Item No. 4(A) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING and BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Item No. 4(a) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

MINUTE of SPECIAL MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 14 April 2014 at 2 p.m. ------

Present: - Councillors J. Brown (Chairman), M. Ballantyne, J. Brown, J. Fullarton, I. Gillespie, D. Moffat, S. Mountford, B. White. Apologies:- Councillors R. Smith, S. Bell. In Attendance:- Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager, Managing Solicitor – Commercial Services, Democratic Services Team Leader, Democratic Services Officer (Fiona Henderson).

PUBLIC SPEAKING AT MEETINGS PROTOCOL 1. Councillor Fullarton sought clarification with regard to the appropriateness of allowing speakers another opportunity to address the Planning and Building Standards Committee when the application had been continued. The Legal Adviser confirmed that all parties had been given the same opportunity to further address the Committee.

DECISION NOTED.

APPLICATION 2. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on an application for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

DECISION DEALT with the application as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

MEMBER Councillor Mountford left the meeting during consideration of the above application.

The meeting concluded at 2:55 p.m.

1 Item No. 4(a) APPENDIX

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Nature of Development Location

13/01379/FUL Erection of poultry shed (amendment Whim Poultry Farm to previous consent 12/00465/FUL) Lamancha West Linton

Decision: Approved subject to the modification of the existing legal agreement to allow for a new building on the site and to the following conditions and informatives:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications and mitigation measures specified in the submitted Environment Statement dated November 2013 and approved by the Planning Authority, unless agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details

3. No development shall take place until fencing has been erected around the dovecote, in a manner to be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, and no works shall take place within the area inside that fencing without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard a site of archaeological interest.

4. Before the approved building is brought into use, the vegetation on the road side at the southern entrance to the site shall be cut back to a degree agreed by the Planning Authority and a scheme for the regular maintenance shall also be agreed and implemented thereafter. Reason: To ensure that there are satisfactory sight lines at the entrance in the interests of road safety.

5. The manure management and control measures detailed in the Environmental Statement shall be applied at all relevant times, to include sheeting of all trailers prior to leaving the site Reason: To safeguard neighbouring amenity

6. The traffic mitigation and control measures detailed in the Environmental Statement shall be applied at all relevant times. Reason: To safeguard the neighbouring amenity

7. Prior to the commencement of the development, details shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority of an enclosure for the manure elevator. Once approved, the enclosure shall be provided before the poultry unit becomes operational and maintained in working condition for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenities the surrounding residential properties

8. Prior to commencement of the development, a woodland management plan (carried out by a qualified arboriculturalist) to assess the existing woodland that screens the development on all sides shall be submitted for the prior approval of the Planning Authority. This should include all the woodland within the site boundary and the large block of woodland to the north east of the site (within the blue line ownership boundary but outwith the red line site boundary) with an assessment of its life expectancy and which should demonstrate opportunities for enhancement planting. Any works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To provide effective screening of the development in perpetuity

2 Item No. 4(a)

9. The trees on this site shall be protected at all times during construction and building operations, by the erection of fences around the trees, together with such other measures as are necessary to protect the trees and their roots from damage. Details of the methods it is proposed to use shall be submitted by the applicant to the Local Planning Authority and be approved by them in writing. The approved protective measures shall be undertaken before any works commence on the site and must, thereafter be observed at all times until the development is completed. Reason: To ensure that adequate precautions are taken to protect trees during building operations.

10. Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2. Reason: To safeguard the amenities the surrounding residential properties.

11. The mitigation measures identified in the Protected Species Mitigation Plan (SAC 24th August 2012) shall be implemented, preferably additionally with a tool-kit talk to contractors by a suitably qualified person. Reason: In the interests of preserving biodiversity

12. No works to be carried out during the breeding bird season (breeding season March-September) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. If works are to commence during the breeding bird season checking surveys of areas affected by the development and mitigation proposals for birds will be required. Reason: In the interests of preserving biodiversity

13. No lorry deliveries or upliftings shall take place between the hours of 11.00pm and 6.30am on any day, unless express written permission has been sought of and granted by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities the surrounding residential properties.

14. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the precautions to be taken to ensure that the natural or artificial drainage of adjoining land is not affected shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid interference with the drainage of the adjoining land.

15. No development shall commence on site until details of a proposed air quality monitoring system have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SEPA. The approved system shall be put in place prior to the building being brought into use. The monitoring system shall remain in place during the operation of the building, unless written permission is obtained from the Planning Authority to vary or remove the terms of this requirement. Reason: To ensure that the air quality of the area is not affected by the development.

16. Prior to the commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority of a sound wall or baffle to the north east elevation of the poultry unit. Once approved, the sound wall or baffle shall be provided before the poultry unit becomes operational. Reason: To protect the amenity of adjoining residents.

17. No development shall commence on site until information is provided to the Planning Authority concerning the most suitable location for the manure elevator for the new shed. Once a position for the structure and a scheme for its implementation have been agreed, the manure elevator shall be erected in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To safeguard the amenities the surrounding residential properties.

Informative

Coal Authority The proposed development lies within an area that has been defined by The Coal Authority as containing potential hazards arising from former coal mining activity. These hazards can include: mine entries (shafts and 3 Item No. 4(a) adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and previous surface mining sites.

Although such hazards are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur in the future, particularly as a result of development taking place. It is recommended that information outlining how the former mining activities affect the proposed development, along with any mitigation measures required (for example the need for gas protection measures within the foundations), be submitted alongside any subsequent application for Building Standards approval (if relevant). Your attention is drawn to the Coal Authority policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at www.coal.decc.gov.uk

Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires the prior written permission of The Coal Authority. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, digging of foundations, piling activities, other ground works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes. Failure to obtain Coal Authority permission for such activities is trespass, with the potential for court action.

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from The Coal Authority’s Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com

If any of the coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0845 762 6848. Further information is available on The Coal Authority website www.coal.decc.gov.uk This Informative Note is valid from 1st January 2013 until 31st December 2014

SEPA SEPA advises that it is at the applicant’s commercial risk if any significant changes required during the regulatory stage necessitate a further planning application an/or neighbour notification or advertising.

NOTE Mrs Fiona Hodgkiss and Angie McDougall spoke on behalf of the objectors against the application. Councillor Bhatia as local Member spoke against the application.

VOTE Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor White, moved approval of the application, subject to the inclusion of an additional condition to seek re-positioning the manure elevator and amendment to condition to 13 with regard to additional vehicle movements.

Councillor Moffat moved as an amendment that the application be refused in terms of policies H2 – Protection of residential amenity and D1 Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside. There was no seconder and the amendment fell.

4 Item No. 4(b) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

MINUTE of MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 6 May 2014 at 10 a.m. ------

Present: - Councillors R. Smith (Chairman), S. Bell, J. Brown, J. Fullarton, S. Mountford. Apologies:- Councillor M. Ballantyne, I. Gillespie, D. Moffat, B. White. In Attendance:- Development Standards Manager, Major Applications, Solicitor (G. Nelson), Democratic Services Team Leader, Democratic Services Officer (F. Henderson).

ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. The Chairman varied the order of business as shown on the agenda and the Minute reflects the order in which the items were considered at the meeting.

MINUTE 2. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 31 March 2014.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

BUILT AND NATURAL HERITAGE 3. The presentation on the work of the Landscape and Trees Team to be given by Jim Knight was deferred to a future meeting as Mr Knight was not available due to the change of date.

DECISION NOTED.

SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE HARBOUR ROAD, EYEMOUTH DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 4. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Service Director Regulatory Services which proposed the approval of Supplementary Guidance (SG) entitled ‘Harbour Road, Eyemouth Development Framework. The report explained that the purpose of the SG was to guide future redevelopment of the area between Harbour Road, Church Street and Manse Road (i.e. the harbourside). This area was located within the development boundary of Eyemouth and had been identified as a key regeneration site in the Proposed Local Development Plan. The aim of the SG was to redevelop the harbourside to create a place which could help to achieve sustainable economic growth in Eyemouth, be welcoming and pleasant for visitors and residents alike, and restore the identity that the harbourside area of Eyemouth used to have.

DECISION AGREED to:-

(a) approve the use of the Development Framework as Supplementary Guidance in the determination of planning applications pending the approval of the Local Development Plan and (b) delegate the approval of the Harbourside, Eyemouth Development Framework as Supplementary Guidance as a part of the Local Development Plan, once the Local Development Plan had been adopted.

1 Item No. 4(b) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 5. Councillor Smith declared a non pecuniary interest in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct in respect of planning application 14/00278/FUL and left the meeting during its consideration.

MEMBER Councillor Fullarton joined the meeting prior to the consideration of applications 13/00427/PPP and 14/00278/FUL.

APPLICATIONS 6. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Service Director Regulatory Services on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

DECISION DEALT with the applications as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.

PLANNING REFORM AND GOVERNANCE OF THE PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW 7. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Service Director Regulatory Services to review the Planning and Building Standards Committee and Public Speaking arrangements approved in September and October 2013 and introduced in November 2013, and to consider whether those arrangements should be made permanent. The report had been prepared in accordance with the decision of Council on 25 September 2013 (Amended on 31 October 2013) that the revised Planning and Building Standards Committee arrangements approved on that date be reviewed after a period of six months and that a further report be brought initially to the Planning and Building Standards Committee and thereafter to Council on the expiry of that period. The new arrangements acknowledged the complex nature of many planning decisions, the increasingly critical analysis of the Council’s decision making processes and the need to ensure that members were adequately equipped and had adequate capacity to manage a growing work load. The report detailed the key changes implemented in November 2013, the review arrangements and summarised responses received. In relation to the opportunities suggested for improvement the Members were of the opinion that the acoustics was an issue for all meetings held in the Chamber and Committee Room 1 and possible improvements be investigated as a matter of urgency. In relation to the layout of the Chamber, while the members noted the comments they agreed to take no action. There was considerable debate in relation to elected members, who were not members of the Committee remaining in the Chamber to listen to the debate after making a presentation and Members were of the opinion that the Elected Members should be allowed to remain and questioned whether the Standards Commission Code of Conduct could be amended to allow this. Mr Nelson advised that it could not be amended at present as it was part of the Standards Commission Code of Conduct, however, an approach could be made to the Standards Commission to investigate whether an amendment could be made.

DECISION * (a) AGREED TO RECOMMEND approval of the continuation of the arrangements agreed in September and October 2013 on a permanent basis.

(b) AGREED:-

(i) that a report on the progress of implementing points 1 to 4 contained in the Appendix to the report be brought back to committee in 4 months; and

(ii) that Mr Nelson approach the Standards Commission to investigate whether the Code of Conduct could be amended.

APPEALS AND REVIEWS 8. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Service Director Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews. 2 Item No. 4(b)

DECISION NOTED that:-

(a) there remained 3 appeals outstanding in respect of the following:-

x Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk x Allanshaws Farmhouse (Shawpark), Galashiels x Blythe Farm (Brunta Hill), Lauder

(b) review requests had been received in respect:-

(i) Erection of 2 Wind Turbines 45m High to Tip, Access Track, Substation and Electrical Kiosks on Land South West of Whiterig Farm, Eyemouth – 12/01333/FUL;

(ii) Erection of Dwellinghouse and Associated Access on land North of Ninewells South Lodge, Chirnside – 12/01179/PPP;

(iii) Installation of roller shutter door at 2 Elm Court, Cavalry Park, Peebles – 13/01382/FUL;

(iv) Erection of Farmhouse and Detached Garage on Land South of Mossfennan House, Broughton – 14/00026/PPP;

(v) Change of Use from Class 1 (Travel Agent) to Class 2 (estate Agent) at 43 The Square, Kelso – 14/00049/FUL

(c) the Local Review Body had upheld the Appointed Officer’s decision to refuse the Erection of replacement blacksmith’s workshop and associated dwellinghouse on Land North West and West of Greenlaw, Deanfoot Road, West Linton.

The meeting concluded at 12.20 p.m.

3 Item No. 4(b) APPENDIX I

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Nature of Development Location

14/00278/FUL Erection of stable block and Land South of Langheugh associated works including hard Buccleuch Road standing area Hawick

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and informatives.

2. This stable block shall be for the private use of the applicants and for no other person or for any commercial or business use. Reason: This permission is granted in view of the personal circumstances of the applicant.

3. The access from the private road into the field, parking and turning area shall be completed in accordance with Drawing Number 14-452-1001 hereby approved before construction work on the stable block commences. Reason: To ensure adequate accessed into the site and provision for vehicles to park. Informatives:

The Roads Planning Service advises that the existing road and track will require some repairs to existing potholes and this work should be carried out prior to any works commencing on the proposed development. It is recommend that, to prevent any neighbourly disputes arising from vehicles parking on this private land and blocking the private garage, the boundary fence and existing gate be relocated so as to be around the perimeter of the proposed access track and parking/turning area. This will ensure that vehicles fully utilise the new parking/turning area for that purpose. The applicant must satisfy themselves that any new track has suitable drainage to ensure that the track is always useable and that no surface water is allowed to flow over the adjacent embankment.

Stable Waste During the use of the stable block, it is likely that refuse/waste materials (i.e. manure/soiled hay) will be produced on the site as a consequence. Therefore, it must be ensured that all such waste materials are not stored on-site or disposed of in any manner (for example, burning) which would give rise to Statutory Nuisance conditions developing at neighbouring properties to the site.

Riding Establishment The Riding Establishments Act 1964 defines a Riding Establishment as “the carrying on of a business of keeping horses to let them out on hire for riding, or for use in providing instruction in riding for payment, or both, “ and requires such businesses to be licensed by the Local Authority.

If the applicant intends the stables to operate as a riding establishment in the future, the premises will need to be licensed. Current conditions of licence are discussed alongside health and safety issues applicable to the trade, within the CIEH publication Health and safety guidance for inspections of horse riding establishments and livery yards. A free copy may be downloaded from: www.cieh.org/policy/inspections_horse_livery.html. Hardcopies may be purchased from CIEH Tel. 020 7827 5821.

Further information about the required standards is available from SBC’s Regulatory Services, Environmental Health Team.

Riding Establishment application forms are available from SBC’s Licensing Team.

4 Item No. 4(b) NOTE Mr Brian Murray, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

13/00259/PPP Residential Development Land to North and East of Hendersyde North Lodge, Kelso

Decision: Approved subject to a legal agreement addressing affordable housing and contributions towards deficiencies an education infrastructure and the following conditions and informative:

1. No development shall commence until the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2. Application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision shall be made to the Planning Authority before whichever is the latest of the following: (a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or (b) the expiration of six months from the date on which an earlier application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision notice was refused or dismissed following an appeal. Only one application may be submitted under paragraph (b) of this condition, where such an application is made later than three years after the date of this consent. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

3. No development shall commence until all matters specified in conditions have, where required, been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall only take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

5. The subsequent application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by: i. a site layout plan at a scale of 1:500 showing the position of all buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas (distinguishing, where appropriate, between private and public spaces), walls and fences and landscaping; ii. plans and elevations of each house and garage type showing their dimensions and type and colour of external materials; iii. plans and elevations of the school showing the dimensions and type and colour of external materials; vi. a landscaping plan at a scale of 1:200 showing the location, species and ground spread of existing and proposed trees, shrubs and hedges; v. details of the phasing of development; vi. details of existing and finished ground levels, and finished floor levels, in relation to a fixed datum, preferably ordnance datum. vii. an updated transport statement vii. a water impact assessment Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development.

6. No development shall commence until a scheme for sustainable drainage (SUDS) surface water treatment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA. 5 Item No. 4(b) Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall be developed in accordance with the technical guidance contained in The SUDS Manual (C697) and should incorporate source control. Reason: to ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water runoff.

7. No development shall be commenced until such a time as it has been demonstrated that all matters relating to foul and surface water drainage have been addressed via a drainage strategy, which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority as part of any detailed submission, pursuant to this planning permission in principle. The strategy should demonstrate that a sewer connection for this proposal is feasible and should demonstrate the space requirements and layout of the proposed SUDS features as well as the treatment volumes. Reason: The Planning Authority is aware that there may be drainage capacity issues within the settlement that have not been fully addressed in the planning permission in principle application, which establishes only the land-use principle of the area of land identified in the submitted drawing(s).

8. No development shall be commenced until precise details of water supply have been submitted to and approved in writing, in consultation with Scottish Water, by the planning authority. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure an adequate supply of water is available to serve the site and to ensure that existing users are not compromised.

9. No development shall commence until a Badger Protection Plan is submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. The Plan shall protect badger foraging and commuting across the site (covering trenches and open pipes overnight/ providing a means of escape, safe storage of chemicals and oils). Reason: In order to protect badgers and the natural heritage interests of the site.

10. Site clearance shall be carried out outside of the breeding season. No vegetation or scrub clearance shall be carried out during the breeding bird season (March-August) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Checking surveys and appropriate mitigation for breeding birds will be required if works are proposed during the breeding bird season. Reason: In order to protect breeding birds and the natural heritage interests of the site.

11. No development shall commence until a Landscape and Habitat Enhancement Plan including measures for native woodland and scrub, hedgerows and grassland enhancement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to protect the natural heritage interests of the site and to improve the landscape and habitats.

12. No development shall take place until an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development, with reference to the National Air Quality Objectives. The issues addressed should include pollution arising from the presence of additional road traffic and human occupancy, and the use of any proposed zero carbon technologies. Reason: In order to protect air quality, the effects this will have on land and water and commit to addressing climate change.

13. No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved statement. The Construction Method Statement shall detail controls for mitigating noise and dust impacts arising from construction and other activities that are undertaken on site. Reason: To ensure that the development of the site proceeds in an effective and orderly manner and to ensure the residential amenity of nearby dwellings is not compromised.

14. The rights of way (shown on the plan accompanying this decision) must be maintained open and free from obstruction in the course of development and in perpetuity and shall not form part of the curtilage of the property. No additional stiles, gates steps or barriers to access may be erected that would deter or hinder future pedestrian use. 6 Item No. 4(b) Reason: To protect general rights of responsible access.

15. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a Geophysical Survey. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeological organisation working to the geophysical survey standards of the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) and approved in writing to the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) access to all fields where the survey is to be undertaken. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Geophysical Survey Report. If potential archaeology is discovered, further survey or below ground excavation may be necessary to determine the nature of the find. This will be achieved in consultation between the nominated archaeologist(s) and the Archaeology Officer. In the event that excavation is necessary, the developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post-excavation analysis the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority. Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

16. A Transport Assessment (TA) to be submitted as part of the first application for approval of matters specified in conditions for the site. All required transport infrastructure adjustment work identified by the Planning Authority as necessary through the TA process must be implemented by the developer and completed within agreed specified timescales. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory and safe access to and egress from the site and that the existing road network will be able to cater for the associated development traffic while allowing full integration between the existing and proposed road network. In the interests of sustainable development, to ensure the development promotes and supports alternative means of travel to and from the site by public transport, foot and cycle.

17. A Masterplan is required for the development site at Hendersyde in association with future development phases to the north east of the site identified in the Local Development Plan. The Masterplan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the submission of the first application for approval of matters specified in conditions for the site. The Masterplan shall seek to develop an urban and landscape framework for the development that takes account of the site constraints and opportunities. Reason: To ensure the effective planning of this part of Kelso and that the development meets the terms of the Proposed Local Development Plan and the aspirations set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking and Design.

18. All of the existing walls within and bounding the site shall be retained unless specific written permission is granted by the Planning Authority. Details of how the walls will be altered, relocated or rebuilt to facilitate the development to be submitted as part of the first application for approval of matters specified in conditions for the site. A scheme for the long term maintenance of said walls shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority and implemented in accordance with the approved maintenance scheme. Reason: To ensure that important visual features are retained and incorporated into the proposed development.

Informatives

1. In relation to Condition No 6 above, further guidance on the design of SUDS systems and appropriate levels of treatment can be found in CIRIA’s C697 manual entitled The SUDS Manual. Advice can also be found in the SEPA Guidance Note Planning advice on sustainable drainage systems (SUDS). Regulatory requirements for surface water and SUDS can be found within the SUDS section of SEPA’s website.

2. In relation to Condition No 8 above, the applicant should consult with Scottish Water to ensure a connection to the public sewer is available and whether restrictions at the local sewage treatment works will constrain the development.

3. Safe digging practices, in accordance with HSE publication HSG47 "Avoiding Danger from Underground Services", must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other 7 Item No. 4(b) apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used. It is your responsibility to ensure that this information is provided to all persons (either direct labour or contractors) working for you on or near gas apparatus. In addition please follow the advice given on the gas safety card. Up to date plans of the pipes owned by Scottish Gas Networks are available directly from Scottish Gas Networks, 95 Kilbirnie Street, Glasgow G5 8JD or by telephone on 0141 418 4093.

NOTE Mr Alex Forsyth, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

13/00427/PPP Mixed use development including Land North of Queens House, Housing, Site for School, Community Angraflat Road, Kelso Facilities and associated Landscaping, Road and Footpaths

Decision: Approved subject to a legal agreement addressing local schools and subject to the following conditions and informative:

2. Application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision shall be made to the Planning Authority before whichever is the latest of the following: (a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or (b) the expiration of six months from the date on which an earlier application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision notice was refused or dismissed following an appeal. Only one application may be submitted under paragraph (b) of this condition, where such an application is made later than three years after the date of this consent. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

3. No development shall commence until all matters specified in conditions have, where required, been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall only take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

8 Item No. 4(b) vi. details of existing and finished ground levels, and finished floor levels, in relation to a fixed datum, preferably ordnance datum. vii. a transport statement vii. a water impact assessment Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development.

6. No development shall commence until a scheme for sustainable drainage (SUDS) surface water treatment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall be developed in accordance with the technical guidance contained in The SUDS Manual (C697) and should incorporate source control. Reason: to ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water runoff.

7. No development shall be commenced until such a time as it has been demonstrated that all matters relating to foul and surface water drainage have been addressed via a drainage management plan, which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority as part of any detailed submission, pursuant to this planning permission in principle. Reason: The Planning Authority is aware that there may be drainage capacity issues within the settlement that have not been fully addressed in the planning permission in principle application, which establishes only the land-use principle of the area of land identified in the submitted drawing(s).

