the building. This latter point is particularly important within Conservation Areas or on a Listed Building.
In many cases it is possible to repair and refurbish the existing windows and there are now a number of firms who specialise in this type of work. As well as any repairs, draught- proofing can be introduced to the windows which will cut down the loss of heat.
There are many instances where formal planning permission is not required for replacement windows, (although a Building Warrant may still be required), it is intended that this Supplementary Planning Guidance will help householders in understanding where consent is required, as well as being of interest to those who are considering altering their properties.
A large range of materials and finishes for replacement windows are available. In order to choose a design that suits and enhances your home and respects the wider environment, great care must be taken. The use of an inappropriate design may not only be impractical in use or look unsightly, but may also have an adverse effect on the value of the property.
Since the last Replacement Window Guide was published by the Scottish Borders Council in June 1997, there have been changes in policy reflecting the wider range of products available for replacement windows. This Supplementary Planning Guidance aims to provide clear and consistent advice as to the current policy in operation and also provide information on Building Standards issues. Scottish Borders Council recommend that you read this document in conjunction with Historic Scotland’s “Looking after your sash and case windows: A short guide for homeowners” (revised and updated in October 2003).
Diagram
A diagram showing the need for Planning Permission/ Listed Building Consent is included in Appendix 1 of this Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Important Notice If unauthorised work (i.e. without all of the necessary consents having been obtained) is or has been carried out on a property, Scottish Borders Council has enforcement powers which allow it to challenge the owner/ occupier and require that a retrospective application be submitted. Not only can the Council require the removal of work for which consent is not given and the restoration of the property to its original state, but the owner may be prosecuted. In addition there may be problems with the sale of a property if all necessary consents have not been obtained for work carried out to it.
Contents
1.0 Policy for Replacement Windows 2.0 Design Considerations 3.0 Building Regulations 4.0 Other Permissions 5.0 Grant Aid for Repairs 6.0 More Information 7.0 Definitions 1.0 Policy For Replacement Windows
1.1 General Before detailing the various elements of the policy, it must be emphasised that the standards prescribed are the minimum deemed necessary to afford proper protection to the heritage of our towns and villages. Irrespective of the standards set for particular areas, or whether or not formal consent is required, encouragement should always be given to the use of the best quality and most appropriate windows in design terms.
Applicants should be aware of the implications of using Figure 1: Traditional inappropriate windows, which may adversely affect the Sash & Case Window appearance of the building or a settlement, or affect the users of the buildings and which will often represent a poor investment in financial terms.
As set out in the following pages, where a “like for like” replacement window is proposed and hence no formal consent is required, it is still recommended that the householder should contact the Area Development Management Officer and/or the Building Standards Surveyor if there is any doubt about whether the particular window type is acceptable.
If windows are intended to be renewed, but not “like for like”, it is also recommended that early advice is sought from the local Development Management Officer and Building Standards Surveyor.
The majority of windows installed in pre 1914 buildings are single glazed, painted, timber sash and case windows. These are traditionally installed in a check, i.e. behind the reveal. It is a combination of these details that give us the familiar appearance of older buildings. All the windows of a building may not be exactly the same – differing pane sizes and astragal profiles are important evidence of the building’s history and contribute to the character and interest.
1.2.1 Category A and B Listed Buildings The replacement of windows in listed buildings of category A and B shall be carried out in accordance with the guidelines and advice contained in the “Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas” produced by Historic Scotland. Any alteration to a Listed Building of category A or B would also require approval from Historic Scotland as a part of the consent process. In general “like for like” replacements will be required although in cases where inappropriate windows have previously been installed (either with consent or prior to the property being listed), replacements which better reflect the original style, or are otherwise considered to represent a significant improvement may be Figure 2: Rich acceptable following the processing of a formal application. Decorative Dormer
with Curved Glass
Application Requirements. Where windows are replaced “like for like”, neither a planning application nor an application for Listed Building Consent will be required where the property is listed. In all other instances Listed Building Consent will be required. Where the listed building lies within a Conservation Area and where the proposed change does not comply with the guidelines set out in the following section, an application for planning permission will also be required.
For the avoidance of doubt, it should be emphasised that “like for like” in this context means the same materials, details of construction, decorative finish and details as existing. The replacement window should also be single-glazed as like the original window. The original proportions and glazing pattern should always be respected. It is not essential that all the windows on the same building are exactly the same - differing pane sizes and astragal profiles are important evidence of the building’s history and contribute to the character and interest.
The upper sashes of original Georgian and early Victorian sash and case windows, which were generally small paned windows, never had horns originally. From about 1860 horns were commonly used as larger (and heavier) panes of glass were introduced, in order to provide additional strength to the sashes.
1.2.2 Category C(s) Listed Buildings The introduction of double glazing may be acceptable in the replacement windows in category C(s) listed buildings. However the replacement unit should be of the same material as the original window, have the same glazing pattern and method of opening. Where glazing bars or astragals are required these must be of the same proportion, material and design to match the original window. The use of stick-on astragals will not be permitted. Where inappropriate windows have previously been installed (either with consent or prior to the property being listed), replacements which better reflect the original style, or are otherwise considered to represent a significant improvement may be acceptable following the processing of a formal application.
Application Requirements. Where windows are replaced “like for like”, neither a planning application nor an application for Listed Building Consent will be required where the property is listed. In all other instances Listed Building Consent will be required. Where the listed building lies within a Conservation Area and where the proposed change does not comply with the guidelines set out, an application for planning permission will also be required.
1.3 Conservation Areas There are at present 40 Conservation Areas within the Scottish Borders with a further three proposed. These have been designated by Scottish Borders Council as being areas of “special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve and enhance” (S.61 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.
The Council has taken out “Article 4 Directions in all Conservation Areas which has removed “permitted development rights” from houses. This requires applications for planning permission for works such as replacement windows.
Despite these designations and the additional protection which they have enjoyed some Conservation Areas, or more frequently some parts of Conservation Areas, have experienced unsympathetic alterations, including replacement windows over the years. The Council has taken enforcement action against owners of properties to ensure only appropriate replacements are installed. Even changes to a single window in a Conservation Area can have an incremental effect on the overall character or appearance of the Conservation Area. A review of all the Conservation Areas has been undertaken as part of the Local Plan Review and this has, amongst other matters, looked carefully at existing conservation area boundaries to establish where amendments were required.
1.3.1 Prime Frontages and Core Areas Within Conservation Areas Within certain conservation area locations that are defined as “prime frontages” or “core areas”, a policy similar to that applied to category C(s) listed buildings shall be enforced. The introduction of double glazing may be acceptable in the replacement windows of properties within Prime Frontages and Core Areas. However the replacement unit should be of the same material as the original window, have the same glazing pattern and method of opening. Where glazing bars or astragals are required these must be of the same proportion, material and design to match the original window. The use of stick-on astragals will not be permitted. The buildings within these areas are considered to be particularly important to the character of the conservation area. In these locations windows other than those which are currently well concealed from public view and which are unlikely to be exposed to public view as a result of imminent or programmed developments, should be replaced on a “like for like” basis. Where the original windows have been lost and the current windows do not mirror the original form, there will be a presumption that any future replacements will attempt to mirror the form of the original windows. Details of conservation area boundaries and the “prime frontage” or “core areas” can be obtained from your local Development Management Officer.
Application Requirements Where windows are replaced “like for like, a planning permission will not be required. In all other instances, including where the alteration relates to a concealed elevation, a planning application will be required.
1.3.2 Elsewhere in Conservation Areas The identification of “prime frontages” and “core areas” is not intended to devalue other conservation area locations where encouragement will still be given to the use of “like for like” replacement windows. However, in acknowledgement of the improvements achieved in the design of new windows, alternative materials will be acceptable in these areas provided the replacements closely match the original glazing pattern. Figure 3: Yetholm Conservation Area
Where white painted timber sash and case units are the predominant window type, white coated u-PVC or white coated aluminium sash and case units will be acceptable alternatives although timber is perferred. Similarly, white coated or painted dual swing and similar units which retain the distinct step of sash and case windows and which give the appearance of a sash and case window in all respects except when open, will also normally be acceptable. However, care should be taken when considering introducing new materials to ensure that the dimensions of the replacement window should match as closely to that of the original window. A section through an acceptable uPVC replacement window is shown in section 2.8 of this SPG. Replacements must be installed in the same way as the original (see 2.8).
In all instances the general glazing pattern should mirror the existing unless there are strong reasons for permitting a change, e.g. to reinstate some consistency or unity to a building or street frontage where a different glazing pattern predominates and where there is no sound reason for maintaining a different pattern. Where glazing bars or astragals are required, these must be carefully designed and detailed to match the original or, where appropriate the predominant window style.
Whilst double glazing is acceptable, its installation presents particular problems with small paned windows as the glazing bars have generally to be deeper and wider than the original patterns to accommodate the sealed glazing units, in the case of listed buildings it is often not possible to accommodate double glazing and instead to make use of secondary glazing or internal shutters as well as providing draught stripping to the sashes themselves.
Application Requirements Where windows are replaced “like for like”, planning permission will not be required. In all other instances, including where the alteration relates to a concealed elevation, a planning application will be required.
1.4 Flats Outwith Conservation Areas The installation of replacement windows in flats outwith conservation areas (and which are not Listed Buildings) shall be deemed not to affect the external appearance of the building, and hence shall not require planning permission, subject to the following limitations: • The existing window apertures are neither enlarged nor reduced by infilling panels; • Any existing mullions, whether stone or timber, are retained; • Any existing stone transoms are retained.
Application Requirements In instances where the above limitations are not being met, planning permission will be required. Such applications will be judged on their own merits having regard to the nature of the proposed change, and the character of both the building itself and the surrounding area.
1.5 Non Residential Properties A separate guidance leaflet on shopfront alterations (including shop windows) is available. Proposed alterations to other non residential buildings should generally be assessed against the criteria laid down for alterations to residential buildings. Hence alterations to e.g. offices in core conservation areas should be on the basis of like for like replacements other than where the windows are well concealed from public view. 2.0 Design Considerations
2.1 Issues to Consider with All Windows In addition to requirements of the Building Regulations as specified in section 3, other issues that should be considered in choosing replacement windows may include: • Sound insulation • Heat insulation • Ease of maintenance and repair • Cost to the environment • Security • Ease of opening and closing • Disturbance to finishes during installation
2.2 Traditional Windows Sash and Case Windows: The traditional sash and case window has been in constant use since the 17th century and despite slight alterations in its style, it still remains a feature in our streetscape proving its effectiveness and construction. Early windows were constructed using thick astragals (glazing bars) but these were reduced in thickness in Georgian and early Victorian times. As technology advanced and it became possible to produce larger panes of glass, astragals became less common but because the glass was thicker the sashes needed to be heavier. Horns were then used to strengthen the window. Figure 4: Horn Detail An important feature that can be found in many later Figure 5: 6 on 6 Sash & Case Victorian properties is the use of stained glass. This notable Window feature should be preserved wherever possible.
Metal Windows: Whilst a great number of our traditional buildings were fitted with timber windows, there are also a large number of buildings where the original windows are made of metal. Many ecclesiastical buildings were glazed using these windows with the familiar diamond and square shaped arrangement pattern in stained glass. By the 1850’s metal windows were used in many hospitals, schools and industrial buildings as well as houses.
It was particularly for casement rather than sash type that metal windows were commonly used. However, it wasn’t Figure 6: Traditional Metal until after the First World War that the major metal- Window with Lead Detailing window manufacturers developed standard window sizes for domestic use. It is specifically for that reason that their use in ‘modern’ buildings increased, and particularly so as metal casement windows opened wider than timber casement windows did.
Importance of Crown Glass, Cylinder and Window Fixtures Where the original glazing exists, be it ‘crown’ or ‘cylinder’ every effort should be made for it to be retained. The small air bubbles, waves and ripples are the features that give old glass a character and sparkle in comparison to the perfectly flat modern glass.
Similarly original window fixtures should also be retained where possible. Where these items have been lost, every effort should be made to replace the items with the same or similar to the period of the property. Original ironmongery should also be retained.
Elements of a Traditional Timber Sash and Case Window
Top Rail
Sash Stile
Sash Meeting Rails / Transom Horn Astragal
Bottom Rail
Figure 7 & 8: Traditional Window Details
Old photographs, where they exist, can often be useful in identifying original window patterns. Sometimes it is also possible to see where astragals have been cut out or to find an original window on a rear elevation or a similar neighbouring property.
Examples of Cross Sections Through Different Timber Astragals
Early Georgian Late Georgian Victorian Standard Modern Standard Modern for double glazing In many cases the first preference with all traditional windows is to consider repairs rather than replacement and a number of specialist firms, as well as local joiners, now undertake this work.
2.3 Appropriate Alterations In properties that are Listed Buildings or within a Conservation Area the majority of windows are traditional painted timber sash and case windows. Changing these windows for modern materials can dramatically affect the appearance of a building. The use of “stick on” astragals for example, is often inappropriate and devaluing to the original appearance.
Figure 9: Replacement window, which removes the central mullion and changes the whole character of the window opening.
Figure 10: Replacement window within a stone opening, with mid hung sash. This results in a “heavy” appearance on the lower half of the window. 2.4 Why Retain Old Windows? Both traditional timber windows and metal windows can be economically repaired and made energy efficient avoiding the need for complete replacement, and there are now a number of firms who specialise in this type of work. Complete window replacement is not always required and often only specific parts require attention. Many traditional windows have often lasted for over 100 years with regular maintenance.
Many of the problems that occur in the traditional sash and case windows can be overcome by a suitably qualified and experienced contractor, and likewise with metal windows. Below are some topical problems that owners may experience with their existing buildings:
Timber windows: • Heat loss • Condensation • Timber decay • Wet & dry rot • Draughts • Loose Joints
These defects are however to be expected through age but can be overcome when the existing windows are renovated. Work such as repairing or replacing decayed timber parts, replacing cords, glass and servicing of pulleys can be carried out. Draught-proofing can also be undertaken at the same time as the windows are being overhauled to reduce heat loss and combat against draughts.
Metal windows: • Heat loss • Rust • Draughts
The renovation of metal windows can be carried out either on site or off depending on the design of the window and the type of work that is required. With regards to rust, what may look non-repairable may possibly have decades of life remaining. It should be noted rust can occupy seven times the volume of un-oxidised iron and may seem to be a lot more serious than it really is. Work such as re-straightening and re-glazing can be carried out by a specialist firm often at the fraction of the cost of complete replacement, whilst draught-proofing can also be carried out at the same time.
Do’s and Don’ts in Window Repair Do’s • research prior to restoration • concentrate on repair and not just replacement • find and remedy the root cause of the problem • remember that shutters can be used for insulation • paint windows rather than stain as stains were not historically used • do consider alternative modern weather stripping as an alternative to double glazing • keep usable details as patterns for present and future work
Don’ts • dip traditional sash and case windows in a caustic mix • scrape off paint unless it is interfering with the workings of the window • ignore dampness – it’s a sign of a problem
2.5 Painting and Colour of Traditional Sash and Case Windows Replacement timber windows should be at least primed before delivery to site - this is to ensure that the timber is well protected before being installed. Traditionally the top coat of paint was applied on site and this produced a softer and less uniform finish than a factory applied spray finish for example.
Special attention is required when painting windows that have had draught-proofing measures carried out. Draught strips of the ‘brush-type’ can become clogged when paint has been applied and likewise while paint may not adhere well to the rubber-type, paint solvents can cause damage.
Timber windows should be repainted and the putty checked every five years. When repainting, all elements of the window (sashes and frames) should be painted in a sequence that avoids the sashes sticking.
Traditionally windows were painted in off-white, reds, browns, greens and occasionally blue. Generally white is a comparatively recent colour, but has now become the most common colour. ‘Brilliant white’ can appear harsh and it is often better to use an ‘off white’ e.g. BS4800 colour ‘10 B 15’ to retain an authentic tone. Where properties are in multiple occupancy such as flats, windows should be painted the same colour to avoid an irregular appearance.
As a general rule, stained windows are not appropriate, especially brown / gold stains which are not traditional. Advances in paint technology continue and the boundaries between staining and painting have become more blurred, solid colour however is preferred for replacement windows in historic buildings.
2.6 Draught-proofing and Secondary Glazing Both traditional timber sash and case and metal windows can have draught-proofing installed to minimise draughts. This method is one of the best ways as well being the least intrusive of improving the performance of traditional windows. Very importantly draught- proofing does not damage the visual aesthetics of an historic building.
Secondary glazing is considered to be a cheaper yet more sympathetic alternative to the installation of sealed double-glazed units whilst offering the same advantages of draught- proofing. Once installed, secondary glazing can be easily removed. However, some windows due to the narrowness of the internal sill may not be able to accommodate secondary glazing, or where there are working internal shutters, particularly in these situations draught-proofing is the preferred solution.
2.7 Specialist Firms and Products There are several firms that specialise in the refurbishment; repair and draught-proofing of existing traditional windows to bring them up to the modern standards of insulation however, Scottish Borders Council are unable to recommend an individual firm. Planning staff can advise on the suitability of an individual design and specifications as well as suggesting alternatives where replacement is required.
2.8 Replacing Traditional Windows Where the traditional window has deteriorated excessively and there is impracticable to repair the window, replacement obviously must take place, like wise with metal windows. The replacement window should match the existing windows exactly unless they are obviously modern and out of character. Where the current windows are not modern but are clearly from a later date than that of the building the question as to whether or not to revert to the original design requires professional advice.
Issues of Importance when Replacing Traditional Sash and Case Windows • It is essential to the character of the building when replacing traditional windows to retain the original features exactly in all three dimensions. • Use the same material as in the original • Use the glazing bars that are of an appropriate thickness and profile – this is usually the same as that being replaced but not in all occasions. • Correct placement of window within the opening (as illustrated below).
It is imperative when replacing windows, that the replacement window is positioned correctly. The sketch on the left shows how a typical sash and case window is normally fitted into checks behind stone surrounds – providing both a good weather seal and only showing a thin frame. Whilst the photo to the right shows how this correct fitting looks on site. Figure 11: Sketch showing how a typical sash & case window is Failure to consider this normally fitted into checks behind the correct fitting when stone surrounds to windows - this replacing windows can provides both a good weather seal and result in a substantial Figure 12: Acceptable also only shows a thin frame. loss of the daylight Replacement Window allowed in the property.
When Installing Replacement Windows that are Double Glazed UPVC
/ 135mm / Ensuring that the dimensions of a replacement window are as closely matching that of the original window will aid in preserving the character and appearance of the individual building concerned. To the left are acceptable sized sections through a double glazed replacement window.
Figure 13: Section through an acceptable UPVC Double Glazed Replacement Window 3.0 Building Regulations
Various building regulations apply to the fitting of replacement windows and must be taken into account by you as the owner of the property.
The items that must be taken into consideration when installing replacement windows are: ¾ Ventilation ¾ Natural daylight ¾ Safe cleaning ¾ Means of escape in the event of a fire ¾ Safety glass ¾ Security ¾ Thermal insulation / Insulated glass
The law requires that the replacement window should meet the requirements of the Building Regulations.
If you are altering the structural opening by, for example, removing the window mullions or lowering or raising the cills or lintels or widening the opening to fit a replacement window then a building warrant is required and you should consult your local Building Standards Surveyor.
3.1 Ventilation There are three main needs to satisfy the Building Regulations when looking at ventilation.
1. Some part of the opening section of a window, including a trickle ventilator must be at least 1.75 metres above the floor level.
2. The opening area of the window should be at least equal to one - thirtieth of the floor area of the room which it serves. The opening area may be made up with more than one window into a room.
3. In addition to the opening parts of windows it is usual in new buildings to have a trickle ventilator fitted within the top frame of the window. If the window being replaced has this ventilator then the new window should also be fitted with such a ventilator.
If there are gas appliances within rooms where replacement windows are proposed you should check that additional ventilation, for combustion purposes, is maintained to these rooms. It may mean that additional fixed ventilators will be required within the replacement window unit.
3.2 Natural Daylight Windows which serve living rooms, lounges, sitting rooms, dining rooms, study’s and bedrooms and other similar rooms should be glazed to equal at least one - fifteenth of the floor area of the room served.
This need does not apply to kitchens, utility rooms, bathrooms, toilets or shower rooms. Again the glass area may be made up with more than one window into the same room.
3.3 Safe Cleaning In houses and flats, any glazed surface more than 4 metres above the level of the adjacent ground, must be capable of having its internal and external glazed surfaces cleaned safely from the inside of the building.
Window designs must be such that this requirement will be met. In general large fixed panes at upper floor levels are not acceptable. For example, the maximum reach from an opening part of a window should not exceed: • 850 millimetres measured horizontally • 610 millimetres measured vertically
Note: these figures refer to reach. The actual size of fixed pane must therefore be less than this to allow for reaching into corners of the pane.
Safety depends on the act of cleaning being carried out when standing on the floor. The use of steps to reach glazed surfaces should be avoided.
In general fixed lights and top hung casements cannot be cleaned safely unless there is a suitable opening window next to them within the safe reach limits referred to above.
With regards to traditional sash and case windows, safe cleaning can be achieved through the help of a “Simplex” hinge system being fitted to the lower sash. This then allows the lower sash to be opened so that its outside face can be cleaned. The top sash can then be lowered so that it too can be cleaned safely on both the internal and external faces. (Further information on this can be found within Historic Scotland’s “Looking after you Sash and Case Windows: A short guide for homeowners”.
Side hung casements may only be cleaned safely if fitted with extended leg hinges to enable the outer surface to be reached between the frame and the wall.
The notes given here merely highlight some of the potential problems. For full information reference should be made to British Standard Code of Practice 8213: Part 1: 2004.
Alternatively contact your local Building Standards Surveyor who will give advice on this subject.
3.4 Means Of Escape In The Event Of Fire A suitably designed and located escape window must be provided in every apartment within a house, flat or maisonette which is located in an upper storey which is not more than 4.5 metres above the adjacent ground level.
A suitably designed and located escape window must be provided in every apartment that is an inner room within a house, flat or maisonette. “apartment” means a room within a house which is not used solely as a kitchen, store or utility room. “inner room” means a room, other than a kitchen, which does not have direct access to an exit or a circulation area leading to an exit.
Note: an escape window must be provided in every apartment referred to above.
3.5 Escape Windows For an Escape Window to be acceptable it must meet the requirements as set out below:
1. The Escape Window must be situated in an external wall or roof.
2. It must have an unobstructed openable area that is at least 0.33 metres squared and at least 450 mm high and 450 mm wide (the route through the window maybe at an angle rather than straight through); and
3. Where the bottom of the openable area is not more than 1100 mm above the floor.
The window design must be such that a person can climb through the opening window to escape the effects of fire.
3.6 Basements A basement storey that contains an apartment must be provided with either:
1. An alternative exit from the basement storey, which may provide access to the external air (below the adjoining ground) from which there is access to a place of safety at ground level, or
2. A suitably designed and located escape window in every basement apartment.
3.7 Safety Glass The glass in window units must be suitable for the purpose depending on its location in relation to floor level and in large panes. Toughened or safety glazing may be required in certain circumstances.
In relation to works that have been carried out and do not comply with the relevant building regulations, failures which compromise the safety of the users of the building shall continue to be pursued. This shall apply particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to escape windows. Other failures such as inadequate daylight, ventilation and safe cleaning may also be pursued where necessary and appropriate.
3.8 Security Although not covered by the Building Regulations, careful consideration should be given to the need for locking or safety devices which will prevent children from opening windows at high levels above the ground while still maintaining the ability to open such windows in the event of an outbreak of fire.
3.9 Thermal Insulation/ Insulated Glass Windows must have a U-value (thermal insulation rating) of not more than 1.8 W/m²K. As there are many types of window construction which meet the required degree of the thermal insulation – Please contact your local Building Standards Surveyor. Doors, windows and rooflights which are a complete replacement are not considered to be a repair and now have to meet the full requirements of the standards. For historic buildings, where there is a specific need to match existing doors, windows or rooflights, the principle of “like for like” may still be permitted.
4.0 Other Permissions In addition for the need for Planning Permission / Listed Building Consent and /or a Building Warrant, there may be a need for permission from other bodies or individuals such as a Feudal Superior. It is suggested that it is also helpful to informally consult with neighbours, especially in flats to let them know what works you are intending. 5.0 Grants Aid For Repairs Scottish Borders Council and Historic Scotland have jointly established a number of “Town Schemes” in the Scottish Borders in outstanding Conservation Areas, these schemes can make limited grant aid to owners for the repairs of their properties - this can include repairs to existing windows. Please contact the Countryside and Heritage Section of the Planning and Economic Development Department for further details.
The Council also has a very small budget for repairs to Listed Buildings, which in exceptional circumstances is available for the repair of unusual or particularly good examples of a window type.
6.0 More Information
The Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (Historic Scotland)
Performance Standards for Timber Sash and Case Windows Technical Advice Note No.3 (Historic Scotland)
Looking after your Sash and Case Windows: A short guide for homeowners (Historic Scotland
The Historical and Technical Development of Sash and Case Windows in Scotland (Historic Scotland)
The Conservation of Timber Sash and Case Windows - Guide for Practitioners 3 (Historic Scotland)
Buildings of the Scottish Countryside (Robert J Naismith) Published by Victor Gollancz
Putting Back the Style - a Directory of Authentic Renovation (Alexandra Artley (Ed)) Published by Ward Lock, London
Care and Conservation of Georgian Buildings (Davey, Heath, Hodges, Ketchin, Milne) Published by Butterworth Architecture.
Guide for Practitioners No 6: Conversion of Traditional Buildings. Application of Scottish Building Standards. Part 1 – Principles and Practice Part 2 – Application (Technical Conservation, Research and Education Group, Historic Scotland, Scottish Building Standards Agency)
7.0 Definitions For the purposes of the replacement windows policy the following definitions shall apply:
Astragal - Glazing bar between panes.
Building Standards - A section within the Department of Planning and Economic Development which checks proposals for building operations to ensure compliance with minimum building standards.
Building Regulations - National standards for buildings set out by the Scottish Building Standards Agency (SBSA)
Building Warrant - An approval issued by Building Standards following the submission of an application and after an assessment of the proposals under the Building Regulations.
Casement - A side hung hinged window.
Conservation Area - An area designated under “The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997” as being of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to protect.
Core Conservation Area - A group or groups of buildings and other space so defined being particularly important to the character of the conservation area.
Emergency Escape Window - A window capable of being opened sufficiently to allow persons to make their own means of escape from a building.
Like for like - Identical in all visible respects, including material and basic operating and opening method.
Listed Building - A building of special architectural or historic interest, included on a list drawn up by Scottish Ministers (Historic Scotland)
Mullion - Upright member dividing the lights of a window.
Prime frontage - A range or ranges of properties of being particularly important to the character of the conservation area.
Replacement Window - The replacement of the window element only not including “new” windows in structurally altered “existing” window openings. (e.g. new openings formed by the removal of mullions.)
Sash and Case - A form of window in which the glazing slides in two parallel frames within the case, the upper sliding outward of the lower.
Transom - Horizontal member dividing the lights of a window. Appendix 1
REPLACEMENT WINDOWS – THE NEED FOR PLANNING PERMISSION AND/ OR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT (This chart is for domestic properities only, generally all non-domestic properties will require planning consent for alterations).
HOUSES FLATS
IS THE IS IT IN A IS IT IN A IS THE NO YES NO PROPERTY CONSERVATION CONSERVATION PROPERTY LISTED? AREA? AREA? LISTED?
IS THE REPLACEMENT WINDOW YES NO “LIKE FOR LIKE”? NO YES (see text for definition)
YES NO
PLANNING PERMISSION YES DOES THE REPLACEMENT NEEDED WINDOW AFFECT THE EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING?
PLANNING PERMISSION NO NOT NEEDED
LISTED(T hisBUILD charING CONSENT NEEDED
(Listed Building Consent not required for repairs or “Like for Like” renewal)
Alternative format/language paragraph You can get this document on tape, in large print, and various other formats by contacting us at the address below. In addition, contact the address below for information on language translations, additional copies, or to arrange for an officer to meet with you to explain any areas of the publication that you would like clarified.
