Scottish Borders Council Planning and Building Standards Committee

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

MINUTE of MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 3 March 2014 at 10a.m. ------

Present: - Councillors R Smith (Chairman), M. Ballantyne, S. Bell, J. Brown, J. Fullarton, I. Gillespie, D. Moffat, S. Mountford, B. White. In Attendance:- Development Standards Manager, Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager, Managing Solicitor – Commercial Services, Democratic Services Team Leader, Democratic Services Officer (Fiona 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 3 February 2014.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

BUILT AND NATURAL HERITAGE 3. The Chairman welcomed Keith Robeson, Senior Countryside Ranger and Neil MacKay, Senior Access Officer to the meeting to give a presentation to Members on Countryside and Access in relation to Planning Applications. It was explained that the team – consisting of a Senior Countryside Ranger, Senior Access Officer, Paths for All Co-ordinator, 3 access Rangers, a Senior Path Warden and a Path Warden were primarily charged with the protection, enhancement and promotion of countryside access to considerable natural and built assets of the Scottish Borders. The key drivers were the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and Health and Wellbeing Agenda. In particular the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 provided for public access to open country to include cyclists and horse riding, to protect and maintain rights of way, the creation of public paths and Long Distance Routes, the acquisition by planning authorities of land for public access, Interpretation and Scottish Natural Heritage historically funded countryside ranger services. In relation to promotion, it was highlighted that the Scottish Borders contained six of Scotland’s twenty six Great Trails and seventy eight miles of Scotland’s National Trail. There was a Paths Around programme which covered the thirteen major settlements; Guided Walks programme; Walking Festival, Nature Festival and Heritage Festival; Interpretation and public art and Educational outreach.

4. Neil Mackay went on to explain the Council’s duties under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 which included – powers to Uphold Access Rights; Core Paths Plan – maintenance of and reasonable public access; advice and assistance to the Local Access Forum and promotion of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. In terms of the Core Paths Plan, it was explained that the plan provided rights of responsible access, had taken 3 years to develop and required to be ‘sufficient for the purpose of giving the public rights of responsible access throughout their area’. The plan had to meet the needs of the users, provide a range of path types for a variety of users, assist sound land management and consult and review. The Outdoor Access Strategy 2003 had to be integrated into Local Transport and Access Strategy.

5. In terms of protection the Land Reform & Countryside Act imposed a statutory duty to maintain 1000km of Core Path Network, manage 1200km of promoted path network, Assert 1 Item No. 4 3000kms of wider path network, provide a Bridge maintenance/replacement programme, assist and advise the Access Forum, Path maintenance programme, Manage Coldingham Bay (RNLI) and Lindean Loch and Policy (e.g. SPP11) - Access ‘material consideration’– (safeguard, diversions, new routes, definition of curtilage agreement, enhancement). The Team were also responsible for continual improvement at 32 Countryside./Heritage sites e.g. Colingham Bay, 250 Bridges, Major path upgrades e.g. Whithaugh, Roxburgh and Duns gateway, approximately 4,000 structures and 2,800 signposting. In terms of the the Health and Wellbeing Agenda, this was undertaken by Denise Carmichael, Paths to Health Co-ordinator. The Walk It Project which had established 24 Active Groups in the Borders Towns, had initially been focused in areas of deprivation, but was now Borders Wide and had grown 330% over the last 5 years. Over 80 volunteer Walk Leaders had been trained and were managed under the project, with dual reporting lines to Scottish Borders Council and NHS Borders. There were many linked projects such as Day Centre Groups and between April 2013 and September 2013 there were 418 walks undertaken with 4728 Walkers attending. It was highlighted that Denise had won the Paths for All - Volunteer Project Manager of the Year 2013. The Chairman thanked Mr Robeson and Mr MacKay for their presentation, which would be circulated to all Members.

DECISION NOTED.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 6. Councillor Fullarton declared a non pecuniary interest in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct in respect of planning application 13/00615/FUL and left the meeting during its consideration.

APPLICATIONS 7. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

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

ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12.50 p.m. for lunch and reconvened at 1.30 p.m.

URGENT BUSINESS 8. Under Section 50B(4)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Chairman was of the opinion that the item dealt with in the following paragraph should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency, in view of the need to make an early decision.

APPLICATION 9. There had been circulated copies of report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on an application for planning permission in respect of Modification on planning obligation pursuant to planning permission 97/00143/FUL and 03/02276/FUL.

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

HIGH HEDGES (SCOTLAND) ACT 2013 10. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Director of Environment and Infrastructure which outlined the provisions of the High Hedges (Scotland) Act 2013 which was expected to come into force on or after 1 April 2014, and sought approval of two key procedural decisions which would enable the Council to fulfil these new statutory obligations. The report explained that Formal notice of the commencement and implementation of the Act’s requirements had not yet been issued by the Scottish Government. Similarly, finalised guidance, which would set out the processes for the implementation of the Act had not yet been issued. However, it was necessary to consider 2 Item No. 4 the likely requirements of the Act and to make decisions on the schedule of fees and the scheme of delegation in order to be prepared for the Council to fulfil its statutory role in the process, which may be required to commence at short notice. The specific actions required were as set out in the recommendations in the report. The Members raised concerns with regard to the right to appeal. It was explained that the Act aimed to provide an effective means of resolving disputes over the effects of a high hedge and allowed home owners and occupiers to apply to a local authority for a High Hedge Notice. In terms of process, neighbours must attempt to resolve and provide evidence to the Council that they have sought to resolve the issue themselves before applying for a High Hedge Notice. An application to the Council for a High Hedge Notice was a last resort. Unlike other applications, the Council would undertake a detailed technical on site survey and appraisal of the nature of the hedge, site characteristics and the relation to domestic properties and habitable rooms. Members were of the opinion that the level of fee proposed was too low considering that it was unlikely to fully cover the cost of providing the Notice. Councillor Mountford, seconded by Councillor Bell moved that the fee be increased to £400 and this was unanimously agreed. It was further agreed that a review be carried out after 6 months of operation. This report should also include a process flow chart and specify the grounds on which applications could be referred to Committee.

DECISION (a) AGREED that:-

(i) the fee for High Hedge Notices be set at £400 per applicant;

(ii) that the process be reviewed after 6 months, with further clarification on the matters being referred to Committee, together with a flow chart of the process.

* (b) AGREED TO RECOMMEND to Council that:-

(i) the Scheme of Delegation be amended to include the determination of High Hedges Notices in the delegation of powers to the Service Director Regulatory Services;

(ii) the Scheme of Administration be amended to enable the Planning and Building Standards Committee to determine cases where the officer delegation described in (i) above was not exercised.

PROPOSED REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS AND LEGAL AGREEMENT PROCESSES. 11. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Director of Environment and Infrastructure which set out proposed changes to the existing processes for negotiating Developer Contributions including revised arrangements for the drafting of associated Legal Agreements. Mr Bowie, Development Negotiator explained that there was a continuing need for the Council to improve the speed with which it determined planning applications in order to meet Scottish Government objectives. This would become even more important when the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill which introduced the prospect of a financial penalty for poor performance was enacted. The time taken to conclude legal agreements related to development contributions had been identified as a significant contributor in extending the time taken to release consent for planning applications in the Scottish Borders. The report summarised the identified routes considered by officers to address current deficiencies as well as highlighting the anticipated risks and benefits that may result from the proposed changes.

3 Item No. 4 DECISION (a) NOTED and endorsed the proposed procedural changes to processing Development Contributions and Legal Agreements.

(b) AGREED to the publication of amended Supplementary Planning Guidance.

REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION POLICY. 12. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Director of Environment and Infrastructure which proposed an amendment to the Development Contributions Policy and a review of the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. The report considered whether the existing development contribution policy should be amended to remove the burden from small/medium-scale developments and to assist with the stimulation of new house-building. This included consideration of the impact that changing the thresholds in terms of residential unit numbers at which Development Contributions were sought would have upon receipts and values for Scottish Borders Council. Some small/medium-scale residential developers contended that development contributions were disproportionately onerous on smaller/medium-scale residential development projects. This, they asserted, directly constrained development activity consequently inhibiting and suppressing associated economic benefits. As, in predominantly rural authority areas, smaller/medium-scale developments could comprise of a proportionately high volume of planning applications, this negative impact could cumulatively be significant. Five options had been identified as part of the review and these were detailed in the report. Mr Bowie Development Negotiator was present to answer Members questions.

DECISION AGREED to:-

(a) retain policy position as existing in terms of thresholds for seeking Development Contributions;

(b) amend the threshold, as detailed in Option 4, at which on-site Affordable Housing was sought from 5 to 17 residential units, instead accepting a commuted sum for residential proposals for 2 – 16 units; and

(c) review Affordable Housing Policy implementation, the proposed amendments to the Supplementary Planning Guidance and issue for consultation.

APPEALS AND REVIEWS 13. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews.