9 Item No. 4(b) Reason: To ensure that the development of the site proceeds in an effective and orderly manner and to ensure the residential amenity of nearby dwellings is not compromised.

14. The path Core Path 1 (shown on the plan accompanying this decision) must be maintained open and free from obstruction in the course of development and in perpetuity and shall not form part of the curtilage of the property. No additional stiles, gates steps or barriers to access may be erected that would deter or hinder future pedestrian use. Reason: To protect general rights of responsible access.

15. A Transport Assessment (TA) to be submitted as part of the first application for approval of matters specified in conditions for the site. All required transport infrastructure adjustment work identified by the Planning Authority as necessary through the TA process must be implemented by the developer and completed within agreed specified timescales. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory and safe access to and egress from the site and that the existing road network will be able to cater for the associated development traffic while allowing full integration between the existing and proposed road network. In the interests of sustainable development, to ensure the development promotes and supports alternative means of travel to and from the site by public transport, foot and cycle.

16. A Masterplan is required for the development site at Nethershot in association with future development phases identified in the Local Development Plan. The Masterplan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the submission of the first application for approval of matters specified in conditions for the site. The Masterplan shall seek to develop an urban and landscape framework for the development that takes account of the site constraints and opportunities. Reason: To ensure the effective planning of this part of Kelso and that the development meets the terms of the Proposed Local Development Plan and the aspirations set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking and Design.

17. A controlled pedestrian crossing is required on Angraflat Road to serve the development. The exact location of the crossing will be determined by the Transport Assessment required by condition 15, and should be defined in the first application for approval of matters specified in conditions for the site. The facility to be provided in accordance with the agreed specified timescales pursuant to condition 15. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory and safe pedestrian/cycle connections from/to the existing public road network and to integrate the development with the existing road network.

Informatives

2. In relation to Condition No 8 above , the applicant should consult with Scottish Water to ensure a connection to the public sewer is available and whether restrictions at the local sewage treatment works will constrain the development.

NOTE Mr Anthony Duthie, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

10 Item No. 6(a)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

2 JUNE 2014

APPLICATION FOR CONSENT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/01283/S36

OFFICER: John Hiscox WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Wind farm comprising 18 wind turbines, all 115m to height (blade tip), plus associated development including infrastructure and buildings. SITE: Cloich Forest, Eddleston, Peeblesshire APPLICANT: Cloich Wind Farm LLP AGENT: Partnerships for Renewables Ltd

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To advise the Scottish Government of the response from Scottish Borders Council on the application by Cloich Wind Farm LLP, to construct an 18-turbine wind farm with associated infrastructure and buildings within the Cloich Forest, near Eddleston.

2.0 PROCEDURE

2.1 Scottish Borders Council (SBC) is a consultee as a ‘relevant planning authority’.

2.2 The views of SBC will be provided to the Energy Consents and Deployment Unit at Scottish Government (ECDU), the body responsible for processing onshore Section 36 planning applications. In this instance, the application is required to be determined via Section 36 because the wind farm would have an output of more than 50MW. The ECDU advertises the application and carries out direct consultation with other interested bodies. There is, therefore, no need for Scottish Borders Council to undertake a tandem process although consultation has taken place with relevant officers within the Council.

2.3 It should be noted that if permission is granted, the local authority (rather than the ECDU) would become the relevant enforcement authority responsible for monitoring compliance with the terms of an approval and any conditions imposed thereon.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION:

3.1 The application site is situated entirely within Scottish Borders on land within a road triangle created by the A703 (Peebles to Leadburn), the A701 (Leadburn to Blyth Bridge) and the A72 (Blyth Bridge to Peebles). Peebles town is just over 5km south-east of the site; Penicuik is approximately 8km to the north. West Linton is 6km to the west and Eddleston village is just under 3km to the east. The adminstrative boundary with Midlothian lies approximately 3km to the north and 4km to the east of the site. South Lanarkshire is within 7km where it meets the Borders close to Blyth Bridge.

The proposed development would be placed within Cloich Forest. This is primarily a commercial, coniferous forestry area owned and operated by Forestry Commission Scotland. It

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(a)

occupies what are loosely known as the Cloich Hills, which include Crailzie Hill at 476m, Ewe Hill at 462m and Peat Hill at 466m AOD; it is also in between the large scale Pentland Hills, the Moorfoot Hills and a range of other grouped and individual hills. The Meldons lie within 2km of the southern site boundary.

3.2 Access is proposed from the east, off the A703 north of Eddleston. It would follow existing roads through Shiplaw and provide the single vehicle access to the northern section of the site, all of the turbines being in the middle/southern portion of the site and so reached via improved forestry tracks.

3.3 The application site is approximately 1091 hectares in area, approximately 7.4km x 1km/3km with its longest dimension running roughly north (west of Cowieslinn) to south (at Harehope). It is flanked on the west/north-west by further hills forming part of the Cloich Hills group and by forestry/farmland not within the application site. The entire site is presently an operational conifer forestry plantation.

3.4 Near the site’s centre is a property not owned or controlled in full by the applicants, called Courhope. This is essentially a private property within an associated landholding. There appears to be a small section of land within the Courhope curtilage which is controlled by the applicant, however. Courhope is described as a non-residential property within the ES, as is Fingland, a similar building outwith the site and situated just west of the western boundary (near westernmost turbine).

3.5 A temporary 70m tall anemometry mast has been installed on the site (with planning permission).

Landscape Character:

3.6 In terms of the 1998 Scottish Borders Landscape Character Assessment (1998), the entire site lies within a character type called ‘Plateau Outliers’. Outliers describes the smaller hills not contained within the true upland landscape such as Pentlands or Moorfoots. Figure 7.8 of the ES shows the character type and surrounding types, which include ‘Poor Rough Grassland’ to the north-east, ‘Pastoral Upland Valley’ and ‘Dissected Plateau Moorland’ to the east, ‘Rolling Farmland’ to the north-west, ‘Upland Valley With Woodland’ to the south and ‘Upland Valley With Pastoral Floor’ to the south-east and south-west.

3.7 In terms of landscape designations within the 2012 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), the site is within 2.5km of the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area, which lies to the south just beyond the Meldon Hills. However, the Meldons are situated within the Tweed Valley Special Landscape Area (SLA) designated by the same SPG; the SLA boundary is approximately 1.2km from the site boundary at its closest point.

3.8 The Upper Tweedsmuir SLA is situated between 3 and 4km south-west of the site, beyond the A72; the Pentland Hills SLA is situated north-west of the A701 5km away; within Midlothian the Area of Great Landscape Value of the Moorfoot Hills is between 7 and 8km east/north-east of the turbines.

3.9 The site is crossed by the Cross Borders Drove Road, an important walking route that starts at Newark Castle near Selkirk and ends where it meets the boundary of Borders/West Lothian in the Pentland Hills. The site is visible from sections of the John Buchan Way, a recreational route that starts in Peebles and ends in Broughton. The route is situated in places between 5 and 7km from the site. Within the site is a further promoted public path more than 4km in length, which links from the Drove Road to Shiplaw (on route of proposed access) via Cloich Farm/House. This latter path and the Drove Road are utilised as horse riding routes.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(a)

3.10 On the opposite side of the A703 to the proposed access point lies the Portmore House and Gardens ‘HGDL’ (Historic Gardens/Designed Landscape). The house and the majority of its grounds lie within 5km of the windfarm and has visibility of between 14-18 turbines defined within the ZTV.

Residential Properties/Receptors:

3.11 Figure 7.11a shows the proximity of residences to the wind farm. One residence lies within 1km and 3 further lie within 2km. Out to 3km there are 11 localities identified, but with at least 5 of these localities containing more than one dwelling.

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

4.1 The development would comprise:

x 18 wind turbines and their foundations x Crane hardstanding areas x Substation/control room buildings and compound x Transformer kiosks, one per turbine x Underground electrical cables to each turbine x Access track and onsite access tracks (including modification to existing tracks) x 1 no. 70m permanent meteorological mast x Modification of vehicular access with A703 public road x Borrow pits (up to 2) for use during development, to be reinstated post-construction x Temporary construction and site security compounds

4.2 The current version of the scheme is a revision to the original scheme, submitted as a formal Addendum (or Supplementary Environmental Information – ‘SEI’) in January 2014. Each turbine has been reduced in height from 132m to 115m to tip. The development layout has changed, ostensibly by clustering the smaller machines closer together, and by introducing more focussed design/appearance rationale. Altogether, the output from the development is intended to be 54 megawatts (MW). Each turbine would have the potential to produce 3MW. The developer explains the reasons for making the revisions on pages 1-3 of the new Non-Technical summary submitted as part of the Addendum. The superseded and current layouts can be compared in Figure 3.2 ‘Design Evolution Plan’ (Page 3 of the SEI document entitled Volume 2A ‘Figures excluding landscape and visual impact assessment’, January 2014).

4.3 The turbine hub height would be 70m if the candidate turbine shown is utilised.

4.4 The wind farm is intended to have an initial lifespan (covered by this planning application) of 25 years. At the end of this period, unless ‘re-powered’ or unless a new planning permission is achieved that would extend the wind farm’s life, it would be decommissioned and the site restored in agreement with a decommissioning method statement.

4.5 The developer has identified a desire to benefit from a micrositing allowance of 50m for turbines and for tracks if planning permission is granted, to allow for unforeseen issues requiring to be addressed during development.

4.6 Integral to the implementation of the development is a phased forestry management proposal, which includes felling to facilitate development. The initial enabling felling proposals are shown in Figure 4.2 of Volume 2a.

5.0 NEIGHBOURING SITES/SCHEMES RELEVANT TO CONSIDERATION OF CURRENT PROPOSAL:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(a)

5.1 Bowbeat: An operational wind farm approximately 7km to the east of the application site, within the Moorfoot Hills. The development was built in 2002, and consists of 24 turbines with a tip height of 80m. Its output is 31.2MW in total. The ES identifies quite a high level of cumulative visibility between Cloich and Bowbeat (Fig 7.14a & b).

5.2 Mount Lothian: A current proposal in a major planning application to Midlothian Council, to which SBC has recently responded identifying its concerns about the landscape and visual impacts of the scheme. The site lies just over 8km to the north-east of Cloich site. The development would consist of 9 turbines with a maximum tip height of 102m.

5.3 Spurlens Rig: A planning application for 6 turbines on this site near West Linton was refused in 2011. Tip height for each machine would have been 125m. This site is situated approximately 5km north-east of the Cloich site. No appeal was made against this refusal.

5.4 Hag Law (formerly Stevenson Hill): Although the Hag Law scheme is adjacent to the Cloich site to its immediate west, it is presently at pre-application stage. The most recent version (iteration) of the Hag Law scheme is for 8 turbines at 100m or thereby. This project has been through the PAN process (still ongoing at this time, as understood by the SBC planning department). It occupies principally the hills of Wether Law and Hag Law. The ES identifies an almost commensurate broader zone of theoretical visibility for Hag Law and Cloich. The ES includes Hag Law in its visualisations despite it not yet having reached application stage.

5.5 There are other more peripheral schemes that may be of relevance to consideration of the Cloich project. Those at Glenkerie/Glenkerie Extension and Clyde/Clyde Extension are examples of other significant projects with which Cloich would have a sequential landscape and visual impact. Travellers using A-roads (e.g. A701) through Borders would potentially experience these schemes in sequence. However, the cumulative effects of Cloich with these schemes is of less significance than the effects that Cloich would have by itself. This is because Cloich would introduce large commercial turbines into an area where presently there are none.

6.0 PLANNING HISTORY:

6.1 Other than that which relates to the erection of an anemometry mast, there is no relevant planning history.

7.0 APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

7.1 The application is ‘EIA Development’ and is therefore accompanied by a full Environmental Statement resulting from the Assessment. It consists of the following items:

Oct 2012: Non-technical summary Oct 2012: Volume 1 – Written Statement Oct 2012: Volumes 2a and 2b – Figures (to accompany the text) Oct 2012: Volume 3 – Appendices (technical supporting information)

7.2 It may be of use to note that (as described in Paragraph 1.1.8 of the 2012 ES), that Volume 1 is structured as follows:

x Chapters 1 to 6 describe the background to the project, scoping process, methodology and outcome, EIA process and methodology, site selection and design, the project as proposed, the legislative and policy context, and climate change and atmospheric emissions respectively.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(a)

x Chapters 7 to 15 detail the technical assessment of the predicted environmental effects of the development, the proposed or in-built mitigation measures to reduce any negative effects, ongoing consultation and monitoring. x Chapter 16 presents a summary of effects and a schedule of proposed mitigation and enhancement measures

7.3 Of particular note within the ES are the following items:

x cumulative sequential assessment relating to the John Buchan Way x sequential assessment relating to A701, A702, A703 and route between A72 and Eddleston via Meldons x assessment of Wild Land matters x comparison wireline/montage figures showing potential landscape and visual impacts from selected viewpoints x montages showing potential appearance of wind farm with forestry operations undertaken simultaneously

7.4 The Addendum submitted in February 2014 includes updated information because it relates to a revised scheme. The Addendum seeks to address a range of concerns identified by statutory consultees in respect of the original scheme. The Addendum constitutes the following items:

Volume 1: Written Statement and Appendices Volume 2a: Figures (excluding Landscape and Visual Impact) Volume 2b: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Figures

7.5 Although the Addendum must be read in conjunction with the original ES, it does fully update the position in relation to the revised scheme, which has changed significantly from the original.

8.0 REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

8.1 Third party representations are submitted to the ECDU and it is for that authority to take these into consideration when assessing the proposed development on behalf of Scottish Ministers. 8.2 However, the ECDU has advised that, as at 8 May 2014, a total of 319 third party representations in objection, and 9 in support had been received.

9.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

9.1 Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011:

Principle 1 – Sustainability Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4 – Flooding Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy NE5 – Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy BE1 – Listed Buildings Policy BE2 – Archaeology Policy BE3 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6(a)

9.2 SESplan Strategic Development Plan June 2013:

Policy 10 - Sustainable Energy Technologies

10.0 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

10.1 Adopted SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and other documents:

x Renewable Energy (2007) x Wind Energy (2011) x Biodiversity (2005) x Local Landscape Designations (2012)

10.2 Emerging Local Development Plan

x Scottish Borders Council: Proposed Local Development Plan 2013

10.3 Scottish Government Planning Policy and Guidance:

Scottish Planning Policy 2010 National Planning Framework for Scotland (2) 2009

10.4 Scottish Government On-line Renewables Advice:

Circular 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (S) Regulations 2011 PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008 PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology PAN 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment

10.5 Historic Scotland Publications:

x A Joint Agreement Between Historic Scotland and Forestry Commission Scotland (2010) x Scottish Historic Environment Policy (2011)

10.6 SNH Publications:

x Siting and designing windfarms in the landscape (2009) x Assessing the cumulative impact of onshore wind energy developments

11.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

11.1 Landscape Architect: SEI 2014: The SBC Landscape Architect has made a detailed assessment of the proposed scheme in relation to Policy D4 of the 2011 SBC Local Plan. This consultee does not support the application; a summary of the position would be as follows:

x recognises that development is more compact and covers smaller area of forest x recognises that overall magnitude of visual effect has been reduced x although site is not covered by environmental designations, it relates to several designated landscapes and has visual effects in relation to them x although site is within upland area, this does not afford visual containment of the turbines and visual effects relate to adjoining landscape types

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(a)

x despite reduction in visual effect and slight reduction in visual coverage as shown in ZTV, visual containment is still not high x although the effects on certain sensitive receptors have clearly been reduced, the effects are still significant enough to promote concern x impacts on landscape character remain unacceptable due to scale conflicts and potential overwhelming of underlying landscape/landform; reduction in effects acknowledged x cumulative visual impact only of noteworthy (adverse) nature with Hag Law (west of Cloich site) x despite improvements to scheme, balance of opinion does not favour the development, due to landscape and visual effects.

It should be noted that the original consultation response from January 2013 is similar in terms of its approach, but identified stronger concerns not only because the development was taller and less compact and therefore gave rise to clearer visual conflict, but also because there were some gaps in the submitted information that prevented full understanding of the potential effects.

11.2 Archaeology Officer: The development is not supported by this specialist consultee by virtue of the indirect setting/visual impacts. A summary of the most pertinent matters is as follows:

x impacts on the setting of Whaup Law cairn SAM, having particular regard to its relationship with Wether Law cairn (a further monument off-site) harmful and overriding; not agreed that replacement of forestry with turbines has similar effect x effects similar in respect of Wether Law cairn, reversing those effects at Whaup Law x adverse impacts on setting of Meldon Hills SAMs highly significant, although potentially not to an overriding degree (from Meldons) x adverse impacts on Cademuir and Meldons SAMs, when viewed from Cademuir and John Buchan Way looking north overriding and unacceptable x adverse impacts on setting of Drochil Castle and Whiteside Hill inappropriate and likely to be major considerations x development conflicts with historic landscape created by range of monuments that relate to one another – of national significance and influences National Scenic Area, which includes some of the SAMs x range of conditions recommended if permission is granted relating to disturbance/protection of subterranean archaeology, survey of archaeology using LIDAR technology, and survey of ground for paleoenvironmental information.

11.3 Ecology Officer - Original Response: This consultee identified the following significant matters:

x development unlikely to adversely affect integrity of River Tweed Special Area of Conservation x habitat management/enhancement endorsed/required due to potential impacts x compensatory planting details required prior to determination – to be secured by legal agreements x conditions recommended (see updated response for details)

11.4 Ecology Officer – Response to SEI: The same consultee indicates that the revised proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on ecological interest. It is confirmed that there is no objection.

This response notes other consultees’ responses and discusses the implications of those submissions by SEPA and RSPB.

Compensatory planting relating to areas of woodland not to be restocked is discussed.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(a)

A range of planning conditions/items for legal obligation is proposed, relating to the following matters:

x compensatory planting x pre-commencement protected species survey requirements (which would inform mitigation/protection during construction) x submission of Species Mitigation and Management Plan x submission of Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan x appointment of Ecological Clerk of Works x submission of Construction Method Statement, Environmental Management Plan and Decommissioning Method Statement x implementation of post-construction monitoring

11.5 Roads Planning Manager: This consultee has indicated that no overriding concerns exist in respect of the revised scheme. There is a requirement for a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to be submitted in response to planning conditions.

11.6 Access Officer: 6.11.12: This consultee originally highlighted that there are two claimed rights of way within the application area. A substantial section of one path and a significant section of the other are promoted paths, which enhances their status through indication to users via specialised signs and gates. Although both paths would be affected by the development, the consultee raised no objection in this response. Conditions were recommended in relation to:

x keeping paths free from obstruction/requirement to apply for diversion or changes to paths infrastructure x requirement to provide minimum set-back distance for turbines from public paths of at least equivalent distance to turbine height.

11.7 12.3.14: In relation to the SEI, an updated response made reference to more issues, including potential impacts on long distance routes. This included advice that BT40 has recently been promoted as part of the unofficial Scottish National Trail that runs from Kirk Yetholm to Cape Wrath.

In this updated response, it is clarified that the section of path running from Cloich Farm in the north to Courhope in the south of the site is also a promoted path. This was unclear in the original response.

New reference is made to the status of the Cross Borders Drove Road as being similar to strategic long distance paths including Southern Upland Way, John Buchan Way and Borders Abbeys Way. The significance of this is tied in with the objective to seek a 2km buffer (via spatial strategies – for example in the 2011 SPG on Wind Energy) between turbines and the strategic path network.

Other advice is given on potential planning conditions relating to setback distances, minimising path disruption and use of access tracks post-construction.

Unlike the conclusion in the original response, this updated version concludes that the application should be refused because the enhanced status of the Cross Borders Drove Road should give rise to the same requirement for separation from turbines as other strategic path routes (2km).

11.8 Environmental Health Officer: 12/5/14: This consultee identifies that the daytime noise limit proposed, being LA90 40dB, should not be supported. This view is based on the potential

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(a)

effects on occupants of residences. It is suggested that the daytime limit be lowered to LA90 35dB.

No other issues are overriding, with nighttime levels being accepted.

11.9 Local Plans Section: 7/5/14: This consultee assesses the proposal in terms of its broad effects, but carefully against relevant national and local planning policy, adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance and emerging Local Development Plan policy. The response is not favourable towards the development, citing a number of significant matters; a summary of the most pertinent is as follows:

x impact on outlook from White Meldon Iconic Viewpoint significant intrusion on skyline currently not experienced x ZTV indicates numerous turbines potentially visible from range of SAMs x Emerging LDP includes background papers which have a landscape capacity study, that indicates no capacity for this scale of turbine due to potential adverse landscape effects x ES does not demonstrate that the particular development impacts are mitigatable in the context of the study

12.0 OTHER IMPORTANT CONSULTATION RESPONSES (SUBMITTED TO SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT):

12.1 The Ministry of Defence has objected to the planning application on one count. The objection relates to impacts caused by noise vibrations in relation to Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station, 41-44km from the site. This objection is outstanding.

Conditions are recommended so that, in the event of planning permission being granted, the turbines would be lit in such a way as to ensure aviation safety is achieved.

It should be noted that following recent work by the Eskdalemuir Working Group, which has established that the Eskdalemuir noise issue is no longer an overriding problem at this distance, it is expected that the MoD objection will be withdrawn in relation to this application in early course.

12.2 Midlothian Council has indicated that it does not formally object to the proposal, but has highlighted the following matters for consideration by ECDU:

x potential for this development, in area currently free from cumulative wind farm landscape and visual impacts, to cause precedent for further developments in northern part of Moorfoot and Lammermuir Hills x likelihood of adverse visual impacts relating to Gladhouse Reservoir, visitor routes, the A703 and a number of communities in Midlothian causes concern for this consultee x need for consideration of haul route in Midlothian, and prior consultation with Midlothian to enable effects on roadside infrastructure to be sorted out.