其他格式／外文譯本 這份資料冊另備有錄音帶、大字體版本以及多種其他格式。你可以透過以下地 址與我們聯絡，索取不同版本。此外，你也可以聯絡以下地址索取本資料的中 文和其他外文譯本或索取更多拷貝。亦可要求我們做出安排，由我們的工作人 員當面為你解釋你對這份出版物中的不明確之處。
[Alternatywny format/język] Aby uzyskać kopię niniejszego dokumentu w formacie audio, dużą czcionką, oraz innych formatach prosimy o kontakt na poniższy adres. Uzykać tam można również informacje o tłumaczeniach na języki obce, otrzymaniu dodatkowych kopii oraz zaaranżowaniu spotkania z urzędnikiem, który wyjaśni wątpliwości i zapytania związane z treścią niniejszej publikacji.
Parágrafo de formato/língua alternativos Pode obter este documento em cassete audio, impressão aumentada e vários outros formatos contactando a morada indicada em baixo. Pode ainda contactar a morada indicada em baixo para obter informações sobre traduções noutras línguas, cópias adicionais ou para solicitar uma reunião com um funcionário para lhe explicar quaisquer áreas desta publicação que deseje ver esclarecidas.
Параграф об альтернативном формате/языковой версии Чтобы получить данный документ в записи на пленке, в крупношрифтовой распечатке и в других различных форматах, вы можете обратиться к нам по приведенному ниже адресу. Кроме того, по данному адресу можно обращаться за информацией о переводе на различные языки, получении дополнительных копий а также с тем, чтобы организовать встречу с сотрудником, который сможет редставить объяснения по тем разделам публикации, которые вам хотелось бы прояснить.
Business Services Manager, Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Telephone: 01835 825060. E-mail: [email protected]
Item No. 5(a) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
8th SEPTEMBER 2008
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: 5(a) REFERENCE NUMBER: 07/00002/FUL
OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Selkirkshire PROPOSAL: Erection of 37 dwellinghouses and associated parking SITE: Land North of 24 Sergeants Park Newtown St Boswells APPLICANT: Queensbury Properties Ltd AGENT: Aitken Turnbull
SITE DESCRIPTION
This 2 hectare site is situated on the north western edge of Newtown St Boswells. The site is an overgrown agricultural field. The land slopes west to east towards the playing fields and school. Sprouston Burn and woodland associated with the Burn lies to the north and east and there are fields to the west. The residential area of Sergeants Park is to the south comprising of two-storey detached and semi-detached houses. The access to the site is between nos 20 to 22 Sergeants Park. The site is within the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area and is within an Area of Great Landscape Value.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application, as originally submitted, was for the erection of forty four dwellinghouses on the site. The site layout and design of the proposed dwellinghouses were considered to be inappropriate for the site. Lengthy negotiations have taken place with the agent and applicant and the scheme has been revised.
The current proposal is to erect 37 dwellinghouses on the site. An access road would be formed from Sergeants Park, straight for the majority of its length but curving around to the west in the northern section of the site. A possible link to the land to the west is provided for.
Six house types are proposed. There would be four pairs of two-and-a-half-storey, semi-detached dwellinghouses with two bedrooms, two pairs of two-storey, semi-detached dwellinghouses with three bedrooms and four detached dwellinghouses with three bedrooms on the eastern side of the access road and sixteen split level semi-detached dwellinghouses with three bedrooms on the western side of the access road. Two larger, one-and-a-half storey detached dwellinghouses with four bedrooms and three detached bungalows with three bedrooms would be arranged around the access road on the northern section of the site. The dwellinghouses would be constructed of blockwork with a dry dash render finish and would have smooth slate grey roof tiles. The windows would be timber framed with a two-on-two glazing pattern.
Ten visitor parking spaces are proposed. There would be a no-build buffer zone between the site boundary and dwellinghouses to the north and east and new hedge planting is proposed along the Planning & Building Standards Committee 1 east and west boundaries of the site. Footpath links to the playing fields and school and to the Glenburnie and Sprouston Burns are proposed. Land on the north west corner of the site is allocated as open space and land for possible future development.
PLANNING HISTORY
96/01123/OUT: Site Next to Barron Court Newtown St Boswells. Housing development. Refused 16th October 1996.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Seven representations were received in respect of the application as originally submitted. These are available for Members to view on the Public Access System. The following planning issues have been raised:
x The development would place an additional strain on the drainage and water system. Sprouston Cottages have had a problem with the sewage and surface water overflowing onto the street for several years and 44 houses pouring out sewage and surface water into these pipes is totally unacceptable. The pipes need to be renewed and upgraded before any new build is passed in this area.
x There are no details of the proposed drainage for the site caused by the slope of the land to the south east.
x Access to the site is via a narrow road with no parking restrictions and the road has a high volume of traffic using it. The junction of Sergeants Park, Glenburn Avenue and Sprouston Road is congested and additional traffic would be dangerous. The road at Sprouston is already struggling to cope with the volume of traffic. These houses would generate at least another 80 cars as most houses have two. There is no mention on the plans of any improvements to the junction of Sergeants Park, Glenburn Avenue and Sprouston Road, a requirement of the Planning Brief.
x There will be a significantly increased danger of a child being injured due to the increased traffic flow resultant from this development when parents are dropping off children at the primary school. The majority of village children have to cross this unmanned junction to attend the school, and this development constitutes a real threat to their safety.
x Planning permission was refused on this site previously and there have been no changes in the area to make the application successful this time.
x The 44 houses proposed exceed the 36 proposed in the Planning Brief prepared by Scottish Borders Council.
x There is no mention of a contribution to the play area to the south east of the site adjacent the bowling green, a requirement of the Planning Brief. Funding must be secured from this developer to improve the existing play park facilities less than 50 yards away from this development. The play area proposed is in the north east corner of the site, distant from most of the houses.
x There is no indication on the plans that the hawthorn hedge along the southern boundary of the site will be maintained; this is an important wildlife corridor and provides screening for existing houses. Planning & Building Standards Committee 2 x It is not clear whether the ecological buffer zones, tree belt and maintenance and supplementation of existing hedgerows meet the requirements of the Planning Brief.
x The only footpath provision is from the south east corner to the playing fields but ignores the opportunity to provide links to the wider footpath network associated with Glenburnie and Sprouston Burns. Continued access to the two rights of way that cross the site should be maintained as these are used by local people and visitors. A small car park facility for walkers should be provided.
x The plans show the new pavement crossing the boundary of the rear garden of no.22 Sergeants Park.
One letter of support has been received from Eildon Housing Association and this is available for Members to view on the Public Access System. The following planning issues are raised:
x Eildon Housing Association support the provision of between 5 and 9 units of affordable rented housing as part of this development and have entered into discussions with Cruden Homes (East) Ltd regarding its provision.
x The proposal for Sergeants Park will assist in the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs.
APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The agent has submitted the following documents in support of the application and these are available for Members to view on the Public Access System:
x Planning Design Statement x Engineering Comments x Traffic Statement x Ecological Impact Assessment
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads): As you enter the site there is a pedestrian "right of way" which crosses over the new road; I recommend a small raised table be built at this location. The two narrowing "humps" should be removed and replaced with one 4.8m wide length of tegula block between the two lay-bys, details to be agreed. Both the remote visitor parking areas are poorly located within the development and need to be evenly spread throughout the scheme. There is scope to provide a slightly less rigid and formal road alignment, especially at the western end of the site, and this needs to be looked into. I suggest a very slight bend in the initial section of road would help, followed by a gently sweeping crescent with a stub into the corner. The 5 houses at the western end stub do not work and this also needs to be re-visited. With respect to the findings of the Traffic Statement, it is the minor alteration/ improvement proposed at the Sergeants Park/Sprouston Road junction which I take issue with. I have at all times expressed my views that some form of roundabout would be the best solution at this location, and I still remain of that view. There is a Central Borders Traffic Study underway at present and until these findings are
Planning & Building Standards Committee 3 formalised the current contribution we are requesting from all developers at this stage is £1,000 a house.
Re-consultation: No objections. White lining and signing improvements are required at the junction of Sergeants Park and Sprouston Road.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: From information provided we understand that there is currently existing planning consents for circa 80 homes in Newtown St Boswells. The additional pupils from these new homes alone will push the primary school in Newtown St Boswells far beyond its maximum pupil capacity. Therefore we are seeking developer contribution for every future new home in St Boswells to contribute towards either a very large extension of the current school, which may be impossible to achieve, or more likely the construction of a new much larger school on a different site.
Until we know more about the future long term plans for the village as a whole it is impossible to give an absolute requirement for developer contributions for the primary school. Therefore at this time we have no alternative but to seek a contribution at the level required to fund a new school - £8,600 per unit x 44 units = £378,400.
In addition to the primary school we will also be seeking a contribution to the high school. This development is part of the Earlston High School catchment area. This high school is at capacity and a new school will be built to accommodate current and future demand, therefore in line with approved Council policy we are seeking a contribution for every new home in this catchment area. The total required for the high school will be £3,940 x 44 = £173,360.
At this time the total contribution sought for the provision of education infrastructure is £378,400 (Primary) and £173,360 (Secondary) – making a total of £725,120 and critically we request that no houses on this development are built until such time as the future provision of a new primary school or major extension is assured.
Director of Planning & Development (Landscape): Reply awaited
Director of Planning & Development (Access): According to the records held in the Planning & Economic Development Section there is one claimed right of way on this area of land along the southern boundary. This right of way has not been included at the planning brief stage or in the site layout plan. By law the right of way must be kept open. Therefore provision will have to be made by the developers to continue the path along the southern edge of the site continuing west to Bowden.
Re-consultation: Provision has been made to keep the existing right of way open. The path running east to west between plots 25 and 26 and 17 and 16 links to open ground at either end. To the east of the site lies the playing fields which are owned by the Trustees for Newtown St Boswells Recreation Ground, land managed by SBC. To the west the path links to more open ground. This should be installed as proposed because the adjoining site is also within the local plan. Therefore both are satisfactory links. The path at the northwest corner also creates link to open ground and marks the line for access to possible future sites. Therefore this path is also satisfactory. The path in the northeast corner of the site should link to Sprouston Burn. The inclusion of this path is commendable. However to link this path to BE181 a route would have to be enhanced along the side of the burn. We would ask that the developer create a route along this line to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A more accessible path here would greatly enhance the amenity of the housing development.
Statutory Consultees
Planning & Building Standards Committee 4 Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Foul drainage should be to the public sewer. Surface water should be drained by a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. There is no data pertaining to flooding on the site. Waste management facilities for recycling may be required within the site.
Scottish Natural Heritage: Object as the development could have an adverse impact on the natural heritage interests of the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area, the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI and the development contravenes the Council’s policies for this site contained within the Supplementary Planning Guidance. The objection could be overcome by the revision of the Design Statement to address our concerns.
Re-consultation: Remove their objection provided that suitably worded conditions are imposed and agreements secured which would overcome their concerns about the potentially serious adverse impact on the natural heritage interests of the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area and the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
Scottish Water: Does not object to the development but there may be issues with the water network that serves the development and there may be capacity issues with the Newtown St Boswells waste water treatment works that serve this development.
Newtown St Boswells Community Council: There is a lot of concern about the safety of the road junction at School/Scott House/Glenburn Avenue and simply improving road signs and markings, as in the Developers TA, is not considered adequate. A more radical action is required such as a mini roundabout.
With the additional houses the residents in Sergeants Park and Sprouston Road are concerned with the capacity of drains and sewer. There is a history of drain over flow problems in this area and previous requests have been made for improvements to over come the problem. This includes the drain running down Sprouston Road to the main drain.
The Bowling club is also concerned that surface water from the development will aggravate the current problem of water draining down onto the Green during heavy rain.
It is requested that new play ground/equipment is not provided on the new development but is installed in the existing playground adjacent to the Bowling Club which could be slightly enlarged. This makes sense due to close proximity of new development to the existing playground and would help integrate the new residents with the local people.
A path linking to the existing right of way leading to the Eildon Hills and Melrose is requested. Also it is requested that extra car parking be provided for walkers since there is inadequate parking in the School/Scott House/Bowling Club area.
Other Consultees:
None DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011
Policy N2: International Sites Policy N3: National Sites Policy N10: National Scenic Area Planning & Building Standards Committee 5 Policy N11: Area of Great Landscape Value Policy N20: Design Policy H7: Affordable and Special Needs Housing – Proportion Policy C6: Open Space Policy C7: Play Areas Policy I11: Parking Provision in New Development
Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised December 2005
Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5: Developer Contributions Policy G6: Developer Contributions Related to Railway Reinstatement Policy NE1: International Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE2: National Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE4: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy EP1: National Scenic Areas Policy EP2: Area of Great Landscape Value Policy H1: Affordable Housing Policy H3: Land Use Allocations Policy Inf4: Parking Standards Policy Inf6: Sustainable Urban Drainage
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
x Supplementary Planning Guidance – Developer Contributions Revised January 2007 x Supplementary Planning Guidance – Waverley Railway Project Developer Contributions October 2004 and October 2006 x Supplementary Planning Guidance - Affordable Housing June 2005 (as amended) x Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Brief Sergeants Park II Newtown St Boswells Approved February 2006
KEY PLANNING ISSUES
The main planning issues are whether the proposed layout, density and design of the proposed development are appropriate and comply with Council policies and the Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Brief for the site and whether the development would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the village and the landscape qualities of the National Scenic Area, Special Areas of Conservation and the Area of Great Landscape Value. In addition, whether a satisfactory access to the site can be achieved.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION
Planning Policy
The site is allocated for housing in the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan and has an indicative housing capacity of 30 units. Policy H3 states that developments will be approved in principle for the land uses allocated on the Land Use Proposals Tables and Maps and developments must be in accordance with Council approved planning or development briefs.
A Planning Brief was approved for this site in February 2006. This sets out the main opportunities and constraints relating to the site and creates an outline framework for its future development.
Planning & Building Standards Committee 6 Layout, Siting and Design
Policy N20 of the Approved Structure Plan states that the Council will encourage a high quality of layout, design and materials in all new development. Policy G1 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that all development should be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit in with Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings.
The Planning Brief for this site states that a Design Statement is required containing an assessment of the main issues associated with integrating the site and mitigation measures. A high quality of design and materials are required. Careful attention should be paid to the edge treatment of the site.
A Design Statement has been submitted with the application. This states that the design of the development takes architectural references from its surroundings in terms of landscape, scale and materials and the development provides a mix of building forms and sizes sited to reflect the local landform.
The Planning Brief states that the surrounding area achieves a density of between 24 to 36 units per hectare and based on an assessment carried out for the site 36 units is considered achievable on this site. The proposal is for 37 units so is broadly in line with the Planning Brief. The development is for a mix of type and size of houses ranging from smaller semi-detached dwellings to large detached bungalows. The layout proposes a higher density of two-storey properties on the southern part of the site to reflect the existing residential area and detached properties within larger plots on the northern section of the site to reflect the rural edge of the village.
The layout is dominated by the straight access road with houses arranged in a linear pattern along either side. Negotiations have taken place with the agent and applicant to secure a more interesting layout for the site. The agent advises that the layout is dictated to by the topography and constraints of the site; the point of access, the sloping nature of the site and mature trees on the northern and eastern boundaries which limit the developable area. The agent advises that their layout maximises the developable area and minimises the amount of earthworks and retention operations required.
The layout of the site is considered to lack imagination and interest. The land to the west of the site is safeguarded for the future development of a planned village expansion for Newtown St Boswells and it was anticipated that this site would provide a high quality gateway to the proposed village expansion area. It is accepted that the shape of the site, its topography and natural constraints make this site difficult to develop. On balance, the Department is willing to accept the proposed layout but the scheme will require the implementation of a high quality planting scheme to soften the linear pattern of the layout and to integrate the development into the landscape.
A range of house types are proposed, all with rendered walls and slate grey roof tiles, which would reflect the materials of the existing houses in Sergeants Park. The design incorporates traditional features such as bay windows, front porches, pitched roof dormers and windows with glazing bars. The designs are considered to be acceptable, though prior agreement would be required for the render colour and this would be controlled via a planning condition.
Policy H1 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan requires the provision of affordable housing within all allocated and windfall sites. On-site provision at a level of 25% is required for this site. The applicant has entered into discussions with Eildon Housing Association regarding the provision of affordable housing on this site. The nine affordable housing units will be achieved through the completion of a Section 75 legal Agreement.
Planning & Building Standards Committee 7 A SUDS scheme would be required to comply with policy Inf6 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan and the requirements of SEPA. The proposed development will connect to the mains sewer and Scottish Water has confirmed that there is currently sufficient capacity in their water and waste water networks to accommodate this development, though they are unable to reserve capacity and connections are granted on a first come first served basis.
Policy G1 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan requires the buildings to be of an energy efficient design and to incorporate renewable energy technologies and sustainable construction techniques. This would be a condition of the planning permission. The Design Statement advises that energy efficient measures such as higher levels of insulation to roofs and floors, efficient boilers and careful orientation of windows to benefit from solar gain will significantly reduce energy consumption.
Open Space and Play Areas
Policies C6 and C7 of the Approved Structure Plan encourage the provision of open space and facilities for children’s play that are safe, accessible and appropriate. An area of open space is proposed on the western edge of the site. No equipped play area is proposed but a financial contribution would be required to upgrade the play area to the south east and the footpath link to it as this is within reasonable walking distance of the site.
Landscape and Visual Impact
Policies N10 of the Structure Plan and EP1 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan seek to protect National Scenic Areas and proposals that adversely affect the landscape character of a National Scenic Area will not be permitted.
Part of the site is located within the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area. Particular care is required to ensure that this development does not detract from the quality or character of the landscape.
Scottish Natural Heritage originally objected to the as the development could have an adverse impact on the natural heritage interests of the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area. They have now withdrawn their objection but have concerns over the layout of the development. However their concerns over the potential visual and landscape impact of the development can be overcome by conditions that protect open space in the site from development and ensure that the buffer zones and the hedge to the west are retained, protected and maintained in the long term.
Policies N11 of the Structure Plan and EP2 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan seek to safeguard the landscape quality of Areas of Great Landscape Value and will have regard to the landscape impact of the proposed development. The site is within an Area of Great Landscape Value to the north and east.
The proposal seeks to retain the existing mature trees on the northern and eastern boundaries of the site and additional planting and enhancement is proposed as part of the overall development. This would provide a defined edge to Newtown St Boswells whilst containing and screening the site and would lessen the visual impact of the proposal. The two-storey properties would be located on the higher, southern part of the site with bungalows on the lower part of the site and so this would also reduce the prominence of the development. On balance it is considered that, subject to high quality landscaping, the proposal would not detract from the landscape quality of the Area of Great Landscape Value.
Woodlands and Landscaping Planning & Building Standards Committee 8 Policy NE4 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that the Council supports the maintenance and management of trees and woodlands.
The Planning Brief requires that the mature trees and hedgerows to the east, west and north of the site should be retained and supplemented with new planting and suitable provisions made for long term maintenance. Buffers are required along the northern and eastern boundaries to protect the existing tree belts and counteract impacts of overshadowing. Landscaping is required within the buffer zones and a tree belt is required within the buffer along the northern boundary to supplement the existing screening towards the National Scenic Area.
The proposed layout includes a 20m no build buffer zone along the northern and a 10m buffer zone along the eastern boundary of the site, as required by the Planning Brief. The buffer zones would need to be outwith the garden ground of the houses to ensure no development takes place within the buffer zones once the houses are occupied. Existing trees and hedgerows will be retained and protected. To date no landscape scheme has been submitted for the site but opportunities exist for new and supplementary planting within the buffer zones, along the site boundaries and within the site. A high level of appropriate planting will be required to ensure that the scheme is integrated into the surrounding area. Scottish Natural Heritage requires that the landscape scheme includes proposals for planting within and strengthening of the buffer zones and a tree belt within the buffer zone along the northern boundary of the site. The plan should also include details of the retention, development and protection of the hedgerow to the west of the site. Native and amenity species should be chosen that will reduce the visual impact of the development and enhance local biodiversity.
Nature Conservation and Ecology
Policy NE1 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that sites of international importance for nature conservation, such as Special Areas of Conservation, will be afforded the highest level of protection. Policy NE3 states that the Council will seek to safeguard the integrity of habitats both within and outwith settlements which are of importance for the maintenance and enhancement of local biodiversity.
The primary ecological interests are impacts River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI as the site is close to the Sprouston Burn, which is a tributary to the River Tweed. Scottish Natural Heritage notes that no details of the SUDS scheme for the proposal have been submitted; given the high water quality requirements of the designated features of the River Tweed SSSI and Special Area of Conservation the design and operation of the SUDS scheme should be to the satisfaction of SEPA.
The Ecological Assessment has been submitted and this includes a habitat survey and protected species survey. Scottish Natural Heritage has been consulted on it. The development may potentially impact on badgers and otters as there are holes identified along the Sprouston Burn. Further surveys would be required prior to construction work commencing. Licences to work near badgers may be required and a 30m diameter exclusion zone around any badger setts around or close to the site should be marked out to prevent accidental damage during construction work. A “badger friendly” site management plan should be produced. These issues can be controlled by planning conditions.
Access and Parking
Policy Inf4 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that proposals should provide for car and cycle parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards. The Planning Brief states Planning & Building Standards Committee 9 that the development should not prejudice possible future requirements for a vehicular access linking to the safeguarded land to the west of the site. It advises that the road network has the potential to accommodate the proposed allocation subject to junction improvements at the corner of Sprouston Road and Sergeants Park. Access should be via the gap site off Sergeants Park to the south. Two on-site parking spaces per dwellinghouse are required and visitor parking at 25%. The Planning Brief states that suitable pedestrian links through the site should be provided linking to the wider path network associated with Glenburnie and Sprouston Burns. Communal parking should be located to allow integration with footpath links. A Transport Assessment is required.
A Transport Assessment has been submitted as part of the application and the Director of Technical Services has been re-consulted on this and the revised layout for the site. He now has no objections as the site layout and parking provision meet his standards. White lining and signing improvements are required at the junction of Sprouston Road and Sergeants Park and these would be secured though a legal agreement. A possible link to the land to the west is provided for.
Upgraded footpath links are proposed through the site to the play area and school to the south east and towards Bowden to the west. A footpath is proposed to the existing Sprouston and Glenburnie Burn pathway to the north and to the proposed open space to the west. The Council’s Access Officer is satisfied with these proposals but some upgrading of the existing path network is required along the Sprouston Burn to link it into the proposed footpath.
Residential Amenities
The site is situated to the rear of the existing properties in Sergeants Park. There is a mature hedge along this southern boundary. The nearest property would be between 10 and 14m from the rear elevations of nos 22 and 24 Sergeants Park. The proposed dwellinghouse would be of a split-level design to take into account the sloping nature of the site and would be angled away from the existing properties; the only windows in the side elevation would be to the staircase and so it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect the residential amenities of occupiers of these properties.
Developer Contributions
Policy G5 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that where a site is acceptable but cannot proceed due to deficiencies in infrastructure or due to environmental impacts the Council will require developers to make contributions towards the cost of addressing such deficiencies. Policy G6 states the Council will seek development contributions towards the costs of reinstating the Waverley Railway Line. The Planning Brief for the site identifies a number of issues that require to be addressed through appropriate developer contributions and a legal agreement:
x Affordable housing x Waverley Railway Line reinstatement x Education facilities x Upgrading and future maintenance of the existing play facility to the south east of the site at the corner of Sprouston Road and Sergeants Park via the footpath link x Upgrading of the existing footpath link from the south east corner of the site to the school and play area to adoptable standards x Upgrading of the existing footpath along Sprouston Burn to link with the site x Long term retention, maintenance and management of existing and proposed woodlands, hedgerows, buffer zones, landscaping and open spaces x Junction improvements at the corner of Sprouston Road and Sergeants Park
Planning & Building Standards Committee 10 CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed development of this site conforms with the requirements of the Planning Brief for the site. It is considered that the use of appropriate conditions would ensure that there would be no detrimental impact on National Scenic Area, Area of Great Landscape Value and the River Tweed Special Areas of Conservation or SSSIs. The site can be adequately serviced and the proposal would not affect the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend that the application be approved subject to an appropriate legal agreement and subject to the following conditions and informative notes:
1. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: The materials require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting. 2. The proposed development shall incorporate measures to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, and the incorporation of sustainable building techniques and renewable energy technologies, in accordance with a scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the development. 3. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of soft landscaping works, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall include:
i. indication of existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be removed, those to be retained and, in the case of damage, proposals for their restoration
ii. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas
iii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density
iv. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance of all existing and proposed planting Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings. 4. No trees within the application site shall be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: The existing trees represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained. 5. No hedges within or on the boundaries of the application site shall be removed, damaged or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: The existing hedges represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained. 6. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the trees to be retained on the site shall be protected by a chestnut paling fence 1.5 metres high, placed at a minimum radius of one metre beyond the crown spread of each tree, and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development: Planning & Building Standards Committee 11 (a) No excavations, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut, or pipes or services laid in such a way as to cause damage or injury to the trees by interference with their root structure; (b) No fires shall be lit within the spread of the branches of the trees; (c) No materials or equipment shall be stored within the spread of the branches of the trees; (d) Any accidental damage to the trees shall be cleared back to undamaged wood and be treated with a preservative if appropriate; (e) Ground levels within the spread of the branches of the trees shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, or trenches excavated except in accordance with details shown on the approved plans.
Reason: In the interests of preserving the health and vitality of existing trees on the development site, the loss of which would have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area. 7. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the hedges to be retained on the site shall be protected by a chestnut paling fence 1.5 metres high placed at a minimum distance of 2.0 metres from the edge of the hedge, and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development the existing soil levels around the boles of the hedges so retained shall not be altered. Reason: In the interests of preserving the hedges which contribute to the visual amenity of the area. 8. The existing hedges to be outwith the curtilages of the dwellinghouses hereby approved and to be separated from the garden ground of the dwellinghouses by a post and wire fence erected prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouses, the details of which are to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: In the interests of preserving the hedges which contribute to the visual amenity of the area. 9. No development of any sort to take place within the buffer zones at any time. The buffer zones to be outwith the curtilages of the dwellinghouses hereby approved and to be separated from the garden ground of the dwellinghouses by a post and wire fence erected prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouses, the details of which are to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: To safeguard the buffer zones from development to protect existing tree belts. 10. The access road, footpaths, and visitor parking spaces shown on the approved plans to be completed to the specification of the Planning Authority in accordance with a programme of phasing submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: To ensure that adequate access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles is provided and is at all times properly maintained. 11. Parking for two vehicles, excluding garages, must be provided within each plot to the specification of the Planning Authority before the dwellinghouse is occupied and retained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 12. The right of way along the southern boundary of the site to be kept open and free from obstruction or encroachment during the construction of the dwellinghouses and thereafter. Reason: To ensure the right of way remains open and free from obstruction. 13. A SUDS scheme and details of the foul water drainage for the site to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The approved scheme then to be implemented as part of the development.
Planning & Building Standards Committee 12 Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water. 14. A survey to be carried out by a suitably qualified wildlife consultant on the use of Sprouston Burn by otters before work commences on the site and to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Any mitigating measures required are to be carried out as part of the development. Reason: To ensure that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (As Amended) are not breached. 15. A survey to be carried out by a suitably qualified wildlife consultant of the site for badgers before work commences on the site and to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Any mitigating measures required are to be carried out as part of the development. Reason: To ensure the requirements of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and any licensing requirements are met.
16. A 30m diameter exclusion zone around any badger setts around or close to the site to be marked out before work commences on this development to prevent damage during construction work and retained in place until the development is completed. Reason: To ensure the requirements of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 are met.
17. A “badger friendly” site management plan to be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development and the development to be carried out in accordance with the management plan. Reason: To ensure the requirements of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 are met.
Applicant Informatives:
In respect of condition 3, the planting scheme to include proposals for planting within and strengthening of the buffer zones and a tree belt within the buffer zone along the northern boundary of the site. The plan should also include details of the retention and protection of the hedgerow to the west of the site. Native and amenity species should be chosen that will reduce the visual impact of the development and enhance local biodiversity.
In respect of condition 10, street lighting should be designed to minimise any effects of light spillage, glare and light pollution.
In respect of condition 17, the “badger friendly” site management plan should cover the following issues:
x Blocking tunnels and pipes overnight to prevent badgers becoming trapped; x Providing foundation trenches with ramps when left open overnight so that animals falling in can get out.
The comments of SEPA are attached for the information of the applicant.
Approved by Name Designation
Planning & Building Standards Committee 13 Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
“The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.”
