Item No. 4 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONTROL COMMITTEE
MINUTE of MEETING of the DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONTROL COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 12 November 2007 at 10 a.m. ------
Present: - Councillors J. Houston, (Chairman), C. J. Bhatia, J. Brown, N. Calvert, J. A. Fullarton, J. Hume, T. Jones, D. Moffat, C. Riddell-Carre, R. Smith. Apologies:- Councillor G. Logan, N. Watson, T. Weatherston. Also Present:- Councillor D. Raw. In Attendance: - Senior Development Control Manager (West), Development Control Manager (East), Assistant Road User Manager, Senior Solicitor (Mrs. N. Mckinley), Committee Officer (H. Reid) ------
MINUTE 1. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 15 October 2007.
DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.
APPLICATIONS 2. 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 I to this Minute.
3 There had been circulated copies of a list containing 9 applications for Planning Permission, which had been granted under the powers delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Standards in consultation with the Chairman and Local Member.
DECISION NOTED the list, a copy of which forms Appendix II to this Minute in the Minute Book.
4. There had been circulated copies of a list containing 142 applications for Planning Permission, which had been granted under the powers delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Standards.
DECISION NOTED the list, a copy of which forms Appendix III to this Minute in the Minute Book.
APPLICATION GRANTED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 5. With regard to the previous two items discussion took place regarding the need for paper copies to be issued, which were for noting only, with the Development and Building Control Committee.
DECISION AGREED:-
0 (a) that the Senior Development Control Manager prepare a report, for the meeting to be held on the 10 December 2007 on proposals for advising Members electronically on applications granted under delegated powers; and
(b) that for that meetings no paper copies be issued with the agenda.
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 erection of 32 flats, Land opposite Gun Knowe Loch, Tweedbank;
(b) that the Scottish Ministers had dismissed appeals in respect of erection of Conservatory, Edrom Mains Farmhouse, Duns.
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTES FOR LANDSCAPE AND TREES BRIEF 7. There had been circulated a report by the Director of Planning and Economic Development seeking approval to undertake consultation on the on the Consultative Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance to be undertaken between 12 November 2007 and 12 February 2008 for ‘Landscape and Development’ and ‘Trees and Development’. The Draft Planning Guidance’s together with the proposed list of Consultees were annexed to the report. Councillor Jones requested that consideration be deferred until the next the next meeting to enable further time to consider the proposals. Members discussed the proposals, the timescale involved should the matter be deferred and made amendments to the proposals prior to consultation being carried out.
DECISION AGREED to approve the Consultative Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance for ‘Landscape and Development’ and ‘Trees and Development’ as detailed in Appendix IV to this Minute. (Note pictures not shown)
The meeting concluded at 11.20 a.m.
1 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONTROL COMMITTEE 12 NOVEMBER 2007 APPENDIX I
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Reference Name and Address Nature of Development Location
05/00425/FUL PM Renewables Limited Construction of wind farm Land At Drone Hill 4 Limefield House comprising twenty-two Near Coldingham Polbeth wind turbines together with Scottish Borders West Lothian associated plant, EH14 6AQ equipment and access tracks
Decision : Refused for the following reasons
1. The proposed development is contrary to Policies I19, I20 and N9 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policy 83 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that: x The proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of Coldingham Moor. x The proposal is sited in a Coastal Moorland Landscape Type classification as defined in the Borders Landscape Assessment 1995. x This is not a landscape type where wind farm development is supported by Scottish Borders Council. x The turbines will be highly visible and will have Dominant and Major impacts in the immediate locality. x The landscape scale of the site is unable to fully mitigate the vertical impact of the turbines in a location where there are many domestic scale references. x The turbines will have a significant and harmful visual impact on high sensitivity receptors, including residential property, the coastal tourist route, and footpaths.
2. The proposed development is contrary to Policies N11 and N12 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 in that: x The development does not require a coastal location. x The purported benefits do not outweigh the impact on landscape character of the location. x The Borders coastline is of exceptional quality in terms of its natural heritage interest, its rugged and exposed character and is highly sensitive to development of this scale. x Notes (a) Declaration of Interest Councillor Fullarton declared a non pecuniary interest in the above application in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct and left the Chamber during consideration of the application. (b) With reference to paragraph I of the Appendix to the Minute of 2 July 2007, Councillor Bhatia enquired if clarification had been received from the Scottish Government regarding the percentage share of windfarms proposed to be located within the Scottish Borders Boundaries and the proposed benefits derived from these windfarms that would be attributable for this area. The Senior Development Control Manager undertook to circulate copies of the reply, if received, to Members.
1 07/00830/FUL Peter Scott & Co Ltd Partial change of use Peter Scott & Co Per Aitken Turnbull from factory building to 7-11 Buccleuch Street 22 Buccleuch Street 12 residential units Hawick Hawick Scottish Borders Scottish Borders TD9 0HJ TD9 0HW
Decision : Approved subject to the following conditions, applicant informative and the conclusion of a Legal Agreement
1. All windows along the south-western elevation of the building facing the Buccleuch Terrace properties to be blocked up before occupation of the first flat forming part of the development hereby approved. Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of the adjoining residents.
2. Further details to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before the development commences in relation to the following : x The style, opening method, colour and appearance of all new and replacement windows, including the oriel arrangements on the south-eastern elevation. x External wall and roof treatment. x The external treatment of all window apertures proposed to be blocked up. x The external walls of the buildings revealed after removal of the existing building for access purposes, including the openings proposed to the basement car park. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the Conservation Area and adjoining residents.
3. The windows serving Bedroom 2 within Flat No. 10 to be designed with oriel and obscure glazing to the specification of the Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be completed and permanently retained in accordance with the specification so approved. Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of the adjoining residents.
4. The access to the site and car parking spaces to be completed to the specification of the Planning Authority in accordance with the approved plans before the first flat is occupied. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
Informative Note to Applicant: The applicant is reminded that this permission does not convey approval for works affecting third party rights which may exist on the land or any adjoining. The applicant is therefore advised to seek the agreement of any parties having an interest in any land affected by this permission, particularly in relation to works to the exterior of the building.
3 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING CONTROL COMMITTEE 12 NOVEMBER 2007 APPENDIX IV
Scottish Borders Local Plan Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Landscape and Development July 2007
1 General Considerations Careful and early consideration of design issues, and the provision of adequate landscape information, as described in this leaflet, can help to avoid costly delays at a later stage. In assessing the landscape implications of planning applications the site context, proposed layout, future uses and maintenance all need to be taken into account.
There is a diverse landscape character and settlement pattern within the Scottish Borders, with rural landscapes of particularly high quality including National Scenic Areas (NSA) and Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) designated in the Councils Structure Plan and adopted Local Plan. In these areas it is especially important for any development to fit in with its surroundings. This does not rule out innovative design but does require that the existing features of the site or local area are given due recognition, e.g. the choice of the use of stone walls, hedges or fences on external boundaries will be influenced by what is found locally. Planning officers can advise applicants on appropriate and acceptable solutions for any rural or urban situation before an application is submitted.
Outline application Landscape issues must be regarded as an integral part of the development process, with consideration given to the form and use of all spaces from the earliest stage. The factors listed below should be considered at any early stage by the applicant, so that information which would be helpful in assessing whether the proposal is acceptable in principle can be identified, as well as those matters of detail which can be ‘reserved’ for the detailed application: l Existing boundaries, type and height l The position of existing trees and whether they are to be retained or removed l The intended uses and treatment of the external spaces l The location of screening factors e.g. buildings, trees or other structures, within or outside the site l The location of services and any other known constraints l Any intended changes in landform or level l The position and general type of any proposed planting
Some types of development would benefit from a Design Statement; e.g. those of a more complex nature or those where existing buildings are being developed. A detailed landscape and visual assessment may be needed for particularly prominent development proposals. Major proposals may be subject to formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures. Planning or landscape officers can advise on when these are needed, and at what stage.
Detailed application/ Reserved matters/ Landscape conditions attached to planning approval
Information provided should include where appropriate: l Survey information on a separate drawing showing details of proposed boundary treatments, including materials, height and location.
2 l Existing and proposed levels, including information on any surplus materials to be taken off site, or fill material to be imported. l Existing trees including their species and condition and other soft landscape features to be removed and those to be retained, and methods of protection during construction. l Details of all existing and proposed hard landscape materials, and their location. l Species, numbers (or planting density), distribution and sizes of proposed new planting and mixes for grass and wildflower seeding. l The location of any existing or proposed underground or overhead services which could affect existing or proposed planting including power, communications, water, sewerage and lighting proposals. l Any areas which are required for adoption by the Council. Developers should refer to other planning guidelines for standards of public open space provision in new housing schemes.
Hard landscape This includes all hard surfaces to be retained or formed within the site including paved areas, car park surfaces, steps, walls, fences, roads, paths, seating, lighting and other features. There is a wide variety of natural and manufactured materials available and advice can be provided on which are most appropriate for the purpose intended, and in character with the local landscape. As a general rule, simple design using a limited range of good quality and robust materials looks better and works better. Re-use or retention of existing original materials such as railings or stone walls is encouraged as these can help retain local landscape character. These comments should not preclude the use of good contemporary hard landscaping design.
Hard landscape design should always take the needs of disabled people into account, as well as security and safety for all users.
Soft landscape This refers to all vegetation which is to be retained or planted within the site including areas of grass, as well as to watercourses, ditches, ponds and wetlands. Some areas of existing soft landscape may be of nature conservation interest and some may contain species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Advice is available from the Council’s Ecologist if required.
Certain plants will be more suited to the physical conditions of the site and to the local landscape character than others. As a general rule, locally native species are preferable for countryside boundaries and for large scale planting. It is also recommended that large tree species which will make a long-term contribution to the rural or urban landscape are included in landscape schemes, where space permits. Advice on existing trees and on new tree planting can be provided by the Council’s Tree Officer or Landscape Officer.
Implementation of approved landscape schemes Where a landscape condition has been imposed it will usually require a scheme to be approved before any work commences. If work is started before agreement the planning permission may be invalidated.
The condition will state either that the scheme should normally be completed within six months of first use of the development, or by the end of the first planting season
3 (November to March) following first use. Works on site must comply with the approved plans, and approval must be obtained first if amendments are proposed.
It is essential that protection is provided to any existing landscape features to be retained before any other work begins on site, and that this protection is maintained throughout the construction period, (refer to the appropriate guidance).
To ensure that the approved scheme is implemented satisfactorily the developer is advised, particularly on larger sites, to select a reputable landscape contractor and to retain the services of a landscape architect or employ a competent person to supervise work on site. In order to show how the scheme is to be achieved, detailed working drawings (not necessarily part of the planning application) may be needed. Such plans must be properly integrated within the design and construction teams to ensure that all are working to the same scheme details.
Landscape works must not be treated as an afterthought with inadequate time or resources allowed. It is advised that a cost estimate or tender price is obtained in advance for the approved scheme as it is essential that sufficient funds are set aside. Whilst the costs may often be a small proportion of total development costs, the overall success of a scheme can be reliant on the landscape setting. Enforcement action will be taken if planning conditions have not been met.
Maintenance of approved landscape schemes Developers must also give consideration to the future uses of the site and the maintenance implications of their proposals. Provision may need to be made for: protection from grazing animals / rabbits, mowing regimes; hedge cutting, woodland and scrub management; watering; pruning; mulching; cleaning of surfaces; litter removal; repairs. If the Council is to adopt any land, a commuted sum will be required to assist in future maintenance and management.
Planning conditions require that an approved landscape scheme is maintained for a minimum period of 5 years to ensure establishment, with replacement of plants which fail to survive. It is recommended that a maintenance plan or schedule is prepared. Where necessary, arrangements must be made to ensure ongoing maintenance of approved landscape works i.e. where ownership is transferred.
General landscape design advice General design principles, including landscape design, will be covered in a forthcoming Supplementary Planning Guidance note on Design. Detailed landscape design topics such as planting and fencing are covered by separate landscape guidance notes.
Landscape design does not have to be conventional to be acceptable, and developers are welcome to discuss non-standard design solutions before submitting an application.
Sustainable landscapes The Council welcomes landscape design which incorporates principles of sustainability such as an ecological concept of design, use of local materials, low energy consumption for construction and maintenance, composting, local recycling of water through surfaces which increase the permeability of the ground, and good pedestrian links/cycle facilities to reduce car use.
4 For further information contact: Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825060 Fax: 01835 825158 Email: [email protected]
Other contacts: Arboricultural Association Web: www.trees.org.uk/ Produces a range of publications on tree care and tree management.
The Landscape Institute Web: www.landscapeinstitute.org/ Provides a list of registered landscape practices.
BSI British Standards Web: www.bsi-global.com/en/Contact-Us/
Scottish Natural Heritage Web: www.snh.org.uk/
Useful Reading l Arboricultural Association Leaflet No 9 Protection of Trees on Development Sites, Part 1: Drawing Board: Obtaining Planning Permission l Arboricultural Association Leaflet No 9 Protection of Trees on Development Sites, Part 2: On site: Implementing Planning Consent l Amenity Value of Trees and Woodland (Arboricultural Association) l Tree Survey and Inspection (Arboricultural Association) l BS 5837:2005: Trees in Relation to Construction (BSI) l BS 3998:1989: Recommendations for Tree Work (BSI) l NHBC Standards, Ch 4.2, Building near trees (October 1992) l NJUG (National Joint Utilities Group) Publication No 10 (1995)
Landscape and Development This is one of a series of supplementary planning guidance notes (SPGs) amplifying development plan proposals in a clear and concise format with the objective of improving design standards. In assessing planning applications both the design of buildings and their external environment and landscape are taken into account, and on many developments, the requirement to provide a landscape scheme to the Council’s approval and to subsequently implement and maintain the scheme is a condition of planning permission. The note will form a material consideration in the determination of all relevant planning applications.
It is intended that this general guidance will clarify landscape information requirements and help applicants to have a better understanding of landscape issues. As these guidelines cannot cover all situations, applicants and agents are encouraged to discuss proposals with the landscape officer prior to the formal submission of an application.
5 Information sheets are also available on a range of landscape topics. For larger or more complex sites, applicants are advised to employ a professionally qualified landscape specialist from the outset. Landscape information required for planning application Design Statements A Design Statement for more complex sites, should include a site analysis and should set out the design principles, justify the design solution, and show how it responds to the wider context as well as the characteristics of the site. The format and level of detail required will depend on the scale and likely impact of the development, but written material would not normally exceed two sides of A4. Plans and diagrams can be included where helpful. Preparation of a Design Statement may help to reduce delays in processing applications.
Site Survey A detailed survey should be carried out before the design of any building or landscape is begun, noting: l Context (e.g. adjacent land use, orientation of the site i.e. north point or grid lines, boundary trees, views) l Soil type (e.g. clay, sandy, acid) or other surface material l Topography (ground levels, often shown as contours or spot heights) l Drainage, natural and/or artificial l Services (e.g. public sewer, electricity, gas, etc.) l Other significant factors (e.g. features of nature conservation or archaeological interest) l Planning designations (e.g. Tree Preservation Orders, Designated
Landscapes, Wildlife Sites) Example of Site Survey Details Existing landscape
Key Example of Site Layout Details Proposed landscape
6 Key Landscape plans Drawings showing landscape, whether existing or proposed, should be clearly legible whether drawn by hand or with the use of computers. Information can be separated onto different sheets if necessary for clarity. For sites which include changes of level, cross sections are useful, and for some schemes, illustrations may also be helpful. The scale of the drawings should be adequate for the purpose e.g. 1:100 or 1:50 for detailed landscape schemes. A north point and key to any symbols used on the drawings should be included.
7 Scottish Borders Local Plan Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees and Development July 2007
1 Trees and Development This note amplifies policies contained within the Council’s adopted Local Plan in relation to the protection of important trees. The note outlines the Council’s requirements when considering applications which could affect trees and will form a material consideration in the determination of relevant planning applications.
Developers should ensure that development schemes include measures to safeguard trees, and where appropriate to supplement an area’s tree cover. Development which would result in the unjustified felling, or which would result in damage to an important tree, will not be permitted. Conditions and Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) will be used to safeguard trees in appropriate cases. (See Appendix)
Survey Requirements Before submitting planning applications for land in close proximity to trees, or on which trees are growing, a developer should commission detailed tree and land surveys, the requirements of which are outlined below and overleaf. l In the case of a full planning application, all sites with trees on or near them should first be evaluated prior to trees being identified for removal or final layouts decided. l Where woodland is within a site, the woodland should be accurately plotted with all boundary trees shown indicating tree position and crown spread. If development is proposed within the woodland area, it will be necessary to plot all the trees. l If woodlands are outside the site boundary, then the woodland edge (including the four principal points of crown spread) should be shown. Hedgerows should also be accurately plotted. Certain shrubs may be of sufficient interest as to merit plotting where they provide valuable shelter, interest, colour or wildlife habitat. l An accurate land and tree survey with any topographical survey to allow the production of an Arboricultural Implication Assessment, (AIA) should be produced. This document must be produced in conjunction with the development proposals and after consultation (including a possible site visit) with the local planning authority.
Tree Surveys l The location to within 1m of all existing trees with a stem diameter greater than 10mm at 1.5m above ground level on or adjacent to the site. l The tree species, health, vigour, age range, condition. l The tree’s height, diameter at 1.5m above ground level (Diameter at Breast Height - DBH) and crown spread (Note: the four principal points of the crown spread should be shown and the location of its trunk, to indicate any uneven growth characteristics e.g. leaning trunks, one-sided crown spread, etc.) l The desirability for retention of each tree, or group of trees, should be designated as per the detailed requirements of British Standard BS5837 (2005) Section 4.2 (Table 1).
Where any tree felling is permitted to accommodate development, applicants should note that no subsequent permission will be granted for further felling to accommodate subsequent crown development, changes to the development layout or other amendments.
2 Land Surveys l Should include all soft and hard landscape features. Changes in ground levels should be shown and known finished levels such as roads, floor slabs etc. included. l Any hard surfacing or services proposed to pass under the spread of the canopy should also be indicated and relocated where possible. Significant service runs, (such as gas or sewerage) need to be relocated beyond the crown spread of trees for retention. l On complex or large sites, (defined under the Planning Acts as ‘major’), a full hydrological and / or soil survey may be required, with appropriate cross sections, to fully allow assessment of the impact that changes will have on trees and woodlands. l Land surveys will be expected to meet the requirements of section 4 of the British Standard BS5837 (2005) Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations.
Trees are particularly susceptible to root damage by soil compaction and soil level changes. The lowering of soil levels can weaken the anchorage of tree roots and cause dehydration. Raising soil levels reduces the amount of oxygen available to roots; whilst compaction can damage roots directly and also causes water logging and loss of soil porosity, further reducing the availability of oxygen. These changes affect root respiration and can cause severe decline, sometimes over many years. As any changes in ground levels will affect the long term survival of trees, it is essential to have details of both existing and proposed ground levels illustrated by contours and at least one cross section. This information should also be supplied at the initial stage in the application process.
Developers must ensure that experts commissioned to advise on technical matters within planning applications have the appropriate qualifications and experience.
Development Proposals Development proposals must take account of:- l A detailed description of the site including: tree cover, topography, soils description, proposed levels for roads, pathways, steps, fencing, retaining walls, floor slabs, services and any areas of reduced dig needed for construction purposes which are not shown as part of the development plan. l An analysis of the tree cover including: total number of trees, the numbering sequence, analysis of landscape / amenity values, impact of shade on residential amenity, trees to be lost for development, trees to be lost for any other reasons, and proposals for replacement planting. This information should be shown on a planting plan. l A Tree Constraints Plan in accordance with section 5 of BS 5837 (2005) should be submitted at the planning application stage. This should include the position of protective fencing and its construction (See Figures 1&2). A schedule of remedial tree surgery should also be submitted to bring trees for retention to a safe and healthy condition. l A plan showing any requirements of the Council for sight lines and other highway infrastructure and furniture. l The Council will be particularly guided by the recommendations contained within British Standard 5837:2005: “Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations”. The Standard gives essential advice with regard to all of the important issues relating to trees in relation to construction. l Developers are particularly advised to consider Annex C of the Standard, which deals
3 with how development can damage trees. Site layouts should seek to reduce to a minimum the potential harmful effects development can have. l Designers are particularly advised to consider Section 6.3 of the Standard which deals with the range of problems that building operations and construction can have in relation to tree positions and/or growth. l Development located too close to the established canopy spread of a tree/s or where the proximity of the dwelling would result in tree/s having an over-dominant and oppressive effect, harm the outlook from windows, cause loss of sunlight and / or give rise to safety concerns, will not be permitted. Development, which would result in important trees causing unreasonable inconvenience or nuisance to future occupants, or where a tree’s canopy would unduly impinge on private amenity space, will not be permitted. l Developers must make allowance for the space needed during construction including access for vehicles, placement of scaffolding, storage of construction materials and suitable safe working distances. Such activities must be kept outside the defined tree protection areas. (At least 1 m must be allowed beyond the edge of a tree crown for the safe erection and use of scaffolding.) l Landscape Architects are particularly advised to consider section(s) 13, 14 and 15 of the Standard. These sections deal with new planting, its relationship to development and requirements for future growth. The developers’ project team should submit the fullest range of reports, surveys, drawings (including cross sections) to allow officers of the Council to fully assess proposals and report to the planning committee.
Determination of Planning Applications In determining applications, the Council will consider the effect on trees and the overall landscape as a material consideration, with due regard to existing statutory and relevant development plans, Government advice and this Supplementary Planning Guidance Note. The Arboricultural Implication Assessment (AIA) and other detailed submissions (Method Statements) will be an important aspect in assisting the Council in evaluating the balance between tree/landscape losses and gains thus providing a basis for determining appropriate planning conditions.
All planning authorities are expected to determine planning applications within timescales set by the Scottish Executive. Failure to provide the necessary information described in this note will lead to the application being refused; unless the consequent delays can be minimised to enable resolution of the application within the statutory 8 weeks.
Tree Preservation Orders As previously stated, the local authority has the power to create Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) to maintain the amenity of the local environment.
With regard to development proposals, the Council will utilise TPO powers in a flexible manner.
This may include serving TPOs :- l prior to development proposals; l after receiving development proposals; l during development proposals; l after development is complete; or l not serving TPOs if inappropriate.
4 The above range of responses will be implemented on the basis of the site’s importance, individual specimen importance, the development proposals and the level of data provided to the LPA with regard to development.
In the event that a TPO is placed on a site, the Council requires that there should be consultation between the developers and the Arboricultural Officer of the Council, before the submission of any proposed design or layout.
Implementation of Planning Permission The Council will require the use of appropriate management and programming of works to ensure that trees and other soft landscape features are safely and attractively integrated into the construction phase. The Council will also require developers and their advisers to obtain the appropriate professional advice. Where necessary this will extend to supervision of the construction phase by the developer’s own arboriculturist.
Appendix 1 Tree Preservation Order (TPO)
Legislation concerning Tree Preservation Orders is contained within The Town and Country Planning Act (Scotland) 1997. The following notes serve as a very brief summary of the legislation. Please contact Planning and Economic Development for further information. What is a TPO? A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) is an order made by a Local Planning Authority (LPA) in respect of trees. The order makes it an offence to cut down, uproot, prune, damage or destroy the tree or trees in question. A TPO can apply to a single tree, a group of trees, an area of trees or a woodland. TPOs can only apply to trees; they can not apply to bushes, shrubs or hedges (unless the hedge has reverted back to a line of individual trees). The tree under an order can be of any size, species or age.
The LPA may make a TPO if it is deemed that the tree offers amenity value to the surrounding area, and that its loss would have a significant impact on the environment and its enjoyment by the public. To this end, the tree(s) would normally be visible from a public place and would contribute to the landscape in some way. The LPA has to justify the placement of a TPO and the tree owner can object to the placement of such an order.
A TPO does not mean that the Council now owns the tree nor does it mean that they are responsible for its maintenance or the cost of its maintenance. A TPO exists to prevent anyone from felling or pruning the tree without the consent of the LPA. This does not necessarily mean that you can’t eventually prune or fell the trees; it simply means that you must obtain permission from the LPA first.
It is always advisable always to seek professional advice, from a qualified tree surgeon or tree consultant, prior to making an application for tree work. A list of tree surgeons is available from the Council’s Landscape Section, (see contact below).
Trees within a Conservation area are also covered by statutory protection; however the legislation is different from trees covered by a TPO. The Council’s Tree Officer can
5 advise further on trees within a Conservation Area.
The removal of trees from within woodlands & forests may also require permission from the Forestry Commission. Further information can be obtained from the leaflet ‘Tree Felling - Getting Permission’, available from your local Forestry Commission office: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/wgsfell.pdf/$FILE/wgsfell.pdf, or by contacting the Council’s Tree Officer.
Penalties The courts have powers to fine anyone contravening a TPO. The maximum fines are £20,000 for destroying a tree or, in certain cases, an unlimited fine and up to £2,500 for anyone who does not completely destroy a tree but has carried out other works without consent. It is no defence for a defendant to plead that they were unaware that a TPO existed on a particular tree. In addition the Council will require that a replacement tree is planted.
Works, Objections and Appeals Once the Council have served the order, any objections to the TPO must be made in writing within 28 days. The TPO must be confirmed by the Council within 6 months for it to become permanent, otherwise it will lapse. It is also recorded with the Land Registry, and places a legal burden attached to the title of the land.
Anyone wishing to carry out works to a tree must apply in writing, stating the reasons for making the application, the works required and making it clear which tree(s) the application relates to. The LPA will normally respond to applications for works within a period of 2 months (8 weeks). Should the Council refuse to grant permission for the requested works, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State. This should normally be made within 28 days of the receipt of the decision.
Contact All enquires and applications should be made to the LPA at the address given below. Tree Officer, Planning and Economic Development, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, Scottish Borders TD6 OSA. Tel: 01835 825060 Fax: 01835 825158 Email: [email protected]
6 Fig 1 Protective Fencing
Fence branch spread(whichever is greater) half height
Fig 2 Protective Barrier - BS 5837
1. Standard scaffold poles 2. Uprights to be driven into the ground 3. Panels secured to uprights with wire ties and where necessary standard scaffold clamps 4. Weldmesh wire to the uprights and horizontals 5. Standard clamps 6. Wire twisted and secured on inside face of fencing to avoid easy dismantling 7. Ground level 8. Approx. 0.6m driven into the ground 2.4m Close Board
Posts: 100mm x 100mm x 3.5m driven in to 1m depth at 2.5m spacings. Top and Bottom Rails: 50mm x 75mm softwood, twice nailed to uprights. Support Struts: 75mm x 50mm softwood, securely nailed to uprights at every third post and at each corner or change of direction. Ply board: 2.4m high, min 20mm thick plyboard, securely affixed to timber frame
The applicant is advised to contact the Council’s Tree Officer for any further information or to arrange a pre-application site meeting.
Visit http://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/publicaccess/ to view Planning information online 7 For further information contact: Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825060 Fax: 01835 825158 Email: [email protected]
Other contacts: Arboricultural Association Web: www.trees.org.uk/ Produces a range of publications on tree care and tree management.
The Landscape Institute Web: www.landscapeinstitute.org/ Provides a list of registered landscape practices.
BSI British Standards Web: www.bsi-global.com/en/Contact-Us/
Useful Reading l Arboricultural Association Leaflet No 9 Protection of Trees on Development Sites, Part 1: Drawing Board: Obtaining Planning Permission l Arboricultural Association Leaflet No 9 Protection of Trees on Development Sites, Part 2: On site: Implementing Planning Consent l Amenity Value of Trees and Woodland (Arboricultural Association) l Tree Survey and Inspection (Arboricultural Association) l BS 5837:2005: Trees in Relation to Construction (BSI) l BS 3998:1989: Recommendations for Tree Work (BSI) l NHBC Standards, Ch 4.2, Building near trees (October 1992) l NJUG (National Joint Utilities Group) Publication No 10 (1995) Permission to reproduce Figure 2 from BS 5837: 2005 is granted by British Standards Institution.
Visit http://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/publicaccess/ to view Planning information online 8 Item No. 5 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
10 DECEMBER 2007
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: (a) REFERENCE NUMBER: 07/01778/REM
OFFICER: Dorothy Amyes WARD: Tweeddale East PROPOSAL: Residential development for the erection of 199 houses including roads, landscaping and drainage. SITE: Whitehaugh, Kings Meadows Road, Peebles APPLICANT: Taylor Wimpey AGENT:
SITE DESCRIPTION
This is reserved matters planning application for the erection of dwellinghouses on land at Whitehaugh Farm, Kingsmeadows Road, Peebles. The site is located on the south side of Kingsmeadows Road and extends to approximately 25 acres. The western boundary of the application site is defined by an existing track which extends southwards from Kingsmeadows Road providing access to Whitehaugh Farm. The northern boundary of the site is defined by a woodland belt adjacent to the B7062, beyond which is Cavalry Business Park. The eastern boundary is defined by a post a wire fence beyond which is open fields extending towards the B7062 and the southern boundary of the site, which lies adjacent to the farm steading, is defined by a mixture of hedgerows and post and wire fence. The site is relatively flat and is currently used for grazing.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is proposed to erect a total of 199 dwellinghouses on this site. This is reduction from 217 dwellings as originally proposed in the earlier refused reserved matters application. It is proposed to erect 15 different house types ranging from 2 bedroom terraced ‘affordable housing’ to 4 bed detached villas. The proposed dwellings are all standard Taylor Wimpey products with a mixture of external finishes. There would be a standard pallet of external materials which would be mixed according to the house type giving variety and visual interest throughout the site.
PLANNING HISTORY
Outline planning consent for residential development with footpaths, roads, open space and landscaping was approved, subject to conditions and legal agreement by the Development and Building Control Committee on 6 March 2006. Consent was issued for this development on 12 December 2006.
A reserved matters application (ref 06/01164/REM) was refused by the Committee, contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation, on 28 May 2008. The reason for refusal was as follows:
“The proposed development is contrary to Policy G1 and H3 of Scottish Borders Council Finalised Local Plan as integrated landscaping cannot be satisfactorily accommodated on- site thus constituting overdevelopment. Additionally there are no details on the delivery and retention in perpetuity of the affordable housing units.”
1 The applicants have lodged an appeal against this decision.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
In total 112 letters of representation were received. Of these, 104 were duplicate letters signed by residents of Whitehaugh Park and one was a letter from the Whitehaugh Park Residents Association.
The principal grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:
x Density of housing too high and represents overdevelopment of the site. The proposed housing numbers are far higher than the allocated figures in the local plan
x Capacity of existing infrastructure
x Road safety issues relating to increase in traffic, the potential for a ‘rat run through the link road and conflict with farm traffic
x Loss of residential amenity due to additional noise, visual intrusion and security issues
x Retention and protection of mature tree on site
One correspondent questioned the validity of the tree survey and a revised survey was submitted by the applicants.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
In support of the application the applicants have submitted a design statement, environmental information, a flood risk assessment, a drainage impact assessment and a woodland survey, together with details of the children’s play areas.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads): I have no objections in principle to this application, however I shall require the following points to be addressed before I am able to fully support the application:
x Kingsmeadows Road will have to be widened to 7.3m as far as the new junction. x The 30mph speed limit will be need to be extended. x The footway on the south side of Kingsmeadows Road will need to be extended to the junction. x The word ‘future’ should be omitted from the pedestrian link to the existing Whitehaugh development. These links are essential to my support for the application. x The road link on the eastern side of the development should be continued to the site boundary. x Communal parking should be provided at a rate of 175%. x Visitor parking for those areas that have curtilage parking should be provided at a rate of 25%, currently this requires a further 2 spaces. x Traffic calming is required on the existing Whitehaugh development. x Road Construction Consent must be secured prior to commencement of construction on the new roads and a road bond is required to be lodged with the Council prior to commencement of house building work. x The main spine road through the site and the link through to the land to the East should be 6m wide. x Some improvements to the local cycle network may be required. 2 Director of Technical Services (Flooding):
A detailed flood study in Peebles was undertaken by SBC in 2006. This study shows that the site in question is not within the inundation line for the 1% annual flood probability (1 in 100 year) event.
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.