DECISION NOTED that:-

(a) 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 dwellinghouse with integral garage on Plot 1 Land South West of Blackhouse Farm Cottages, Reston - 11/01657/FUL

4 Item No. 4 (ii) Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage on Plot 2 Land South West of Blackhouse Farm Cottages, Reston - 11/01658/FUL

(iii) Removal of condition from planning consents B315/94 and 00/00458/FUL to allow residency to be outwith connection to business or agriculture at Kinegar House, Cockburnspath - 13/01121/FUL

(i) Extension to dwellinghouse at 29 Headrig, Jedburgh - 13/00996/FUL

(ii) Extension to dwellinghouse at Briar Cottage, Ettrickhaugh Road, Selkirk - 13/01103/FUL

(d) there remained 2 reviews outstanding in respect of;-

x Deanfoot Road, West Linton x Plot 2 Huntshaw Road, Earlston

PRIVATE BUSINESS 14. DECISION AGREED under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the business detailed in Appendix I to this Minute on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 7A to the Act.

SUMMARY OF PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINUTE 1. The Committee approved the private section of the Minute of the Meeting of 3 February 2014.

MODIFICATION OF A PLANNING OBLIGATION 2. The Committee agreed to approve the recommendations contained in a report by the Director of Environment and Infrastructure.

The meeting concluded at 3:05 p.m.

5 Item No. 4 APPENDIX

APPLICATIONS 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: Continued to enable a site visit to take place which would clarify how a barn system poultry unit operated and for the Environmental Health Officer to attend the next meeting of the Committee to answer questions on potential nuisance to residents of this type of unit. In particular Members requested information on: Noise levels and mitigation thereof Manure collection Dust levels and mitigation Implications of the number of hens being housed in the proposed system.

NOTE Mrs Fiona Hodgkiss and Angie McDougall spoke on behalf of the objectors against the application. Mr Ian Campbell, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

13/00615/FUL Erection of 2 wind turbines 77.9m to Land North West of tip and associated infrastructure Shepherds House (Haud Yauds), Moorhouse Coldingham

Decision : Approved subject a legal agreement addressing contribution towards (i) archaeological study and evaluation and (ii) to maintenance/improvement of the public path and cycle networks; and the following conditions:

Commencement and Conformity:

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 be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Authority, but subject to any revisions required because other conditions have required non-material variations to be made, in response to matters arising. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3. Prior to commencement of development, and prior to the commencement of any enabling works required to facilitate the development (including on-site ground investigation), a finalised site layout plan showing clearly any changes to siting/micrositing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority.

The micrositing of turbines shall respond to the requirements of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency in respect of removing the easternmost turbine entirely off the M23 GWDTE described in the December 2013 Addendum to the Environmental Statement. The micrositing shall also respond to the requirement to minimise risk to bats, as described in the planning consultation response of Scottish Natural Heritage dated 5 February 2014.

If found to be necessary, the site layout plan shall be supplemented by further wireline visualisations or other graphical material showing the visual impacts resulting from the changes.

6 Item No. 4 Reason: changes are necessary to respond to concerns relating to ecology, habitat and potentially archaeology. These changes are not material to nature of the development, but will be required to minimise environmental impacts. It is essential that the implications of any changes to layout are considered in terms of the visual effects they would cause.

Micrositing:

4. Notwithstanding any reference to a Micrositing requirement described in the Environmental Statement forming part of the planning application, all further Micrositing allowances are not agreed and any further change to layout shall be agreed formally in writing by the planning authority. Reason: to prevent the occurrence of potential adverse visual impacts, and adverse effects relating to ecology, habitat and archaeology.

Turbine Model:

5. Prior to commencement of development, precise details of the actual turbine intended for use at the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority. These details shall include a technical specification which includes noise output. Only the turbines agreed in response to this condition shall be used, unless further consent to vary the turbine model has been agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: to ensure that the turbines are compatible with the locality in terms of their appearance and noise output, to protect both visual and residential amenity.

Materials:

6. Prior to commencement of development, details of the external finishes of any items other than the turbines themselves which are on or above ground shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details agreed in response to this condition. The details shall include the uppermost track surfacing, substation and transformer unit materials/colours/textures. Reason: to ensure that there is certainty relating to the visible components of the development, so that the development is visually compatible with its locality.

Road Safety:

7. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit a detailed drawing of the proposed junction of the new access with the A1107 public road. Following consideration and approval by the planning authority, the junction shall be formed in strict accordance with the details approved in response to this condition. Reason: to ensure that the site access is constructed in such a way as to protect the safety of road (and site) users.

8. Prior to commencement of development, and prior to the transportation of any components of the development that will require provisions to be made to accommodate abnormal loads, a detailed traffic management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Transportation of all abnormal loads shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the details approved in response to this condition. Reason: to ensure that the transportation of the development components does not prejudice the amenity and safety of users of the local road network, including those who are residents, affected most noticeably by the imposition caused by traffic movements.

9. Prior to commencement of the development, details of the measures to be implemented at the entrance to the site to prevent mud and dust entering the public highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved measures shall be implemented and shall remain in place throughout the construction of the development. Reason: to ensure that measures are taken to minimise disruption to road users, and to ensure that road safety is maintained.

Decommissioning: 7 Item No. 4

10. This permission shall expire and the development hereby permitted shall be removed thereafter in accordance with this condition after a period of 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from any of the wind turbines to the electricity grid network (“First Export Date”). Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Planning Authority within 1 month of the First Export Date.

No later than 18 months prior to the end of the planning permission, or by such later date as may be agreed by the Planning Authority, a method statement for the decommissioning of the wind farm and the restoration of the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This method statement shall include the removal of the above-ground elements of the development, the treatment of ground surfaces, management and timing of the works, environmental management provisions and a traffic management plan to address any traffic issues during the decommissioning period. Decommissioning in accordance with the approved method statement shall be completed within 6 months of the end of the period of this planning permission or any alternative timescale agreed with the Planning Authority in writing and shall include the dismantling and removal from the site of all turbines, buildings and ancillary development. Reason: To ensure an indicative scheme is submitted by the wind farm operator and approved by the Planning Authority for the decommissioning of the wind farm at the end of its 25 year proposed lifespan.

11. Within 24 months following the end of the period of the consent, all wind turbines, ancillary equipment and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site, and the land shall be restored and subject to aftercare, in accordance with a restoration and aftercare scheme that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. This scheme shall address any requirement for the retention of access tracks subject to the agricultural operations of the landowner. For the purposes of this condition 'restored' means the removal of all wind turbines, initial layer of turbine foundations, tracks and hardsurfaces as detailed in the approved scheme, all buildings and ancillary development and restoration of the site. Reason: To ensure that a plan is in place for the restoration of the site and to provide for changes in circumstances relating to best practice towards the end of the life of the development.

Turbine Failure/Removal:

12. In the event of any wind turbine failing to produce electricity supplied to the local grid for a continuous period of 12 months, not due to it being under repair or replacement then it will be deemed to have ceased to be required, and unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, wind turbine foundation to a depth of 1.2m below ground level, the wind turbine and its ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the site restored to a condition to be agreed by the Planning Authority. The restoration of the land shall be completed within 6 months of the removal of the turbine, or any such longer period agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: to safeguard against the landscape and visual environmental impacts associated with the retention of any turbines that are deemed no longer to be operationally required.

Financial Provisions (Restoration):

13. Prior to commencement of development (excepting enabling works), details of the financial provisions, including the amount of the financial provisions and the name/details of the financial provisions provider, to be put in place to cover the costs of decommissioning and site restoration shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Once approved, documentary evidence that the approved financial provisions are in place (including mechanisms for periodic review (every tenth year of operation) to ensure they are adequate to cover costs) shall be submitted to the planning authority. Thereafter, the approved financial provisions must be kept in place until they are required to complete site decommissioning and restoration in accordance with the DMS. Reason: To secure decommissioning and reinstatement in the event of unforeseen circumstances, to ensure that environmental impacts arising from the development are acceptably reversed.

Noise:

8 Item No. 4 14. Noise levels from the wind turbines where the occupier of the property has no financial interest in the development shall not exceed an external free field LA90, 10min level of the greater of 35dB(A) or 5dB(A) above the agreed prevailing background noise level during amenity hours, at any 10 metre height with wind speeds up to 12m/s and 43dB(A) during night hours. Any tonal elements in the noise spectra shall be assessed using the joint Nordic Method and the tone level shall not exceed 2dB above the ‘Masking Threshold for Tones in Noise’.

In the event of a justified noise complaint, the installation shall be shut down or limited in operation so as to ensure compliance with the above noise limit. This limit shall include the cumulative noise from any other turbines in the vicinity.

Noise measurements shall be taken using the methodology contained in ETSU-R-97 Reason: to ensure that the development would not be prejudicial to residential amenity, and to ensure that steps are able to be taken to mitigate in the event of noise nuisance becoming an issue.

15. Prior to construction of the first turbines, the developer shall submit and have approved in writing by the planning authority a noise mitigation strategy that will enable any noise nuisance issues to be addressed in relation to the development. This shall include any measures necessary where cumulative noise from the development with other wind energy development proposals currently under consideration or approved by the planning authority is occurring. During the operational period of the wind farm, the measures described in the strategy submitted and approved in response to this condition shall be strictly adhered to at all times. Reason: in the interests of the amenity of occupiers of noise sensitive premises.

16. From the First Export Date until the development is decommissioned, windspeed data from the site must be recorded continuously and collated in a form which enables the planning authority to check the noise monitoring conditions. At the reasonable request of the planning authority the recorded data shall promptly be made available to them. Where wind speed is measured at a height other than 10m above ground level, the wind speed data shall be converted to 10m height, accounting for wind shear by a method whose details shall also be provided to the planning authority. Reason: to enable compliance with noise monitoring conditions to be checked.