12.3 Forestry Commission Scotland has indicated as long as offset planting is secured via a Section 69 legal obligation, between the developer and SBC, the development would comply with Policy relating to felling.

12.4 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) indicated in its original response dated 7.12.12 that it would object to the scheme for 18 turbines at 132m tip height. The objection was made in relation to the potential adverse landscape and visual impacts upon the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(a)

The detailed response gave coverage to the following issues:

x adverse landscape and visual impacts relating to Upper Tweeddale NSA – not mitigatable – promotes objection because this raises natural heritage issues of national interest x adverse landscape and visual impacts elsewhere – promotes serious concerns when development is seen from many key viewpoints and transport routes x cumulative landscape and visual impacts – promotes serious concerns because area is prominent and currently free from large scale wind farm development x impacts on River Tweed SAC acceptable x impacts on wintering geese at Westwater and Gladhouse Reservoir SPAs likely to be acceptable x other ecology and ornithology impacts acceptable but advises that Turbine 12 & intrastructure be relocated to avoid sensitive ground.

12.5 SNH in its subsequent response to the revised scheme on 11.4.14 adopted a different position in respect of the potential effects on the Upper Tweeddale NSA, withdrawing its objection in relation to this matter.

In other respects, its concerns with the remainder of the application are similar although it is no longer the policy of SNH to describe ‘serious concerns’. An updated summary of pertinent matters (where the position should be clarified) would be as follows:

x although landscape and visual impacts relating to the Upper Tweeddale NSA are still likely to be detrimental and of concern, the impacts are not considered to be significant enough to merit outright objection x other landscape and visual impacts remain of concern, although it is noted that the nature of these is reduced by the revisions, but not in such a way that it fully satisfies concerns x similar concerns relating to introduction of large commercial wind farm into presently wind farm free area, with cumulative implications x revisions to scheme have removed cumulative sequential concerns for A701, in relation to other schemes at Glenkerie and Clyde x note that Turbine 12 has now been relocated to avoid peatland habitat.

12.6 The original consultation response of SEPA in November 2012 constituted an objection to the original proposal. The objection related to a lack of information on peat re-use and water supply impacts. The developer was invited to address these matters to enable the objection to be overcome.

The original response also identified other issues that must be addressed through the use of planning conditions, or else an objection would be made. The advice in this response relates principally to issues of:

x disturbance and re-use of excavated peat x potential impacts on private water supplies that are dependent on groundwater x environmental management and pollution prevention x decommissioning and restoration x forestry and forestry waste x disruption to wetlands including peatlands x implications of borrow pit use x watercourse crossings (technical advice) x forestry/forestry plan design

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(a)

x protection of the water environment

12.7 The updated SEPA response on the 2014 SEI maintains the position of an objection in respect of peatland and private water supplies. Again, this is due to a perceived lack of information. SEPA maintains its position in respect of other matters to which it will continue to object if conditions are not applied.

12.8 Historic Scotland, in its original consultation response, identified a range of concerns but none of such magnitude that an objection would be raised. A summary of the most pertinent matters discussed would be as follows:

x concerns relating to methodology for assessing visual and setting impacts x visual/setting impacts relating Whaup Law and Wether Law SAMs significant but not overriding - arguably no worse than existing monument vs forestry setting x possible to mitigate to some extent the visual/setting impacts on Courhope ring enclosures SAM, and Nether Stewarton settlement SAM x visual impacts relating to the setting of Meldon Hills (both with hillfort SAMs) significant, but not so dominant as to give rise to impacts of national significance x visual impacts relating to Cademuir hillforts, Meldon Hills and development/site potentially adverse so needs to be assessed by planning authority x uncertainty relating to nature and level of mitigation proposed; mitigation options limited in respect of development of this scale x conditions recommended to ensure protection of monuments during construction, and offsetting of setting impacts (felling of trees to open up views/setting of SAMs)

12.9 The updated HS response has indicated that the advice it has already given in earlier responses should be carried forward. However, new commentary is given relating to certain matters, including the effects on the Portmore House HGDL which includes the Category A Listed Portmore House and the Northshield Rings SAM, which was given specific coverage in a letter to ECDU dated 30 January 2013. The updated position of this consultee relates to the following matters:

x changes to scheme are noteable in relation to the Whaup Law SAM but do not alter HS’ position x similar advice in relation to Courhope rings SAM x similar advice in relation to Nether Stewarton settlement SAM x no objection in context of Portmore House HGDL setting but advises that SBC should consider this issue in light of adverse effects.

12.10 Transport Scotland has indicated that the development does not give rise to any concerns about the principle of transporting the development to site.

12.11 The following Community Councils, as statutory consultees, have indicated that they object to the planning application:

x Eddleston and District Community Council x Lamancha, Newlands and Kirkurd Community Council x Peebles and District Community Council

The full responses may be viewed on Public Access.

13.0 KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

- land use planning policy principle

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6(a)

- landscape and visual impacts including residential amenity visual impacts - cumulative landscape and visual impacts with other wind energy developments - physical and setting impacts on cultural heritage assets - noise impacts - ecological, ornithological and habitat effects - impacts on the public path network and public access on accessible land - impact on road safety and the road network

14.0 ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy Principle:

14.1 Scottish Government Policy, regional strategic policy and local planning policy/guidance all allow the principle of constructing a wind farm on agricultural or forestry land to be considered. SBC is satisfied that it is therefore the specifics of the proposal, and its impacts versus its benefits, which must be balanced in making a recommendation. The primary topics requiring consideration by SBC follow:

Landscape Impacts:

14.2 All of the turbines would be sited within ‘Plateau Outliers’ landscape character type. Specifically, this area is the Eddlestone/Lyne Interfluve landscape character area (LCA) within the aforementioned character type. This LCA is relatively small despite being of upland type, and is highly intervisible with a range of other landscape areas and types. Landscape impacts are seen to occur when looking towards, from and through the site in its narrow and wider contexts. For example, the LCA is visible as a component of a range of panoramic views, as depicted in the ES.

Theoretical Visibility:

14.3 According to the submitted ZTV mapping showing potential visibility to blade tip heights, (refer to Figure 7.5b of the SEI Volume 2b) the most significant swathes of land with theoretical visibility are mainly situated within 10km. The main concentrated areas of visibility are:

x south/south-east out to approximately 4-6km from the environs of the Meldons and the higher ground above Peebles beside the A703 x east out to approximately 6-8km from the fringes of Glentress Forest near Bowbeat Wind Farm through the Eddleston Valley and centred around Eddleston village x north-east out to approximately 10-12km from the B6372 near Mount Lothian and through the northern Eddleston Valley in the environs of the A703, centred around Viewpoint 12 between Millennium Farm and Spurlens Rig x north and north-west out to around 10-12km on the south-eastern slopes of the Pentland Hills, centred around West Linton and the A702, with potentially visibility from the direction occupying an estimated 30% (segment) of the area within the 10km ZTV. This area stretches from around Penicuik at the northern end to around Blyth Bridge and Dolphinton at the southern end, near where the A701 and A702 both meet the A72 Peebles to Biggar road. However, the number of turbines visible diminishes as the land drops from higher ground to lower ground (north-west to south-east). Visibility is potentially lowest on the A701, in particular for the 10-12km stretch between Leadburn and Romannobridge.

14.4 Beyond 10km the theoretical visibility of the wind farm occurs in relative concentrations in and around the fringes of the Moorfoot Hills near Gladhouse (Reservoir), the south-eastern slopes of

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6(a)

the Pentland Hills north-west of Penicuik and north-west of West Linton, and the northern fringes of Upper Tweeddale west of Cardrona in the hills between the small valleys.

14.5 Viewpoint Analysis:

A total of 27 non-heritage viewpoints have been selected to enable the developer to provide graphical information showing the landscape and visual effects. It may be noted that the design of the wind farm, in its original form and its revised form, intended to be shaped through consideration of where many of the most significant landscape and visual effects would occur. These are identified on pages 7 and 8 of the original Non-Technical Summary, and relate to intrinsic, cumulative and sequential effects.

Although some viewpoints show broadly similar effects as others, the following have been selected for specific comment on landscape effects:

14.6 Viewpoint 4 (White Meldon):

14.6.1 The view from this important landscape and heritage viewpoint is panoramic, and with this being the top of a conical hill there is a 360O visibility out to various other landscapes and landmarks. A 360O viewpoint assessment has been undertaken in relation to White Meldon, which identifies all schemes that can be seen when observing the landscape in all directions. In the direction of the wind farm, the Cloich Hills feature prominently and the Pentland Hills can be seen as part of the panorama in the right hand of the photo.

The nearest turbine is a little over 3km to the north north-west, and from this elevated position all the Cloich turbines would be (highly) visible.

The revisions have noticeably improved the appearance of the development from this location, especially by having pulled the turbines away from in front of the Pentland Hills and by better grouping, reducing the ‘outlier’ effects.

However, the landscape in this panorama is characterised by small hills and coniferous forest, and although the scale of the development appears to relate better here to the scale of the landscape, there is still conflict in particular because several of the higher turbines would be clear above the skyline, and cause potential degradation of landscape character by being the most prominent new item within it.

A turn to the right enables the Bowbeat scheme to be seen in the Moorfoot Hills. The distance to Bowbeat is 7km, and although the turbines are clearly visible they are small in relation to the hills they are built on. They demonstrate how scale relationships can work if the receiving landscape and turbines are compatible in terms of scale. This helps to understand the inappropriateness of the scale relationship of the Cloich turbines to their receiving landscape, which is unable to receive them without the turbines becoming unduly dominant.

There are no other schemes visible from this view that would influence the views in respect of Cloich.

14.6.2 Viewpoint 12 (A703 Lay-by near Millenium Farm):

This viewpoint is located in a layby on the A703 from which there are long range views across the landscape. A long stretch of the A703 has theoretical visibility, from close to Penicuik through to Eddleston and beyond to Peebles, but this elevated location enables an appreciation of the landscape and potential landscape effects. It is approximately 6.5km from the nearest turbine, whereas originally it was just under 6km distant.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 6(a)

This is one of the key locations from where the windfarm has the potential to conflict with its receiving landscape. The panorama includes several phases of hills, which characterise the horizon positively. The wind farm would be highly visible in this panorama, but less so following the revisions. Originally, the development appeared to swamp the hills and stand on top of them in places – the wind farm would have become the most prominent component of the panorama, detracting from the sweep of view and dominating the horizon (which includes the NSA in the far horizon), not least because the appearance would have been undulating and top-heavy.

It is again frustrating that the developer has elected to change the nature of the montage. The revised scheme is in fact montaged in a new photograph taken in different weather conditions, and although it may reflect the appearance of the development on certain occasions, it does not enable easily a direct comparison between original and revised effects.

The likelihood is that the overall magnitude of effects would still be significant, but less harmful than the original scheme would have been. The revised scheme would still become a visible moving item within the panorama and the full rotor area of most of the turbines would be seen above the receiving skyline. The Cloich Hills are not of sufficient scale to absorb the turbines and therefore would become partially characterised by the development. This remains an undesirable effect, despite the reduction in effect.

14.6.3 Viewpoint 13 (Haswelsykes):

This viewpoint lies on the John Buchan Way, and is approximately 7km south of the site within the NSA. The original photo includes both Black and White Meldon in the centre, with Hamildean and Hamilton Hills either side, whereas the updated photo has been shifted to the left, to enable the cumulative picture with Bowbeat Wind Farm to be observed. The landscape viewed from here is strongly characterised by the small hills in the picture, which punctuate the skyline distinctively.

The site is just visible between the Meldons. Despite there being disparity between the montages and the way the turbines are depicted, the wirelines indicate that although there would be a reduction in impacts, especially due to Black Meldon no longer being flanked by a single, prominent outlier, the effects on this landscape would still be detrimental and would harm the setting of the hills.

The Meldons are landmark heritage hills, well known and important within the landscape as reference points and characterising conical hills. From this point on the John Buchan Way, the development would give rise to an undesirable and harmful impact on the character of the landscape.

14.6.4 Viewpoint 14 (Makeness Kipps, Glentress Forest):

This viewpoint is situated within the Glentress Forest, operated by the Forestry Commission and having extensive public access, especially for cyclists and walkers. It is approximately 7.5km from the nearest turbine, and is also less than 3km from the Bowbeat Wind Farm, which is situated to the north.

In effect, the viewpoint is within a clearing high in the forest where a panorama opens out that includes long range views through the site, looking westwards.

The panorama across the Eddleston Valley includes the Meldons and the Pentlands beyond the Cloich Hills. The long horizon is characterised by punctuating hills and, although it is not easy to see this in the montages, the foreground is also characterised by hills, albeit smaller and of a plateau outlier type.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6(a)

Despite further disparity between the mode of presentation from original to revised scheme (the same photo has been used, but contrasts have been adjusted), it is evident that the revised scheme is less conflicting with the landscape than the original. This is mainly because the scale of the original turbines at 132m placed many of their hubs and blades on or above the far horizon, from which it was possible to identify an incompatible scale relationship, and that landform could not mitigate impact by screening because it was not sufficiently large-scale. The 115m turbines, more closely sited, do not breach the far horizon apart from on a few occasions, when it is the blades not the hub that would sweep above.

However, the appearance of the wind farm from this viewpoint is poor, with the very up-and- down nature of the development showing clearly against the underlying hills. In part this is a visual impact, but in the main the effects would cause harm to landscape character, in particular because the appearance of the development does not harmonise with the landscape.

14.6.5 Viewpoint 15 (Auchencorth Moss):

This viewpoint is located just under 9km north of the nearest turbine, although it should be noted that the original scheme was approximately 1km closer before the layout was revised. The view toward the wind farm would be from a minor road just to the south-east of, and parallel to the A701 near West Linton. Its panorama includes Auchencorth Moss, and looks through the turbines across the Cloich Hills with the Meldon Hills and then the NSA beyond.

The broad, flat character of the Moss allows the Cloich hills to become a distinctive long, low and visible feature of the skyline.

From this viewpoint, the original scheme appeared very much at odds with its receiving landscape. Distance could not mask the mismatch in terms of scale of the hills and the turbines. They appeared to be perched incongruously in such a way that the underlying hills became obsolete in terms of a scale reference. The arrangement looked highly undulating and inorganic.

The revisions have helped to reduce the sense of conflict and dominance with/of the hills in their wider landscape context. However, the level of prominence and still the scale of the turbines means that visual conflict and disharmony still exist. The visualisations from here demonstrate the small scale of the Cloich Hills and their inability to absorb large scale turbines, which would still appear to perch on top and project above the skyline.

14.6.6 Viewpoint 16 (John Buchan Way nr Easter Dawyck):

This viewpoint shows the wind farm in relation to its landscape type – Plateau Outliers, which can be seen clearly framed by hills to the left and right of the photograph. Cloich is the highest of the hills in this view, which is a little over 8km from the nearest turbine.

This montage, taken from within the NSA, captures the cluster of small hills very well, and although the revisions have reduced potential adverse landscape impacts, the turbine cluster still appears perched on top of the Meldons on the skyline. The turbines do not fit with this landscape setting, and challenge the primacy of the hill group as a landscape entity.

The appearance of the turbine cluster in this montage might be described as having similar characteristics as those of Bowbeat Wind Farm as it is seen from many vantage points. However, there is greater sensitivity relating to the landscape setting of the Plateau Outlier LCT here, especially with this landscape being of cultural significance. Greater emphasis will be given to cultural heritage landscape and visual effects later in this report. However, it is clear from the montage that the impacts on the LCA would be adverse and conflicting with the setting of the Meldons in particular, but as part of the LCA which the hills characterise.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6(a)

14.6.7 Viewpoint 18 (Cademuir Hill Fort West)

Although selected as a main viewpoint for the purpose of landscape impact assessment, it doubles up as a heritage receptor and, although nearly 9km from the nearest turbine, has great sensitivity as its principal views are channelled towards the site via the Meldons and beyond to the Pentland Hills. Emphasis will be given to the focus of heritage impacts later in this report. However, note should be taken that the relationship between Cademuir and the Meldons is important to consideration of the impacts from Cademuir, as the two sites have interdependence in terms of cultural status and historic use.

The SEI photograph for this viewpoint has been retaken at a different time of year and has moved the development from just left to just right of centre. On this occasion, this change has had no impact on comparing effects, which are highly similar. From this position, the landscape impact remains of high magnitude and would cause adverse effects on both the receiving LCA and landscape beyond. The Pentland Hills feature strongly in this view despite their distance, identifying that there are more phases of landscape adding quality to the overall scene.

The montage demonstrates that the turbines would become highly prominent at the focal point of the outlook, the Black and White Meldons ‘framing’ the development as it occupies the ridge and near slopes of the Cloich Hills. This conflict of development with landscape diminishes the ability to appreciate the distinctiveness of the LCA, the montage being an example of how the Cloich project would become the first conflicting new component of the landscape.

However, the most significant harmful effect is the challenge the development presents to the distinctive setting of the Meldon Hills. The Meldons are not particularly large hills, and are dominant mainly due to their position and shape. They are recognised as landmark features and are widely regarded as one of Borders’ quality assets, as is Cademuir from where the photograph is taken. The setting of the Meldons would be harmed by placement of the turbines in the manner shown by diluting their status and dominance. This would be a significant adverse effect which has not been mitigated by the revisions to the scheme.

A 360O viewpoint assessment has been undertaken and is reflected in visualisations – this was not done for the original scheme. Other than identifying the presence of Bowbeat, at a similar distance to the proposed Cloich wind farm, it shows little in the way of cumulative impacts.

14.6.8 Viewpoint 19 (A702-A766 Junction):

This viewpoint, approximately 10km north of the nearest turbine, represents travel routes with theoretical visibility from Penicuik all the way to West Linton via Carlops. The A702 and A766 are shown in the ZTV mapping to have a significant level of sequential visibility of most of the turbines. This is reflected in the visualisations.

The montage shows the site/development beyond moorland and farmland, the Cloich Hills appearing as a low landscape feature above the flat horizon.

Again, the montage has been updated and contrasts are now reduced in the 2014 picture. Although it is accepted that the revisions would reduce the overall impact from this location, it is anticipated that the turbines would still appear on the skyline, much more visibly than the montage portrays. The turbines would compete with the small hills for dominance, and although less than the original scheme, the level of prominence would still be disproportionate to the underlying hills. The sweep across this montage is gentle and flowing. The turbines would be the single entity projecting well above this horizon, and would therefore not harmonise with the receiving landscape.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(a)

14.6.9 Viewpoint 21 (Byrehope Mount):

This viewpoint is located in the Pentland Hills, approximately 11km from the nearest turbine. Byrehope Mount is an elevated viewpoint giving access to panoramic views of the landscape looking south-east; the picture includes Bowbeat Wind Farm which is easy to see from this range. The Cloich Hills are distinctive and easily identified as part of the wider landscape.

Bowbeat is a good indicator for how prominent the Cloich development would be. The Bowbeat turbines are 80m to tip, whereas the Cloich turbines would be 115m and closer in the landscape. Despite the reduction in height and spread of Cloich, it would still register in the landscape as a strong and highly visible new item, in particular because the turbines are not well contained by landform, many of them projecting above the far horizon as well as above the receiving hills.

This viewpoint has been the subject of a 360O assessment, which identifies that in other directions the cumulative landscape and visual impacts are likely to be high, especially in the north and west directions. However, this is unlikely to influence the opinion relating to Cloich.

14.6.10Viewpoint 23 (Stobs Law):

This viewpoint is nearly 13km away to the south of the development, in an elevated position 672m above Ordnance datum. It is situated within large scale upland hills within the Tweeddale NSA. It looks towards the development via Cademuir Hill and the Meldon Hills. Peebles town and Bowbeat Wind farm are identifiable in the right side of the montage.

The viewpoint offers a noteworthy panorama through several landscape character areas, and effectively is an extension of the outlook from VP18 at Cademuir Hill. Cademuir is easily identified within this picture, as are the Meldons and the Plateau Outlier hill group. The Pentland and Moorfoot Hills feature prominently in the landscape.

The revised scheme has a better appearance than the original, as it is more compact and slightly less prominent as a new component within the landscape. However, the revisions fail to disguise the potential for Cloich to become an a jarring feature in the landscape. The wind farm would be highly visible in its entirety, occupying a focal point of a very attractive panorama. It does not harmonise with the setting, and is identifiable as conflicting in terms of scale by comparison to Bowbeat, which can be seen nestling on the Moorfoot Hills with the lower height of 80m being absorbed by the larger scale hills. The Cloich Hills do not absorb the Cloich turbines because the hills are smaller, the turbines are larger and the dome-shaped nature of the Cloich Hills means that there is no ‘basin’ or ‘bowl’ to provide containment if the turbines are to be placed on the hills themselves rather than between them or on a large plateau – these opportunities do not exist for Cloich. It would be a highly visible new wind farm in a relatively undisturbed landscape area.

14.6.11Viewpoint 27 (B7059 Near Flemming):

This is a new LVIA viewpoint, added in the SEI. It is situated just under 4km west south-west of the nearest turbine, on the public road connecting the A72 near Drochil to the A701 at Romannobridge. The VP is situated close to the Lyne Water in the Lyne Valley, and is below the site in terms of height above Ordnance Datum.

The view generally follows the line of the Flemington Burn towards the site, with Whiteside Hill in the left of the picture and Stevenson Hill on the right. These two hills effectively frame that part of the Cloich hills and the development that is visible, especially Wether Law, the non-forested hill in front of the Cloich forest/hill.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6(a)

The montage captures an attractive view of the landscape from this location. The ZTV identifies that the view would come and go fairly swiftly for travellers using the B7059, and while the visual effects are exacerbated when viewed from Drochil Castle to the west and further up the hill (areas likely to be frequented for recreation) this is arguably more of a concern from a heritage point of view, as will be discussed later in this report.