I would suggest the developer needs to assess the risk from the Haystoun burn to the south of the site and ensure there is no risk from overland flow from this burn.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: The Director of Education and Lifelong Learning was not consulted on this Reserved Matters application as the Education Contribution for each unit was agreed in the Section 75 Agreement for the Outline Application.
Statutory Consultees
Peebles and District Community Council:
The Community Council Objects to this application on the grounds that it is clearly an Over Development of this site. 199 houses by far exceeds the original figure of 106 in the Local Finalised Plan. We feel that the number of houses on this site should be reduced to 130, which would be more acceptable and in keeping with the Whitehaugh Park development to which it is immediately adjacent. Our original comments on this application are still valid and should be taken into account. Scottish Water:
Scottish Water has no objections to this planning application. Peebles Waste Water Treatment Works currently has sufficient capacity to service this proposed development. Scottish Water would be keen to understand the proposed phasing and timescales to enable us to examine all options available to allow connection. Please advise the developer to make contact with Scottish Water Development Planning Team to discuss further. The developer will be required, as part of any network upgrading work, to provide a solution that would prevent or mitigate any further impact.
SEPA:
I refer to the above application to which SEPA objected on the grounds of flood risk in a consultation response dated 24 October 2007. Following this objection, on 1 November 2007, SEPA received a copy of a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by the agents. SEPA has now had the opportunity to review the FRA and has the following comments to make:
Flood Risk
The SEPA Hydrology Unit’s detailed assessment of the FRA has been attached as Annex I to this letter. Based upon this assessment of the Flood Risk Assessment, SEPA are now in a position to withdraw the objection to this application. The FRA proposes the raising of the west site (to which this application relates) and the lowering of the east site. SEPA notes that the planning application to lower the east site (Ref: 06/02124/FUL) has been approved by the Council.
Surface Water Drainage
3 SEPA has been provided with additional information on SUDS, following the consultation response dated 24 October. From assessment of this information the proposals appear acceptable and resemble the scheme previously agreed with SEPA.
Scottish Natural Heritage:
SNH does not object to the proposal as currently submitted but strongly recommends that: • Construction and other works are carried out in a manner that prevents pollution/contamination or damage to the SAC.
• A detailed landscaping scheme for the site is agreed with SBC, should approval be granted. SNH should be advised of modifications or amendments, which may affect the natural heritage of the site.
Other Consultees
Peebles Civic Society:
1. We object to this proposal.
2. In our response to the Outline Application dated August 2005 and again in our response to the previous application Reference 06/01164/REM, we highlighted the issue of the timing of the application with particular reference to the Finalised Local Plan and once again we wish to re-state our concern that the application is an attempt to pre-empt the outcome of the Local Plan process. As previously noted, the fact that the Planning Committee approved the Outline Application, with conditions caused us considerable surprise and no little concern, given that it appeared to be in total contravention of the SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance on Housing (June 2005) which says: “Certain proposals would not be considered. These include proposals for housing development that: • Could raise broad issues of public concern or matters of principle that should be debated through Local Plan Public Local Inquiry.”
3. In the present instance, the housing allocation to sites designated in the Finalised Local plan for development, is a matter which has been scrutinised at the Public Local Inquiry which took place earlier this year and that the application site formed part of that inquiry. We understand that the Local Plan Public Inquiry Report will shortly be available and we therefore feel that the present application should not be determined at least until the outcome of this known.
4. In the Finalised Local Plan this site at Whitehaugh is shown as having a capacity for 106 houses out of a total provision for Peebles of 157. The proposed number of 199 will therefore result is the premature exhaustion of the housing land allocation and in so doing, provide misplaced support for the allocation of still more land for housing in Peebles during the Local Plan period and in addition have an adverse impact on the requirement to be included in respect of the subsequent Local Plan allocation.
5. The proposal of 199 house units is grossly excessive and the allocation of 106 provided in the Finalised Local Plan should be adhered to.
6. In summarising changes made in response to comment and or/officer review of the Finalised Local Plan, Annexe E of that summary and the section on Land Use proposals says in relation to Peebles, that there are concerns about the impact of housing on the historic town; that there is considerable developer pressure and limited options for long term development. The recommendation is to maintain the housing allocations contained in the Finalised Local Plan.
7. In our comments on the Draft Consultative Local Plan we addressed the issue of housing land requirement at length (comment 16 in ours of 28.09.04) and recommended that housing 4 development in South Tweeddale should be phased so that the damage to the environment and the countryside is minimised. We believe that any development of the application site should be phased. Briefly our reasons for phasing are as follows
a) Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 3, Planning for Housing, says that in some cases phased release of land needs to be provided for in order to protect the character and setting of a settlement. b) Para 45 of SPP 3 says that the landscape settings of existing towns and villages must be respected and therefore refers to Planning Advice Note (PAN) 4, Fitting New Housing Development into the Landscape. c) Para 40 says . “The Scottish Executive looks to planning authorities to maintain the effectiveness of existing green belts, safeguard the character and amenity of the countryside, and protect the setting of Scotland’s towns and cities. d) Whilst the development may not seriously affect the landscape setting of Peebles or the highly scenic countryside around it, further development soon will, and therefore the limited remaining availability within the settlement capacity of Peebles needs to be carefully husbanded. e) Housing demand is not from within Peebles. It is external and developer led.
8. In respect of the previous application a Developer Contribution was to be negotiated in respect of additional Primary education provision and we commented that the development would also have significant impacts on the High School and traffic movements in the town at peak times and that those issues had not been addressed. Also not addressed was the need for additional town centre parking, created by the extra houses over 1 mile from the town centre. These are problems which would arise even if the development is restricted to the Finalised Local Plan allocation, but would be hugely exacerbated by the much larger number proposed by the application. We are therefore concerned that no reference at all is made in the current application with regard to these issues.
We note that the number of affordable housing units has been reduced from 35 to 26 and that this falls short of the proportion of 15% which we understand to be the minimum requirement and which would imply 30 units. We also consider that there should be in place a binding agreement enforceable on successors in ownership, to ensure the continuation of the “affordable” principal.
9. We note that there is no Design Brief which we would have expected to deal with the many issues which affect a development such as this.
10. We are disappointed to note that there appears to be no reference to low energy elements in the house designs in the application, which we feel should be a significant feature.
11. With regard to materials to be used in housing construction, we feel that the proposed grey slate/farmhouse red as a roofing material is inappropriate and locally unsympathetic. A muted dull red and light grey/brown similar to that used in the earlier phase of the present Whitehaugh Estate should be adopted as this will produce a colour range more sympathetic to the surroundings as seen from the Drove Road to the south and other houses on the estate.
12. We are concerned that the traffic passing through area known as “The Square” may cause considerable disturbance and discomfort to those houses which surround it This forms the hub for the distribution of traffic to major parts of the development and while it may serve as a safety feature in slowing down passing traffic, this will inevitably lead to the generation of more noise arising from vehicles slowing down and speeding up again.
13. With regard to the “Woodland Survey and Management Proposals”, while welcoming these, we feel that any tree removal necessary to create adequate sight lines should be undertaken in such a way that the remainder of the existing plantations are not compromised by damage and exposure and that new lateral planting along the roadside should be integrated with the existing trees if necessary to achieve this. 5 14. The planting of the earlier phases of the development of the Whitehaugh area has been well done and well maintained and we feel that there should be a proper management plan for all planted areas within the application site, both planned and existing and that particular regard should be had to long term maintenance, especially of those areas which form the perimeter of the site.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Approved Structure Plan 2001-2011
POLICY N15 - Regional and Local Archaeological Sites
POLICY N16 - Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording
POLICY N20 - Design
POLICY H1 - Housing Land Shortfall
POLICY H2 - Overall Housing Land Requirement
POLICY H3 - Housing Land Allocation
POLICY H7 - Affordable and Special Needs Housing - Proportion
POLICY H8 - Affordable and Special Needs Housing - Assessment
POLICY C6 - Open Space
POLICY C7 - Play Areas
POLICY C8 - Access Network
POLICY I4 - Public Transport Provision
POLICY I5 - Cycling
POLICY I7 - Walking
POLICY I11 - Parking Provision in New Development
POLICY I14 - Surface Water
Tweeddale Local Plan 1996
Policy 1- Housing Land Allocation
Policy 5- settlement Boundaries
Policy 10 – Sites for Local Needs Housing
Policy 11 – Securing Local Housing Needs
Policy 14 – Site Development
Policy 16 – Provision of Open Space
Policy 17 – Provision of Children’s Play Areas 6 Policy 52 – Protection of Trees and Woodlands
Policy 53 – Tree Planting
Policy 54 – Trees on Construction sites
Policy 56 – Siting and Design in settlements
Policy 58 – Housing Layout and Design
Policy 62 – Energy Efficiency
Policy 65 – Landscaping of New Developments
Policy 87 – Car Parking
Policy 89 - Cycling
Policy 114 – Rights of Way
Finalised Scottish Borders Local Plan 2005
POLICY G1 – QUALITY STANDARDS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
POLICY BE2 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES and ANCIENT MONUMENTS
POLICY NE3 – LOCAL BIODIVERSITY
POLICY NE4 – TREES, WOODLANDS AND HEDGEROWS
POLICY H1 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING
POLICY H3 – LAND USE ALLOCATIONS
POLICY Inf3 – ROAD ADOPTION STANDARDS
POLICY Inf4 – PARKING STANDARDS
POLICY Inf6 – SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Scottish Planning Policy 3: Planning for Housing. February 2003.
Planning Advice Note 38: Housing Land. February 2003.
Planning Advice Note 61: Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. July 2001.
Planning Advice Note 67: Housing Quality. February 2003.
Planning Advice Note 74: Affordable Housing. March 2005.
Planning Advice Note 76: New Residential Streets. November 2005.
Planning Advice Note 77: Designing Safer Places. March 2006. 7 Planning Advice Note 78: Inclusive Design. March 2006.
Scottish Borders Council: Supplementary Planning Guidance on Developer Contributions. October 2005.
Scottish Borders Council: Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing. June 2005.
Scottish Borders Council: Interim Housing Policy Guidance. June 2005.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
Whether the proposed development is appropriate in terms of the layout of the site, the number of units, the landscape treatment of the site, the house types and the proposed external materials.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Outline planning consent for residential development on this site was issued in December 2006. In terms of current development plan policies, whilst the site is not allocated in the adopted Tweeddale Local Plan 1996, it is now included in the Finalised Scottish Borders Local Plan 2005 as an allocated housing site (TP7B). The principle of housing on this site has clearly been established. The Local Plan Inquiry Reporters’ findings confirmed that the site should remain allocated, and in acknowledging the earlier reserved matters application that had been submitted at the time, included some flexibility in terms of numbers, albeit making no specific recommendation that the allocation should increase.
Developer contributions towards Education, off site road improvements, a phase two study into the provision of a second Tweed bridge, affordable housing and the formation of footpath on the adjacent Right of Way were included in a Section 75 Agreement at the outline planning stage. This application relates to the detailed layout of the site, the number and design of the proposed dwellings and the landscape treatment of the site.
Residential Units
The indicative figures for this allocated site in the Finalised Local Plan indicate a maximum number of 106 dwellings. This application is for 199 units, a considerably higher number of dwellings than this indicative figure suggests. However, this figure was based on average plot sizes which are considerably larger than the norm. It could be argued that the lower figure was unusually low for a flat site like this which can clearly accommodate a much higher number of dwellings. It is also the case that the proposed development makes more efficient use of land, and will thus relieve the pressure for the release of green field sites elsewhere.
In relation to the issue raised by the Civic Society about prematurity of the application in advance of the outcome of the Local Plan Inquiry, this is not now the case as the Reporters’ report has been received and considered by the Council, with the findings on this site concluding that, “the site boundary should not be changed, nor the indicative capacity, unless a detailed planning permission has been issued for a significantly different figure.”
The Interim Housing Policy recognises that there is not a five-year housing supply in the South Tweeddale Housing Market Area. Accordingly, and consistent with other decisions taken by the Committee in line with this policy, it is appropriate to bring forward applications to ensure that the Council’s obligations in relation to the provision of a five year land supply are met.
Members will recall that the previous reserved matters application initially related to 217 units. This application represents a reduction of 18 units and it has been demonstrated that the 199 units can be accommodated on the site without compromising the residential amenity of the occupiers. It represents a density of 26 dwellings per hectare, which is consistent with the average housing density across the Borders generally. 8 Affordable housing
Following discussions with the applicants the number of affordable housing units has been increased to 41. This represents just over 20% and while this does not reach the 25% which is required for current applications it is in excess of the 15% agreed to in the Section 75 Agreement associated with the outline consent. Discussions are ongoing with a housing association in relation to the management of the affordable housing and this will be reported further at the meeting.
Layout of site
The proposed layout of this site has been designed in accordance with PAN 76: New Residential Streets which provides advice on the design of better quality residential streets. It focuses on some key factors such as context, identity and connection. Any new development should take into account the local character of the area, the built form and new streets should be able to link well into the surrounding area. Materials as well as well connected networks for all modes of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and car are also important factors in designing a layout and these have been taken on board by the applicant.
The site incorporates a central area of open space, which will provide a focus for the development, and is to be welcomed.
There are a series of linked streets in stead of cul-de-sacs and provision has been made for pedestrian and cycle links from the existing development and to a possible future expansion of the site to the east. The layout includes a link through to the turning area within the existing Whitehaugh Park development which some residents were concerned may encourage ‘boy racers’ and additional traffic through the area. Generally, this is consistent with current guidance, which seeks to encourage connectivity between housing areas. This link road is located towards the southern end of the site, traffic calming measures are proposed on all the roads in the new development and Taylor Wimpey has confirmed that they will provide additional funding towards traffic calming measures on the existing development site in order to prevent this.
The Council have received a quotation for this work which would total £15,000. Should Members be minded to approve this application, this money should be secured through a minute of further agreement to the original Section 75 Agreement and be payable on receipt of consent. This will allow SBC to install the appropriate traffic calming measures.
The Director of Technical Services also raised a number of issues, particularly in relation to communal and visitor parking. Revised plans have been submitted and the Director is now satisfied with the proposed layout.
Landscaping
Members may recall that one of the grounds of refusal for the previous reserved matters application was that the integrated landscaping could not be satisfactorily accommodated on-site thus constituting overdevelopment. A greater proportion of the screen planting at the eastern boundary is now contained within the site, addressing one of the principal concerns with the previously refused application. The remainder would be provided outside the site, on land under the control of the applicant, with the effect that the planting required to assimilate the development into the wider landscape, particularly from the east, can be achieved.
The revised plans submitted with this application show an enhanced landscaping and open space provision. Generally, while welcoming the changes, there remain some outstanding issues, although these can largely be covered by conditions. The applicant has also agreed to look at revisions to the proposals particularly in relation to the closeness of some of the units to the existing and new planting, particularly on the northern and eastern boundaries. A revised plan has recently be submitted, and a report on the suitability of these will be made at the meeting.
9 House Design
The proposed dwellings are standard Taylor Wimpey house types, but the number of dwellings and the proposed different house types will allow for a large mix of house types and sizes ranging from 2 bed terraced and semi detached homes to 4 bed detached villas. There is a standard pallet of external materials with 4 different types of facing brick, 2 types of stone detail, slate grey and farmhouse red roof tiles and ridge tiles, black and green doors and white windows and woodwork. Fences would be 1.8m high timber vertical pale fencing. The proposed external materials are deemed to be acceptable in this self contained site. The colours and textures are appropriate for this location and would complement the character of the surrounding area.
Flood Risk
Members may recall from the earlier outline planning application that a condition was recommended requiring a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to be submitted with this application. An FRA has been submitted and SEPA’s initial objection to the development has been withdrawn. There are still issues of potential flooding and a condition should be added to any consent to ensure that the proposed mitigating measures are maintained in perpetuity.
Archaeology
An archaeological programme has been undertaken and the Council’s archaeologist is satisfied that the development has no archaeological implications.
Wildlife and Conservation
Scottish Natural Heritage do not object to the proposal but have concerns regarding the protection of the Haystoun burn and Bats. Conditions should be added to any consent to ensure that these issues are adequately addressed.
Water
Members will also note that Scottish Water do not object to the application but will require the applicant to demonstrate that a connection is available to serve this site. No development shall commence until evidence is exhibited to this Planning Authority that an agreement has been reached by the applicant with Scottish Water for the provision of a drainage and/or water scheme to serve this development. This can be added as a condition to the planning consent.
Open Space and Play areas
The detailed layout of the site makes provisions for open space and the provision of play areas as per Policies C6 and C7 of the Structure Plan, 16 and 17 of the Tweeddale Local Plan and Policy G1 of the Finalised Local Plan. The exact level of play equipment has yet to be agreed although the applicant has submitted detailed plans showing the level of provision it is proposed to install. The proposals indicate a significant area of open space near the centre of the site, which will contain an equipped play area. A condition would ensure that the appropriate equipment is installed prior to first occupation.
Conclusion
The proposed layout is acceptable, and it has been demonstrated that the proposed number of dwellings can be accommodated within the site without detriment to the surrounding area and landscape quality. Following negotiation, significant landscaping is now proposed on land to the east of the site both on the boundary of the current site, and along the road boundary further to the east, which will allow some mitigation of the impact of the development to the rural east. The applicant has control over this land the additional landscaping can be installed during the next available planting season.
10 The proposal is of a quality which complies with the terms of Policy G1 of the Finalised Local Plan.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend this application be approved subject to the following conditions and minute of further agreement covering additional developer contributions in lieu of off site traffic calming measures:
1. The external materials to be agreed by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
2. Sample panels of the external wall finish to be prepared on site for prior approval by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area.
3. The details of all hard landscape treatments including paving surfaces, boundary walls and/or fences and railings to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
4. The existing trees on the site to be retained and protected to BS 5837:2005 and to the satisfaction of the planning authority during the construction period. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, the details of a sustainable urban drainage system for the disposal of surface water to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the site is adequately served.
6. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant to submit in writing to the Planning Authority evidence that an agreement has been reached with Scottish Water for the provision of a drainage and/or water scheme to serve the development. Reason: To ensure the site is adequately served.
7. The means of water supply and of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.
8. The approved landscape scheme to be carried out concurrently with the development or during the next available planting season thereto and maintained in perpetuity, thereafter, to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory completion of the development.
9. Prior to the commencement of development details of the layout, surfacing, means of enclosure and equipment within the play area to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The play equipment and play areas must be installed in accordance with the approved details before the first house is occupied. Reason: To enhance the amenity of the area.
10. 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
11 11. Prior to the commencement of development details of the mitigating steps to be taken to protect the river and its banks during building operations shall be submitted and approved by the planning authority. Reason: to ensure that the development minimizes any environmental impact
12. Prior to any felling of trees a survey to check for any bats must be undertaken by a suitably qualified wildlife consultant and if required an appropriate licence must be obtained. Reason: In order to protect any bats or bat roosts on the site
13. Prior to the commencement of development details of the design and materials of the pedestrian links to the existing development at Whitehaugh Park shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To enhance the amenity of the area and in the interests of road safety
14. Prior to the commencement of development details of the steps to be taken to control the rabbits on the site and the measures to be taken to allow for rabbit protection of the planting shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory completion of the development
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 Dorothy Amyes Development Control Officer
12 13 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
10 DECEMBER 2007
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: (b) REFERENCE NUMBER: 06/02193/FUL
OFFICER: Mr B Fotheringham WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Erection of 9 Poultry Houses for Free Range Hens SITE: Blythbank Farm, West Linton APPLICANT: Glenrath Farms Limited AGENT: None
SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site is located at Blyth Bank Farm, West Linton which lies between the villages of Blyth Bridge to the south west and Romannobridge to the north east. The farm occupies a total of 458 ha and was intensively farmed for a dairy herd. The sheds would be located on either side of an established right of way approximately 1km to the north west of the A701 road between Mountain Cross and Blyth Bank. The individual sheds would be located on either side of the valley formed by the Longstruther Burn.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is proposed to erect 9 poultry sheds to house free-range hens on Blyth Bank Farm. The sheds would be of a steel portal framed construction and would measure 160m by 15m by 6m high. They would be finished using green profile sheeting with ventilation/extraction fans on the ridge. Feed silos and manure elevators would be located adjacent to each shed. Each shed would house 25,000 free range hens.
The application was initially submitted for the erection of 10 sheds (not including the existing shed) but shed 6 as shown on the original plans was removed following comments from the Council’s Archaeology Officer. The application is now for the erection of 9 sheds. These sheds would be accessed initially via Hamilton Hall and thereafter via a new access onto the A701.
PLANNING HISTORY
05/00319/FUL – Full planning consent was granted for the erection of a poultry shed for free-range hens on land at Hamilton Hall, West Linton on 08 May 2006. This shed is now erected and operational.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
135 letters of objection have been received. The principal grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: x Adverse impact on the landscape x Increase in the number of flies x Risk to human health x Increase in the levels of dust x Increased risk of avian flu x Noise, smell and light pollution x Potential damage to natural wildlife habitats 14 x Increase in heavy traffic x Adverse impact on the right of way x Damage to the ecology of the area – flora, fauna and wetland bog x Adverse impact on local amenity x Inadequacy of the Environmental Statement x Excessive intensification leading to a high concentration of manure on local fields x Increased risk of pollution in the River Tweed x Proximity of development to badger setts
In addition to the consultation replies submitted by BBAG (see below), the action group commissioned two studies in support of their objections and in response to the additional information submitted as part of the ES. The reports prepared by RSK Group on the EIA Review dated October 2007 and Living Water on Impacts from the Proposed Poultry Farm on groundwater, flooding and surface water dated October 2007 are also material considerations.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The applicant submitted a full Environmental Statement and Non-Technical Summary with the application (received 7 November 2006). Following consultations, additional supporting information was submitted by Glenrath in the form of an Archaeological Environmental Impact Assessment, Survey for Habitats and Species and Additional Environmental Statement Information which includes a response to the first trance of consultations (received 26 July 2007).
The company is one of only two suppliers to Tesco and Asda for eggs in the UK. There is a rapidly growing demand for Scottish free-range eggs and the proposed development would allow the company to meet this demand and provide its customers with a high quality locally produced product. This increased demand has left Glenrath with a shortage of free-range production facilities to meet their customer requirements. A search for suitable locations was undertaken in 2004 and Blyth Bank Farm was purchased from Roslin Institute.
The company produce eggs at three existing sites in the locality of the application site at Whim Farm, Easter Deans Farm and Millennium Poultry Farm. Grading and packing of the eggs is also carried out at Millennium before the eggs are dispatched to supermarkets.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011
Policy H5 – Local Biodiversity Action
Policy N6 – Environmental Impact
Policy N7 – Protection of Nature Conservation Interest
Policy N8 – River Tweed System
Policy N9 – Maintaining Landscape Character
Policy N15 – Regional and Local Archaeological Sites
Policy N16 – Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording
Policy E2 – Farm Diversification
Policy E16 – Rural Economic Development
Policy I13 – Water Quality
15 Policy I14 – Surface Water
Tweeddale Local Plan 1996
Policy 35 – Farm Diversification
Policy 48 – Site of Archaeological Importance
Policy 49 – Archaeological Investigation and Recording
Policy 50 – Archaeological Access and Interpretation
Policy 52 – Protection of Trees/Woodland
Policy 53 – Tree Planting
Policy 57 – Siting and Design in the Countryside
Policy 65 – Landscaping of New Developments
Policy 77 – Development in the Countryside
Policy 79 – Environmental Assessment
Policy 81 – Local Wildlife Sites
Policy 114 – Rights of Way
Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005
Principle 1 – Sustainability
Policy BE2 – Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments
Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity
Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows
Policy NE5 – Development Affecting the Water Environment
Policy EP5 – Air Quality
Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes
Policy Inf5 – Waste Water Treatment Standards
Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage
Policy D1 – Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
PAN 79 – Water and Drainage. September 2006
PAN 61 – Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. July 2001
PAN 58 – Environmental Impact Assessment. September 1999
16 PAN 39 – Farm and Forestry Buildings. 1993
SPP15 – Planning for Rural Development
NPPG 5 – Archaeology and Planning
SBC SPG on Biodiversity
SBC Local Biodiversity Action Plan
SBC Draft SPG on Landscape and Development
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
FIRST CONSULTATION
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads): Through the previous application for the single poultry house (05/00319/FUL) I confirmed that I would be able to accept the first few poultry units being served via the C4 third class road (Bogsbank Road) with road improvements undertaken, but pointed out that in due course the scale of the development would demand direct access to the strategic road network. The C4 has since been upgraded at developer expense.
There are concerns on the adequacy of the A701 junction (left turns on to the A701 being the problem) and the passing places operate reasonable well. The new kerbing at the A701 junction makes it difficult for pedestrians to join the A702 road verge on the Romanno Bridge side and a slight adjustment is required. I am satisfied that the first two poultry units of the overall development can be served temporarily via the Bogsbank Road, but prior to commencement of development of the third unit, the means of access for all 11 (now 10) units should be via a new approved junction onto the A701 and access from all of the units to the Bogsbank Road must be curtailed.
In terms of traffic generation the poultry farm is expected to generate around 16 lorry movements per day on average along with some private cars and mini-bus transport for staff. If the hen manure is disposed of on a regular basis this could generate around 6 tractor/trailer movements per day. There will be times when associated traffic is more intense than others and slow moving tractors/trailers, and lorries to a lesser extent, will frustrate main road drivers. This proposed poultry farm will operate on a similar basis to the farm at Easter Deans.
I am not objecting in principle to the A701 junction location, as shown on Site Layout Drawing 0091-02. It must be designed in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and in particular in accordance with Technical Memo TD41/95. Junction visibility splays of 9m by 215m will be required along with a stopping distance of 215m. Although there is a “hidden dip” in the road in the locus of the proposed junction location, the position of the junction appears to be far enough south west of the hill brow to meet junction visibility requirements. I would observe that a more appropriate location for the junction may be in the order of 120m further south west where junction visibility requirements can be met and the junction would be affected less by overtaking.
In light of the accidents on the length of the A701 between the Bogsbank road junction and Mountain Cross, combined with the anticipated generation of slow moving vehicles and the junction location in relation to the hill brow, I am insisting that Stage 1/2, Stage 3 and Stage 4 Road Safety Audits be carried out as per Technical Memo HD 19/03 in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. A Road Safety Audit identifies potential road safety problems that may affect any users of the road and suggests measures to eliminate or mitigate those problems. Stage 1/2 will audit the design of the junction in respect of precise location, layout, signing and road markings while Stage
17 3 will Audit the completed work from a road users point of view and Stage 4 will monitor how the junction operates in practice including investigation of any associated accidents.
My support for this planning application is conditional on the following:
x To reduce the potential for hen manure being deposited on the public road network, all loads must be covered and trailers must not be over filled. x To reduce the potential for mud being deposited on the public road, wheel washing facilities must be provided on site. x Prior to commencement of construction of the first poultry unit relating to this application (Shed 2 as shown on Site Layout Drawing Number 0091-02), the road kerbing on the north east side of the junction of the C4 (Bogsbank road) with the A701 is to be adjusted to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in order to facilitate pedestrian flow between the C4 and the A701. x Prior to commencement of construction of the second poultry unit relating to this application (Shed 3 as shown on Site Layout Drawing Number 0091 02), means of access for all of the poultry units on the farm is to be via a new junction onto the A701 (precise location to be agreed with the Planning Authority) and access from all of the units via the C4 (Bogsbank road) is to be curtailed by physical means. x Prior to commencement of construction of a new junction onto the A701 to serve the poultry farm, engineering drawings for the work are to be submitted and agreed with the Planning Authority. A Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit as per Technical Memo HD 19/03 in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges is required as part of this process. x A Stage 3 Road Safety Audit (as per Technical Memo HD 19/03) is to be undertaken on completion of the new junction and a Stage 4 Road safety Audit (same technical memo) is to be undertaken as a means of monitoring the operation of the new junction.
Director of Technical Services (Environmental Health): If planning approval is granted for the proposed development, the applicant will be required to apply to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for a Pollution Prevention and Control Permit (PPC). The PPC will cover areas such as noise, dust, and any other general nuisance, and will be enforced by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Under the PPC Regulations, for all aspects of the site operation, the site will have to be compliant with the best available technique in order to minimise any nuisance from the activity at the commencement of the proposed development. To this end items such as an odour and noise management plan will be required to be provided at the PPC application stage. As SEPA is the Regulator for these premises, Environmental Health does not intend to comment on areas which are the responsibility of SEPA for enforcement purposes.
The site has running through it a mains water supply pipe which takes water from the Talla reservoir to Fairmilehead Water Treatment Works in the south of Edinburgh. Although the main primarily collects water from Talla Reservoir, it is also fed by a number of springs along the way and the applicant should be required to provide details of any proposals they have for protecting the integrity of the supply and ensuring that the water is not unduly contaminated by groundwater which has been adversely affected by poultry manure or any other waste material on the land.
Concern has also been raised by residents living in proximity to the proposed development regarding Avian Flu, and in particular the HN51 virus. This has been discussed with the State Veterinary Service who have advised that Avian Flu is, as the name suggests, primarily a disease common to poultry. In order for humans to be affected they have to be in extremely close proximity to chickens, turkeys etc. The State Veterinary Service have appropriate contingency plans in place for dealing with any outbreak of HN51 or any other viral strain which may occur, which in the past have proved to be extremely successful in containing the outbreak. Should the development proceed these plans will be in place and utilised as necessary.
Director of Planning and Economic Development (Landscape Architect): The introduction of 10 large buildings and associated works has the potential to create significant landscape impacts. However, the natural containment provided by landform and the distance from sensitive receptors such as residential properties means that the actual visual impact is relatively small for external 18 viewpoints. Nevertheless there may be visual effects on properties on the north side of Romanno Bridge and around Halmyre Deans where houses are elevated above the road and have a view up the valley towards the proposed development. This area is identified in Figure 2: ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ in the applicant’s Environmental Statement, prepared by SAC. Unfortunately, no viewpoint analysis has been taken from this direction and so it is unclear how much visual impact actually occurs from these houses. It would be very helpful for this additional information to be provided.
It would also be informative to see a further version of Figure 2 without the allowance for Woodland cover i.e. bare land. This would provide a ‘worse case’ scenario. Shelterbelts, particularly un- thinned conifers, usually have a finite lifespan and these areas will have to be felled and replanted from time to time (as is already evident on site).
The overall relationship of the development to the surrounding areas is also unclear. I would like to see a site plan at a 1:5000 scale with contours, showing the proposed sheds plus roads and all associated earthworks plus existing and proposed planting and any SUDS measures. Having carried out a desk exercise to superimpose the development on a contour plan, my initial impression is that the proposed screen planting is too fragmented and does not related adequately to the landform and existing tree cover.
In addition to the effects on external receptors, there will also be larger visual and landscape impacts within the valley. The principal receptors here will be people using the existing tracks and walking over the hills. This will undoubtedly affect local landscape character but this should not be unacceptable given the existing condition and level of use of the site. Additional planting will help to minimise adverse impacts on footpaths.
I recommend that further information outlined above is provided to enable a more fully informed decision on the landscape implications of the proposal.
This is a large and potentially intrusive proposal but the site area is well contained by landform and the anticipated impacts on external receptors should be within acceptable tolerances. However, there are elements of the application information and Environmental Statement which leave certain aspects in doubt and further information is requested before the landscape impacts of the proposal can be fully determined.
Director of Planning and Economic Development (Rights of Way Officer): According to the records held in the Planning & Economic Development Section there is two recorded Rights of Way on and adjacent to this area of land, as shown on the plan attached.
Rights of Way Code Start (Approx. Grid Ref) Finish (Approx. Grid Ref) Length BT36 NT 139 472 NT 148 468 1 BT35 NT 132 460 NT 147 487 2.5
Rights of Way are protected by law under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 sec. 46 ‘It shall be the duty of a planning authority to assert, protect, and keep open and free from obstruction or encroachment any public right of way which is wholly or partly within their area.’
As you will note from the record card attached, it is ambiguous whether there is evidence of use to uphold BT36 however SBC would uphold access rights along Right of Way BT35. This R of W also forms part of a route promoted in the North Tweeddale Path Network as part of the South of Scotland Countryside Trails.