Shadow Flicker:

17. Prior to the construction of the first turbine, a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority setting out a protocol for the assessment of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint to Local Planning Authority from the owner or occupier of a dwelling which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission. The written scheme shall include remedial measures to alleviate any shadow flicker attributable to the development. Operation of the turbines shall take place in accordance with the approved protocol unless the Planning Authority gives its prior written consent to any variations. Reason: For the protection of amenity of local residents.

Television interference:

18. Prior to the First Export Date a scheme providing for a baseline survey and the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to terrestrial television caused by the operation of the turbines shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall provide for the investigation by a qualified independent television engineer of any complaint of interference with television reception at a lawfully occupied dwelling (defined for the purposes of this condition as a building within Use 9 of the Use Classes Order) which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission, where such complaint is notified to the wind farm operator by the Planning Authority within 12 months of the First Export Date. Where impairment is determined by the qualified television engineer to be attributable to the wind farm, mitigation works shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme which has been approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: For the protection of amenity of local residents.

Archaeology:

9 Item No. 4 19. 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 Watching Brief. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by 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) to observe relevant below ground excavation during development, investigate and record features of interest and recover finds and samples if necessary. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered below ground excavation should cease pending further consultation with the Planning Authority. 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.

Environmental Management:

20. At least two 2 months prior to the commencement of development (other than agreed enabling works) a full site specific environmental management plan (EMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority (in consultation with SEPA and other agencies such as SNH as appropriate) and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the plan approved in response to this condition. The plan shall include the following components (this list is not exhaustive): (i) a study of the site and its environs to establish precisely how local water sources and supplies relate to and/or would be affected by the implementation of the development, plus mitigation in relation to this matter; (ii) a drainage management strategy, demonstrating how all surface and waste water arising during and after development will be managed and prevented from polluting any watercourses or sources (based on SUDS principles – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems); (iii) a plan for the management of flood risk, in particular in relation to parts of the site close to watercourses and proposed crossings of the watercourse; (iv) a focussed waste management strategy; (v) a strategy for management of dust arising during construction of the tracks, hardstandings and foundations; (vi) details of measures proposed to contain all materials and fuels to be utilised during construction. Reason: To control pollution of air, land and water.

21. (a) Prior to Commencement of Development, the wind farm operator shall prepare a Construction Method Statement (to include a Risk Assessment) for the approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The Construction Method Statement shall comprise the following details: x all on-site construction, and construction of access tracks, including drainage, mitigation, post- construction restoration, and reinstatement work, as well as the timetables for such work; x any temporary diversions of rights of way and associated signage; x surface water drainage measures to comply with national guidance on pollution prevention, including surface water run off from internal access roads; x details of waste water management during construction; x the arrangement for the on-site storage of fuel oil and other chemicals; x the method, frequency and duration of ecological monitoring, particularly of watercourses, over the Construction Period of the wind farm development; x details of the phasing/timing of construction of all components of the development including dates for delivery of components x details of water supply; x details of measures to reduce soil erosion; x details relating to minimisation of environmental impact of road construction; x details of any watercourse engineering works and measures for the implementation of buffer zones around existing watercourses and features; x details of timescale for the restoration of the site, including the site compound and crane hardstanding areas; 10 Item No. 4 x details of contingency planning in the event of accidental release of materials which could cause harm to the environment.

(b) Subject to the following paragraph, no work shall begin on the Development, apart from the enabling works, until the Construction Method Statement has been approved. Once approved, the works specified in the Construction Method Statement shall be carried out as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

(c) The enabling works shall not be carried out until details of them have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. All of the enabling works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: It is essential to ensure that all construction works are carried out in a controlled manner which minimises environmental damage; the CMS will provide a useable document identifying guidelines and conditions for construction, but which also gives recourse to mitigating action in the event of construction deviating from the CMS. The document, with the Environmental Management Plan required by Condition 20 of this permission, shall provide the Ecological Clerk of Works (required by Cond. 22 of this permission) with information with which to monitor construction and environmental management.

22. (a) Prior to the Commencement of Development (including the enabling works), the wind farm operator shall appoint an independent Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) under terms which have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and shall include that the appointment shall be for the period of wind farm construction, including micro-siting and the finalisation of the wind farm layout (which may require the ECoW to be in place prior to discharge of Condition 3), as well as subsequent post-construction restoration. (b) The ECoW’s principal terms of appointment are to impose a duty to monitor compliance with all the ecological and hydrological aspects of the Construction Method Statement, including post-construction restoration, which have been approved under the terms of Condition above. The ECoW’s terms of appointment are to require the ECoW to report promptly to the wind farm operator’s nominated Construction Project Manager any non-compliance with the hydrological or ecological aspects of the Construction Method Statement. The wind farm operator shall confer on (and comply instructions given in the exercise of) the ECoW the power to stop any construction or restoration activity on-site which in his or her view (acting reasonably) could lead to significant effects on the environment, and shall without delay, report the stoppage, with reasons, to the wind farm operator’s nominated Construction Project Manager and to the Planning Authority, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. Reason: The presence of an ECoW at the site is essential to enable unforeseen or unplanned occurrences relating to the environment on and in relation to the site, in particular when it relates to impact on biodiversity and/or the water environment, to be mitigated.

23. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall submit to and have approved in writing by the planning authority, augmented mitigation proposals in respect of the construction of tracks on the site. The mitigation shall respond to the advice of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency in its planning consultation response of 3.2.14, Paragraph 1.5. Reason: to minimise the risk of harm to the GWDTE areas.

24. Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 23, the development (in particular for the westernmost turbine) shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the ES, as augmented by the Addendum of December 2013, insofar as they relate to the minimisation of harm to GWDTEs. Reason: to minimise the risk of harm to GWDTE areas.

Ecology and Ornithology:

25. Prior to the commencement of any works or development on the site a Species Mitigation and Management Plan (including measures to protect passage, wintering birds, badger and waterbodies)

11 Item No. 4 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All on-site works and development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan. Reason: to ensure that reasonable protection is given to biodiversity on and utilising the site.

26. A Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) monitoring programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to commencement of the development. The programme should include monitoring of passage and wintering geese (pink-footed geese and graylag geese) at 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 years intervals after the First Export Date, subject to review. Reason: to ensure that the protected species are afforded due protection and to enable greater understanding of the impacts of development of this nature.

27. A Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan, including on-site and off-site measures as appropriate to moorland habitats to benefit protected bird species and including measures to maintain the reduced attractiveness of the development site to geese 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: this is required to offset the environmental impact of the development, and to enhance the site and its environs to benefit biodiversity.

Air Traffic Safety:

28. Prior to the erection of the first wind turbine, the developer shall provide written confirmation to the Local Planning Authority and the Ministry of Defence of the anticipated date of commencement of and completion of construction; the maximum height above ground level of construction equipment, the position of each wind turbine in latitude and longitude and the maximum height above ground level of each turbine and anemometry mast. The developer shall give the Planning Authority and the Ministry of Defence notice as soon as reasonably practicable if any changes are made to the information required by this condition. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.

29. Prior to the erection of the first wind turbine, a scheme for aviation lighting for the wind farm consisting of Ministry of Defence accredited infra-red aviation lighting will be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The turbines shall be erected with the approved lighting installed and the lighting shall remain operational throughout the duration of this consent. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.

Signage:

30. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984, no symbols, signs, logos or other lettering (other than those required for health and safety reasons) shall be displayed on the turbines, other buildings or structures within the site without the written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not unduly prejudice public amenity.

31. No signage, other than that required for health and safety and for traffic management, shall be erected within the application site without the written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not unduly prejudice public amenity.

Rights of Way/Public Path Network:

32. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all designated public paths (existing/diverted routes) shall be maintained free from obstruction during and after development. Reason: in the interests of the amenity and safety of users of the public path network.

Construction Hours:

33. Construction work shall only take place between the hours of 07:00 – 19:00 hours on Monday to Friday inclusive and 07:00 – 12:00 hours on Saturdays, with no construction work on a Sunday or local or national public holiday. Outwith these hours, works at the site shall be limited to concrete pours, turbine erection, emergency works and dust suppression, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning 12 Item No. 4 Authority. Works outside these hours may be carried out in the event of an emergency, provided that the Planning Authority is notified by telephone and writing as soon as reasonably practicable (and in any event within 48 hours) following the emergency first being identified, such notification to include both details of the emergency and any works carried out and/or proposed to be carried out. Reason: In the interests of amenity to restrict noise impact and the protection of the local environment.

34. The delivery of any construction materials or equipment for the construction of the development shall be restricted to the hours of 07:00 – 19:00 on Monday to Friday inclusive, 07:00 to 12:00 on Saturdays with no such deliveries on a Sunday or local or national public holiday unless (a) previously approved in writing by the Planning Authority or (b) the delivery is necessary in the event of an emergency on the site. Reason: In the interests of minimising disturbance to local residents during the construction process.

NOTE Mr George Matthews spoke on behalf of the objectors against the application. Mr Stuart Edwards, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

VOTE Councillor Bell, seconded by Councillor Brown, moved approval of the application.