Author(s) Name Designation Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer
Planning & Building Standards Committee 14 Planning & Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(b) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
8 SEPTEMBER 2008
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: 5(b) REFERENCE NUMBER: 08/00865/OUT
OFFICER : Mr John Hiscox WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Erection of two dwellinghouses SITE: Land South of Bogangreen Cottages, Coldingham APPLICANT: A J Henry AGENT: Smith and Garrett Rural Asset Management
SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site is situated close to a row of terraced dwellings on the south-west side of the A1107 Coldingham Moor road. It is situated approximately 0.5 km to the north-west of the fringes of Coldingham village and is outwith the Development Boundary identified in the SBC Local Plan (which is approved for adoption) The location plan shows land designated solely for the provision of a new vehicular access which is approximately 110m long and which is located to the south-east of the area shown for two houses.
The existing terrace is clearly visible in passing on the A1107 from both directions; any new development, as described below, would easily be viewed in the local landscape. On the opposite side of the A1107 is a modern dwelling called Bay View.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Two dwellings would be erected on land to the south-west of an existing row of three cottages. Although the application is submitted in outline form, there is a firm indication that the two dwellings would be semi-detached and would, in effect, be developed in a similar manner to the existing cottages. The indicative footprint shows dwellings of a commensurate ground/floor area to the existing dwellings.
The location plan includes information relating to areas of new planting that would be implemented to the north, north-west and south of the development, to provide a substantial vegetative boundary within land owned by the applicant.
A new vehicular access onto the A1107 would be constructed approximately 110m to the south- east of the application site, serving both the new dwellings and the three existing dwellings, with two existing accesses being stopped up close to the existing terrace on its south-east and north- west sides. Vehicles would approach the site along a new access driveway inside the roadside hedgerow.
CONSIDERATION BY BERWICKSHIRE AREA COMMITTEE 26TH AUGUST 2008
The Area Committee indicated that it was minded to approve the application contrary to officer’s recommendation subject to a Section 75 Agreement relating to developer contributions towards education and affordable housing and also limiting the number of houses to 2 and subject to conditions relating to landscaping, roads construction, drainage and the normal reserved matters Planning & Building Standards Committee 1 As the application was advertised as contrary to the development plan it required to be referred to the P & B S Committee for final determination.
PLANNING HISTORY
07/02351/OUT – Erection of two dwellinghouses – Refused 26 March 2008 for the following reasons:
1 The proposed development is contrary to Policies H5 and H6 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policies 5, 7 and 8 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies G8 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that:
a) the application site is situated out with the Development Boundary for Coldingham and is not identified for development,
b) the dwellinghouse is not justified on an exceptional basis, and
c) the site does not relate appropriately to a building group which is suitable for the addition of further dwellings.
2 The proposed development is contrary to Policies 7, 64 and 83 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies G1 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that:
a) the application site would encroach into open farmland and would give rise to an adverse impact on the local landform and landscape setting. This would give rise to an undesirable precedent and an inappropriate visual impact on the setting of the group.
3 The proposed development is contrary to Policy I11 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policy 93 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies G1 and Inf4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that:
a) the proposed access is unsuitable for use by additional traffic and the standards required for safe access and parking for domestic vehicles entering the site from an A-Class Road are not achievable.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
There have been no representations received from members of the public.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The application is accompanied by a letter setting out why the development is considered to be appropriate, and making explicit reference to the previous refusal under 07/02351/OUT. The following views are contained within the letter: x proposed dwellings would not impact adversely on the existing properties or the local environment; they would compliment the row of cottages and include traditional materials/design traits; x ground conditions are suitable for building and supplies of water and electricity are available; x there is a building group of 4 houses at Bogangreen Cottages, therefore the development accords with rural housing policies in terms of the potential for building group expansion; x principle differences between refused and current scheme are (i) improved arrangements for road access; and (ii) a tighter arrangement of the proposed dwellings and the attendant landscaping works;
Planning & Building Standards Committee 2 x proposed access arrangements have been sanctioned by the SBC Technical Services Department and, taken with the stopping-up of the two existing entrances, will result in material road-safety benefits on the A1107; x there would be plenty of room for parking in front of the proposed cottages, with gardens below; x the wording of Policy D2 of the 2005 Finalised SBC Local Plan requires that at least three houses be present to form a building group for the purposes of rural housing policy – there is no distinction between house types; x the proposed layout is similar to that found within building groups throughout the Borders, which set a precedent for, and are similar to, this case; x with regard to the first reason for refusal, the current (new) proposal shows a tighter relationship and the addition of dwellings that are very similar to the existing ones. The proposal would have a negligible impact on the surroundings; x with regard to the second reason for refusal, the current proposal shows a tighter arrangement, a correspondingly smaller application site, and a scheme for landscaping that is more in-keeping with the existing tree belt.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Road Users Manager): No objection to the proposals subject to full design stage responding to advice relating to access layout/construction, permanent visibility splays and closing off existing accesses close to the cottages.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: Developer contribution required for both houses towards Eyemouth High School.
Statutory Consultees
Coldingham Community Council: No response received.
Other Consultees
None.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011
Policy H5 – New Housing in the Countryside – Building Groups Policy H6 – New Housing in the Countryside – Isolated Housing Policy I11 – Parking Provision in New Development
Berwickshire Local Plan (1994)
Policy 5 – Settlement Boundaries Policy 7 – Additions to Building Groups Policy 64 – Housing Layout and Design Policy 83 – Development in the Countryside Policy 93 – Car Parking
Scottish Borders Local Plan: Approved for Adoption Version 2008
Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy G8 – Development Outwith Development Boundaries Policy H1 – Affordable Housing Planning & Building Standards Committee 3 Policy Inf4 – Parking Standards Policy D2 – Housing in the Countryside
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: x New Housing in the Borders Countryside: Policy and Guidance Note 1993, amended 2000 and 2004. x Supplementary Planning Guidance No.9 on Developer Contributions, Updated April 2008 x Supplementary Planning Guidance No.10 on Affordable Housing, March 2007
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The key planning issues relevant to the consideration of this application are: x whether the current housing and other development policies would permit the principle of the development in this location, in land use terms only; x if the principle can be supported in land use terms, whether there are any technical constraints that would prevent support of the principle.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Settlement Policy
The Council’s rural housing policies are intended to a great extent to enable housing to be built in towns and villages but also allowing development in association with ‘building groups’, particularly where rural communities are dwindling and where rural de-population may be, or may have been, occurring. In a location so close to Coldingham village, the development may not be most appropriately considered in that context, because in effect it is just outside the Development Boundary as identified in the new Local Plan, yet is within a couple of minutes of services, shops and a school and the core of the Coldingham village community. It is within 140m of the boundary at Coldingham’s western end.
Policy G8 would be relevant to the consideration of the application, in terms of the land-use principle. The objectives of this Policy are similar to those of 1994 BLP Policy 5 in that development associated with the settlement should be within the defined development boundary. Great care should be taken when considering applications close to the boundary to avoid coalescence and issues of impact on the setting and form of the settlement, unless there are overriding reasons to allow the development.
However, the site is in effect in open countryside, therefore Policies relating to the augmentation of ‘building groups’ are perhaps more relevant in this assessment.
Building Group Policy
The cluster of buildings located in the vicinity is not considered to be a ‘building group’ suitable for growth because in terms of its formation it is considered to be complete. The terrace is a single building, purpose-built to accommodate a number of dwellings to support the former workings of a farm estate and is not considered appropriate to form the basis for expansion. Allowing development to encroach into the land adjacent would set an undesirable precedent for future developments in the Region.
Advice given within the adopted 1993 Supplementary Guidance document ‘New Housing in the Borders Countryside’ is cited in Policy D2 of the 2005 SBC Local Plan as the starting point against which rural housing applications will be assessed. Useful, and specific advice is found at Section 2 ‘Building Groups’, (Page 6) third paragraph which reads:
“All applications for new houses at existing building groups will be tested against an analysis of: Planning & Building Standards Committee 4 (a) the presence or otherwise of a group; and (b) the suitability of that group to absorb new development.”
Furthermore, Page 7 contains a list of other factors to be taken into account when assessing the suitability of any particular group to absorb new housing. Of particular relevance is the 6th factor, or criterion, which reads:
“Existing groups may in themselves be complete, such as terraces of farm cottages, and may not be suitable for further addition.”
The current proposal represents the single specified scenario cited as an example of when it may not be appropriate to allow addition to an existing building group. It is therefore considered to conflict with Policies H5 and H6 of the Structure Plan and D2 of the 2005 Finalised Local Plan, particularly as there is no agricultural or other need for the dwelling, and with other commensurate Policies within the 1994 Berwickshire Local Plan.
Members should note that the separate dwelling ‘Bay View’ on the opposite side of the A-road would not form part of any building group for the purposes of this application because it is isolated by a major road from other buildings. It should also be noted that the houses are not proposed on an ‘exceptional’ basis, in that they are not required for agriculture, forestry or any local/special need. The development would therefore conflict with Policies 7 and 8 (BLP 1994), H5 and H6 (SBC SP 2001-2011) and Policy D2 of the Finalised SBC Local Plan 2005. Other Policies not specifically relating to housing would also conflict with this development.
Access
The developer has responded to the third reason for refusal in such a manner as to overcome the concerns relating to future road safety.
Changes to Layout/Landscaping
The change to the landscaping proposals are of some significance, but do not change the perception that the new development would be easily viewed in the local landscape and would cause an inappropriate visual impact on the landscape and the setting of the building group which, as mentioned earlier in the report, is considered to be complete.
Overall, the distance from the roadside end of the existing dwelling and the landward end of the south-west new dwelling has been reduced by a mere 3m (approximately – its is not possible to be precisely accurate when taking measurements scaled off 1:2500 and 1:1250 location plans), making no tangible difference to the overall layout and form of the development. It is, essentially, the same layout as in 07/02351/OUT.
CONCLUSION
The development proposal would give rise to inappropriate development outwith the settlement boundary for Coldingham as defined in the 2005 Finalised Local Plan, and is also not within a building group suitable for augmentation. It would give rise to an inappropriate adverse impact on the local landform and landscape setting and give rise to an undesirable precedent and an inappropriate visual impact on the setting of the group.
Although road safety issues have to a great extent been overcome, it is concluded that the other reasons for refusal in 07/02351/OUT are still quite relevant and must be upheld, as the road safety benefits do not outweigh the remaining concerns relating to the development.
Planning & Building Standards Committee 5 RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend that the application is refused for the following reasons:
1 The proposed development is contrary to Policies H5 and H6 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policies 5, 7 and 8 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies G8 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that:
a) the application site is situated out with the Development Boundary for Coldingham and is not identified for development, b) the dwellinghouse is not justified on an exceptional basis; and c) the site does not relate appropriately to a building group which is suitable for the addition of further dwellings.
2 The proposed development is contrary to Policies 7, 64 and 83 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies G1 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that:
a) the application site, including the area of land included to provide access, would encroach into open farmland and would give rise to an adverse impact on the local landform and landscape setting. This would give rise to an undesirable precedent and an inappropriate visual impact on the setting of the group.
Approved by Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
“The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.”
Author(s)
Name Designation Mr John Hiscox Planning Officer ( Development Management)
Planning & Building Standards Committee 6 Planning & Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(c) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
8 SEPTEMBER 2008
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: 5(c) REFERENCE NUMBER: 07/01338/OUT 07/01339/OUT 07/01340/OUT
OFFICER: Carlos Clarke WARD NAME: Leaderdale and Melrose PROPOSAL: 07/01338/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse, Plot 1 07/01339/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse, Plot 2 07/01340/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse, Plot 3 SITE: Redundant steading buildings and adjoining land, Airhouse Farm, Oxton APPLICANT: MW and CA Houghton AGENT: Smith and Garratt Rural Asset Management
SITE DESCRIPTION
This report considers three separate planning applications, all of which relate to sites at Airhouse Farm, located to the west of Oxton. The land comprises the applicant’s farmhouse, farm steading and chalet development. A computer training/conference business has already been established within part of the dwellinghouse.
The three applications relate to three separate sites within the steading. Plot 1 is sited to the north of the steading buildings, bounded with open fields to the north and woodland to the east. Plot 2 is sited centrally within the steading, comprising a large area of undeveloped land bounded on all sides by access tracks. Plot 3 is sited to the north-west, and comprises a modern farm shed set within mixed woodland.
The steading range is located south of neighbouring cottages, located 115 metres beyond the northern edge of the sites, and beyond a conifer tree belt on the west side of an access track which links the cottages with the farm. This access road leads from Oxton on the north side of the sites whereas a further access track can be used to access the sites on the south side.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Outline planning consent is sought for dwellinghouses on each of the three plots. No details have been submitted of the proposals.
CONSIDERATION BY COMMITTEES
These applications were considered by the Eildon Area Committee on 19th June when Members were minded to refuse all three on the basis that the steading, farmhouse and cottages to the north do not form a building group as required under Housing in the Countryside Policies.
A related application (07/01337/FUL), to convert the steading buildings, was approved and, subject to a legal agreement addressing developer contributions, consent can be granted. Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 The application was subsequently considered by the Planning and Building Standards Committee at its meeting in July, when it was resolved to defer determination until a Committee site visit had been undertaken. That visit took place on 29 August.
PLANNING HISTORY
There is no relevant recent history related to residential development, though the chalet development run by the applicants, and comprising four chalets, was granted consent in December 2005, firstly for three chalets, then in February 2008 an additional chalet was agreed in place of an approved office.
Two further applications seeking consent for the erection of a dwellinghouse on what were termed Plots 4 and 5, and to be located within the tree belt which separates the steading from the cottages, were withdrawn in November 2007 prior to being determined.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Six objections have been received with respect to all three applications (and which also referred to the two further applications now withdrawn for Plots 4 and 5), and the main issues raised are as follows:
x The proposals are contrary to Housing in the Countryside Policy Guidance in that the steading and cottages do not form a building group x The proposals would be contrary to the development plan for Oxton and Principle 3 of the Structure Plan x The objections by the Council regarding expansion of Oxton by Oxton Mains should apply equally here. x PAN 36 encourages housing in existing settlements x Policies D2 and G1 would not be complied with, and policy H1A also suggests that there are no further housing requirements for this area x This is speculative development x The addition of housing, especially plots 4 and 5 would constitute ribbon development, break into undeveloped fields, and affect an established woodland. Plots 4 and 5 would also affect neighbouring privacy x The scale of the development is out of keeping with the area, though the conversions may be appropriate in their own right x The farm would be affected, and no business plan has been provided showing it is not viable x The sites are in a prominent location, clearly visible from afar, as the chalets currently are, and would be a visual eyesore x The access from the north is in a very poor state, and may not be completely within the applicants’ ownership. x Neighbouring residents have not been permitted to use the southern access, so any increase in traffic to the north would have a greater impact x Assurances are required that the water supply, which serves the cottages, wont be affected x The burn tends to dry out in summer x 07/01339/OUT is on the site of the former Old Airhouse house and any proposal should be in keeping x Demolition of farm sheds will require extra safety measures x No further than four houses can be permitted off a private road
APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The applicants’ agent submitted a supporting letter stating that the applicants have begun to farm in a less intensive manner, that the buildings are no longer in use, and are attractive and suitable for Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 conversion. The new-build dwellinghouses would be sited within the bounds of the group. Two access routes are available, there is adequate water supply available and there are no anticipated problems with drainage. Considers it one of the best sites he has seen.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
Approved Structure Plan 2001-2011
H5 New Housing in the Countryside – Building Groups H7 Affordable and Special Needs Housing – Proportion I11 Parking Provision in New Development I14 Surface Water N15 Regional and Local Archaeological Sites N16 Archaeological Evaluation and Recording
Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan 1995
7 Additions to Building Groups 53 Sites of Archaeological Importance 54 Archaeological Interpretation and Recording 57 Protection of Trees/Woodland 62 Siting and design in the Countryside 63 Housing layout and Design 94 Car Parking
Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005
D2 Housing in the Countryside G5 Developer Contributions G6 Developer Contributions related to Waverley Reinstatement H1 Affordable Housing H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Inf 4 Parking Standards Inf 5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Inf 6 Sustainable Urban Drainage BE 2 Archaeological Sites NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Supplementary Planning Guidance – Waverley Railway Project Developer Contributions October 2004 and October 2006 New Housing in the Borders Countryside Policy and Guidance Note 1993, as amended 2000 and 2004 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Developer Contributions April 2007 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Affordable Housing – March 2007 Planning Advice Note 72 Housing in the Countryside, Scottish Executive 2005 Planning Policy Statement 15 Planning for Rural Development, Scottish Executive 2005
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Director of Technical Services (Roads): Categorically stated that he is unable to support further residential development at this site, even the renovation of the existing buildings which he is normally sympathetic towards. The substandard length of track which serves the farm is not user-friendly, is steep, narrow, has poor visibility, no passing opportunities, poorly constructed and lacks drainage. It can only be negotiated by a sturdy vehicle. Originally objected to the applications but later confirmed agreement to measures to upgrade the southerly track, as identified in the assessment section of this report.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: Contributions towards Earlston High School are required from each unit at £4180 per unit (pre-April 08 rates)
Director of Social Work (Housing Strategy): No response
Statutory Consultees
Scottish Water: There is no mains service here for water or drainage
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Objected due to the lack of information that would confirm that the development would not have environmental implications, as regards the means of foul drainage. A single drainage system is supported, but no details have been provided, and the two local watercourses are small and therefore sensitive. Further information was sought and, eventually, obtained, thus this objection has now been removed.
Surface water should be treated in manner consistent with SUDs principles in accordance with 2005 Regulations.
Oxton and Channelkirk Community Council: Ultimately object to the proposals given the variety and extent of negative views, including conflict with local plan, visibility, scale of development, lack of a building group, neighbouring amenity concerns regarding Plot 5, access which is available over two routes, both of which are not designed for extra traffic
Other Consultees
None
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
With respect to all three applications, the principal issues are whether or not the proposals would comply with current and emerging policies designed to control the development of housing in the countryside, and particularly whether or not the proposed developments can be adequately serviced by the current road network, water and drainage services, in a manner which safeguards the rural amenity of the area and neighbouring properties.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Due to their siting and close relationship, and the extent to which they share similar issues regarding access and infrastructure, all three applications are considered collectively under the following headings, unless specifically noted otherwise.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Policy Principle
Policy H5 of the Structure Plan supports development alongside building groups where the proposals comply with supplementary planning guidance which requires the existence of a building group of at least three dwellinghouses, and that the sites themselves constitute appropriate additions to the group. This requirement is reflected in Policy D2 of the Finalised Local Plan, which in turn requires that developments do not exceed 100% of the current number of houses in the group. Policy 7 of the adopted Local Plan provides for appropriate additions to be then considered against a range of criteria. Objections which reference principle S3 and Policy H1A of the Structure Plan do not acknowledge that the former requires that ‘substantial development’ be located in the Primary Hub and that housing in the countryside should be appropriately located or, with reference to Policy H1A , that this relates to strategic allocation of housing sites. The Council’s current policies reflect both SPP15 and PAN 72 in their approach to housing in the countryside and are not affected by considerations applied separately to the settlement strategy for Oxton itself.
In this case, it is considered that the farmhouse, steading, and cottages to the north, comprising at least the nearest four, comprise one single building group. While there is clearly a distinct separation between the cottages and the steading it is considered that, on balance, it is not possible to disassociate one cluster from another, particularly on approach from the northerly access. However, that is not to say that infilling the gap between them is appropriate. The character of the group as a whole is defined by the gap between them thus, in answer to this concern, the applicants have already agreed the withdrawal of applications seeking consent for two houses within the intervening tree belt. The remaining sites do not extend beyond the confines of the steading and their development would sit comfortably with the buildings to be converted. Plot 1 is sited alongside the steading buildings, with a tree belt to the east; Plot 2 will be sited centrally and, provided the existing trees are kept, the principle of a house here appears appropriate and; Plot 3 would replace an existing farm shed, set within a group of trees and, provided care is taken over the extent of tree removal, the arrangement should be appropriate. The erection of three new-build dwellinghouses would not exceed the 100% limitation applied by Policy D2, since the existing number of houses comprises at least five and has not been expanded during the current local plan period. It is not considered that the cumulative impact of three houses, and three conversions, would be detrimental to the impact of the surrounding area.
Farm Conflict
The consideration of the impact of developments on a farm is restricted to the need to avoid conflict between the farm use and residential uses – the applicants’ intentions to cease or reduce farming activities and the viability of the farm are not matters to be considered. In this case, the applicants have declared their intention to scale down farming activities; have stated that the current buildings are not in use and that, though farming will remain, no further buildings will be necessary. The current building occupying plot 3 may be replaced, but that will be to the south at some distance from the steading and would, in any case, require separate approval. On the basis that all farming activities within the steading will cease, and all redundant farm sheds will be removed, it is considered that any conflict is limited to sharing of the track. On the basis of the proposed improvements noted below, this arrangement should not be particularly problematic.
Access
The site is served by two roads, one to the north serving existing cottages and a long track to the south, neither of which are considered appropriate for further traffic. The Director of Technical Services (DTS) initially objected to any development here but, following a range of proposed improvements to the southerly track, he is now content. These include, rotivating the track, adding cement and compacting it, the provision of twelve passing places, resurfacing of the junction and cambering the road to shed surface water. The DTS has stated that the resurfacing method has been trialled elsewhere and been successful. In addition to his requirements to improve a difficult bend on Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 the public road on land within the roads authority’s control, this should render the southerly access appealing to any future residents, rather than the northerly access. Visually, it is not anticipated that the works would be discordant with the rural surroundings, given that they relate to an already highly exposed track. The applicants have stated they do not wish to block access from the northerly route into the steading. However, it is considered that, in the interests of road safety, access to the steading should be taken only from the improved route and a condition is imposed to reflect this concern.
Water Supply and Drainage
The applicants have produced a report which demonstrates that a current supply which serves the farmhouse, steading and chalets separately from the cottages can cope with the extra houses, albeit a larger storage tank may be necessary. Alternatively, a new borehole could be sunk. It is considered that this is sufficient to suggest that the principle of housing here is not prejudiced by a lack of water supply, albeit the supply itself will need to comply with licensing requirements separately from the planning consent in any case.
In terms of drainage, SEPA’s concerns regarding foul disposal appear to have been allayed by a proposal for three separate treatment plants discharging to close soakaways. Again, a separate license will be necessary, though this information does suggest that such matters would not undermine any outline planning consent being granted.
Archaeology
The Council’s Archaeology Officer has identified archaeological interests with respect to all three applications, and a condition is imposed in all cases requiring a survey of the sites.
Neighbouring Amenity
It is not considered that the proposed dwellinghouses would have any direct consequences for neighbours in terms of privacy or general amenity, particularly given the withdrawal of the plots closest to the neighbours. Subject to appropriate design and layouts being proposed, the proposed dwellinghouses should relate comfortably to one another.
Contributions
All six dwellinghouses (including the three conversions) will generate contributions towards the Waverley line reinstatement, the local High School (contributions are not currently sought for the Primary School) and, based on a 15% contribution from all but one of the units, a commuted payment will be required towards affordable housing within the North Ettrick and Lauderdale Housing Market Area, rather than on-site. If members are minded to grant consent, these matters will require to be addressed by legal agreement.
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposals to erect three dwellinghouses are now in compliance with current policies and guidance related to the development of housing in the countryside subject to a legal agreement and the proposed schedule of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend that all three applications are approved subject to a legal agreement and subject to the following conditions and informative:
07/01338/OUT Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 1. Approval of the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site hereinafter called "the reserved matters" shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (which may include excavation) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been formulated by, or on behalf of, the applicant and submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow archaeological investigation, at all reasonable times, by a person or persons nominated by the Planning Authority. Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.
3. All agricultural activities shall cease, and all redundant agricultural buildings shall be removed, from the site edged in blue on the approved plan, prior to any development commencing Reason: To avoid conflict with agricultural activities
4. Prior to the occupancy of any dwellinghouse, the southerly access track shall be improved in a manner consistent with the submitted letters dated 10th December 2007 and 29th April 2008, this shall include all matters identified with respect to resurfacing of the track over its entire length, the provision of twelve passing places, the treatment of surface water drainage and surfacing of the junction with the public road. In addition, the public road leading to the access junction shall be improved by means of the widening of a bend, and removal of obstructions. The location of the bend and extent of works required shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: The public road and access track require to be upgraded in order to accommodate the additional traffic.
5. All vehicular access to the application site, both during construction and at all times thereafter, related either to the development or occupancy of the dwellinghouses, shall be by means of the southerly access. Reason: The northerly access track is considered inappropriate for further traffic
6. Surface water drainage shall be designed to comply with PAN 61 and CIRIA SUDs manual C697 Reason: To ensure the sustainable disposal of surface water
07/01339/OUT
1. Approval of the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site hereinafter called "the reserved matters" shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (which may include excavation) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been formulated by, or on behalf of, the applicant and submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 to allow archaeological investigation, at all reasonable times, by a person or persons nominated by the Planning Authority. Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.
3. All agricultural activities shall cease, and all redundant agricultural buildings shall be removed, from the site edged in blue on the approved plan, prior to any development commencing Reason: To avoid conflict with agricultural activities
4. Prior to the occupancy of any dwellinghouse, the southerly access track shall be improved in a manner consistent with the submitted letters dated 10th December 2007 and 29th April 2008, this shall include all matters identified with respect to resurfacing of the track over its entire length, the provision of twelve passing places, the treatment of surface water drainage and surfacing of the junction with the public road. In addition, the public road leading to the access junction shall be improved by means of the widening of a bend, and removal of obstructions. The location of the bend and extent of works required shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: The public road and access track require to be upgraded in order to accommodate the additional traffic.
5. All vehicular access to the application site, both during construction and at all times thereafter, related either to the development or occupancy of the dwellinghouses, shall be by means of the southerly access. Reason: The northerly access track is considered inappropriate for further traffic
6. No trees within the application site shall be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: The existing tree(s) represent an important visual feature which the Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained.
7. Surface water drainage shall be designed to comply with PAN 61 and CIRIA SUDs manual C697 Reason: To ensure the sustainable disposal of surface water
07/01340/OUT
1. Approval of the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site hereinafter called "the reserved matters" shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (which may include excavation) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been formulated by, or on behalf of, the applicant and submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow archaeological investigation, at all reasonable times, by a person or persons nominated by the Planning Authority. Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 3. All agricultural activities shall cease, and all redundant agricultural buildings shall be removed, from the site edged in blue on the approved plan, prior to any development commencing Reason: To avoid conflict with agricultural activities
4. Prior to the occupancy of any dwellinghouse, the southerly access track shall be improved in a manner consistent with the submitted letters dated 10th December 2007 and 29th April 2008, this shall include all matters identified with respect to resurfacing of the track over its entire length, the provision of twelve passing places, the treatment of surface water drainage and surfacing of the junction with the public road. In addition, the public road leading to the access junction shall be improved by means of the widening of a bend, and removal of obstructions. The location of the bend and extent of works required shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: The public road and access track require to be upgraded in order to accommodate the additional traffic.
5. All vehicular access to the application site, both during construction and at all times thereafter, related either to the development or occupancy of the dwellinghouses, shall be by means of the southerly access. Reason: The northerly access track is considered inappropriate for further traffic
6. The first application for the approval of reserved matters relating to the layout of the site, position of any buildings and the access into the site, shall include detailed drawings showing which trees are to be retained on the site. None of the trees so shown shall be felled, thinned, lopped, topped, lifted or disturbed unless approved otherwise by the Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings, and to ensure that those existing tree(s) representing an important visual feature are retained and maintained.
7. Surface water drainage shall be designed to comply with PAN 61 and CIRIA SUDs manual C697 Reason: To ensure the sustainable disposal of surface water
Approved by
Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Carlos Clarke Principal Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(d) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
8 SEPTEMBER 2008
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 07/02478/FUL
OFFICER: Mr B Fotheringham WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Construction of wind farm comprising eleven wind turbines, permanent 70m anemometer mast, crane hardstandings, new internal access tracks, upgraded existing tracks, underground cabling, control building and car parking area SITE: Land East Of Kingledores Farm (Glenkerie), Broughton, Biggar APPLICANT: Novera Energy PLC AGENT: Atmos Consulting
SITE DESCRIPTION
The development site lies approximately 5km north west of Tweedsmuir and 12km southeast of Biggar. The site is currently used for sheep grazing and rough pasture and is situated within the Upper Tweeddale Area of Great Landscape Value.