Under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 the public have a ‘right of responsible access’ to most areas of land and inland water in Scotland. This right extends to tracks, paths and areas of open ground. Scottish Borders Council now has a statutory duty to uphold these access rights. Of course, there are certain areas which are excluded from public access rights.
19 Director of Planning and Economic Development (Archaeology): At this time I am unable to provide comment on the potential impacts of this development with regard to the archaeology. The applicant’s Environmental Statement is deficient in this regard. A rapid examination of the National Monument Record of Scotland (available free, online) indicates that there is an archaeology site within the application area. Scottish Borders Council’s SMR also notes various old trackways and industrial features (most notably quarries). I am not aware of any structured field survey of this area and other as-of-yet unidentified archaeological features may survive.
This application involves the construction of a number of structures and access tracks, involving ground breaking. Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate for this authority to request further information. An appropriate archaeological assessment (Desk Based Assessment and Field Survey) should be carried out by an archaeological contractor acceptable to this authority prior to determination. This will allow an appropriate measured response to be reached. This approach is in keeping with National Planning Policy Guidelines (NPPG 5: Archaeology and Planning) and Structure Plan Policy N16.
Without the benefit of an appropriate archaeological assessment I would recommend that this application is refused. However, if the Planning Authority were minded to grant consent for this application prior to the receipt of a revised ES incorporating an appropriate archaeological assessment, then I would recommend, in accordance with Structure Plan Policies N15-16 and NPPG5, that the following condition be added to any permission that may be granted:
CARC 4: No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the Archaeology Officer and approved by the Planning Authority.
Director of Planning and Economic Development (Ecology): With regard to ecological issues the applicant’s Environmental Statement is deficient in a number of respects.
The Environmental Impact Assessment does not recognise that the Lyne water is designated as part of the River Tweed SAC. There could be potential significant impacts on the Lyne water in which case an Appropriate Assessment may be required under The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994. The submitted ES does not provide sufficient information and without revision of the submitted ES, an Appropriate Assessment is required.
The ES does not identify the regionally important Local Wildlife Sites at Longstruther burn (Wet woodland (alder, birch, willow carr) and Fen, Marsh & Swamp and Blyth Muir Moss and Blyth dean (modified lowland raised bog). The ES does in general terms identify potential impacts from run-off and ammonia inputs on flora. More details on the scale of impacts on Local Wildlife Sites and Species of Conservation Concern and any proposed mitigation, are required.
Applying the precautionary principle, sheds 6 and 3 should be relocated. Shed 6 is immediately adjacent to the Blyth Muir Moss Local Wildlife Site increasing the risk of impacts on the Local Wildlife Site for example, disturbance, run-off, ammonia deposition and hydrological impacts and reducing the possibility for adequate mitigation. Shed 3 lies approximately 50m from the Longstruther burn Local Wildlife Site which may pose an increased risk of impacts from ammonia deposition.
The ES does not include any evidence of systematic surveys for habitats and species and assessment of impacts, as required. This should include a Phase 1 habitat survey, surveys for otter, water vole, badger, breeding birds and amphibia. This should include an assessment of impacts on habitats and species within the site and catchment of the site, during and post- construction and detail of mitigation required to reduce any impacts to a non-significant level.
Impacts on the Borders Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern, as adopted in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for biodiversity, should be assessed. The ES should also
20 include a report of any biological records for Borders Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern.
Without the benefit of an appropriate ecological assessment I would recommend that this application is refused. It should be noted that without submission of further information an Appropriate Assessment is required. However, if the Planning Authority were minded to grant consent for this application prior to the receipt of a revised ES incorporating the necessary ecological assessment, then I would recommend, in accordance with Structure Plan Policies N5 and N6 and NPPG14, that the following condition be added to any permission that may be granted:
x No development shall take place until the applicant has secured a programme of ecological assessment which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the Ecology Officer and approved by the Planning Authority. Any works shall, thereafter, be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
Statutory Consultees
Lamancha and Newlands Community Council: The application is for a huge undertaking which will result in a permanent change in the ecology of the immediate area. Glenrath Farms, in the EIA, acknowledges that the development is irreversible; this will adversely affect the beautiful landscape, and through the pollution and contamination resulting, a wide variety of wildlife species. The site is at the centre of a significant number of residential settlements providing residents and visitors with an outstanding amenity and there is no denying that the visual impact will be massive. The infrastructure that the development requires in the way of roads, silos, pipes, lights etc is considerable and will mean that for users of the right of way the changes will be totally intrusive.
We are concerned about the proximity of the site to Newlands Primary School in the context of the increased car flows, pollution, contamination and increase in the number of flies and vermin.
Another issue for concern which has not been addressed is that of housing or accommodation for the workers and their families. Glenrath Farms suggest that the project would create employment for 60 people. This is significant because it raises a number of points. Very few will be from the local community and this is every chance that a large proportion will be single people from abroad requiring accommodation. There is no provision in the local plan for this type of accommodation.
The fourth major concern we have relates to the increased traffic load on this section of the A701. The main access points to the site are via the junction at Bogsbank Road and from a new junction to be constructed west of Mountain Cross. This junction would be formed at a point in the road where a number of fatal accidents have occurred.
Considering all the points above it is obvious that the entire character of the area will be detrimentally affected and we find it hard to establish what possible benefit our community is going to derive from the proposed development. We therefore must ask you not to approve this application.
SEPA: SEPA objects on the basis of lack of information relating to adequacy of foul water treatment, water abstractions and possible impacts on private water supplies, baseline river quality and soil quality, ammonia emission assessment and any possible impacts of manure while hens are free ranging outside. SEPA has insufficient information required to assess the environmental impacts of these aspects of the proposal.
This stance is required to ensure that the development proposal is environmentally sustainable in line with SPP1, PAN 51 and PAN 79.
SEPA will reconsider this objection following the submission of further information and SEPA would be willing to meet interested parties to discuss the above mentioned issues to enable the required information to be assessed and resolved quickly. 21 Scottish Water: SW does have concerns regarding this development as we have a strategic raw water aqueduct which runs through the proposed development site. While Scottish Water will not object to this development we would like to take this opportunity to highlight the significance of this vulnerable aqueduct and the potential impact the development could have on it. We would also request that a number of conditions are placed on the developer in order to protect this asset.
Due to the age and strategic importance of the aqueduct it is a vulnerable asset and must be protected from damage and contamination. SW would need the aqueduct to be adequately protected from general traffic and construction traffic and construction traffic should only cross at specified and protect points. The developer should provide details of their proposals for protecting the aqueduct to SW for approval – these plans should ensure that there is no additional loading on the aqueduct.
SW is concerned that there may be a risk of contamination of the ground water as a result of either feed, manure or wash down detergents which may enter the aqueduct through the springs.
SW is also concerned that there may be a risk particularly during the construction period of an accidental oil or diesel spill which could contaminate the water supply. SW will require the developer to submit a detailed risk assessment highlighting the potential risk of contamination and the emergency procedures in relation to any potential spills.
Scottish Natural Heritage: SNH objects to this proposal on the following grounds: x The development could have potentially serious adverse impacts on the qualifying interests of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation. Appropriate conditions should be attached to any permission that relate to the construction activities of wetlands associated with each poultry unit. x The development could have potentially serious adverse impacts on the qualifying interests of the Dolphinton – West Linton Fens and Grassland Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). An assessment of the impact of the development on this SSSI is required. x The ES accompanying the application is inadequate.
We strongly recommend that the following issues are addressed prior to the application being determined: x A comprehensive badger survey is carried out x A detailed plan of public access across the site x A comprehensive landscape and management plan x An assessment of the impact of the development on the two wildlife site on site x Details of any lighting
Historic Scotland: Our principal concern is the absence of detailed consideration for cultural heritage features beyond the site boundary. We would suggest a more detailed assessment of impacts upon the numerous scheduled ancient monuments and listed buildings in the vicinity of the development should have been undertaken.
The ES does not provide enough information in the form of a wireline and photomontage representations on the likely impacts of the development on the setting of scheduled monuments and listed buildings.
Due to the short comings of the ES we are unable to reach any conclusions on the likely implications of this proposal. An assessment of the likely indirect visual impacts of the development is required and a discussion of how the developer intends to mitigate any impacts that there might be.
22 The Scottish Executive Development Department: While the developers have indicated a number of risks that the development might pose to the water environment during and after construction, it is not clear whether preventative and mitigation measures will be put in place to prevent or reduce the risks identified. The site is within the catchment area of the River Tweed which is a salmonoid water and chemical standards must be met for the quality of the water.
Method statements should be produced for all aspects of site work that might impact upon the environment, containing further preventative action and mitigation to limit impacts. It is recommended that SEPA is provided with the opportunity to view these method statements.
The ES should provide information relating to the preferred route options for the movement of heavy loads, and staff movements via trunk road network together with appropriate mitigation measures. Potential trunk road related environmental impacts such as noise, air quality, safety, severance etc should be assessed.
Other Consultees
Health and Safety Executive: HSE does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission.
The Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society: There are two rights of way (BT35 and BT36) which are affected. They need to be kept free from damage by any vehicles to ensure that any use by riders, cyclists and walkers is not disrupted.
Rural Scotland: No comment.
Visit Scotland: No comment.
Blyth Bank Action Group: BBAG objects to this application on the following grounds:
1. Contrary to SBC Planning Policies – The development is contrary to a whole series of SBC’s planning policies. Critically, it is not covered in the Structure Plan or the Draft Local Plan.
2. Adverse impacts on the Tweed SAC, the Longstruther Burn and the Blyth Burn wetlands – It is hard to visualise anything less conducive to the survival of protected features than the presence of 250,000 hens in the Longstruther Valley. Common sense tells us this is stoking up massive problems fro the valley, the wetlands and burns. Mitigating measures may be tried but are almost certain to fail as the load of nutrients builds up. This could have devastating effect on the headwaters of the Tweed.
3. Unacceptable impact on protected wildlife, flora, fauna and invertebrates – A very active and widespread badger population lives in the valley. Otters frequent the burn the surrounding area. There is an abundance of bats. No inventory or baseline studies of the wildlife in the Longstruther Valley have been carried out. Emissions from the units, although claimed to be minimal, over time could well have an adverse impact on invertebrates.
4. Catastrophic effect on the landscape – What is proposed would irreparably damage the whole appearance and attractiveness of the area. In its ES Glenrath implies this is a hidden valley and the impact of the development would not really be noticed. From an outstanding open scenically attractive area it would change to look like the site of a massive wartime munitions factory. This simply cannot be allowed to happen and no amount of inadequate and superficial screening will ameliorate the eyesores.
5. Totally ruin a much used and enjoyed local amenity – The two historic Rights of Way which cross the valley are much used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and dog walkers. The destruction of the valley and the Rights of ay to accommodate this development would destroy its amenity value. The close up smells from the units alone will sicken the most resolute of
23 walkers. This cannot be allowed to happen, particularly at a time when SBC policy is to encourage access to the countryside and to attract more tourists.
6. Hazard to human health – Local people are deeply concerned about the cumulative impact of odour, emissions and of course the proliferation of flies and vermin which are features of this type of industry. There is also the risk of avian flu. North Tweeddale is very vulnerable to avian flu because of the migratory geese and other wildfowl.
7. Traffic – An estimated 20,000 vehicle journeys per year will be required to run this vast development. Much of the traffic will go through, Mountain Cross, Blyth Bridge and Romanno Bridge but a proportion will be funnelled through West Linton adding to the already troublesome congestion. Bogsbank Road is too steep and too narrow for the heavy vehicles and the A701 is a very dangerous road.
8. Destruction of Local History – The excavation and soil movement inevitably destroys historical or archaeological evidence on a very large scale. No provisions have been made by the developer to examine the sites before they are destroyed.
9. Inadequacy of the ES. Any consideration of the application should be set aside until detailed studies have been carried out into the following:
o A detailed hydrological survey for the whole valley o Comprehensive ecological study o Wildlife survey o Riverine species investigation and analysis o Detailed information on the levels of quarrying o Quantification of the level of water abstraction o A full local impact assessment of traffic movements o Detailed information on where Glenrath hopes to recruit the workforce and where they are likely to be accommodated o Clarification on the regulatory requirement to change stocking levels o What is their policy on decommissioning o Full details of electricity supply.
SECOND CONSULTATION
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads): I refer you to my observations made in my reply memo of 21 March 2007.
Director of Planning and Economic Development (Landscape Architect): Most of the additional information concerns archaeology and ecology. However there is a response to my landscape consultation at 4.5 of the 'Additional Information' document dated July 2007 prepared by MJ Sharp. Unfortunately the response is inadequate as follows:
1. It is stated that a fourth viewpoint has been assessed and the results appended to the report. This does not appear to be the case.
2. It is also stated that a 'bare land' ZTV has been prepared. This was not appended
3. The requested overall site layout plan with contours has not been provided but a statement has been made to the effect that this will be covered in more detail following consent. I think this is unacceptable. The purpose of asking for this integrated information is to see the overall effects of the proposal on the landscape and to gauge the extent to which mitigation by planting can be effective. This affects the determination of the application and cannot be left till later. In particular, the site layout and screen planting proposals need to 24 demonstrate that they are responding to the landscape assessment and impacts on receptors identified at 1 and 2 above in the overall assessment. (I understand that some detail may be adjusted at a later date but the basic landform and viewpoints will remain the same and the time for planning to influence the site layout is before consent is granted. What is requested can be provided as 'outline proposals' with a proviso that some details may change at a later stage but the outline is needed now.)
Director of Planning and Economic Development (Rights of Way Officer): According to the records held in the Planning & Economic Development Section there are two claimed rights of way which cross this area of land. Details as follows:
Rights of Way Code Start (Approx. Grid Ref) Finish (Approx. Grid Ref) Length BT36 NT 139 472 NT 148 468 1.2km BT35 NT 132 460 NT 147 487 2.5km Rights of Way are protected by law under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 sec. 46 ‘It shall be the duty of a planning authority to assert, protect, and keep open and free from obstruction or encroachment any public right of way which is wholly or partly within their area.’
Route information on these rights of way is included in the environmental statement in the section entitled ‘Additional Information and Response to Consultations.’ The rights of way should remain free from obstruction both during and after completion of the sheds.
BT35 was enhanced as part of the European funded Tweed Trails project which included the installation of specialised gates. Any change to the routes infrastructure should only be done with the approval of the planning authority. This route is also highlighted as candidate core path 167 in the Draft Core Path Plan. Under sections 17-20 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 it is a statutory duty of all local authorities to draw up a Core Path Plan.
Director of Planning and Economic Development (Archaeology): Thank you for re-consulting me over these proposals. The Archaeological Environmental Impact Assessment submitted with the re-consultation deals successfully with the points raised in my earlier response to this planning application (22/12/06).
I have the following comments regarding this application based on the Archaeological EIA and a site visit (25/04/07) in conjunction with Scottish Borders Council’s Ecology Officer. The EIA recognises a number of archaeological features within and outwith the development area and notes that there is likely to be a direct impact on only five sites. Of these five sites, only two survive as extant monuments. One of these, Site 70 survives as a modern farm track and has been altered in the past. Site 1, however, survives as a small section of hollow way only, most notably near Shed 6.
The impact upon Site 1 which only survives at the site of Shed 6 is High, however, as this site is correctly noted as being only of Local Importance the magnitude of the impact can only be said to be Moderate. I would recommend that Shed 6 is relocated so that there is no direct impact on this site. I would concur with the EIA that a targeted archaeological evaluation will be necessary prior to commencement of groundbreaking works. If significant archaeological features are encountered further excavations may be required. If this development is approved, this procedure should form part of a Written Scheme of Investigation to be submitted by the applicant and carried out by an archaeological contractor employed by the applicant and acceptable to the Planning Authority.
The Archaeological EIA also notes potential visual impacts on the setting of 21 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and 32 Listed Buildings. These have been judged within the EIA to be of low or no significance. I am content to follow the judgement of Historic Scotland in this matter as the statutory body with regulatory powers of these legally designated sites.
I would recommend that in accordance with Structure Plan Policies N15 and N16 and NPPG 5 the following condition were added to any permission that may be granted:
25 CARC 4: No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the Archaeology Officer and approved by the Planning Authority.
Director of Planning and Economic Development (Ecology): Further to my response of 8th January 2007, additional information has been provided to inform an Appropriate Assessment.
An Appropriate Assessment of the effect on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC has been carried out. Provided the requirements identified in the Appropriate Assessment are met through detailed planning conditions, there will be no significant impact on the qualifying interest and integrity of the River Tweed SAC.
Habitats and Species
The additional habitat and species surveys (Phase 1 habitat survey, surveys for otter, badger, water vole, breeding birds and amphibian) have been carried out to the required standard. I have the following points to make.
I accept that the impacts on habitats and species are not at significant levels that would give grounds for refusal. Nevertheless, a major development of this nature in a rural setting should include enhancements that may offset any impacts on biodiversity both temporary and permanent that result from the development, which though individually may be non-significant, cumulatively give grounds for a reasonable level of mitigation and compensation.
I accept that the Local Wildlife Site at Blyth Muir Moss will not be significantly affected by ammonia discharges, given the location of shed 6 in relation to the Blyth Muir Moss and predicted ammonia deposition. Shed 3 is adjacent to a less sensitive part of the Longstruther burn Local Wildlife Site, however, it would be preferable for it to be micro-sited to avoid depositions on the wildlife site and potentially give more opportunity for a constructed wetland to be sited. If SEPA’s conditions are met there should be no significant impacts on the water bodies within the site. Any hydrological impacts from shed 6 on Blyth Muir Moss can be offset by improvements to the raised bog by managing the drainage off and around the bog.
As indicated in the additional information, there is badger activity over the site and as recommended in the report, a checking survey will be required prior to construction. Conditions should also apply for badgers for the construction phase.
Habitat enhancement opportunities include improving the hedgerow habitat network, planting areas of native woodland, creation of grass margins and rough grassland areas and the enhancement of the lowland raised bog at Blyth Muir Moss, through management of drainage. These measures should also be included within the Landscape Planting and Management Plan for the site.
The constructed wetlands are the preferred option for managing diffuse pollution at this site. Swales should only provide an alternative were evidence is presented by the developer that demonstrates that constructed wetlands will not be adequate.
The breeding waders (lapwing, oystercatcher and curlew) will be vulnerable to disturbance particularly during the construction phase of the development and it is important that they are retained on site as far as is possible. Given that the construction of sheds is proposed over a number of years, the enhancement and further establishment of rough/ marshy grassland (target notes 1, 3 and 18) and rotation of arable areas (as appropriate) at the west and east side of the development should be included to provide a suitable areas for waders during the phases of construction.
26 Recommendation
To protect the interest of River Tweed SAC Abstraction x The applicant submits in writing to SEPA that there is adequate water supply at the site for the purpose it is to serve. x Abstractions greater than 10m3 per day from any individual borehole will require CAR authorisation Surface water x A site survey to be undertaken no more than 6 months prior to construction to assess most suitable option (wetland (preferred SEPA 31/01/07), swale, and to finalise position of option x No wheel washing facility will be operational. x Surface water from roads will drain into surrounding land and there will be no direct run-off into watercourses. Foul drainage x Percolation test for each soakaway for foul drainage to be submitted to SEPA at least 2 months before construction of each shed and appropriate authorisation sought. Foul water x The tank sizes (7,500 l) for wash down water at the end of each production cycle are adequate. x Disposal of water to land needs to comply with the requirements of the PEPFAA code Chemical and Oil Storage x All fuel tanks and chemicals will be stored in a bunded area. x Ensure compliance with Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 General conditions x Construction works to meet requirements of SEPA PPG1, 5 and 6
To protect Habitats and Species x Checking surveys for badgers are to be carried out prior to construction of each shed and associated tracks. x Measures are to be taken during construction to protect badgers, ensuring that open trenches are covered each night or a ramp provided for escape, open pipe systems are capped, any security lighting should be away from setts, chemicals are safely stored (adopting SEPA guidelines) and water sources for badgers are safeguarded. x Micro-site shed 3 to avoid ammonia deposition on Longstruther burn Local Wildlife Site. x The area around the Longstruther burn should be protected by a 5m buffer, fenced off to prevent access by the free range chickens, to prevent any damage to the wetland habitat by foraging and dunging. x Habitat enhancements to be included in a Landscape Planting and Management Plan for the site to include reinforcing the hedgerow habitat network with extended hedges including grass margins, native woodland creation, and blocking drains off the Blyth Muir Moss to improve the lowland raised bog as appropriate to the current condition of the bog. x Measures to improve the wet and rough grasslands (Phase 1 survey target note 1, 3 and 18) and rotation of arable areas, at the west and east end of the site for the benefit of breeding waders.
Statutory Consultees
Lamancha and Newlands Community Council: LNKCC continue to object to this application. We are particularly concerned that the EA has not addressed the following concerns: x The additional traffic load on the A701 x The potential air borne pollution issues for the school x Accommodation for workers x Landscape, visual impact, ecology and pollution
27 Until all the concerns raised have been addressed the satisfaction of the various bodies involved, the application should be refused.
SEPA: SEPA now wishes to remove the objections for this application provided that the following conditions are met: x Surface water treatment by wetland or swale – A site survey is undertaken no more that 6 months before construction of each shed to assess the most suitable option. x Foul Drainage – Percolation tests of each soakaway should be submitted to SEPA at least 2 months before construction of each shed. x Groundwater abstraction – It is necessary that the applicant confirms in writing to SEPA that there is adequate water supply at the site for the purpose it is to serve. x Baseline quality of Soil – Soil samples will be taken either in the autumn or spring before the construction of each shed and the results submitted to SEPA.
SEPA also has the following comments: x Ammonia emissions – details of how the concentrated manure dropped by free range hens will be controlled. x Surface Water – Baseline water quality has been provided for 3 sample points indicating that the water quality is A1 or excellent. x Foul Water – Tank sizes are adequate. x Groundwater abstraction – If abstraction from a borehole exceeds 10m3 per day then a CAR authorisation would be required. x Chemical and Oil Storage – Fuel and oil tanks will be bunded. x Air Quality – SEPA recommends that the operator should introduce measures that will minimise the amount of dust that is carried off site.
Scottish Water: SW has no objections to this planning application. The conditions included in our response of 25 January 2007 still apply.
Scottish Natural Heritage: SNH’s advice is that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the River Tweed SAC. However, provided the development is undertaken strictly in accordance with SEPA’s requirements, then it is our view that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.
Our objection to the development on this issue is therefore withdrawn.
The additional information addresses our concerns regarding any potential impact on the SSSI and our objection to this is removed.
The developer has provided sufficient information for our objections to be removed.
Historic Scotland: The additional information provided addresses the points raised in our initial consultation response. Due to the low significance of impacts on the setting of the various scheduled ancient monuments and listed buildings we raise no objections.
The Scottish Executive Development Department: No comments to offer. The percentage increase in vehicle movements is likely to cause minimal environmental impact on the trunk road network. 28 Other Consultees
Blyth Bank Action Group: BBAG has not changed its position in regard to this application and objects strongly to the proposal.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES
The key planning issues are:
1. Whether the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the landscape 2. Whether the proposed development would have an adverse impact on local ecology 3. Whether the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential properties 4. Whether the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the River Tweed SAC 5. Whether the proposed development would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic 6. Whether there would be an adverse impact on local archaeological sites
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION
Background
The applicants have submitted in support of their application an Environmental Impact Statement prepared on their behalf by Scottish Agricultural College. This was supplemented by further supporting information, also prepared by SAC following the initial tranche of consultations. The documents outline the background of the company, the rationale for the project, the methodology they have adopted in assessing the environmental impacts and what measures or mitigation they intend to carry out in order to avoid demonstrable harm to the locality.
Principle
Policy E16 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 is particularly relevant in this case as business and industrial development will be encouraged which will support the rural economy provided it can be achieved in accordance with the Plan’s other policies, particularly those on the environment. Proposals that provide employment in villages or the countryside, contribute to the wider rural economy, are part of farm diversification schemes, or re-use vacant and derelict buildings will generally be supported. The proposed development would clearly provide employment in the locality and would contribute to the wider rural economy, therefore consideration must be given to this large scale proposal.
Landscape
The proposal consists of the erection of 9 large poultry sheds (not including the existing shed approved under application reference number 05/00319/FUL) approximately 160m long x 17m wide with associated feed silos and hard standings connected by a network of gravelled access tracks. The proposed sheds and road infrastructure will require cut and fill earthworks which are a further impact on the landscape form. The introduction of 9 large buildings and associated works has the potential to create significant landscape impacts. However, the natural containment provided by landform and the distance from sensitive receptors such as residential properties means that the actual visual impact is relatively small for external viewpoints.
In addition to the effects on external receptors, there will also be larger visual and landscape impacts within the valley. The principal receptors here will be people using the existing tracks and walking over the hills. This will undoubtedly affect local landscape character but this should not be unacceptable given the existing condition and level of use of the site. Additional planting will help to minimise adverse impacts on footpaths.
29 Following the two consultation periods amended landscape plans were submitted by SAC for the Department’s consideration. These were inadequate and returned to SAC for further amendments. The revised drawings incorporating the suggested changes have not yet been submitted but it is hoped that these will be received in time for the meeting. It is important to have the basic outline landscape proposals agreed before consent is granted. Minor changes can be agreed at a later date through condition.
The existing landform of the Longstruther Valley provides a unique opportunity for this type of development as the site will not readily be visible from the main public transport routes of the A701, Bogsbank road and A702. The sheds would be located below the ridge of the existing valley sides and along with appropriate levels of landscaping, would not have a significant adverse impact on the landscape quality of the area.
Ecology
Members will note from the papers and additional information that ecology issues raised considerable concern. Third party objectors, SEPA, BBAG and SNH raised objections to this application on the grounds that it would have a significant adverse impact on the River Tweed SAC, Dolphinton – West Linton SSSI and local wildlife sites. Following the submission of additional supporting information by SAC, SNH formally withdrew their objections in relation to the River Tweed SAC, relying on appropriately worded conditions to address their concerns. Provided the works are carried out strictly in accordance with SEPA’s requirements, then it is the view of SNH that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. Furthermore, the additional information relating to the SSSI addresses SNH’s concerns and they have formally withdrawn their objections.
The Department was initially concerned about the proposals and lack of sufficient ecological assessment, but is now satisfied that the additional information submitted by SAC informs an appropriate assessment. The impacts on habitats and species are not at significant levels to warrant refusal of the application. Provided the conditions put forward by SEPA, and additional conditions recommended by the Council’s Ecology Officer are met, there should be no significant impact on the water bodies within the site including the raised bog.
Archaeology
The initial assessment submitted with the application was deficient with regards to the developments impact on archaeological remains. There clearly is an archaeological site within the application area and the proposed sheds would have an adverse impact on their integrity. An archaeological assessment was requested and this was submitted by the AOC Archaeology Group on behalf of Glenrath Farms. This report deals with the Departments earlier concerns other than the potential adverse impact that the proposed Shed No 6 would have upon Site 1 (Blyth Muir). As this site is of local importance the impact of the development on this area would be moderate and it is suggested that shed 6 be relocated so that there is no direct impact on the site.
Following receipt of this advice, Glenrath Farms formally removed Shed 6 from the overall proposals. Shed 6 no longer forms part of the proposals.
The archaeological EIA also notes potential visual impacts on the setting of scheduled monuments and listed buildings. The Department is content to follow the judgement of Historic Scotland in this matter as the statutory body. Should planning consent be granted it is suggested that a condition requiring a written scheme of investigation is submitted by the applicant and carried out by an archaeological contractor prior to commencement of development.
Scheduled Ancient Monuments & Listed Buildings
The proposed development could potentially have a visual impact on the setting of 21 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and 32 Listed Buildings. The EIA submitted by AOC judges these to have low or no significance. Members will note that Historic Scotland considered the EIA to be inadequate 30 as it did not provide enough information in the form of wireline and photomontage representations on the likely impacts of the development on the setting of scheduled monuments and listed buildings in the surrounding area. On the basis of the information provided HS were unable to determine whether or not this proposal will have any adverse impact.
The information in the AOC report addresses the points raised in HS’s initial response. Due to the low significance on the setting of the various scheduled ancient monuments and category A listed buildings in the surrounding area HS raise no objections. The Department are therefore satisfied that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of scheduled ancient monuments or listed buildings in the area.
Rights of Way
Members will note that there are two claimed rights of way which may be affected by this proposed development. Rights of Way are protected by law under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. Sec 46 states that ‘It shall be the duty of a planning authority to assert, protect, and keep open and free from obstruction or encroachment any public right of way which is wholly or partly within their area.’ The rights of way should remain free from obstruction both during and after completion of the sheds.
Members will note that BBAG object on the grounds that the proposed sheds would have an adverse impact on the users of these footpaths. It is accepted that there may be an impact on the amenity of the area for the users of these paths but it is felt that this would not be significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. The Planning Authority has a duty to ensure that the rights of way are maintained and kept free from obstruction during and after construction of the shed. It would be appropriate to condition any grant of planning consent to ensure that the rights of way are protected, kept open and free from obstruction or encroachment.
Traffic
The application proposes to utilise an existing access from Bogsbank Road in the initial phases of development and form a new vehicular access to the site from the A701, north of Mountain Cross. The sheds would be connected by a series of new or upgraded access tracks. There will obviously be an increase in traffic movements as a result of the proposed development, primarily heavy good vehicles and tractors, but also mini buses and domestic vehicles.
The Director of Technical Services ahs confirmed that the existing road network (Bogsbank Road and A701) can absorb limited additional traffic without substantial improvements being undertaken. Three passing places on the C4 road and junction improvements at Romanno Bridge have already taken place following the grant of consent to erect the first shed at Hamilton Hall. There are concerns however with the suitability of the existing junction on the A701 to cope with the additional flow of traffic. The Director recommends that this route be used temporarily for the existing shed and the proposed second shed (shed 2 on drawing number 0091-02 Rev A). Prior to commencement of the third shed the means of access for all 10 sheds must be via a new approved junction onto the A701 and all access to the first 2 sheds from Bogsbank Road must be curtailed.
Members will note that there is significant opposition to the application and in particular the suggested increase in traffic. However, the advice from the Director of Technical Services and the Trunk Road Directorate (Scottish Government) is that the percentage increase in traffic is such that the proposal is likely to cause minimal environmental impact in the trunk road network.
The Director of Technical Services has given his support to this development subject to the conditions listed in his consultation response above.
31 SEPA/Drainage
Members will note that SEPA originally objected to the application on the grounds of lack of information relating to adequacy of foul water treatment, water abstractions and possible impacts on private water supplies, river and soil quality, ammonia emissions and impacts of manure when the hens are outside. BBAG also objected strongly to application on similar grounds and requested that the applicant supplement the EIA with additional supporting information. The report by RSK commissioned by BBAG also suggests that the EIA has not fully assessed the environmental impacts of the development and recommends that further information is required.
It is critical that the development is environmentally sustainable in line with SPP1, PAN 51 and PAN79 in order to protect and enhance the quality of the surrounding environment. SEPA were sufficiently satisfied by the additionally submitted information to reconsider their position. The additional supporting information submitted in July 2007 by SAC on behalf of Glenrath Farms was part of the re-consultation process. SEPA, being the regulatory authority, has now withdrawn their objections to this development and recommends that the application can be approved subject to a number of conditions covering treatment of groundwater by wetland or swale, foul drainage, groundwater abstraction and baseline quality of soil. Through the imposition of these conditions on any grant of planning consent, it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on the adjacent wetlands and water courses.
Impact on Amenity of Residential Properties
Members will note from the third party letters of objection and the consultation response from BBAG that the impact the proposed development will have on the amenity of local residential properties will be significant. There is also the suggestion that the development would have a significant adverse impact on human health, including children attending Newlands Primary School.