Councillor Ballantyne, seconded by Councillor White, moved as an amendment that the application be refused in terms of policies D4 Visual impact and generation of noise contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance on Small Wind Energies.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 6 Votes Amendment - 2 Votes The Motion was accordingly carried.

In approving the application Members asked that it be recorded that they considered that this landscape had now reached capacity in terms of the number of turbines which could be accommodated.

13/01268/FUL Variation of conditions 33, 34 and 35 Fallago Rig Wind Farm to allow de-commissioning and Fallago Ridge restoration according to an approved Longformacus scheme within a period of 12 months following expiration of permission for the wind farm

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions set out in Part 2 below:

Part 2 - Conditions applying to only the deemed planning permission

Construction

10. The number of turbines shall not exceed 48 and the position of the turbines shall be as shown on plan reference 13286-078a.wor contained within the Supplementary Environmental Information submitted in October 2006, subject to micro-siting agreed in consultation with the Planning Authority through condition 21 attached to this consent. The blade tip height of turbines shall not exceed 125 metres in height, except turbines numbered 1, 2, 5, 11, 18, 22 and 37 on plan reference 13286-078a.wor contained within the Supplementary Environmental Information, which shall not exceed 110 metres in height. The colour and finish of the turbines shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to the erection of any turbine. Apart from the differences in height mentioned above, all turbines on the site shall be substantially identical in appearance, unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority.

11. All turbines and components shall be installed to meet the safety standards set by British Standard BS EN 61400-1: 2005 ‘Wind turbine generator systems: Safety requirements’ or International Electro- technical Commission IEC 16400. 13 Item No. 4

12. Prior to the erection or installation of any ancillary equipment or buildings, the design, colour and finish of the equipment and buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the Development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

13. All turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction.

14. No symbols, signs or logos or other lettering, other than those required for health and safety and for traffic management, shall be displayed on any part of the turbines nor any other building or structures without the written consent of the Planning Authority.

15. Prior to the installation of the turbines, the Company shall commission a survey measuring existing television reception quality, which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. In the event that the Development is found to cause interference to television reception in the vicinity, following a complaint made to the Planning Authority within two years of the Final Commissioning of Development, the Company, shall take whatever action is deemed necessary, to remedy such impairment and alleviate the problem, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

16. (a) Prior to Commencement of Development, apart from the enabling works outlined below, the Company shall prepare a Construction Method Statement (to include a Risk Assessment and an Environmental Management Statement) for the approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and Cranshaws and Ellemford and Gordon and Westruther Community Councils. The Construction Method Statement shall comprise the following details:

x a scaled map to include the anticipated layout and width of temporary and permanent tracks, cable routeing, turbine bases, crane standings, site storage compound, substation, on-site switch gear and equipment store and any ancillary buildings; x all on-site construction, and construction of access tracks, including drainage, mitigation, post-construction restoration, and reinstatement work, as well as the timetables for such work; x any temporary diversions of rights of way and associated signage; x surface water drainage measures to comply with national guidance on pollution prevention, including surface water run off from internal access roads; x the arrangement for the on-site storage of fuel oil; x the working and re-instatement of borrow pits; x the method, frequency and duration of ecological monitoring, particularly of watercourses, over the Construction Period of the wind farm development; x the principles of the Land Management Plan referred to in condition 32 below.

(c) The provisions of this condition shall not prevent the following “enabling works” in advance of the approval of the Construction Method Statement:

x construction of the temporary site storage compound; x the sub-station platform; and x the permanent access track to the substation platform along the route shown on Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.3a of the Fallago Rig Wind Farm Environmental Statement dated May 2005 (subject to such modification as may be approved in advance by the Planning Authority); (d) The enabling works shall not be carried out until details of them (including any necessary measures for public road improvements outwith the site, traffic management, works to be implemented at the entrance to the site to prevent dust and mud entering the public highway, or any related programme of monitoring the condition of public roads) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, the 14 Item No. 4 Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Cranshaws and Ellemford and Gordon and Westruther Community Councils. All of the enabling works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

17. (a) The site compound shall be constructed in accordance with methods to be agreed with and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Cranshaws and Ellemford and Gordon and Westruther Community Councils in advance of the commencement of the Development. Thereafter, the site compound shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

(b) The site compound shall be removed and any works for the reinstatement of the land shall be carried out within 6 months of the completion of the construction works, in accordance with details approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Cranshaws and Ellemford and Gordon and Westruther Community Councils, before the completion of construction works. Thereafter, the site compound shall be removed in accordance with the approved details.

Roads/Transportation

18. Prior to the Commencement of Development, save in respect of the enabling works as provided for in condition 16, the Company shall provide for the approval of the Planning Authority:

x detailed proposals for any necessary public road improvements outwith the site; x a programme of necessary traffic management measures to cater for abnormal vehicle movements; and x details of the measures to be implemented at the entrance of the site to prevent dust and mud entering the public highway.

Apart from the enabling works, no development shall take place on the site until the approved measures have been implemented. The approved measures shall remain in place as appropriate throughout the construction and decommissioning phases of the Development.

19. Prior to the Commencement of Development, apart from the enabling works as provided for in condition 16, a programme of monitoring the condition of the public roads serving the site before, during and after the construction and decommissioning phases of the Development shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Thereafter, any remedial works, as approved by the Planning Authority, or payment of extraordinary maintenance costs incurred by Scottish Borders Council as a result of the site traffic, are to be carried out or paid within three months of completion of the construction or decommissioning of the wind farm.

Rights of Way

20. Prior to the Commencement of Development, a plan shall be submitted to the Planning Authority showing the existing paths and rights of way within the site. Access along such paths and rights of way shall not be disturbed or disrupted during construction and Decommissioning, unless a detailed plan with respect thereto has been submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the terms and timescales set therein. Such plan shall include:

(a) the identification of any area proposed to be excluded from statutory access rights and the reasons for such exclusion; (b) details of the closure or temporary diversion of any identified rights of way at the site and any associated signage; (c) details of the measures to ensure safe public access along the identified or diverted paths, tracks and rights of way during the construction and decommissioning phases of the Development; and (d) details for the reinstatement and upgrading of the affected routes, including details of way- marking and route interpretation.

15 Item No. 4 This condition is without prejudice to the need to obtain any other consent, permission or order in connection with the disturbance or disruption of use of a path or right of way.

Micro- siting

21. (a) Following the formation of the access road and completion of the ground investigation studies, details of the precise micro-siting of each turbine and of all ancillary equipment and buildings shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to the erection or installation of the aforementioned turbines, equipment and buildings. (b) The micro-siting shall be no more than 50 metres in any direction from the position of each turbine as it is shown on plan reference 13286-078a.wor contained within the Supplementary Environmental Information October 2006, unless agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with the Ministry of Defence. (c) The micro-siting shall maintain a 20 metre buffer zone to water courses as shown on plan reference 13286-079a.wor, unless agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage.

Noise

22. Prior to the installation of the turbines, their specification, with regard to noise predictions, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for assessment and confirmation that the noise criteria in this approval will be met.

23. Noise monitoring arrangements for the proposed turbines shall be undertaken in accordance with a programme of work to be agreed with the Planning Authority. The programme shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to the installation of the turbines.

24. When assessed in accordance with the attached guidance notes, noise limits at the agreed sensitive receptors identified within section 8 of the Environmental Statement will be met inclusive of any tonal penalty.

25. Noise levels at any Noise Sensitive Premises from the combined effect of the wind turbines where the proprietor or the occupier of the property has no financial interest in the Development shall not exceed an external free-field LA90, 10 min level of the greater of 40dB(A) or 5dB at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s above the prevailing background noise level from 07:00-23:00, and the greater of 43dB(A) or 5 dB at any 10 metre wind speed height up to 12 m/s above the prevailing background noise level from 23:00-0:700. The data provided in the noise assessment presented in the Environmental Statement provides the prevailing background noise level at various wind speeds and the methodology used within that document should be the basis for assessment of future investigations for consistency’s sake. Any assessment of compliance with this condition shall be made in accordance with the guidance notes attached to this consent.

26. Wind speed data must be maintained for a period of no less than 12 months from the Commissioning of the Development, and for each 12 month period of operation of the Development and be made available to the Planning Authority on request.

Archaeology

27. No development shall take place on the site in the vicinity of the archaeological features mentioned below until the following works have been undertaken or details agreed:

(a) fencing has been erected, in a manner and at locations to be agreed with the Planning Authority around the features reference 6, 10, 14 and 23, as identified in the Environmental Statement table number 12.1 and features reference A, H, J, L1 and L2 as identified in the Environmental Statement table number 12.2; and no works shall take place within the area inside that fencing without the prior agreement of the Planning Authority;

(b) a plan has been submitted for the consideration and written approval of the Planning Authority to indicate the precise route of the proposed access track in the vicinity of John Dippie’s Well 16 Item No. 4 (located at NT 646 559). Thereafter, if considered necessary by the Planning Authority, fencing shall be erected around the well in the same manner as required above by clause (a) of this condition in relation to other features, and no works shall take place within the area inside that fencing without the prior agreement of the Planning Authority;

(c) the sections of new access track in the vicinity of Byrecleugh Steading Scheduled Ancient Monument, as referred to in Annex 5 of the Supplementary Environmental Information dated October 2007, shall be surveyed and laid out under direct archaeological supervision.