14.6.12Cultural Heritage Viewpoint 19 (Dundreich Hill):

On reflection, this viewpoint should have been selected as a main viewpoint to consider landscape and visual impacts, because it is a very useful viewpoint representative of the view from a distinctive hill on the fringes of the Moorfoots towards the site via Portmore House HGDL and the Black Barony either side of the A703 in the Eddleston Valley, both of which are more prominent in actuality than appears in the montage.

But most usefully, it displays the Cloich Hills’ eastern profile beyond the valley landscape of the Eddleston Valley, with a highly panoramic view through to several phases of landscape and horizons beyond. The turbines prominently occupy the Cloich Hills with over two-thirds of them breaching the ridge of the Cloichs themselves, meaning that they occupy the landscape beyond the Cloichs strongly in visual terms. The height and prominence of the turbines, which from here clearly benefit from very little visual containment, would make them very eye-catching, moving new components of the scene, and rather than harmonising with the broader landscape, the development would be an incongruous, visually conflicting and unprecedented intrusion. This would cause significant harm to the combined settings of individual landscape character areas, but more noticeably on the broader landscape setting that includes those LCAs.

14.7 The following have been selected for comment on visual effects:

14.7.1 Viewpoint 1: Cross Borders Drove Road (west):

The Drove Road is important as a recreational and distinctive walking route. The viewpoint is located at the western edge of the application site and is situated approximately 1.2km from the nearest turbine (T8). Both the original and the revised scheme feature prominently in this view. The revised scheme puts more turbines closer to this viewpoint and produces a less coherent appearance. Despite the reduction in height of the turbines, the magnitude of effect remains the same. From this location and from other points along the route, users would experience a strong visual effect from the turbines, which would skyline and be prominent in the view. This is a clear and significant visual effect, it being demonstrated that users of the Drove Road would be highly aware of the wind farm.

14.7.2 Viewpoint 2: Cross Borders Drove Road (east):

This viewpoint is approximately 2.2km from the nearest turbine, the visualisations showing that the development would clearly be visible above the ridge of the hills, and despite the more compact development, which is evident in the montages/wirelines, it does not have a particularly coherent appearance – there is no flow to the wind farm and no togetherness of character.

Arguably, the visual effects from this location/distance are not overwhelmingly adverse and the reduction in height has made a significant difference to the magnitude of visual effects. However, the topography is not sufficiently large scale or positioned to enable good containment, and over half the turbines would feature prominently in this view.

14.7.3 Viewpoint 3 (Observatory):

This viewpoint is located approximately 2.6km from the nearest turbine, and represents views of the site/development from the north-east from a section of road, public path and residences. It is

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 6(a)

significant in that road users and residents presently have a clear view of the forested hills in the view’s backdrop, and would experience clear views of the wind farm in association with the hills.

Originally, the picture from here showed the development to be highly out of scale with the receiving landscape. The turbines appeared oversized and dominant in relation to the small hills underlying in the view.

The magnitude of effects is clearly lessened by the changes to the scheme, although the level of effects is still high with approximately half the turbines highly visible above the skyline. It is frustrating that the developer has used a different level of contrast in the updated montages from this viewpoint, which understates potential visibility. However, the effects would be significantly reduced especially at the northern end of the site, where 4 of the original 132m turbines featured dominantly in the view, but now have been moved into the cluster successfully.

14.7.4 Viewpoint 5 (Minor Road near Spylaw and Wester Deans):

This viewpoint looks south south-west towards the development with a distance of a little over 4km to the nearest turbine. It is noted that the distance was originally around 3.4km before the revisions were made.

Although this may not be a sensitive location from which to view the wind farm, in its original form it looked much more dominant and out of kilter with the receiving landscape, outscaling the hill beneath. It may be argued that the revised scheme now appears to ‘cling’ to the hill and relates better to its scale.

14.7.5 Viewpoint 6 (B7059 near Boghouse):

From this viewpoint, to the west of the site and on a road that connects the A701 near Romannobridge to West Linton, the revisions have removed visibility of the turbines. In the original scheme, one turbine would have projected prominently above the skyline to the left of Wether Law, whereas in the updated picture the visibility is reduced to virtually nil. The road generally drops from west to east, so further back (notwithstanding the presence of trees, which may be influential in this view) it is likely that the upper sections of turbines would be visible above the skyline – Viewpoint 10 at West Linton demonstrates this.

14.7.6 Viewpoint 7 (Core Path 154 nr Eddleston):

This viewpoint represents the likely experience of residents in, and users of Eddleston and its ‘environs’. The site is situated on a public path just on the eastern fringes of the village, and is approximately 3.5km from the nearest turbine. This distance has increased by around 200m further to the revisions. It is a useful viewpoint because it shows the site in the context of the village.

Despite the reduction in turbine height and the closer clustering, most of the turbines would still appear prominently on the skyline (approximately 14). This is an undesirable effect. However, given the distance and the fact that although from this higher area the turbines would be prominent they would not be as prominent from within the lower village core, it is unlikely that the visual effects would be overbearing or overwhelming. The revisions have greatly improved the outlook from this position, especially with the overtly prominent T18 having been removed from the front slope of the hill.

14.7.7 Viewpoint 8 (A701 Mountain Cross):

This viewpoint is at a small settlement on the A701, just under 5km from the nearest turbine. Similarly to VP 6, the revisions have removed the turbines from view as they are now screened

Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 6(a)

by landform. Previously, the effects were undesirable but the potential impacts have been mitigated.

14.7.8 Viewpoint 9 (A703 near Langside Farm north of Peebles):

This viewpoint is situated on the main Peebles-Penicuik route, and represents the ‘environs’ of Peebles town. It is approximately 6km from the nearest turbine. The view direction is north north-west and aligns with the A703 road.

From this location, 13 turbines would be clearly visible on the skyline and not contained by topography. In this regard, the current proposal is not highly different than the original. The magnitude of effect remains significant, but from here the current scheme has greater coherence and does appear to flow.

The ZTV mapping identifies that the stretch of road between Peebles and Eddleston has theoretical visibility for the 5 or 6 km between the settlements, with visibility more likely from ground rising to the east of the route. The appearance of the wind farm would therefore change as users of the road travel northwards.

Although visibility would occur from this stretch of road, it is not considered that there is an overriding adverse visual effect.

14.7.9 Viewpoint 10 (West Linton, Robinsland Farm):

This viewpoint is situated on the lower eastern side of West Linton village. The nearest turbine would be around 6km from the viewpoint. The revisions have given coherence to the appearance of the wind farm and have dropped all hubs so that no turbines stand up from the ridge conspicuously. The effects are undesirable, in that some of the blades would sweep above the skyline. However, the effects would not be overbearing or so adverse as to cause overriding concern.

14.7.10Viewpoint 11 (B712 near Beggarspath Bridge):

This viewpoint, just under 6km south of the nearest turbine and generally south of the site, originally showed that a single turbine would figure prominently in the view, which would have been unfortunate because the view is an attractive one that includes the Meldons and Hamildean Hill. The revisions have designed out this visual impact successfully.

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts:

14.8 Despite the proposal being in an area currently free from large commercial wind farms, there would be coincident landscape and visual impacts with several other schemes. Bowbeat is the nearest operational wind farm, which features in visualisations and would on many occasions occur in views either successively or coincidentally.

14.9 Mount Lothian is the subject of a current planning application, but unfortunately it has not been given coverage in the cumulative assessments in terms of its effects with Cloich. There would be cumulative landscape and visual impacts between the two schemes, although Mount Lothian is in a Lowland landscape. Mount Lothian is within Midlothian Council’s area, but is within the same broad area currently not occupied by large commercial wind farms, along with Cloich.

14.10 The scheme with the greatest potential to promote cumulative effects is adjacent at Hag Law. This is reflected in the LVIA. However, Hag Law is not yet at application stage, therefore consideration of its potential effects can be reserved for if and when an application materialises.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 20 Item No. 6(a)

14.11 Notwithstanding other schemes either operational or at application stage, the main cumulative issue relating to Cloich is actually the reverse of the normal cumulative situation. This is discussed within the updated consultation response of SNH (Page 11), which draws on the ‘cluster and space’ approach to ensure that impacts should ideally be minimised by grouping schemes together, leaving other areas free from turbines. Cloich occupies a site within just such an area, the importance of which is accentuated because of its prominent situation in and amongst sensitive landscapes.

14.12 Previous schemes at Spurlens Rig and Auchencorth Moss have been cited by SNH in that they posed similar issues relating to cumulative effects. Mount Lothian promotes similar concerns.

14.13 The Landscape Capacity Study forming part of the background papers to the emerging LDP identify the site as being within an area that has:

x very limited capacity overall for turbine development x no capacity for very large (100m+) turbines; and x low capacity for large (50m-100m) turbines but at the lower end of this range.

It shows the relative absence of wind farms in a broad area including and surrounding the site.

14.14 The status of this document is reflected in the consultation response of the SBC Forward Plans Section, and despite the study not being an adopted policy, it underpins the approach of SBC towards examining where suitable sites for wind farm may be. It accords with the opinion of SBC and SNH that the development would intrude into an area that should be kept free from large commercial wind farm development.

14.15 This accords closely to the recommendation at Paragraph 125 of the SESplan Strategic Plan, which demonstrates both the cumulative issue in Borders and the requirement to assess development impact through the LDP:

“Consideration of location, landscape, environmental quality and community impacts will be required for onshore developments. For example, wind farms in East Lothian, the Scottish Borders and West Lothian currently contribute to the SESplan area; however, concerns have been expressed about cumulative impacts and LDPs should undertake an assessment of the impact of development.”

14.16 In conclusion in relation to the cumulative landscape and visual issue, the scheme would be prominent at the heart of a relatively turbine-free area, an area which is intervisible with and includes sensitive landscapes and receptors, including historic landscape(s). For these reasons, the development is incompatible with broader aims identified in SNH advice in response to the approach set out in SESplan.

Residential Amenity impacts (Visual):

14.17 Current Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) advocates a 2km separation distance between areas of search for wind farms and the edge of cities, towns and villages. Emerging SPP updates this position and advocates that this separation be increased to 2.5km. This separation distance should mainly be reflected in planning policy and should not be seen as a definitive requirement for separation, as in each case the effects of turbines on residential amenity would differ, and some might be tolerable at less than 2.5km, or 2km.

14.18 In relation to the Cloich proposal, there are according to the ES 1 no. residence within 1km, 3 no. residences (or groups there of) within 2km and approximately 14 residences, clusters or settlements within 3km.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 Item No. 6(a)

14.19 The SEI contains a Residential Visual Amenity Assessment, detailed text relating to which can be seen in Appendix 7C. A corresponding map showing the location of the residential receptors is shown in Figures 7.11 a, b, c, d and e. This relates to a range of visualisations presented in the updated Volume 2b, Figs. 7.57 to 7.60. A total of four residential viewpoints have been nominated for a montage/wireline production. These may relate to more than one residence.

14.20 The first of these is at Harehope (Res VP1), where there are 4 properties within a group. The nearest turbine is T7 at just over 1.3km distance.

14.21 The ES states that none of the four properties at Harehope would endure anything more than a moderate effect which is deemed to be not significant. In regard to 3 of these properties, which are well screened from the turbines, this is likely to be true. However, Harehope Farm(house) would from its environs see the hub and rotor blades of at least one turbine and probably two, and the rotating blades of at least another one turbine above the intervening woodland, which it should be noted is not within the application site and may be within the control of a third party. The woodland is forest and appears to be of reasonably mature age, so could be removed thus exposing the residents of Harehope to a more prominent view of the turbines.

14.22 It is not agreed that the visual effects for Harehope Farm would be not significant. The proximity of large commercial turbines to dwellings at 1.3km distance would be significant and potentially undesirable if the visual effects are high. The existing woodlands help to screen the turbines but the effect of seeing the rotating blades above the treeline is more likely to be moderate than not significant.

14.23 The second of these is at Cloich Farmhouse (Res VP2), where there is a single residence within 1.4km. Given the distance to the turbines and the number of turbines potentially visible, the circumstances at Cloich Farmhouse appear to be similar to those at Harehope. However, the land between the receptor and the turbines is farmland and forest which introduces more of an impression that there is separation, or intervening landform. At 1.4km, it is considered that the visual effects are more likely to be moderate than not significant, but potentially more agreeable than those at Harehope.

14.24 The third and fourth are located at Nether Stewarton (Res VP3) and Stewarton House (Res VP4). The building cluster at nether Stewarton includes 4 residences, each of which has been given individual coverage in the assessment forming part of the ES.

14.25 The separation distance between the residences and the turbines is again approximately 1.4km. Although it is a little difficult to tell from the visualisations, it is likely that residents at Nether Stewarton would experience a significant level of change with the introduction of the turbines, which would protrude above woodland plantations north-west of the cluster. In and around the cluster are trees and buildings that would provide intermittent screening but nonetheless, when the turbines are visible at this distance the effects would be noticeable and potentially adverse.

14.26 There are no further visualisations relating to private residences, which is surprising especially in respect of the dwelling at Upper Stewarton within 940m of the nearest turbine. The description of potential effects on Page 2 of Appendix 7C would have been worth representing with visualisations, particularly because it is confirmed that felling in future years would reduce the screening effects of intervening woodland. Upper Stewarton is the closest of all residences to a turbine, and well within the 2km distance more likely to be appropriate. There remains some concern about the potential visual effects of the development on this residence.

14.27 The same goes for residences at Mosshouse (2.2km), Ruddenleys (2.6km), Observatory (2.6km) and potentially Blinkbonny just north-east of Ruddenleys, which for no apparent reason has not been included in the assessment.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 22 Item No. 6(a)

14.28 The development would impinge significantly on the visual amenity of a range of dwellings. The effects in relation to private visual amenity are likely to be significant. The absence of visualisations from Upper Stewarton does not give full confidence that these impacts are acceptable, or even tolerable.

14.29 However, in all other respects it is considered that although these impacts would be significant, none would be so adverse as to overbear, or overwhelm amenity at private residences. The visual impacts in relation to residential amenity are tolerable if not ideal, notwithstanding the lack of clarity relating to Upper Stewarton.

Cultural Heritage Impacts:

14.30 The proposed wind farm has the potential to affect cultural heritage in several ways. The first relates to known and/or subterranean or upstanding archaeology that could be directly (physically) affected by the development. The second relates to indirect impacts on the setting of designated heritage sites, mainly Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs). The third relates to potential visual impacts in relation to cultural/heritage landscapes, which include designated and non-designated heritage sites and features.

14.31 The site contains three scheduled monuments, as follows:

Whaup Law Cairn: This monument is situated within a clearing in the forest. It is visually represented by a stone cairn that can be seen in Figure 8.3. At ‘human’ level, it is completely shielded from the turbines by the current plantation trees. However, Figure 8.4 Rev. A shows how visibility to three of the turbines (T11, T12 and T14) would be opened up following forestry felling.

Courhope Rings: This monument is situated within the conifer plantations within the site. It is overplanted so is not within a clearing, and although recognisable by grassed mound enclosures the four ringed components are not easily viewed together. Removal of trees during forestry operation would include consideration of how to minimise future disruption to the monument.

Nether Stewarton enclosed settlement: This monument is also overplanted by forest trees, and would potentially be opened up during forestry in a similar manner to Courhope Rings, meaning that turbines would be potentially highly visible.

Direct Archaeology Impacts:

14.32 There is general agreement between the SBC Archaeology Officer and Historic Scotland that there would be no overriding impacts on buried or upstanding archaeology. Planning conditions would appropriately address outstanding/unknown matters.

Indirect Visual Impacts on Heritage Settings – Scheduled Monuments:

14.33 The SBC Archaeology Officer is the Council’s specialist in this area, and has advised that visual impacts are overridingly harmful to the setting of several scheduled monuments. This view differs from the view of Historic Scotland in some ways. An overview of the position in respect of those monuments most significantly affected would be as follows:

Whaup Law and Wether Law Cairns: Notwithstanding the effect that would be created by removing forestry from around Whaup Law cairn, which in itself is a positive action, the introduction of large turbines close to Whaup Law, and between it and Wether Law, a contemporary and (potentially) intervisible hilltop monument, would be overridingly adverse. The

Planning and Building Standards Committee 23 Item No. 6(a)

adverse effects would arise from the development being new, dominant and disrupting the important relationship of the two sites.

Meldon Hills: The development would give rise to a high level of adverse visual impact relating to views to and from Meldon Hills’ setting. The close proximity of wind farm would detract from the sense of remoteness and timelessness experienced on the hill(fort) sites. The development would challenge the dominance of the Meldons of the valleys and hills.

Cademuir Hill and Meldon Hills: The siting of the wind farm would promote dominance of the setting of the Meldons when viewed from Cademuir (and sections of the John Buchan Way), harming the setting of both monuments, which are considered broadly contemporary. The setting of the Meldon forts includes the Cademuir forts and vice versa. The setting impacts on the Meldons are unacceptable as the appropriate setting for both sites is their visual dominance of the valleys, which would be overpowered by the wind farm.

Whiteside Hill and Drochil Castle: Due to the location of these monuments and the orientation of their visibility into the Flemington Valley and towards the Cloich Hills, the wind farm would occupy and dominate the views up the Valley from both sites. These are considered to be principal views enabling supervision of the Valleys for both defense and protection of natural resources. Further, the impact on Whiteside Hill from Drochil Castle would be to diminish it greatly insofar as the fort on Whiteside Hill is a key setting element of Drochil Castle.

14.34 Aside from the remarks of the SBC Archaeologist in respect of SAMs, the useful visualisations produced in the SEI also show noteworthy visual impacts in relation to other monuments, which while not having been given specific focus by this consultee, are adverse and potentially undesirable. Such effects would occur in relation to;

x Harehope Hill Palisaded Settlement (specifically, if forest management leads to the removal of intervening tree screening) x White Meldon Platform Settlement x South Hill Head Settlement x Upper Kidston x Green Knowe Ring Enclosures and Barrows

Visual Impacts in relation to Historic Landscape:

14.35 Detailed explanation is given in the consultation response of the SBC Archaeology Officer in this respect (Paragraphs 9-12 inclusive). The site is situated within a Historic Landscape described by this consultee as ‘particularly rich in visible and appreciable archaeological sites with the only other comparable area in the Borders being in the Cheviots foothills’.

14.36 The nature of the landscape in the historic context is easily appreciated from the material within the ES, particularly the visualisations. There is interconnectivity between scheduled monuments and undesignated sites, many of which are visible because of their prominence and intended dominance of the land in history.

14.37 The importance of Historic Landscapes is explained, plus the significance of the impacts of placing a development of this nature in this location. Paragraph 12 effectively sums up the nature of concern in this regard:

“12. A wind farm at Cloich would have the effect of creating a large and dominant man-made intrusion within the historic landscape. The key element of the landscape is its remote setting, its sense of place as being appreciably and continually developed by a local pastoral community over thousands of years, and this will be impacted to a major degree. Individual sites within the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 24 Item No. 6(a)

landscape will have their setting impacted to this same degree meaning that experiencing the landscape sequentially or by visiting key upland sites within it (e.g. the Meldons, Cademuir, Whiteside Hill, the Whaup and Wether Law cairns) will be dominated by a large scale industrial complex that significantly detracts from its appreciation, understanding and experience.”

14.38 In conclusion on the subject of heritage impacts, the development would be overridingly adverse in relation to settings of (and relationships between) individual scheduled monuments, and the setting of the Historic Landscape. The placement of the development at Cloich would be prominent in an area that is highly sensitive to visual change, in particular because it is a Historic Landscape but equally because it would cause an unacceptable level of harm to the settings of SAMs. It would therefore be contrary to Policies BE2 and D4 of the adopted Local Plan.

Residential Amenity (Noise):

14.39 SBC depends on its specialist advisors in Environmental Health in respect of noise issues. The ES contains detail relating to noise, and since submission of the SEI dialogue has been ongoing between the developer and the EHO.

14.40 The developer proposes a higher limit than would normally be supported for daytime levels in relation to noise sensitive receptors (dwellings, in this case). This higher level is not endorsed by the EHO, as reflected in the consultation response. Specifically, the potential effects for residents who may be exposed to noise levels of up to 40dB during the daytime at low wind speeds is not agreed as acceptable.

14.41 The EHO recommends that the higher 40dB limit is not adopted, and in so doing has identified a potential overriding concern in relation to the development. The very recent decision to refuse Rowantree Wind Farm near Oxton in Borders identifies the significance and sensitivity of noise in relation to residential receptors, and effectively gave rise to the dismissal of the appeal.

14.42 Similarly to the material provided in relation to visual residential amenity impacts, Upper Stewarton has not been given coverage in the noise level assessments. Given its close proximity to the turbines (less than 1km) it is unclear why it has been omitted. The likelihood that noise may be an issue for residences in Nether Stewarton, which is slightly further away, indicates that it has to be a potential issue for Upper Stewarton.

14.43 In any event, at this time the specialist consultee for SBC dealing with noise is not satisfied with the setting of the higher limit, which is likely to be influential in considering the recommendation.

Biodiversity and Habitat impacts:

14.44 In respect of ecology, ornithology and habitat matters it may be summarised without undue discussion of individual matters that the development is considered not to give rise to any overriding adverse effects. This is reflected in the consultation response of the two principal biodiversity specialists being SNH and the SBC Ecology Officer.

14.45 Conditions have been proposed within the Ecology Officer’s response that would address outstanding or ongoing matters in the event of planning permission being granted.

Public Access/Path Network:

14.46 The development would have the potential to have significant effects on the public path network. There are, as explained in the consultation response of the SBC Access Officer, paths within and crossing the site that will be physically and indirectly affected by the development and its infrastructure.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 25 Item No. 6(a)

14.47 The position of SBC’s specialist consultee has been updated to reflect the greater sensitivity of paths within the site, resulting in a recommendation that the application is not supported. The principal concern is the relationship of the development with the Cross Borders Drove Road, which it is suggested requires protection by provision of a 2km buffer. Some of the turbines are within this distance.

14.48 Other concerns are also significant as they identify that the development does not harmonise with use of the site for recreation. Disruption to the network for walkers including impact on amenity of path users are identified as concerns, some overriding.