Due to the nature and size of the development, the applicant is required to apply to SEPA for a Pollution Prevention and Control Permit (PPC) to cover areas such as noise, dust, smells and any other form of nuisance, and will be enforced by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Under the PPC regulations the site must comply with best practice in order to minimise any nuisance from the activity at eth commencement of development. SEPA is the regulatory body for this type of development and they are responsible for the enforcement of the PPC regulations. It would therefore be inappropriate for the planning authority to suggest that there would be a significant adverse impact on the amenity of residential properties of public health. The proposed sheds, excluding the existing shed, would be a minimum of 500m from the nearest residential property. There are accordingly no planning reasons for objection on these grounds, as controls of the suggested nuisances exist outside the planning arena.
Private Water Supplies
Scottish Water (SW) has confirmed that there are known public sewers in the vicinity of the site and that the existing water treatment works has sufficient capacity to serve this development. There are no known issues within SW’s water network that serves this proposed development, other than the existing aqueduct that runs through Blyth Bank Farm. It is suggested by a number of third party objectors and BBAG (see Talla Brochure) that there would be significant adverse impact on the Talla aqueduct. Members will note from SW’s response that they have no objections in principle to this development provided the integrity of the Talla Aqueduct is not compromised. Detailed proposals for protecting the aqueduct should be submitted to SW for approval. These plans should ensure that there is no additional loading on the aqueduct. SW are concerned that there may be risk of contamination of the ground water which may enter the aqueduct through springs. They are also concerned that there may be a risk of accidental oil or diesel spillage which could contaminate the water. A risk assessment should be submitted.
32 It is suggested that there is a private water supply which may be affected by this development, however, Glenrath Farms has confirmed that Mr & Mrs Pratt do not have a legal right to access water from the Blyth Bank Estate.
Badgers
Members will note from the supporting information and the comments submitted by SNH, BBAG and Scottish Badgers that the EIA is deficient in terms of survey for habitats and species, particularly badgers. Scottish Badgers independently surveyed the development site and identified a number of discrepancies with the badger survey carried by SAC as part of the EIA. The additional information indicates that there is a higher level of badger activity within the development site than identified in the EIA, the most significant aspect of this being the evidence of outlier setts along the main track which may have tunnels underneath the track.
SNH have indicated, as licensing authority, that they are satisfied that the badger issue can be dealt with the appropriate planning conditions. The department also recommends that should consent be granted additional conditions are added to protect the badgers and their setts.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that there is significant third party opposition to this proposed development of 9 free range chicken sheds at Blyth Bank Farm. In addition, there is also significant opposition to the proposals from the BBAG and the local community council. The objections raised are valid planning considerations and the department has given them much deliberation. This development would one of the largest free range chicken farms in Britain and it is important that the development does not have an adverse impact on the landscape quality and character of the area as well as the amenity of neighbouring properties, the local ecology and biodiversity and the River Tweed SAC. It is considered that the existing landform coupled with appropriate landscaping would ensure that the shed can sit comfortably within the landscape. The regulatory bodies are satisfied that the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the issues discussed above subject to the imposition of appropriately worded planning conditions. The application has been the subject of robust assessment by all consultees, and it is not considered that there are any overriding objections to the proposal, provided that the requirements set out in the Environmental Assessment and through the responses of the various consultees are met.
In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications)(Scotland) Direction 2007, if approved, the application will need to be referred to Scottish Ministers, on account of the development having been the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS
I recommend that the application is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of landscaping works, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall include (as appropriate): 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 programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.
2. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant must submit in writing to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), and have agreed in writing by the planning authority, confirmation that there is adequate water supply at the site for the 33 purpose it is to serve. Abstractions greater than 10m3 per day from any individual borehole will require Water Environment (Control Activities)(Scotland) Regulations 2005 authorisation. The water supply shall then be provided in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To protect the interest of River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC)
3. A site survey to be undertaken no more than 6 months prior to construction to determine the most suitable option for surface water drainage (either wetland or swale), and to finalise position of the wetland or swale, details of which shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the interest of River Tweed SAC
4 Soil samples to determine the baseline quality of the soil shall be undertaken either in the autumn or spring before the construction of each shed and the results submitted to SEPA. Reason: To protect the interest of River Tweed SAC
5. Surface water from the proposed access roads shall drain into surrounding land and there shall be no direct run-off into watercourses. Reason: To protect the interest of River Tweed SAC
6. Percolation tests for each soakaway for foul drainage shall be submitted to SEPA and agreed in writing by the planning authority at least 2 months before construction of each shed Reason: To protect the interest of River Tweed SAC
7. All fuel tanks and chemicals shall be stored in a bunded area. Reason: To protect the interest of River Tweed SAC
8. Checking surveys for badgers must be carried out prior to construction of each shed and associated tracks. The findings must be agreed in writing by the planning authority and any mitigation in put place in advance of the development of the shed concerned. Reason: In order to protect habitats and species.
9. Measures shall be taken during construction to protect badgers, ensuring that open trenches are covered each night or a ramp provided for escape, open pipe systems are capped, any security lighting should be away from setts, chemicals are safely stored (adopting SEPA guidelines) and water sources for badgers are safeguarded. Reason: In order to protect habitats and species.
10. There shall be no ammonia deposition on Longstruther Burn Local Wildlife Site in the event of micro-siting shed no 3 on drawing number 0091-02 Rev A. Reason: In order to protect habitats and species.
11. The area around the Longstruther Burn must be protected by a 5m buffer, fenced off to prevent access by the free range chickens, to prevent any damage to the wetland habitat by foraging and dunging. Reason: In order to protect habitats and species.
12. Habitat enhancements shall be included in the Landscape Planting and Management Plan required by Condition 1 of this permission for the site to include reinforcing the hedgerow habitat network with extended hedges including grass margins, native woodland creation, and blocking drains off the Blyth Muir Moss to improve the lowland raised bog as appropriate to the current condition of the bog. Reason: In order to protect habitats and species.
13. Measures to improve the wet and rough grasslands (Phase 1 survey target note 1, 3 and 18) and rotation of arable areas, at the west and east end of the site for the benefit of breeding waders must be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed with the Planning Authority. 34 Reason: In order to protect habitats and species.
14 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the Archaeology Officer and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect the site of archaeological importance.
15. The rights of way must remain free from obstruction both during and after the construction of the sheds. Reason: In order to maintain unrestricted access along the Rights of Way.
16. Prior to commencement of construction of the first poultry unit relating to this application (Shed 2 as shown on Site Layout Drawing Number 0091-02), the road kerbing on the north east side of the junction of the C4 (Bogsbank road) with the A701 shall be adjusted to the in order to facilitate pedestrian flow between the C4 and the A701, in accordance with a scheme of details to be submitted and agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety
17. Prior to commencement of construction of the second poultry unit forming part of this application, means of access for all of the poultry units on the farm is to be via a new junction onto the A701 (precise location to be agreed with the Planning Authority) and access from all of the units via the C4 (Bogsbank road) is to be curtailed by physical means, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety
18. Prior to commencement of construction of a new junction onto the A701 to serve the poultry farm, engineering drawings for the work are to be submitted and agreed with the Planning Authority. A Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit as per Technical Memo HD 19/03 in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges is required as part of this process. Reason: In the interests of road safety
19. A Stage 3 Road Safety Audit (as per Technical Memo HD 19/03) is to be undertaken on completion of the new junction and a Stage 4 Road safety Audit (same technical memo) is to be undertaken as a means of monitoring the operation of the new junction. Reason: In the interests of road safety
20. Detailed proposals for protecting the Talla Aqueduct must be submitted to Scottish Water, and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to the commencement of development. Reason: In order to protect the integrity of the Talla Aqueduct.
21. A full risk assessment for the risk of ground water contamination must be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to the commencement of development. Any mitigation measures identified by the assessment must be in place prior to construction of the first shed. Reason: In order to protect the integrity of the Talla Aqueduct.
22. Prior to commencement of any works a survey and monitoring programme for badgers is to be submitted by the developer for approval by the Planning Authority. This is to include surveys of the access tracks and checking surveys in a proportionate area affected by each shed. This will also include a whole site survey for badgers, including an appropriate buffer area, to be carried out after intervals of 5 years and 10 years from the commencement of the development. Should the repeat badger surveys discover setts that are likely to be affected by the development, then a licence may be required from SNH. All mitigation measures must be approved by the Planning authority and implemented by the developer. It is recommended that the access track identified in the Scottish Badgers report is surveyed as a priority before commencement of any works. 35 Reason: In order to protect habitats and species
23. Measures are to be taken during construction to protect badgers, ensuring that open trenches are covered each night or a ramp provided for escape, open pipe systems are capped, any security lighting should be away from setts, chemicals are safely stored (adopting SEPA guidelines) and water sources for badgers are safeguarded. Reason: In order to protect habitats and species
24. Constructed wetlands are not to be located within any of the existing woodland areas or areas of new woodland to be created under a Landscape and Habitat Plan. Reason: In order to protect habitats and species
Approved by
Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building The original version of this Standards 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 Senior Development Control Officer
36 37 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
10 DECEMBER 2007
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: (c) REFERENCE NUMBERS: 1. 07/01900/OUT 1. 07/01901/OUT 2. 07/01902/OUT 3. 07/01903/FUL 4. 07/01904/FUL 5. 07/01905/FUL
OFFICER: Mr Andrew Evans WARD: Hawick and Denholm PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 no. new-build dwellinghouses (plots 1, 2 and 3) and change of use of 3no. steadings to form 3no. dwellings (plots 4, 5 and 6). SITE: Land and Steadings at Billerwell Farm, Bonchester Bridge. APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Oates AGENT: Edwin Thompson & Co. Chartered Surveyors (Galashiels)
INTRODUCTION
These applications are presented for determination by the Development and Building Control Committee because one of the applicants is an employee of Scottish Borders Council within the Planning and Economic Development Directorate. The applications cannot therefore be determined through the delegated procedure or by the Teviot Area Committee.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Billerwell Farm is located in the valley of the Rule Water, approximately midway between Bedrule and Bonchester Bridge. The Rule Water runs to the East of the group of farm buildings. The existing farmhouse to the north of the complex of buildings offers B&B accommodation, whilst the existing traditional farm cottages to the south are let as holiday accommodation. The application sites are on a flatter part of land at the foot of Rubers Law which lies to the west of the farm. Immediately to the east of the site lies the Rule Water, at the foot of the valley. These application sites are in a considerably elevated position relative to the watercourse, and consequently flood risk is not an issue with these proposals.
Between the Farmhouse to the North and the Farm cottages to the South lies a series of agricultural buildings. The northern half of these agricultural buildings are more traditional stone and slate steading buildings. Closest to the Farmhouse is a 2 storey stone and slate agricultural building in a good general state of repair and with a footprint measuring approximately 6m x 20m. Further south lie a pair of detached single storey steading buildings, also in a good general state of repair. Both of the single storey buildings have “L” shape forms, and both are of sufficient size to satisfactorily accommodate conversion without major extension.
To the south of the traditional steadings lies a series of more modern agricultural buildings have been erected over the years. It is proposed to remove these buildings and to divide the land into 3 plots for dwelling houses.
38 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The development proposals for the farm steading buildings and adjoining land have been submitted as a series of individual applications by the agent acting on behalf of the applicants. It is appropriate to consider these applications at the same time. 3 separate full planning applications have been submitted for the conversion of three of the traditional stone and slate steading buildings at Billerwell to dwelling houses. The applications seek consent in principle only. No detailed drawings have been submitted with the conversion applications. Also, outline planning applications have been submitted for the erection of a total of 3 new-build dwellings on land to the south west of the stone steadings, on land currently occupied by more modern agricultural buildings.
PLANNING HISTORY
None.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
A total of 11 respondents objected to the applications. These objections are available to view in full on the Council’s Public Access website. The main grounds of objection may be summarised as follows:
x The road between Bedrule Sawmills and Bonchester Bridge is unsuitable for additional traffic (both construction traffic and additional future traffic generated by the proposals); x The road is single track with no passing places; x Impact on amenity of rural area; x Impact on wildlife; x Increase in house numbers from 3 to 9 is contrary to local plan; x Scottish Government Reporters Report into Finalised Local Plan recommends review of Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) boundaries. Excessive developments within the valley should be avoided until completion of the review; x Inappropriate scale of development in such a sensitive area.
A number of the objectors are more supportive in their comments on the conversion elements of the proposals.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011
Policy N15 - Regional and Local Archaeological Sites Policy N16 - Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording Policy N20 - Design Policy I11 – Parking Provision in New Development Policy H4 - Housing in the Countryside - Conversion or Rebuilding Policy H5 - New Housing in the Countryside - Building Groups Policy H7 - Affordable and Special Needs Housing – Proportion Policy H8 - Affordable and Special Needs Housing - Assessment
Roxburgh Local Plan (May 1995)
Policy 7 – Additions to Building Groups Policy 9 – Conversion and re-use Policy 55 – Archaeological Investigation and Recording Policy 63 – Siting and Design in the Countryside Policy 64 – Housing Layout and Design Policy 68 – Energy Efficiency Policy 83 – Development in the Countryside 39 Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005
Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy D2 – Housing in the Countryside Policy H1 – Affordable Housing Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf3 – Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4 – Parking Standards Policy Inf5 – Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
x Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 10 on Affordable Housing. March 2007. x Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Developers Contributions. June 2006. x Scottish Borders Council New Housing in the Borders Countryside Policy and Guidance Note 1993, as amended 2000 and 2004.
x PAN 78: Inclusive Design. March 2006. x PAN 76: New Residential Streets. November 2005. x PAN 74: Affordable Housing. March 2005. x PAN 72: Housing in the Countryside. February 2005. x PAN 67: Housing Quality. February 2003. x PAN 61: Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. July 2001.
x SPP 15: Planning for Rural Development. x SPP 3: Planning for Housing
x NPPG 5: Archaeology and Planning. October 1998. x NPPG18: Planning and the Historic Environment. April 1999.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads): Although I have no objections in principle to the redevelopment of the farm steading, after having re-addressed the proposal on site and having taken the comments from the local residents into consideration, I have some concerns with the level of redevelopment proposed. When you take this application in consideration with applications 07/01901/OUT to 07/01905/FUL, I feel it may be overdevelopment with regards to the additional traffic that will be generated on the surrounding road network which consists of single track roads with limited passing opportunities and junctions with the main road system which have their limitations. Furthermore, should the traffic currently associated with the steading be relocated locally, there will be no trade-off of traffic for the conversions. I would be much more at ease with a maximum of two new build houses overall and would recommend the applications be determined on this basis.
Should the proposal be supported by your department, I would expect the following conditions to be adhered to.
40 1. Parking and turning for a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling, excluding any garages, must be provided within the curtilage of each dwelling. 2. Two passing places to my specification per dwelling must be provided at agreed locations within the local road network prior to work commencing on any of the proposed dwellings. The exact locations of the passing places should only be agreed after consultation between my department and the local residents. This can be carried out through consultation with the local councillor and/or the local community council. 3. All work within the public road and verge must be carried out by a contractor on the Council approved list.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning:
These developments are located within the catchment areas for Hobkirk Primary School and Jedburgh Grammar School. Education has no observations to make on this proposed development at this time and will not be seeking a developer contribution towards the provision of infrastructure for the schools in the catchment area.
Environmental Health:
Provide an in-depth and technical consultation response covering water supply and drainage. In summary, given the location of the proposals, it is almost certain that a mains water supply will not be able to be utilised and a private water supply will need to be used. A report confirming the suitability of the proposals/supply is required to be provided by an appropriately qualified person. This report must consider: x quantity – i.e. sufficiency/adequacy of the proposed supply to cope with the demand that will be placed upon it by all of the properties that will be served thereby; x quality – i.e. in order to maintain a wholesome supply of water to a premises, filtration/treatment of the supply may be necessary; and x impact – i.e. the proposals as a whole, and not just the proposed supply, must not have an adverse effect on the provision of water to any other premises in the locality. Drainage arrangements must be to the satisfaction and approval of the Building Control Department of Scottish Borders Council and/or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).
Statutory Consultees
SEPA: No objection in principle to the proposals. Provide detailed comments on Sewage Disposal, Surface Water, Flood Risk, and Construction and Landscaping.
Scottish Water: No objections to these planning applications. There are no known public sewers in the vicinity of the sites. It is advisable that any septic tank should be sited in such a manner to allow easy access for emptying by tanker. There are no known public water mains at the proposed development sites.
Hobkirk Community Council : Objections as follows: x No passing places on road; x Problem with water supply; x A 200% increase (in the number of properties) would change farm to a small village.
Other Consultees
None.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
Whether the proposed development complies with the Council’s policies on housing in the countryside, particularly conversions and additions to building groups, whether adequate access
41 and parking can achieved and whether the proposal complies with the council’s affordable housing and developer contributions policies.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATIONS:
Newbuild proposals (Applications 07/01900/OUT, 07/01901/OUT & 07/01902/OUT):
An existing building group of at least three dwellinghouses is required before consideration can be given to additional new-build dwellinghouses. Where conversions are required to form such a building group, new dwellinghouses can only be accepted once those conversions have been implemented. In determining whether a building group exists at Billerwell, consideration has been given to whether the two farm cottages to the south of the farmhouse form part of a building group. Whilst there is a not inconsiderable distance between the cottages and the farmhouse, it is not realistic to disassociate the cottages from the steading. They are located off of the same private road, have historic connections, and have a degree of inter-visibility. It is therefore accepted that there is an existing building group of three dwellinghouses at Billerwell.
Policy D2 of the Finalised Local Plan (Housing in the Countryside) contains within it a 100% Rule. This sets a maximum limit to which a Building Group can expand within the period of a Local Plan. 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 at the start of the local plan period. No further development above this threshold should be permitted. In the case of Billerwell it is accepted that a group of 3 dwellings was present at the start of the plan period (in 1995 when the Roxburgh Local Plan was adopted). This would allow for expansion of the group by another 3 new build units within the period of the plan (until the adoption of the Scottish Borders Local Plan expected in 2008). The Conversion applications discussed later in this report (07/01903/FUL, 07/01904/FUL & 07/01905/FUL) do not count as additions to the group for the purposes of the 100% rule.
The boundaries of the group, particularly to the south and west, shall require strengthening, by way of additional planting. This can be addressed at reserved matters stage.
The design and position of the dwellings will require sensitive handling to allow them to relate well to the converted steading buildings and to the existing cottages and farmhouse. This will not only have to involve use of traditional materials (Slated roofs, stonework features) but also the linking of the houses, outbuildings and curtilage walls to provide a finished scheme reflecting the adjacent architectural forms found in the steadings. Care will have to be taken with the position of the proposed dwelling house within plot 3 to ensure that there is no adverse impact upon the amenity of the proposed converted units at plots 4 and 5. These are however matters which should be addressed at Reserved Matters stage.
The objectors to these proposals have raised as part of their objections the findings of the Scottish Government Reporters into the Local Plan Inquiry. Objections were received to Policy EP2 (Areas of Great Landscape Value) of the Finalised Local Plan. The objectors sought the inclusion of land within the AGLV boundary at Rubers Law and the Rule Water Valley corridor (full detail on these objections and the Reporters findings can be found in the “Report into Objections to the Finalised Local Plan”, Chapter 1, General and Policy Objections).
The independent Scottish Government Reporters have recommended that the Council undertakes a review of AGLV boundaries. The Council has accepted this recommendation from the Reporters. However, the Development Control responsibilities of the Council do not exist in a vacuum, and the Council has a duty to ensure that applications continue to be determined against a shifting legislative and policy background. It should be noted that AGLV designation does not preclude development from occurring. It does, however, emphasise the importance of design and building form in this location.
Members will note the comments of the Director of Technical Services (Roads) regarding the access to the site, and his concerns over the overall housing numbers proposed. The Director has provided clarification on his comments, and confirmed that should all 6 units be recommended for 42 approval, he would be seeking provision of 2 passing places per unit, including conversions. This would give a total of 12 passing places should all 6 applications be approved. He has confirmed that it would be possible for these passing places to be formed within the public road boundary. As this is the case, it is therefore possible to ensure provision of such passing spaces by the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition on any forthcoming consents.
Conversions proposals (Applications 07/01903/FUL, 07/01904/FUL & 07/01905/FUL):
The New Housing in the Borders Countryside Policy and Guidance Note states that the rehabilitation of any available buildings worthy of retention should be considered as an alterative to new development and the Council will look sympathetically at proposals for the sensitive reuse and 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 which had existed previously.
Policy H4 of the Structure Plan goes on to say that 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'. In addition, Policy D2 of the Finalised Local Plan (Housing in the Countryside) and Policy 9 of the Roxburgh Plan encourage the conversion of appropriate existing buildings, including agricultural and other non residential buildings, to residential use, the rebuilding for residential purposes of derelict residential buildings, and new residential building on derelict residential sites, provided a number of criteria can be met.
It is accepted that the existing buildings are in a very good state of repair and would be capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding. They could be converted without alterations to their external appearance which would detract from their character and it is contended that the traditional form of the steading would make a positive contribution to the landscape and countryside amenity.
This development has archaeological implications. Traditional rural settlements and their associated buildings are an integral part of the history of the Scottish Borders. They are both important as elements of the landscape and as aspects of social and architectural history. Rural vernacular buildings are a vulnerable and relatively under protected category of buildings, but together with other aspects of the historic environment they form an important element in the understanding of how the rural landscape has developed and changed over time. Buildings such as those at Billerwell hold valuable information about how the building was designed, how it has subsequently developed, how it was used and who perhaps used the building, giving either a snapshot of a specific period and/or tradition or a palimpsest of architectural developments. The ability to study the vernacular buildings of the Scottish Borders area is slowly being eroded by the conversion and demolition of rural buildings to dwellings. Therefore, it is important that a record is made prior to any change of use. This approach is consistent with National Planning Guidelines and is the equivalent to a ‘traditional’ archaeological excavation. This can be covered by a suitable condition.
CONCLUSION
In summary, it is considered that the proposals comply with the relevant planning policies outlined earlier in the report. In the case of the 3no applications for outline planning permission it is considered appropriate to attach a series of conditions to control the development and to reserve layout, siting, design and external appearance of the buildings, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site for later consideration.
In the case of the three applications to convert the steading buildings to dwellings, it is recommended that a condition be attached to each consent, removing permitted development rights. Conditions are also proposed to ensure that the conversions are carried out in an appropriate manner which respects the character, form and scale of the buildings to be converted.
43 RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend that applications 07/01900/OUT; 07/01901/OUT; and 07/01902/OUT are approved subject to the following conditions and informative on each application:
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. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved whichever is the later. 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.
3. The external materials to be agreed by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
4. The roofing material to be natural slate of a type to be approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
5. The details of all boundary walls and/or fences to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
6. A tree/shrub planting scheme to be submitted before the development commences for approval by the Planning Authority, the planting to be carried out concurrently with the development or during the next planting season thereto and to be maintained thereafter. Reason: To maintain and enhance the visual amenities of the area.
7. The means of water supply and of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. A report confirming the suitability of the proposed supply is required to be provided by an appropriately qualified person as part of the detail submitted prior to commencement. The proposed drainage system must be based on Sustainable Urban Drainage principles. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.
8. The vehicular access to the site, the visitor parking areas and the vehicular turning area must be completed to the specification of the Planning Authority before the dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
9. 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
10. Two parking spaces to be provided within the site, for each dwellinghouse. The parking areas are to be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority before the dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
44 11. Two passing places to the specification of the Director of Technical Services (Roads) per dwelling must be provided at agreed locations within the local road network prior to work commencing on the proposed dwelling. Reason: In the interests of Road Safety.
12. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, the indicating siting of the proposed unit is not approved. The reserved matters submitted shall make provision for physical linkages (which should the pairing of houses) between the proposed houses permitted under permissions 07/01900/OUT, 07/01901/OUT and 07/01902/OUT. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development reflects the rural character of the site and its surroundings.
INFORMATIVES:
1. With regard to Condition 11 above, all work within the public road and verge must be carried out by a contractor on the Council approved list.
2. Attention is drawn to the enclosed forms DC1, DC1a, DC8 and DC9.
I further recommend that applications 07/01903/FUL; 07/01904/FUL; and 07/01905/FUL are approved subject to the following conditions and informative on each application:
1. The change of use shall only take place in strict accordance with detailed conversion plans (including elevation plans), which shall first have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development.
2. 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 any new dwellings nor for any extensive rebuilding which would be tantamount to the erection of one or more new dwellings. Reason: Permission has been granted for the conversion of the existing buildings to habitable accommodation, having regard to the character of the existing building group.
3. 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. Reason: To safeguard the character, appearance and setting of the building to be converted.
4. The external surfaces of the building shall be retained as existing and where necessary repaired and/or renewed with salvaged materials, or those that are similar in age, colour and texture to the original, unless the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation thereto. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the buildings to be converted.
5. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of Historic Building Recording in accordance with a Written Scheme of
45 Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the Archaeology Officer and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: The Buildings to be converted are of a general historic interest and it is desirable to retain a record of their existence.
6. The means of water supply and of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. A report confirming the suitability of the proposed supply is required to be provided by an appropriately qualified person as part of the detail submitted prior to commencement. The proposed drainage system must be based on Sustainable Urban Drainage principles. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.
7. Two parking spaces to be provided within the site, for each dwellinghouse. The parking areas are to be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority before the dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
8. Two passing places to the specification of the Director of Technical Servies (Roads) per dwelling must be provided at agreed locations within the local road network prior to work commencing on the proposed dwelling. Reason: In the interests of Road Safety.
9. 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
INFORMATIVE
1. With regard to Condition 8 above, all work within the public road and verge must be carried out by a contractor on the Council approved list.
2. Attention is drawn to the enclosed forms DC1, DC1a, DC8 and DC9.
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 Andrew Evans Development Control Officer
46 47 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
10th DECEMBER 2007
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: (d) REFERENCE NUMBER: 07/00547/OUT
OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD NAME: Selkirkshire PROPOSAL: Mixed use development including residential and medical healthcare facility SITE: John Swan & Sons Plc Auction Mart Newtown St Boswells APPLICANT: John Swan & Sons Plc AGENT: Ryden LLP
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is situated on the eastern side of the B6398 that runs through Newtown St Boswells and comprises of buildings associated with the auction mart, including the octagonal building, and fields to the north and east. The site slopes down north to south. There is woodland and the Sprouston Burn to the north, the site is bounded by the A68 to the east, to the south is the residential area along Tweedside Road and to the west are industrial units, car parks, the health centre and the Co-op store. The site is approximately 9.6 hectares in size and is in agricultural and commercial use. The main vehicular access is from Old Station Court and there are underpasses under the A68 to the north east and south east of the site.
Part of the site lies within the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area and Area of Great Landscape Value. The Sprouston Burn to the north and part of the Bowden Burn to the south are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and form part of the Borders Wood Special Area Conservation, locally know as the Deans, and drain into the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This is an outline application but an Indicative Development Framework has been submitted showing how the site would be developed. The proposal involves residential development comprising of 200 to 220 dwellinghouses within low, medium and high density areas. A village green is proposed to provide a new focal point for the village centre and open space and play areas are proposed. The scheme includes the retention and renovation of the existing octagonal auction building. Retail space (to accommodate a new and larger store than the existing Co-op provides) was originally proposed but this has been deleted from the application and replaced by high density residential development. A new community health centre would be located adjacent to the octagon building. A 30m woodland strip with a 5m high bund to provide an acoustic barrier are proposed for the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the A68 and enhancement of the woodlands to the north and south would take place.
The application as originally submitted proposed that the existing vehicular access from Old Station Court would be upgraded to serve the site. However, amended drawings have been submitted showing a second vehicular access through Waverley Place to the site. The proposal is to link the development into the public sewer.
PLANNING HISTORY:
03/00134/FUL: Erection of roof over cattle pens. Approved 21st March 2003. 48 06/02506/OUT: An outline planning application has been submitted for the erection of a rural resource centre comprising of a livestock auction mart, tourist visitor centre, business space, retailing and restaurant facilities with associated infrastructure and highway improvements and the erection of a manager’s dwellinghouse on land to the east of the existing auction mart and A68 at Newtown St Boswells.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
One letter has been received from Scottish Power advising the developer to contact them regarding overhead line records as there are high and low voltage underground cables and overhead lines within the vicinity of the site and it is imperative that proper safety measures are followed.
APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION
A Planning and Design Statement, a Transport Assessment, a Public Utilities Report, a Phase 1 Geoenvironmental Site Assessment and a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment have been submitted with the application. In addition, a Protected Species Survey was carried out for bats. The Transport Assessment has been amended to reflect the inclusion of the second access. These documents are available for Members to view on the Public Access System.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011
The following policies apply to this proposal:
Principle S3: Development Strategy Policy N2: International Sites Policy N3: National Sites Policy N8: River Tweed System Policy N10: National Scenic Area Policy N11: Area of Great Landscape Value Policy C2: Education and Health Services Policy C7: Play Areas Policy I11: Parking Provision in New Development
Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan 1995
The following policies apply to this proposal:
Policy 2: Infill Development Permitted Policy 16: Provision of Open Space Policy 17: Provision of Children’s Play Areas Policy 30: River Tweed System Policy 57: Protection of Trees/Woodlands Policy 58: Tree Planting Policy 60: Protection of Open Space Policy 61: Siting and Design in Settlements Policy 64: Development Briefs Policy 67: Energy Efficiency Policy 70: Landscaping of New Developments Policy 75: Area of Mixed Uses Policy 80: Protection of National Scenic Areas Policy 82: Development in Designated Areas Policy 87: International and National Wildlife Sites Policy 94: Car Parking 49 Policy 110: Health Care Facilities
Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised December 2005
The following policies apply to this proposal:
Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5: Developer Contributions Policy G6: Developer Contributions Related to Railway Reinstatement Policy G7: Infill Development Policy NE1: International Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE2: National Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE3: Local Biodiversity Policy NE4: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy EP1: National Scenic Areas Policy EP2: Area of Great Landscape Value Policy H1: Affordable Housing Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4: Parking Standards Policy Inf6: Sustainable Urban Drainage
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: x Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Brief for the Existing Auction Mart Site Newtown St Boswells 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 - Biodiversity
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Members can view the consultation responses received in full on the Public Access System and below is a summary of each response received:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads) – Original Response: The development brief categorically states that two vehicular points of access are required to serve this development for approximately 220 houses. The submitted plan only shows one access serving this large site. Due to the nature of this access point I do not consider it to be suitable to serve a large number of dwellings. I may be able to support a single access into this site provided the density of development is radically reduced to no than 100 units. Furthermore, even if the 100 houses were approved I would still expect to see more direct pedestrian and cycleway links into the village and towards the school, remote from the main vehicular access into the site.
Re-consultation: The main roads issue has always been the requirement to provide a second access into this development site. I am pleased to confirm that the latest amended plan now shows this second access, and I a now happy to support this application. As this is in outline only, there is no great need to get deeply involved with the internal roads layout, and this will be done at a later stage. There may be some merit in relocating the proposed amenity and hard landscaping area to a more central location, possibly adjacent to the "hexagon" / health site, but this can be discussed at a later date. In its present form I recommend this application be approved.
Director of Planning & Development (Rights of Way): There are two candidate core paths affected by the proposal, as shown on the Outdoor Access Plan. Candidate core path 140, incorporating the claimed right of way (BE180) appears to be within the development area to the 50 north of the site. According to the applicant’s Planning & Design Statement, this existing path appears to be integrated into a planned path network linking the proposed development. Candidate core path 1, incorporating the St Cuthbert’s Way & Borders Abbeys Way, appears to be included within the south and south-eastern boundary of the development site. According to the applicant’s Planning & Design Statement, pedestrian access will be integrated from the development site linking this candidate core path. It should also be noted that at the south-eastern corner of the proposed development site (shown on the Planning & Design Statement as woodland) is traversed by candidate core path 1.
Proposed public access under the underpass (at the southern end of the site under the A68) on the south-eastern boundary which gives access to the proposed new Rural Centre site (Planning ref: 06/02506/OUT) will also prove to be an important public route.
Director of Planning & Development (Landscape): No reply received.
Director of Planning and Economic Development: (Archaeology): The proposal has no archaeological implications.