The site is on hill land forming part of a ridge between two tributaries of the upper reaches of the River Tweed. The Holms Water valley lies to the north and the Kingledores Burn to the south. The hill slopes are steep and the tops narrow and relatively pointed. The site is on the south east facing (Kingledores) side of the watershed. The area is described in the Borders Landscape Assessment as part of ‘Landscape Type 4BG: Southern Uplands Type with Scattered Forest: Broadlaw Group’.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is proposed to install 11 wind turbine generators with an individual electricity generating capacity of between 1.8MW and 2.5MW. The total possible generating capacity for the site would be between 19.8 MW and 27.5MW.
The maximum height from the turbine base to the top of the blade tip will be 105 metres when the blades reach their highest point, for 6 of the turbines, and 120 metres for 5 of the turbines on the lower parts of the ridgeline. The turbine hub height will be up to 70 metres for 6 of the turbines, and up to 85m for 5 of the turbines on the lower ground. The rotor (blade) radius will be up to 40 metres for all of the turbines.
The application site would be accessed via a new vehicular access track directly from the A701 public road. Existing tracks would be upgraded and new tracks formed in order to allow access to the individual turbine sites. Existing river/burn crossings would be improved and new crossing formed in order to aid traffic movement within the site. Construction traffic to the site would be from the M74 and north along the A701 via Moffat and past Devils Beef Tub. A permanent 70m anemometer mast and control building would also be erected on site.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 PLANNING HISTORY
There is no planning history associated with this site although The Council has provided a Scoping Opinion in respect of this development.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
11 letters of objection were received to this application. The principal grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: x Despite the assurances of the developer, we are of the opinion that this proposed development will substantially affect the breeding habits and seriously damage the environment of the following protected species: Otter, Atlantic salmon, Lamprey, Bat, Brown Trout, Common Lizard, Red Fox, Field Voles, Badgers, Mountain and Brown Hare, Roe Deer. x The development will cause changes to natural drainage patterns, it could affect base flows, and it may also cause erosion and sedimentation. Concerns are raised about the affect on water quality of both ground water and water supplies. There is a risk of flooding and pollution. x Adverse impact on native and migratory birds x Adverse impact on a scheduled ancient monument x Adverse impact on an Area of Great Landscape Value, Regional Scenic Area and National Scenic Area. x Road safety – The proposed wind turbines are very close to the A701 which is a road with a high accident record – particularly in this locality. x The proposals will cause permanent scarring of the hillside in the form of access routes as well as the turbines themselves. Thus the upper Tweed Valley, renowned for its physical and visual landscape value will be significantly and irreparably compromised if permission is granted. x The proposals close proximity to the protected landscapes of Dawyck and Stobo, and specifically in relation to the National Scenic Area, will compromise the integrity of the designation and, if approved, would set a precedent for other wind farm developers. x The community have not been satisfied with the information supplied by Novera in support of this proposal - the second public meeting was cancelled. x Wildlife will be hugely disrupted during any construction. A golden eagle has been sighted in this area and its habitat should not be disrupted. x The community have not been properly consulted and are unhappy with the speed of this application to planning without proper consultation and answers. x The visual impact of this from Patervan, especially Patervan Cottage which has recently been renovated and extended and has prominent views of most of the turbines. x Although we were assured by Novera Energy that noise levels would be within acceptable limits we object to this disturbance in our peaceful valley. x There are no details of the connection to the National Grid and there are serious concerns if development were granted along with other proposed wind farms in the area that new power lines would then invade the valley. x Adverse economic impact on tourism. x Cumulative impact. 6 letters of support were also received. The content of these support letters can be summarised as follows: x This is a well designed proposal which can play an important role in Scottish Borders contribution to national and ED targets for renewable energy generation. The prospective site appears to have an excellent wind resource - and hence a high capacity factor. x It is without a doubt imperative that Scotland progress renewable energy projects with fervour. The sudden rise in all fossil fuel costs in recent months must surely highlight the need for alternative sources of energy. Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 x Novera Energy's proposal to include some community electricity incentive is an attractive proposition. x Very few people living in the area shall see any sign of the windfarm once it is complete. x The A701 may be designated as a "tourist route", but this is little more than an empty title as there are few places to stop and lay-bys are few and far between and very poorly signposted. x There can be no disputing that there are a lot of accidents but these are mainly due to drivers rushing to their destination with careless regard to the type of road they are driving on. A sudden glimpse of a few wind turbines will not make any difference. Low flying fighter jets are surely a bigger distraction. x As to the continuous poor efficiency argument hauled out by detractors of wind farms every time such an issue comes up. It is true they only run at about 35% efficiency, approximately the same as a coal fired power station or a petrol engine. However, the lost 65% is only wind, not co2/wasted heat. They are still the best option for renewable energy now until other sources are improved. x Wind power generation is just another use of the land that will in the end prove to be temporary like everything else manmade. This industry is important to Scotland it should not be stifled without due consideration x We have to maximise our clean, renewable energy production and this will be of benefit to the whole area. x The turbines would be sensitively located and would not be visually unattractive. x The developers have undertaken to provide financial support for community based projects. This is to be welcomed in the small dispersed communities in Upper Tweeddale.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The applicant submitted a full environmental impact assessment complete with visualisations along with the application. This document as well as supplementary environmental information is available for Members to view via PublicAccess.
The Environmental Statement (ES) was prepared in accordance with Schedule 4 of The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. It describes all of the elements of the wind farm development, its construction, operation and decommissioning, the nature of the site and its surroundings, the likely effects of the development, and measures proposed to mitigate any adverse impacts on the environment. The purpose of the ES is to: x Explain the need for the proposals and describe the physical characteristics, scale and design of the wind farm; x Examine the existing environmental character of the application site and the area likely to be affected by the wind farm; x Predict the possible environmental impacts of the wind farm; x Describe measures which would be taken to avoid, offset or reduce adverse environmental impacts; and, x Provide the public, the planning authority and other consultees with information on the proposals, which would assist the planning authority in the determination of the wind farm application.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011
Principle S1 – Environmental Impact Policy N1 – Local Biodiversity Action Plan Policy N5 – Local Biodiversity Action Policy N6 – Environmental Impact Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Policy N7 – Protection of Nature Conservation Interest Policy N8 – River Tweed System Policy N9 – Maintaining Landscape Character Policy N11 – Areas of Great Landscape Value Policy N20 – Design Policy E2 – Farm Diversification Policy E16 – Rural Economic Development Policy E22 – Protection of the Tourist Industry Policy C8 – Access Network Policy I13 – Water Quality Policy I19 – Renewable Energy Policy I20 – Wind Energy Developments
Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005
Principle 1 – Sustainability Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy NE1 – International Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE2 – National Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy NE5 – Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Policy EP2 – Areas of Great Landscape Value
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A Planning Framework for Wind Energy Developments: Policy Guidelines 1995. The Borders Landscape Assessment 1998. Visibility Mapping for Windfarm Developments – The Scottish Borders 2003. NPPG 6: Renewable Energy Developments. NPPG 14: Natural Heritage 1998. NPPG 18: Planning and the Historic Environment 1999. SPP 1: The Planning System 2002. SPP 2: Economic Development 2002. SPP 6: Renewable Energy 2007. SPP 15: Planning for Rural Development 2005. PAN 45: Renewable Energy Technologies 2002. PAN 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation 2006. PAN 56: Planning and Noise 1999. PAN 58: Environmental Assessment 1999. PAN 60: Planning for Natural Heritage 2000. PAN 73: Rural Diversification 2005.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
INITIAL RESPONSES
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Landscape Architect: In terms of landscape impacts, the main issues are related to the visibility of the 11 turbines and the proposed access track and its associated earthworks. The key policy for consideration of landscape impacts is ‘Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development’ in the Finalised Local Plan dated December 2006. Taking the defined criteria of the plan in turn:
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 1. The site is outwith a ‘preferred area of search’ as defined by Structure Plan policy I19 because it is within the above noted AGLV. 2. The site is within a large scale landscape (Upland Type) as defined by the Borders Landscape Assessment. 3. The site achieves a degree of partial containment from surrounding landform. This is illustrated by figure 7.24 of the ES which indicates that approximately half of the area within 5km of the proposed development will not have any view of it due to the screening effects of landform. Many of the areas that are affected are open hill land and woodland with very few sensitive receptors. Many of the positions from which the development can be seen on the skyline are also, generally, not sensitive. 4. In terms of impacts on high sensitivity receptors, there are effects on public viewpoints e.g. from short sections of the A701 around Kingledores and, travelling south, from the A701 at the foot of Worm Hill. (There are also views from the tracks along the Kingledores and Holms Water Valleys but these views will be seen by relatively few people.) There are also more distant views from the NSA from roads such as the C class road north of the Tweed at Dreva east of Broughton at a range of about 8km. There are also views from residential properties, the most sensitive category. These have been assessed and are illustrated e.g. at figure 7.29 Viewpoint 12 which illustrates the impact upon Kingledores Farm. Broadly speaking these most significant effects are limited to the buildings at Kingledores and slightly further away at Stanhope, Patervan Farm and Polmood House. Some of these views are partially screened or oblique or not the principal views from the property. Given all the impacts noted above, it is not clear that there are grounds for refusal, based on the type of impacts that have already been accepted elsewhere in the Borders. Another impact is the effect on views from adjoining hills such as Broadlaw (Fig 7.35) and Trahenna Hill (Fig 7.32). Caution should be exercised in interpreting the submitted photomontages as the view illustrates the hills in cloud shadow with back lighting. Other conditions could highlight the turbines more prominently. However, at a distance of over 9km the impacts are not major. Taken together, the proposed windfarm will be visible from a number of hill tops and this will be clearly visible to hill walkers within the designated landscapes. A further and perhaps significant landscape issue concerns the engineering of the access roads. Concern about this has been raised by SNH because the cutting and embankments associated with road construction would be an additional visual impact in their own right and because they might also act as initiation points for accelerated erosion of the existing landform. Should this erosion occur it would be very difficult to stop and it would have implications for the watercourses down hill. An engineering drawing should be requested showing in detail how the tracks will be constructed and explaining the proposed mitigation measures to prevent scarring of the hillside, erosion and water pollution. 5(i) In terms of landscape character, the area is large scale (see 2 above). Being part of the central Southern Uplands, the area does have more ‘remote qualities’ than many other more closely farmed and managed landscapes in other parts of the Borders. 5(ii) See 4 above. 5(iii) See 4 above. Given the effects of distance on perceived visual impact, cumulative impacts will normally only enter the ‘major’ category where the observer is within 5 km range of 2 different sites. In other words, wind farms more than 10km apart (from outermost turbines) will only display cumulative effects in the moderate or low categories. The other potential windfarm sites within this 10km range are at Clyde to the west and Earlshaugh (just) to the south. However, due to the screening effects of landform, I do not think that any sensitive receptors are affected. Cumulative impact (within the conventional definition of assessing overlapping effects) should therefore be within acceptable limit. Thinking on cumulative impact is developing however and I am of the view that adjoining wind farms and associated cumulative effects are less important than reserving some selected landscapes as windfarm free. This has been described as the principal of cluster and space i.e. groups of adjoining wind farms forming a new landscape character area separated from other Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 groups by an undeveloped area especially where there are the ‘remote qualities’ referred to at 5(i) above.. In a Borders context, the Tweedsmuir Hills AGLV is such an area forming (along with the Moffat Hills in Dumfries and Galloway) part of the central core and most mountainous part of the Southern Uplands. It can be argued that introducing a windfarm into an unaffected landscape is another form of cumulative impact, spreading the area of ‘windfarm landscape’ more widely and reducing the extent of the Border landscapes that are ‘turbine free’. The prospect of wind farms within or perhaps one day throughout the Tweedsmuir Hills AGLV would therefore be unfortunate. 5(iv) -(viii) no comment 5(ix) See 5(iii) above
Archaeology Officer: No comments.
Rights of Way Officer: According to the records held in the Planning & Economic Development Section there are no claimed rights of way on this area of land. However, the creation of a circular pathway would be expedient in this instance. The plan above shows the approximate outline of the track that will service the proposed turbines. This track comes very close to an old pathway that runs south from Glencotho to Kingledores. As part of any future planning consent the path should be enhanced to the satisfaction of the planning authority and re-routed at the southern end in order to avoid the working steading of Kingledores.
Ecology Officer: The Planning Authority is required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment of the effects on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC.
The details of the Construction Method Statement and Deconstruction Method Statement particularly with regard to the River Tweed SAC and also European Protected Species will have to be agreed prior to planning being determined. The details of the Pollution Prevention Plan particularly with regard to impacts on the qualifying interest and integrity of the River Tweed SAC will have to be agreed prior to planning being determined. Any impacts on the flood plain must be considered with regard to impacts on the River Tweed SAC.
Given that a CAR licence will be required for some activities, the planning authority should consider the likelihood of such a licence being granted. SEPA’s response should inform this decision.
The proposed access track appears to follow a route up slopes greater than 150 (although I have not measured this), further detail on the engineering of the tracks and impacts on habitats is required.
A Landscape and Habitat Management Plan should be agreed before planning is determined.
At this stage, on ecological grounds the planning application cannot be determined until an Appropriate Assessment of the effects on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC has been carried out to the required standards and other significant ecological impacts, as identified above, have been assessed further.
Director of Technical Services (Roads): No comments.
Director of Technical Services (Flood Protection Officer): Any permanent works appear to be clear of the watercourses shown on the SEPA Indicative Flood Mapping and therefore this development is out with the scope of SPP7.
Please note that this information must be taken in the context of material that this Council holds in fulfilling its duties under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 as amended by the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997. Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Statutory Consultees
Upper Tweed Community Council: The site is very close to the area of outstanding natural beauty. The A701 is already very dangerous road and a planning application was refused recently for this reason. The refused application had more visible access than this application. There are other windfarm applications more suited to the area than this one.
Scottish Water: A review of our records indicates that there are water mains and a raw water supply in the area that may be affected by the proposed development. It is therefore essential that these assets are protected from the risk of contamination and damage. This also applies to watercourses that feed into reservoirs. A list of precautions is listed in full in SW’s consultation response for the information of the applicant.
SEPA: No objections in principle subject to a number of issues identified below being covered by condition: x Watercourse Crossings x Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Geology x Abstraction x Borrow Pits x Timing of Construction x Pollution Prevention x Waste Management x Ecology and Nature Conservation
Historic Scotland: We are content that the Environmental Statement correctly identifies the baseline cultural heritage resource and offers an assessment of the potential impacts of the development on this site. However, we have concerns with lack of detailed analysis on how the conclusion in Appendix 6.2 has been reached. This is of particular concern given that two of the sites in question (SAM 3084 and 3215) are considered to accrue impacts of Major significance. We consider that the ES would have benefited from the production of wireframes to more fully explain the findings of the ES.
We note that the last paragraph of the Cultural Heritage chapter states that 'in overall terms, the impact of the development on the cultural heritage resource would not be contrary to the aims of the Structure and Local Plans, or significant in terms of the requirements of The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations.' It should be noted that the ES has identified that the development has impacts on two nationally important sites that are considered significant in terms of the EIA regulations.
It should also be noted that Chapter 4 of the ES on Planning Policy states in section 4.2.28 that 'the impact of the proposal on cultural heritage features is low, with only potentially minor impacts, which would not compromise the character or setting of sensitive features', This would appear to be at odds with the findings of the Cultural Heritage chapter with reference to SAM 3084 and SAM 3215.
Historic Scotland has concerns about the level of information contained within this application for this windfarm development which has the potential to adversely affect the setting of four scheduled ancient monuments. The development area is 500m north-east of an archaeological site which is termed Glenkerie Bum, fort, (SAM 3084) and 1.8km north-east of another site, termed Patervan, settlement SSE of (SAM 3215). Both sites are scheduled as monuments of national importance under the terms of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 We also note that there are two other scheduled monuments in the immediate area of Patervan, settlement SSE of , which the ES classed as having major impact, are classed in the ES as minor impact. These sites are Chester Knowes, enclosure (SAM 3216) and Patervan, burial cairn and buildings N of (SAM 8157).
We have given consideration to the potential impact on the setting of these four scheduled ancient monuments by this development proposal. We note that the wireframes or photomontages supplied with this application do not contain sufficient information to allow us to consider the effect of the development on the setting of these monuments. The only photomontage in the area closest to these sites is Viewpoint 12, Figure 7.29, Kingledores Farm. We consider that this photomontage does not provide sufficient information to determine impact on the above scheduled monuments. We would ask that applicant provide the following wireframes of the views of the development in relation to the scheduled monuments:
SAM 3084 Glenkerie Burn, fort: one view looking NE from track towards fort and one view looking SW from track to south of Kingledores towards fort.
SAM 3215 Patervan, settlement SSE of: one view from site looking towards development.
SAM 3216 Chester Knowes, enclosure: one view from site looking towards development.
SAM 8157 Patervan, burial cairn and buildings N of: one view from site looking towards development.
Therefore, on the basis of the information supplied with this application, we are unable to determine the level of impact of these development proposals on the setting of the scheduled ancient monuments and would ask that the applicant submit further information as stated above. We would be happy to discuss further with the applicant the level of information that is required.
SNH: The development could have potentially serious adverse impacts on important natural heritage interests. SNH objects to the proposed development because it is likely that the proposal will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC), designated for the qualifying features Atlantic salmon, otter, three species of lamprey and as a water course typically supporting water crowfoot (Ranuncu/us) species. There is insufficient information presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the planning application to ascertain that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC, of which the Kingledores Burn is part. SNH will reconsider this view once further information is provided about aspects of the development of concern to us and an appropriate assessment has been undertaken by the Council in accordance with the legislation relating to European sites, summarised in SE Circular 6/1995 as amended June 2000.
SNH objects to the proposed development on landscape grounds due to the lack of details regarding aspects of design and construction. SNH will reconsider this view once further information is provided, which is the same information as required to address our objection relating to the River Tweed SAC.
We object to the location of the substation on the shoulder of Cockle Rig Head, on the skyline between turbines 7 and 8, on landscape grounds. We have serious concerns regarding the significant and adverse visual effects that will occur along short sections of the A701, a remote but popular tourist and transport route and strongly recommend that consideration is given to removing or reducing the height or position of turbines causing this effect. We have serious concerns about the impacts on the natural heritage of construction activities on the steep hill slopes of the site. We have serious concerns that the ES has made no attempt to consider the future management of the site to benefit its natural heritage through commitment to a Land Management Plan, or similar.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 We have serious concerns about the location of turbines and access tracks on blanket bog, which is a priority habitat for conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (www.ukbaD.ora.uk) as this is likely to have an adverse effect on the habitat. We recommend that conditions are attached to any consent granted to cover other issues of concern to us.
Dumfries and Galloway Council: The proposed turbines would be located considerably to the north of the boundary between Dumfries & Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council, and in an area where the surrounding topography is of an upland character. Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed turbines in themselves should have any significant adverse visual impact on land within the Dumfries & Galloway Council area. On this basis, the Council does not formally object to the application.
However, it is noted that the proposal would be read in connection with other wind farm proposals which are at scoping and beyond in the general locality and so the issue of the cumulative visual impact is a cause for concern. In particular, the site is in close proximity to the significant windfarm proposals at Clyde, Harestanes, Earlshaugh, and Minnygap (although this latter application was refused by this Council). It would also be sited close to the A701, which is an important scenic tourist route through Dumfries & Galloway and the Scottish Borders to and from Edinburgh.
It is assumed that Scottish Borders Council will take these material considerations into full account before determining the application.
South Lanarkshire Council: Having assessed the proposal and its location, I am of the view that this will have a detrimental effect on the South Lanarkshire Council Regional Scenic Area which adjoins the Scottish Borders Area of Great Landscape Value. This is a protected area and views of the windfarm, as per the ZVI, clearly show the site being visible from within this scenic area.
There is also the potential issue of cumulative impact with the Clyde Windfarm proposal by Airtricity within South Lanarkshire Council area which currently awaits a decision from the Scottish Government. Should this be given the go ahead, some 164 turbines will be concentrated between Camps and Daer Reservoirs. Camps Reservoir is fairly close to Scottish Borders boundary and would have a severe impact on the area as a whole.
In conclusion South Lanarkshire Council objects to this proposal for the above reasons and hereby recommend that the proposal is refused by Scottish Borders.
Other Consultees
The Scottish Rights of Way Association: In response to the enquiry about rights of way within this site, the National Catalogue of Rights of Way does not show any in the vicinity. As you will be aware, there is no definitive record of rights of way in Scotland and there could be routes that meet the criteria but have never been recorded because they have not come to our notice. The attractive track across from Kingledores to Glencotho looks to meet all the criteria but is not on the records. Turbine 10 is very close to it.
Visit Scotland: VisitScotland’s position is as follows:
1. We understand and support the drive for renewable energy and recognise the potential of Scotland’s vast resource. 2. As a consequence we are not against the principle of wind farm development. 3. Research carried out for us by an independent consultancy was inconclusive and reflected a split in visitor opinion between those strongly against wind farm development of any kind and those who said in some areas it actually enhanced what was otherwise a bleak and unattractive landscape. Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 4. We are, however, becoming increasingly concerned over the proliferation of speculative development proposals, many of them in areas of high landscape or scenic value or in locations which directly impact on tourism operations or activity. 5. Ultimately we recognise, however, that it is for the local planning authority (or in extreme cases referred to the Scottish Government Minister) to make the final decision as to whether or not a development proposal is approved. 6. We are confident that this process, controlled as it is by locally elected councillors, will reflect both local needs and aspirations and take into account those concerns of nature conservation and tourism interests.
AHSS: No comments.
Architectural and Design Scotland: No comments.
Forestry Commission Scotland: No comments.
Ministry of Defence: No concerns.
Ofcom: No comments.
Rural Scotland: No comments.
NATS: The proposed development does not conflict with NATS safeguarding criteria.
River Tweed Commissioners: The River Tweed Commission proposes that: x The developer is required to conduct proper pre-construction monitoring of all fish species in the Kingledores Burn to ensure adequate baseline information against which to judge future impacts. Ideally this monitoring should be conducted by the Tweed Foundation which already has a comprehensive understanding of fish population issues in the area. It should also be supported by a reasonable time series of data for such an assessment to be valid. x During construction, all reasonable methods are in place to reduce damage to water courses and that there is appropriate monitoring to support this. Again the role of the Tweed Foundation is paramount in this. x Monitoring continues for a reasonable period after construction ceases (we suggest 3 years) to ensure that any impacts related to the construction can be quantified. x Mitigation measures are put in place to ensure that, where impacts are detected, the developer is required to go to reasonable lengths to ensure impacts are adequately dealt with and habitats and species are restored to pre-construction conditions. x We also believe that any developer has a moral obligation to make a long term commitment to supporting restoration or enhancement projects in the aquatic and riparian habitats of the development area and beyond - a concept fully understood by the principle of planning gain.
The Scottish Executive Development Department (Transport Scotland): Overall there will be a minimal increase in traffic on the trunk road, during the operation of the facility, therefore the proposed development is not likely to have a significant impact on the operation of the trunk road network. However, it is likely that as many of the construction loads may be categorised as abnormal, authorisation from our management organisation Amey Infrastructure Services (AIS) may be required. It is advisable that AIS are consulted as to the feasibility of transportation of these items to site. Due to the frequency and number of these loads it is UK policy to restrict these movements via the nearest suitable port.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 The Scottish Executive Development Department (Climate Change Division):
Water x The developers should ensure that there is no significant impact on the water environment (both surface and ground waters) during and after construction. Potential impacts include track construction, borrow pits, use of plant and machinery, plant compounds, oil storage, turbine base excavations. They should identify all potential pollution risks associated with the proposals and identify preventative and mitigation measures. It is important that SEPA are fully involved in discussions on this proposal in order that proper mitigation measures are introduced; x The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) Regulations 2005 provide for specific controls for activities which impact on the water environment, for example discharges and engineering works, such as water crossings and abstractions. These regulations implement requirements of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) as implemented by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003; and Noise x We note that noise is an issue for consideration within the Environmental Statement. The developers and the local authority may therefore be interested in "A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency noise and its Effects" and other low frequency noise research papers which have been produced for DEFRA.
RSPB: No comments.
Scottish Badgers: No comments.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: No comments.
BAA: No comment.
RE-CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Landscape: The visual impacts of Glenkerie on specified sensitive receptors are within thresholds already accepted elsewhere in the Borders. The impacts assessed against part 4 of Policy D4 do not, of themselves, constitute grounds for refusal, although they may be contributory factors.
It is now expected that the concerns regarding the engineering of the access roads can be resolved by the mitigation measures set out in the ES Supplement and will be covered by planning conditions.
Section 5 (iii) of Policy D4 includes cumulative impacts and it is in relation to this issue that my recommendation for refusal was principally based. However, the definition of cumulative impact is rather unclear. Rather than being concerned about the combined impact of several wind farms in the same view (the conventional concept of cumulative impact) what really concerns me is the gradual encroachment of wind farms on the most remote areas and the consequent loss of a sense of wild land. At a national level the protection of these areas relies on their designation, either as National Parks or National Scenic Areas or, to a lesser extent, on the designated Areas of Great Landscape Value. It is an anomaly that, in the Borders, the designated NSA's cover more ‘cultivated’ landscapes rather than the core ‘wilder’ areas of the Southern Uplands. Glenkerie is within an AGLV and it is closer to the core of the Southern Uplands than other approved wind farms, so I do have concerns.
However, it is debatable that, even in Borders terms, Glenkerie is in the most ‘wild and remote’ category. Also, I am not clear that my interpretation of what cumulative impact means and my view of what the landscape designations ought to be are sufficient grounds taken alone to refuse the application. Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Given that planning decisions must take account of the full range of factors and given also that my concern regarding encroachment on undisturbed landscapes is perhaps not fully defined in current policy guidance, I am content to remove my objection to this application and I therefore remove my recommendation for refusal.
Ecology: My response of 17 April 2008 indicated that on ecological grounds the planning application cannot be determined until an Appropriate Assessment of the effects on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC has been carried out and other significant ecological impacts have been further assessed.
In the light of the Supplemental Environmental Information and SNH’s and SEPA’s consultation responses, an Appropriate Assessment of the effects on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC has been carried out (attached). This indicates that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC for the European qualifying interests provided that the required detailed planning conditions are attached and implemented sensitively through any subsequent planning consent. This addresses the objections on the grounds of Natura interest.
River Tweed SAC
The results of the Appropriate Assessment indicate that there will be no significant adverse effect on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC provided that the required detailed planning conditions are attached and implemented sensitively.
Given SNH and SEPA’s consultation responses to date I am satisfied for the detail of the Construction Method Statement, Deconstruction Method Statement and Pollution Prevention Plan to be subject to appropriately worded conditions.
Other habitats
I welcome the developer’s comprehensive draft of the Outline Landscape and Habitats Management Plan (LHMP) and its reference to Scottish Borders LBAP objectives. This includes a range of sub- management plans targeted at priority species and habitat mitigation and enhancement which is to be welcomed.
A regionally important lek site lies just outside the southern boundary of the site. It is important that mitigation measures do not enhance habitats for black grouse in such a way to increase the risk to the regionally important black grouse population in the vicinity of this site. I now consider the impacts on the blanket bog, modified bog and upland heathland habitats as being acceptable on the basis that there will be mitigation and compensatory provision for these habitats. Further detail on the off-site measures proposed for mires and heath should be agreed prior to determination.
Species
Further details on the methodologies for the mammal species surveys have been provided and I am satisfied with the information provided.
I welcome the proposals for bat, badger, otter and reptile surveys as included in the Outline Landscape and Habitat Management Plan and Construction Method Statement.
Measures identified in the Outline Landscape and Habitat Management Plan will enhance the site for the relevant priority species.
Ornithology
Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 I am satisfied with the findings of the report subject to conditions and the introduction of significant mitigation to reduce risks to the regional black grouse population.
Statutory Consultees
SNH: In relation to the objection regarding the River Tweed SAC, it remains our opinion that the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying features of interest of the SAC. However, we are of the opinion that the information provided in the SEI together with the commitment from the developer to address our concerns through appropriately worded conditions on any permission granted would overcome our concerns and avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the site.