28. No development shall take place until the Company has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority.

Ecological issues

29. (a) Prior to the Commencement of Development (including the enabling works), the Company shall appoint an independent full-time Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) acceptable to the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The terms of the appointment shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and shall include that the appointment shall be for the period of wind farm construction, including micro-siting and the finalisation of the wind farm layout, as well as subsequent post-construction restoration.

(b) The EcoW’s in terms of appointment are to impose a duty to monitor compliance with all the ecological and hydrological aspects of the Construction Method Statement, including post- construction restoration, which have been approved under the terms of condition 16 above. The ECoW’s terms of appointment are to require the ECoW to report promptly to the Company’s nominated Construction Project Manager any non-compliance with the hydrological or ecological aspects of the Construction Method Statement. The Company shall confer on (and comply instructions given in the exercise of) the ECoW shall have the power to stop any construction or restoration activity on-site which in his or her view (acting reasonably) could lead to significant effects on the River Tweed SAC, and shall without delay, report the stoppage, with reasons, to the applicant’s nominated Construction Project Manager and to the Planning Authority, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.

30. Prior to the Final Commissioning of the Development, plans for the method, frequency and duration of ecological monitoring over the operational life-span of the proposed Development are to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The monitoring shall be carried out in strict accordance with the terms set out in the agreed monitoring plan.

31. Prior to the Final Commissioning of the Development, the Company shall submit an operational protocol for approval in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. This will set out details for working practice and wind farm maintenance over the operational life-span of the wind farm. The wind farm shall be operated in strict accordance with the terms of the operational protocol.

32. Prior to the Commencement of Development save in respect of any enabling works as provided for in condition 16, the applicant will submit a detailed Land Management Plan for approval in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. The Land Management Plan will set out proposed long-term management of the wind farm site and should provide for the maintenance of dwarf shrub heath habitat on site. The Land Management Plan, as approved shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.

Decommissioning and restoration

33. Within 12 months after the end of the period of the consent granted under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 as provided for in condition 2, those parts of the Development requiring decommissioning and 17 Item No. 4 restoration in accordance with the conditions of this consent shall be removed and the land restored, in accordance with the decommissioning restoration and aftercare scheme required by the planning condition 34.

34. Within 5 years prior to the expiry of the consent granted under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, a decommissioning restoration and aftercare scheme shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority outlining the programme of decommissioning of the Development and the restoration and aftercare of the site. The decommissioning restoration and aftercare scheme will include details of all site decommissioning including the removal of all wind turbines together with their foundations to a depth of 1.2m, ancillary equipment and buildings to be dismantled and work to remove other infrastructure from the site and details of site restoration and aftercare to restore the land to its former condition or other such condition as may be agreed with the Planning Authority. It will include provision for the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works acceptable to the Planning Authority (in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency), whose role will be to oversee implementation of the plans so approved. The decommissioning restoration and aftercare scheme will include the method, frequency and duration of ecological monitoring, particularly of watercourses, over the decommissioning period of the Development. Six months prior to the expiry of the section 36 consent, the decommissioning restoration and aftercare scheme shall be reviewed by the Company and the Planning Authority, and any alterations deemed appropriate and mutually acceptable shall be made. Within twelve months, or any alternative timescale agreed by the Planning Authority, of the wind farm ceasing to be used for the generation of electricity, the decommissioning restoration and aftercare scheme as referred to above shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. Within this submission a timescale for completion of the restoration of the site shall be agreed with the Planning Authority, thereafter the works shall be completed in accordance with the agreed timescales.

35. The site shall be restored to such condition as set out in the agreed decommissioning restoration and aftercare scheme

36. Following the decommissioning and restoration of the site in accordance with planning condition 33 and aftercare requirements contained in the decommissioning restoration and aftercare scheme required by condition 34 shall be implemented in accordance with the programme approved therein.

Financial Bond

36.(a) Prior to the Commencement of Development, the Company shall 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.

(b) 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.

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

(d) 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 wind energy sector and provided to the Company, the landowners, and the Planning Authority.

GUIDANCE NOTES RELATING TO CONDITIONS 24 AND 25

These notes form part of conditions 24 and 25. They further explain these conditions and specify the methods to be deployed in the assessment of complaints about noise emissions from the wind farm.

GUIDANCE NOTE 1

18 Item No. 4 (a) Values of the LA90,10min noise statistic should be measured at the complainant’s property, using a sound level meter of IEC 651 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1, standard (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using a fast time weighted response. This should be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997 (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements).

(b) The microphone should be mounted at 1.2-1.5m above ground level, fitted with a 2 layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved by the local Planning Authority, and placed outside the dwelling. Measurements should be made in "free-field" conditions, so that the microphone should be placed at least 3.5m away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground.

(c) The measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10-minute arithmetic average wind speed and with operational data from the turbine control systems.

(d) To enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated, the wind farm operator shall continuously log the arithmetic mean wind speed and arithmetic mean wind direction data in 10-minute periods from the hub height anemometer located on the site meteorological mast to enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated. Such data shall be 'standardised' to a reference height of 10 metres as described in ETSU-R-97 at page 120 using a reference roughness length of 0.05m.

GUIDANCE NOTE 2

(a) The noise measurements should be made so as to provide not less than 20 valid data points for the range of wind speeds, wind directions, times of day, turbine operations requested by the Local Planning Authority excluding periods of rainfall. In specifying such conditions the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to those conditions which were most likely to have prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise.

(b) A least squares, "best fit" curve of a maximum 2nd order should be fitted to the data points and this will define the rating level at each integer wind speed.

GUIDANCE NOTE 3

Where, in the opinion of the local Planning Authority noise emissions at the location or locations where assessment measurements are being undertaken contain a tonal component, the following rating procedure should be used:

(a) For each 10-minute interval for which LA90,10min data have been obtained as provided for in Note 1, a tonal assessment shall be performed on noise emissions during 2-minutes of each 10 minute period. The 2-minute periods shall be regularly spaced at 10-minute intervals provided that uninterrupted clean data are available. Where clean data are not available, the first available uninterrupted clean 2-minute period out of the affected overall 10-minute period shall be selected. Any such deviations from standard procedure shall be reported.

(b) For each of the 2-minute samples the margin above or below the audibility criterion of the tone level difference, DLtm (Delta Ltm), shall be calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104-109 of ETSU-R-97.

(c) The margin above audibility shall be plotted against wind speed for each of the 2-minute samples. For samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, a value of zero audibility shall be substituted.

(d) A linear regression shall then be performed to establish the margin above audibility at the assessed wind speed for each integer wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic average shall be used.

19 Item No. 4 (e) The tonal penalty shall be derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below. The rating level at each wind speed shall be calculated as the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level, as determined from the best fit curve described in Note 2, and the penalty for tonal noise.

GUIDANCE NOTE 4

If the rating level is above the limit set out in the conditions, measurements of the influence of background noise shall be made to determine whether or not there is a breach of condition. This shall be achieved by repeating the steps in Note 2, with the wind farm switched off and determining the background noise at the assessed wind speed, L3. The wind farm noise at this speed, L1, shall then be calculated as follows, where L2 is the measured wind farm noise level at the assessed wind speed with turbines running but without the addition of any tonal penalty:

L2/10 L3/10 L1 10 log >10 10 @

The rating level shall be re-calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if any) to the derived wind farm noise L1. If the rating level lies at or below the values set out in the conditions then no further action is necessary. If the rating level exceeds the values set out in the conditions then the Development fails to comply with the conditions.

13/00636/FUL 1. Erection of seven dwellinghouses Land South of Meigle Row, 13/01392/FUL (Change of house types to enable Clovenfords erection of an additional three dwellings in comparison to previous approval 06/01404/FUL) 2. Erection of two dwellinghouses (Amendment to dwellinghouse positions and type previously approved under application 06/01404/FUL)

APPLICATION 13/00636/FUL

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions:

2. Further details of the road, ground and finished floor levels, including retaining walls and banking to the northern edge of the site, shall be submitted for the approval of the planning authority before the development commences Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area

20 Item No. 4 3. The layout of the site shall accord with the approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved site layout.

4. A sample of all materials to be used on all exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before development. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

5. Prior to commencement of development details of the arrangements for water supply and foul drainage to serve the plots are to be confirmed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development can be adequately serviced.

6. No development is to take place until further detailed technical information outlining a comprehensive scheme for the mitigation of surface water run off to both the proposed development subject to this consent and to existing and future house plots down slope has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details prior to the occupation of the houses hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the development can be adequately serviced, to maintain effective control over the development, and to mitigate surface water flood risk.

7. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iii. soft and hard landscaping works iv. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

APPLICATION 13/01392/FUL

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions:

2. The layout of the site shall accord with the approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved site layout.

3. The elevations and materials of the “Ascot” House type hereby approved shall be in accordance with the details previously approved by the Planning Authority under drawing CLOV/ASC/01A of planning approval 06/01404/FUL and associated approved details of materials. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development.

4. Prior to commencement of development details of the arrangements for water supply and foul drainage to serve the plots are to be confirmed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development can be adequately serviced.