Director of Planning and Economic Development: (Ecology): The primary ecological interests are impacts on Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation, River Tweed Special Area of Conservation/SSSI and protected species including European Protected Species (bats and otters) and badgers. An Appropriate Assessment of the effect on the integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation has been carried out. Provided the requirements identified in the Appropriate Assessment are met through detailed planning conditions, there will be no significant impact on the qualifying interest and integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation. Protected species surveys were carried out by the developer in September 2006 and June and July 2007. Bat surveys of existing buildings at the auction mart identified foraging common and soprano pipistrelle bats particularly along the woodland edge and around buildings in the site. No evidence of roosts was found. An otter survey carried out in September 2006 recorded otter activity along the Sprouston and Bowden burns and a potential couch identified along the Sprouston burn. Given the protection afforded the Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation there will not be a requirement for a checking survey for otters. No evidence of badger or water vole was found. Swallows were identified breeding in some of the buildings. Adopting the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for biodiversity, certain conditions should be attached to the planning permission.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: From information provided by PED we understand that there are 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 Newtown 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. In addition we will also be seeking a contribution to the high school. This development is part of the Earlston HS 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.
Environmental Health Officer: Planning permission should be granted on condition that development is not be permitted to start until a site investigation and risk assessment into the possible contamination of the site has been carried out and the development incorporates any measures shown in the assessment to be necessary. Any requirement for a remediation and validation strategy would become a condition of the planning consent, to be submitted and agreed upon by the local authority prior to development.
51 Statutory Consultees
Transport Scotland: Does not propose to advise against the granting of planning permission.
Scottish Natural Heritage – Original Response: Objects to the proposal based on the information submitted though this objection can be overcome through the use of conditions. The areas of concern are the impact of the development on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and River Tweed SSSI, the Border Woods Special Area of Conservation and Newtown St Boswells Woods SSSI and the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area. An Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the proposal in respect of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation should be carried out by the Council.
Reconsultation: The draft conditions proposed cover all the issues of concern. There are still serious concerns regarding the proposal by the Council to upgrade the footpaths within the Deans to the north and south of the site due to the potential impact of the work on the woodland SSSI and Special Area of Conservation. SNH would need to consent to any pathwork improvements and would need to carry out an Appropriate Assessment on the impact of these works on the SSSI and Special Area of Conservation. Nothing should be agreed between the Council and developer until consent has been given by SNH.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Foul water drainage to be to the public sewer and surface water drainage dealt with by way of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. SEPA has no information regarding the flood risk of the site.
Scottish Water: No objections. Due to the scale of the development it is necessary for Scottish Water to assess the impact of the development on the existing infrastructure and they are in discussions with the developer regarding the site.
Newtown St Boswells Community Council: The planning application generally meets the aspirations of the village in terms of regenerating and sustaining the village centre providing the development complies with the Planning Brief. There are serious concerns about the single access road into the village centre and also concerns about the village centre layout.
Re-consultation: No reply received.
Non-Statutory Consultees:
Borders General Hospital NHS Trust: No reply received.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The main planning issues are whether the proposed land uses, layout and density of the site are appropriate 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 satisfactory access to the site can be achieved.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Planning Policy
Principle S3 Development Strategy of the Structure Plan guides all new development to existing towns and villages with the principle focus for development to be the primary hub, the central Borders, with substantial new development being supported in the Galashiels/Melrose/St Boswells corridor.
52 This particular site is situated within the settlement/development boundary of Newtown St Boswells. Within the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan the area covered by the auction mart is within the Area of Mixed Uses where a variety of uses that exist in town centres are encouraged. The remainder of the site, the fields to the north and east, are covered by policy 60 that seeks to protect open space from loss by development. The site is within the Established Residential Area within the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan and policy H2 seeks to protect the character and amenity of these areas.
Policy 2 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan and policy G7 allow infill development within Newtown St Boswells provided that certain criteria are met. A Planning Brief has been prepared by the Council for the site that sets out the main opportunities and constraints relating to the site and creates a framework for its future comprehensive development.
The Planning Brief states that a mixed use development is appropriate comprising predominantly of residential, plus commercial (retail, financial, professional or other services and food and drink uses), ancillary community facilities, a medical healthcare facility and a small business development.
This is an outline proposal but the Indicative Development Framework sets out the uses, open space, circulation and wider landscape context. This shows that between 200 and 220 houses are proposed and also includes a new health centre. It is considered that this mix of uses conforms to the Planning Brief
There is a current planning application lodged with the Council to erect a replacement auction mart and rural resource centre on land to the east of the A68. The relocation of the auction mart from the centre of Newtown St Boswells would remove this commercial use from the adjacent residential area and reduce the amount of farm traffic within the village that the auction mart generates, which is seen as advantageous. This relocation would allow the redevelopment of the site and presents an opportunity to create a sense of place in the centre of the village by the formation of a village green or square. It is vital that the phasing of the two developments is controlled by way of a legal agreement to ensure that the new auction mart is operational before work commences of the existing auction mart site.
Layout, Siting and Design Issues
Policy 2 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan states that proposals should be consistent with, complement and conform to the character and form of the settlement. Policy G7 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that the proposal should not conflict with the established land use of the area and should not detract from the character and amenity of the area. The proposal should not lead to over-development and should respect the scale, form, design, materials and density of its surroundings. Policy H2 seeks to protect the amenities of the established residential area. Policy G1 states that all development should be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles designed to fit in with Borders townscapes.
There is a residential area to the south and the properties within this area would clearly benefit from the removal of the auction mart and the residential development proposed would be in keeping with the land use in this particular part of Newtown St Boswells. The health care element would be located adjacent to the commercial area of the village and this aspect of the proposal is also considered to be acceptable in this location.
The Planning Brief states that the form and nature of the new development should be of a character, in terms of mass, structure and materials, that fits into the existing fabric of the village. The highest density should be in the south west corner where the extension to the village centre will include mixed uses around a new village green or square. The village green or square would provide a new focal point for the village and would achieve a strong sense of place by integrating the development into the existing fabric of the village. A density range of 30 to 40 dwellings per hectare would be appropriate. The Planning Brief sets out a range of external materials to be used within the development based on those common in Newtown St Boswells. 53 The Indicative Development Framework establishes a hierarchy of streets through the site with connections into the wider network of routes through and around the site. The residential element of the proposal would be split into low, medium and high density zones with the affordable housing being located in the high density zone in the southern section of the site. Two or three storey flats are proposed and two storey terraced units. Within the medium density zone a mix of terraced and semi-detached housing is proposed. Semi-detached and detached properties are proposed for the high density zone.
It is considered that the proposal generally accords with the Planning Brief in terms of layout. The residential area around Tweedbank Road has a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached houses. The location of the high density housing in the southern section of the site would reflect the character and form of this part of Newtown St Boswells. No details of the design or materials of the proposed dwellinghouses have been submitted but a mix of house types and densities are proposed. The exact layout of the site and design of the buildings would be dealt with at the detailed application stage. It is recommended that a condition is attached to any planning permission for this site that master plan has to be submitted, based on the Planning Brief for the site, and approved by the Planning Authority with any detailed application for the site. This would allow the Council to control the layout and design of the development and its phasing to avoid the incremental development of the site.
A woodland planting strip is proposed between the site and the residential properties on Tweedside Road and so it is felt that the proposal would not affect the residential amenities of occupiers of these existing properties.
Policy H1 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan requires the provision of affordable housing within all allocated and windfall sites. A level of 25% mixed throughout the site is required. This will be achieved through the completion of a Section 75 legal Agreement.
There are no listed buildings within the site but the retention of the octagonal auction building is sought to preserve the heritage of the village. Proposals for the conservation and re-use of the building are a requirement of the Planning Brief. The Station Hotel is located adjacent to the southern area of the site and any new development should complement and enhance the setting of this building. The Indicative Planning Framework shows the octagon building as being retained but no suggestions are put forward as to its future use.
A SUDS scheme would be required as part of the detailed application for this site 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 no objections to this provided sufficient capacity exists at the time the development commences. Policy 67 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan and 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 outline consent. Wind turbines would not be appropriate given the proximity to the National Scenic Area.
Visual Impact
Policies N10 of the Structure Plan, 80 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local 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 advises that the proposals contained within the Planning and Design Statement and Indicative Development Framework go some way to addressing their concerns regarding the impact on the scenic qualities and wider landscape interests of the National Scenic Area but there is no guarantee that the final development will reflect the information
54 submitted at the outline stage. The requirement to submit a master plan based on the Planning Brief with the first detailed application for the site should overcome this concern.
SNH have expressed concerns regarding the proposed bund adjacent to the A68 as the bund would not appear natural in form and this would be to the detriment of the character of the National Scenic Area. The bund is proposed to screen the site to reduce the visual impact of the development and as an acoustic measure. A condition of the planning consent is recommended that the details of the width, height and contours are submitted and agreed so that the bund appears as natural as possible.
Policies N11 of the Structure Plan, 82 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local 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 bounded by the Area of Great Landscape Value to the north and east.
The proposed woodland planting and enhancement as part of the overall development will screen the site and lessen the visual impact of the proposal. The proposal for open space and landscape planting within the site would enhance the setting of the proposed buildings. Care is required at the detailed application stage in respect of the layout of the site and the form, scale, massing, design and materials of the buildings to ensure a high quality development on this site is achieved that is appropriate to its surroundings and complements rather than detracts from the Area of Great Landscape Value.
Nature Conservation and Ecology issues
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 Planning Brief states that considerable care needs to be taken that the form of the development within the site does not detract from the overall quality of the designated areas. Areas adjacent to the site are of high biodiversity value and boundary hedgerows should be retained. The water courses to the north and south need to be protected by appropriate habitat buffers. Waste water and drainage need to be managed to ensure there is no significant impact on the Border Woodlands and River Tweed Special Areas of Conservation and SSSIs. An Ecological Assessment is required and this should include surveys for bats and breeding birds
The primary ecological interests are impacts on Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation, the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSIs and protected species including European Protected Species (bats and otters) and badgers.
The River Tweed to the east of the site is designated as the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation for its biological interest. The Sprouston Burn to the north of the site and Bowden/Newton Burn to the south flow directly into the Tweed. The Special Area of Conservation status means that SNH and the Council have a duty to ensure that any works do not cause significant damage to the scientific interest of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation. SNH advises that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the Special Area of Conservation and requested an Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the proposal be carried out. The resolution of the concerns of SNH about the impact of the development on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation would overcome concerns regarding the impact on the SSSI.
An Appropriate Assessment of the effect on the integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation has been carried out (available for Members to view on the Public Access System). Provided the requirements identified in the Appropriate Assessment are met through detailed planning conditions, there will be no significant impact on the qualifying interest and integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation. SNH has been consulted on the Appropriate 55 Assessment and on a list of draft planning conditions that would be attached to the planning permission should Members be minded to approve the application. They now have no objections to the proposal.
The Deans to the north and south of the site are designated as part of the Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation and Newtown St Boswells SSSI. SNH advises that the proposal would not have a significant effect on the Border Woods Special Area of Conservation provided certain conditions are attached to the consent. These conditions have been included in the list of conditions contained within this report.
Protected species surveys were carried out by the developer in September 2006 and June and July 2007. Bat surveys of existing buildings at the auction mart identified foraging common and soprano pipistrelle bats particularly along the woodland edge and around buildings in the site. No evidence of roosts was found.
An otter survey carried out in September 2006 recorded otter activity along the Sprouston and Bowden burns and a potential couch identified along the Sprouston burn. Given the protection afforded the Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation with root protection zones, no dumping of debris and planted buffer zones, there will not be a requirement for a checking survey for otters.
No evidence of badger or water vole was found. Swallows were identified breeding in some of the buildings.
Woodlands and Landscaping
Policy 57 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan seeks to protect existing trees and woodlands which are important in the landscape, wildlife and amenity features. Management agreements will be encouraged. Policy 58 encourages the planting of trees in and around new developments. 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 existing perimeter vegetation be retained and strengthened and that buffer zones of between 10 – 15m be reserved next to existing woodland areas to the north, south and west to protect the existing woodlands. The eastern boundary should be strengthened to provide visual and acoustic screening between the A68 and the site. An earth bund 30m in width and 2m in height with woodland planting contoured to natural profiles would soften the impact on the National Scenic Area and Area of Great Landscape Value.
The applicant’s Planning and Design Statement advises that the development provides and opportunity to create a defined edge to the settlement with tree belts along the northern and eastern boundaries. An 30m long earth bund with tree planting is proposed along the eastern boundary with the A68 to provide an acoustic barrier and to screen the site. Planting with native tree species to the north of the site would provide a buffer between the development and the trees along the boundary with the Border Wood Special Area of Conservation. Existing trees would be retained along the western boundary and enhancement of the existing woodland to the south with native species is proposed.
These are important elements of the proposal. Such planting would protect existing woodlands and trees but also lessen the visual impact of the proposal on the National Scenic Area and Area of Great Landscape Value.
Policy 70 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan states that the Council will ensure that appropriate measures relating to ground works, tree planting and landscaping are built into new developments. Little information has been submitted regarding the proposed landscaping within the site. Trees are proposed along road frontages but no green corridors within the site are proposed. A detailed landscape scheme would be required to be submitted with any detailed application for the site including arrangements for the long term maintenance and
56 management of all planting, woodland and landscaped areas. Commuted payments may be required if public sector adoption is required.
Open Space and Play Areas
Policies 16 and 17 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan require the provision of open space and children’s play areas in new residential development.
The Planning Brief sets out the national minimum standards for open space provision of 60 square meters per household of which 20 square meters per household should be play space. The design must consider the multiple use of spaces including the accommodation of formal sports and play equipment with dedicated walkway/cycleway between areas of open space within the site and the village green and outwith the site.
Three areas of open space are proposed. The village green is at the entrance of the site with the existing octagon building in the centre; an equipped play area is proposed adjacent to the green. Eildon Green is proposed in the south east corner of the site and would also have an equipped play area. Sprouston Green to the north of the site would have a kick about area. The supporting information submitted with the application advises that the requirement of 20 square meters of play are per unit is excessive and so has not met this requirement within the site. Any shortfall in the provision of open space can be addressed at the reserved matters stage.
Health Care Facilities
Policy C2 of the Structure Plan states that new health care services should be located to take account of the development strategy, current and proposed housebuilding, safe links to the facility by foot, cycle or public transport and the operational requirements of the service providers. Policy 110 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan states that the Council will support the provision of new health care facilities.
The Planning Brief accommodates proposals to relocate and expand the existing medical facilities and for new retail within the site adjacent to the village square or green.
The Planning and Design Statement submitted with the application indicates that the new health centre would be two or three storeys in height located north of the proposed village green and discussions have taken place with NHS Borders. This proposal would comply with the development plan policies and the Planning Brief for the site and would result in enhanced facilities within the village. The retail element has been removed from the scheme.
Access and Parking
Policies 2 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan and G7 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan require that adequate access can be achieved. Policy Inf4 states that proposals should provide for car and cycle parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.
The Planning Brief requires a consistently formed road system and a design in which the impact of parked cars is minimised. A route network should facilitate direct and convenient links between the site, the village centre and open space for pedestrians and cyclists. Dual access points are required to this site, one through the existing Council car park off Waverley Place and one from the existing mart/Old Station Court junction off Melbourne Place. The proposal should include the upgrading of footpaths within the deans to the north and south of the site.
The application as originally submitted proposed one access to the site from Old Station Court and the Director of Technical Services objected to this as the Planning Brief states that two vehicular points of access are required to serve this development for approximately 220 houses. This accords with PAN 76: New Residential Streets, published in November 2005 by the Scottish Executive, which clearly encourages road connectivity and linkages for vehicles, pedestrians and
57 cyclists to the existing road network, and is the document which this Council has endorsed in the design of all new developments.
Discussions have taken place between the developer and the Council, who own the land at Waverley Place across which the second access to the site would be formed. An amended drawing has now been submitted showing this second access.
The Director of Technical Services has been re-consulted on the proposal and advises that the main roads issue has always been the requirement to provide a second access into this development site. The amended plan now shows this second access, and the Director of Technical Services can now support this application. As this is in outline only, there is no great need to get deeply involved with the internal roads layout, and this will be done at a later stage.
Visitor parking would be provided parallel to the road and houses would be set back from the road. Car parking would be communal or within the curtilage of the property. The proposal includes the retention of the existing pedestrian accesses under the A68.
Developer Contributions
Policies 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 constraints which require to be addressed through appropriate developer contributions and there are a number of other issues which require to be addressed through a legal agreement:
x Phasing of the development of this site and in relation to the proposed auction mart site to the east of the A68 to ensure that no work commences on the residential development until the new auction mart is operational x Acoustic screening to the A68 x Long term maintenance and management of existing and proposed woodlands, hedgerows and landscaping x Highway works adjacent to new and existing access points x Play space and open space provision and future maintenance x Creation of a village square or green x Refurbishment and re-use of the octagonal auction building x Affordable housing x Education facilities x Provision of pathways into and within the site and connections and upgrading of the footpath network within the Deans to the north and south of the site x Arrangements to ensure sufficient capacity in the waste water treatment works x Waverley Railway Project x Contribution to a new on-site health care facility x Enhancement of the village centre and the setting of the former Station Hotel
The necessary developer contributions would be secured through the completion of a legal agreement between the developer and Council.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed redevelopment of this site conforms in principle with the Planning Brief for the site. The proposal now incorporates a second access to the site overcoming the objections of the Director of Technical Services. It is considered that the use of appropriate conditions would ensure that there would be no detrimental impact on the River Tweed and Border Woods Special Areas of Conservation or SSSIs.
58 RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend that the application be approved subject to referral to Scottish Ministers (as the proposal includes land owned by the Council and is contrary to the adopted Local Plan) and subject to an appropriate legal agreement relating to the above matters and subject to the following conditions and informatives:
1. A master plan based on the Planning Brief for the site to be submitted with the first detailed or reserved matters application relating to this site for approval of the Planning Authority. The development to be implemented in accordance with the approved master plan. Reason: To ensure a well planned and phased development.
2. The subsequent approval by the Planning Authority of the means of access, the layout of the site and the design and siting of any buildings will be required prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
3. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include:
i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance
ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored and enhanced and methods of protection
iii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates
iv. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas and a schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density
v. existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations
vi. other artefacts and structures such as street furniture and street lighting
vii a programme for completion and subsequent long term maintenance and management of the landscape and woodland areas.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.
5. Details of all proposed means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work on the site is commenced. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.
6. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of a public open space and equipped play areas 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/phasing of play areas and open space in relation to the construction of houses on the site.
Reason: To ensure that proper provision is made for recreational facilities within the site.
59 7. All works required for the provision of open space and play areas 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.
8. 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.
9. A Drainage Impact Assessment to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences to show how surface water run-off from the bund and planted corridors is to be treated and including mitigating measures. 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 water to safeguard the Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
10. A site investigation and risk assessment into the possible contamination of the site and groundwater to be carried out prior to the commencement of the development and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. Any mitigation measures shown in the assessment to be necessary to be incorporated into the development. Reason: To address any contamination of the site.
11. A General Site Environmental Management Plan (as identified in the Protected Species Impact Assessment) to be submitted to the Planning Authority and agreed in writing and implemented for construction and post-construction. This should include procedures for dealing with protected species found during construction, monitoring of Sprouston Burn and Bowden Burn and measures for dust control and monitoring of dust. Reason: To protect the interest of Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
12. The planted buffer areas identified to comprise of native species of local provenance reflecting those present in the existing woodland, the numbers and species to be agreed in writing with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. No houses to back onto the Border Woods Special Area of Conservation. Existing woodland to be protected by 15m Root Protection Areas. Reason: To protect the interest of Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
13. A noise assessment to determine the design and location of the acoustic barrier to be carried out and submitted to the Planning Authority as part of any detailed planning application for the site. Any mitigation measures shown in the assessment to be necessary to be incorporated into the development. Reason: To address acoustic screening requirements between the site and A68.
14. Details of the length, width, height, method of construction, material, contours and grading of the bund on the eastern boundary to be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval before the development commences and the bund then to be constructed in accordance with the approved scheme and completed before the first dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area.
15. Construction works to meet the requirements of SEPA PPG 1, 5 and 6 and to ensure compliance with Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006. Reason: To protect the interest of River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
16. Details of the control of building materials, silt, oil, fuels and debris during construction works to be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site and the approved scheme to be implemented once the development is commenced. Reason: To avoid impacts on Sprouston burn and Bowden burn and River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
60 17. A method statement for the movement, storage and protection of soil on the site to be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site and the approved scheme to be implemented once the development is commenced. Reason: To avoid impacts on Sprouston burn and Bowden burn and River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
18. In respect of the demolition of buildings 4, 7, 10, 17 and 18 within the site, the removal of wooden cladding, slates and corrugated roofing to be carried out by hand. Should any bats be found during demolition, work to stop immediately and Scottish Natural Heritage contacted. Their advice to be followed accordingly. Reason: To protect bats within the site which are a protected species.
19. No site investigation or construction work (including tree clearance, earth works, vegetation clearance or building demolition) to be carried out during the breeding bird season unless checking surveys are carried out first by suitably qualified person to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect breeding birds within the site.
20. Details of the provision of nest ledges for swallows to be provided within the new development to be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before the development commences. The approved scheme then to be implemented once the development commences. Reason: To protect breeding birds within the site.
21. Additional enhancements to be provided within the new development to include 40 bat boxes, 60 bird boxes (20 for blue tit, 20 for tree sparrow and 20 for pied wagtail/ robin) and 20 swift boxes and/or swift bricks to be incorporated in some new buildings. Details of the location of the bat and bird boxes to be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing and the boxes then to be provided as per the approved scheme before the dwellinghouses are occupied. Reason: To protect and enhance the opportunities for bats and breeding birds within the development.
22. The development to incorporate energy conservation and renewable energy schemes. The details to be submitted to the Planning Authority as part of any detailed planning application for the site. Reason: To meet national renewable energy targets and to contribute to action on climate change.
23. Proposals for the restoration and re-use of the existing octagonal auction building to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: To ensure the restoration and use of the octagon building as part of the overall development.
24. Candidate core path 140, incorporating claimed right of way (BE180), must be integrated into the development and improved, including improved public access via the existing underpass (at the northern end of the development site under the A68) to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Candidate core path 140 must not be obstructed before or after development. During any construction works which affects public access to candidate core path 140, an alternative path may be provided which is not substantially less convenient for the public. Reason: To ensure existing public access is maintained and future public access provision is improved to sustain increased public use.
61 25. Candidate core path 1, incorporating St Cuthbert’s Way and Borders Abbeys Way, must not be obstructed at any time. Candidate core path 1 must be integrated into the development from the southern boundary to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure existing public access is maintained and future public access provision is improved to sustain increased public use.
26. Public access via the existing underpass (at the southern end of the site under the A68) on the south-eastern boundary must be integrated into the development to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure existing public access is maintained and future public access provision is improved to sustain increased public use.
Informatives
In respect of condition 1, the master plan should comply with the Planning Brief for the site and include a Design Statement. The master plan should include:
x Details of the phasing of the proposed development. x Details of the layout of the site, the design, external materials, massing heights and density of the housing development. x Street scenes from internal and external viewpoints and relationships with existing buildings. x Pedestrian, cycle and vehicular circulation within site and links outwith the site, parking, including visitor parking and street lighting. x Details of the location and size of open spaces, play areas, green corridors, landscaped areas, woodland areas and the village green or square. x Enhancement of the setting of the former Station Hotel.
In respect of condition 7, the Planning Authority normally requires that drainage complies with sustainable urban drainage system guidance (SUDS). The SUDS strategy should include individual soakaways for roof drainage, porous paving for driveways and parking areas, filtration trenches for road drainage and a retention basin to the south of the site. Temporary measures such as silt traps or a silt lagoon must be provided to deal with surface water run-off during construction and prior to the operation of the final SUDS
The applicant has been advised to contact Scottish Power’s Data Management Office, St Vincent Crescent Glasgow and request the cable and overhead line records for the affected area.
Waste management facilities for recycling and collection will be required within the development.
In respect of condition 19 relating to the provision of nest ledges for swallows, guidance can be found at http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/s/swallow/encouraging.asp
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 Senior Development Control Officer
62 63 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
10th DECEMBER 2007
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: (e) REFERENCE NUMBER: 06/02506/OUT
OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Selkirkshire PROPOSAL: Erection of mixed use rural centre comprising livestock auction mart, tourist visitor centre, business space, retailing and restaurant facilities with associated infrastructure and highway improvements and erection of manager’s dwellinghouse SITE: Land East of Auction Mart Newtown St Boswells APPLICANT: John Swan Limited AGENT: DTZ
SITE DESCRIPTION:
The site is situated to the east of the A68 outwith the settlement boundary of Newtown St Boswells and is used as grazing land in association with the existing auction mart. The site is bounded to the west by the A68 and to the east by the River Tweed, which is separated from the site by a steep sided slope. To the north is the Sprouston burn in a steep valley, which is a tributary of the River Tweed. To the south on lower ground is the waste water treatment works serving Newtown St Boswells. The site boundaries are heavily wooded, with the exception of the western boundary. The site is relatively flat.
The site is adjacent to the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI and the Border Woods Special Area of Conservation and SSSI. It is also situated within the National Scenic Area and Area of Great Landscape Value.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposal is to relocate the existing auction mart from Newtown St Boswells village centre. The indicative drawing submitted with the application shows two auction rings, covered and open pens, a lorry park and lorry wash area. In addition to this, 3,600 square meters of retailing floor space is proposed, together with tourist information and interpretation facilities and a restaurant/cafe. Office space for environmental organisations is proposed. A manager’s dwellinghouse would be located on the northern boundary of the site.
The site would be accessed from the A68 where a new roundabout is proposed. Within the site 573 car parking spaces and spaces for six coaches would be provided. Woodland planting and a wetland area are proposed for the perimeters of the site.
PLANNING HISTORY:
There is no planning history for this site.
An outline planning application (07/00547/OUT) has been submitted for the redevelopment of the existing auction mart in Newtown St Boswells to provide a mixed development of residential and health care facilities.
64 REPRESENTATION SUMMARY:
One representation has been received in respect of the application and is available for Members to view on the Public Access System. The principle planning issues raised are: x The proposal would be visually intrusive. x Light and noise pollution from the site will be significant and intrusive. x There would be no benefit to the local community or road users of the new junction onto the A68 and this would cause traffic accidents, delays and pollution.
APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION
A Design Statement, a Project Description and Overview Document, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, an Ecological Assessment and Addendum, an Economic, Tourism and Retail Considerations Document, a Transport Consideration document and a Sustainability Engineering Statement have been submitted with the application and are available for Members to view on the Public Access System.
The justification for the need to relocate the existing auction mart to this site is that economic pressures within agriculture and food production have led to the need to diversify if business and jobs are to be safeguarded and the existing site is less suitable for diversification. In addition, there is a need to increase the environmental sustainability of the operation; this would require substantial investment in the existing site and such works would be disruptive to the operation of the site. A new site would allow that sustainability to be addressed as an integral part of the site. The company looked at sites at the Royal Highland Showground in Edinburgh and a site at Wooler but the preferred option was the site at Newtown St Boswells.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011
The following policies apply to this proposal:
Principle S3: Development Strategy Policy N2: International Sites Policy N3: National Sites Policy N8: River Tweed System Policy N10: National Scenic Area Policy N11: Area of Great Landscape Value Policy E16: Rural Economic Development Policy E17: Location of Retailing Developments Policy E18: Out of Centre Retail Development Policy E21: Tourism Development Policy H6: New Housing in the Countryside – Isolated Housing Policy I11: Parking Provision in New Development
Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan 1995
The following policies apply to this proposal:
Policy 5: Settlement Boundaries Policy 8: Single Houses in the Countryside Policy 28: New Tourism Development Policy 30: River Tweed System Policy 33: Food Retailing Developments Policy 57: Protection of Trees/Woodlands Policy 58: Tree Planting Policy 62: Siting and Design in the Countryside 65 Policy 67: Energy Efficiency Policy 70: Landscaping of New developments Policy 80: Protection of National Scenic Areas Policy 82: Development in Designated Areas Policy 84: Development in the Countryside Policy 87: International and National Wildlife Sites Policy 94: Car Parking
Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005
The following policies apply to this proposal:
Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5: Developer Contributions Policy G6: Developer Contributions Related to Railway Reinstatement Policy G8: Development outwith Development Boundaries Policy BE10: Newtown St Boswells Expansion Safeguarding Policy NE1: International Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE2: National Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE3: Local Biodiversity Policy NE4: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy EP1: National Scenic Areas Policy EP2: Area of Great Landscape Value Policy D3: Shopping Development Policy Inf4: Parking Standards Policy Inf6: Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy Inf11: Developments that Generate Travel Demand Policy D1: Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside
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 New Housing in the Borders Countryside Policy and Guidance Note 1993 as Amended April 2000 and August 2004 x Supplementary Planning Guidance - Biodiversity
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Members can view the consultation responses received in full on the Public Access System and below is a summary of each response received:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services (Roads): It is unfortunate that the proposed access location from the A68 Trunk Road does not relate very well with the potential regeneration proposals for Newtown St. Boswells. A direct access onto the proposed new roundabout at the south end of Newtown would have worked well, but land issues, levels and costs make this option unviable. The proposed access location will disrupt both the free flow of traffic on the A68, and interfere with a substantial length of overtaking opportunities along the Trunk Road.
The site does have excellent links to the adjacent road and transportation network, lies within the central hub of the Borders, has an immediate workforce close by, and in the longer term is only a short journey away to the Railway Station at Tweedbank. The existing Mart Site in the village centre frequently creates road safety issues and the relocation of the mart to a site nearby would be of great benefit to all affected parties. 66 Internally, the proposed parking provision for staff, visitors and HGV’s seems generous. There are concerns regarding the general layout and some pedestrian issues, but these can be addressed at a later stage.
Director of Planning and Economic Development: (Archaeology): The proposal has no archaeological implications.
Director of Planning and Economic Development: (Ecology): The Ecological Impact Assessment has been carried out to the required standard with regard to protected species and local biodiversity issues.
Habitat proposals for a screening buffer to protect the woodland interest of the Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation will need to be sensitively managed to include appropriate native species and will need to be subject to the prior approval of the Planning Authority and SNH. The habitat proposals should also include areas of open grassland to provide some foraging areas for badgers. Opportunities for wetland enhancement could be provided through the provision of a SUDS feature, subject to SEPA’s approval.
The primary impact on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation would be on water quality and channel substrate. The application should not be approved until sufficient detail has been provided by the developers and SEPA are satisfied that the proposals are acceptable.
Regarding impacts on the River Tweed SAC/SSSI and Border Woods SAC/ Newtown St Boswells Woods SSSI, SNH have indicated that an Appropriate Assessment must be carried out by the Planning Authority. Further detail is required on water management issues and construction methods statements to assess dust, noise and lighting impacts and to provide mitigation as appropriate.
Re-consultation: An Appropriate Assessment of the effect on the integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and on the Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation has been carried out. Provided the requirements identified in the Appropriate Assessment are met through detailed planning conditions, there will be no significant impact on the qualifying interest and integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation or Border Woods Special Area of Conservation.
Director of Planning & Development (Rights of Way): No response received.
Director of Planning & Development (Landscape): The site is an area of high landscape quality, designated both as Area of Great Landscape Value and National Scenic Area. Development as proposed would effectively extend the ‘urban area’ of Newtown St Boswells across the A68 road. Due to the scale of the proposed development, there is a potential to create visual intrusion. However, the site is clearly delineated by existing woodland that provides screening. This can be further strengthened by new planting. This, together with careful attention to external materials and finishes at the detail design stage can produce a development that is successfully accommodated into the landscape.
Director of Education: The proposed development is located within the catchment areas for Newtown Primary School and Earlston High School. Both of these schools are at or near capacity and therefore a contribution will be sought for each school. A contribution of £9,100 is sought for the Primary School and £4,180 for the High School, making a total contribution sought for education infrastructure of £13,280.
Environmental Health: No objection in principle but more details would be required in order that consideration can be given to the food safety aspects for the retail outlets and restaurant. Planning permission should be granted on condition that development is not be permitted to start until a site investigation and risk assessment into the possible contamination of the site has been carried out and the development incorporates any measures shown in the assessment to be necessary. Any 67 requirement for a remediation and validation strategy would become a condition of the planning consent, to be submitted and agreed upon by the local authority prior to development.