Drove Road:

14.49 The heightened sensitivity of this route is made clear by the change of position of the SBC consultee. The ES shows in visualisations that, quite clearly, turbines would become prominent features in views from the path. The two nominated viewpoints on the route have been analysed earlier in this report, visual impact effects being discussed with the conclusion that the effects are adverse.

The tracks required to connect turbines in the south-east corner (T4, T5, T6, T7, T 15, T16) cross the Drove Road twice. In terms of the quality of the Drove Road path, this will adversely affect it by introducing a sizeable track for the abnormal loads.

To conclude on the issue of the Drove Road, if implemented the development would present both visual and physical impacts which are undesirable and adverse. It would be necessary to assess whether these, along with other path network impacts, are overriding.

Other Promoted Paths:

14.50 It is of some concern that one of the principal access roads for development would occupy the existing forestry track connecting Cloich Farm to Courhope. Inevitably there would be at least temporary disruption to usage during construction, and thereafter the tracks would be changed in character to enable them to support the abnormal road routes needed for operation and decommissioning.

The effects of this are significant in cumulation with other impacts, although arguably not overriding by themselves. It is clear from submissions that public access has also been carefully thought through by the developer, with enhanced access opportunities being proposed as part of the implementation. The nature of these can be seen in Figure 14.1 of Volume 2a of the updated ES.

Wider Access Impacts:

14.51 With the Cloich development being prominent, as reflected in the landscape and visual assessments earlier in this report, indirect impacts will be caused on a number of path routes which are off-site. Users of the network, including walkers, cyclists and horse-riders would experience landscape and visual effects from a range of locations, these effects potentially more noticeable the closer users are to the development. In particular, users of the Drove Road would have views of the development in the landscape long before they reach the site from either direction.

14.52 The developer has assessed the potential landscape and visual amenity effects in relation to the John Buchan Way. Adverse effects would occur in relation to several viewpoints selected and included in the sequential impact assessment (Figs under 7.19 of Volume 2b of the updated

Planning and Building Standards Committee 26 Item No. 6(a)

ES). The most significant of these relate to Easter Dawyck and Cademuir, which have been discussed earlier in this report as they are at or near main viewpoints.

14.53 The landscape and visual effects occurring in relation to the John Buchan Way cannot be ignored, because they occur arguably at their worst where the views are most important. Users of the route are known to detour onto Cademuir. The placement of the Cloich development has the potential to detract from the experience for users of the path, but in essence this is a further example of how the development relates poorly to the receiving landscape rather than an overriding adverse impact in its own right.

14.54 To conclude in relation to impacts on the public path network, the development would be delivered with some direct physical and some indirect landscape and visual effects which are adverse in combination, but none so adverse that they would promote an overriding concern by themselves. Mostly, it is the way the development affects public amenity in relation to landscape and visual impact (coincident with the presence of the paths) that is identifiable and of significant concern.

14.55 Disruption of the public path network would be an unfortunate consequence of the development, although acknowledgement must be given to the likelihood that such disruption would be partially mitigated in the long term, with introduction of improved access within Cloich forest and through ensuring construction methods are appropriate. Furthermore, there must be acknowledgement that in terms of the potential effects on the network as a whole, the scheme brings benefits in terms of renewable energy provision that does begin to offset the impacts.

Traffic Management and Road Safety:

14.56 Taking into consideration the views of the SBC specialist in this regard (Roads Planning Manager, consultation response 14 May 2014) and the contributions by Transport Scotland, from a road safety and transportation position the proposal presents no overriding reason to object to the proposal. It does not involve a long approach via narrow roads and utilises existing tracks within the site, albeit that they would have to be modified.

15.0 CONCLUSION:

15.1 Scottish Borders Council remains positive towards the principle of wind energy development, as is reflected in its policy and guidance, which include the Strategic SESplan policies. As required by all policy considerations, the balance between the benefits of energy production, and the disbenefits of environmental impact must be weighed carefully against one another. This is made clear in the 2010 SPP.

15.2 Several key issues stand out in this report. There are clear benefits from the potential production of 54MW of electricity. This would make a substantial contribution to delivery of sustainable renewable energy development. This would align with the broad objective of Scottish Government to become 100% self-sufficient in producing energy.

15.3 However, there are clear disbenefits from the following adverse environmental impacts, which are pivotal to the recommendation in this report:

x landscape and visual – intrinsic x landscape and visual – cumulative x indirect heritage – monuments x indirect heritage – historic landscape x residential amenity – visual x residential amenity – noise

Planning and Building Standards Committee 27 Item No. 6(a)

15.4 Other environmental impacts are significant, but not overriding, as follows:

x ecology, ornithology and habitat x road safety and transportation x path network effects – direct x path network effects – indirect

15.5 Other significant effects are not given coverage in this report, as they are more appropriately assessed by bodies having the specialist expertise, i.e.:

x aviation safety x flood risk x impact on water supplies/hydrology

15.6 The selected site and the development proposed for it give rise to several problems which are very difficult to mitigate. These have been discussed earlier in the report are as follows:

x the development would be prominent and highly visible due to the nature of the site and scale/design of the development, resulting in an incongruous and jarring new item within the landscape, as witnessed from a range of landscape character areas and the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area x cumulative effects show the development not only to be out of keeping with the receiving landscape in its own right due to its scale and design, but also in relation to other operational developments, especially Bowbeat x introduction of a large-scale wind farm into a relatively wind farm free area conflicts with a ‘cluster and space’ approach to wind farm planning, the magnitude of which is accentuated by the quality of the broader turbine-free area it would harm x proximity to scheduled cultural heritage assets would cause overbearing and harmful visual effects, including where reciprocal visual relationships occur between contemporary monuments x situation in core of historic landscape, having regard to development prominence and scale, would be overtly dominant and conflicting x proximity to individual residences would potentially cause high levels of visual impact; thereby harming private and public amenity x potential unacceptable noise output has the potential to cause levels of harm to private amenity of nearby residents

15.7 A scheme with this many overriding and/or not fully resolved planning issues cannot be supported, despite the potential high level of energy it would provide. Scottish Government has recognised the increased sensitivity in Borders within the Strategic Development Plan due to current cumulative impacts, and promotes careful consideration and balancing of impacts versus benefits.

15.8 In acknowledgement of this, Scottish Borders Council does not support the planning application and would confirm that the level of environmental impacts is unacceptable, and outweighs the benefits the scheme may bring.

16.0 RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

16.1 That the Council indicate to Scottish Government that it objects to the application for an 18- turbine wind farm on the Cloich site. The 2 no. reasons for the objections are as follows:

16.2 Reason for Objection 1: Impact on Landscape Character:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 28 Item No. 6(a)

The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1, BE2 and D4 of the Scottish Borders 2011 Local Plan, and Policy 10 of the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SESplan) in that the development would unacceptably harm the Borders landscape including Historic Landscape due to: : (i) the prominence of the application site and the ability of the turbines to be seen as highly prominent and poorly contained new components of the landscape from a wide area, as represented by viewpoints and ZTV information within the ES (ii) the unacceptable vertical scale of the turbines in relation to the scale of the receiving landscape and absence of good topographical containment, causing the underlying landscape/landform to be overwhelmed (iii) the impacts on landscape character arising from a high level of intervisibility between several landscape character areas/types with recognised landscape quality (including the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area) (iv) the appearance of the development resulting from its massing, spread and layout design and its scale in relation to other wind energy development with which it has cumulative landscape effects (v) the siting and prominence in a Historic Landscape, within which the development would appear as an incongruous and anachronistic new item; and (vi) the introduction of a large commercial wind farm in an area which does not have the capacity to absorb it without causing overriding harm, and which is presently wind farm free,

16.3 Reason for Objection 2: Adverse Visual and Amenity Impacts:

The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1, D4, BE2 and H2 of the Scottish Borders 2011 Local Plan, and Policy 10 of the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SESplan) in that the development would give rise to unacceptable visual and residential amenity effects due to:

(i) the high level of visibility of the development and lack of good topographical containment (ii) the adverse effects experienced by users of the public path network and areas generally used for recreational access (including vehicular access routes to such areas) (iii) the potentially unacceptable level of visual impact caused by the dominance of the turbines in relation to a number of private residences within 2km of the development, in particular Upper Stewarton (iv) the lack of certainty relating to the application of noise limitations in relation to certain noise sensitive receptors, in particular Upper Stewarton, and the intent to impose an unacceptable higher noise limit than endorsed elsewhere in Borders; and (v) the adverse visual impacts relating to settings of a range scheduled monuments within a culturally rich landscape;

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director Regulatory Services

The original version of this report has been signed by the Service Director, Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation John Hiscox Planning Officer (Major/Wind Energy Developments)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 29 Item No. 6(a)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 30 Item No. 6(b)

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

2nd JUNE 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE WINNING AND WORKING OF MINERALS

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER:13/01191/MIN OFFICER: Andrew Evans WARD: Kelso and District PROPOSAL: Extension to rock quarry incorporating ready mix concrete plant and associated landscape works SITE: Blinkbonny Quarry, Kelso, Scottish Borders APPLICANT: Mr J Shanks, Blinkbonny Quarry (Borders) Ltd, Blinkbonny AGENT: Mr A Smith, AMS Associates Ltd, Denholm

SITE DESCRIPTION

The planning application site is located at Blinkbonny Quarry, an existing hard rock quarry located 5.6km south of Gordon, and 6.5km north of Kelso. The site is adjacent to the A6089 road to the west of the site. The whole site measures 17.04 Hectares, with the Quarry extension site measuring approximately 8 Hectares. The working / extractive part of the quarry is to the north of the site. Plant and processing take place at the southern side of the site, adjacent to the site access from the A6089.

The site of the proposed quarry extension comprises parts of 3 agricultural fields and an area of mature plantation woodland to the north of the existing quarry.

The site is not designated as a Special Landscape Area, the nearest such designation being the Tweed Lowlands SLA, the boundary of which is 3km to the South. The site is not subject to any environmental or heritage designations.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

There are four distinct aspects to the proposals contained in the application:

1. Quarry Extension: It is proposed to extend the working area of the existing quarry by extracting rock from areas to the north and east of the existing quarry to a floor depth of 175m – 177m AOD as compared to present levels. The proposal is described in detail in the applicant’s Revised Phasing Statement and Plans and updated Environmental Statement (ES). The expected working life is stated as 20 years, based upon commencement of work in autumn 2014, and based on the final version of the submitted plans. Based on the most recent set of updated plans the proposed extraction would release 3 million tonnes of rock, sand and gravel between 2014 and 2034. The extraction would be carried out by drilling and blasting, with mobile plant used to extract the stone and transport it to the existing on site crushing and screening plant. It is expected that a maximum of 100,000 tonnes of stone per annum will be extracted, a reduction on the initial proposals.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(b)

2. Landscaping and Bunding: An overburden dump would be formed to the northern boundary of the extended quarrying area. Beyond that profiled mound would be located a top soil bund, and beyond that would be a planting strip, to screen and soften the visual impact of the development. Further advance tree planting would be carried out to the east of the site.

3. Concrete Plant: A concrete batching plant operates at the site. The plant processing area where the ready mix / concrete batching plant are located, at the southern end of the site, and would be remaining on completion of the rock extraction. It is anticipated that vehicle movements from the plant would off set the reduced level of movements arising from the quarry operation meaning that net traffic movements would be unchanged.

4. Restoration Plans: Proposals are set forth for the restoration of the site upon completion of the quarrying activity subject to this application.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has the following relevant planning history: x 12/01232/PAN - Proposed extension to quarry – Proposal of Application Notice in connection with this current application. x 03/01343/MIN - Hard rock extraction - Approved 13.10.2004 – Consent was granted for a 7 year period from the implementation of the consent. The consent was subject to 32 planning conditions. x 01/00516/MIN - Extension of quarry stockyard - Approved 11.05.2001 x 99/01070/FUL - Formation of stockyard, settlement lagoon and soak away and erection of portacabin and weighbridge – Approved 14.12.1999 x 99/00556/MIN - Hard rock mineral extraction – Approved 14.12.1999

PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

In this case, no direct neighbour notification was required, as none of the properties surrounding the site are within 20m. The application was however publicised by the posting of site notices, and advertised under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, as “Neighbour Not Known”, and as “Bad Neighbour” development. The application was advertised in the Southern Reporter, the Berwickshire News and the Edinburgh Gazette. A notice also appeared on the National Public Notices website.

Two emailed representations were received from the same household and both raise objections to the proposal. These can be viewed in full on the Public Access Website. The principal grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

x Detrimental to environment x Detrimental to residential amenity x Health issues x Increased traffic x Noise nuisance

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(b)

x Roads safety impacts including on the Mellerstain estate road.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING AND OTHER INFORMATION

In addition to the plans and sections accompanying the application, the following is relevant to this application:

EIA requirements

x The development falls within Schedule 2 of The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (Scotland) 2011. As such the application was subject to screening, during which the Council identified that Environmental Impact Assessment was required.

x The applicant requested a scoping opinion under Regulation 10 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. The council responded February 2013 with its Scoping Response.

x The applicant has submitted an Environmental Statement (Volume 3 of the submission, with appendices in Volume 4) which has been amended to take account of the proposed changes to details of the proposed expansion of the quarry, and a Non-Technical Summary (Volume 1).

Major Development Requirements

x As a major application there was a requirement for the applicant to undertake a Pre-Application Notification including community engagement. This was undertaken, and summarised in a Community Engagement Report submitted with the application.

x The application is subject to a processing agreement, entered into in March 2014.

Other Information and submissions

The application has been accompanied by:

x Hydrogeology report by GeoloGIS

x Habitat survey report by BSG Ecology

x Ecology surveys by David Dodds Associates Ltd

x Noise monitoring report by Kevin Walton Associates Ltd

x Noise monitoring study by Vibrock.

x Revised (final) planning statement with updated plans accounting form comments made in first round of consultation responses.

x Revised phasing statement and plans

x Revised dust assessment

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(b)

x Revised landscape and restoration plans.

All of the submitted documents can be accessed via the Public Access Website, with the exception of sensitive species information.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SESplan2013

Policy 4 - Minerals

Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

Principle 1 Sustainability

Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development Policy D1 Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside Policy H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy BE1 Listed Buildings Policy BE2 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy BE3 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy NE3 Local Biodiversity Policy NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy NE5 Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy EP5 Air Quality Policy ED2 Employment Uses Outwith Employment Land Policy Inf2 Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy R3 Mineral and Coal Extraction

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance:

x Biodiversity (2005) x Landscape and Development (2008) x Local Biodiversity Action Plan (2001) x Local Landscape Designation (2012)

Emerging Local Development Plan

x Scottish Borders Council: Proposed Local Development Plan 2013

Scottish Government:

x SPP - Scottish Planning Policy

x PAN 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment x PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology x PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(b)

x PAN 75 Planning for Transport (2005) x PAN 73 Rural Diversification (2005) x PAN 64 Reclamation of Surface Mineral Workings (2002) x PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2000 x PAN 56 Planning for Noise (1999) x PAN 51 Planning and Environmental Protection (Revised 2006) x PAN 50 Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings (1996) x PAN 50 Annexe A – D (Control of Noise, Dust, Traffic and Blasting at Surface Mineral Workings) (1996)

x Air Quality and Land Use Planning Guidance (2004)

x Planning Circular 4/1998 – The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions x Planning Circular 3/2012 – Development Management Procedures

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

The replies from consultees are summarised below and full versions of their representations can be viewed on PublicAccess.

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Archaeology Officer: Content with the findings of the report and that there are no known direct impacts to archaeological assets. There will be a moderate setting impact to the Scheduled forts on Hareheugh Craigs and Sweethope Hill respectively. Notes the intention to screen through bunding and planting and agrees that this will improve the setting impacts. The landscaping scheme should ultimately by subject to the approval of the Landscape Architect.

Ecology Officer: Satisfied with the Ecological Impact Assessment (as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment) carried out by BSG Ecology and supplementary surveys carried out by David Dodds Associates Ltd (the bat & breeding bird surveys). Mitigation to protect the ecological interest will be required. A restoration habitat management and enhancement plan should be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. Recommends conditions in this regard, and in relation to supplementary species surveys, appointment of an ecological clerk of works and a scheme to compensate for the loss of woodland.

Environmental Health: In summary, the applicant has provided a report to demonstrate compliance with noise condition placed on the previous application. The noise assessment was carried out by Kevan Walton Associates Ltd and dated 2nd May 2014. Monitoring was carried out at Blinkbonny Cottages and Blinkbonny Farm, both of which are owned by the applicant. The predicted noise levels are based on the erection of a screening bund with a crest level of 195m to be constructed on a short length of land adjoining the existing quarry. No further details have been provided on this. The report also provides a table of predicted noise at the monitoring locations. The worst cast scenarios indicate that the noise at Blinkbonny Cottage would be LAeq, 1hr 55dB and at Blinkbonny Farm LAeq 1hr 49dB. At Blinkbonny Cottage this would mean a 10dB increase on the limit previously set.

The above results indicate that there is a quiet background in the area consistent with a rural location. In accordance with PAN 50 local authorities can look to protect

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6(b)

quiet background levels by reducing the noise limit to below LAeq, 1hr 55dB. This was done on the previous application. It is important to notes that PAN 50 has since been replaced with PAN 1/2011.

Despite repeated requests for the applicant or the applicants consultant to contact the officer regarding the methodology for any noise assessment this has not been forthcoming. There are still several unknowns regarding the length of time noisy works will be required on the site and an agreed set of monitoring locations. In order expedite this application, it is proposed to deal with these issues through conditions. The conditions are based on the guidance in PAN 50 Annex A Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings.

Landscape Architect: Considers that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Restoration Statement are thorough and reliable and therefore confines comments to the following further observations:

1. The rectangular shape of the proposed quarry void means that the NE corner of the extraction area lies over the top of the ridge line from the main quarry area and is beginning to cut down on to the northern slopes of the Cock Law ridge. The magnitude of this effect is small and should not pose a problem but any further extraction in this direction would develop an increasingly large ‘notch’ in the landform which would significantly extend the ZTV to areas such as Falsidehill and which would be difficult to mitigate. The landscape architect therefore expects that any further future expansion of Blinkbonny to the north and east (i.e. beyond the current application) would pose significant problems in terms of landscape and visual impact.

2. Planting, partly to mitigate future impacts on the northern skyline is shown as Areas A, B & C on Figure 8.9.1 of the LVIA and as ‘Advance Tree Belts’ on drawing 7708 of the Supporting Statement of the planning application. The proposed final site condition is shown on the ‘Indicative Restoration Plan’, drawing number 7717. It shows a substantial area of woodland planting to the north of the existing pine wood and to the west of Area A. This area should be planted earlier, as part of the advance works. The area of land is not to be worked and it has a potential role in screening. Therefore proposes that the phasing of the planting is amended to bring this element of mitigation forward.

3. Given the extent of planting and marginal waterside habitats indicated on the Indicative Restoration Plan, there does not appear to be any space or need for a livestock grazing area with associated fencing etc. Proposes that this element be removed as an objective for after use and that Section 5 ‘Landscape Management Plan’ of the Restoration Strategy (App 9) is amended accordingly.

Detailed conditions should be applied based on the ES and subject to the above comments. These will require a phased programme for implementation linked to development and some form of assurance (perhaps a bond) given the long term nature of quarry operations.

Principal Officer (Heritage and Design): There are no Listed Buildings or Conservation Areas directly affected by the proposed extension to the quarry. The nearest Conservation Area is Kelso; the proposed works will not impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. The nearest Listed Building is the “Hundy Mundy” on Mellerstain Estate which is some 1.5km away. This structure was built as a landscape feature on the main axis of Mellerstain House – the proposed works will not impact on this setting. No objections.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(b)

Rights Of Way Officer: No conflict with rights of way/ core paths/ public access.

Roads Planning Service: This proposal is for an extension to the quarry, it is confirmed within the Transport Assessment that it is not proposed to increase the level of production. Given there is to be no increase in production there will be no net increase in the amount of traffic over what the quarry is capable of generating at present and as such there are no concerns with the extension. The Ready Mix Concrete Plant in itself is unlikely to create any significant increase in traffic and this is confirmed in the Transport Assessment. Taking the above into account along with the quarry having direct access to the principle road network, and with a high quality junction, there are no road safety objections to the application.

Statutory Consultees

Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland: Consultation expired on 07.05.2014 with no response received.

Health & Safety Executive: Online system confirmed that surface mineral workings are subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Quarries Regulations 1999. Enforcement is by the Quarry Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive, who have knowledge and expertise regarding geotechnical considerations. A consultation was forwarded to the HSE Quarry Inspectorate, based in Wales. HSE confirmed that EIAs are concerned with projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. HSE's principal concerns are the health and safety of people at work and those affected by work activities. Therefore HSE has no comments on this EIA. No further response or comment was forthcoming from the HSE, and no response was made by the Quarries Directorate.

Historic Scotland: Content that the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse effects on the site or setting of assets within our statutory remit. As such, HS does not object to the proposed development.

Royal Society for Protection of Birds (Scotland): RSPB Scotland does not object to this application, subject to mitigation measures set out in their consultation reply being secured using appropriate conditions and/or legal agreements.

Scottish Badgers: Satisfied from the report that the new works are unlikely to cause disturbance but feel that in this instance it is Scottish Natural Heritage who should make a final decision that they are satisfied that a licence for these further works is not required.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Following receipt of additional information, have now removed their objection. Provide information in terms of hydrogeology of the site and regulatory requirements.

Scottish Natural Heritage: In original response of 20 December 2013, objected to the proposal on the grounds that insufficient information had been submitted with the application. Further information was submitted to determine whether or not the proposal would adversely affect the integrity of Lurgie Loch SSSI. This included detail relating to hydrology, drainage and potential impacts of dust emissions. Further detail relating to proposed restoration was also submitted. Following the submission of the above information SNH remove holding objection and provide advice on the proposal. In summary, there are natural heritage issues of national importance near to the development site, but these will not be affected by the proposal.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(b)

Scottish Water: Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application.