5. No development is to take place until further detailed technical information outlining a comprehensive scheme for the mitigation of surface water run off to both the proposed development subject to this consent and to existing and future house plots down slope has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the arrangements so agreed shall be completed prior to the occupation of the houses hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the development can be adequately serviced, to maintain effective control over the development, and to mitigate surface water flood risk. 21 Item No. 4

6. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iii. soft and hard landscaping works iv. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent provisions amending or re-enacting that Order), no additional window or other opening shall be made in the northern elevation of the house in Plot 64 (as indicated on the approved drawing) unless an application for planning permission in that behalf is first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

13/01234/PPP Erection of two dwellinghouses Land South of the Old Manse (renewal of previous consent Teviothead 07/00979/OUT) Hawick

Decision: Approved subject to the approval of the Scottish Ministers, a legal agreement securing a contribution towards affordable housing and the following conditions and informatives:

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. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate): 22 Item No. 4

i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored iii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iv. soft and hard landscaping works v. existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations vi. other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, play equipment vii. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

6. The finished ground floor level of the dwellinghouses, hereby approved, to be 171.06m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and any variation thereto, must be approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the dwellinghouses are not at significant risk of flooding.

7. No development shall take place until a scheme showing the details of a pedestrian access from the site to the A7, which has an adequate free board above the flood levels predicted in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted by Scott Wilson dated September 2009, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The agreed escape route to be provided and available for use prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouses. Reason: In the interest of public safety and to ensure that in the event of a flood at the site a safe escape route is available for residents.

8. No development shall take place until a scheme for the long term maintenance of the flood embankment, including proposals for the management of trees on the embankment, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the terms of that scheme must be implemented in strict accordance with the details and timescales contained therein. Any variations thereto, must be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the dwellinghouses are not at significant risk of flooding.

9. The raised area at the southern end of the site shown on the approved Drawing Number 1 as an extension to the flood banking to be assessed to ensure its structural integrity against flood waters and to demonstrate that it ties into the existing embankment and higher ground to the south. This assessment to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Any works identified to be carried out as a result of this assessment to be completed before the dwellinghouses are occupied. Reason: To ensure that the dwellinghouses are not at significant risk of flooding.

10. The means of water supply and of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. If a private water supply is to be used, no development to be commenced until a report by a qualified person has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, demonstrating the provision of water to the development in terms of the quantity, quality and impacts on other supplies in the vicinity. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

11. A design statement to be submitted to the Planning Authority with the first full or Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions application setting out the justification of the design rationale and demonstrating an appropriate form, scale and design of development and external materials taking reference from the character of the site and its context. Reason: To ensure a high standard of design, given the character of the site and its context, to safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

12. The roofing material to be natural slate. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

23 Item No. 4 13. A drawing showing the upgrading of the access onto the public road, visibility splays at the junction of the access with the public road and the position, width and surfacing materials of the proposed access road from the junction with the public road to the site to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority with the first detailed or Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions application for this site. The works then to be completed in accordance with the approved details before the dwellinghouses are occupied. Reason: To ensure adequate and safe access to and from the site.

14. Parking and turning for two vehicles, excluding garages, must be provided for each dwellinghouse within the site before the dwellinghouses are occupied and retained in perpetuity. Reason: To ensure adequate parking and turning is provided within the site

Informatives

In respect of condition 11, the building group at The Old Manse, Teviothead is attractive, unspoilt and retains much of its intrinsic vernacular charm. The new dwellinghouses must be of the highest standard and be compatible with and complimentary to the existing buildings in terms of scale, form, proportions, design and external materials and finishes.

The Council’s Flood Protection Officer also advises the applicants to take into account the potential for flooding arising for other sources such as road drainage, overland surface water run-off and surcharged culverts.

24 Item No. 4

13/01254/FUL Change of use from outbuilding and Outbuilding South of the Old alterations to form dwellinghouse Manse Teviothead Hawick

Decision: Approved subject to the approval of the Scottish Ministers, a legal agreement securing a contribution towards affordable housing and the following conditions and informatives:

2. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Panning Authority. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate):

3. The finished ground floor level of the dwellinghouse, hereby approved, to be 171.06m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and any variation thereto, must be approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the dwellinghouse is not at significant risk of flooding.

4. No development shall take place until a scheme showing the details of a pedestrian access from the site to the A7, which has an adequate free board above the flood levels predicted in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted by Scott Wilson dated September 2009, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The agreed escape route to be provided and available for use prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse. Reason: In the interest of public safety and to ensure that in the event of a flood at the site a safe escape route is available for residents.

5. No development shall take place until a scheme for the long term maintenance of the flood embankment, including proposals for the management of trees on the embankment, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the terms of that scheme must be implemented in strict accordance with the details and timescales contained therein. Any variations thereto, must be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the dwellinghouses are not at significant risk of flooding.

6. The means of water supply and of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. If a private water supply is to be used, no development to be commenced until a report by a qualified person has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, demonstrating the provision of water to the development in terms of the quantity, quality and impacts on other supplies in the vicinity. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

7. This permission shall only permit the conversion and adaptation of the existing structure. It shall not purport to grant permission for the erection of a new dwelling nor for any extensive rebuilding which would be tantamount to the erection of a new building. Reason: Permission has been granted for the conversion of an existing building to habitable accommodation in a location where a new dwelling would not otherwise be appropriate.

25 Item No. 4 8. Samples of the timber cladding, render and slate to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development then to be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building.

9. The colour of all external joinery, including the doors and window frames, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development then to be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order); (i) There shall be no addition or extension to the dwellings (including the insertion of dormer windows or chimneys); (ii) There shall be no further building, structure or other enclosure constructed or placed on the site; (iii) No additional window or other opening shall be made in any elevation; unless an application for planning permission in that behalf has first been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority; Reason: To safeguard the character, appearance and setting of the building to be converted.

11. A drawing showing the visibility splays at the junction of the access with the public road to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The visibility splays then to be completed in accordance with the approved details before the dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: To ensure adequate and safe access to and from the site.

12. Parking and turning for two vehicles, excluding garages, must be provided within the site before the dwellinghouse is occupied and retained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

13. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved, the three windows in the side elevation to the garden (east elevation) and the window to bedroom 3 in the end elevation to the garden (south elevation) of the outbuilding shall be obscure glazed in accordance with a scheme of details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development is commences and thereafter so retained. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property.

14. No demolition or conversion works shall be carried out during the breeding bird season (March- September) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Checking surveys will be required if any demolition works, conversion works or habitat clearance are to commence during the breeding bird season. Reason: To protect protected species within the site.

15. Four nest cups/ledges for swallow located at suitable locations within the redeveloped site or on other suitable buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site and two bird nest boxes to be attached to mature trees are to be provided. This work to be carried out by a suitably qualified person before the dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: To protect protected species within the site and to provide nesting opportunities.

Informatives

In respect of condition 11, the consultation response from the Roads Planning Service is attached for the information of the applicant. The existing hedge to the west of the access at the junction with the minor public road must be relocated.

In respect of condition 15, an appropriate bird nest box would be the Schwegler 1N Deep Nest Box. Further information can be found at:

26 Item No. 4 http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/s/swallow/encouraging.aspx http://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/nrs/publications/bto-nestbox-guide http://www.birding.uk.com/fact-file/21-guides/139-nest-boxes

The applicant should adopt water resilient materials and construction methods as appropriate in the development as advised in PAN 69. As well as this, a number of flood protection products such as floodgates and air-vent covers are also commercially available for the existing property and details of these can be found by calling the Council’s Emergency Planning who may be able to offer discounts for the products. The applicant should take into account the potential for flooding arising for other sources such as road drainage, overland surface water run-off and surcharged culverts.

The person in charge of the conversion should be made aware of the accepted standard procedure of working with bats (see Bats in Buildings leaflet (3NB) 250311 which is available from ww.bats.org.uk). If bats were to be found during the conversion works all work should stop until Scottish Natural Heritage or the relevant bat expert has discussed how it should go forward.

14/00147/MOD75 Modification on planning obligation Land North East of Peelwalls pursuant to planning permission House, Ayton 97/00143/FUL and 03/02276/FUL

Decision: Approved for the following reason:

Having regard to the exceptional circumstances of this site, the request to modify the existing legal agreement by amending the Third Clause to allow for the restriction on age to be replaced with a restriction on local identified needs housing is acceptable as the units will be restricted to affordable housing which will meet wider policy objectives.

VOTE Councillor Ballantyne, seconded by Councillor Mountford, moved approval of the application.

Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Bell, moved as an amendment that the application be refused.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 5 Votes Amendment - 3 Votes

The Motion was accordingly carried.

27 Item No. 6(a)

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MARCH 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER:13/01379/FUL OFFICER: Dorothy Amyes WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Erection of poultry shed (amendment to previous consent 12/00465/FUL) SITE: Whim Poultry Farm Lamancha West Linton Scottish Borders APPLICANT: Glenrath Farms Ltd AGENT: SAC Consulting Environment & Design

BACKGROUND

The application was continued at the 3 March meeting of the Committee to enable a site visit to be undertaken, which would clarify how a barn system poultry unit operated and for the Environmental Health Officer to attend the next meeting of the Committee to answer questions on potential nuisance to residents of this type of unit. In particular Members requested information on:

x Noise levels and mitigation thereof x Manure collection x Dust levels and mitigation x Implications of the number of hens being housed in the proposed system.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is located at Whim Poultry Farm, West Linton which is located immediately to the west of the A701, approximately halfway between Leadburn junction to the north and Lamancha to the south.