SNH therefore objects to the proposed development as submitted, unless it is made subject to conditions and/or legal agreements which would overcome our concerns about the impacts of construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed windfarm on the qualifying interests of the River Tweed SAC. If the proposal is undertaken strictly in accordance with these conditions and/or legal agreements, then it is our opinion that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. These conditions must cover the following issues: x Prior to construction commencing, the details of the design of the access tracks, particularly for the track running alongside the Kingledores Burn, must be approved by Scottish Borders Council, in consultation with SNH. This should include information about the timing of construction being phased to avoid the times of year when the qualifying features of interest of the SAC are most vulnerable to disturbance. x Prior to construction commencing, the details of the drainage schemes for the site, particularly the access tracks, is to be approved by SBC, in consultation with SNH. The drainage scheme must take every opportunity to minimise sediment run-off to watercourses throughout the construction and operational lifetime of the development, and be subject to reviews for effectiveness at appropriate time intervals. x Prior to construction commencing, the details of the methods of re-vegetation and re-instatement of bare ground is to be approved by SBC in consultation with SNH. This must include details about the treatment of track edges, timing of the re-instatement works in relation to construction activity to minimise any effect on the SAC and maximise the success of the re-instatement, methods for storing and treating stripped turf that is to be re-used, details of the species mix of any seed mixes proposed for use, details of where and how geotextiles might be used to aid re- vegetation of slopes etc., and details of re-vegetation of drainage ditches and swales.
It should be noted that Scottish Borders Council is required to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives for its qualifying interests. This assessment may be based on the above appraisal by SNH but you may wish to carry out further appraisal before completing the appropriate assessment.
SNH Revised Position - Landscape
With respect to the first landscape objection, some further details of design and construction of the development have been provided in the SEI, however, in our opinion, these do not go far enough. At this stage, we are of the opinion that provision of these further details to address our concerns can be secured through the use of appropriate planning conditions. Our objection would be overcome by the use of planning conditions and/or legal agreements, as detailed above, to cover the landscape issues of concern to us.
Regarding the second landscape objection, we advise that a condition is used to ensure the location, design and external materials of the sub-station are agreed with SSC, prior to construction commencing, to minimise its landscape and visual impact. We note from the SEI Introduction Section, Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 point 37 in the table, that there is an intention to re-Iocate the substation to a sub-surface location, but that there is no information elsewhere in the SEI giving details of the location or design of the building. Our objection would be overcome by the use of a planning condition and/or legal agreement to cover this issue of concern.
SNH - Other Serious Concerns
We note the information provided in the SEI about the visual effects that will occur along short distances of the A701 and have no further comment on this. We believe our concerns about the impacts of construction activities on the steep hill slopes can be addressed through the proposed conditions above, but concerns about this aspect of the development remain. We note and support the intentions within Section 4 of the SEI 'Outline Landscape and Habitats Management Plan'. The production and implementation of this Plan should be ensured through the use of appropriate conditions. Should the development gain planning permission, we would welcome the opportunity to input to the Plan. We note the information provided in the SEI about blanket bog and peat slide risk, and have no further comment on these issues.
SEPA: SEPA has reviewed the supplementary information and is satisfied that the developer has considered the main issues raised in the consultation response of 20 March 2008. It is recommended that the final detailed documents are submitted by the applicant for the written approval of the planning authority in consultation with SEPA, and that this is covered by condition.
Historic Scotland: Following the receipt of this information and a site visit we can confirm that we are content to agree with the findings of the Environmental Statement. In terms of our views on the application itself we can confirm that we do not consider the potential impacts on any of the above sites to be of such a level that would merit our objection. We therefore do not wish to object to this application and have no further comments to offer.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES
The main planning issues are whether or not the proposals comply with national and local planning policies governing the location of wind turbine developments, particularly in relation to landscape and visual impact, impact on the River Tweed SAC, cumulative impact, noise, traffic and the natural heritage.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION
In terms of the principle of accepting a wind turbine development in this area, Structure Plan Policies I19 and I20 provide general support for such proposals, in principle, and this support is also provided in the most recent national guidance on the issue, in the form of SPP6. While a number of objectors raise the question of whether wind turbines are beneficial forms of renewable energy, and recommend the exploration of alternative sources of energy, that is a matter which cannot be readily debated as part of this individual planning application. That is not to suggest that the views held are either correct or incorrect, but to identify that such a debate essentially lies outwith the scope of this planning application. The application must be treated on its own merits, accounting for current planning policies and other material considerations related to the proposal and the site.
Accounting for the criteria identified by the relevant development plan policy, Structure Plan Policy I20, and more recently Finalised Local Plan Policy D4, which is a significant material consideration in this case, the following matters are considered as the principal issues in assessing this planning application.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL AMENITY
Structure Plan policy requires that the impact of the development on the landscape character be assessed, and be guided by the Borders Landscape Assessment. The policy applies broad ‘area of search’ methodology whereby areas containing designated sites, such as National Scenic Areas and Areas of Great Landscape Value, are described as sensitive, and those areas not containing any such designations are described as preferred. The application site is located within the Tweedsmuir Hills Area of Great Landscape Value and within sight of the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area. The nearest turbine to the National Scenic Area (NSA) would be over 3km and the furthest turbine would be 4km. The nearest turbine to the Regional Scenic Area would be 2.3km and the furthest 3.5km.
The area is described in the Borders Landscape Assessment as part of ‘Landscape Type 4BG: Southern Uplands Type with Scattered Forest: Broadlaw Group’. The assessment describes the key characteristics of this landscape as: x Large scale rolling landform with higher dome or cone-shaped summits x Significant areas of peatland and heather moorland x Mosaic of grassland, bracken and rushes on lower ground x Locally prominent scattered large coniferous plantations It also describes the visual sensitivity of the area overall (4BG) as high ‘due to the numerous important roads used by local, business and leisure traffic in the adjoining valleys (A701, A72, A7, A708).
The road access and lowest part of the site also includes a small part of the adjoining ‘Landscape Type 22UT: Upland Valley with pastoral Floor: Upper Tweed’. Key characteristics include: x U-shaped valley with moderately to strongly sloping sides with flat floor modified by river bluffs and glacial moraine. x Scattered stone built villages with farmsteads and dwellings dispersed along river terraces, lower valley sides and tributary valleys. x A simple, distinctive landscape strongly enclosed by uplands with intermittent long views along valley corridors.
The application site is located within a potentially sensitive area of search in terms of Diagram 18 of the Approved Structure Plan. As stated above the application site is affected by a locally designated area and is within sight of a nationally designated area in terms of nature conservation and landscape value.
However, the development also requires to be assessed against a number of relevant policies in the Approved Structure Plan, Adopted Local Plan and Finalised Local Plan. Policy I20 of the Approved Structure Plan is criteria based and criteria (i) states that wind energy developments will be assessed against the landscape character of the area. Policy 77 of the Tweeddale Local Plan is also criteria based and seeks to ensure amongst other things that all development in the countryside will not have an adverse effect on countryside amenity, landscape or nature conservation. Policy D4 of the Finalised Local Plan supports this criteria by identifying the key features considered necessary in identifying appropriate locations for wind farm developments. Appropriate locations are normally ones which are (a) within large landscape settings defined as Upland Type in the Landscape Classification hierarchy contained within the Borders Landscape Assessment, (b) enclosed by surrounding landform thereby minimising external visibility of the development, and (c) set sufficiently apart from sensitive receptors, in particular principal views from residential properties within a 5km radius of turbines, in order to reduce visual effects on these receptors.
The Environmental Statement has considered the potential magnitude, the significance and the acceptability of the predicted changes to the landscape and visual amenity in the study area. Through reference to Council policies and through the use of zones of influence mapping, photomontages, wireframe drawings and a residential properties survey within a 5km radius of the site the Environmental Statement draws a number of conclusions. The ES also uses 35km, 10km and 2.5km Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 zones of visual influence, which are considered appropriate, and uses 23 different viewpoints to provide a representation of various important views of the proposal. The ES also uses a 60km cumulative study area in order to establish the existing cumulative wind farm baseline.
The Environmental Statement correctly indicates that the site lies within the Southern Uplands Landscape Character Area of the Borders Landscape Assessment. The wind farm development itself is situated within a large scale rolling landform on the upper slopes of Broomy Law, Glenlood Hill and Cockle Rig Head. The area is also characterised by areas of peatland and heather moorland. The ES states that there would be limited and localised significant residual landscape effects within the immediate 2.5km radius study area. The ES also states that there would be no significant residual landscape effects to any valued landscape. Significant cumulative landscape effects would only occur for the NSA within the 15km radius local scale landscape. The ES acknowledges that there would be significant effects on localised landscape character, however, in terms of compliance with one of the key criteria of Policies I20 of the Structure Plan and D4 of the Finalised Local Plan, the site does comply as it lies within an Upland Landscape Character Area.
In terms of impacts on high sensitivity receptors, there are effects on public viewpoints from short sections of the A701 around Kingledores and, travelling south, from the A701 at the foot of Worm Hill. There are also more distant views from the NSA from roads such as the C class road north of the Tweed at Dreva east of Broughton at a range of about 8km. There are also views from existing residential properties, the most sensitive category, and these have been assessed. The most significant effects are limited to the buildings at Kingledores and slightly further away at Stanhope, Patervan Farm and Polmood House. Some of these views are partially screened or oblique or not the principal views from the property. Although there are impacts on sensitive receptors it is not clear that these impacts are significant.
Views from the adjoining hills such as Broadlaw are likely to be affected by the proposed development. At a distance of more than 9km the impacts are not major but the proposed windfarm will be visible from a number of hill tops and this will be clearly visible to hill walkers within the designated landscape.
Members will note from the consultation responses received from our Landscape Architect and SNH that objections were raised on landscape grounds. SNH objects to the location of the substation on the shoulder of Cockle Rig Head between turbines 7 and 8 and recommends that consideration is given to removing or reducing the height or position of turbines causing serious visual effects long the A701. Concerns were also raised regarding the impact of the proposed access tracks on the landscape and the cumulative impact of wind farms, but this will be discussed in more detail below.
The applicants considered the Council’s position and the comments that were raised from consultees and third parties and submitted additional supplementary environmental information on 11 May 2008 to modify the development and mitigate as far as possible against the concerns raised.
The visual impacts of the Glenkerie proposal on specified sensitive receptors are within thresholds already accepted elsewhere in the Borders. The impacts assessed against part 4 of Policy D4 do not, of themselves, constitute grounds for refusal, although they may be contributory factors. It is now expected that the concerns regarding the engineering of the access roads can be resolved by the mitigation measures set out in the ES Supplement and will be covered by planning conditions.
The supplementary information submitted by the applicant goes some way to resolving the outstanding landscape objections raised by SNH but further detailed information is required in respect of design and construction. SNH confirm that this can be covered by condition. Furthermore, SNH advise that a condition is used to ensure the location, design and external materials of the sub-station are agreed with Scottish Borders Council prior to construction commencing, to minimise its landscape and visual impact. SNH note from the Supplemental Environmental Information (SEI) Introduction that Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 there is an intention to re-Iocate the substation to a sub-surface location, but that there is no information elsewhere in the SEI giving details of the location nor design of the building. Again, these objections can be addressed by the use of a planning condition and/or legal agreement to cover this issue of concern.
CUMULATIVE LANDSCAPE IMPACT
Objections were raised on the grounds of cumulative when this site is considered in conjunction with the proposed Section 36 Wind Farm at Earlshaugh in the Borders and the consented Section 36 development at the Clyde Wind Farm in South Lanarkshire. South Lanarkshire Council object on the grounds that the Glenkerie Windfarm would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape as a result of cumulative impact with the Airtricity Clyde Windfarm (164 Turbines). Dumfries and Galloway Council also raise the issue of cumulative impact, but have not formally objected to the scheme.
Section 5 (iii) of Policy D4 of the Finalised Local Plan includes cumulative impacts and it is in relation to this issue that Council’s Landscape Architect’s recommendation for refusal was principally based. However, the definition of cumulative impact is rather unclear. Rather than being concerned about the combined impact of several wind farms in the same view (the conventional concept of cumulative impact), the gradual encroachment of wind farms on the most remote areas and the consequent loss of a sense of wild land was the principal reason for objection. At a national level the protection of these areas relies on their designation, either as National Parks or National Scenic Areas or, to a lesser extent, on the designated Areas of Great Landscape Value. It is an anomaly that, in the Borders, the designated NSAs cover more ‘cultivated’ landscapes rather than the core ‘wilder’ areas of the Southern Uplands. Glenkerie is within an Area of Great Landscape Value and it is closer to the core of the Southern Uplands than other approved wind farms. However, national policy is clear that a proposal should not be resisted solely because it is located within a designated area, although clearly a more cautious approach to consideration will be required.
Paragraphs 7.5.58 – 7.5.70 of the ES summarises the cumulative effects of the Glenkerie Wind farm and concludes that potential significant effects are limited and localised and are only anticipated to receptors in upland areas surrounding the proposed development. In lowland valley areas significant effects are only anticipated from a limited number of residential properties and short sections of a small number of tourist routes. South Lanarkshire Council conclude that cumulative effects in association with Glenkerie will result primarily from the Section 36 application of the Clyde Wind farm. However, due to the effective screening of intervening landform SNH consider that no sensitive receptors will be affected and conclude that cumulative impact should be within “acceptable limits”.
Consequently, it is not considered that this development will result in adverse cumulative visual impacts to the detriment of the landscape quality and character of the Regional Scenic Area, National Scenic Area and Area of Great Landscape Value.
ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
The ES identifies a number of key features of probable prehistoric date along the Kingledores Burn which indicates that this is an area of high archaeological potential. The presence of a fort, burnt mounds, field clearance cairns and cultivation terraces demonstrate that the area was occupied during the Bronze Age and that the occupation continued through the Iron Age and into the medieval period. In the wider landscape, there are numerous homesteads, settlements and forts of probable prehistoric date spread along the Tweed valley and its many tributaries.
Historic maps show the current pattern of land-use across the proposed development area to have remained fairly consistent for at least the last 250 years. Based upon the available baseline information, it is considered that the likelihood for the proposed development area to contain buried remains of archaeological interest is variable. The most likely places to preserve Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 buried sites or features of archaeological significance would be along the banks of the Kingledores Burn and close to the smaller watercourses that flow into it, where permanent settlement is more likely to have been located. The lower ground along watercourses is considered to be of moderate potential, while the higher ground is considered to be of low archaeological potential.
Thirty-two sites of cultural heritage interest have been identified within the proposed wind farm site boundary (Figure 6.1). One site is a Scheduled Ancient Monument of national importance, six sites are of regional importance, and two others are of possible regional importance. Twelve sites are of local importance and two others of possible local importance, and seven features are of lesser importance. A direct impact of moderate significance is predicted to affect one site of local importance. One other site of local importance and two sites of lesser importance would receive direct impacts of negligible significance. The possibility that additional, buried and unrecorded remains of archaeological significance survive across the proposed development area is considered to be low. Mitigation measures have been set out to preserve sites in situ where practicable and to offset the predicted direct effects through an appropriate watching brief strategy to be agreed with Scottish Borders Council.
Objections were originally raised by Historic Scotland (HS) and further information was requested relating to the potential impact of the development on four scheduled monuments in the surrounding area. Following the receipt of additional information and a site visit, HS have concluded that the findings of the ES will not have a significant adverse impact on any scheduled ancient monument sites. The ES confirms that there are a number of key archaeological sites in the area but the predicted impact on the cultural heritage resource of the area is low and would comply with the aims of the development plan.
ECOLOGICAL INTERESTS
Following desk studies and field surveys, a total of twelve Phase 1 habitat types were recorded within the main study area. The upland areas of the site are covered in a mosaic of heath and semi-improved acid grassland, which is managed for grazing livestock. Cleuch woodlands and blanket bog habitat are also present in the upland areas. Habitats of improved grassland, rush pasture and plantation woodland cover most of the lowland ground of the development area.
The Ecology Assessment found that no significant impacts are predicted for fauna and habitats identified within the development area during construction, operation, and decommissioning.
SNH and the Council’s Ecologist initially objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would likely have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation, which is designated for the qualifying features Altantic salmon, otter, lamprey and water crowfoot.
Following the submission of supplementary information there continue to be concerns regarding other ecological issues and requires further assurances from the developers before the planning application could be approved on ecological grounds. Namely that the commitments in the comprehensive Landscape and Habitats Management Plan are agreed in principle by the developer, landowner and tenant farmers and confirmed in writing to the planning authority prior to consent being granted. The agent is aware of this and will provide written confirmation prior to the application being determined.
A suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will be appointed for the duration of the construction period. The ECoW will oversee ecological issues relating to a Pollution Prevention Plan and associated hydrological mitigation measures as well as all other ecological issues on site. This will ensure that ecological impacts are avoided or minimised.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 HYDROLOGY
The Environmental Statement considers the potential impacts of the wind farm which may potentially affect the hydrology, geology and hydrogeology of the receiving environments. The effects most likely to be associated with construction of a wind farm are: x Changes to the natural drainage patterns; x Effects on base flows; x Effects on runoff rates and volumes; x Effects on erosion and sedimentation; x Effects on water quality, of both groundwater and surface waters; x Effects on groundwater levels; x Effects on water resources i.e. private and public water supplies; x Effects on flooding and impediments to flows; and x Pollution risk.
The identified sensitive receptors on Glenkerie are surface watercourses (for their environmental designations, water quality and fisheries interests), groundwater, and water resources (public, private and livestock water supplies). Parts of the site, within the Kingledores floodplain, are at risk of flooding. Part of the proposed development access route crosses the active Kingledores Burn floodplain. There is a risk of flooding in this area during construction activities, which poses a potential health and safety risk to site operatives and also a risk to water quality if construction materials have been stored within the floodplain.
The ES recommends that construction activities within the Kingledores floodplain are avoided in the wettest months of the year where possible, when the risk of flooding will be greatest. A flood risk assessment will be carried out for the Kingledores properties as part of a post consent condition related to the design for watercourse crossing no.3 and associated access tracks crossing the river floodplain.
A Construction Method Statement will be drawn up and on-site supervision put in place to ensure that the mitigation measures are adhered to by all site contractors. Continued consultation with SEPA will be carried out in order to ensure on-going agreement regarding the proposed mitigation measures.
IMPACT ON RIVER TWEED SAC
The River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designation includes the Kingledores Burn, which lies within the development area. The main stem of the River Tweed lies within 500 m from the eastern development area boundary. Otter, Atlantic salmon, bat, adder, common lizard, mountain and brown hare were identified both within and adjacent to the development area.
SNH considered that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the River Tweed SAC. As a consequence, the Council were required to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for site in view of the site's conservation objectives for its qualifying interests. However there was insufficient information presented in the ES to ascertain that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC.
SNH advises that due to the presence of deep peat on this site, the applicant will be required to undertake peat depth survey and peat stability assessment in accordance with the Scottish Government's "Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessments: Best Practice Guide for Proposed Electricity Generation Developments". Such assessment will need to consider the potential risk of peat-slide on the SAC and propose mitigation as necessary to avoid any adverse impacts on site integrity.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Following the submission of additional supporting information, SNH maintains their objections to the proposed development unless appropriately worded conditions are added which would overcome their concerns. The conditions must cover the following issues: x Prior to construction commencing, the details of the design of the access tracks, particularly for the track running alongside the Kingledores Burn, must be approved by Scottish Borders Council, in consultation with SNH. This should include information about the timing of construction being phased to avoid the times of year when the qualifying features of interest of the SAC are most vulnerable to disturbance. x Prior to construction commencing, the details of the drainage schemes for the site, particularly the access tracks, is to be approved by SBC, in consultation with SNH. The drainage scheme must take every opportunity to minimise sediment run-off to watercourses throughout the construction and operational lifetime of the development, and be subject to reviews for effectiveness at appropriate time intervals. x Prior to construction commencing, the details of the methods of re-vegetation and re-instatement of bare ground is to be approved by SBC in consultation with SNH. This must include details about the treatment of track edges, timing of the re-instatement works in relation to construction activity to minimise any effect on the SAC and maximise the success of the re-instatement, methods for storing and treating stripped turf that is to be re-used, details of the species mix of any seed mixes proposed for use, details of where and how geotextiles might be used to aid re- vegetation of slopes etc., and details of re-vegetation of drainage ditches and swales.
In the light of the Supplemental Environmental Information and SNH’s and SEPA’s consultation responses, an Appropriate Assessment of the effects on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC was carried out by the Council’s Ecologist. This indicates that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC for the European qualifying interests provided that the required detailed planning conditions are attached and implemented sensitively through any subsequent planning consent. This addresses the objections on the grounds of Natura interest.
ORNITHOLOGY
The potential impacts of the Glenkerie Wind Farm on birds in terms of the risk of collision, habitat loss and disturbance during each phase of development from construction through to decommissioning have been assessed.
Black grouse were identified lekking close to the development site but no observations of breeding were made. Mitigation measures proposed to minimise impacts on bird species, where practicable, include ensuring any vegetation clearance is completed out with the bird-breeding season to avoid impacts on nesting birds. Plans have been prepared so that construction activities can be undertaken during the breeding season and during the peak black grouse lekking season.
During the survey period four species have been identified as sensitive to wind farm developments (pink-footed geese, black grouse curlew and lapwing). The impact on these species was assessed as follows: x Minor disturbance impacts on black grouse could potentially occur during the construction phase, if operations are carried out during the peak spring lekking period. However, the presence of the wind farm will have a negligible impact on lekking black grouse. x Minor impacts on curlew are predicted, in particular curlew are likely to be potentially temporarily displaced during the construction phase if operations are carried out during the breeding season. Planning and Building Standards Committee 20 Collision risk assessment showed that there would be minor significant collision risk to curlew, 0.06 collision risk to curlew (i.e. one collision every 17 years).
Overall, the development site is an area of low bird sensitivity, and the selection of this site for a wind energy development has ensured that there will be no significant impacts on populations of important or sensitive bird species.
The RSPB did not respond to the consultation but the Council’s Ecologist is now satisfied with the findings of the bird surveys and the ES regarding mitigation measures for black grouse. A Species Protection Plan will be produced and implemented if works are to be carried out during the breeding bird season and this Plan will be subject to an appropriate planning condition.
TRAFFIC AND CONSTRUCTION
The potential impacts associated with the increase in HGV traffic during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed wind farm at Glenkerie were assessed in the ES. The preferred route for abnormal loads is outlined below: x Motorway network to junction 15 on the A74(M); x Leave A74(M) and proceed to Moffat; x Continue through Moffat on the A701 proceeding North; and x Continue on A701 to the site access point at Kingledores.
This route is preferred as it minimises the requirement for road alterations and therefore disruption.
The main traffic impacts would be associated with the movements of HGV’s to and from the site during construction of the windfarm. It is anticipated that there would be a short-term significant increase in HGV traffic levels on the A701 and a temporary significant impact as a result of the delivery of abnormal loads such as turbine components and cranes along the preferred route to Site. It is anticipated that there would be a short-term adverse effect on the A701 at the turn off to the site during the construction period but any traffic generated during the operation and maintenance of the wind farm will be minimal and would not result in any significant impact. It is anticipated that traffic generated during decommissioning of the wind farm will be lower than the levels during construction.
It is proposed that a Transport Management Plan will be drawn up by the developers and agreed with Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council following consent. Potential management measures include timing of deliveries to avoid sensitive periods of the day, traffic control and temporary diversions, parking restrictions and signage, and arrangements for road maintenance and cleaning, wheel cleaning and dirt control.
The Director of Technical Services has no objections in principle to this development provided a number of conditions are added to any grant of consent. These conditions would cover the proposed new junction with the A701, a programme of traffic management, proposals for a public road improvements, a programme of monitoring the condition of public roads and details of measures to be implemented to prevent dust and mud from entering the public highway.
Transport Scotland confirms that, overall, there will be a minimal increase in traffic on the trunk road, during the operation of the facility therefore the proposed development is not likely to have a significant impact on the operation of the trunk road network.
NOISE
The ES confirms that an assessment has been undertaken of the noise effects that are predicted to occur due to the operation of the proposed Glenkerie Wind Farm. The noise assessment has Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 considered the combined effect of all 11 proposed turbines operating simultaneously under normal circumstances. The assessment has been set in the context of existing planning guidance for Scotland (SPP 6 'Renewable Energy', PAN 45 'Renewable Energy Developments', PAN 56 'Planning and Noise) and best practice as published by ETSU for the DTJ, 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms', ET5U-R-97.
The initial phase of the noise impact assessment identified the nearest noise-sensitive properties. These properties were then assessed as to their requirement for a background noise survey. The purpose of baseline monitoring is to determine any requirement for modifying the fixed limits for protection of sleep disturbance and daytime amenity, based on background noise levels. The guidance from the ET5U-R-97 report is that where it can be demonstrated that the expected levels of wind farm noise would not exceed 35 dB(A) at a property for wind speeds of up to 10m/s at 10m height then no background noise survey is required for that property.
The noise assessment shows that the noise impact from the wind farm, assuming that all turbines are operating simultaneously at normal speed at the same time, would not exceed any of the target criteria defined in ET5U-R-97. Separate target criteria have been developed for both night-time and daytime periods in order to protect both the sleep of local residents and to protect the outdoor amenity of the area.
The distances between the proposed wind farm and the nearest residential properties are large enough that there will be no vibration impacts. As a result it is not anticipated that there will be any significant disturbance from noise at properties within the vicinity of the proposed wind farm.
A standard condition in respect of noise levels can be imposed to safeguard nearby residential properties in line with the normal requirements of the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.
PUBLIC ACCESS
According to the records held in the Planning & Economic Development Section there are no claimed rights of way on this area of land. However, the Council’s Outdoor Access Officer indicates that the creation of a circular pathway would be expedient in this instance. The track that will service the proposed turbines comes very close to an old pathway that runs south from Glencotho to Kingledores. As part of any future planning consent the path should be enhanced to the satisfaction of the planning authority and re-routed at the southern end in order to avoid the working steading of Kingledores.
AVIATION/MOD/SHADOW FLICKER
As part of the site evaluation approaches were made to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the National Air Traffic Services (NATS). None of these agencies object to the proposals.
The phenomenon of shadow flicker occurs when the sun is viewed through rotating blades. Close to the turbines, dark shadows may be observed and this can be disturbing, particularly if viewed through a narrow opening such as a window. In this instance no wind turbines are located close to dwellings and consequently shadow flicker is not expected to be a problem.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The supporting information identifies that a Windfarm Trust Fund will be established and Novera Energy plc will voluntarily donate £2,000 per MW installed to the Trust. For 11 x 2MW turbines this will in the 1st year of operation, result in £44,000 a year, index linked (more than £1.7M over 25 years) being donated to the Community. This is a voluntary and a charitable donation by Novera as part of its Planning and Building Standards Committee 22 good neighbour approach to owning and operating the wind farm. The normal point of contact for discussions locally about windfarm trust funds in Scotland are the Community Councils. The Upper Tweed Community Council was briefed on the development and the Trust Fund opportunities and did not wish to pursue the matter further. An over-whelming majority of local people suggested in GLENKERIE WIND FARM 18/07/2008 NOVERA ENERGY plc PAGE 3 the questionnaires that the Glenkerie Windfarm Trust money should be earmarked to supporting the Local Community Buyout of the Crook Inn. Discussions have been initiated by Novera with this organisation with a view to assisting with the buyout and some of the running costs of this proposal.
Carbon Neutral Biggar (CNB) with financial support from the Lottery Fund and technical support from FREE (Fintry) approached Novera in May 2008 to discuss the potential for community ownership of part of the windfarm. A meeting with CNB and FREE was held in early June 2008 at which Novera made it clear that any ownership scheme would have to involve the people of upper Tweeddale as well. Novera as responsible investor in and operator of renewable generation is prepared to listen to and discuss proposals for community ownership. Novera will support proposals that are implemented on a commercial basis and do not affect their ability to finance, build and operate the Glenkerie Windfarm. This initiative is in addition to the voluntary trust fund contribution and would therefore be purely on a commercial basis. Any community ownership agreement would have to take into account the planning risk as well as the financing costs, construction and operational risks.