Scottish Wildlife Trust: Confirmed that they will not be making any comments.

Transport Scotland: Do not advise against the granting of permission. JMP Consultants Limited provided comments on behalf of Transport Scotland (TS) in relation to the EIA. This review concludes that TS is satisfied with the submitted Environmental Statement.

Other Consultees

Floor, Makerstoun, Nenthorn and Smailholm Community Council: Support this application. Have no concerns on planning issues. See the application as a continuation of an existing local business. This will employ local people for many years.

Gordon and Westruther Community Council: (Neighbouring Community Council to the north) Consultation expired on 07.05.2014 with no response received.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key planning issues related to this application are whether the revised proposals would have an adverse impact in terms of:

1. Landscape and visual impacts 2. Local ecology and on the adjacent SSSI 3. Drainage, Dewatering and Hydrogeology 4. Amenity of residential properties 5. Road safety

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning principle

Scottish Planning Policy is broadly positive towards minerals development proposals as there is a need for an adequate and steady supply to support sustainable economic growth. However, it is for the operator to carry out a full assessment of the proposed operation and provide proposals for appropriate control, mitigation and monitoring.

The SPP states that ‘Development Management decisions should aim to minimise significant negative impacts from such developments on the amenity of local communities, the natural heritage and historic environment and other economic sectors important to the local economy and should encourage sensitive working practices during extraction.’

Policy R3 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan sets out the situations and circumstances in which mineral extraction will and will not be permitted.

In this instance, consent is sought for extension of an established quarry. The proposals are considered to comply with Policy R3 of the Local Plan. The proposed quarrying would not be in conflict with the criteria set out in this policy.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(b)

Policy D1 of the Local Plan sets out the Council policy in relation to Business development in the Countryside. Developments which require a Countryside Location are supported where the council is satisfied there is an economic and /or operational need for the countryside location. A quarry is appropriate in principle a rural location.

A revised scheme of phasing has been submitted setting out a 20 year plan for the quarry. A condition will ensure that the development is completed in accordance with this scheme. A 22 year time limit on the consent (allowing for 2 years – 10% flexibility) is proposed.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

The site is located in an area of rolling countryside, with the quarry being in an elevated location relative to surrounding topography. The site is part of the “Rolling Farmland with Hills” Landscape Character type within the Hume Crags Landscape Character Area.

The final version of the details of the quarry extension were accompanied by revised landscape and restoration reports. Zone of Theoretical Visibility Mapping (ZTV) was produced for this application. A series of viewpoints are set out in the revised landscape report.

The proposed extension site is currently used for grazing and arable crops, with an area of timber plantation. The extension site is part of a ridge line on the hill side that includes Cock Law, and when viewed from the north is seen as a skyline ridge. No immediate landscape issues would arise from the quarry extension, the existing site being well screened from surrounding areas. Some visibility will take place once quarry workings reach the ridge line to the north of the site. The Council Landscape Architect confirms the magnitude of this effect is small and it should not pose a problem

Planting is proposed to the north of the site to mitigate this impact. The Landscape Impact report submitted with the application sets out that advance shelterbelt plantations immediately to the north of the site boundary, carried out as the first phase of operations to the quarry extension would allow the planting to become established and offer a high degree of screening to the subsequent quarry operations.

The Council Landscape Architect considers that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Restoration Statement submitted with the application are thorough and reliable. The comments and observations made by the Landscape Architect in his consultation response can be addressed via suitably worded planning conditions.

Impact on Ecology

The site consists of improved grassland, poor semi-improved grassland, conifer plantation, species-poor hedgerow gorse scrub, bare ground and an existing quarry. The development will result in the loss of conifer plantation, poor semi-improved grassland, improved grassland, gorse scrub, species-poor hedgerow and open water habitat.

There are natural heritage interests of national importance close to, but outwith, the site, in particular the SSSI at Lurgie Loch. SNH confirm that these interests will not

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(b)

be affected by the current proposal. In relation to the local ecology and wildlife, surveys were undertaken as part of the application.

The Council ecologist confirms that habitat loss will be required to be compensated for adopting Council policy on no net loss of biodiversity. Compensation for loss of woodland in advance of any quarry restoration proposals is required. It is accepted that planning conditions will address these issues.

Evidence of otter, bat, badger and breeding birds using the site was found. Scottish Badgers sought clarification of the distance from identified setts to the development area (to inform any licensing requirements). A badger survey was subsequently undertaken, with sufficient clarity provided and no issues arose.

The Council ecologist confirms he is satisfied that if the mitigation and restoration is implemented as identified in the Environment Statement and supplementary bat and breeding bird survey, that significant impacts on the ecological interest are unlikely to arise.

Subject to mitigation and any required checking surveys the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on the ecology and wildlife of the area, and can be considered compliant with local plan policies NE3 (Local Biodiversity), NE4 (Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows).

Drainage, Dewatering and Hydrogeology

SEPA initially raised concerns relating to the likely significant impact on the upper perched aquifer. The agent addressed these in the submitted documents titled ‘Proposed Extension at Blinkbonny Quarry Revised Phasing Statement and Plans March 2014’ and ‘Proposed Extension at Blinkbonny Quarry Response to SEPA Objection March 2014’.

The revised phasing statement and plans indicate that the extraction floor final level has been raised to 175 metres Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) which is above the initial proposed final level of 147m AOD. The hydrogeology report (Hydrogeology of Blinkbonny Quarry, Kelso, Scottish Borders. GeoloGIS Report 2013/09. 10th January 2014) identified the local spring line associated with the aquifer between 168- 170mAOD. The revision to final floor levels removes the requirement for working below the water table and as a result SEPA advise that no significant impact upon the aquifer, existing springs or Lurgie Loch is anticipated.

The supporting statement accompanying the application sets out that all surface drainage would be directed to the existing settlement lagoons already constructed on the site, part of a closed cycle system. No watercourses are affected by the quarry extension. Internal cut off ditches would be constructed to direct run-off from the extension area to the existing on site settlement ponds.

Subject to the noted conditions, the proposed development is considered compliant with Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan Policy NE5 (Development Affecting the Water Environment).

Impact on built and historic environment

There are no immediate archaeological implications for this proposal and no archaeological mitigation measures are needed.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(b)

There are a number of listed buildings close to the proposed development site. Historic Scotland and the Council’s Heritage and Design Officer do not object to the proposals, as it is considered that the proposed quarrying would not have an adverse impact on the setting of these listed buildings.

It is noted that there would be moderate setting impact to the Scheduled forts on Hareheugh Craigs and Sweethope Hill respectively, however these impacts would be screened through bunding and planting.

The proposals are considered acceptable in terms of impacts on the built and historic environment, and the development is considered, subject to conditions, to comply with policies BE1, BE2 and BE3 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan.

Impact on Residential Amenity

Two objections have been received from local residents. These objections relate to health effects of the development, noise, air pollution, dust, and drainage. All have these issues have the potential to have an adverse impact on nearby dwellings. It should however be noted that the existing quarry has planning permission, and has obtained the other approvals and permits necessary to operate - the existing quarry at Blinkbonny is regulated by SEPA and the HSE. Further details on this regulation are set out in the Environmental Statement and Supporting Statement.

The proposed extension to the quarry workings would not be carried out in any more intensive a fashion than the existing operations. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have advised that the development can be supported subject to the imposition of planning conditions as noted in their consultation reply.

Planning conditions are present on the existing consent, regulating a wide range of matters, such as prevention of mud, dust and other material being carried outwith the site, in the interests of road safety, and noise.

Subject to the noted schedule of condition, the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of impact on residential amenity, and to comply with policies G1 and H2 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan.

Assessment in terms of Road Safety

Increase traffic and increased noise due to traffic has been raised by the objectors. Traffic Scotland and the Roads Planning Officer were both consulted on the application and have not raised any objections to the proposal. The application was accompanied by a Transport Statement, the updated content of which is acceptable to the Roads Planning Service.

Objection on roads safety grounds is not considered sustainable given the context of support by the Roads Planning Service and Transport Scotland.

Hours of Operation

It is proposed to amend the hours of operation on the site. The existing consented hours of operation (unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority) are: 08:00 – 20:00 Mondays to Fridays 08:00 – 12:00 Saturdays

It is proposed in this application that the hours of operation would be altered to:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6(b)

07:00 – 19:00 Monday to Friday 08:00 – 16:00 Saturday

The Environmental Health Officer has suggested continuation of the existing consented hours would be appropriate in her consultation reply, the conditions therein being based upon the 2003 approval and best practice. It is therefore considered that continuing the existing established hours of operation would be appropriate in this case.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development complies with the Local Plan policies for economic development and minerals development in the countryside.

The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the ecology, landscape or the setting of nearby listed buildings, subject to appropriate mitigation measures being put in place. A series of planning conditions are recommended in these regards.

Likewise, subject to conditions to regulate the operation of the quarry, it is considered that no unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity should arise.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend that the application is approved subject to the following conditions and informatives:

2. A site notice or sign shall be displayed in a prominent place at or in the vicinity of the site until the completion of the development, which shall be readily visible to the public, and printed on durable material. The Notice shall take the following form: Development at (Note 1)

Notice is hereby given that planning permission has been granted, subject to conditions (Note 2) to (Note 3) on (Note 4) by Scottish Borders Council.

The development comprises (Note 5)

Further information regarding the planning permission, including the conditions, if any, on which it has been granted can be obtained, at all reasonable hours at Scottish Borders Council 1Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells, Melrose. Telephone (01835) 825060, or by visiting http://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/publicaccess, using the application reference (Note 6). Reason: To ensure compliance with Section 27C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6(b)

Timescale and Phasing

3. Planning permission is granted for a period of 22 years from the date of the commencement of the development. Unless an application is made and granted for its continuation or extension, the working of the quarry and all ancillary operations shall be discontinued within 22 years of the date of commencement of the development. Reason: To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to safeguard the amenity of the area.

4. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme of working detailed in the amended phasing plans (7706A, 7707A, 7708A, 7709A, 7710A, 7711A, 7712A, 7713A, 7715A) accompanying the application, except as far as the information is amended by any of the following conditions. The maximum floor depth is to be as shown on the approved plans, and in any event, no lower than 175 metres Above Ordnance Datum unless first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development of the site is carried out in the manner considered by the planning authority.

5. The hours of operations for all working, with the exception of measures required in an emergency situation, servicing, maintenance and testing of plant, shall be limited to the hours of 0800 hours to 2000 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 hours to 1200 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays, unless with the prior agreement of the Planning Authority. In addition, no operations shall be permitted on 25 and 26 December and 1 and 2 January. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

Ecology

6. A tree/shrub planting scheme together with a scheme to compensate for loss of woodland consistent with FCS policy on the control of woodland removal shall be submitted before the development commences for approval by the Planning Authority, the planting to be carried out concurrently with the development of during the next planting season thereto and to be maintained thereafter. The scheme is to make detailed provision for the formation of the northern landscape planting which is to be undertaken within 12 months of the approval of the details by the Planning Authority. Any works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To maintain and enhance the visual amenities of the area, and ensure suitable provision of compensatory planting.

7. A checking survey for otter, bats, badger, and birds shall be shall be carried out and submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before development commences. The survey shall include a scheme of mitigation where necessary and, once approved, the measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority as part of the scheme of mitigation, no works shall be carried out during the bird breeding season (March-August) Reason: To minimise the potential impact of the development on breeding birds

8. A Landscape and Habitat Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 6(b)

commences. Once approved, its requirements shall be carried out on site in full to a programme set out in the agreed plan. Reason: To compensate for potential habitat loss associated with the development

9. A Breeding Bird Protection Plan to be prepared and submitted to the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on the extension site. The plan is to set out procedures to be followed in order to prevent disturbance to breeding birds. Reason: To minimise the potential impact of the development on breeding birds.

10. An Ecological Clerk of Works shall be appointed to carry out pre-construction surveys, to inform a Species Mitigation and Management Plan and an Environmental Management Plan and to oversee compliance with the SMMP and EMP. Reason: To minimise the potential impact of the development and compensate for potential habitat loss associated with the development

11. Prior to the commencement of works a Species Mitigation and Management Plan (including otter, badger, bats, breeding birds, reptiles and amphibia) is to be submitted for the approval in writing by the Planning Authority. Any works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To compensate for potential habitat loss associated with the development

12. All soils shall be retained on the site and none shall be sold off or removed from the site. Reason: To enable sound restoration; to minimise the movement of soils and to minimise traffic movement outwith the site.

13. Any oil fuel, lubricant, paint or solvent within the site shall be stored within a suitable bund or other means of enclosure, constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority to prevent such material from contaminating top soil or sub-soil or water course. Reason: To protect land and water courses from damage by polluting agents.

14. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, no water from the site shall be discharged into any ditch, stream, watercourse or culvert outside the site except through approved settlement lagoons. Reason: To safeguard the natural drainage of the area.

Fencing

15. Prior to the commencement of the development, details shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority of all perimeter fencing. This fencing to be maintained in good condition during the period of operations. Reason: In the interests of public safety.

Permitted Development Rights

16. Not withstanding the provisions of Part 16 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, as amended, no buildings, plant or machinery, including that of a temporary nature, shall be

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6(b)

erected, placed or installed without the prior consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: In order that the Planning Authority retains effective control of the development in the interests of amenity.

17. No extraction or encroachment of machinery or deposit of equipment, spoil or other material to be permitted outwith the site boundaries. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

After Care and Restoration

18. No development shall commence until the Company provide to the Planning Authority details of the bond or other financial provision which it proposes to put in place to cover all decommissioning and site restoration costs on the expiry of this consent. Thereafter:

(a) No development shall commence on the site until the Company has provided documentary evidence that the proposed bond or other financial provision is in place and written confirmation has been given by the Planning Authority that the proposed bond or other financial provision is satisfactory.

(b) The Company shall ensure that the approved bond or other financial provision is maintained throughout the duration of this consent.

(c) The bond or other financial provision will be subject to a five yearly review, paid for by the Company, from the Commencement of Development, to be conducted by a competent independent professional who has relevant experience within the quarrying sector and provided to the Company, the landowners (if different), and the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure suitable provisions are made for restoration of the site, and to minimise the longer term visual impacts of the development

19. A detailed scheme for the restoration and the after care of the site to be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority within 12 months of the date of commencement of the development. This will provide full details of final restoration contours, levels and gradients, provide for satisfactory reinstatement of surface drainage and include details of any hedges, walls, fences and soil replacement. The scheme of restoration to be completed in a timescale to be agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site.

20. Unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority no landfill or waste shall be deposited on the site other than quarry waste arising from the site or soil forming material. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area.

21. A Restoration Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan, including measures for native woodland, grassland, wetland habitat and open water is to be submitted for the approval in writing by the Planning Authority. Any works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6(b)

Reason: To compensate for potential habitat loss associated with the development

Blasting and Noise

22. Prior to any blasting taking place the occupants of residential properties in identified noise sensitive locations and the Planning Authority shall be given 24 hrs notice of any blasting to be carried out on the site. The location of the noise sensitive properties shall be agreed with the planning authority before each blast. Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity, and proper management of blasting operations.

23. During operational hours a free field limit of LAeq, 1hr 45dB shall be applicable to all quarry operations excluding soil and overburden handling and works in connection with drilling of blast shot holes at the nearest noise sensitive property. (For clarity the nearest noise sensitive property includes those owned by the applicant namely Blinkbonny Farm and Blinkbonny Cottages). Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

24. During operational hours a free field limit of LAeq, 1hr 55dB shall be applicable to soil and overburden handling and works in connection with drilling of blast shot holes at the nearest noise sensitive properties. (For clarity the nearest noise sensitive property includes those owned by the applicant namely Blinkbonny Farm and Blinkbonny Cottages). Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

25. Prior to the commencement of works the applicant must submit for approval a noise management plan for the site to the Planning Authority. Once approved this will become the noise management plan for the site and must be adhered to. (See informative for information on what should be included in the plan). Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

26. Prior to the commencement of any works full details of the noise screening bund, including a timetable for impimentation on site, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

Dust

27. All plant and machinery on the site will be installed and maintained in such a manner as to minimise the release of dust whenever possible incorporate dust suppression and collection equipment, Dust levels arising from the site operations shall be monitored by the operation in conjunction with the Planning Authority for a 6 month period after the commencement of works a this site. Any further dust suppression measures identified by the Planning Authority shall be implemented by the operator within 2 months of the date of identification, unless an additional period of time is agreed I writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity at the nearest noise sensitive properties.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(b)

28. Mud, dust and other material spilt or otherwise deposited by vehicles leaving the quarry shall be swept and collected from the quarry's main haul road. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

29. All exposed stockpiles of processed mineral and all active quarry waste tips shall be sprayed with water by the use of efficient water sprays to minimise the release of dust into the air. Reason: In the interests of amenity.

30. Vehicle wheel cleaning facilities shall be retained throughout the operation of the quarry, the siting and design of which shall be subject to the prior approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure material from the site is not deposited on the A road to the detriment of road safety

Informatives

1. The Notes above should be completed for Condition 2 as follows: Note 1: Insert address or describe the location of the development Note 2: Delete “subject to conditions” if the planning permission is not subject to any conditions Note 3: Insert the name and address of the developer Note 4: Insert the date on which planning permission was granted (normally the date of this Notice) Note 5: Insert the description of the development. Note 6: Insert the application reference number.

2. The Noise Management Plan should be based on the guidance available in PAN 50 Annex A Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings and BS5228:2009. It should include: x Details of how complaints will be logged and investigated at the site. x The maintenance of equipment to prevent unnecessary noise. x The methodology for noise monitoring in the event that a justified noise complaint is received by the applicant or local authority. x The methodology that will be used to notify the local authority and noise sensitive properties that blasting will occur. x Details on how the site will be operated in accordance with current guidance (i.e. BS5228:2009) particularly in relation to blasting and noisy works such as soil and overburden handling and works in connection with drilling of blast shot holes.

3. Attention is drawn to the consultation responses received with this application.

4. This planning permission does not purport to grant consent under any other legislation or Regulations operated by bodies other than the Planning Authority, including Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, the Water Authority, and any other Department of Scottish Borders Council (This list is not exhaustive).

5. The proposed works are largely screened by surrounding vegetation and landform and screen planting is proposed for the relatively minor visual impacts that will occur out with the site. The Restoration Strategy accompanying the application provides a workable vision of the finished site condition. However, it

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6(b)

is considered that any further extension of Blinkbonny Quarry beyond this application proposal could be problematic in landscape and visual terms.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Drawing Number Title 7700 Location Plan (1:50,000) 7701 Location Plan (1:10,000) 7702 Site Plan (1:2,500) 7703 Land plan (1:2,500) 7704 Land Capability Plan 7705 Site Layout Plan (extension) 7706A Phasing Plan – Years 1-20 7707A Phase 1 – Existing 7708A Phase 2 – 2 yrs 7709A Phase 3 – 2 yrs 7710A Phase 4 – 4 yrs 7711A Phase 5 – 6 yrs 7712A Phase 6 – 6 yrs 7713A Final Phase 7715A Proposed extension sections 7716A Indicative restoration contour plan 7717B Indicative restoration plan - master 7718 Sections

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Andrew Evans Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 6 (c)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

2 JUNE 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: OFFICER: Stuart Herkes WARD: Galashiels and District PROPOSAL: Erection of dwellinghouse with attached garage and detached workshop/store SITE: Land North East Of Galaview Bungalow, Heriot APPLICANT: Mr And Mrs A Smith AGENT: Smith And Garratt Rural Asset Management

CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Planning Application 14/00342/FUL has been referred to the Planning and Building Standards Committee for determination under Section 43A(6) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Its referral is supported by five Members on the grounds that the application is considered to raise: “particular questions of both planning policy and the nature and weighting of possible material consideration. It should therefore be determined by committee, rather than by an officer. The policy framework is that relating to housing in the countryside and in this case may give rise to a finely balance planning judgement to assess compliance, or otherwise, with that policy. In addition however the application raises difficult questions regarding the compulsory purchase of the applicants’ current residence. If that is a material consideration it should be for Committee to determine the weight which should be given to that matter”.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is the southeast extremity of a field to the east of Falahill Farm. To the immediate east is the A7; to the south, the access road to the building group at Falahill Farm; and to the southeast the junction of the farm road access with the A7. There are trees in relation to both the south and east boundaries of the field.

The southern and eastern extremities of the site, and the adjacent private road and junction with the A7 are all temporarily vested in Network Rail for the purpose of carrying out and accommodating works to the A7, which are being carried out in connection with the works to reinstate the Borders Railway.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This is a full planning application for the erection of a new residential property, comprising a detached dwellinghouse and a detached workshop/store building to accommodate a gas fitter business run by one of the Applicants. The buildings are set out in a splayed formation, and would be accessed from branches of a common access within the site.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6 (c)

The dwellinghouse is of a traditional design, with slated roof and wet dash rendered walls, and timber clad offshoots on each gable. It would be around 9m in height to its main roof ridge, with offshoots of around 7m in height. The dwellinghouse (main building and offshoots) would be slightly over 21m in length.

The workshop/store building is also of a design that suggests a traditional domestic structure, complete with masonry chimney. It would be timber-clad to match the offshoots of the dwellinghouse. Its footprint would be around roughly two thirds the size of that of the proposed dwellinghouse. It would be around 7m in height to its main roof ridge, and some 16.5m in length (including a vehicle port).

PLANNING HISTORY

Earlier this year, the site was the subject of a previous, and now withdrawn, planning application (14/00032/FUL) for essentially the same character of development as is currently proposed, excepting that this previous version included a single wind turbine as well, which has now been deleted from the scheme.

The southern and eastern boundaries of the site are contiguous with those of the site that is the subject of the 2103 permission for the re-instatement of the railway along its former corridor, including construction of a new structure to facilitate the crossing of the A7 and diversion of A7 road to accommodate the re-instated railway. These works are in progress, and relate to the area of the road junction between Falahill Farm and the A7.