The poultry unit currently comprises 2No sheds (named Dovecot and Blairburn), an egg collecting unit, office block, laboratory and storage facilities). Two sheds (Potters and Hellmans) have recently been demolished from the poultry farm in order to accommodate the new development.

The site is surrounded by a woodland belt. Whim Hall nursing home (Cat B Listed) and the residential properties at Whim Square (A listed), Mosswood and Cowdenwood are located to the north west of the site amongst policy woodland. Cowden Lodge (Cat B Listed) and the new property on the site of Whim Farmhouse are located to the south west of the site. There are other listed buildings in the area which were formerly part of the Whim Estate and these include the Ice House (Cat B), a cistern (Cat C) and the dove cote (Cat C).

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

Whim Poultry Farm is located within the former Whim Garden and Designed Landscape and adjacent to the Whim Bog SSSI and the former Whim Bog Ancient Woodland Inventory site to the north west of the site.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

In December 2012 planning consent was granted for a new shed at Whim Poultry Farm (12/00465/FUL). This was to be a replacement for two older sheds which did not comply with EU Directive 1999/74/EC which banned the use of conventional cages for laying hens after 1 January 2012. The new shed would be used to house birds in a colony system.

After receiving consent for the new shed the applicants were advised by their main customers that they required more eggs from free range or barn systems. The applicant decided that the new shed would be used for a barn system and this required some amendments to the design of the building. It was considered that the amendments could not be treated as non-material variations to the existing consent and a new planning application was required.

The current proposal is for a shed which will cover approximately the same footprint as that already approved but it will have a lower ridge height and will house a significantly lower number of birds. The shed will be 120m long along its longest side and 31m wide. It will have a height of 3.3m to the eaves and 7.4m to roof ridge (as opposed to 7.8m and 14m respectively for the consented shed). The sheds removed were approximately 8-9 m to ridge height. It will house a total of 44,000 laying hens in two flocks of 22,000 rather than the 169,128 hens in the proposed colony system. The shed will be finished in dark olive green cladding.

The new shed will incorporate a mechanical ventilation system. This will consist of chimney style inlets placed along the length of the roof through which air will be drawn into the shed. The air will be expelled by roof mounted chimney style fans which will be located just above the north east gable of the building. An enclosed manure elevator will be located towards the south western end of the building and the manure which will be dried on conveyor belts using an air drying system will be removed from the shed on a twice weekly basis. It is estimated that the 44,000 hens will produce approximately 1100 tonnes of dry manure per year, requiring approximately 4 trailer loads per week.

Feed silos will be located at the north eastern end of the shed and approximately two deliveries a week will be required. Water will be provided from an existing borehole and the mains supply.

Drainage for water runoff from the new shed will be connected to the existing drainage system which leads from pipes to an existing swale and reed beds which are located close to the access drive to Whim Nursing Home to the north west of the site.

The eggs will be collected on a daily basis and packed in trays in an adjacent existing building. They will then be taken to the nearby Millennium Farm for grading, printing, packing and dispatching to the retailers.

The birds will be kept in the shed for 60 weeks during which time each hen will lay approximately 350 eggs and it is anticipated that the total number of eggs produced in one year will be in the region of 13million. At the end of the 60 weeks the birds are

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(a) removed and the sheds cleaned before restocking takes place. This takes approximately two weeks and vehicular movements will increase during this time.

PLANNING HISTORY

92/01093/FUL - Proposed deep pit battery poultry house Approved 11 May 1992

93/01116/FUL - Alterations and extension Approved 12 July 1993

93/01117/FUL - Alterations to service road layout Approved 12 July 1993

93/01118/FUL - Erection of office Approved 02 December 1993

94/01185/FUL - Construction of deep pit poultry house Approved 09 May 1995

95/01074/FUL - Erection of prefabricated cabin type staff Approved 12 January 1996

96/00959/FUL - Extension to egg packing shed Approved 09 September 1996

97/05551/FUL - Erection of staff accommodation Approved 21 April 1997

97/05552/FUL - Erection of offices Approved 16 July 1997

12/00465/FUL – Erection of poultry shed approved by Planning and Building Standards Committee on 6 August 2012. Consent issued on 10 December 2012.

12/01074/MOD75 - Modification of planning obligation pursuant to planning permission reference T054/94 – under consideration.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Eight letters of representation from seven different households have been received and all raise objections to the proposal. The principal grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

x Air pollution – manure dust and ammonia x Adverse Impact on residential amenity due to smells/odours/noise and flies x Increased risk to human health x Over development of site x Screening insufficient and not possible for applicant to improve due to limit of land ownership x Alternative sites not adequately addressed x Site not suitable for expansion due to close proximity to residential unit and nursing home x Air quality monitoring required x Vehicular movement need to be restricted x Quality of submission relating to emission monitoring is poor

The timing of the submission and the issue of neighbour notification were also raised. Whilst it is not appropriate to comment on the timing, neighbour notification is the responsibility of the planning authority. The requirement is that properties within 20m of a development are required to be notified. None of the properties surrounding the site are within 20m although it is possible that land belonging to them is within 20m. If

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(a) there is land surrounding a site where an address cannot be identified the application is advertised in the local paper. In this case the application also needed to be advertised under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and as an application which may affect the setting of a listed building. The application was advertised in the Peeblesshire and the Edinburgh Gazette on 13 December 2013. A site notice was also placed at the entrance to the site.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant has submitted an Environmental Statement which has been amended to take account of the proposed changes to the design of the shed and the different system and a Non-Technical Summary.

The Environmental Statement also contains information about the company and the history of its development at Whim, the Millennium Farm and elsewhere in the Borders.

As an amendment to a previously approved major application there was no requirement for the applicant to undertake a Pre-Application Notification including community engagement.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

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 NE5 – Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy EP5 – Air Quality Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf5 – Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

x Supplementary Planning Guidance on Biodiversity x Supplementary Planning Guidance on Landscape and Development x SBC Local Biodiversity Action Plan

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

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

Scottish Borders Council Consultees:

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

Roads Planning Officer: No objections in principle to the amendment to the previous consent. However, the roadside shrubbery at the southerly access onto the A701 will require to be cut back in order to improve junction visibility for traffic emerging from the junction. The extent of the visibility improvements should be agreed on site.

Archaeology Officer: There are no immediate archaeological implications for this proposal and no archaeological mitigation measures are needed. However, it is recommended that a condition should be placed on any consent for the erection of protective fencing around the C(s) listed Dovecote.

Heritage and Design Officer: When assessing the previous proposals to replace the existing two sheds with a large shed in application 12/00465/FUL it was considered that the proposed replacement shed would not have an adverse impact on the setting of the Category A listed building at Whim Square. The revised proposals now submitted have a much lower height “barn” proposed.

It is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the setting of category A Whim Square.

Landscape Officer: There are no issues with the slight change of footprint of the proposed shed as it appears that the longer shed will not extend much beyond the end of the previous shed. However the group of larch trees in front of the existing water tank as you enter the site must be retained and adequately protected in accordance with BS 5837:2012, as they provide some valuable screening and amenity to the development.

There is a requirement for a Woodland Management Plan that relates primarily to the woodland within the applicants control and it is desirable to ensure that the woodland structure continues to screen this large scale development when viewed from surrounding area.

Environmental Health Officer: Recommends conditions are attached relating to manure management/ control measures and traffic mitigation/control measures. He requests the relocation of the proposed manure elevator to a location that gives greater separation distance from nearby dwellings. Alternatively, an enclosure for the manure elevator must be provided.

Condition 14 on Application 12/00465/FUL which relates to air quality monitoring, should be imposed in respect of this application.

Ecology Officer: His response of 24 September 2012 to planning application 12/00465/FUL still applies to the revised application. He notes the total ammonia emissions from the site are less than for the earlier planning application.

I am satisfied with the Protected Species Mitigation Plan (SAC 24th August 2012). The mitigation measures identified in the report (9.6.7, 9.7.7 and 9.8.7) will be required to be implemented, preferably additionally with a tool-kit talk to contractors by a suitably qualified person.

I am satisfied with the Breeding bird survey (SAC 24th August 2012). No evidence of breeding birds potentially directly affected by the development was found. Construction and site clearance should commence outside of the breeding bird season. If works are to commence during the breeding bird season (March-August)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6(a) checking surveys of areas affected by the development and mitigation proposals for birds will be required.

Other Consultees

SEPA: No objection to the planning application and based on the information provided the proposal is potentially consentable under PPC. Their response provides detailed advice to the planning authority and the applicant in terms of environmental regulation and environmental impacts.

SNH: Refer to response on previous application (Ref 12/00465/FUL) and confirm that natural heritage interests of national importance close to the site will not be affected by the proposal. This was because total emissions from the poultry farm were being reduced by the introduction of a belt drying system and that the bio-monitoring in 2011 by SEPA had shown that ammonia concentrations had dropped below the critical threshold where damage to the nearby Whim Bog SSSI may occur. The ES submits as that total emissions of ammonia from the poultry farm will be further reduced from 11,448kg per year to 9048kg our advice remains as our original response.