Statutory Consultees
Transport Scotland: No objection subject to conditions relating to the proposed roundabout, access, fencing, lighting and the submission of a travel plan being attached to the planning permission.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Object to the proposal on the basis of a lack of information relating to foul drainage and SUDS as there is insufficient information required to assess the environmental impacts of these aspects of the proposal. Foul water drainage to be to the public sewer and surface water drainage dealt with by way of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. SEPA has no information regarding the flood risk of the site. Construction works must be carried out with due regard to SEPA’s pollution prevention guidelines
Re-consultation: Following the submission of additional information and SEPA withdrew their objection. Drainage details have been agreed.
Scottish Water: Due to the scale of the development it is necessary for Scottish Water to assess the impact of the development on the existing infrastructure. The Newtown St Boswells waste water treatment works are close to capacity. A SUDS would be required for surface water drainage.
Scottish Natural Heritage: Objects to the proposal based on the information submitted though this objection can be overcome through the use of conditions. The areas of concern are the impact of the development on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and River Tweed SSSI, the Border Woods Special Area of Conservation and Newtown St Boswells Woods SSSI and the Eildon and Leaderfoot National Scenic Area. An Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the proposal in respect of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation should be carried out by the Council. The development could have potentially serious adverse impacts on badgers, legally protected species.
Re-consultation: Provided the development is undertaken in strict accordance with SEPA’s requirements the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI. The Council is required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the proposal for the site. Provided the development is carried out in accordance with conditions suggested by SNH, the proposal would not adversely affect the Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation and SSSI. The original objection by SNH is withdrawn subject to the use of appropriately worded conditions. There are still serious concerns regarding the proposal by the Council to upgrade the footpaths within the Deans to the north and south of the site due to the potential impact of the work on the woodland SSSI and Special Area of Conservation. SNH would need to consent to any pathwork improvements and would need to carry out an Appropriate Assessment on the impact of these works on the SSSI and Special Area of Conservation. Nothing should be agreed between the Council and developer until consent has been given by SNH.
Newtown St Boswells Community Council: No response received.
Non-Statutory Consultees:
Visit Scotland: Tourism is vital to the Scottish Borders economy and any development that results in the growth of tourism would be of benefit to the local area.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The main planning issues are whether the proposal complies with the Council’s policies for housing and development in the countryside outwith settlement boundaries and whether the development would have an adverse impact on the landscape qualities of the National Scenic Area, Special 68 Areas of Conservation, SSSI’s and the Area of Great Landscape Value. In addition, whether satisfactory access to the site can be achieved.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Planning Policy
Principle S3 Development Strategy of the Structure Plan guides all new development to existing towns and villages with the principle focus for development to be the primary hub, the central Borders, with substantial new development being supported in the Galashiels/Melrose/St Boswells corridor.
Policy 5 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan states that all development related to a settlement should be contained within its boundary. The site is outwith the settlement boundary and so the proposal fails to comply with policy 5. However, Policy G8 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that development should be contained within development boundaries and development outwith this boundary should be refused unless there are exceptional circumstances. The site is outwith the defined boundary for Newtown St Boswells. The exceptional circumstance listed in policy G8 include the proposal being a job-generating development in the countryside that has an economic justification under policy D1 and that the proposal would offer significant community benefits that outweigh the need to protect the development boundary.
Policy D1 states that business, tourism and leisure development in the countryside will be approved provided that certain criteria are met. The development must be used directly for agriculture and uses that are appropriate to the rural character of the area; the development is used for tourism appropriate to the rural character of the area and the development is used for business or employment generating uses and there is an economic and/or operational need for the particular countryside location and it cannot be accommodated within the development boundary of a settlement. Policy E16 of the Approved Structure Plan encourages business and industrial development which supports the rural economy. Policy 84 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan seeks to ensure all development in the countryside has no adverse impact on countryside amenity, landscape, nature conservation and minerals in terms of siting and design.
This proposal is for a rural resource centre. The main component of it is the relocation of the existing auction mart from the centre of Newtown St Boswells. The applicant’s supporting statement advises that economic pressures within agriculture and food production have led to the need to diversify if business if jobs are to be safeguarded and the existing site is less suitable for diversification. In addition, there is a need to increase the environmental sustainability of the operation; this would require substantial investment in the existing site and such works would be disruptive to the operation of the site. A new site would allow that sustainability to be addressed as an integral part of the site.
The proposal would therefore see the relocation of an existing business. This would be beneficial as it would remove the use from the centre of Newtown St Boswells, reducing the amount of farm traffic using the main road through the village. It would also allow the existing auction mart site to be redeveloped with uses more appropriate to the village centre, creating opportunities for the enhancement of facilities and the environment.
The removal of the auction mart is therefore seen as beneficial. The proposal would allow the expansion of the existing business to a nearby site, therefore keeping the business in the local area. The site is on the opposite side of the A68 to the village but is considered to be well related to it, with pedestrian links across the A68. The scheme also proposes the diversification of the existing business. Office space would be created for public and rural businesses with the potential for job creation.
Policy Inf11 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan seeks to guide developments to locations that are accessible to bus corridors, train stations and which maximise the opportunities for walking 69 and cycling. The site is located adjacent to the A68, one of the main routes through the Borders and the A68 is a public transport route and so the site would be very accessible to visitors and could be served by different modes of transport.
The proposal involves retail, restaurant and visitor facilities. Policy E21 of the Approved Structure Plan and policy 28 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan encourages new tourism developments provided certain criteria are met. The proposal has the support of Visit Scotland, who advise that tourism is vital to the Scottish Borders economy and any development that results in the growth of tourism would be of benefit to the local area.
The retail element of the proposal is of concern. Policies E17 and E18 of the Approved Structure Plan, policy 33 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan and policy ED3 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan support and enhance the role of town centres and town centre and edge-of- centre locations are preferred to out-of-centre locations. Out-of-centre locations will be resisted for food retailing. Proposals for out-of-centre retail developments would be assessed to establish the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of existing town centres, the impact on travel patterns and car usage, accessibility of the site to a choice of transport modes and the ability of the proposal to meet deficiencies in shopping provision that cannot be met on town centre and edge- of- centre sites.
The proposal is for high quality retail provision with a focus on local food, crafts, textiles and country living. It is important that this type of retailing is achieved as this would encourage tourists and visitors to the area. The concern is that the retail space, once approved, would be taken up by one food retailer that would directly compete with existing uses within the Newtown St Boswells. Controlling the size of the retail units or the goods sold via a legal agreement would alleviate this concern. A condition is also proposed that the retail units are not occupied until the auction mart is operational to ensure that the development does not become an out-of-town retail unit, which would be contrary to development plan policies.
The proposal includes a manager’s dwellinghouse. The site is outwith the settlement boundary of Newtown St Boswells and there is no building group in this location. Policy H6 of the Approved Structure Plan, policy 8 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan and policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan require an agricultural or economic justification for the erection of a dwellinghouse on a site outwith a settlement and building group. A house on this site can only be supported if it is required in connection with the business use of the site. Therefore, it is recommended that the legal agreement includes a clause that the dwellinghouse is tied to the land so that it cannot be sold off separately and that the occupancy is restricted to a manager for the complex.
Policy BE10 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that land at Newtown St Boswells will be safeguarded for the future development of a planned village expansion. The site is identified as a “least likely” development area. This does not necessarily imply a total prohibition on development and it is considered that the proposal would not prejudice the expansion of Newtown St Boswells.
Access and Parking
The Council’s development plan policies for development in the countryside require that an adequate access can be achieved. 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 proposal is for a new roundabout to be formed on the A68 incorporating an access to the site. A total of 573 car parking spaces and spaces for six coaches would be provided within the site.
Transport Scotland has no objections to the proposal and has recommended conditions relating to the provision of the access and roundabout, fencing and street lighting. A Travel Plan is also required setting out proposals for reducing the dependency on the private car. 70 The Director of Technical Services advises that it is unfortunate that the proposed access location from the A68 Trunk Road does not relate very well with the potential regeneration proposals for Newtown St. Boswells, on the opposite side of the road. A direct access onto the proposed new roundabout at the south end of Newtown would have worked , but land issues, levels and costs make this option unviable. The proposed access location will disrupt both the free flow of traffic on the A68, and interfere with a substantial length of overtaking opportunities along the Trunk Road which must be a consideration when determining this application. However, as this is a Trunk Road, these particular points are for Transport Scotland to assess, and comment on more thoroughly.
The site does have excellent links to the adjacent road and transportation network, lies within the central hub of the Borders, has an immediate workforce close by, and in the longer term is only a short journey away to the Railway Station at Tweedbank. Furthermore, the existing Mart Site in the village centre frequently creates road safety issues due to the conflict with a multitude of other users in such a confined area, and on occasions traffic jams rise due to the lack of available space. For this reason alone, the relocation of the mart to a site nearby would be of great benefit to all affected parties, including the Mart.
Internally, the proposed parking provision for staff, visitors and HGV’s appears generous, especially with the parking overflow facility for 100 vehicles. There are concerns regarding the general layout and some pedestrian issues, but these can addressed at a later stage. Considering all the points raised above, the Director of Technical Services has no objections to this application.
Landscape and Visual Impacts
Policies N10 of the Structure Plan, 80 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local 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. Policies N11 of the Structure Plan, 82 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local 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 the Eildon Hills National Scenic Area and Area of Great Landscape Value.
The site is a roughly rectangular area of fairly level ground to the east of the A68 which forms its western boundary. The other 3 sides are clearly delineated by steep sided wooded valleys or Deans. On the north side is the valley of the Sprouston Burn. On the shorter east side, the bank slopes down to the Tweed and on the south side is the longest boundary with slopes down to the Bowden Burn. All 3 woodland boundaries are very steep and support a mature broadleaved tree cover of ‘semi-natural’ woodland. These areas are all designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest and are also included within the Borders Woodlands Special Area of Conservation and are adjacent to the Tweed River Special Area of Conservation.
The proposed rural centre represents a very substantial built development with extensive associated areas of hard surface. There are clear views into the site from Monksford Cottage to the north and from some properties on the east side of Newtown St Boswells across the A68. In addition, there are clear views into the site from the A68 itself in addition to the visual implications of the proposed new roundabout.
Given the size of the proposed development and the landscape sensitivity of the area, there is a potential to create visual intrusion. Existing tree cover does not provide full screening of the site. From the Wallace Statue, the site is about 1 kilometre distant and the proposed development would read as an extension of Newtown St Boswells set within a much wider view. However this is a well contained site, given the woodlands on its boundaries and its topography. It is not considered that the visual impact of the proposal would be unacceptable but it could be minimised through mitigation. Other viewpoints, although closer, are generally filtered through the woodland screen although there is a section of the view from the A68 which is also clear and close.
71 One way to address intrusion issues is to ensure that the new buildings are of suitable finishes, especially the external cladding and roof finishes, so that glare and incongruous colours are avoided. Low reflectivity materials should therefore be used.
Policy 57 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan seeks to protect existing trees and woodlands which are important in the landscape, wildlife and amenity features. Management agreements will be encouraged. Policy 58 encourages the planting of trees in and around new developments. Policy NE4 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan states that the Council supports the maintenance and management of trees and woodlands.
The indicative Master Plan shows the proposed planting around the development. The existing woodland would be reinforced to break up the open nature of the site. A 10 – 30m native woodland strip would be planted adjacent to the site boundaries. Open water is introduced into the site as a visual element and wetlands associated with waste water attenuation. SNH support the proposed planting but advises that this planting should be of native species. Given that much of the existing woodland is at a lower elevation than the site, the proposed mitigation planting will be essential as a supplement to the existing screening.
Provided that adequate planting is carried out and the design and the materials of the proposed buildings respect the character of the surrounding area it is considered that the proposal would not be unduly prominent in the landscape nor would the proposal be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area.
Footpath links to the surrounding wooded Deans as part of the public interpretation associated with the rural centre are being considered. An opportunity does exist at the south corner of the site, to create a new link down the bank to the west of the sewage works. The grades here are gentler and the tree cover has already been cut back for a power line wayleave. Suitable shrub and small tree planting beside the new path could create a practical and attractive connection to the existing path system below.
Design
Policy 62 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan states that seeks to ensure that any new building in the countryside is of sympathetic design and materials. 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.
This is an outline application but indicative drawings have been submitted showing the location and design of the buildings. The buildings required for the auction mart would be located to the rear of the site with the public facilities, such as the retailing, offices, restaurant and tourist information facilities at the front closest to the A68. A courtyard development is proposed and the buildings would be no more than two-storey in height, although the cattle ring would be higher. The drawings show a modern design incorporating the use of timber and glazing.
It is important, given the site’s location outwith the boundary of Newtown St Boswells, that a high quality development takes place and that a retail park style development is avoided. The indicative drawings indicate a development of a size and scale that fits in with the landscape setting of the site.
It is important that a master plan is submitted with any detailed application for this site so that the development does not take place incrementally but adheres to a previously approved plan for the overall development. It is recommended that this be a condition of any planning permission for this proposal.
Policy Inf6 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan and SEPA require drainage to be via a Sustainable Urban Drainage System. Foul water drainage would be to the sewage treatment plant but wetlands are proposed at the eastern edge of the site to treat water and provide attenuation before any discharges to watercourses. Surface water drainage would follow the principles of 72 sustainable urban drainage and details are submitted in the Sustainable Engineering Statement. This also includes renewable energy techniques. SNH advises against the use of wind turbines within the site as the site is within the National Scenic Area.
Hawkslee Farm is situated 200m to the south east of the site and Monksford Cottage is located 250m to the north of the site. It is considered that the proposal would not harm the residential amenities of occupiers of these properties.
Natural Heritage
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 NE2 seeks to ensure that proposals do not have an adverse impact on SSSIs. Policy NE3 states that the Council will seek to safeguard the integrity of habitats which are of importance for the maintenance and enhancement of local biodiversity.
An Ecological Assessment has been carried out and submitted with the application with regard to protected species and local biodiversity issues. In respect of the impact of the proposal on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI and Border Woods Special Area of Conservation and Newtown St Boswells Woods SSSI, SNH have indicated that an Appropriate Assessment must be carried out by the Planning Authority.
This has now been completed and provided the requirements identified in the Appropriate Assessment are met through detailed planning conditions, it is considered that there will be no significant impact on the qualifying interest and integrity of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and the Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation. SNH has withdrawn their objections to the proposal, subject to the use of appropriate conditions. SNH have been consulted on the proposed conditions set out in this report and the conditions amended to incorporate their response.
The results of the badger survey indicates that there are signs of activity within the adjacent areas of woodland but no active sett recorded. One outlier sett and one possible outlier sett were recorded over 100m from the boundary and 30-40m from the site boundary respectively. No main setts were found. There was little evidence of badger use of the open fields within the site. From the evidence presented there will be no current licensing requirements for badgers at this site.
Developer Contributions
Policies 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. A number of constraints and issues have been identified which require to be addressed through appropriate developer contributions and a legal agreement:
x Long term maintenance and management of existing and proposed landscaping, hedgerows and woodlands x Footpath provision within the site and the upgrading of the footpath network within the Deans to the north and south of the site x Highway works adjacent to the new access x Control of the retail floorspace x The manager’s dwellinghouse to be tied to the land so that it cannot be sold off separately and occupied only by someone employed to manage the complex and their dependants. x Education facilities in respect of the proposed dwellinghouse x Waverley Railway Project in respect of the proposed dwellinghouse x Arrangements to ensure sufficient capacity in the waste water treatment works
73 x Linking the development with the phasing of the development of the existing auction mart site to ensure that no work commences on the residential development until the new auction mart is operational
The necessary developer contributions would be secured through the completion of a legal agreement between the developer and Council.
CONCLUSION:
The site is situated outwith the development boundary for Newtown St Boswells and so would be contrary to policy 5 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan. However, policy G8 allows development outwith the development boundary if there are exceptional circumstances.
It is considered that the removal of the auction mart from the centre of Newtown St Boswells would provide benefits for the village itself and the relocation of an existing business to a site nearby would enable this business to expand and diversify, introducing employment generating uses, tourist facilities and speciality retailing which would attract visitors and tourists to the area, benefiting the local economy. In addition, the site is highly accessible by different modes of transport.
The site is an area of high landscape quality, designated both as Area of Great Landscape Value and National Scenic Area. The development as proposed would effectively extend the ‘urban area’ of Newtown St Boswells across the A68 road. Due to the scale of the proposed development, there is a potential to create visual intrusion. However, the site is clearly delineated by existing woodland that provides screening. This can be further strengthened by new planting. The application should be acceptable in landscape terms provided a comprehensive scheme of mitigation planting is agreed and implemented as part of the development. This, together with careful attention to external materials and finishes at the detail design stage, can produce a development that is successfully accommodated into the landscape.
The impact of the proposal on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI and Border Woods Special Area of Conservation and SSSI has been assessed and the impacts can be mitigated by the use of appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend that the application be approved subject to referral to Scottish Ministers (as the proposal is a departure from the Development Plan and is linked to the development proposals for the existing auction mart where the Council owns land) and a legal agreement addressing the requirements and contributions listed in the report and the following conditions and informatives:
1. A master plan to be submitted with the first detailed or reserved matters application relating to this site for approval of the Planning Authority in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage. The development to be implemented in accordance with the approved master plan. Reason: To ensure a well planned and phased development and to control the impact of the development on the National Scenic Area.
2. The subsequent approval by the Planning Authority of the means of access, the layout of the site and the design and siting of any buildings will be required prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland, no development shall be commenced until the new A68 Rural Centre roundabout has been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, in consultation with
74 Transport Scotland. This shall be as set out in Bielski Associates Drawing No. 1389/03 Rev A. Reason: To minimise interference with the safety and free flow of traffic on the trunk road.
4. No part of the development shall commence until fencing has been erected in a manner and position to be agreed with the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland, between the site and A68 Trunk Road. Reason: To ensure the movement of pedestrians is confined to the permitted means of access, thereby lessening the danger to and interference with the free flow of traffic on the trunk road.
5. Details of all lighting and advertising features within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland. Reason: To ensure that there will be no distraction or dazzle to drivers on the trunk road and that the safety of the traffic on the trunk road will not be diminished and to safeguard the National Scenic Area.
6. Prior to the occupation of any development, a comprehensive Travel Plan that sets out proposals for reducing the dependency on the private car shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland. The Travel Plan to include:
x Details of the proposed monitoring schedule and reporting procedures; x Details for the management of the Travel Plan identifying persons responsible for implementation; x Details of mode share targets; x Details of proposed pedestrian and cycle infrastructure within the site and connections to the existing networks; x Details of cycle parking provisions and location within the site; x Details of proposed measures to improve public transport facilities; x Details of initiatives such as car share schemes and flexible working; x Details of employee locker and shower facilities; x Details of travel information to be provided within the site; x Details of car parking provision and management. Reason: To be consistent with the requirements of Scottish Executive Planning For Transport Documents SPP17 and PAN 75.
7. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and Scottish Natural Heritage. Details of the scheme shall include:
i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance
ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored and enhanced and methods of protection
iii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates
iv. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas and a schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density
v. existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations
vi. other artefacts and structures such as street furniture
vii a programme for completion and subsequent long term maintenance and management of the landscape and woodland areas.
75 Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.
The planted buffer areas identified to comprise of native species, the numbers and species to be agreed in writing with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site. Existing woodland to be protected by 15m Root Protection Areas. Reason: To protect the interest of Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
8 No trees or hedges 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 Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained.
9. Before any part of the 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: i. 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; ii. No fires shall be lit within the spread of the branches of the trees; iii. No materials or equipment shall be stored within the spread of the branches of the trees; iv. Any accidental damage to the trees shall be cleared back to undamaged wood and be treated with a preservative if appropriate; v. 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.
10. 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.
11. Details of the length, width, height, method of construction, material, contours and grading of any bunds within the site to be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval before the development commences and the bund then to be constructed in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area.
12. 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.
13. A site investigation and risk assessment into the possible contamination of the site and groundwater to be carried out prior to the commencement of the development and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. Any mitigation measures shown in the assessment to be necessary to be incorporated into the development. Reason: To address any contamination of the site. 76 14. The retail units hereby permitted shall not be open to the public until the auction mart has been completed and is operational. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory balance of uses is properly and effectively carried out.
15. Construction of the manager’s dwellinghouse not to commence until construction work on the auction mart commences. The dwellinghouse not to be occupied until the auction mart has been completed and operational. Reason: As the erection of a dwellinghouse on this site would be contrary to the Council’s housing in the countryside policy unless occupied by a manager for the auction mart complex.
16. 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.
17. A General Site and Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted to the Planning Authority and agreed in writing in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage and then implemented for construction and post-construction. This should include procedures for dealing with protected species found during construction, monitoring of Sprouston Burn and Bowden Burn and measures for dust control and monitoring of dust. Reason: To protect the interest of Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
18. Construction works to meet the requirements of SEPA PPG 1, 5 and 6 and to ensure compliance with Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006. Reason: To protect the interest of River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
Details of the control of building materials, silt, oil, fuels, dust and debris during construction works to be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site and the approved scheme to be implemented once the development is commenced. Reason: To avoid impacts on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
19. A method statement for the movement, storage and protection of soil on the site to be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site and the approved scheme to be implemented once the development is commenced. Reason: To avoid impacts on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation and SSSI.
20. The position, size, diameter, materials and method of installing the pipeline through the woodland to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. The pipe then to be laid in accordance with the approved details. An Ecologist to be on site whilst the pipeline is being installed. Reason: To protect the Border Woods Special Area of Conservation.
21. An Ecological Management Plan to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before the development commences and then to be implemented once works commence on site. Reason: To protect and enhance the biodiversity of the site.
22. A checking survey for badgers to be carried out prior to commencement of works and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. An area of open grassland should be maintained within the site to provide foraging habitat for badgers. Reason: To protect badgers within the site and enhance their habitat.
23. A checking survey for bats in the dead tree that is to be removed to be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval before the development commences. Soft felling of the tree to be employed. If bats are discovered during felling, work should stop immediately and any
77 sections containing bats to be placed on the ground to allow bats to escape without further disturbance. Scottish Natural Heritage should be contacted immediately and their advice followed accordingly. Felling in the autumn is preferred (September or October). Reason: To protect bats within the site.
24. Additional enhancements to be provided within the new development to include 20 bat boxes, 30 bird boxes (10 for blue tit, 10 for tree sparrow and 10 for pied wagtail/robin) and 20 swift boxes and/or swift bricks to be incorporated in some new buildings, 10 ledges for swallows and a barn owl nest box to be incorporated into the design of the buildings. Details of the location of the bat and bird boxes to be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing and the boxes then to be provided as per the approved scheme before the buildings are occupied. Reason: To protect and enhance the opportunities for bats and breeding birds within the development.
25. The area of species rich grassland to be maintained by low intensity grazing or cutting, the exact method to be agreed in the Ecological Management Plan submitted to the Planning Authority in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage and then implemented in accordance with the approved scheme upon commencement of the development and thereafter. Reason: to protect the grassland habitat.
Informatives:
In respect of condition 1, the master plan should include a Design Statement also include:
x Details of the phasing of the proposed development.
x Details of the layout of the site, the design, external materials, massing heights and density of the buildings.
x Pedestrian, cycle and vehicular circulation within site and links outwith the site.
In respect of condition 3, the trunk road modifications shall in all aspects comply with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Specification for Highway Works published by HMSO. The developer shall issue a certificate to that effect, signed by the design organisation. The developer shall be required to enter into a Minute of Agreement with the Scottsh Ministers for all trunk road related works. A Minute of Agreement shall be signed prior to commencement of any part of the development.
In respect of condition 5, due to the rural character of the site and environs measures should be put in place to minimise any effects of light spillage, glare and light pollution arising from lighting of the development.
In respect of conditions 7 and 8:
x The area of planting be extended right up to the edge of the lorry park area i.e. north of the proposed wetland and that to include a good proportion of tall forest trees such as oak and ash as well as an evergreen understorey of holly and yew. Due to the proximity of the adjoining SSSI, non-native species are to be excluded. In addition, every opportunity should be taken to establish further tree and shrub cover within the site i.e. the ‘island beds’ and trees within the public car park. Tree planting along the A68 boundary is also required.
x Habitat proposals for a planted screening buffer to protect the woodland interest of the Borders Woods Special Area of Conservation are required and this planting will need to be sensitively managed. Proposals for new trees, shrubs and hedges should include appropriate native species.
In respect of condition 12: 78 x Wash down water from pens, rings, herding areas and livestock lorry wheel wash to be drained via foul sewer, with agreement from Scottish Water. x Water within site from the roof areas and wash down areas will be recycled. x Car parks and lorry stands are to be constructed of permeable surfacing. x Run off from car parks and lorry stands to drain via a full retention class 1 Interceptor drains with a silt trap to filter drain or swale. x Roads will drain to filter drain and swales. x All surface water will drain via source control and wetland to the River Tweed. x Opportunities for wetland enhancement should be pursued.
In respect of condition 21:
x The route of pipeline to be as described in Addendum to the Ecological Assessment. x The pipeline diameter to be the minimum to meet its function and not to exceed 300mm. x The means of installation of the pipeline to follow section 3.3.2 of Addendum to the Ecological Assessment x An Ecological Clerk of Works to be appointed and present on site to guide construction of pipeline.
In respect of condition 22, the Ecological Management Plan to include planting plans and specifications, details of plant protection and establishment maintenance and details of the long term management of the woodland and landscaped areas. The plan to be implemented beyond the establishment phase of the planting.
Waste management facilities for recycling and collection should be incorporated into the development.
The applicant is advised to contact the Council’s the Environmental Health Department regarding the proposed use of a private water supply and the applicant should notify them when it is to be brought into use.
The comments of Scottish Water are attached for the applicant’s information
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 Senior Development Control Officer
79 80 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
27th NOVEMBER 2007
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: (f) REFERENCE NUMBER: 06/02064/OUT & 06/02065/OUT
OFFICER: Mr A Maclean WARD: Mid Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Erection of dwellinghouse SITE: Plot 2 Land South East Of Builders Yard Nunlands Foulden APPLICANT: J C Constable Esq AGENT: Edwin Thompson
SITE DESCRIPTION
This application sites are located at Nunlands near Foulden. The two plots occupy the corner of a grass park adjacent to the minor road leading from Foulden to Ayton at a local cross roads around which a number of properties and buildings have developed. The application area is the one quadrant of the junction on which there are no buildings. The site is bounded to the west by the public road and a tree-lined roadside hedge. To the north is the farm access past Blinkbonny to the applicants farm while the southern field edge would be contained by a new access road which would provide access for the new plots and remove farm traffic from the existing junction at the cross roads.
Although there is a cluster of existing dwellings at Nunlands there are also a number of extant planning consents. These include development of the former builders yard across the road to the west and the development of two plots on the site of deteriorating former haulage depot buildings at Blinkbonny to the north. Originally submitted as three sites, one application was withdrawn as it took the development over the 100% threshold. The remaining land is incorporated as amenity planting. Generally a relatively level site the plots sit distinctly lower than Blinkbonny and there is a slow fall to the south, but with a slight rise to the east.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The applications are submitted in outline and relate to the erection of 2 dwellinghouses on adjoining plots. A third application for another plot to the south east of the current application was withdrawn by the applicants.
CONSIDERATION BY BERWICKSHIRE AREA COMMITTEE (September 2007)
The application was continued from the Berwickshire Area Committee meeting of 25th September at the request of members to enable the provision of additional information from the Director of Technical Services about land drainage issues. There was particular concern to ensure that the proposal would not aggravate periodic ponding of water on the public road adjacent to Nunlands. In the absence of detailed information on the various points the application was not re-presented at the October meeting.
The issue of water ponding on the public road has been pursued with the Area roads surveyor. He confirmed that there had been a historic problem at the Nunlands House drive location this being primarily because of blocked gulleys and drains. Remedial action was undertaken in November 2006 to replace gulleys and drains. In the intervening period he has no record of any recurring problem but has agreed to monitor the area. 81 As to the new farm access, more detailed plans setting out junction configuration, sightlines and construction have been provided in response to specifications from the Director of Technical Services. These incorporate measures to prevent surface run-off both from the new road and from the development plots. Connection would be made into existing field drains, as well as ground soakaway measures.
The Director of Technical Services has additionally revisited the situation of the existing access. He continues to accept that it presents general access concerns as well as specific difficulties for large farm vehicles. In accepting a new access as a road safety improvement he would have preferred to see the existing access stopped up. Given the difficulties with that scenario he has indicated that measures should be imposed to preclude any continuing farm use of that section of road. The mechanism for achieving that would have to be by planning condition or legal agreement with the measures implemented concurrently with the formation of the new access.
CONSIDERATION BY BERWICKSHIRE AREA COMMITTEE (November 2007)
This application was considered by the Berwickshire Area Committee on 27 November 2007 when members resolved to refuse the application contrary to Officers recommendation. On applications for housing in the countryside, where a determination contrary to officers’ recommendation is proposed, the application requires to be referred to the Development and Building Control for final determination. Members considered the site to be poorly related to the building group at Nunlands.
PLANNING HISTORY
There is no application history on the site itself. Permission is extant on the former builder’s yard site across the road to the west. A renewal of consent is at legal agreement stage for two units at Blinkbonny. There have been other proposals at Nunlands which have previously been refused because of poor relationship to the form of the group or because of access problems.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
There have been 5 separate objections lodged to the applications by neighbours. These objections have been maintained even following the removal of one of the development sites. The main concerns raised were: x The building group is already complete and the proposal would be overdevelopment. x The development could set a precedent for further housing in the immediate area x Agricultural land would be permanently lost and there would be long term environmental effects. x The existing access is reasonable, could be improved, and a new road is not required. x An additional junction would be formed and would have a negative impact on road safety. x There is no street lighting at the junction and no pavements so pedestrians have to walk on the road. x Other developments are planned and as this is a busy road already there are road safety dangers. x The road and the site are susceptible to waterlogging. x There are drainage problems in the area.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The applicant’s submissions claim that:
There is a building group at Nunlands and there is scope for addition. The existing access to the farm is substandard and a new access across the field could be provided which would also form a logical edge to the group. The present access would be better stopped up and users could utilise the new access but it is appreciated this is not within the applicant’s control. Water and electricity services are readily available and there is land to accommodate private drainage. 82 In response to concerns and the 100% rule the applicant withdrew one of the plots. A statement to guide future development of the site has been prepared as a supporting document and addresses building position, orientation, access arrangements and landscaping.
A detailed plan incorporating advice from the Director of Technical Services has been provided.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Director of Technical Services: No objections in principle. The new access would have to be formed to specification. Parking and turning areas would be required. The existing junction is substandard on a number of counts and particularly on forward visibility.
Detailed requirements for the formation and construction of the new road have been set out. A requirement to preclude farm use of the retained access has also been highlighted.
Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: A contribution would be required for secondary school provision.
Statutory Consultees
Foulden, Mordington, and Lamberton Community Council: Object to the development. It is outwith the settlement, is not well related to the building group and is therefore contrary to policy. It would permanently destroy agricultural land and damage local biodiversity
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
Approved Structure Plan 2001-2011
Policy N 20 Design Policy H 5 New Housing in the Countryside – Building Groups
Berwickshire Local Plan 1994
Policy 7 Additions to Building Groups Policy 60 Trees on Construction Sites Policy 63 Siting and Design in the Countryside Policy 71 Landscaping of New Developments
Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan December 2005
Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 Developer Contributions Policy NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy H1 Affordable Housing Policy D2 Housing in the Countryside
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: x New Housing in the Borders Countryside Policy and Guidance Note 1993 as (Amended April 2000 and August 2004). x Supplementary Planning Guidance on Developer Contributions June 2006
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The critical determining issues on this application are: 83 x Whether the development can be adequately serviced. x Whether the level of development proposed is appropriate. x Whether the proposal is acceptably related to the form of the building group at Nunlands
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Land Use Principle
There is no question that there is a building group at Nunlands, which is presently scattered around three of the quadrants at the local cross roads. The granting of other consents in the immediate vicinity testifies to the existence of the group. The level of development presently consented falls within the 100% threshold which would still be met if two plots were approved on this location. The third application which breached that standard has previously been withdrawn. Consideration of the proposal is not though down to a numbers issue. The key factor is whether the plots are acceptably related to the form of the group.