The site was previously included within the boundary of a larger site that was the subject of a planning application (04/02420/FUL) for the erection of three wind turbines with associated access tracks, a climate monitoring mast, switchgear building and temporary construction compound. This application was refused.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Four objections have been received in response to the public consultation. Two are from the same address, and have been sent on behalf of a farming business based at Falahill Farm. The other two objections are from two separate households and identify concerns in common with the farming business, including ownership of the private access road and employment within the farming business.

The grounds for objection are identified as follows: (i) Contrary to statutory development plan – specifically, Adopted Local Plan Policy D2 (and Approved Structure Plan Policy H8), in that the site is not part of a building group and there is no economic justification for an isolated house in the countryside in this location; (ii) Landscape and visual impact - unsympathetic to the rural/agricultural character of the site and surrounding area; (iii) increased traffic on an already busy farm road, which includes use by HGVs and heavy agricultural traffic; (iv) Road safety, inadequate access and legal issues – the road is noted to be in poor condition and unsuitable for domestic/residential traffic. It is advised that: (a) D.E.W. Kibble and Sons are the owners of the private access road to Falahill Farm, (b) have made the decision that there shall be no upgrading of this access, and (c) refuse access to any other properties. They note that the section of road to be upgraded is temporarily vested in Network Rail but

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6 (c)

advise that this will return to their own ownership on completion of the road and railway construction works. Thus while the Applicants may be able to acquire the right to use and access the site from the existing private access road and from the section that is temporarily vested in Network Rail, they would not have any ability to upgrade or maintain the access road thereafter; (v) Detrimental to environment; (vi) Detrimental to Residential Amenity – overlooking and impacts on the privacy; of neighbouring properties; (vii) Inadequate access; (viii) Inadequate drainage; (ix) Water Supply - it is advised that the existing private water supply is within the ownership of D.E.W. Kibble and Sons; (x) Noise nuisance; (xi) Inaccurate supporting information – namely, that the layout of road works shown, is now out-of-date.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The Applicants have themselves provided a supporting letter, and the Agent has prepared a Planning and Design Statement.

These documents advise that the proposed dwellinghouse is required to replace an existing residential property at No 3 Heriot Way, Heriot; the Applicants’ family home, which is in the process of being acquired by Network Rail to make way for the new Borders railway.

It is explained that for personal and professional reasons, the family need to remain within the Heriot area in order to maintain their established links to this community and to continue to access work and local services in the same ways as they do at present.

With regard to the current proposal to build a new house, it is advised that there is a lack of existing properties for sale in and around Heriot that have amenities comparable to their current property. As such, they consider that they have no alternative but to seek to recreate these amenities within a new-build property that is capable of replacing the home that they would otherwise not be giving up, were it not for the railway reinstatement works.

With specific regard to the selection of the site at Falahill, it is advised that despite other local land owners having been approached, this is the only instance in which a conditional agreement has been reached.

The Applicants are aware that the proposed new dwellinghouse may be considered contrary to the statutory development plan but ask that consideration be given to their particular circumstances. They consider that since these circumstances are exceptional, an approval contrary to the statutory development plan would not be liable to set any precedent. Furthermore, they consider that the proposed replacement house might also be seen to facilitate a wider benefit to the local area; namely, by allowing for the release and demolition of their existing home, which would in turn, directly enable the reinstatement of the railway link. In the supporting statement it is advised that this allows the proposal to address the requirements of criteria 3, 4 and 5 of Part E of Adopted Local Plan Policy D2, in that the railway reinstatement facilitated by the loss of the Applicants’ existing home, would bring a significant economic benefit to the area.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6 (c)

Policy Inf1 is also cited as being supportive of the proposal, on the grounds that it would not be a development along the route of the railway reinstatement works.

They consider that appropriate account also needs to be taken of the need for homes directly lost to the railway project to be replaced by new ones within the immediate vicinity in order to arrest any net loss of homes from the area; and that it is reasonable that one house should be built where one is lost.

It is advised in the supporting statement that the works being carried out at the road junction and the substantial remodelling of the road network in this area, would tie the site to the altered landscape of the Falahill cottage group.

With regard to the proposed design, it is advised that Mr Smith currently uses an outbuilding at his property in connection with his employment as a gas fitter, and that this building would be directly replaced by a new workshop building on the site.

It is considered that the residential property would be liable to appear as a modest rural homestead typical of the farmed landscape of the Scottish Borders.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning: While Roads objects to the dwellinghouse on road safety grounds, it notes that the subject of the objection (the poor state of the existing access road to Falahill, its junction with the A7, and visibility from the same) is liable to be appropriately remediated through the road improvement works that are to be carried out as part of the Borders Railway project at Falahill. Taking account of this, Roads would be supportive of the proposal provided it were made the subject of a suitably worded planning condition, requiring that no work commence on the dwelling until such time as the road improvement works being realised in relation to the Borders Railway project have first been completed.

Environmental Health: No comments.

Education and Lifelong Learning: The need for a contribution towards the upgrade of local education facilities within the Galashiels Academy catchment area is identified.

Ecology: There are unlikely to be significant ecological impacts, but precautionary measures are required to mitigate impacts on breeding birds which may use grassland, hedges and scrub habitats, and impacts on badger which occur within the general area of the site. Accordingly, it is recommended that (i) a Badger Protection Plan be required to protect badger foraging and commuting across the site; (ii) there should be no clearance/disturbance of habitats which could be used by breeding birds without the express written permission of the Planning Authority; and (iii) opportunities should be taken to enhance the local habitat network for biodiversity, such as through the submission and agreement of any planting or landscaping scheme.

Statutory Consultees

Network Rail: considers that it will have no impact on railway infrastructure and indicates its support for the proposal.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6 (c)

Scotland Gas Networks: Scotland Gas Networks has no gas mains in the area but is aware of National Grid pipelines in the area, and recommends that the National Grid be contacted.

National Grid: has been consulted but has not responded to the public consultation.

Heriot Community Council: wishes to register its unanimous support for this application and fully concurs with the contents of the supporting statements.

In particular, it advises that

(i) the proposed building closely matches the house that is being lost in terms of proximity to the A7; proximity to a road running from the A7; and proximity to the nearest occupied dwellings; ii) it is considered that proposal would have almost zero impact on any nearby housing and would not adversely affect anyone's amenity; (iii) it is considered that there is already precedent for planning permission that is marginally contrary to the local plan to be granted in a case where the applicants are losing their home to the Borders Railway; specifically, Application 11/01085/FUL, which it is advised, presented almost identical issues. It is contended that the current proposal is effectively identical in terms of the situation and issues raised; (iv) notwithstanding Education’s identified requirement for contributions towards local schools, and potentially any similar requirement towards the upgrade of the Borders Railway, the Community Council considers that all such contributions should be waived in this specific case, which it is considered would be analogous to the position with respect to the proposal that was the subject of 11/01085/FUL. In terms of educational contributions, it is advised that the applicants will simply be replacing a property that is being lost from the catchment areas rather than adding any additional one. In terms of the Waverley contribution, it is considered self-evident that no one should be displaced from their home by a major development and then be required to pay towards that development.

Health and Safety Executive: Does not propose to advise against.

Other Consultees

None

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

D1: Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside D2: Housing in the Countryside G1: Quality Standards for New Development G5: Developer Contributions G6: Developer Contributions related to Railway reinstatement H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Inf1: Transport Safeguarding Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards Inf5: Waste Water Treatment Standards Inf6: Sustainable Urban Drainage NE3: Local Biodiversity NE4: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6 (c)

SPG: New Housing in the Borders Countryside, December 2008 SPG: Place-Making and Design, January 2010

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether or not the proposal is contrary to the Council’s adopted Housing in the Countryside Policy; and if so,

x Whether or not there are any other considerations that are material to this planning application that outweigh the need to determine it in strict accordance with the Council’s adopted Housing in the Countryside Policy. (In particular, whether or not any weight should be given to the Applicants’ personal circumstances). And if so,

x Whether or not any of these material considerations justify an exceptional approval.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy – Proposed Dwellinghouse

The site lies within an undeveloped field. It is not well-related to any surrounding residential properties or existing buildings, residential or otherwise. Accordingly, it is considered that it is evidently an isolated rural site.

Adopted Local Plan Policy D2 requires that a new dwellinghouse on an isolated rural site should only be supported in principle, where the Applicant has first demonstrated a justification for it in terms of the requirements of a business that itself has a justified need to operate from a rural location.

No such case has been provided for this particular choice of site, and it is considered that the proposal is therefore contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy D2; as well as to the guidance of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes on Housing in the Borders Countryside (2008) and Place-making and Design (2010). It represents an isolated form of residential development that is not justified by any rural business's operational requirements. As such, it is contrary to the Council's Housing in the Countryside Policy and should be refused on this basis, unless there are considered to be any exceptional circumstances that would justify a house in this specific location.

Planning Policy – Proposed Business Premises

It is understood that the proposed outbuilding (identified for use as a workshop and store) is to be used in connection with the Applicants’ gas fitter business. However, this is not a business with any direct need to operate from a rural area, or this site in particular. Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposal would be given direct support by Adopted Local Plan Policy D1. What is proposed would appear to be, or at least to include, an industrial use (Class 5). Unless linked to an operation with a demonstrable requirement for a countryside location, industrial uses would ordinarily be expected to be accommodated on existing business premises or allocated employment land within the Development Boundary.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6 (c)

Given that the Applicants have not demonstrated any requirement for the gas fitter business to be located in this specific countryside location, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy D1. It represents a use and form of development that could be more reasonably accommodated within the Development Boundary of a Settlement.

Applicants’ Personal Circumstances as a Material Consideration

The Applicants are aware that the site is isolated and that there are strict policy requirements that such a proposal be justified in relation to the operational needs of a business with a demonstrable need for a rural location. However, they seek an exceptional approval on the grounds that they consider that significant weight should be given to their particular circumstances.

These are specifically that the family has not chosen to leave their current home and would not otherwise be preparing to do so, had it not been for the railway project. They consider that in these circumstances, there should be some flexibility within the interpretation of planning policy to allow them to be accommodated within the same area, and in a home that is an equivalent in its amenities to the one that they are being compelled to relinquish.

They consider that they have made sufficient efforts to identify an appropriate replacement home within the area, but that nothing equivalent or suitable has been available. Accordingly, they advise that they have had no alternative in these circumstances, but to seek to progress a new-build project. Despite having made enquiries of other land owners within the area, the owner of the current site has been the only one with whom mutually-agreeable terms have been reached. This particular site and proposal are considered by the Applicants to be the family’s only means of being re-homed in a way that is at least equivalent in its amenities, to their existing property. It is further suggested that the loss of their current home to allow the railway project can itself be viewed as facilitating a wider benefit to the local area, and that this is also material to the determination of the current application.

It is appreciated that the Applicants find themselves in challenging circumstances and appreciated that Members may consider it reasonable to allow for more flexibility than would otherwise be the case within the interpretation of planning policy relative to this particular application. However, the two key policies, Policies D1 and D2, are clear in their requirements, and explicitly do not allow for any exceptional approvals in any circumstances. Only proposals that explicitly accord with their stated requirements are capable of support. If Members are nonetheless minded to consider that the Applicants’ circumstances do merit special consideration, it is appropriate to look in more detail at the Applicants’ supporting case and to make some assessment of it in terms of the points raised, and the extent to which these are themselves reasonable, before going on to consider the weight that it should be accorded within the determination.

The circumstances are unusual in this case, and it is correct for the Council to approach the situation sympathetically. This may allow some flexibility in the interpretation of normal policy, and might include, for example, the consideration of a site close to, but beyond, the recognised fringe of building groups or settlements (including at Falahill), or where there is some other existing residential presence.

Alternatively, policy permits replacement housing on the site of the house to be replaced, and some flexibility could be permitted for a replacement close to the site, given the particular circumstances of this case. It is not considered, however, that

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6 (c) flexibility could be extended to allow the establishment of a residential presence in an isolated location where none presently exists. The fact that the site is also some distance (approximately 2km) from the applicant’s current residence, suggests that it is likely that other, more suitable sites will be available in the intervening (or similar) distance.

The site is physically (by about half a kilometre) and visually separated from the nearest building group and would therefore appear as a newly established and isolated house in this location in a relatively prominent location at the roadside.

Identification of an Appropriate Replacement Dwellinghouse

The Applicants’ desire to live within the same area and in a dwellinghouse that is equivalent to the one that they are being forced to give up is entirely understandable and reasonable. However, beyond their conclusions, little detailed information has been given within the supporting case about their efforts to identify an appropriate replacement dwellinghouse within the surrounding area, let alone in terms that acknowledge the considerations informing and underlying planning policy.

(i) Area of Search for Replacement Dwellinghouse

Other than their stated preference to remain within the Heriot area, it is not clear what precisely the applicants’ ‘Area of Search’ has actually been. Therefore it cannot be adequately determined whether or not this has been unduly restrictive in geographical terms, which may have unnecessarily ruled out some existing properties or housing plots within the near vicinity that were available, capable of meeting the Applicants’ requirements and capable of complying with planning policy.

(ii) Requirements of Replacement Dwellinghouse

Another consideration is the Applicant’s definition of the requirements that they consider need to be met within the replacement residential property. A concern to maintain equivalent amenities and equivalent access to local services are entirely reasonable requirements. However, alongside these, the Applicants also appear to require the inclusion of capacity for the accommodation of a business premises for their gas fitter business. This particular aspect of the proposal is considered in more detail below, but for now it is noted that some consideration needs to be given as to what extent the accommodation of a detached business premises (workshop/store) within the curtilage of the residential property, is itself a reasonable requirement; and by extension, a cause for the Applicants to have imposed within their site selection process for the replacement dwellinghouse.

It is acknowledged that the Applicants consider that accommodation for the gas fitter business is already a component within their existing property but it appears that what is proposed by way of a business premises seems to be significantly greater than that which actually exists on their current property. Therefore, Members require to reach a view as to the weight that should be attached to the need for business premises as a justification for site selection. There is the possibility that disproportionate weight has been given to this particular consideration within their site selection process for the replacement dwellinghouse. This has the potential consequence that they may have missed or overlooked reasonable and acceptable opportunities for the replacement dwellinghouse to have been accommodated appropriately elsewhere.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6 (c)

(iii) Site Selection Process for Replacement Dwellinghouse

It is considered that all available opportunities should have been considered as a sequential exercise.

This might reasonably have commenced by considering those situations where the replacement dwellinghouse could have been accommodated in line with planning policy; and then, and only if necessary, go beyond these to consider those situations which in planning terms, were less preferable.

The Applicants advise that they have not been able to identify any suitable existing residential properties. However, if no suitable existing residential properties were available within the Area of Search, then it is conceivable that there may still have been opportunities to extend or augment existing properties, rather than resort to a new-build. There may also have been potential to convert existing building(s) to accommodate the family’s needs, potentially including non-residential buildings capable of conversion to this use. These however, are not identified as having been options that the Applicants have appropriately considered, explored, and ruled out.

If it had been established that there were no available and suitable existing dwellings, buildings capable of adaption, or existing housing plots within an appropriate Area of Search, then it would logically follow that the Applicants would, as they advise, have recourse to seek to establish a new housing plot.

In this event, it would be reasonable to have expected the Applicants to have sought to identify potentially suitable opportunities in accordance with planning policy, if not within the Development Boundary, then at least within a rural building group capable of augmentation. If it were demonstrated that no such opportunities were available, and if some flexibility were considered appropriate, then it may have been reasonable to seek to minimise any adverse impacts by locating any new-build property, either in association with an existing settlement and/or building group, primarily to avoid development in an isolated rural setting. If it were accepted that there was no possible way to avoid the latter, then an isolated development on a brownfield site would be preferable to the development of a greenfield site. As it stands however, the position that the Applicants are presenting is essentially the least preferable option, and in these circumstances, it is reasonable that they should be able to demonstrate that they have done everything possible to avoid this.

It is simply not clear that the Applicants have followed any type of hierarchy in their site selection process that has included within its frame of reference, any provision for planning considerations. There is no evidence of any meaningful attempt to identify opportunities which, if not capable of fully complying with the Council’s housing policies, could at least be regarded as having satisfied key aspects of those policies.

(iv) Site Specific Considerations

In terms of the site selection process that was conducted, the Applicant does advise that other land owners were engaged in dialogue but that they were only able to agree appropriate terms with the owner of the current site. Putting to one side the issue that the availability of land for sale should not in itself be material to the planning decision (representing as it does an economic rather than planning consideration), it is not clear why both parties have settled on this particular site

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6 (c) within this particular land owner’s ownership, rather than one within, or within closer proximity to, the building group at Falahill Farm.

The proposed site would appear to represent something of an distant position, in being located as far as possible from the building group at Falahill Farm. The proposed dwellinghouse would be isolated from the latter, both in distance and by intervening trees. Other than the Applicants’ stated desire to be in close proximity to the A7, there is no planning justification given for this specific proposed location, and it is not considered that the difference in distance from Falahill Farm to the vicinity of the road junction is especially great, or significant, as to justify the siting sought.

It is not accepted that the substantial remodelling of the road network in the area to the south and east, would create some new sense of a shared setting between the site and the Falahill Cottages.

With regard to a siting in closer proximity to Falahill Farm, it is understood that there may be some concerns with regard to the land owner’s capacity to upgrade the access road to Falahill Farm beyond the site, whereas the section of road adjacent to the site is within that area which is to be upgraded in connection with the wider railway works. However, given all the other considerations already identified above, it is not considered that this in itself, should be any determinant in the consideration of the acceptability of this proposal. Control over the access road is ultimately a legal rather than planning consideration, and it is not the role or purpose of the planning system to find ways around legal obstacles or impediments on behalf of the Applicants’, landowner’s, or any other private interest.

In land use planning terms, the issue is about whether the proposed buildings would be better related to the existing building group at Falahill, even if this relationship did not completely accord with policy requirements.

(v) Overview

In conclusion, it is not considered that the Applicants have demonstrated either that the site, or even more generally land within the ownership of this particular land owner, is their only viable option. The proposal of a new isolated rural dwellinghouse here is, in principle, contrary to the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy, and while the circumstances of the applicant can be considered material to the case, the exceptional justification to outweigh other policy requirements must still be robustly made.

If the current proposal is to be considered as a potential exceptional approval, then Members should be satisfied that all other options have been thoroughly investigated and appropriately discarded. However, given (a) the lack of clarity with regard to the geographical extent of the area of search, (b) the lack of clarity about the parameters that the Applicants have used to include/exclude available properties from their search; and (c) the lack of any reference to a hierarchy of most-to-least acceptable options in planning terms, it is not considered that this has been achieved.

In short, it is not considered that the Applicants have demonstrated any rigorous investigation and testing of the options that were potentially available to them. Accordingly, it is not considered that the Applicants have demonstrated any basis for making their proposal the subject of an approval as an exception to the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6 (c)

Identification of an Appropriate Replacement Business Premises

As noted above, the Applicants appear to have made the accommodation of an ancillary building for a gas fitter business premises a requirement within their site selection process for the replacement residential property. Whilst this may be a desirable requirement, it is not directly comparable with the applicant’s existing property, or at least, there is a concern that what is being sought is significantly greater than what actually exists within the curtilage of the Applicants’ existing property.

Proposed Workshop/Store Building

The proposed detached workshop would be set back from the proposed dwellinghouse, have its own separate access, and would be of a size that would be capable of accommodating an significant operation; it could even be capable of operation independently of the dwellinghouse.

As a structure, it is does not appear incidental in nature. Given that it would be roughly three quarters the size of the proposed dwellinghouse, it is not easily characterised as ancillary in appearance or use. Accordingly, it is not considered that a like-for-like workspace is being sought. Rather, what is proposed is on an altogether different scale, which would be capable of accommodating a level of operation that is simply not possible at the Applicants’ existing premises.

In strict accordance with Policy D1, the business proposal has not demonstrated any requirement for the proposed business premises to operate from this or any rural site. The expectation would certainly be that any sizeable industrial and storage building such as this, would be more reasonably and sustainably accommodated within the Development Boundary on an existing business premises, and/or on designated employment land, rather than operated from a greenfield site within the countryside. Notwithstanding that the Applicant has not provided any justification for the proposed siting and operation of a business premises at the site, it is considered that the business premises proposal is contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy D1.

(iii) Site Selection Process for Replacement Workshop/Store

Other than that the gas fitter business use is currently accommodated within the curtilage of the existing property, no justification is given as to why it needs to be located within the curtilage of the replacement dwellinghouse, and appropriate alternative arrangements are not explored.

In terms of site selection hierarchy, the Applicants could again have sought to make direct reference to the requirements of planning policy, working from situations capable of compliance with the latter, and only if necessary, proceeding from there to consider increasingly less preferable situations, once all opportunities capable of compliance with planning policy had been appropriately investigated and ruled out. This might have sought to demonstrate that there were no suitable existing or allocated business premises available to them within the surrounding area; and then beyond this, that there were no other alternative sites or buildings within the Development Boundary that were potentially capable of accommodating a change of use to industrial workshop. Assuming these options had been appropriately discarded, they could have moved on to consider the potential for any brownfield sites in the countryside to accommodate this use. Again, the use of a greenfield site, such as the application site, to accommodate an industrial use with no obvious requirement for a countryside location, would, and should, be seen as a last resort.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6 (c)

However, no such site selection hierarchy has been demonstrated, and it is considered that there has been insufficient information presented to demonstrate that appropriate consideration has been given to appropriate alternative arrangements for the accommodation of the workshop/store.

(iv) Need for Regulation in the Event of Approval

In the event that Members consider that the Applicants’ circumstances do outweigh the need to present a thorough site selection process as detailed above, and that these circumstances do merit an exceptional approval, it is considered that a planning condition should be imposed so that the business use of the outbuilding should be ancillary to the house, whose own justification would be significant in the justification for a business here. This would acknowledge the reason for granting permission here and prevent it from being used for any other purpose and/or by any third party.