Any community benefits would need to be agreed outwith the planning process, and are not a matter that should have any bearing upon the determination of the application.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is considered that this proposal will clearly have an impact on its landscape surroundings; however, it is considered that the existing landscape can adequately contain the proposal, without giving rise to significantly adverse landscape or visual impacts, or cumulative impacts. It is considered that other issues regarding any potential adverse impacts on the River Tweed SAC, nature conservation, water quality, noise, traffic and ancillary issues have been accounted for both by the site selection, and by the mitigation measures proposed in the ES and additional issues covered by planning condition. In this instance, the proposed wind farm is consistent with the relevant Council policies contained in the Approved Structure Plan and the Finalised Local Plan.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILIDNG STANDARDS
I recommend that the application is approved subject to the following conditions and conclusion of a legal agreement:
1. This permission shall be for a period of 25 years from the date of final commissioning. Within twelve months of the end of the period, unless a further planning application is submitted and approved, all wind turbines, ancillary equipment and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition, or other such condition as may be agreed, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: The anticipated design life of the wind farm is 25 years.
2. The number of turbines shall not exceed eleven and the blade tip height of the turbines shall not exceed 120m in the case of the turbines numbered 1,5,6, 9 and 10 on Figure 1.2 in Volume 3 of the submitted Environmental Statement, or 105m in the case of the turbines 2,3,4,7,8 and 11 on Figure 1.2 in Volume 3 of the submitted Environmental Statement. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 23 3. All turbines and components shall meet the safety standards set by BS EN 61400-1 or 1EC 16400 Reason: In the interests of public safety
4. Details of the precise micro-siting of each turbine shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to ensure that the environmental assets of the site are protected.
5. Details of the location and design, colour and finish of the wind farm connection building, sub- station and all other ancillary equipment shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.
6. All turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.
7. Noise measurements should be made using instruments to Type 1 specification BS EN 60651:1994. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development, the specification of the turbines with noise predictions, shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority Reason: To ensure noise criteria can be met
9. Noise levels shall not exceed those of the ETSU-R-97 Guidelines as specified in Planning Advice Note 45 - Renewable Energy Technologies 2002 with regard to noise sensitive properties Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties
10. Wind speed data shall be maintained for a period of not less than 12 months and made available on request by the planning authority Reason: To contribute to the safeguarding of the amenity of neighbouring properties
11. In the event of any wind turbine failing to produce electricity supplied to the local grid for a continuous period of 6 months, then it shall be deemed to have ceased to be required, and unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the wind turbine and its ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the site restored to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within 6 months of the end of the 6 month continuous period. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area.
12. Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant shall prepare, for the approval of the Planning Authority, a Construction Method Statement for the construction and operation of the wind farm, and shall agree to be bound by this Statement. The Construction Method Statement shall be based on the Outline Construction Statement submitted in support of the application dated May 2008, and shall comprise amongst other matters: x Detailed scaled plans illustrating the layout, width and cross sections of tracks, track gradients, drainage arrangements, cable routing, turbine bases, crane standings, site storage compound, site connection building and any other ancillary buildings or equipment; x Details of the construction method of on-site tracks including drainage and track reinstatement measures; x Details of the local sourcing and species mix of vegetation and seed used in restoration works both during and following construction. x Detailed plans of all proposed permanent and temporary watercourse crossings; Planning and Building Standards Committee 24 x Detailed plans of any underground cabling beneath watercourses; x Details of surface water drainage measures, including measures to prevent erosion, sedimentation or discoloration of controlled waters, and monitoring proposals and contingency plans, to comply with national guidance on pollution prevention. x Details of the proposed re-vegetation of all proposed drainage ditches and swales. x A peat management strategy including arrangements for minimizing impacts on peat when encountered during construction x Details of the sourcing of stone during construction, including details of the quantity and quality of stone to be ‘won’ on-site during construction; x Details of the arrangements and procedures for the on-site storage of fuel oils and any other potentially polluting substances, including details of any necessary bunding, and arrangements for refueling. x Details of proposed landscaping and site reinstatement works, both during and following construction, minimizing the movement and temporary storage of soil, peat and other material. x Details of all waste streams associated with works, and details of waste handling. x Initial enabling site works shall be permitted prior to the final agreement of the Design and Method Statement, with the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to ensure that the site is satisfactorily restored.
13. Before the development is commenced, the developer shall either lodge with the Planning Authority a bond of a value to be agreed in respect of the costs of the restoration of the site, or to make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority to ensure the adequate restoration of the site. The specification of the arrangements will be defined via a Section 75 Agreement. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the site and to ensure the site is satisfactorily restored.
14. A programme of monitoring the condition of public roads serving the site during the construction phase of the development shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. Any remedial works, or the payment of extraordinary maintenance costs incurred by Scottish Borders Council, shall be agreed within three months of the completion of the commissioning of the wind farm. Reason: To ensure that any damage to the public road network is rectified.
15. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall provide for the approval of the Planning Authority detailed proposals for any necessary public road improvements, and a programme for their implementation. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
16. Prior to the importation of any turbine components to the site, the applicant shall provide for the approval of the Planning Authority a programme of necessary traffic management measures to cater for abnormal vehicle movements. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
17. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall provide for the approval of the Planning Authority details of measures to be implemented at the start of site and access works to prevent dust and mud from entering the public highway. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
18. The site compound shall be constructed in accordance with methods to be agreed with, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The compound shall be removed and the site Planning and Building Standards Committee 25 restored to its previous state, or to a state as agreed with the Planning Authority within 6 months of the completion of commissioning works. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to prevent pollution.
19. No symbols, signs or logos or other lettering, other than those required for health and safety management, shall be displayed on any part of the turbines, nor any other buildings or structures without the written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.
20. No signage, other than that required for health and safety and for traffic management, shall be erected within the application site without the written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.
21. No development shall commence on the site until the applicant has provided the Ministry of Defence with the following information: x The date of commencement of the construction; x The height above ground level of the tallest structure; x The maximum extension height of any construction equipment; x The position of the turbines in latitude and longitude.. Reason: To allow the MOD to inform military aircrew of the location and height of the wind farm
22. For all mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement, and the Design and Construction Method Statement, the applicant shall provide detailed plans for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to any work commencing on-site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The mitigation works shall be carried out within timescales agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that agreed mitigation measures are implemented in full.
23. Prior to the development commencing, the applicant shall commission a survey and measurements of existing television reception quality. In the event that the wind farm is found to cause interference to televisions in the vicinity of the site, the applicant shall immediately take whatever action is deemed necessary by the planning authority to alleviate the problems caused by the wind farm Reason: to safeguard television reception in the area
24. Within 12 months of the commissioning of the wind farm, the applicant shall submit for the prior approval of the Planning Authority, a Decommissioning Method Statement outlining the programme for the eventual decommissioning of the wind farm. No later than six months prior to the expiry of the planning permission, the Method Statement shall be reviewed by the applicant and the Planning Authority, and any alterations deemed appropriate and mutually acceptable shall be made. Within six months, or as otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority, of the wind farm ceasing to be used for the generation of electricity, the site shall be restored in accordance with the Decommissioning Method Statement. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to ensure that the site is satisfactorily restored.
25. The site access track between turbines 4 and 11 shall be routed so as to avoid any part of the Holms Water catchment area, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the River Tweed Special Protection Area
26. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall provide for the approval of the Planning Authority details of a proposed Site Habitat Management Plan, unless otherwise agreed Planning and Building Standards Committee 26 in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This shall detail proposals to maintain and enhance the existing biodiversity of the site during the construction and subsequent operation of the wind farm. (This will be based on the submitted draft) Reason: In the interests of maintaining biodiversity and safeguarding a protected species.
27. A long-term Land Management Plan to be prepared prior to commencement of development in consultation with SBC, SNH and the RSPB and the landowners, this to include proposals for: a) Restoration of ground conditions and vegetation cover; b) The subsequent management of the vegetation; c) Appropriate measures to ensure the maintenance of the water quality and ecological status of the River Tweed SAC; d) Appropriate general management measures; e) Timeous commitment on the eventual after use of the site; f) The timescale for the implementation of the various components of the management plan. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to ensure that the site is satisfactorily managed.
28. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall provide for the approval of the Planning Authority details of measures to demarcate and safeguard all badger sets in or within 500m of the site (The badger mitigation strategy). Reason: In the interests of maintaining biodiversity and safeguarding a protected species.
29. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall provide for the approval of the Planning Authority details of measures to identify and safeguard the habitat of otters within or within 500m of the site (The otter mitigation strategy). Reason: In the interests of maintaining biodiversity and safeguarding a protected species.
30. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall provide for the approval of the Planning Authority details of measures to trap and remove reptiles from within construction areas (The reptile mitigation strategy). This shall also detail proposals for translocating reptiles to alternative habitat, and shall detail proposals to enhance reptile habitat within the site. Reason: In the interests of maintaining biodiversity within the site.
31. Prior to the development commencing, a detailed plan for public access throughout the site (during and after construction) shall be submitted to the planning authority for approval. The plan shall include: (i) any area proposed to be excluded from statutory access rights, for reasons of privacy, disturbance of curtilage (ii) the routes of existing paths, tracks and rights of way (iii) details of all paths, tracks and other access facilities to be provided for the use of walkers, riders, cyclists and all-abilities users, including water access points, where appropriate (iv) any closures and temporary diversions of paths proposed for the purposes of the development Reason: to maintain and enhance public rights of access to the countryside
32. Prior to construction commencing, the details of the design of the access tracks, particularly for the track running alongside the Kingledores Burn, must be approved by Scottish Borders Council, in consultation with SNH. This should include information about the timing of construction being phased to avoid the times of year when the qualifying features of interest of the SAC are most vulnerable to disturbance. Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on the landscape and biodiversity.
33. Prior to construction commencing, the details of the drainage schemes for the site, particularly the access tracks, is to be approved by SBC, in consultation with SNH. The drainage scheme must Planning and Building Standards Committee 27 take every opportunity to minimise sediment run-off to watercourses throughout the construction and operational lifetime of the development, and be subject to reviews for effectiveness at appropriate time intervals. Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on the landscape and biodiversity.
34. Prior to construction commencing, the details of the methods of re-vegetation and re-instatement of bare ground is to be approved by SBC in consultation with SNH. This must include details about the treatment of track edges, timing of the re-instatement works in relation to construction activity to minimise any effect on the SAC and maximise the success of the re-instatement, methods for storing and treating stripped turf that is to be re-used, details of the species mix of any seed mixes proposed for use, details of where and how geotextiles might be used to aid re- vegetation of slopes etc., and details of re-vegetation of drainage ditches and swales. Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on the landscape and biodiversity.
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Barry Fotheringham Principal Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 28 Planning and Building Standards Committee 29 Item No. 5(e) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
8 SEPTEMBER 2008
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: 5(e) REFERENCE NUMBER: 08/00692/FUL
OFFICER: Mr C Miller WARD: Hawick and Denholm PROPOSAL: Erection of twelve townhouses SITE: Chas N Whillans, Victoria Road, Hawick APPLICANT: Rivertree Developments Ltd AGENT: Aitken Turnbull
SITE AND APPLICATION DESCRIPTION:
The site is located on Victoria Road, Hawick, adjoining the new Community Hospital and to the north of the Common Haugh. The site also adjoins a retail unit immediately to the east and a vacated industrial building to the north. A factory currently occupies the majority of the site with a small open area to the south adjoining Victoria Road and an electricity sub-station.
The initially submitted proposals involved the demolition of the factory building and replacement with an L-shaped terrace block of twelve dwellinghouses parallel with Victoria Road and the access lane to the hospital. A parking and turning area was provided to the rear of the proposed building accessed from the shared access with the adjoining factory, via the shared lane with the hospital. Eighteen parking spaces were provided, separated by a timber fence to the north-east.
The proposed houses were two storey in height with accommodation in the roofspace lit by rear velux windows. The roofs would be clad in natural slate with skews. Walls would be wet dash rendered with artificial basecourses and four bay windows facing Victoria Road. Windows would be formed in dual swing timber design with mid-rails, largely in double arrangements separated by mullions. Doors would be in solid panelled timber and rainwater goods will be in uPVC finished in black.
During the processing of this application, there have been some adjustments to the layout and design. The scheme now presented for decision has been adjusted as follows :
x The section of houses facing the hospital has been set back from the access road. x The access to the site now comes directly from the shared access with the hospital and not from the factory access/parking area to the north. x The site has been enclosed by a 1700mm high natural stone flood wall with pedestrian and vehicular flood gates. x A single plot division replaces five previous plot divisions facing Victoria Road. x Two conjoined door entrances have been inserted along the elevations facing the hospital.
PLANNING HISTORY:
The building received full consent in 1992 for change of use to knitwear retail. A partial change of use to retail was also granted in 1997 but an application the following year to demolish and construct a retail unit was eventually withdrawn.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 In May 2006, the Teviot and Liddesdale Area Committee granted approval to a smaller scheme involving total demolition of the buildings and erection of an L-shaped block of eight terraced dwellinghouses. This represented an amended plan in form and height from the original submission which could not have been supported. Consent has not yet been formally issued as the applicant has not addressed the affordable housing provision required on site.
In February 2008, the Planning and Building Standards Committee refused planning permission for an L-shaped block of twelve townhouses for the following reason:
“The proposal would be contrary to Policies 2, 15 and 62 of the Roxburgh Local Plan and G1 and G7 of the Finalised Local Plan in that it is of inappropriate design and siting, resulting in the overdevelopment of the site, providing inadequate access, amenity space and parking, and would be likely to conflict with adjoining industrial use.”
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Approved Structure Plan 2001-2011
POLICY N20 - Design
POLICY H7 - Affordable and Special Needs Housing - Proportion
POLICY I11 - Parking Provision in New Development
POLICY I15 - Flood Risk Areas
Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008
POLICY G1 – QUALITY STANDARDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
POLICY G4 – FLOODING
POLICY G7 – INFILL DEVELOPMENT
POLICY H1 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING
POLICY Inf4 – PARKING STANDARDS
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Scottish Planning Policy 7 “Planning and Flooding”. “Supplementary Guidance Note on Affordable Housing” – SBC June 2005/06
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads) : No objections in principle but requires the road serving the hospital to be brought up to adoptable standards which may involve ownership problems, the northern access through the industrial forecourt of the neighbour will displace parking and the internal parking area needs enlarging at the southern end.
Director of Technical Services (Flood Prevention) : The site is at risk from a 1 in 200 year flood event as highlighted by both the SEPA flooding maps and the Halcrow study carried out by the Council in 2004. The site was also affected by flooding recently. SPP7 does allow for landraising on brownfield sites provided access is maintained. A Flood Risk Analysis is required to establish a Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 suitable level for development. Subsequently commented that the frontage wall is above the estimated 1 in 200 year flood event but that the floor levels should be raised to that level also to comply with SPP7.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning : The site is within the catchment of Drumlanrig Primary School which does not have the capacity to accommodate the demand arising from the development. A contribution of £3,162 per dwellinghouse will be sought but this could rise if not paid by 1 April 2009.
Environmental Health : No development to be commenced until a site investigation and risk assessment have been carried out, with any mitigative measures then undertaken in accordance with the findings.
Housing Strategy : Response awaited.
Other Statutory Consultees
Scottish Environment Protection Agency : Objects on the basis that the site lies within a medium to high flood risk area, there is no flood risk assessment and the housing proposed contravenes SPP7 on brownfield development unprotected by formal flood defences. The Council’s own study estimates that 80% of the site is at risk from a 1 in 200 year flood event. Also comments on foul public drainage being required, surface water disposal via a SUDs system, contamination, construction and landscaping.
Scottish Water : No objections although there are capacity and network issues regarding water supply. They recommend that the developer contacts them directly.
Hawick Community Council : Generally welcome the re-use of semi-derelict brownfield land although concerned at the loss of industrial land and the impact on other industrial uses in the area.
OTHER RESPONSES:
None.
PLANNING ISSUES:
The main determining issues with this application relate to compliance with Development Plan policies on infill housing development, overdevelopment, quality of the design and achievement of satisfactory access, parking and turning. There should also be compliance with Development Plan Policies and national Government guidance on flood risk.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Planning Policy
In the outgoing Roxburgh Local Plan, the site was contained within the defined central area and was zoned generally as mixed uses. In the new Local Plan, the site is no longer contained within the town centre nor as any form of Employment Land Area to be safeguarded. The loss of the building is regretted in terms of lost employment opportunities, but Local Plan Policies do not prohibit the loss. It is also not included in the redevelopment area zoning covering the Commercial Road corridor. The proposals must therefore be assessed against policies encouraging mixed uses and infill housing development on previously developed sites. The proposed residential uses must also be considered against the changed circumstances of the neighbouring hospital use on the western edge of the site. Had the previous knitwear manufacturing mills still existed to the west, then the redevelopment of the application site for residential use would not have been considered appropriate, with far greater potential of conflict between industrial and residential uses. Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 The construction of the Community Hospital and open foreground has now given the application site a more open aspect and less enclosed surroundings. A housing development of appropriate form and design on the site would appear more comfortable within the revised surroundings and would comply with infill Policy G7 aimed at seeking minimisation of conflicts between adjoining uses. The relationship with industrial and retail neighbours still has to be considered to the side and rear, but the open hospital grounds and car parking now gives the development a major open aspect to base its design and alignment on.
These were important issues that shaped the layout and design of the previously approved scheme. The initial submission of two parallel blocks of terraced houses with blank gables facing the entrance to Wilton Lodge Park and the hospital were not considered visually appropriate. Furthermore, it presented the rear elevation of one of the blocks directly to the knitwear manufacturer to the north of the site with potential for complaint and conflict between the two uses. The revised design pushed the access road to the north of the site, moved the housing away from that sensitive boundary and turned the block 90Û to present only a blank gable to the factory. A 1.8m close boarded fence was also proposed to assist in separating the two uses and screen the parking and drying areas.
Following approval of that scheme for eight townhouses, revised proposals for thirteen townhouses were then submitted which restored concerns over conflict between the adjoining factory and the proposed houses by proposing buildings which would lie in much greater proximity to the factory. Although the gable was still blank, habitable room windows and door entrances were uncomfortably close to the adjoining factory, being at worst, only half the distance away compared to the proposals on the approved plan. The windows also directly adjoined the shared access and parking area which currently serves the factory – indeed, two of the sixteen parking spaces were formed in this area. The building had also been moved forward to abut the rear of the footpath bordering the access road. The potential for conflict in terms of noise, disturbance and traffic congestion was significantly increased through the new proposals and were considered to be unacceptable. Policy G7 on infill development seeks to ensure that new uses do not conflict with the established land use of the area. It was considered that the new proposals would result in such conflict due to the changed design and siting, compared to the previous scheme.
The current application, whilst still seeking consent for twelve townhouses which were previously refused, makes a number of changes which improve the relationship with the surrounding uses and boundaries. These are as follows :
x each individual house is smaller which has resulted in a reduced L-shaped footprint. x The gable end of the house nearest to the rear factory has been moved further away to a position 24m from its frontage. x The frontage facing the hospital is set back 2.4m from the access road. x The access to the site is now taken directly from the mutual access road and not through the access and parking area serving the factory. Similarly, all parking associated with the development would be contained within the application site. x The site would be surrounded by a stone wall with vehicular flood gates and additional landscaping between the development and the adjoining factory.
These changes resolve the previous concerns over conflict with the adjoining land uses and vehicular movements to an extent which no longer warrants refusal of the application. Although the section facing Victoria Road will be closer to the adjoining retail unit than the previous scheme, the corner adjoining the road junction will be set back from the previous position which was immediately to the rear of the visibility splay. Overall, the building and its access now occupy a position which will have an acceptable impact on its surrounding uses as well as minimisation of impacts from those uses.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Design
Structure Plan Policy N20 and Local Plan Policy G1 seek a good standard of design when considering new or redevelopment schemes within settlements. This not only relates to the actual architecture and form of proposed buildings, but also to their alignment on site and relationship with their surroundings. Apart from the townscape and surrounding use requirements already mentioned, the proposed buildings would have a considerable impact from across the Common Haugh and the A7 from both sides of the river. The alignment of a front elevation facing the hospital car park and grounds improved the originally submitted scheme in this respect. There was also concern at the prospect of a rear elevation and gardens facing over the Common Haugh, with attendant garden clutter and bland architecture. However, a revision in the accepted scheme presented a front elevation in this direction with projecting entrance features and natural stone wall – compared to the high timber screen fence proposed previously.
The previous refused application adjusted two important elements of this arrangement to the detriment of the amenity of the area. Firstly, the open vista across to the hospital was reduced greatly by the increased number of houses which resulted in the building line moving forward towards Victoria Road. Whilst not interfering with the visibility splay at the adjoining road junction, the alignment resulted in the corner of the building touching the rear of the visibility splay and curtilage wall - compared to five metres buffer space shown on the approved plan. The building line set by the adjoining shop had also been greatly exceeded by the relocated frontage compared to the two metres projection previously approved. It was concluded that the relocated frontage provided an impression of overdevelopment due to its proximity to the pavement and in comparison with the open vista to the west, the building line to the east and the details of the approved scheme in this respect.
The current application resolves these issues by setting the building back three metres from the rear of the visibility splay which, in turn, reduces the amount of projection in front of the building line of the adjoining retail unit. In terms of the townscape, gaps between buildings and staggered building lines already in existence along Victoria Road, the slight movement back of the proposed frontage has resulted in an improvement to the previously refused scheme in these respects. The five previous plot divisions have also been removed in favour of one central railing division, thus resulting in a simpler and more open plan garden area to the rear of the proposed frontage wall
The second important element that was adjusted in the previous plans was the loss of front garden spaces and door entrances to the projections along the south-west elevation facing the hospital. The previously approved “street” frontage was diminished as a result of all entrances being placed to the concealed rear. The focus and attraction of the frontage suffered as a result, compounded by the placement of door-less projections immediately to the rear of the pavement. The impression of overdevelopment was increased by these changes, leading to refusal of that scheme.
Although not initially addressing these concerns, revised plans were submitted as part of the current application which set the hospital-facing frontage back and introduced skews and double door entrances. These changes, though minor, link with the design of the frontages facing Victoria Road and now result in an elevation of sufficient interest to respect the open and important position occupied by the building.
Other aspects of the design match with the previous approval and are acceptable in relation to height, finishes and materials. The overall form and design are traditional with vertically proportioned and astragalled timber windows, slate roofs and wet dash render walls. The skews, door entrances and bay windows add punctuation and interest to the design. In conclusion, the revised design accords with the criteria of Policies G1 and Structure Plan Policy N20 aimed at raising the quality of developments and seeking their successful integration into their built surroundings.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Access and parking
The development should also comply with Development Plan policies on access, parking and turning, even though the site lies across from the large Common Haugh car park. That factor had resulted in some flexibility in terms of the parking ratio sought for the approved scheme, twelve spaces being provided for eight houses. The subsequent refused scheme provided sixteen spaces for twelve houses. Technical Services had previously considered one space for each house to be insufficient and was seeking 150% provision. He had also considered that the parking layout within the site was unacceptable and that there were potential conflicts at the site entrance where the existing factory spaces were being removed by the access road and parking for the development. The positioning of buildings at the corner nearest the factory also concerned the Director of Technical Services in relation to the achievement of visibility standards at the adjoining proposed public road junction. It was concluded that the previous proposals did not comply with Policies 2 and G7 on infill development which require satisfactory access and parking arrangements.
The current application initially submitted a parking and access layout which still involved a route through the access and parking used by the factory to the rear. Although 150% parking provision was now provided, Technical Services still expressed concerns over the shared factory access, displacement of parking and the legal abilities to use both this and, indeed, the access serving the hospital which would need to be upgraded to adoptable standards to cater for the proposed development. The revised plans no longer seek access via the factory forecourt and take access exclusively from the shared access road serving the hospital. The revised plan has been forwarded to Technical Services and any response will be reported to Members at the Committee. A response is still awaited from the agents over their interpretation of the legal ownership position regarding the access. However, any lack of legal control should not provide any justification for refusal of the application, especially as a suspensive condition could prevent the occupation of the development until the roadway is upgraded to adoptable standards. Members will also be updated on any response received from the agents on this point.
Subject to a satisfactory response from Technical Services, it can be concluded that the revised proposals are capable of being accessed safely without undue impact on access and parking requirements of adjoining uses and that the development provides safe access and adequate parking provision in itself.
Developer Contributions
Had the proposals been considered acceptable, then other material factors would have needed to be considered in relation to affordable housing provision and flood risk. Structure Plan Policy H7 and Local Plan Policy H1 require developments to consider the provision of an element of affordable housing. This requirement has been augmented by the Council’s supplementary guidance on provision of affordable housing, requiring on-site provision currently at a rate of 25% within the Hawick area for any development over four dwellings. Although no agreement has yet been reached with the previous applicant on the basis of the former rate of 10%, the new rate would need to be applied to this development ie. three on-site units. This would need to be resolved by means of a Section 75 Agreement which would require to be concluded before any consent could be issued.
A developer contribution is also sought for assistance towards capacity issues at Drumlanrig Primary School. The contributions sought would amount to £3,162 per dwellinghouse, excluding the three units being provided on site to meet the affordable housing quota. This contribution would also need to be secured via the aforementioned Section 75 Agreement..
Flooding
Structure Plan Policy I15 and Scottish Borders Local Plan Policy G4 seek to avoid development on low-lying areas which are susceptible to flood risk and to avoid any detrimental impact on functional flood plains and other property. Policy G4 also reflects the guidance which emerged in Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 SPP7 “Planning and Flooding”, produced by the Government in February 2004. This sets out a general prohibition against developments within medium or high flood risk areas. The site, in common with much of Hawick within the vicinity of the River Teviot and Slitrig Water, is considered to be at risk from flooding, both at the 1 in 200 and even 1 in 100 year events. The Council’s Flood Prevention team had also identified that the site was under water in October 2005. SEPA have also lodged an objection on flood risk grounds for these reasons, stating that there is also no accompanying flood risk assessment and that the housing proposed contravenes SPP7 on brownfield development unprotected by formal flood defences.
Taking into account Council policy and the guidance contained within the Risk Framework of SPP7, it could be concluded that the impact on the functional flood plain of the new proposals is marginal, given that the footprint of the new building is smaller than the building it is replacing. However, new brownfield development within built-up areas would only be acceptable if any development at risk from a 1 in 200 year event could be protected by either existing or planned preventative works, or from landraising. The latter is the only current option available to be considered, given the lack of a definite commitment at the moment to a flood prevention scheme in Hawick.
The agent, during the processing of the previously approved application, raised the floor of the proposed units 350mm above that of the existing building, proposed a solid concrete floor with no solum voids and a stone wall with floodguard-protected pedestrian gates around the two main front elevations of the development. The top of the wall would be 104.15m AOD which compared to the advice of the Flood Protection team that the 1 in 200 year flood event could reach 104.13m AOD. However, they also advised that a freeboard allowance must be added to that figure. Their suggestion was that the floor level must be raised to make it safe, which would have meant a level at least 1.23m above the ground plus freeboard allowance. This would have clearly resulted in an increase in the building height which causes concerns over townscape impact which had been previously ameliorated by height and storey reductions. To view steps, front doors and a floor level at such a height from the road level would also appear out of context with the surroundings and be highly unattractive in visual terms.
In such circumstances, where the redevelopment and rejuvenation of the central parts of Hawick are being considered, the flood risk was outweighed by other material factors. The Marina/Tower Mill development and the Wilton Mills approval for Borders College identified the importance of being “flood aware” in the design of the lower parts of the buildings. This was also the case with this development which had raised floor levels, proposed a solid stone wall at the 1 in 200 year projected flood level (albeit excluding freeboard) and incorporated flood guard prevention measures. Although there were other issues with the protection of the eastern boundary of the front part of the site that could be addressed by planning condition, it was recommended that sufficient safeguards had been proposed for the previous scheme to ensure some protection of a building which replaces one at even greater risk. Landraising of the level required was simply not feasible and would render development unviable at the proposed location. Teviot and Liddesdale Area Committee accepted this argument in approving the development for eight townhouses in 2006.
The new proposals follow the flood-aware adjustments made during the processing of the previous application, a 1.7m high stone wall surrounding the development with flood guard gates. The Council’s Flood Protection Officer has reiterated that the floor level should be at the 1 in 200 year level – not below a flood wall which is set at this level. Another difference with the current application is that SEPA have been consulted and objected. In discussion with the Department, the agent has submitted amended plans which reflect the approved position of protection behind a flood wall set at 104.15AOD. However, their supporting letter makes it clear that their client would be prepared to raise the floor level to the flood level should SEPA (and the Committee) remain concerned over the proposals. SEPA have been reconsulted over the revised proposals and Members will be updated on any response received. At this stage, it is not anticipated that the revisions will lead to the withdrawal of their objection.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 In its exposed setting and for townscape and aesthetic reasons, the Department would continue to oppose such a raising of the floor level and believe that the Council must adhere to the approved position of the floor level set at 103.50 AOD. This would be subject to a condition securing the construction of the flood prevention and amelioration measures before the first dwellinghouse is occupied.