Relationship to Building Group
The site does encroach into a green field situation. It is also an area which is partially contained by roadside hedging and trees. Prior to the submission of housing proposals the Director of Technical Services did indicate that the formation of a new access from a point to the south of the Nunlands house boundary would be appropriate. That access has provided a logical edge to potential development although clearly attention to its alignment and landscaping would be essential to create an appropriate context and relationship to the form of Nunlands. Within that area too the siting and orientation of buildings as well as their style and massing would be critical to achieve balance with road frontages to the public road, the present, and the proposed farm roads. Use of the lower ground levels of the site would also help mitigate the impact on the Blinkbonny properties. Retention and protection of roadside trees and hedging too would be essential as would containment to prevent further extension of the development area.
Developer Contributions
As a development of two houses this proposal would be liable to make a contribution towards affordable housing. Both units would also require to contribute to Secondary School provision. The applicant is aware of this and has indicated agreement for this to be handled through a Section 75 legal agreement.
Infrastructure
In terms of servicing a mains water supply is available but there is no public drainage. The sites are though part of a sizeable field area within which there is significant potential to provide soakaway treatment and also to attenuate surface water drainage. As to access the Director of Technical Services has highlighted that the existing junction leading to the farm is seriously substandard.
Formation of an alternative access would provide a junction with appropriate sightlines. He considers the access arrangements suggested meet his requirements and provided the works complied with his guidelines as set out, he would support a detailed application. These requirements now include the removal of all farm traffic from the initial section of the existing access.
CONCLUSION
With strong conditions imposed regarding a design statement, protection of established planting, though not its management and maintenance, and new planting to contain the sites it is judged the residential development will not impact unreasonably on the form and character of the area and is therefore consistent with the housing in the countryside policies. Development of the plots is 84 though predicated on the formation of the new access in accordance with specification and the restriction of farm use of the current access point.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:
I recommend that applications 06/02064/OUT & 06/02065/OUT be approved subject to a Section 75 legal agreement to cover developer contributions, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The subsequent approval by the Planning Authority of the means of access, the design and siting of any buildings and the landscape treatment of the site will be required prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2. 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 (as appropriate): 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. Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings. 3. No trees within the application site shall be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The existing tree(s) represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained. 4. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced detailed drawings showing which trees and hedging are to be retained on the site shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and none of the trees/hedges so shown shall be felled, thinned, lopped, topped, lifted or disturbed without the prior written consent of the Local 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. 5. 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: (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. 6. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the hedge 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
85 altered. Regular management and maintenance of the hedging is not precluded by this condition. Reason: In the interests of preserving the hedges which contribute to the visual amenity of the area. 7. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or amendments or re-enactment or re-enactment thereof) no extension, enlargement; or other alteration of the dwelling shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Council, to whom a planning application must be made. Reason: The Local Planning Authority considers that the development hereby permitted is the maximum that can be reasonably allowed without causing detriment to the amenities of adjoining properties, and for this reason would wish to control any future proposals or alterations or extensions. 9. The submission for the approval of the planning authority of a design statement governing the development of the plot within three months of the date of this consent. Reason: to ensure effective control is maintained over the form of development. 10. Prior to the formation of the new access measures to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority on the restriction of farm traffic use of the initial section of the existing access. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
And subject to the following informative:
The Director of Technical Services has advised that the new road formation should comply with the following:
x Visiblity splays of 3m x 120m in either direction at the junction between the new road and the existing public road. x Steps must be taken to prevent any surface water flowing from the new road or house plots on to the adjacent public road. x The construction of the bell-mouth should be :- a 40mm layer of 14mm size close graded bituminous surface course to BS4987 laid on a 100mm layer of 28mm size dense base (roadbase) to the same BS laid on a 310mm layer of 100mm broken stone bottoming blinded with sub-base, type 1. x Radii of 10m should be provided at the junction with the public road. x A throat width of 6m should be provided on the new road for a minimum of 15m.
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 John Hiscox Development Control Officer
86 87 88 PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS ITEM No 6(a) COMMITTEE
10 DECEMBER 2007
REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS
ASSESSMENT OF APPEAL DECISIONS
1 PURPOSE
1.1 To inform members of recent trends and current issues with regard to planning appeal decisions in the Scottish Borders.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 At the October 2007 meeting of the Eildon Area Committee, members asked for a report to be prepared setting out appeal success rates across the Scottish Borders, comparing the figures with success rates for other authorities, identifying any particular patterns or trends, and highlighting any lessons to be learned.
2.2 Appendix 1 to this report provides a summary of appeal decisions in the Scottish Borders over the period since April 2006 disaggregated by Committee. A comparison of success rates with the Scottish average over the last three years for which statistics are available is also provided.
2.3 Members should note that care requires to be taken when using the information in Appendix 1 as the relatively low numbers of appeal cases renders the information sensitive to minor changes. This is particularly true when dealing with disaggregated Committee information. Notwithstanding this limitation, the following is evident from the statistics:
x The number of appeals determined for the Scottish Borders Council area has approximately doubled since 2004/05. x The vast majority of appeals continue to be dealt with by way of written submissions. Three appeals were considered at Public Inquiry. There have been no Hearings since April 2006. x The percentage of appeals sustained has increased but remains below the Scottish average. x The highest number of appeals determined (18) relate to decisions by the Berwickshire Area Committee, whilst the lowest (4) relate to decisions by the Teviot & Liddesdale Area Committee. x The number of appeals submitted as a proportion of decisions made was: x 2.1% Cheviot x 1.6% Berwickshire x 1.5% Tweeddale x 1.4% Eildon and x 0.5% Teviot & LIddesdale. x There are wide variations at a local level in terms of success rates on appeals ranging from just 17% of appeals against decisions taken by the Berwickshire Area Committee being sustained to 60% of appeals against decisions taken by the Cheviot Area Committee being sustained. x Of the 60 appeals where Committee decisions reflected officers’ recommendations, 17 (29%) were sustained. x Of the 9 appeals where Committee decisions to refuse were contrary to officer’s recommendations, 7 (78%) were sustained. x By far the largest proportion - 31 (45%) of the appeal decisions related to housing in the countryside proposals. Of these applications only 7 (22%) were sustained, indicating Reporters’ propensity to take a firm line on housing in the countryside proposals. Of these decisions 2 were sustained on the grounds that the site was considered to form part of a building group, 3 on the grounds that there was an economic or social need, 1 because it was considered that access arrangements were adequate and 1 because it was considered that the condition that had been imposed was unreasonable. x 6 appeals were sustained in relation to cases where permission had been refused for inappropriate infill developments. x 3 Appeals were sustained where the principal reason for refusal had related to design. x 3 Appeals (including 1 relating to a housing in the countryside proposal) were sustained because conditions imposed were considered unnecessary or unreasonable. x 2 sustained appeals related to windfarm developments, x 2 sustained appeals related to housing developments, and x 2 appeals were sustained which related to the use of land or property.
3 CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Heads of Legal Services, Corporate Finance, Corporate Administration and Financial Administration have been consulted and their views incorporated into this report.
4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 There are no financial implications associated with this report. Members should however continue to note the following: x The substantial increase in the number of appeals requiring to be handled has increased workloads for both planning and legal services staff. x There can be substantial costs associated with handling planning appeals dealt with by way of public inquiries particularly where decisions are taken contrary to officer recommendation and where specialist consultants and/or legal representatives require to be employed. In addition to “in-house” staff costs, external legal, consultancy and related costs incurred in connection with Planning Inquiries in recent years have been £17,000 (04/05), £30,000 (05/06) and £75,000 (06/07). x There remains the possibility of an award of expenses against the Council in instances where it is considered that the Council has acted unreasonably.
5 RISK COMMENTARY
5.1 There is no risk associated with this report. There are both financial and reputational risks to the Council where it is considered to act unreasonably or inconsistently in the determination of planning applications.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
6.1 There is no environmental risk associated with this report. There is a potential environmental risk where insufficient resources are made available to deal with appeals or where planning decisions are unduly influenced by concerns about financial implications. There is no evidence of this occurring to date. 7 EQUALITY
7.1 There are no issues of equality associated with this report.
8 SUMMARY
8.1 The number of appeals being submitted against planning decisions in the Scottish Borders is increasing both in real terms and as a proportion of decisions made. This has staffing and financial implications. The number of appeals being sustained is below the Scottish average but has been increasing in recent years. The proportion of appeals sustained is significantly lower where the decision has been taken in accordance with officers recommendations. Almost half of all appeals submitted relate to housing in the countryside proposals where appellants success rate is lower than the success rate for other applications. There are marked variations in number of appeals submitted and appeal success rates across the Borders.
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
a) I recommend that the Committee note the information contained in this report.
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Brian Frater Standards
(This report has been signed by the Head of Service and the signed copy is retained by the Council.)
Author(s) Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
Background Papers: Monthly appeals reports to Development and Building Control Committee, copied to Area Committees. . Previous Minute Reference: Minutes relating to above.
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] Appendix 1
Summary by Committee
April 2006 – March 2007 Committee Decision in accordance with Recommendation to Refuse Decision against Recommendation to Approve Appeal Decision Sustained Dismissed Sustained Dismissed Berwickshire 2 7 0 0 Cheviot 3 2 0 0 Eildon 1 8 1 0 Teviot & Liddesdale 2 2 0 0 Tweeddale 1 6 1 0 D&BC 2 3 1 0 Totals 11 28 3 0
April 2007 – October 2007 Committee Decision in accordance with Recommendation to Refuse Decision against Recommendation to Approve Appeal Decision Sustained Dismissed Sustained Dismissed Berwickshire 1 8 0 0 Cheviot 3 2 0 0 Eildon 0 2 2 1 Teviot & Liddesdale 0 0 0 0 Tweeddale 1 1 1 0 D&BC 1 2 1 1 Totals 6 15 4 2
Appeals Decisions by Committee since April 2006. Committee Sustained Dismissed % Sustained Berwickshire 3 15 17 Cheviot 4 6 60 Eildon 11 4 27 Teviot & Liddesdale 2 2 50 Tweeddale 7 4 36 D&BC 6 5 45 Total 45 24 36
National Statistics
Number of Appeals Determined Year SBC Scottish Average 07/08 (to October) 27 Not yet available 06/07 42 34 05/06 52 33 04/05 24 30
Percentage of Decisions Sustained on Appeal Year SBC Scottish Average 07/08 (to October) 37 Not yet available 06/07 33 38 05/06 23 39 04/05 13 35 Summary by Area
April 2006 – March 2007 Committee Area Decision in accordance with Recommendation to Refuse Decision against Recommendation to Approve Appeal Decision Sustained Dismissed Sustained Dismissed Berwickshire 2 7 1 0 Cheviot 3 3 0 0 Eildon 3 9 1 0 Teviot & Liddesdale 2 3 0 0 Tweeddale 1 6 1 0 Totals 11 28 3 0
April 2007 – October 2007 Committee Area Decision in accordance with Recommendation to Refuse Decision against Recommendation to Approve Appeal Decision Sustained Dismissed Sustained Dismissed Berwickshire 1 8 1 0 Cheviot 3 2 0 0 Eildon 1 4 2 2 Teviot & Liddesdale 0 0 0 0 Tweeddale 1 1 1 0 Totals 6 15 4 2 PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE ITEM 6(b)
10 DECEMBER 2007
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: 07/00640/OUT Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Merrilee, Deanfoot, West Linton Appellant: Edward Owens
Reason for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to Policy 7 of the Tweeddale Local Plan 1996, Policy H5 of the Approved Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy D2 of the Finalised Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2005 in that it would constitute housing development in the countryside that is not well related to an existing group and that it would exceed the 100% threshold of existing units in the group. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the adequate access arrangements can be achieved.
Grounds of Appeal: Awaited . Method of Appeal: Written submissions.
2.1.2 Reference: 06/01540/OUT Proposal: Erection of Nine Dwellinghouses Site: Appletreehall, Hawick Appellant: Mr W L Douglas
Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would be out of character with, and accordingly unsympathetic to, the form and pattern of the existing development at Appletreehall, and would be contrary to the criteria contained within Policies H2 and G1 of the Finalised Scottish Borders Local Plan, Policy H5 of the adopted Scottish Borders Structure Plan, Policies 7, 63 and 64 of the Roxburgh Local Plan and the Council's Policy and Guidance Note, "New Housing in the Borders Countryside". Grounds of Appeal: The site is a suitable addition to the building group. The Council has erred in refusing the submitted layout which was only provided for indicative purposes. . Method of Appeal: Written submissions.
2.2 Enforcements:
Nil
3 DECISIONS RECEIVED
3.1 Planning Applications
Nil
3.2 Enforcements
Nil
4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING
4.1 In addition to those listed in section 2 of this report, there remained 15 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 29 November. These relate to sites at:
x Langhoperig x East End, Lilliesleaf (2 Appeals) x Westruther x Cavers East Lodge x Spylaw house, Kelso x Edgerston Tofts, Jedburgh (2 Appeals) x Whitehaugh, Peebles x Dingleton Road, Melrose x Ancrum Court, Hawick x Borthwickhall, Heriot x Myerdykes, Newcastleton x Gunknowe Loch, Tweedbank NB. An appeal remains outstanding for a site at Innerleithen Rd, Peebles however it is anticipated that this will be withdrawn following the approval of a revised application.
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 & BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE ITEM 7
10th October 2007
REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
VARIATION OF SECTION 75 AGREEMENT AT GRANGE WOOD, COLDINGHAM
1 PURPOSE
1.1 Consider a request by Mr and Mrs Thomas as owners of Grange Wood, Coldingham, to vary the terms of the original S75 Agreement applied to the land.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Planning consent was granted in May 2004 (Ref 03/01698/OUT) for the erection of a dwelling on land at Grange Wood, near Coldingham. The consent was linked to an agri-business venture associated with establishment of a wild boar farming enterprise. The development of the business was also to be supported by the sale of commercial timber produced to provide an additional sustainable income stream.
2.2 The farming and Forestry enterprises did not, per se, require planning approval though the issue of licensing/ fencing of dangerous animals raised specific issues. They were however linked to the economic justification case for supporting the erection of a dwelling in a location where development would otherwise have been resisted. Development of the Boar farm has been undertaken and following that initial establishment the dwelling house has been constructed. The houses was recently judged as one of the winners in the Councils Design Awards Scheme.
2.3 The consent was underpinned by a S75 Legal Agreement which provided that the whole of the land holding should be held as a single property with no part being sold separately other than to statutory undertakers or for public works (clause 2a). Subsequent clauses related to; (b) the restriction of further residential development; (c) the dwelling not to commence until the first two boar units had been fully established; (d) each boar unit to be at least one hectare, suitably fenced and not within 200 metres of the current boundary garden ground of any dwelling located on the neighbouring subjects
2.4 Following an initial request to lift the sale restriction on the area highlighted on Plan 1 in vertical hatching the applicants subsequently intimated a desire to see the restriction on sale removed in respect of the whole farm. Should that not be acceded to by the Planning Committee they request variation in respect of the areas marked by a cross hatch as detailed on Plan 2. All other restrictions pertinent to the original agreement would remain in force.
3 CONSULTATION
3.1 There have been no formal consultations. 4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 There are no financial implications in approving this report, apart from administrative and staff costs arising from concluding the legal agreements. These costs can be met within existing budgets.
5 RISK COMMENTARY
5.1 The primary purpose of the legal agreement was to secure the development of a sustainable farming unit to provide justification for the grant of approval of the dwelling. It also sought to preclude further residential development and to protect local biodiversity.
5.2 The achievement of the first purpose has been substantially met through the development of the core business stream i.e. the establishment of the wild boar enterprise. There is no move to secure the release of subsidiary elements, although clause (c) has been complied with.
5.3 It is not therefore considered that partial sale of the land holding would set a precedent for the modification of other agreements.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
6.1 There are no environmental risks in approving this report.
7 EQUALITY
7.1 There are no equalities issues raised in approving this report.
8 SUMMARY
8.1 The owners of the Grange Wood are seeking to vary the S75 agreement to allow the sale of the Woodland to third parties. This would be contrary to clause 2(a) of the 2004 agreement which stated that the land was not to be broken up and sold separately to the boar farm.
8.2 There has been no request to remove the remaining restrictions set out in the legal agreement. These would remain as burdens on any land sold.
8.3 Clause 6 of the 2004 minute agreement provides that the parties thereto have the right to seek variation or discharge.
9 RECOMMENDATION
9.1 The Planning Department can not accede to the request to lift the sale restriction in respect of the whole land holding. The nature of the business sought a woodland, contained and private setting. It is judged essential therefore that substantial adjacent land remains within the direct control of the operator of the boar farm enterprise.
9.2 Given that the business has been established and the house has been erected, together with the requirement that the remaining terms and conditions of the 2004 Minute of Agreement remain binding the Planning Department recommends that a variation of agreement can be accepted in respect of the cross hatched areas detailed on Plan 2. The terms contained in condition (c) can also be removed. Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
(This report has been signed by the Director and the signed copy is retained by the Council.)
Author(s) Name Designation Mr Alasdair MacLean Area Development Control Officer
Background Papers: None
Previous Minute Reference: None
PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE ITEM 8
10 DECEMBER 2007
REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE ON REPLACEMENT WINDOWS
1 PURPOSE
1.1 To seek approval of the Planning and Building Standards Committee for the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Replacement Windows following public consultation.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The Council’s policies on alterations to buildings, including the installation of replacement windows, are set out in general terms in the existing and emerging Local Plans. The policy in relation to replacement windows is further refined in a Supplementary Planning Guidance Note first published in 1988. This guidance note was last reviewed by the Council in 2000.
2.2 In October 2003 a request was made at the Development and Building Control Committee to review the existing Council Policy on replacement windows. The Committee agreed that consideration would be given to review this policy in due course.
2.3 In June 2004 the Development and Building Control Committee agreed that a Working Group be set up to examine the Replacement Window Policy following the conclusion of the Housing in the Countryside Working Group. The work of the Housing in the Countryside Working Group was completed in September 2004.
2.4 The Working Group comprised of Councillors J. Fullarton (Chairman), C Bhatia, M.S. Browne, J.B. Houston, J.G. Mitchell, D. Richardson and A. Thomson. The Replacement Window Policy Working Group met on six occasions.
2.5 The Development and Building Control Committee agreed on 11 December 2006 that a Draft SPG be produced and for it to go out for a period of consultation for 12 weeks. That consultation period ended on 13 August 2007.
3 POLICY REVIEW
3.1 A summary of the current Replacement Window Policy of the Council (approved 2001 by the Planning and Development Committee) is set out in Appendix A. Appendix A also sets out a summary of the recommended policy.
3.2 The current policy covers Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and flats outwith Conservation Areas. Unlisted residential properties outwith Conservation Areas which are not flats do not require Planning Permission for replacement windows. The current policy has the concept of “Prime Frontages” and “Core Areas” within Conservation Areas. These are the more sensitive areas within Conservation Areas that have been identified with assistance from Community Councils, Amenity Bodies and Area Development Control Officers.
3.3 It was agreed early on by the Working Group that work already undertaken during the previous review of the Policy would not be revisited. A questionnaire was sent out to all Councillors, Historic Scotland, The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Scottish Civic Trust, Community Councils and a number of agents who frequently submit planning applications for replacement windows. The results of the questionnaire clearly showed that while the majority of respondents considered the policy to be largely acceptable, a majority also considered that it was unacceptable that Listed Buildings and properties within Core Areas /Prime Frontage should be allowed to have their windows replaced with new materials. It was also obvious from the results that the “Prime Frontage” and “Core Areas” should be reviewed and that the original glazing pattern in all circumstances should be strictly retained or repeated in all locations.
3.4 The Working Group met on six occasions to consider changes to the current policy. During this time, representatives from a modern replacement window company, a traditional window repair/replacement company, a civic society and Historic Scotland presented to the Group. These presentations also allowed for the Working Group to see at first hand samples of the various windows and how traditional windows can be improved.
3.5 The purpose of the Replacement Window Policy is to provide a framework of guidance against which applications for replacement windows can be assessed; such a policy is necessary to provide clear and consistent advice throughout the Scottish Borders. The primary objective of the policy is to safeguard the diverse architectural heritage of properties within the Borders which have been identified by being either Listed Buildings or lie within a designated Conservation Area, and to only permit such alterations that as far as possible preserve their character (in the case of Listed Buildings) and preserve or enhance their character (in Conservation Areas).
3.6 Any policy that is formulated must strike a balance between being completely rigid and allowing for some flexibility. In taking this approach, the policy allows for a degree of flexibility where there are occasions when a degree of flexibility is required to take account of particular local circumstances. With this in mind the recommended policy includes some more detailed advice to deal with particular circumstances where some dissection and flexibility of the policy maybe required.
3.7 The prime objective of the recommended policy is to take account of the current windows that are already installed within a particular property, to seek a “no worsening” of the current situation as regards visual appearance, and to actively encourage the improvement in the current position where, for example, unsuitable windows have previously been installed. The policy must take account of instances where window openings have been altered or a property extended in the past resulting in the use of non-traditional windows or other alternatives. In these instances a degree of flexibility is required, always with the object of improving the current situation. Within Conservation Areas, where the test of all development is whether the proposal “preserves or enhances”; if an application for replacement windows is deemed to have a “neutral” effect then it should be permitted.
3.8 This revised policy has been formulated to take account of the most up to date advice and guidance from Historic Scotland, a sash windows renovation and repair specialist, and a modern window replacement manufacturer. The policy is intended to control the type, appearance, materials and method of opening of replacement windows. 3.9 The desire to fit double-glazing to properties must be recognised and generally where there are either single panes or 2-pane sashes this can be accommodated without an adverse visual effect. However, in the case of 6 on 6 multi-pane sashes, the thickness of glazing bars does not normally permit the provision of double glazing in individual panes without a significant increase in the thickness of glazing bars. In these circumstances, whilst generally it may be acceptable to use either applied astragals on the face of the glazing or to permit a slight thickening of glazing bars, particular attention will be paid to the detail of replacement windows where the originals are multi- paned and different materials are proposed. The test of “preserve or enhance” will be required. In some circumstances only like for like replacement windows will be considered acceptable.
3.10 Where only “like for like” is considered acceptable, repair of original windows is to be encouraged. Repair will almost always be less costly than replacement, and far more valuable to the locality, not only helping to preserve the character of an area (and/or listed building) but also keeping its local traditional skills alive too.
3.11 Professionals experienced in dealing with the renovation of sash and case windows over many years have indicated that as much as 95% of a timber window can be retained. This often means that windows that are often considered to be beyond repair may only have superficial deterioration and once overhauled be able to continue to operate for years.
3.12 Original sash and case windows can be brought up to modern day standards in terms of thermal insulation. Draught proofing and weather stripping is an effective measure that can be taken to reduce not only heating bills by limiting the number of air changes per hour but will also reduce noise penetration. In relation to reducing heat loss, draught proofing a single glazed window has roughly the same effect as fitting an additional sheet of glass. The cost of draught proofing can generally be recouped within 5 to 25 years. However, it will take 60 to 100 years for the cost of new PVCu double glazed windows to start saving you money and added to this the cost of replacing window units if they fail.
3.13 The recommended replacement window policy is set out in Appendix A, which also summarises the current policy position. Appendix B is a matrix which sets out the consultation responses received during the consultation period along with the recommendation to those responses. Appendix C sets out the SPG.
3.14 Members will note from Appendix B that the only recommended changes to the existing Prime Frontage/ Core Area are those for West Linton. The current Prime Frontages/ Core Areas are set out in Appendix D – copies of which are available in the Members Room.
4 CONSULTATION
4.1 In relation to the consultation responses received, all those who commented on the Draft Policy supported the policy and welcomed the detailed guidance contained within the SPG. Historic Scotland wholly supported the document and stated that it was useful that the conservation areas are divided up into key areas i.e. Prime Frontage/ Core Areas.
4.2 The main changes to the SPG following the consultation period consist of examples of “inappropriate window replacements” and further advice on the importance of importance of retaining original crown glass, cylinder glass and original ironmongery.
4.3 In relation to the Prime Frontage/ Core Areas, it is recommended that the West Linton Prime Frontage/ Core Areas be altered to include properties along Station Road and some early 19th century cottages on Deanfoot Road at its junction with Main Street. 4.4 Members should however note that a late response from a local double glazing company was submitted. That submission questioned the intentions of the Council in respect of not allowing double glazed units within the Prime Frontage and Core Areas of conservation areas. This is a key change in the policy and members may wish to reaffirm their position on this matter.
4.5 Consultation has been undertaken with the Heads of Corporate Administration, Legal Services, Corporate Finance and Financial Administration and comments received to date have been incorporate in this report. Any other comments received will be advised to Members at the meeting.
5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There are no direct financial implications of approving the Guidance, 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.
5.2 There are also costs relating to the production of an up to date Supplementary Planning Guidance and budget is available to cover this.
6 RISK COMMENTARY/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 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 the policies contained in the Finalised Local Plan.
6.2 In accordance with Section 7 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 a pre-screening assessment of Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows 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 the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows is exempt from SEA requirements under Section 7 (1) of the Act.
7 EQUALITIES
7.1 There are no equality issues in approving this report.
8 SUMMARY
8.1 The report sets out the process that has been undertaken during the review of the Replacement Window Policy. The report also details the main findings of the Working Group which reflects their justification in the recommended policy.
8.2 The Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance was subject to a 12 week period of consultation. Where appropriate, suggestions and comments have been incorporated into the finished version of the SPG (See Appendix B). The key changes to the document has been the inclusion of examples of “inappropriate window replacements” and further advice on the importance of importance of retaining original crown glass, cylinder glass and original ironmongery. With regard to the Prime Frontage/ Core Areas, two small extensions are proposed for West Linton.
8.3 Options open to Members are: (i) To approve this report and the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows Policy, and its policy as set out in Appendix A as the basis for the determination of planning applications.
(ii) To request changes to the Supplementary Planning Guidance.
(iii) To request changes to the Supplementary Planning Guidance and the approval of the extensions to the Prime Frontage/ Core Area of the Peebles Conservation Area.
9 RECOMMENDATION
9.1 It is recommended that the Committee resolves to adopt the new supplementary planning guidance on “Replacement Windows” as set out in Appendix C along with those changes to the Prime Frontage/ Core Area as set out in Appendix B.
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
Author(s) Name Designation Trish Connolly Planning Officer
The original signed copy of this report is retained by the Planning and Economic Development Department
Background Papers: Nil Previous Minute Reference: Development and Building Control Committee 11 December 2006
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, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Telephone: 01835 825060. E-mail: [email protected] Appendix A
LOCATION CURRENT POSITION RECOMMENDATION
Listed Buildings Material and appearance, method No change Category A & B of opening and finish as to be truly (Formal clearance “like for like”. required of all (As set out in the Memorandum of applications by Guidance) Historic Scotland) Listed Buildings Range of materials accepted Material and appearance, method of Category C(s) includes uPVC and aluminium – opening and finish as to be truly “like (Determined solely by provided: for like”. Scottish Borders x The operation of the windows (As set out in the Memorandum of Council) is unchanged; generally a Guidance) vertically sliding sash, and x The appearance of the window Particular attention will be paid is unchanged in terms of the where the original windows have exposed frame, transom and been altered or removed and astragal thickness. replacement is being proposed, the policy will seek to reinstate where Particular attention will be paid to necessary the original materials, the detail of replacement windows glazing pattern and method of where the originals are multi-paned opening. and different materials are proposed. (A consistent approach needs to be taken towards window replacement in all listed buildings, but generally, the more The test of “preserve and enhance” humble a property the more importance will be required particularly where the windows play in defining its overall the windows make a significant architectural significance. Therefore contribution to the character of a window replacement in a category C(s) Listed Building. listed cottage will be a significant factor influencing its continuing interest.) Conservation Areas Range of materials accepted Material and appearance, method of Prime Frontage/ includes uPVC and aluminium – opening and finish as to be truly “like Core Area provided: for like”. (As defined on x The operation of the windows (As set out in the Memorandum of Conservation Area is unchanged; generally a Guidance) map) vertically sliding sash, and x The appearance of the window Particular attention will be paid is unchanged in terms of the where the original windows have exposed frame, transom and been altered or removed and astragal thickness. replacement is being proposed, the policy will seek to reinstate where Particular attention will be paid to necessary the original materials, the detail of replacement windows glazing pattern and method of where the originals are multi-paned opening. and different materials are proposed. (An approach that ensures that any window replacement does not undermine the character and The test of “preserve and enhance” appearance of a Conservation Area is will be required particularly where required. The Council already the property forms, for example, acknowledges that the buildings within part of an unchanged terrace. the “Prime Frontage” and “Core Areas” are particularly important to the character of the Conservation Area). LOCATION CURRENT POSITION RECOMMENDATION
Conservation Areas uPVC and aluminium windows No change Remainder acceptable provided that their frames are similar thickness. Sash and case and dual swing (or similar) which give the appearance of sash and case except when open acceptable. Flats only Planning Permission not required No change Not Listed / Not in provided that stone/timber mullions Conservation Areas or transoms are not removed and that the aperture opening remains unchanged. Appendix B
Consultee Comment Response/Notes Accept /Reject Error in document Where the replacement windows conform Remove text from with the policy guidelines detailed above, a application planning application will not be required. requirements for “Elsewhere in Conservation Areas”.
Historic Scotland Principles included in SPG compliment the Comments noted. Note advice contained within the Memorandum of Guidance. Written guidance on acceptability of design and materials of proposed replacement windows on listed buildings is welcomed. Document well researched & contains useful information that will benefit residents of listed & unlisted properties. Useful that the Conservation Area is divided up into key parts. Draft SPG forms basis of extremely valuable document. Document is acceptable in current form. Mrs Bishop on Relating to Gavinton: behalf of Gavinton, Fogo & The Prime Frontage/ Core Area (PF/CA) This area indicated was already included in N/A Polwarth should include the village green, and the PF/CA that was sent out for Community adjacent the vennels, together with the consultation. It is not intended that any of Council houses and village hall on the north, west this area is excluded. and east sides of the green. Appendix B
The PF/CA should break at the boundary It is not considered appropriate to include Reject between the allotments and St Fillans, ‘breaks’ within the PF/CA in this instance. cross the street and continue on to include The reason for this is that all of the area Iona cottage only. identified for inclusion within the PF/CA contributes to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Inappropriate window alterations to even a new build property can result in a negative impact on the conservation area. Mrs Bishop Relating to Gavinton:
Remove the PF/CA from the front of the It is not considered appropriate to exclude Reject property St Fillians. St Fillians from the PF/CA. The reason for this is that all of the area identified for inclusion within the PF/CA contributes to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Inappropriate window alterations to even a new build property can result in a negative impact on the conservation area. David Long on Topic is an important matter particularly in Noted Note behalf of conservation areas. Gordon & Westruther No comments to offer. Community Council Cllr William Relating to West Linton: Archibald Appendix B
(Tweeddale West) Include a short stretch of Bogsbank Road It is not considered appropriate to amend Reject to include the terrace of 19th century the Prime Frontage/ Core Area to include houses leading from the bridge. this area of the Conservation Area as many original windows have already been replaced.
Include a 19th century terrace on Station It is considered appropriate to amend the Accept Road. Prime Frontage/ Core Area to include this area of the Conservation Area.
It is considered appropriate to amend the Accept Include early 19th century cottages on Prime Frontage/ Core Area to include this Deanfoot Road at its junction with Main area of the Conservation Area. Street. Allan Simmons on Document helpful clear & are supportive of Noted Note behalf of content. Coldingham Community Would have been useful to have had the Noted N/A Council main difference highlighted between the current Advice Note and the Draft SPG. Nicola Smith on Approve the PF/CA. Noted Note behalf of Greenlaw & Hume Community Council Christine General approval of the document Noted Note Henderson on behalf of Kelso & District Appendix B
Amenity Society Dr Lindsay D Neil Approval of proposed SPG and its Noted Note on behalf of the comprehensiveness. Royal Burgh of Selkirk & District SPG could also make reference to the Other documents to be referenced: Accept Community Scottish Conservation Bureau document The Historical and Technical Development Council of Sash and Case Windows in Scotland (Historic Scotland)
The Conservation of Timber Sash and Case Windows - Guide for Practitioners 3 (Historic Scotland)
Dr Lindsay D Neil As above As above As above on behalf Selkirk Regeneration Group Gerard Bakker on General support for the document. Noted Note behalf of Peebles Civic Content with the Prime Frontage/ Core Noted Note Society Area (PF/CA) if the policy remains truly “like for like”. However, if the policy is reduced PCS would like the PF/CA widened.