It would also be appropriate to seek to tie the business premises to the dwellinghouse as one indivisible planning unit, and require by condition that it not be used for any residential use independent of, or otherwise separate from, the main dwellinghouse. This would again help ensure that it would not be used in any way other than as indicated by the Applicants in their supporting information and help safeguard the amenity of the proposed dwellinghouse and surrounding area.

(v) Overview

Both aspects of the proposal; dwellinghouse and business premises; are contrary to Adopted Local Plan Polices D2 and D1 respectively, and it is considered that the proposal should be refused on this basis. It is not considered that the Applicants have presented sufficient justification for any exceptional approval in either respect, while approval inevitably raises a number of concerns going forward, as to how this property might be appropriately regulated in the long-term.

Analogous Position to Planning Consent 11/01085/FUL

The Community Council has advised that the circumstances of this application are analogous to those of a previous planning approval, 11/01085/FUL, and consider that a similar view should be taken in terms of the weight that was given at that time to that applicant’s circumstances.

Planning permission 11/01085/FUL gave consent for a new dwellinghouse only (and not any related business premises) on the site of a former sawmill northwest of Borthwick Hall, Heriot. It was granted by Members contrary to the officer recommendation that the application should be refused as being contrary to the Council’s housing in the countryside policy. Members’ reason for this approval was that: “The stated circumstances of the applicant in this particular case, arising from the compulsory purchase of his existing property to enable the development of the Borders Railway, are considered a sufficiently material consideration to justify an exception to the Council’s adopted Housing in the Countryside policies, without setting a precedent for other housing development locally”.

The identified underlying reason for the above approval (an application for a replacement dwellinghouse precipitated by the impending loss of an existing dwellinghouse) is, if not exactly analogous, then very similar to the circumstances in which the current proposal has been brought forward. However, beyond this, it is not

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6 (c) considered that the proposals themselves are not directly comparable. First of all, the approval near Borthwick Hall related to the reuse of a brownfield site on which there were existing buildings (although not residential), and was not a greenfield site as in the case of the current proposal. Secondly, the approval only gave consent for a replacement dwellinghouse and not for any detached business premises building, least of all for any detached workshop/storage building for industrial use. The current proposal is of a very different character from the proposal that was the subject of this previous approval, and raises some issues and concerns that are peculiar to it, and which were not raised by the proposal that was the subject of the previous planning approval.

It is not considered that permission 11/01085/FUL has set any sort of precedent that could be followed in the consideration of the current application. Indeed, the justification for that decision specifically refers to that issue in that the decision notice states that permission would be granted “without setting a precedent for other housing development locally”.

Design, Layout, Landscape and Visual Impacts

Notwithstanding a slight horizontal emphasis, it is considered that the proposed design for the dwellinghouse would be acceptable, although certain details do require further consideration. These would more specifically be the heavy eaves detailing, finished materials and finished colours. However, all these matters are capable of being appropriately addressed by planning condition.

The proposed workshop building is of a somewhat ambiguous character. While it would appropriately be clad in materials to match the house, it would nonetheless be a particularly large building, and readily capable of being ‘read’ as a separate dwellinghouse, at least from a distance. This would not only be as a consequence of its considerable size, but also because of its detachment from the main dwellinghouse, its separate driveway, its own car port and a masonry chimney. Notwithstanding that the latter two are very similar (the chimney might appropriately be substituted by a flue to counteract the overly-domestic appearance), these features in combination, would suggest a separate and residential use rather than an outbuilding within the same curtilage as the dwellinghouse.

In terms of design, and if the proposal is otherwise acceptable, then there is the possibility that a robust landscaping treatment for the site could mitigate the impact of this building, and making its presence less obvious from the public road to the south and east. If the proposal is otherwise considered to be acceptable, then the potential for the outbuilding to have the appearance of a residential property, is not necessarily unacceptable visually. At least glimpses of this type of building would be preferable to a structure of a more obviously industrial character.

With regard to layout, it is not entirely clear why the two buildings, components within the same property, should be set so far apart from one another, and why they require to be set so far back into the plot as is proposed, particularly given that there is no meaningful reference to any surrounding residential properties. This splayed layout is patently not a traditional rural building group layout and would work against the buildings being ‘read’ as a modest rural homestead, or traditional farmsteading within the wider landscape. This gives rise to the concern that the two uses could be separated. The 3D drawings of the two buildings indicate a decidedly suburban rather than rural character, although this appearance is capable of being softened, if not screened out entirely, by robust landscaping to the east and south.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 6 (c)

Similarly, it is unclear why the buildings could not be centred on the plot, rather than occupying, as they would, the northern and western extremity of the site. It is reasoned that the latter at least, may be liable to reflect a concern to maintain some distance from the busy A7, but it would result in an over-sized plot relative to the buildings themselves, and it is not clear what use the area to the east of the buildings would serve in relation to these. A critical concern would be to ensure that it would not be used as a yard in connection with the proposed workshop/business premises, or allow for any greater employment use than is currently indicated.

If permission were to be granted, a planning condition could require further details of the landscaping of the site, and if considered appropriate, a garden boundary in closer proximity to the house than is being proposed. If it were not to be used as a paddock, it is considered that the area to the east of the house might be more appropriately used for tree planting rather than as an area of outsized area of garden ground. Tree-planting would at least allow for some screening of the residential use in views from the A7, and help conserve the appearance of a rural boundary and accommodate the buildings more discreetly.

It is considered that in combination with a good landscaping scheme, the landscape and visual impact of the proposal would not be unacceptable. This is largely because there is considerable potential afforded by the site itself to screen out views of the property. However, appropriate conditions would need to be imposed to address standard concerns such as precise details of materials and finishes.

Nevertheless, the fact that landscape and visual impacts are limited should not, in itself, be a justification for considering the development acceptable, as it could be applied to any proposal for isolated development, regardless of other justification.

Road Safety, Access and Parking

Given the certainty that the required road works to upgrade the junction from Falahill Farm to the A7 are going ahead, it is not considered that the imposition of a planning condition along the lines suggested by Roads Planning would be unacceptable per se. This however, would need to be suspensively worded, and include the need for the visibility splays to have been achieved as well as any works to the roads themselves, before any construction works could begin on-site.

It is noted that the land required for the upgrade of the junction has only been temporarily vested in Network Rail and would be returned to the original owners, who are not the same owners as the application site. Moreover, the original owners have explicitly stated that they have no intention of either upgrading the private access road themselves, and that they would not be agreeable to anyone else doing so.

There may well be an issue with regard to the Applicants’ future and long-term ability to maintain the access to their property along that section of the private access road between their property and the junction with the A7. However, Roads have verbally confirmed that they are content that the road improvements delivered in relation to the railway works would be of sufficient quality as to be capable of accommodating appropriately traffic movements at the junction in the long-term. It is also reasonable that in the long-term, the owners of the private access road would themselves need to maintain the road surface appropriately for their own use, if not to address any legal obligations to do so, for the convenience of those other users who have a right of access over it. Accordingly, it is not considered that there are any grounds for objection with regard to the need to use a section of the private access, provided that

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6 (c) the section concerned has been appropriately upgraded before development would actually commence.

Residential Amenity

Notwithstanding the concerns of objectors, and given the degree of set back of the proposed property from the closest surrounding residential properties, the proposal would have no unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of any neighbouring dwellings.

Similarly, it is unlikely that any business use of the premises, particularly in conjunction with any traffic noise on the A7, would be liable to have any unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of any neighbouring residential properties.

A condition requiring that the two buildings remain within the same ownership would also ensure that the operation of a business from the premises, would have no unacceptable impacts upon the residential amenity of the proposed dwellinghouse.

Natural Heritage

The concerns of the Ecology Officer are all readily capable of being addressed by planning conditions and informatives.

The above noted concern to agree a landscaping scheme in the event of approval, would provide the sort of opportunities that the Ecology Officer identifies, as being capable of delivering habitat enhancement.

Infrastructure

Scotland Gas Networks’ advice with regard to the presence of National Grid pipelines in the vicinity of the site is noted. The National Grid were consulted but did not respond to the public consultation to advise if they had any concerns with regard to impacts upon their infrastructure. In the event of approval, an informative could note the potential for the National Grid to be concerned about its infrastructure, and advise that no works be commenced until the National Grid has first been consulted.

Consultation with the Health and Safety Executive indicates that there is no concern in terms of the development being located within the outer zone of the pipeline.

Development Contributions

The assessment of the Community Council on development contributions is considered reasonable.

Given that the Applicants would still be in the same catchment area for local schools as their existing dwellinghouse, and given the existing house would be lost and not re-occupied, it is considered that there would be no requirement in principle to seek any development contributions, as there would be no additional burden on school infrastructure.

Given, also, that the need for the replacement house is a direct consequence of the railway project, it is agreed with the Community Council that in principle, it would be unreasonable to require payment of any contribution towards the railway reinstatement works.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6 (c)

Accordingly, in permission were to be agreed, no legal agreement would be sought to secure development contributions from the Applicants.

Legal Agreement

There is a risk – at least theoretically– that planning permission having been secured, the plot and/or constructed dwellinghouse could be transferred within the short-term, to a third party (or retained by the landowner), who would then be in a position to benefit, firstly, from a planning approval that they themselves would not have been able to secure based on their own circumstances; and secondly, to do so without there being any requirement for them to make any contributions towards local education and/or the railway reinstatement works.

To avoid that risk, it is considered that if Members are supportive of the current application, it would be reasonable to seek to make a tri-party legal agreement with the Applicants and the land owners, which should have the effect of making the planning consent specific to the Applicants themselves and the site in particular. This would at least regulate the use of the plot itself, ensuring that it would not be sold on to a third party in the short term.

In addition, it may also be reasonable to identify a minimum period of time that the Applicants themselves would have to be resident within the completed property before it could be sold on, to ensure that it is built and thereafter used for their own occupation, rather than becoming available for onward sale on to a third party before, or shortly after, the house is actually completed. For this reason, it is considered that the Applicants should themselves be required to occupy the property for a minimum period of time (for example, three years) sufficient to demonstrate their commitment to it being delivered and then used as a replacement dwellinghouse, rather than the housing plot secured by any planning permission becoming an asset that is capable of being traded on, without it ever having actually been used as a replacement residential property.

After an agreed minimum period of time, it would of course only be reasonable that they would then be able to sell it on as they would any other property.

It is recognised that such legal burdens would require a fine balance. On the one hand, care would need to be taken not to introduce any particularly significant level of restriction than the Applicants would otherwise not have been subject to had they been able to stay on in their existing home. On the other, appropriate controls would need to be in place to ensure that any planning permission granted would only ever be implemented to serve the purpose for which it has been identified; that is, as the Applicants’ replacement home, and not for any other purpose.

Other Concerns

One of the objectors considers that if the Council are amenable to granting an exceptional approval in this case, they would then be obliged to grant approval for new farm worker accommodation at Falahill. However, this matter could only be considered on its own merits and in direct relation to any justification for additional farm worker accommodation at Falahill Farm.

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding that the Applicants find themselves in circumstances not of their own making, it is not considered that they have demonstrated that there are any material

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6 (c) considerations so great as to outweigh the need to determine the application in accordance with the Council’s adopted Housing in the Countryside Policy for a house in this particular location.

There has been little evidence of an appropriate and rigorous site selection process that has itself been directly informed by the considerations of either the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policy or the Council’s Rural Business Policy.

Furthermore, the inclusion of a new detached business premises as a key requirement means that the replacement proposed is not on a like-for-like basis and may therefore have overlooked otherwise suitable alternatives.

For all of the above reasons, it is considered that the application should be refused.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend that the application is refused for the following reason:

1 The proposed development is contrary in principle to Adopted Local Plan Policy D2 and Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside (December 2008) in that it lies outwith the Development Boundary, and (i) the site is not well-related to any existing rural building group and (ii) the Applicants have not demonstrated that there is an operational need for a new dwellinghouse to be located at the site, nor that the stated exceptional circumstances are sufficient to justify a house in this particular location.

2 The proposed development is contrary in principle to Adopted Local Plan Policy D1 in that the site lies out with the Development Boundary, and the Applicants have not demonstrated that the business to be accommodated has an economic and/or operational need for this particular countryside location and could not more reasonably be accommodated within the Development Boundary.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Ref Plan Type

Location Plan AL1/A Planning Layout AL2/A Elevations AL3/A Elevations Location Plan

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director (Regulatory Services) The original version of this report has been signed by the Service Director Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Stuart Herkes Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6 (c)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 6(d)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

2 JUNE 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 14/00424/FUL OFFICER: Stuart Herkes WARD: Galashiels and District PROPOSAL: Formation of covered balcony (retrospective) SITE: 29 Cockholm Crescent, Stow APPLICANT: Alexander Aitchison AGENT:

CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Planning Application 14/00424/FUL is referred to the Planning and Building Standards Committee for determination in accordance with the approved Scheme of Delegation, which requires that Members’ own applications be referred for the scrutiny of the Committee.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is an existing residential property at No 29 Cockholm Crescent, Stow. It lies outwith the Conservation Area.

The dwellinghouse is situated on a steep slope and is split-level, with the effect that that it is directly accessible at both ground floor and first floor levels, to the south and north respectively.

On the east elevation is a raised timber deck that is at the same level as the dwelling’s first floor level accommodation, from where it is directly accessible. However, it is supported on uprights (over 3m) which rise from a ground level that is significantly lower. The deck, or balcony feature so formed, is sufficiently large in its area as to accommodate an outdoors sitting area, and was erected at the same time as the house.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks retrospective approval for the installation of a canopy over the aforementioned raised deck, which has the effect of creating a covered balcony area.

The canopy takes the form of a very shallow mono-pitch, which is itself extensively glazed, so as to be predominantly transparent. It is supported on a white-coated metal frame.

PLANNING HISTORY

Planning Consent 04/02114/FUL gave permission for a dwellinghouse, which was itself an amendment to a previous consent (96/01446/FUL).

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(d)

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

One representation has been received in response to the public consultation, which raises concerns in relation to the proposed development as follows:

(i) potential to promote similar developments in the surrounding area; (ii) adverse visual impact due to size, scale, materials and industrial character; and (iii) potential for greater disturbance to neighbours from noise nuisance, as a consequence of the covered deck allowing occupants to remain outdoors longer.

Additionally, further concerns are noted with regard to other works advised to have been carried out in relation to the same property, and with respect to the use of the property. It is advised that it appears to have been subdivided into flats.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

None beyond the details required to validate the application.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

There were no statutory consultees.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 - Quality Standards For New Development Policy H2 - Protection of Residential Amenity

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Householder Developments (July 2006)

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether or not the covered balcony is appropriate in its character to the residential property, and the residential area; and

x Whether or not the covered balcony is liable to give rise to any unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of any surrounding residential properties.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

A covered balcony is compatible with a residential use and raises no concerns in principle.

Design and Layout

Given that there was a pre-existing raised deck dating from the construction of the house, the principal focus for consideration is the visual impact of the addition of the canopy.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(d)

While there is the possibility that the additional shelter from the elements may encourage prolonged periods of sitting on the deck, the potential for overlooking remain as previously. For completeness, however, these effects are considered here as part of the overall impacts of the development now proposed.

The neighbour has raised concerns with regard to the appearance of the canopy, principally that it is not sympathetic to a residential context.

The structure is both very visible and a little unusual in its form, but it is not considered that it is reasonably characterised as being unsympathetic either to the residential property with which it is associated, or to the surrounding area.

The dwellinghouse already has an individual character as a consequence of the need to negotiate changes in ground level, and the covered balcony in many ways reflects this. The addition of the canopy does sit comfortably with the design of the house and reflects a similarly enclosed terrace already present on the southern elevation of the house.

Notwithstanding the prominence of the balcony and canopy in views from the public footpath to the east and south, the structure retains an appropriately subordinate character. Other than within close proximity, it is also largely concealed within views from within Cockholm Crescent itself, due to the surrounding streetscape, in relation to which it occupies a recessed position.

White is not a recessive colour, but the structure is quite lightweight in that below the level of the canopy, it is only a framework; and above this, it is extensively glazed. Moreover, it is liable to be viewed from both surrounding properties and the public domain, against a backdrop of white and light coloured walls of the main dwellinghouse. Although the frame is extensive in the very localised context of the eastern elevation of the house, its wider impacts are not significant.

Given the pre-existence of the deck and the design of the existing house, it is considered that the visual impacts of the canopy are acceptable.

Residential Amenity

The deck, covered or otherwise, has not given rise to any unacceptable level of overlooking of any neighbouring properties.

The neighbour’s concerns are not however with privacy, but with the potential for greater disturbance to his own property (No 32 Cockholm Crescent) as a consequence of noise nuisance of greater duration (as opposed to volume).

The particular concern appears to be that the canopy is directly facilitating an increased use in time of the balcony area, by allowing it to be used for longer periods and/or in weather conditions when it would otherwise not have been in use prior to the construction of the canopy. However, regardless of the substance of the neighbour’s concerns, and in general terms, noise nuisance emanating from within the curtilage of a residential property is not generally a planning consideration, in that no account can reasonably be taken of the potential for the improper use of any householder development. The potential for disturbance could exist from a residential property regardless of the presence of structures. Antisocial behaviour, if a concern, would ultimately be a police matter.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(d)

Due to the distance of set back from surrounding properties, as well as the predominantly transparent quality of the structure, it is not considered that the proposal raises any other residential amenity concerns, such as unacceptable overshadowing or loss of daylight

Other Concerns

It is noted that the neighbour has raised concerns with regard to other alterations at the property and also to the use of the property as flats and/or holiday lets. Even if these were issues – and they can be investigated separately – they do not affect the structure for which permission has been applied, and any decision should be based solely on the impacts of the development proposed.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposed canopy, and resultant covered balcony area, do not have any unacceptable impacts upon the environment or amenity of the surrounding area, including surrounding residential properties. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is approved.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Ref Plan Type

Location Plan Sections Elevations Photos

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director (Regulatory Services)

The original version of this report has been signed by the Service Director Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Stuart Herkes Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(d)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 ITEM 7

PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS

Briefing Note by Service Director Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

2nd June 2014

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this briefing note is to give details of Appeals and Local Reviews which have been received and determined during the last month.

2 APPEALS RECEIVED

2.1 Planning Applications

Nil

2.2 Enforcements

Nil

3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

Nil

3.2 Enforcements

Nil

4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING

4.1 There remained 3 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 21st May 2014. This relates to sites at:

x Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk x Blythe Farm (Brunta Hill), Lauder x Allanshaws Farmhouse x (Shawpark), Galashiels

Planning & Building Standards Committee 2nd June 2014 1 5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED

5.1 Reference: 13/01361/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind turbine 41.8m high to tip and formation of new access track Site: Land North West of Helenslea, Primsidemill, Yetholm Appellant: Mr James Wauchope

Reason for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to Policies G1 and D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Wind Energy 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Local Landscape Designations 2012. The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon the local landscape character, due to the height of the proposed turbine and the prominence of the site within the local landscape, which would result in an overbearing and visually intrusive structure that would be significantly visible across a range of sensitive receptors, including the St Cuthbert’s Way, the SSSI, the Cheviot Foothills Special Landscape Area and to a lesser extent, the Pennine Way. It is not considered that these concerns would be outweighed by any social or economic benefit to be derived from the location and operation of the proposed turbine.

5.2 Reference: 13/01413/FUL Proposal: Erection of two dwellinghouses with detached garages (renewal of previous consent 08/01601/FUL) Site: Plots 3 and 4 Land North East of Earlston Mains Farmhouse, Earlston Appellant: James Reilly

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary in principle to Adopted Local Plan Policy D2, and the advice of Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside (December 2008) and Supplementary Planning Guidance - Place-Making and Design (January 2010), in that it is not in keeping with the character, sense of place and setting of the building group at Earlston Mains or with the landscape and amenity of the surrounding area, principally through the unsympathetic extension of the building group beyond its defined sense of place, into a previously undeveloped field.

6 REVIEWS DETERMINED

6.1 Reference: 13/01382/FUL Proposal: Installation of roller shutter door Site: 2 Elm Court, Cavalry Park, Peebles Appellant: Mr Paul Sewell

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would be contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy G1 in that it would directly facilitate loading/unloading from a location that would have a detrimental impact upon the use of parking spaces at the site and upon the level and effective operation of parking provision within the surrounding area, namely through delivery vehicles either occupying or otherwise compromising the use of the parking spaces to the immediate east of Unit 2 and consequent displacement of parked vehicles.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 2nd June 2014 2 Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned

6.2 Reference: 14/00026/PPP Proposal: Erection of Farmhouse and Detached Garage Site: Land South of Mossfennan House, Broughton Appellant: Mr and Mrs Sandy Welsh

Reason for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to Scottish Borders Local Plan Policy D2 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Housing in the Borders Countryside in that the proposed site lies outwith any recognised building group and the economic and operational requirement for a new house has not been adequately demonstrated due to the presence of suitable alternative residential accommodation on the farm holding.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned

6.3 Reference: 14/00049/FUL Proposal: Change of Use from Class 1 (Travel Agent) to Class 2 (Estate Agent) Site: 43 The Square, Kelso Appellant: Mr James Hewit

Reason for Refusal: The proposed use would be contrary to Policy ED4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that it would result in the loss of a Class 1 retail unit and introduce a non-retail use into the Prime Retail Frontage at this location. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed change of use to Class 2 office would safeguard the vitality and vibrancy of Kelso town centre. Material considerations, including the vacancy of the unit and the current economic climate, have been accounted for but do not outweigh the conflict with Policy ED4.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned

7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING

7.1 There remained 2 reviews previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 21st May 2014. This relates to the site at:

x Whiterig Farm, Eyemouth x Ninewells South Lodge, Chirnside

Approved by

Brian Frater Service Director Regulatory Services

Signature ……………………………………

Planning & Building Standards Committee 2nd June 2014 3 Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Wemyss Administrative Assistant 01835 824000 Ext 5409

Background Papers: None. Previous Minute Reference: None.

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Tel. No. 01835 825431 Fax No. 01835 825071 Email: [email protected]

Planning & Building Standards Committee 2nd June 2014 4