Clearly, if Members are inclined to support the application, then the existence of the SEPA objection would result in the requirement for notification of the decision to the Scottish Government. Even if Members agree to the further raising of the floor level, this would also require notification to the Scottish Government in the absence of any conditional withdrawal from SEPA of their objection.
Conclusion
In summary, the development complies with Council policies on infill housing and quality standards in development and can comply with guidance on developer contributions covering affordable housing and education upon conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement. The issues over flood risk should be outweighed by the preventative measures that are proposed and the overall need for redevelopment and rejuvenation work not to be indefinitely blighted within the river corridor in Hawick.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
The application is recommended for approval subject to the conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement on affordable housing and education and to the following conditions :
1. The external materials to be agreed with the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason : To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
2. Further details of flood prevention measures within the curtilage of the properties and their ground floor construction to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Once approved, the measures to be completed before the first dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason : The site is at potential risk of flooding.
3. The access to the site to be upgraded to adoptable standards to the specification of the Planning Authority before the first dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason : In the interests of road safety.
4. Further landscape and boundary treatment details to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason : To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Craig Miller Principal Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(f) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
8TH SEPTEMBER 2008
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: 5(f) REFERENCE NUMBER: 08/00956/OUT
OFFICER: Stuart Herkes WARD: Mid Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Erection of dwelling SITE: Land southwest of Legars Farmhouse, near Kelso APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Renwick AGENT:
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is agricultural land within the holding of Legars Farm. It lies in the southern corner of a field and adjacent to the junction between the B6364 and an access road to Hume Mill. It does not lie within, or adjacent to, the farm at Legars or to any other building group. It lies some 350m to the southwest of Legars farm and some 450m to the southeast of Hume Mill. The closest building to it, is an isolated house, which lies a little less than 350m from it, and to the southwest, along the route of the B6364.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This is an outline planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse. The applicants are farmers, preparing to retire from the day-to-day running of their agricultural holding at Legars Farm, which they intend to hand on to their son.
The applicants also intend to hand on their current residence to their son, the Farmhouse at Legars Farm. They accordingly propose to erect a new dwellinghouse on the site as their new residence. The residence vacated by their son, which is also at Legar farm would be occupied by a farm worker, who currently commutes to work from Galashiels.
The site would be accessed from the existing access road leading to Hume Mill rather than from a new access onto the B6364.
CONSIDERATION BY BERWICKSHIRE AREA COMMITTEE 26 AUGUST 2008
The Area Committee indicated that it was minded to approve the application contrary to officer’s recommendation subject to a Section 75 Agreement relating to developer contributions towards education and tying the house to the farm holding and subject to conditions relating to a restriction on occupancy, landscaping, roads construction, drainage, energy efficiency, external materials and the normal reserved matters
As the application was advertised as contrary to the development plan it required to be referred to the P & B S Committee for final determination.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 PLANNING HISTORY
Prior to the submission of the planning application, the Applicants had pre-application discussions and meetings with Officers, over the course of which, they were advised that:
x the principle of a new dwellinghouse for the needs of a retiring farmer, who is then passing the farming business onto his son, was considered generally consistent with housing in the countryside policies;
x the proposal site was considered unsuitable because it was isolated, and not within, or adjacent to, a building group; and
x they should instead seek to accommodate the proposed development in closer proximity to the building group at Legars Farm.
During the course of the discussions, particular sites were identified by Planning Officers as potentially more suitable to accommodate a new dwellinghouse from the Planning Authority’s perspective.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
No member of the public has responded to the consultation.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The applicants agents have supplied a Supporting Statement with the current application. This considers the alternative sites discussed during the pre-application discussions, and advises that the proposed site is still considered by their clients to be the most appropriate location for the new dwellinghouse.
The reasons supplied by the applicants for preferring the proposed site to named sites in closer proximity to the farm are variously given as follows:
x The fields in closer proximity to the farmyard and farmhouse are currently used as an active part of the farmyard. They accommodate different uses to those fields further from the farmyard by virtue of their proximity (e.g. tending sick/injured livestock). These uses could not be accommodated elsewhere on the farm;
x The use of a site in closer proximity to the farm would require the creation of a new access onto the B6364;
x The applicants require to leave sufficient space adjacent to the farmyard area to accommodate new agricultural buildings in the event that the agricultural business expands in the future;
x Due to new licensing requirements for slurry, the existing slurry tower is to be extended and potentially a new tower built. This would have a significant impact on any new development adjacent to the existing cottage on residential amenity grounds.
x Other than Legars Farm, the applicants do not control land in close proximity to any other building group and are therefore restricted to the land within the holding of Legars Farm.
The applicants have also supplied a letter (12 August 2008) in response to the consultation response from the Director of Technical Services (see below), clarifying that they do not propose to create a new access onto the B6364. Access would be onto the access road to Humemill House; a road which is within the Applicants’ ownership. They query the description of the proposal site as a remote location.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
The Director of Technical Services (Roads): Has advised that a new dwelling in such a remote location would not be supported unless there was economic justification for it. Even with economic justification however, the preference would still be for a location in closer proximity to other buildings, which would not require the creation of a new access off a classified road.
The Director of Education & Lifelong Learning: has advised that a contribution would be sought for Berwickshire High School.
Statutory Consultees
Greenlaw and Hume Community Council: Has expressed no objection to the application but has requested that the core path/right of way remains open and accessible to all.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011
Policy E1 - Prime Quality Agricultural Land Policy H5 - New Housing in the Countryside – Building Groups Policy H6 - New Housing in the Countryside – Isolated Housing Policy C8 - Access Network
Berwickshire Local Plan (1994)
Policy 7 - Additions to Building Groups Policy 8 - Single Houses in the Countryside Policy 36 - Prime Quality Agricultural Land Policy 63 - Siting and Design in the Countryside Policy 71 - Landscaping of New Developments Policy 118 - Rights of Way
Scottish Borders Local Plan: Approved for Adoption Version 2008
Policy G1 - Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 - Developer Contributions Policy G8 – Development Outwith Development Boundaries Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf5- Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy D2 – Housing in the Countryside Policy R1 – Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance x New Housing in the Borders Countryside: Policy and Guidance Note 1993, as amended April 2000 and August 2004. x Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 9 on Developer Contributions, Updated April 2008.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 x Landscape and Development (approved March 2008)
Scottish Planning Policy
Scottish Planning Policy 3: Planning for Housing (approved 2003) Scottish Planning Policy 15: Planning for Rural Development (approved 2005)
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
x Whether or not the proposed development could be located within, adjacent to, or within closer proximity to, the building group at Legars Farm than the proposal site; and
x Whether or not the siting of the proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Need
Fundamental to the determination of this application is the extent to which the need for the proposed development might be seen to outweigh, or be outweighed by, other planning considerations relating to the development of housing in the countryside.
It has been accepted that the principle of a new dwellinghouse for the needs of a retiring farmer passing the farming business onto his son is generally consistent with housing in the countryside policies. This in itself however does not override the requirement that the proposal meets other planning policy criteria relating to development in rural areas. In particular, the Planning Authority has advised the applicants of its concerns relating to the location of the proposed development and its impact upon the appearance of the landscape.
Location
The site of the proposed development is isolated, and not within or adjacent to, or even within close proximity to, an existing building group of at least three houses or building(s) capable of conversion to residential use (henceforth referred to as a ‘building group’).
Local Plan Policy D2 advises that where housing in the countryside cannot be accommodated appropriately within, or within close proximity to an existing building group, and where it is not recognised to lie within a dispersed community that functions effectively as an anchor point in the southern Borders, the Council must be satisfied that it is justified by economic need. More specifically, Policy D2 states that the Council must be satisfied that a range of criteria can be met. It is contended that the proposed development reasonably satisfies points 1, 2, 4, and 5. Point 3 however, requires further consideration.
At a distance of around 350m, and with no formal pedestrian access along the classified road that links them, the proposal site is physically and visually detached from the building group at Legars Farm.
Although the applicants’ diminished role in the running of the farm might justify the new dwellinghouse being removed some distance from the farmyard to afford an appropriate level of residential amenity, the building is nonetheless part of the farm in that it is increasing the supply of accommodation available to agricultural workers employed there. If it cannot be accommodated within or adjacent to an existing building group, then it is a reasonable expectation that it should not be any further removed than necessary from the building group at Legars Farm.
The applicants have set out reasons (summarised above) as to why particular sites within closer proximity to Legars Farm would not be appropriate. It is however not considered that these are
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 sufficient to justify the siting of a dwellinghouse some 350m distant from the building group. While it is apparent that a range of demands require to be met within those areas immediately adjacent to the farmyard, the onus is on the farming business to identify priorities and manage land use appropriately in response to constraint and circumstance, which necessarily includes planning policy. It is not considered that the proposal site is an appropriate location because it is considered that the proposed development could, and should, be accommodated in closer proximity to the building group at Legars Farm.
Visual Impact
The proposal site is isolated, and although screened by a mature shelter belt on its southwestern boundary, it is otherwise open, and visible at some distance from the north, east and south. While the visual impact of the proposed development might be mitigated by the planting of trees, the presence of an isolated house, with no obvious relationship to either Legars Farm or Hume Mill, undermines the character of the landscape at a wider level. With the presence of an existing isolated house to the southwest, at the junction between the B6364 and the access road to Hume Byers, the proposed development would contribute to changing the character of the area. The traditional settlement pattern of the area is small, discrete clusters of houses and agricultural buildings, without isolated houses randomly interspersed between them.
Road Access
The Director of Technical Services has advised that it would be preferable that no new access were created off the classified B6364. The applicants have responded to advise that the proposal site would be accessed off the existing access road to Humemill House.
One of the reasons given by the Applicants’ Supporting Statement in favour of the proposal site is that it is a location at which there would be no need to create a new access directly off the B6364. However, it does not seem improbable that existing accesses at Legars Farm might be used to serve a new dwellinghouse, and it is noted that the response of the Director of Technical Services does not exclude the possibility of a new access in closer proximity to the building group at Legars Farm, so much as seek to advise that use of an existing access would be preferable.
It is not considered that the use of an existing access to serve the proposal site is sufficient grounds in itself to prefer the proposal site to one in closer proximity to the building group at Legars Farm.
Outdoor Access
One Right of Way is affected by the proposed development. It has also been selected as Candidate Core Path 79. Were the application to be approved, it would have to include a condition requiring that the Right of Way be maintained open and free from obstruction in perpetuity.
Restriction of Occupancy
In the event that the application were to be approved, a Legal Agreement would be required to be concluded with the Applicants to ensure that the property was not sold on by the farm, with occupancy restricted to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture, or a dependant of such a person.
Education Contribution
In the event that the application is approved, a legal agreement would be required to be concluded with the applicants to ensure payment of the education contribution.
CONCLUSION
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 While it is considered that there may be a justifiable need for a house in principle, it is not considered that the applicants have satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal site is the most appropriate location at which to accommodate it. It is considered that more appropriate locations are possible in closer proximity to the building group at Legars Farm, where greater mitigation of the visual impact of the development could be achieved. The supporting statement does not set out wholly convincing arguments as to why the alternative sites can not be considered and when the application is considered on its own merits, it is found to be too distant and isolated from any building group and that the landscape and visual impacts are unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend that the application is refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy H5 and H6 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policy 7, 8 and 63 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies G1 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Approved for Adoption Version 2008 and the terms of the New Housing in the Borders Countryside: Policy and Guidance Note 1993, as amended, in that:
(i) the site does not relate any established building group due to its isolated location; (ii) the house could be more sensitively located elsewhere on land within the applicants control; and (iii) the adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape are not outweighed by the economic need for the house.
Approved by Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
“The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.”
Author(s)
Name Designation Stuart Herkes Assistant Planning Officer
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(g) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
8th SEPTEMBER 2008
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: 5(g) REFERENCE NUMBER: 04/02341/FUL
OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Kelso and District PROPOSAL: Road and plot layout for residential development SITE: Ednam West Mains Farm Ednam APPLICANT: N Roberts AGENT: R G Licence
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is situated on the western edge of Ednam and is an agricultural field, part of Ednam West Mains Farm. To the north is a paddock and Toftingall, a bungalow, and to the east is Poppleburn Park, a modern development of nine single and one-and-a-half storey dwellinghouses of various designs. Ednam Parish Church is to the south east, Ednam West Mill is to the south and there are open fields to the west.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application is for the road and plot layout for residential development on the site. The original proposal was for six plots but this has been amended to ten plots. The access road serving Poppleburn Park would be extended to serve the site. Six plots are proposed on the western side of the access road and four on the eastern side together with a play area, open space and four visitor parking spaces. No details of the proposed dwellinghouses have been submitted but the houses would have rendered walls and natural slate roofs.
This application was submitted in 2004 and was held in abeyance until the Reporters findings from the Local Plan Public Inquiry were published.
PLANNING HISTORY
None
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Five representations have been received in respect of the amended proposal and are copied in full with this report. The following planning issues have been raised:
x The drainage in Ednam is at capacity and no additional drainage is allowed until the pumped drain to Kelso is increased in size. If additional drainage capacity is created it would be better applied to the existing system to the benefit of residents of Ednam who have been denied in the past. Planning & Building Standards Committee 1 x Ten dwellinghouses would be an overdevelopment of the site and excessive for Ednam and out of keeping with Poppleburn Park. Six would be more appropriate.
x The proposal would result in an increase in traffic using the existing single carriageway road, roads within the village and the surrounding roads by at least 20 cars. The junction from Poppleburn Park onto Stichill Road is blind in both directions and narrow due to residents parking, especially at peak times. An increase in traffic poses a serious threat especially to children playing and going to school.
x The increase in traffic would use two minor single carriageway roads, Stichill Road heading to the west and Highridgehall road to the east. Both roads are frequently used by all types of traffic. The proposal would result in congestion in Ednam on a road not designed to accommodate this volume of traffic.
x The proposed layout will result in vehicles parking on the road causing congestion. More off- street visitor parking is required as the proposed access is very narrow.
x The road serving Poppleburn Park has remained unfinished for five years and should be completed by the developer.
x The local primary school and nursery are almost at full capacity and the school does not have the capacity to accommodate the children from this development. The developer should pay a contribution towards upgrading the school.
x There is a play park near the school and it would be beneficial to the whole village if the developer was to expand and improve this rather than creating a new one. The proposed location is inappropriate allowing no privacy to the occupiers of the house that looks onto the play area.
x The ground level of the new development is higher than the existing houses and so consideration should be given to the height of any new houses. They should be single or one-and-a-half storey to prevent overshadowing and windows positioned to avoid overlooking. The development is south and west facing therefore would create significant overshadowing.
x The design should be in keeping with the existing development.
x By encroaching close to the graveyard wall this will restrict the growth of this area for future burials.
x Ednam does not have the amenities to support additional housing.
x All soil and materials should be removed from the site and neighbouring land upon completion of the development, which did not occur following the completion of Poppleburn Park.
APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION
None
CONSULTATION RESPONSES Planning & Building Standards Committee 2 Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads): Reply awaited
Statutory Consultees
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Foul drainage should be to the public sewer. Surface water should be drained by a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. There is no data pertaining to flooding on the site. Waste management facilities for recycling may be required within the site.
Ednam, Stichill and Berrymoss Community Council: Agree to some growth in the village but 10 houses seem excessive for the road out of Ednam and the sewage/water services. Land must be left for the extension of the cemetery. A maximum of six to eight houses is suggested. The additional parking spaces are welcomed but the play area is superfluous as the “Dubby” playing field next to the school has all the amenities.
Other Consultees:
None
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011
Policy N20: Design Policy C6: Open Space Policy C7: Play Areas Policy I11: Parking Provision in New Development
Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised December 2005
Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy H3: Land Use Allocations Policy Inf4: Parking Standards Policy Inf6: Sustainable Urban Drainage
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
None
KEY PLANNING ISSUES
Whether the density and layout of the site are acceptable and whether a satisfactory access to the site can be achieved.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION
Planning Policy
The site is allocated for housing in the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan and has an indicative housing capacity of 6 units. Policy H3 states that developments will be approved in principle for the Planning & Building Standards Committee 3 land uses allocated on the Land Use Proposals Tables and Maps and developments must be in accordance with Council approved planning or development briefs.
Planning & Building Standards Committee 4 Layout and Siting
Policy N20 of the Approved Structure Plan states that the Council will encourage a high quality of layout, design and materials in all new development. Policy G1 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that all development should be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit in with Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings.
The site has an indicative capacity of six houses, as stated in the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan. The proposal is for ten dwellinghouses. The site is 1.3 hectares in size and the layout plan indicates that the site can adequately accommodate ten detached dwellinghouses within large plots together with open space, a play area and visitor parking. The density of the site would be similar to Poppleburn Park to the east. The layout reflects that of Poppleburn Park, with houses both sides of a central access road and so it is considered that the proposal would be in keeping with the character of the area.
The site was considered by the Reporter at the public inquiry into the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan. At this time evidence was put forward that the primary school in Ednam had a roll of 72%, which was declining and that there was an adequate water supply and the local waste water treatment works had capacity for an additional 200 units. Therefore, there were no service constraints affecting future development in Ednam. The Reporter concluded that Ednam has a post office and school with a reasonably strong but declining school roll so the aim of sustaining the viability of such village services and facilities in this village should be an on-going concern of the Council.
A SUDS scheme would be required to comply with policy Inf6 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan and the requirements of SEPA.
Policy G1 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan requires the buildings to be of an energy efficient design and to incorporate renewable energy technologies and sustainable construction techniques. This would be a condition of the planning permission.
Design
The proposal is for the layout of the site only and so no details of the design of the proposed dwellinghouses have been submitted. Poppleburn Park comprises of a mix of house types and materials as the site was developed on a incremental basis by different applicants. Therefore it is recommended that a condition be attached to any planning permission for this current site that a Design Statement is submitted with any detailed application for the site. This should contain general design principles and guidance on external materials and boundary treatments for the proposed dwellinghouses. The design statement would provide consistency within the development to ensure the plots are developed in a similar way.
The layout plan indicates that there would be no change in ground levels within the site to accommodate the development. The site slopes up towards the south and west from Poppleburn Park. It is accepted that there is a need to restrict the height of the proposed dwellinghouse to single or one-and-a-half storey to ensure that the proposed dwellinghouse respect the scale and design of the existing houses in Poppleburn Park.
Open Space and Play Areas
Policies C6 and C7 of the Approved Structure Plan encourage the provision of open space and facilities for children’s play that are safe, accessible and appropriate. The site layout includes an Planning & Building Standards Committee 5 area of open space, which includes an equiped play area. This is in a central position overlooked by several houses and so would provide a safe environment for children to play in without having to travel to the play area adjacent to the school. The play area would also serve the houses in Poppleburn Park.
Access and Parking
The comments of the Director of Technical Services are awaited and will be reported verbally at the meeting.
Landscape and Visual Impacts
The site is a logical extension to Ednam but would be prominent when viewed from the west. The existing houses have timber fences on the western boundary which gives a suburban feel to the edge of the village. Therefore, a 10m wide tree/planting strip is required along the western boundary of the site to define the edge of the settlement, to screen the development and to avoid this boundary being defined by high fences.
Residential Amenities
The layout plan indicates that the proposed dwellinghouses can be sited so as not to affect the light or privacy of occupants of Poppleburn Park, Ednam West Mill and of Toftingall. Restricting the height of the proposed dwellinghouses to one or one-and-a-half storey would lessen any adverse impact that the development may have on these properties.
Developer Contributions
The application was submitted in 2004 before the Council’s policies on developer contributions were adopted and so no financial contributions towards education or affordable housing are required.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed use and layout of the site complies with the Council’s Approved Structure Plan and Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan policies. The layout is considered to be acceptable and would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area or to residential amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions and informative notes:
1. A Design Statement for the site to be submitted with the first detailed application relating to this site for approval of the Planning Authority. The development of the whole site then to be implemented in accordance with the approved Design Statement. Reason: To ensure a well planned and phased development.
2. The proposed dwellinghouses to be a maximum of one-and-a-half storey in height. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
3. The proposed dwellinghouses shall incorporate measures to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, and the incorporation of sustainable building techniques and
Planning & Building Standards Committee 6 renewable energy technologies, in accordance with a scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the development. 4. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of soft landscaping works, including a 10m planting strip along the western boundary of the site, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall include:
i. indication of existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be removed, those to be retained and, in the case of damage, proposals for their restoration
ii. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas
iii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density
iv. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance of all existing and proposed planting. Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.
5. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of the public open space and equipped play area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme so submitted shall include:
i. type and location of play equipment, seating, fences, walls and litter bins
ii. surface treatment of the play areas iii. proposals for the implementation of the play area and open space in relation to the construction of houses on the site and subsequent maintenance of the play area and open space.
Reason: To ensure that proper provision is made for recreational facilities within the site.
6. All works required for the provision of open space and play area shall be completed in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as approved.
7. Details of all proposed means of enclosure around the site and between the plots shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work on the site is commenced. The development then to be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.
8. The access road, footpaths, and visitor parking spaces shown on the approved plans to be completed to the specification of the Planning Authority in accordance with a programme of phasing submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: To ensure that adequate access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles is provided and is at all times properly maintained.
Planning & Building Standards Committee 7 9. Parking for two vehicles, excluding garages, must be provided within each plot to the specification of the Planning Authority before the dwellinghouse is occupied and retained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
10. A SUDS scheme and details of the foul water drainage for the site to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The approved scheme then to be implemented as part of the development. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water.
Applicant Informative:
In respect of condition 1, the Design Statement should include:
x Details of the phasing of the proposed development.
x Details of the design, external materials, site levels and finished floor levels of the housing development. The dwellinghouses to have natural slate roofs.
x Details of boundary treatments around the site and between plots. A hedgerow of native species to be planted along the northern boundary of the site.
The comments of SEPA are attached for the information of the applicant.
Approved by
Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
“The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.”
Author(s) Name Designation Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer
Planning & Building Standards Committee 8 Planning & Building Standards Committee 9 PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE ITEM 6
8 SEPTEMBER 2008
REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS
PLANNING APPEALS
1 PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this report is to give details of appeals which have been received during the last month with a brief summary of the grounds of appeal. Appeals which have been determined are also listed with a summary of the reasons for the decision given by the Reporter in his decision letter.
2 APPEALS RECEIVED
2.1 Planning Applications
2.1.1 Reference: 07/02158/OUT Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Land West of Whinney Knowe, Drygrange, Melrose Appellant: Mrs R Murray
Reason for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to Policy H5 of the Structure Plan, Policies 7 and 8 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan, Policy D2 of the Finalised Local Plan and the New Housing in the Borders Countryside Policy and Guidance Note 1993 (as amended 2000 and 2004) in that the site is outwith any building group and an economic case has not been substantiated. The proposal would be contrary to Policy H5 of the Structure Plan, Policies 7 and 8 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan, Policy D2 of the Finalised Local Plan and the New Housing in the Borders Countryside Policy and Guidance Note 1993 (as amended 2000 and 2004) in that the proposed means of access would be unsatisfactory and contrary to the interests of road safety.
Grounds of Appeal: The site forms part of a dispersed building group and, though access from the northerly junction with the A68 is hazardous at peak times, the appellants have the right to obtain access from the much safer southerly access.
Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.
2.1.2 Reference: 07/02316/FUL Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Land West of Ashton Cottage, Leithen Cr, Innerleithen Appellant: Ms Arlene McPherson
Reason for Refusal: The application is contrary to Policies G7 and H2 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan, in that the proposed development constitutes overdevelopment, resulting in a cramped form of development, which is not consistent with and does not complement the existing form of the settlement. The development would be contrary to policy G4 of the Finalised Local Plan and Policy I15 of the Structure Plan in that the site occupies low-lying land, which is liable to flooding.
Grounds of Appeal: The proposal would not constitute overdevelopment in the context of existing densities in this part of Innerleithen. The site is no more low lying and any more liable to flooding than the wider area.
Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.
2.1.3 Reference: 06/01766/FUL Proposal: Erection of Two Dwellinghouses Site: Site adjacent to Foulden Deans, Foulden Appellant: Mr & Mrs A Deans
Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policies N20 and H5 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policies 7, 63, 64 and 83 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies G1 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that the proposals would, due to the nature of the site and the inappropriateness of the development proposed, give rise to an adverse visual impact on the setting, appearance and character of the building group. Furthermore, the visual impact of the development would be intrusive and the locale dominated by incongruous engineering works, creating an undesirable form of development at an elevated level, in a prominent location.
Grounds of Appeal: The reasons given for refusal are at odds with pre- application discussions with two planning officers. The development accords with Policy N20 of Structure Plan, Policy H5 of the Structure Plan and Local Plan Policies 7, 63, 64 and 83. The development accords also accords with policies G1 and D2 of the new Local Plan. It meets with (and has been designed to respond to) affordable housing criteria set out by Communities Scotland (Rural Home Ownership Grants – ‘RHOG’) and the Council.
Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.
2.1.4 Reference: 07/02173/OUT Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Land East of Springbank, Mordington Appellant: Mrs Anne Innes-Smith
Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to policy H5 of the SB Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policies 7, 63, 64 and 83 of the Berwickshire Local Plan and Policies G1 and D2 of the SB Local Plan (finalised Dec 2005) in that the application relates poorly to the building group and would give rise to a breach into open farmland. This would create an undesirable precedent and inappropriate impact on the setting of the group. Further, it would breach the natural contours of the settlement, which predominantly coalesces in single household depth around the green at the heart of the settlement.
Grounds of Appeal: Awaited.
Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.
2.2 Enforcements:
Nil 3 DECISIONS RECEIVED
3.1.1 Reference: 07/01450/OUT Proposal: Erection of 8 flats with associated parking. Site: 9 Oliver Crescent, Hawick Appellant: Mr J Bell
Reason for Refusal: The proposals would be contrary to Policies 2 of the Roxburgh Local Plan and G7 of the Finalised Scottish Borders Local Plan in that they have failed to demonstrate that adequate parking provision can be achieved for the development, to the detriment of road safety and general vehicular movements in the immediate area.
Grounds of Appeal: The shortfall in parking spaces is very marginal. The situation represents an improvement over the situation that previously existed in the street where no dedicated parking was available. . Method of Appeal: Written submissions.
Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed.
Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Mr PG Hutchison, concluded that the proposal represented over-development of the site, is at odds with the development plan and would not help preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.
3.1.2 Reference: 07/01284/OUT Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Herriot Bank Farm, Whitsome Appellant: R L Smith and Sons
Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policies 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies G8 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that the application site is situated outwith the Development Boundary for Whitsome, therefore further development should not be encouraged as there is no exceptional need, and because encouragement of the development would set an unacceptable precedent.
Grounds of Appeal: There is no logical reason for the site to be excluded from the Whitsome village boundary. The site was included within the former village plan boundary. Eve if the site is outwith the boundary it’s development complies with all current and emerging policies. . Method of Appeal: Written submissions.
Reporter’s Decision: Sustained.
Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Mr PG Hutchison, concluded that this is a well enclosed brownfield site which sits naturally within the village. It sits within the (current 1994) development plan boundary and as the new local plan has not yet been adopted he gave precedence to the “old” plan. He did not consider that he had sufficient evidence before him to suggest there were insurmountable access or other infrastructure problems.
3.1.3 Reference: 07/00149/CON Proposal: Demolition of Hotel and Erection of Four Flats Site: Royal Hotel, Stow Appellant: Braidwood Estates Ltd Reason for Refusal: The existing building make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the applicants have failed to demonstrate that it is not capable of retention and positive reuse, contrary to Structure Plan Policy N19, Ettrick and Lauderdale Policy 49 and Finalised Local Plan Policy BE4
Grounds of Appeal: The development opportunities at the location have been sympathetically assessed and demolition represents the only realistic option. The proposed design solution reflects the character and form of adjacent properties. The council has over stated conservation principles. . Method of Appeal: Hearing.
Reporter’s Decision: Sustained.
Summary of Decision: The Reporter, M Croft, concluded that the hotel’s value in its conservation area context is limited and he did not consider it made a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. He considered that the totality of the evidence pointed towards the conclusion that demolition was the only realistic option.