Requests that all replacement windows Where works are carried out on a “like for Reject require planning permission &/or listed like” basis, development (in terms of its building consent. definition in the Planning Acts Guidance, Appendix B
Policy & case law) can not be considered to have taken place.
Request that more emphasis is placed on Paragraph 2.4 provides advice on Reject maintenance of fabric & repair instead of maintaining traditional windows. It is assuming replacement is the only course considered that this advice is sufficient. of action.
Request for illustrations of bad practice Noted. Accept with notes to reinforce the policy on Paragraph 2.8 Replacing Traditional enforcing a true “like for like” as this is the Windows - to be extended to include this core theme to the guide. point including pictures.
All photos & drawings should have Noted. Accept reference numbers.
Request the inclusion in new guidance of The PCS suggestion is made with the Reject photograph of a dual-swing window found intention of removing perceived uncertainty on page 13 of the current guidance. regarding dual-swing and similar replacement windows.
Request that the wording of the application The application requirements may be Reject (though requirements for listed building and the different in that a listed building outwith a change in SPG PF/CA of conservation areas be the same conservation area may only require a Listed wording) as the policy is effectively the same. A Building Consent whilst a listed building difference in wording will result in people within a conservation area may also require looking for subtle differences in the Planning permission. meaning implied by the different wording. To ensure that the wording is clear – it is proposed that the word “listed” be inserted in the second sentence of the application Appendix B
requirements for listed buildings between the words “the” and “building”.
Request the replacement of the photo at This suggestion is rejected as the proposed Reject paragraph 1.1 with another which shows photograph show three window styles two types of windows – an original and an across two floors of the upper part of a “inappropriate” replacement. flatted building in a Prime Frontage location and as such the potential to cause considerable confusion, contrary to the aims of the SPG.
Recommend that that “Elements of a Noted. Accept Traditional Timber Sash & Case Window is moved to section 2.2.
Suggest that reference is made in section Noted. Accept 2.2 of the importance of retaining original crown glass, cylinder and original ironmongery.
Amend the 5th para of 1.1: Noted. Accept 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 Appendix B
are important evidence of the building’s history and contribute to the character and interest.
Amend the 3rd para of 1.2: Noted. Accept 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.
Alter the 1st para of 1.2: This acceptance of this objection would Reject The replacement of windows in listed result in a more “restrictive” policy and as buildings of category A, B and C(s) shall such would be contrary to the be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Working Group. 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 requires Listed Building Consent, combined with the approval of Historic Scotland in categories A and B. Normally truly “like for like” will be required. However, where the original windows have been lost and the current windows do not mirror the original form, replacements that reinstate the original materials, glazing pattern, dimensions, method of opening and insulation will Appendix B
normally be required. Secondary glazing or the use of internal shutters as well as draught stripping to the sashes themselves may be used to improve the performance of single glazing. (PCS have also suggested that similar text to that above be inserted at para 1.3.1.
Insert in para 1.3: It is considered that this insertion is not Reject A review of all the Conservation Areas has required and would lead the SPG dating been undertaken as part of the Local Plan very quickly as a local plan amendment will Review and this has, amongst other be proposed in the near future. matters, looked carefully at existing conservation area boundaries to establish where amendments were requirements.
PCS also make comment on a number of minor technical, grammatical and layout issues in the document. Below are recommendations to alter the Prime Proposed alterations to the PF/CA of the It is not considered appropriate that all of Frontage Core Peebles Conservation Area if the Policy is the suggestions listed opposite to extend Area of Peebles reduced: the PF/ CA be applied. Conservation (Extensions listed in order of priority) Therefore, if the policy is to be altered the Area if Members additions to the PF/ CA that should be see to alter the implemented are: Policy. Appendix B
1. Western half of Old Town (A72) 1. Western half of Old Town:It would not Accept be considered appropriate to include all of the western half of the Old Town within the PR/CA. It is therefore recommended that an extension the PF/CA to extend to up to and including 98 Old Town taking in both sides of the street. 2. Innerleithen Road as far as the east 2. Innerleithen Road :It is considered Accept entry of the Peebles Hydro Hotel that if a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken, only the areas from and including Lower Woodlea to Glentress House taking in both sides of the road. 3. Dean Park/ Northgate/ Station Road 3. Dean Park/ Northgate/ Station Road: Reject It is considered that if a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken, it would not be considered appropriate for the PF/CA to be extended in this direction. 4. Springhill Road east side as far as 4. Springhill Road: It is considered that if Reject the park entry a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate to extend the PF/CA as the buildings affected in this instance are listed. 5. Biggiesknowe 5. Biggiesknowe: It is considered that if Reject a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate for the Appendix B
PF/CA to be extended in this direction. 6. Venlaw Road 6. Venlaw Road: It is considered that if Reject a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate to extend the PF/CA as the main buildings to be affected in this instance are listed. 7. Greenside 7. Greenside: It is considered that if a Reject change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate for the PF/CA to be extended in this direction. 8. Crossland Crescent 8. Crossland Crescent: It is considered Accept that if a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would be considered appropriate to extend the PF/CA in this part of the conservation area as there are a number of distinctive buildings along this street. 9. Rosetta Road (south of March 9. Rosetta Road (south of March Accept Street) Street): It is considered that if a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would be considered appropriate to extend the PF/CA in this part of the conservation area as there are a number of distinctive buildings along this street. 10. St Andrews Road (north side) 10. St Andrews Road (north side): It is Reject Appendix B
considered that if a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate for the PF/CA to be extended in this direction. 11. St Andrews Place 11. St Andrews Place: It is considered Reject that if a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate for the PF/CA to be extended in this direction. 12. Gladstone Place 12. Gladstone Place: It is considered Reject that if a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate for the PF/CA to be extended in this direction. 13. Wemys Place 13. Wemys Place: It is considered that if Reject a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate for the PF/CA to be extended in this direction. 14. Kirkland Street 14. Kirkland Street: It is considered that Reject if a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate for the PF/CA to be extended in this direction. 15. March Street 15. March Street: It is considered that if Reject Appendix B
a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate for the PF/CA to be extended in this direction. 16. Murray Place and west side 16. Murray Place and west side Reject Damdale to east of Cross Road. Damdale to east of Cross Road: It is considered that if a change to the PF/CA is to be undertaken it would not be considered appropriate for the PF/CA to be extended in this direction. Appendix C
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Replacement Windows
May 2007
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 Control 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 Control 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 Listed Buildings The replacement of windows in listed buildings of category A, B and C(s) 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 Figure 2: Rich be 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.
1.3 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 listed buildings shall be enforced. 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 Control 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: x The existing window apertures are neither enlarged nor reduced by infilling panels; x Any existing mullions, whether stone or timber, are retained; x 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: x Sound insulation x Heat insulation x Ease of maintenance and repair x Cost to the environment x Security x Ease of opening and closing x 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: x Heat loss x Condensation x Timber decay x Wet & dry rot x Draughts x 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: x Heat loss x Rust x 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 x research prior to restoration x concentrate on repair and not just replacement x find and remedy the root cause of the problem x remember that shutters can be used for insulation x paint windows rather than stain as stains were not historically used x do consider alternative modern weather stripping as an alternative to double glazing x keep usable details as patterns for present and future work
Don’ts x dip traditional sash and case windows in a caustic mix x scrape off paint unless it is interfering with the workings of the window x 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 x It is essential to the character of the building when replacing traditional windows to retain the original features exactly in all three dimensions. x Use the same material as in the original x 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. x 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: x 850 millimetres measured horizontally x 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.
␅Ⅵ㫋㆞᧫⮥㠖巾㦻 抨彖ᘞ␙♵⌨㦘ᖟ檂ヅᇬ⮶ⷦ浣䓗㦻ⅴ♙⮩䲽␅Ⅵ㫋㆞ᇭ⇯♾ⅴ択拝ⅴₚ⦿ ⧏咖㒠⊠ᗷ俰᧨ᗊ♥ᗇ⚛䓗㦻ᇭ㷳⮥᧨⇯⃮♾ⅴᗷ俰ⅴₚ⦿⧏ᗊ♥㦻彖ᘞ䤓₼ 㠖✛␅Ⅵ⮥㠖巾㦻㒥ᗊ♥ᕡ⮩㖆弬ᇭℵ♾尐㻑㒠⊠⋩⒉⸘㘡᧨䟀㒠⊠䤓ぴ⇫ⅉ ❰䠅槱䍉⇯屲摚⇯⺜抨⒉䓗䓸₼䤓ᗇ㢝䭉⃚壤ᇭ
[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]
Appendix A
Scottish Borders Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance on
Queen Mary Site, Jedburgh Draft Planning Guidance Appendix 2
Appendix 2
JEDBURGH - QUEEN MARY SITE DRAFT PLANNING GUIDANCE
INDEX
1 Introduction
2 Site description
3 Objectives of Guidance
4 Policy Context – Local Plan
5 Archaeology
6 Constraints and Opportunities
7 Urban Design Objectives
8 Form of Development
9 Energy Efficiency
10 Access and Parking
11 Utilities, Water Resources and Waste Management
12 Developer Contributions and Conditions
APPENDICES
1 Related Material and Contacts
2 Historical Background
3 Energy Efficiency
FIGURES
1 Local Plan Extract
2 Photographs
3 Site Constraints
4 Site Opportunities
5 Illustrative Elevational Treatment
6 Historical Map
Appendix 2
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This planning guidance provides specific advice on the way in which the site should be developed. It outlines what the Council will expect primarily in terms of urban design. The brief will be used to make decisions on planning matters relating to the site. In this instance the draft guidance comprises a series of general statements, together with site development guidance.
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 The site is located within the north–eastern edge of the Town Centre alongside the A68 trunk road. Queen Street lies along the West side of the site, with Queen Mary’s Buildings along the southern side. Currently the site is used as open space and is 0.3 Ha in area, (see Figure 1: Local Plan Extract).
3 OBJECTIVES OF GUIDANCE
3.1 The brief has been prepared in order to secure an appropriate form of buildings and spaces together with a high standard of design. Urban design objectives are therefore established which could form the basis of detailed design work and allow for flexibility and creativity, whilst ensuring that the development successfully integrates with its surroundings.
3.2 Scottish Borders Council is seeking to release this key site in Jedburgh, by selling to a developer able to bring forward a scheme that will fulfil the objectives of the planning brief.
3.3 Land sale will not occur until the Council have an agreed set of design drawings, which comply with this guidance, that the developer can contract to deliver.
4 POLICY CONTEXT – LOCAL PLAN
4.1 The site is designated within the Finalised Local Plan 2005 for redevelopment, as an Allocated Land Use, Site Code (zRO2). It is within both the Jedburgh defined Town Centre (ED5) and the Conservation Area (BE4), (see Figure 1).
5 ARCHAEOLOGY
5.1 As can be seen in Figure 6: Historical Map, the medieval street pattern has been altered by modern road alignments. Any development in this area would require archaeological works to:
x determine the northern limits of the early town; x establish the site and nature of the historic Townfoot Port, (or gateway); x examine the apparently undisturbed backland areas for traces of early buildings and industrial use.
Appendix 2 RJ20B
! !
DRAFT! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! zRO1
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
zRO2!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Scottish Borders Council Licence 100023423, 2007.
Queen Mary, Jedburgh 04080Metres ¯ Fig. 1 Finalised Local Plan Extract
Key Policy Boundaries Land Use Proposals (H3 Applies)
Development Boundary (G8) Housing
Conservation Area (BE4) Redevelopment ! !
! !
! Town Centre (ED5) Appendix 2
5.2 When archaeological remains are found, the developer will produce an appropriate mitigation strategy, to be agreed with the Council, to either preserve in-situ or preserve through record.
6 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
OWNERSHIP
6.1 Most of the site is known to be in Council ownership except for one linear strip running across the site, together with part of the north-west corner,
FORM
6.2 The site is in a very sensitive location with four different spatial characteristics, in four directions, each with its own unique characteristics, (see Figure 2). To the:
1. North is a “Gateway” to the Town Centre – off the A68. This is currently a very large space which needs definition by enclosure with the aid of buildings and landscape to the North and South of the High Street;
2. East is the A68, the Trunk Road “Edge” – a wide green sward;
3. South are Queen Mary’s Buildings and its gardens. There is an opportunity here to site a new building, of three storeys in height, visually linked to the end of the existing terrace, together with a four storey element in the north-west corner.
4. West is the High Street / Queen Street Junction. A new building should be sited, so as to be part of the Queen’s Street vista, looking North, whilst allowing the longer view from the northern end of High Street, looking South up Queen Street to Queen Mary house.
6.3 Although there has been a large open space at this site for many years, historically most of the siite has been built-up (see Figure 6:Historical Map). There is now an opportunity to create building forms which are an extension to the existing group at the northern end of Queen Street. By keying into the existing building scale and gable end forms of the existing group, a sensitive scheme can be designed.
6.4 As there is a considerable amount of amenity open space in this vicinity, in particular St Mary’s Gardens and the area between the site and the A68, there is no requirement for additional open space provision on the site.
6.5 There are a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the site, notably Queen Mary’s Buildings and Queen Mary’s House (see Figure 3: Site Constraints).
Appendix 2 DRAFT
4
1 3 2 A68
Aerial view from East
View from North
Queen Mary, Jedburgh Fig. 2 Site Photographs
5 View looking SW (to rear of Queen Mary’s Buildings) Appendix 2
ROAD SIGHTLINES
6.6 As indicated on Figure 3, the sightline constraints on the site, at the junction of A68 with high Street, can be appreciated. The Road Users Group requires a 33m forward visibility sightline. No trees should intrude into this sightlines zone. This sightline allows for a building to be positioned at the back edge of the footpath for about half the length of the road curve.
6.7 Also at the junction of A68 with High Street a forward visibility dimension of 90m is required, by the Trunk Roads authority measured from 9m along the centre line of High Street.
7 URBAN DESIGN OBJECTIVES
7.1 Development should provide building forms which are appropriate to this important setting by:
x acknowledging the prominence of the site at a major road junction and by providing a “gateway “role to the town centre; x respecting the curvature of the road alignments at the northern end of the site; x relating to the scale and urban form of existing historic buildings to the West and South of the site; x designing structural tree planting, along the trunk road edge of the site, so as to reinforce the main features of the site in its setting; x optimising the number of units facing onto the open space to the east; x optimising the number of units with a SW / South / SE orientation; x organising parking within a landscaped court.
8 FORM OF DEVELOPMENT
8.1 The above design objectives have been applied to create the Site Constraints Map (Figure 3) and the Site Opportunities Map (Figure 4). Bearing in mind the sightline and utilities constraints, the extent of the building along the curved northern edge of the site is determined. This north-west corner of the site should have a four storey form, to mark the gateway to the town centre, at the north end of Queen Street. Along the Queen Street frontage there would be a north / south three storey element which:
x lines up with the existing Queen Mary’s Buildings; x enables car parking to be located to the south of the new building, jutting into the landscaped swathe alongside the trunk road.
This urban form for the proposed development would directly relate to the form of adjacent existing buildings, close to the junction of Queen Street and High Street. The Illustrative Elevational Treatment shown in figure 5 is typical of that generally found in Central Jedburgh. A good contemporary design solution which adheres to the principles illustrated is expected.
8.2 Hence, with the form of buildings described, the site has the capacity to accommodate about 27 sheltered flats and 20 parking places.
! Appendix 2
y
! a 6 Queen Mary, Jedburgh 4 (! w 19 20 b u
S !
¯ ! 4
4 !
Trinity Fig 3. Site Constraints ! Church DRAFT ! Key
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (! ! ! Defined Site ! !
! !! ! !
! Town Centre Edge
! !!
!
! !
! Defined Space
! !
3 ! 6 Key View
1 PH ! 6 y
d
B !!!
! d Queens Cottage r Sightline Constraint a
W !
0
(!1 (! Listed Building !
(!8 (!Hall ! Vehicular Access
Queen ! (! Mary's 6
7 ! Buildings
(! ! 4
5
2 !
(!3 !
(!1
! 0 8 16 Metres
(! !
HH HHHHHHH HHHHHH.!HHH.! ¯ HHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH.!.!.! HHHH HHHHHHHHHHHH Fig 4. Site Opportunities
Gateway Key HHHH HHHH Defined Site HHH 4 Storeys HHH Buildable Area HHH 4 Storeys Area 3 Storeys .! Buildable AreaHHHH HHH.! Car Parking Wall & ! HHH Pillars! HHHH Grass HCar Parking HHHH.! HHHH HHHH20 spaces HHHH HHHHHHHHH.! .! Structure Planting HHHHHHHedge HHHH.! HHHH HHHH.! HHHHH HHHHH.! HHHHH
0 8 16 Metres
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Scottish Borders Council Licence 100023423, 2007. Appendix 2 DRAFT
Welsh Natural 3rd Floor Slate Pitched Roof Dormers in Roof
Natural Stone No Margin String Course Around Window
Coloured Wet Margin Around Dash Between Window Stone Features
Ashlar Higher Ground Floor Ground Floor
Plinth
Queen Mary, Jedburgh Fig. 5 Illustrative Elevational Treatment Appendix 2
9 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
9.1 There is now a Scottish Government commitment to increasing the amount of energy generated through appropriately designed buildings (see SPP6 and PAN 45). Micro-renewable technologies must now be applied within the design of new housing development.
9.2 The Scottish Borders Structure Plan (adopted by Scottish Ministers in 2001) Policy 121 “Small Scale Renewable Energy Technologies” states:
“Proposals for community and small scale renewable energy generation (or related techniques) will be encouraged where they have no significant adverse impact on the natural and built environment or amenity of the area.”
“All developers, whatever the nature of their proposals, will be encouraged to consider the potential to use materials, designs and technologies which either reduce the impact of energy consumption or reduce the environmental impact of energy generation when formulating proposals.”
9.3 This section of the guidance is further expanded in Appendix 3.
10 ACCESS AND PARKING
ACCESS
10.1 The access to the site from Queen Street is severely constrained to the southern end of the site.
PARKING
10.2 The car parking standard required by the Road User Group for this site, as developed for sheltered housing is, 60% for residents / visitors plus 1 space per member of staff. Assuming 27 sheltered flats (24 x 1 bedroom and 3 x 2 bedroom) the requirement would be: 20 spaces. Cycle parking may have to be provided adjacent to the car park.
11 UTILITIES, WATER RESOURCES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
11.1 The major existing utilities lines have been superimposed on maps: Power Systems, Scottish Water and National Grid Gas. All of these lines only impinge on the subject site in the north–western corner. The Power Systems line in this area is the most onerous constraint,
11.2 Although there is currently considered to be spare capacity, there may be capacity issues within the future phasing of water supply and waste water networks in Jedburgh. Consultation will be required with Scottish Water regarding the capacity of foul sewage disposal. Depending on the programme for development, appropriate developer contributions may be required.
11.3 With regard to flood risk, the site is located above existing water courses and the site is not affected by the 1 in 200 year line. However, sheltered housing
Appendix 2
(as defined in SPP7 para 37) is classified as high risk, which demands a Flood Risk Assessment to be prepared.
11.4 A Drainage Impact Assessment is required for this site. An appropriate Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) will be required to the agreement of SEPA, Scottish Water and the Local Planning Authority. An attractive, wildlife-friendly and overlooked SUDS feature is an asset to any site. SUDS must therefore be fit for the primary drainage purpose, whilst also being designed to address multiple benefits. Any open SUDS sites must also be designed to be visually attractive, accessible and safe as well as having suitable provisions for long term maintenance. Indicative locations for SUDS will require to be shown for the site. Steep-sided, single purpose engineered structures with boundary fencing above 1.2m will not be acceptable. Below ground-storage systems may be acceptable where their capacity can be demonstrated to meet SEPA/Scottish Water requirements.
11.5 Waste from the site will be collected from a communal storage area, surrounded by a fence, adjacent to Queen street and the car park. Adequate space will be required to contain and manoeuvre five industrial size, 1100 litres wheelie bins.
12 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS AND CONDITIONS
12.1 The following items require to be addressed through appropriate contributions and/or conditions:
1. Roadside planting and landscape maintenance (see para 6.2); 2. Water and drainage arrangements to ensure sufficient capacity (see para 11.1); 3. A commuted sum contribution in compliance with the Affordable Housing policy.
Appendix 2
APPENDIX 1
RELATED MATERIAL AND CONTACTS
Scottish Borders Council: Development Plan: Scottish Borders Local Plan (Finalised) (SBC 2005), Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 ‘The Scottish Borders - The New Way Forward’ (SBC 2002) - www.scotborders.gov.uk/life/planningandbuilding Preliminary Biodiversity Assessment of Sites (SBC 2005, edited July 2006) - www.scotborders.gov.uk/pdf/17315.pdf
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing, Developer Contributions, Biodiversity, Renewable Energy www.scotborders.gov.uk/life/planningandbuilding/plansandresearch/index.html Designing Out Crime (forthcoming) (Contact Julie Hayward, Senior Development Control Officer – see contacts below.
Guidance Notes: Landscape Guidance Notes 1, 2 and 3 (Contact the Landscape Team - 01835 825060). Standards for Development Roads (Contact Ron Elliot, Road User Manager – see contacts below). A charge will be made for this document. Minimum Distances: A Good Practice Guide (draft).
Scottish Executive/Other relevant national level policy/guidance: Current and forthcoming Planning Advice Notes and Scottish Planning Policy (particularly in relation to design, transport, housing, biodiversity, energy), Circulars, Scottish Executive Research particularly: Minimum Standards for Open Space, (SEDD 2005) BS Standard 5837: 2005, ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’ (Arboricultural Association 2005).
Contacts within Scottish Borders Council: John Hayward (Senior Development Control Manager), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825068 E-mail: [email protected]
Martin Wanless (Plans & Research Manager), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825063 E-mail: [email protected]
Rory McDonald (Archaeology Officer), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 826622 E-mail: [email protected]
Jon Bowie (Developer Negotiator) Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 824000 E-mail: [email protected]
Scottish Borders Council (SBC) Development Control: Julie Hayward (Senior Planning Officer), Council HQ, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825060 x5411 E-mail [email protected]
SBC Technical Services (Road User Group): Ron Elliot (Road User Manager), Council HQ, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA
Appendix 2
Tel: 01835 824000 E-mail: [email protected]
SBC Technical Services (Environmental Services) : Graham Prentice (Refuse Collection Manager) Council Headquarters - Scott House (A), Sprouston Road, Newtown St Boswells TD6 0QD Tel: 01835 825111 Ext: 5612 Email: [email protected]
SBC Countryside & Heritage: Andy Millar (Countryside & Heritage Manager), Council HQ, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825062 E-mail: [email protected]
Other Contacts within Scottish Borders Council: SBC Technical Services (Environmental Services) Jason Hedley (Parks Manager), Council HQ, Scott House (A), Sprouston Road Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA, Tel: 01835 824000 E-mail: [email protected]
SBC Education: Trudy Brown (Asset Development Assistant), Council HQ, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 824000 E-mail: TBrown @scotborders.gov.uk
Other suggested contacts: Scottish Water: Castle House, 6 Castle Drive, Carnegie Campus, Dunfermline, KY11 8GG
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Sonja Millar (Planning Officer), Clearwater House, Heriot Watt Research Park, Avenue North, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AP Tel: 0131 273 7234
Building Research Establishment (BRE): BREEAM Office, BRE, Garston, Watford, WD25 9XX Telephone: 01923 664462923 664462 E-mail: ecohomes’bre.co.uk
Appendix 2
Appendix 2
APPENDIX 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
1 The area surrounding the site, North-Central Jedburgh, is defined by Smith’s Wynd to the South, the Jed Water to the East, Bridge Street to the North and High Street to the West, as shown on Figure 6: Historical Map.
2 The Queen Street eastern frontage was built up by 1770, but lacked any substantial backland development. By this time, at the junction of High Street (Highgate) and Queen Street (Wakers Wynd), where the road is wider, there was the Horse Market. This northern apex to the Town, close to Factory Toll and Townfoot Bridge, ran parallel to Jed Water.
3 As can be seen on the map of 1850, (Figure 6), to the East of Queen Street, part of the subject site was occupied by a Baptist Church and its Sunday School. To the North of this, the Queen Street frontage continued up to the corner with Bridge Street. To the South of the church, to the east of Queen Mary’s Buildings and to the North of Queen Mary’s House, there was a small nursery.
4 Some thirty years ago, the main trunk road was diverted to its present alignment across the back lands between Queen Mary’s House / Buildings and Jed Water. This trunk Road (A 68) defines the eastern edge of the subject site.
Appendix 2
© Landmark Information Group © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Scottish Borders Council Licence 100023423 2007
Queen Mary, Jedburgh 01020Metres ¯ Fig. 6 Historic Mapping (Circa 1850) Key Defined Site Appendix 2
APPENDIX 3
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
1. As explained in 9.1 above buildings must now be designed appropriately and micro-renewable technologies must now be applied within the design of new housing development.
2. The Finalised Local Plan (FLP) 2005 Principle 1 (Sustainability) states:
“In determining planning applications and preparing development briefs, the Council will have regard to the following sustainability principles which underpin all the Plan’s policies and which developers will be expected to incorporate into their developments…”
“ …(5) the efficient use of energy and resources, particularly non-renewable sources.”
3. The FLP policy G1 (5) states:
“…in terms of layout, orientation, construction and energy supply, the development (should) demonstrate that appropriate measures have been taken to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, including the use of renewable energy and resources and the incorporation of sustainable construction techniques.”
In March 2007 Scottish Borders Council adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 18 – Renewable Energy. This guidance is a material consideration in the determination of any relevant planning applications. In summary:
(a) The Council requires all future developments with a total cumulative floorspace of 500m2 or more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (CO 2) by 15% beyond the 2007 Building Regulations carbon dioxide emission levels.
(b) To achieve this 15% reduction, consideration should first be given to energy efficiency and building design measures.
(c) Where the 15% reduction cannot be met through energy efficiency and design measures then on-site low or zero carbon technologies (LZCT) including renewable energy systems should be used.
(d) Developments under 500m2 are also strongly encouraged to achieve an additional 15% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions through these measures.
(e) All applications for planning permission will also now require a statement on how energy efficiency measures and low and zero carbon technologies have been incorporated into the development proposal.
4. Developers should demonstrate how they have addressed compliance with these policies.
Appendix 2
Practical Application
5. Development will be expected to achieve the Building Research Establishment Eco-homes rating of “Excellent”.
This includes making full use of energy conservation techniques, including:
x Reduction of primary energy use and reduction of CO2 emissions through, for example, the siting, form, orientation and layout of buildings which maximise the benefits of heat recycling, solar energy, passive solar gain and the efficient use of natural light; and the use of planting to optimise the balance between summer shading and winter heat loss through exposure.
x Reduction of water consumption through for example use of water butts for garden use, low-water consumption white goods, showers and WC’s, grey water recycling for internal use. Green specification of materials include those for basic building elements and finishing elements.
x Reduction of construction waste through for example sorting and recycling construction waste on-site.
x Designing for life-cycle adaptability.
6. Advice should be sought from a licensed assessor at an early stage in the project to ensure that the estimated rating will be obtained. A full list of licensed assessors can be found at the Eco-Homes website (www.ecohomes.org) or by contacting the BREEAM office, (see contacts Appendix 1).
7. Prospective developers will be required to provide a statement of how energy efficiency measures and low and zero carbon technologies (including renewable energy systems and combined heat and power (CHP) schemes) will be incorporated into the development proposal to meet the required 15% reduction in CO2 emissions. Council policy regarding this is set out in SPG 18, Renewable Energy.
8. The orientation of buildings with regard to optimising solar gain, wind reduction and local character needs to be carefully considered within an understandable design process. Building and road layout should be designed to minimise the effect of wind channelling through the new development.
9. The buildings should be orientated to optimise the benefits of passive solar gain. Roof designs should incorporate a south facing roof area, to allow for future installation of solar or photovoltaic panels. For solar water heating, the orientation and angle of a fixed position array would be south within an angle of 20-40 degrees from south.
10 The potential of combined heat and power, through providing a single boiler serving the whole development needs to be considered
11. Given the high energy requirements of heating elderly people for longer periods, high standards of insulation to minimise demand will be a high priority.
Appendix 2
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.
抨彖ᘞ␙♵⌨㦘ᖟ檂ヅᇬ⮶ⷦ浣䓗㦻ⅴ♙⮩䲽␅Ⅵ㫋㆞ᇭ⇯♾ⅴ択拝ⅴₚ⦿ ⧏咖㒠⊠ᗷ俰᧨ᗊ♥ᗇ⚛䓗㦻ᇭ㷳⮥᧨⇯⃮♾ⅴᗷ俰ⅴₚ⦿⧏ᗊ♥㦻彖ᘞ䤓₼ 㠖✛␅Ⅵ⮥㠖巾㦻㒥ᗊ♥ᕡ⮩㖆弬ᇭℵ♾尐㻑㒠⊠⋩⒉⸘㘡᧨䟀㒠⊠䤓ぴ⇫ⅉ ❰䠅槱䍉⇯屲摚⇯⺜抨⒉䓗䓸₼䤓ᗇ㢝䭉⃚壤ᇭ
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.
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.
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, Planning & Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Council HQ, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0SA. Telephone: 01835 825060
PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE ITEM 9
10 DECEMBER 2007
REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE: DRAFT PLANNING BRIEF FOR QUEEN MARY SITE, JEDBURGH
1 PURPOSE
1.1 To seek approval for the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) relating to a planning brief for the Queen Mary site, Jedburgh as set out in Appendix A as a basis for public consultation.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The site was allocated for redevelopment in the Finalised Local Plan 2005. This is the area under consideration within the brief.
2.2 Officers from the Planning and Economic Development Department have considered the terms of the draft planning brief, and consider it to be a suitable basis for public consultation.
2.3 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 or minimal effects in relation to the environment, hence this SPG is exempt from SEA requirements under Section 7(1) of the Act.
3 CONSULTATION
3.1 The draft planning brief requires to be put to wider consultation with Community Councils and local stakeholders, together with national organisations such as, Scottish Water, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 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.
4.1 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
5.1 The key risks are considered to be:
Risk of not providing guidance
(i) The lack of guidance would cause uncertainty for landowners, developers and the public and be a barrier to effective decision-making by the Council. This could result in ad hoc and inconsistent decision making with the policies in the Finalised Local Plan not being taken fully into account.
(ii) Failure to develop planning briefs would reflect badly on the Council’s commitment to improve the design standards of new housing developments.
(iii) It is considered that the failure to approve the Planning Brief would have impacts in terms of resources in the Development Control Section, potentially resulting in delays in processing applications. In addition, it may ultimately have a negative impact on the quality of development and the thorough assessment of the environmental impact of development.
Risk of providing guidance
(i) In adopting Supplementary Guidance in advance of the Local Plan the Council will be required to defend the policy against possible legal challenge by the building industry, members of the public and other interested parties.
(ii) The Council will be required to defend the policy at appeal and the risk of costs following potential challenge by the building industry.
(iii) The Council is currently looking into the ownership of the site so there is a risk that the Council may not own the whole site.
6 EQUALITIES
6.1 There are no equality issues in approving this report. 7 SUMMARY
7.1 The report highlights the 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 I recommend that the Planning and Building Standards Committee approves the draft Planning Brief listed in this report (Appendix A) as a basis for public consultation for a 12-week period, and that any substantive comments should be reported back to this Committee.
The original signed copy of this report is retained by the Planning and Economic Development Department
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards
Author(s) Name Designation V. Allen Urban Designer
Background Papers: Previous Minute Reference:
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]