3.1.4 Reference: 07/00150/FUL Proposal: Demolition of Hotel and Erection of Four Flats Site: Royal Hotel, Stow Appellant: Braidwood Estates Ltd
Reason for Refusal: The existing building make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the applicants have failed to demonstrate that it is not capable of retention and positive reuse, contrary to Structure Plan Policy N19, Ettrick and Lauderdale Policy 49 and Finalised Local Plan Policy BE4
Grounds of Appeal: The development opportunities at the location have been sympathetically assessed and demolition represents the only realistic option. The proposed design solution reflects the character and form of adjacent properties. The council has over stated conservation principles. . Method of Appeal: Hearing.
Reporter’s Decision: Sustained.
Summary of Decision: The Reporter, M Croft, concluded that the hotel’s value in its conservation area context is limited and he did not consider it made a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. He considered that the totality of the evidence pointed towards the conclusion that demolition was the only realistic option.
3.2 Enforcements
Nil
4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING
4.1 In addition to those listed in section 2 of this report, there remained 17 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 28 August. These relate to sites at: x Fogo x Darnick Green, Melrose x Preston x Drone Hill, Coldingham x Tweedsmuir (2 Appeals) x Dunion Hill, Jedburgh x Victoria Crescent, Selkirk x Chirnside x Lamberton x Orchard Terrace, Hawick x Tantah House, Peebles x Billerwell (3 Appeals) x Whim Poultry Farm x March Street, Peebles
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
This report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy is retained by the Council.
Author(s) Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
Background Papers: None. . Previous Minute Reference: None.
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Linda Ross can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells TD6 0SA Tel. No. 01835 825407 Fax No. 01835 825158 Email : [email protected] PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE ITEM 7
8 SEPTEMBER 2008
REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE ON PROVISION FOR PLAY AREAS
1 PURPOSE
1.1 To seek approval for the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on the Provision for Play Areas as set out in Appendix A as a basis for public consultation.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The Council’s existing Local Plan policies on play provision were first developed in the early 1990’s. The SPG proposes to encompass more recent thinking on play area provision and changing national policy requirements. The need for this review has been further supported by the increased number of planning applications for larger scale housing developments and the resultant pressure these have put on existing play provision and the limited Council budgets and manpower for implementation and maintenance responsibilities. This has resulted in some uncertainties and time delays in agreeing certain play area standards, financial contributions and appropriate locations in terms of either on-site provision and/or upgrading of any existing play facility in the vicinity.
2.2 A Working Group comprising of representatives from the Department of Planning and Economic Development and Technical Services (Parks and Open Spaces) was set up to discuss and prepare this SPG. The purpose of this SPG is to update and pull together all requirements in order to derive a clear and consistent framework which will be of benefit to all interested parties. . 3 CONSULTATION
3.1 The draft planning brief requires to be put to wider consultation including Community Councils and local stakeholders. The draft brief will also be posted on the Council’s website. The consultation period is proposed to be for a 12 week period. Any substantive objections (and the proposed Council response) will be reported back to Committee prior to finalisation of the brief.
3.2 Consultation has been undertaken with the Corporate Administration, Legal Services, Corporate Finance and Financial Administration and their comments have been incorporated in this report.
4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 There are no direct financial implications arising from publication of the draft planning brief, although the risk of planning appeals and possible legal challenge would carry associated costs. The direct costs relate to the staff and administrative costs of holding public inquiries and handling appeals. However, the award of expenses against the Council can only be made on grounds of unreasonable behaviour. It must be proven that the Council’s decision was so unreasonable that the matter should never have been brought to appeal or that the Council’s conduct had caused the party making the appeal to incur unnecessary expense. There are also potential costs attributable to any challenge through the courts.
4.2 There are ongoing costs related to staff resources needed to carry out research and management related to the production of the brief, which will be covered by existing departmental resources.
5 RISK COMMENTARY / ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 The key risks are considered to be:
Risk of not providing guidance
(i) Failure to produce this SPG will result in continued uncertainties, varying approaches and time delays in agreeing and implementing play area provision relating to residential development.
Risk of providing guidance
(i) There is no business risk associated with this report. The course of action proposed in this report will support existing Council commitments in assisting the development planning process and policies contained within the Local Plan.
5.2 In accordance with Section 7 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 a pre-screening assessment of this SPG has been undertaken using the criteria specified in Schedule 2 of the Act. The pre-screening assessment identified no effects in relation to the environment, hence this SPG is exempt from SEA requirements under Section 7(1) of the Act.
6 EQUALITIES
6.1 There are no equality issues in approving this report.
7 SUMMARY
7.1 The report highlights the objectives and implications for the Council of adopting the Supplementary Planning Guidance. The report is proposed to be the basis for further consultation with a wider constituency.
8 RECOMMENDATION
8.1 It is recommend that the Planning and Building Standards Committee:
(a) Approves the draft SPG as a basis for public consultation for a 12-week period, and that any substantive comments should be reported back to this Committee;
(b) Agrees that if there are no substantive comments arising from consultation that the SPG should be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Building Standards Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
Author(s) Name Designation Charles Johnston Principal Planning Officer
The original signed copy of this report is retained by the Planning and Economic Development Department
Background Papers: None Previous Minute Reference: None
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Linda Ross can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at Business Services, Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Council HQ, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Phone: 01835 825060. Fax: 01835 825158. Email: [email protected] Scottish Borders Local Plan ra t Supplementary Planning Guidance on o ision o la A eas eptem e 2008
Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction 3
2. Existing Council Policy 3
3. Other relevant Policy Advice and Considerations 4
4. LAPs, LEAPs and NEAPs 5
5. Criteria of Judging the Type of Playground Provision 6
6. Phased or Cumulative Developments 6
7. Off-site Provision 7
8. Exceptions from Policy requirements 7
9. Procedural Practice for Application Types 8
10. Upgrading existing off-site facility 10
11. Development Contributions and Commuted Payments 10
12. Monitoring and Enforcement 11
13. Database of existing Council Managed, Adopted Play Areas, 12 Upgrades and Contributions
Appendix 1 – Criteria Requirement for Provision of Local Area for Play (LAP)
Appendix 2 – Criteria Requirement for Provision of Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP)
Appendix 3 – Criteria Requirement for Provision of Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP)
2 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
1. Introduction and Purpose of Supplementary Planning Guidance
1.1 Play is a vital element in the development of all children to allow them to learn, solve problems and work together as well as the added benefit of being fun. In an age when there are increasing concerns about child obesity largely accredited to alternative indoor pursuits, the provision of good play facilities close at hand can create healthy, more intellectually developed and imaginative children.
1.2 Such well maintained and attractive open spaces are also important components of good urban design which can enhance the streetscape and environment. It is therefore important that as a Planning Authority guidelines are prepared to ensure residential developments provide safe, Figure 1: Play provision incorporated within village well designed and attractive green at Wyndhead, Lauder play area facilities for different age groups and are within easy walking distance. Cumulatively these factors will encourage use of play facilities.
1.3 The Council’s existing policies on play area provision were first developed in the early 1990’s. This review encompasses more recent thinking on play area provision and changing national policy requirements. The need for this review has been further supported by the increased number of planning applications for larger scale housing developments and the resultant pressure these have put on existing play provision and the limited Council budgets and manpower for implementation and maintenance responsibilities. This has resulted in some uncertainties and time delays in agreeing certain play area standards, financial contributions and appropriate locations in terms of either on-site provision and/or upgrading of an existing play facility in the vicinity.
1.4 The purpose of this SPG is to update and pull together all requirements in order to provide a clear and consistent framework which will be of benefit to all interested parties.
2. Existing Council Policy
2.1 Existing policy in respect of play areas is as follows:
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 – 2011 - Policy C7 “The Council will aim to ensure the availability of facilities for children’s play that are safe, accessible and appropriate to the needs of children and young people”.
3 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
2.2 Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 - Policy G1
The standards which will apply to all development are that (subsection 7), “it provides open space that wherever possible, links to existing open spaces and that it is in accordance with current Council standards pending preparation of an up-to-date open space strategy and local standards. In some cases a developer contribution to wider neighbourhood or settlement provision may be appropriate, supported by appropriate arrangements for maintenance”
2.3 In April 2007 Scottish Borders Council published Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled “Developer Contributions” which provided guidance to landowners, developers and other organisations involved in the planning process as to when and where developer contributions will be required towards the provision, improvement and maintenance of infrastructure, services and facilities in the Scottish Borders. This included reference of the requirement of the need for developers to make provision for equipped play areas and provided for long term maintenance, including depreciation and replacement costs.
3. Other Relevant Policy Advice and Considerations
3.1 National Playing Fields Association Six Acre Standard This publication sets out minimum standards for outdoor play space recommending six acres for every 1,000 population. The National Playing Fields Association recommends a hierarchy of provision in order to satisfy the needs of different age groups. These are; - Local Areas for Play (LAP). - Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAP). - Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAP)
3.2 Planning Advice Note 65 – Planning and Open Space This document gives advice on the role of the planning system in protecting and enhancing existing open spaces and providing high quality new spaces. It sets out how local authorities can prepare open space strategies and gives examples of good practice in providing, managing and maintaining open spaces. A key aim is to raise the profile of open space as a planning issue.
3.3 Scottish Planning Policy 11 – Open Space and Physical Activity This document replaces National Planning Policy Guideline 11 - Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Space and recognizes open space and other opportunities for sport and recreation as a vital part of Scotland’s urban and rural communities. It seeks to lay down a national policy which protects and enhances open space, requires local authorities to undertake an open space audit and prepare an open space strategy for their area, protect and support opportunities for sport and recreation, provide guidance on the quality and accessibility of open space in new developments and provide for its long term maintenance and management.
4 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
4. LAP’s, LEAP’s and NEAP’s
4.1 LAP’s, LEAP’s and NEAP’s provide different facilities to meet the needs of different locations and age groups. A LAP is a small area of open space specifically designed for young children to play close to where they live. A supervised location is crucial and is often located at the end of a cul-de-sac and is overseen by nearby houses. A LEAP is designed mainly Figure 2: A LEAP play facility in Newstead for children of an early school age and such areas should be supervised by nearby dwellings being able to overlook the area. These areas can be noisy to local residents and they should therefore be located a minimum of 20 metres from residential properties. A NEAP is an unsupervised site equipped mainly for older children and provided within 15 minutes walking time from every home.
4.2 Appendices 1, 2 and 3 set out the specific requirements in detail for the provision of LAP’s, LEAP’s and NEAP’s which affect the nature and purpose of each play provision type. For each type the Appendices clarify:
- the maximum walking distance any household should be from the facility - the distance from the nearest house - the size of the activity - equipment and surfacing requirements - the facilities required within each provision - boundary treatment - the optimum location characteristics - the annual maintenance, inspection and depreciation costs - the relevant BSEN safety regulations to be complied with for equipment, installation and safety surfacing.
Figure 3: Example of part of a NEAP facility
5 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
4.3 All developments, depending on their size and nature, will be expected to satisfy the criteria requirements of Appendices 1, 2 and 3 and consideration will always be given to Inclusive Play in relation to the Disabled Discrimination Act. If there are any instances where a deviation from these requirements could reasonably be considered, the Council is at liberty to agree such changes where it considers it is fully justified.
5. Criteria for Judging the Type of Play Area Provision
5.1 The criteria requirement as to when to use a LAP, LEAP or NEAP is therefore dependant upon the number of housing units proposed as part of the planning application. The type of play area provision required should be dictated by the following no of housing units;
1 - For any developments of less than 10 units play area provision or commuted payments will not normally be required1 other than in the circumstances set out in paragraph 5.2.
2 - For developments of between 10 and 20 units play space and equipment to a LAP standard shall be provided at a rate of 20 sqm per unit.
3 - For developments of between 21 and 50 units play space and equipment to a LEAP standard shall be provided at a rate of 20 sqm per unit.
4 - For developments of between 51 and 100 units play space and equipment to a NEAP standard shall be provided at a rate of 20 sqm per unit.
5- For developments of 101 and above, play space and equipment shall be provided following the principle of ratios in 1-4.
5.2 There are concerns that many residential development proposals are for less than 10 houses which do not require play provision. Where further similarly scaled development is proposed in the vicinity, collectively this can create an unsatisfactory imbalance between housing and play provision. Consequently where there is a lack of, or a poor standard of such facilities, in the vicinity the Council may require play provision for applications between 5 and 9 houses.
6. Phased or Cumulative Developments
6.1 Implications can arise when a number of individual applications are submitted for less than 10 units as part of a phased development by the same developer which individually may not require play provision but do so collectively. Individual applications can also cause difficulties in accurately estimating and implementing the required type of play provision to be formed given the overall number of houses may only be confirmed with the approval of the final application.
1 The figure of ten or more units requiring play area provision remains as per previous local plan policy.
6 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
6.2 Once the aggregate number of houses exceeds nine, play provision requirements must be addressed in accordance with the criteria in Appendices 1, 2 and 3. Where the final number of houses is unknown during the initial submission periods developers should work with the Planning Authority at an early stage to monitor the phasing of house building and the knock on effect this has for play area provision. It is in the developers best interests to follow this advice otherwise latter stages of their development may require major amendments to incorporate the required play area provision.
7. Off-site Provision
7.1 For sites where play provision is required consideration should first be given as to whether or not an existing play area can be improved to the extent required before considering allocating provision within the development site. This approach of concentrating facilities on existing sites rather than encouraging a proliferation of smaller sites can lead to economies of scale in terms of better management, maintenance and development. The capacity to extend an existing play area shall depend on whether the additional provision can be accommodated in accordance with the detailed design and location criteria applicable to the type of play area required, and whether the land is within the control of, or can be controlled by, the applicant. Appendices 1, 2 and 3 set out the maximum distance or walking time each type of provision should be from each house. All provision must be to the Council’s adoptable standard.
7.2 Due regard should be given to roads and waterways ensuring that suitable crossing points are included in the development to provide safe and convenient access to play areas.
Figure 4: Multi purpose play facility in central Tweedbank
8. Exemptions from Policy Requirements
8.1 The policy requirements for play area provision apply to all proposals for 10 or more dwelling houses and flats, whether provided by means of conversion or new-build and regardless of tenure. However, it is accepted that not all new housing development generates any or a sufficient number of children to justify play area provision. Consequently the following types of development will be exempt from play provision requirements: sheltered housing, single bedroom flats and nursing homes. However, these exemptions may be subject to other open space requirements such as amenity landscape planting and seated areas.
7 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
9. Procedural Practice for Application Types
9.1 It is important that developers acknowledge the importance of play area provision when developing their proposals and incorporate these into their design approach. Failure to do so may require significant amendments to submitted plans to incorporate an acceptable location and size of area. This may lead to unnecessary time delays on the plan processing period. It is considered good practice for potential developers to make contact with the Department of Technical Services – Parks / Open Spaces (POS) at the earliest possible stage to ascertain any play area requirements to be incorporated as part of their planning application, and to consider the potential for off site provision and the subsequent management of the area.
9.2 It is recommended that the following guidelines should be followed in respect of the following application types:
Procedure for Outline applications: Outline applications create difficulties in agreeing definitive play provision requirements as they may be submitted with no specified number of houses. Even if a number is specified the related Approval of Reserved Matters applications sometimes proposes an alternative number. Legal agreements would serve little purpose in respect of outline proposals in these circumstances. However, good practice should require a formal consultation with POS in order to ascertain whether there are likely to be any difficulties in agreeing play provision in principle.
Any approval for an outline application for 10 houses or more should incorporate a standard condition as follows:
Detailed proposals for the provision of children’s play space shall be submitted with the first application for the approval of reserved matters. The proposals shall outline the proposed method for the management of the area. Reason: To ensure the provision of play areas in accordance with the Council’s supplementary planning guidance.
Procedure for Full and Reserved Matters applications for developments of 10 or more units: The Planning Officer in consultation with POS should assess the type of play area required and consider whether opportunities exist to upgrade an existing play area in the vicinity.
Where a play area is required within the development site the Planning Officer should be satisfied that the application confirms details of the play area standard required, includes formal identification of its location and size within the site plan and includes confirmation of equipment and boundary treatment as laid out in the Appendices to this guidance.
8 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
Figure 5: Planning application identifying play area size and location
9.3 It is important to agree the timing of any play area provision. Problems can arise on building sites where there may be a conflict of interests between children accessing a designated play area and ongoing building operations. In practice safety has taken precedence and the provision of play areas has been postponed until the site is considered to be in a condition that children can safely and confidently gain access to the play area. However, it is accepted that due to a number of factors including interest in periphery housing plots from purchasers it can be difficult to phase a scheme around the safe implementation of an approved play area location. Equally time delays in providing play areas can cause concerns from some parent householders. As any play area requirement applies once 10 houses are proposed a play area and any safe access route required should be provided on-site before the tenth house is occupied, although a clause should allow the postponement of that timescale at the Planning Authority’s discretion should a genuine safety or other reason prevent its installation at that stage.
9.4 It is suggested that an appropriately worded planning condition, which also encompasses requirements discussed in Section 11 of this Guidance Note, could be as follows;
The standard of play equipment to be sampled, certified, implemented and maintained all to the agreement of the Planning Authority prior to the occupancy of the 10th house or a period thereafter as agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the provision of play areas in accordance with the Council’s supplementary planning guidance.
9 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
10. Upgrading existing off-site facility
10.1 Where it is agreed by the Planning Authority that an existing off-site play area can be upgraded, this shall be specified in either a Section 69 or 75 Agreement (see Section 11) satisfying a timescale for completion, financial contribution towards the cost of provision maintenance and depreciation. This may require a legal Agreement with current owners to ensure their consent to the works being carried out. The planning consent should not be issued until any Section 69 or 75 legal Agreement has been formally confirmed.
Figure 6: Enclosed games area offering a wide variety of uses
11. Development Contributions / Commuted Payments
11.1 The timeous delivery of play provision to the correct standard and the controlling of future inspection, maintenance and replacement can be tackled in several ways. For both on-site and off-site provision the following options could be considered:
a) Developer provides, developer maintains (factoring agreement) b) Developer provides, SBC maintains c) SBC provides, developer maintains d) SBC provides, SBC maintains
11.2 In all instances there is a clear need to ensure the provision is to an acceptable standard from a safety, vandal proof and lifespan point of view and there must be assurances that the play area meets with the relevant criteria in Appendices 1, 2 and 3. When equipment is supplied it would be expected this would be accompanied by a certificate of conformity and an independent inspection report by a suitably competent organisation / individual in respect of the installation. In instances where the Council will takeover maintenance responsibilities from a developer it may be the equipment remains in situ for one year after its installation in order that proper deterioration evaluation can take place.
10 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
11.3 Although scenarios b) and d) suggest the Council maintain the play areas as was the sole practice previously, it is considered other alternative arrangements should be encouraged and implemented which would result in equally satisfactory play provision.
11.4 In instances where payments are required by developers towards new play provision the Council would provide financial information on the basis of the prevailing SPG on Developer Contributions and in applying the criteria as laid down in Appendices 1, 2 and 3. With regards to more complicated implementation and management procedures it is recommended that these are controlled by legal Agreements as opposed to planning conditions. Such Agreements are typically carried out under Section 69 of the Local Government Scotland Act 1973 and Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. .
Section 69 Agreement This method of payment usually involves the applicant/developer making the necessary financial contribution prior to the application being determined. Section 69 Agreements will be processed on the basis that, should the new play equipment not be provided within five years of the agreement, all monies shall be repaid to the developer with interest. Linked maintenance contributions will also be repaid, unless the related upgrading has been carried out. Maintenance contributions linked to new play areas provided by the developer will not be subject to this limitation, since the requirement to provide the play area rests with the developer.
Section 75 Agreement This legal agreement is the most commonly used and ensures that financial contributions or play area provision are carried out at an agreed future date.
12. Monitoring and Enforcement
12.1 The role of monitoring and enforcement is primarily a planning matter and the Planning and Economic Development Department (PED) would ensure any play area requirement was implemented within the agreed timescale and to the specified standard. Should a developer fail to deliver the play provision as required at the appropriate time and agreed standard then the PED will reserve the right to take formal enforcement action if necessary. Where it is to be determined as to whether an implemented play area proposal meets the requirements of the condition, the PED shall seek the advice of POS as to whether or not the play equipment, surfacing and other aspects have been provided to adoptable requirements, before releasing the condition. This may involve POS requiring certificates and inspections to sign off the play area. All other aspects, including equipment type and number, play area location, size, boundary treatment, planting and footpath links shall principally be confirmed at the application stage by PED in discussion with POS where necessary.
11 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
13. Database of Existing Council Managed, Adopted Play Areas, Upgrades and Contributions
13.1 When an application is submitted and consideration is being given as to whether the upgrading of an existing play area in the vicinity is an acceptable option, to avoid time delays during the plan processing period and to give accurate feedback it is important to have an up-to-date data base of the Council’s existing provision. POS have established the location, type and size of existing play areas and this information is available on GIS format. This will be used in conjunction with other relevant information including the following:
- The extent to which existing play areas may potentially be expanded and whether the land is Council-owned. This will confirm to all interested parties as to where existing play facilities can be upgraded;
- Financial contributions to be provided towards facilities and the maintenance to be allocated to existing specific play areas according to policy criteria. Monies shall be time-limited by 5 years according to legal agreement. This limit will apply to the proportion of contribution obtained for provision only. The remaining monies towards maintenance shall remain available for spending, provided the contribution towards provision is spent within 5 years;
- Information as to new play areas and upgraded play areas shall be input into the POS system once those facilities have been provided and, where relevant, adopted by POS and maintenance contributions and inspections will be allocated to them accordingly.
13.2 This will allow POS to inform PED of those play areas which may be capable of expansion, to allocate contributions paid towards specific play areas within catchment areas (where possible) and keep an up-to-date record of new play areas and upgrades provided. It will also provide information as to which existing play areas have maintenance programmes in place.
Figure 7: Example of existing play area data displayed using GIS Appendices
12 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
Appendix 1 - Criteria Requirement for Provision of Local Area for Play Appendix 2 - Criteria Requirement for Provision of Local Equipped Area for Play Appendix 3 - Criteria Requirement for Provision of Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play
Further information
National Playing Fields Association Six Acre Standard Planning Advice Note 65 – Planning and Open Space Scottish Planning Policy 11 – Open Space and Physical Activity
Contacts
Charles Johnston (Principal Planning Officer), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose TD6 OSA Tel : 01835 825060 E-mail: [email protected]
Jim Hogg (Parks Development Officer), Galashiels Area Office, 11 Market Street, Galashiels TD1 3AD Tel : 01896 661770 E-mail: [email protected]
Jon Bowie (Developer Negotiator) Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose TD6 OSA Tel : 01835 825060 E-mail: [email protected]
13 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
APPENDIX 1 – Criteria Requirement for Provision of Local Area for Play (LAP)
TYPE MAXIMUM SIZE OF NEAREST EQUIPMENT FACILITIES BOUNDARY OPTIMUM COST SAFETY WALKING ACTIVITY HOUSE AND TREATMENT LOCATIONAL DISTANCE AREA SURFACING NEEDS LAP 1 minute or 200 sqm – - 5 metre - 3 pieces of - Litter bin - Fencing at - Overlooked - Annual All works must 100metres. 400sqm – buffer zone low-key minimum by houses inspection be in Accessible this does between equipment, - Seating 600mm high costs for a compliance from not include edge of including for parents / around - Flat site LAP are with BSEN development buffer enclosed hopscotch, carers perimeter £500 x 10 1176 for by direct distance play area sandpit, toddler - No overhead years = equipment footpath link and facing seats, small -Informative - Brightly power lines £5000 and which is not ground floor mobiles, signage, coloured self- installation obstructed by windows footprint trail providing closing - In open, - Annual and BSEN waterway, suitable for reference & pedestrian welcoming maintenance 1177 for railway, main - Gable toddlers and contact gate location costs for a safety road or other ends or children up to 6 details directly passed LAP are surfacing feature other house years for every - External by public path £560 x 10 identified by walls which 100sqm pedestrian years = planning adjoin site safety barrier - Not sited £5600 authority. should be - Safety surface to prevent close to Crossing protected under play children watercourses Depreciating these areas from ball equipment . entering area or ponds costs for a can be games by Soft or hard at speed LAP shall be acceptable, planting landscaping for determined provided safe and/or remainder to by crossing fencing allow for open calculating points are where games such as 5% of the available or required. tag or chase provision will be made See SPG – costs x 10 available by Designing - Consideration years the developer Out Crime given to in Scottish inclusive play Borders provision Aug 2007
14 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
APPENDIX 2 – Criteria Requirements for Provision of Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP)
TYPE MAXIMUM SIZE OF NEAREST EQUIPMENT FACILITIES BOUNDARY OPTIMUM COST SAFETY WALKING ACTIVITY HOUSE AND TREATMENT LOCATIONAL DISTANCE AREA SURFACING NEEDS LEAP 5 minutes or 400 sqm – 20 metres - 5 pieces of play - Litter bin - Fencing at - Well-drained - Annual All works 400metres. 1000sqm between equipment minimum 1 site. Open play inspection must be in Accessible from – this does edge of generally - Seating metre around areas can be costs for a compliance development by not include enclosed suitable for early for parents/ perimeter sloped but must LEAP are with BSEN direct footpath buffer play area school age carers include flat areas £500 x 10 1176 for link which is not distance and children up to 8 - 2 brightly for safe location years = equipment obstructed by boundary of years, including -Informative coloured self- of play £5000 and waterway, nearest swings, climbers, signage, closing equipment installation railway, main house. This mobiles, slides, providing pedestrian - Annual and BSEN road or other may need multi-play areas, reference & gates on - In open, maintenance 1177 for feature to be see-saws every contact opposite sides welcoming costs for a safety identified by planted 400sqm details of play area location directly LEAP are surfacing planning depending passed by public £933 x 10 authority. on position - Safety - Both path years = Crossing these and aspect surfacing under entrances shall £9330 areas can be of nearby play equipment. have external - Not sited close acceptable, housing Soft or hard pedestrian to watercourses Depreciating provided safe landscaping for safety barrier to costs for a crossing points remainder to prevent children - Overlooked by LEAP shall are available or allow for open entering area at houses be will be made game play speed determined available by the - No overhead by developer - Consideration power lines calculating given to inclusive 5% of the play provision - Play equipment provision should not costs x 10 overlook years neighbouring gardens
15 Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision for Play Areas
APPENDIX 3 – Criteria Requirements for Provision of Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP)
TYPE MAXIMUM SIZE OF NEAREST EQUIPMENT FACILITIES BOUNDARY OPTIMUM COST SAFETY WALKING ACTIVITY HOUSE AND TREATMENT LOCATIONAL DISTANCE AREA SURFACING NEEDS NEAP 15 minutes Minimum 30 metres 8 types of - Litter bins - Fencing at - Overlooked by Annual All works or 1000 1000sqm between edge equipment within at each 1m around houses inspection must be in metres. activity area of enclosed a play space area gate and at perimeter of costs for a compliance Accessible – this does play area and of 500sqm. This seating area to cater - Ideally part of NEAP are with BSEN from not include nearest includes at least areas for 0-14 year larger area of £750 x 10 1176 for development buffer property. This one item for olds. The public open years = equipment by direct distance may be toddlers, at least - Seating other area space, though £7500 and footpath link increased to 2 items for 8 to 10 for adults surrounded not essential installation which is not account for year olds for by fencing up - Annual and BSEN obstructed particular climbing / sliding - Seating to 3m - Accessible by maintenance 1177 for by waterway, aspects, such balancing; 5 more areas for depending on public footpath, costs for a safety main road, as seating adventurous children use or well used NEAP are surfacing railway or areas, items for 10 to 14 pedestrian £1985 x 10 other feature skateboard or year olds - Provision - Both areas route years = identified by ball game including for bike will have £19,850 planning areas and climbing, rotating, storage brightly - No overhead authority. should sliding, balancing coloured self lines Depreciating Crossing include -Informative closing costs for a these areas adequate - Remaining 500 signage, pedestrian - Not close to NEAP shall can be screen plus sqm shall be providing gates at watercourses or be acceptable, planting provided for ball reference & opposite ends ponds determined provided games, skating, contact by safe cycling or roller details - All - Located calculating crossing skating entrances alongside public 5% of the points are shall have an path, or well- provision available or - Consideration external used pedestrian costs x 10 will be made given to inclusive pedestrian route linked to years available by play provision safety barrier public path the to limit entry developer by children at speed
16