Historic Scotland: No objections. Agree with ES that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the Category A listed Whim Stables or any other sites within their statutory remit.

Lamancha, Newlands & Kirkurd Community Council: Met with residents from Lamancha and discussed the application, and in its present format objects to the proposal. The concerns about this application remain similar to the concerns detailed in relation to the original application.

The main concerns expressed related to the emissions and the fly pollution to the area and the resulting health and safety issues. The pollution affecting livestock as well as nearby residents is of major concern and from the information before us we are not satisfied that this matter has been adequately addressed.

The proximity of the proposed poultry shed to neighbouring houses does not appear to meet EU regulations as the shed will be erected within 250 metres of several houses as well as a care home for the elderly who are particularly vulnerable to the effects of dust and potential airborne infection.

Furthermore, as previously stated the shed will be within less than 100 metres of a residential protected building. If the regulations at the time of erection of the original shed were not restrictive in location the Community Council does not see that as reason for any new shed under a new application to be granted. Residents also made the observation that the Applicant has other land which could be used to house the poultry shed where it would not infringe on any neighbouring houses.

Notwithstanding the reduced number of chickens Glenrath propose to house in the shed the meeting felt that this was not sufficient to negate the problems detailed above.

Finally, as far as the Community Council is aware, the care home proprietors have not been consulted or informed of the planned development. We also understand from those who made representation to the LNKcc that none of the immediate neighbours had been informed about the new application.

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

For the reasons stated above the Community Council objects to the location and size of the new shed proposed under this application.

Transport Scotland: Confirm that the proposed development will have no significant traffic or associated environmental impacts on the trunk road network or its adjacent receptors.

The Coal Authority: The application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area; therefore within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application.

However, note the proposed new poultry shed will be erected over approximately the same foot print, with the existing concrete floor being re-utilised and that there will be very little excavations or ground disturbance. On this basis there is no need to obtain a Coal Mining Risk Assessment. Ask that an informative be placed on the planning approval in respect of these matters.

Scottish Water

No response received.

Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland

No response received.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

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

1. the landscape 2. the local ecology and on the Whim Bog SSSI 3. local historical buildings or archaeological sites 4. the amenity of residential properties

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning principle

A decision was taken by the Planning and Building Standards Committee on 6 August 2012 to grant planning consent for a replacement shed on this site. The consent notice was issued on 10 December 2012 following the completion of a deed of variation to allow for additional numbers of birds to be housed on the overall site. The principal of a replacement shed has therefore been established. The planning consent remains live until 10 December 2015. This is a significant material consideration in the determination of this application.

It is considered that the current proposal is consistent with the Council’s policies on economic development in the countryside. It will provide full time employment for three to four people on site and will contribute to numerous other job opportunities within the processing and packing, and supply chain sectors poultry shed staff, agricultural worker, staff at the egg processing and packing facilities, vehicle drivers, tractor drivers). The conversion to a barn system will safeguard the employment of all the staff at Whim Poultry Farm. In terms of scale, massing and design it is an

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(a) appropriate building in this rural location and it can be adequately accommodated within the site

Legal issues

A Section 50 (now known as Section 75 agreements) legal agreement was entered into under application 94/01185/FUL which restricted further development of new buildings on the land to accommodate birds, the number of birds that could be housed at the site to 160,000 birds, the capacity of the egg packing unit (now moved to Millennium Farm), the hours for outdoor working, the requirement to maintain fans and extraction equipment in good order, the establishment of a monitoring regime for noise and odour emissions, the ability for Council to enter the land to carry out inspections and the requirement for prior consent of the council for any additions, extensions, alterations, or installations on the land or building forming part of the development.

The increase in the number of birds as required by the 2012 application was dealt with by a deed of variation. A new formal application to modify the agreement removing e the clause that states that no new buildings shall be built on the site will need to be submitted by the applicant before development can commence on site.

Impact on Landscape

In the Scottish Borders Landscape Character Assessment the site lies within the Rolling Farmland type (as defined) and is distinguished by a characteristic topography of rolling undulations, becoming steeper and more pronounced towards the uplands and more gentle at the lowland fringes . Land cover is characterised by a patchwork of medium and large sized arable, permanent and ley pasture fields typically enclosed by mature beech or hawthorn hedgerows or fences . Drystone dykes are common in the higher areas where sheep grazing predominates. Tree cover consists mainly of coniferous and mixed plantation blocks and shelterbelts. Broadleaf trees are generally less prominent, occurring mainly in small woodlands close to farmsteads, shelterbelts, or occasionally in hedgerows and narrow riparian strips along burn courses.

However, the landscape around the application site is different as it is part of the designed landscape and gardens which evolved during the various stages of development of Whim Hall and its associated buildings. The area was on the Inventory of Designed Landscapes and Gardens but it has been removed from the Inventory in 2011 as the area had become fragmented and is no longer of national significance. It is still considered to be locally significant.

The consented poultry shed was to be approximately 116m long by 28m wide, with associated feed silos and manure elevator. At 7.8m to eaves and 14m to ridge height the shed would have been taller than the existing structures on site. The sheds which have been removed were approximately 8-9 m to ridge height. The current proposals are for a shed that is to be 120m long along its longest side by 31m wide. It will have a height of 3.3m to the eaves and 7.4m to roof ridge. This represents a considerable reduction in height and a subsequent reduction on any potential adverse impact on the landscape.

However, the site is screened by trees and it is important that the tree cover within the applicant’s ownership is retained and improved. The council’s landscape architect requested for the previous application that a woodland management plan should be drawn up and submitted for approval. Although this has not been submitted with the

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

current application, it is understood from the applicant that the required work has been undertaken. Should members be minded to approve this application, it is recommended that a condition should be placed on the consent requiring the submission of the woodland management plan. This plan should include the retention of a small group of larch trees close to the southern entrance to the site which are considered to form a valuable amount of screening.

Subject to an appropriate woodland management plan to ensure that the screening is maintained and replaced, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the landscape of the area.

Impact on Ecology Whilst there are natural heritage interests of national importance close to the site, in particular the Whim Bog SSS1, it is the view of SNH that these interests will not be affected by the current proposal. This is because total emissions from the poultry farm were being reduced by the introduction of a belt drying system and that the bio- monitoring in 2011 by SEPA had shown that ammonia concentrations had dropped below the critical threshold where damage to the nearby Whim Bog SSSI may occur. In the amended ES it is estimated that total emissions of ammonia from the poultry farm will be further reduced from 11,448kg per year to 9048kg.

In relation to the local ecology and wildlife, surveys were undertaken as part of the original application and a Protected Species Mitigation Plan (SAC 24th August 2012) was submitted with the application. The results of the surveys are contained within the amended ES. The Council’s ecologist is of opinion that the mitigation measures identified in the report will be required to be implemented, preferably additionally with a tool-kit talk to contractors by a suitably qualified person.

From the surveys there was no evidence of breeding birds being potentially directly affected by the development. However, it is considered that due to the number of birds in the area it would be appropriate for any construction and site clearance to commence outside of the breeding bird season. If works are to commence during the breeding bird season (March-August) checking surveys of areas affected by the development and mitigation proposals for birds will be required.

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.

Impact on built and historic environment

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

There are a number of listed buildings close to the proposed development site including the C listed dovecote, which is immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed building. Given that the proposed height of the shed is significantly lower than that originally approved any potential impact will be reduced. Historic Scotland and the Council’s Heritage and Design Officer do not object to the proposals, as it is considered that the proposed replacement shed would not have an adverse impact on the setting of the Category A listed building at Whim Square nor on any other of the listed buildings.

However, the dovecote is very close to the proposed development and to ensure that there is no accidental damage to the structure during the construction phase, should

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(a) members be minded to approve the application, it is recommended that a condition should be placed on any consent for the erection of protective fencing around.

Subject to this condition, the proposals will not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the listed buildings.

Impact on Residential Amenity

A number of objections have been received from local residents and also from the Community Council. These objections relate to ongoing issues at Whim poultry farm which they consider may be exacerbated by a replacement chicken shed. These objections relate to noise, smell/odours, air pollution and dust, drainage and additional vehicular movements. All have these have the potential to have an adverse impact on the local residents and SEPA in their response refer to numerous complaints being received during 2013 from nearby residents. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have also received complaints. The nearest properties are Whim Square which lies approximately 140m northwest of the development, Cowdenwood approximately 100m northwest of the development, and Cowden Lodge, approximately 75 m southwest of the proposed shed.

The existing poultry farm at Whim Farm is regulated by SEPA under Part A of the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Scotland Regulations 2000.

Odour, dust, emissions, waste and impacts on sensitive receptors from the proposed poultry houses are controlled by SEPA as part of the PPC permit. SEPA do not object to the current proposals and they are of the view that the new shed which will house fewer birds than originally consented and the proposed manure management system will be a great improvement to the current system (one of which was deep pit) and will be based on a modern manure dry belt system. This will result in emissions to air being reduced overall. The dry belt system will also reduce the likelihood of flies as the conditions will not be ideal for the lifecycle of the flies.

Although SEPA do not object to the current proposal, an amendment to the PPC permit will be required and they will be seeking to confirm that systems for the new shed comply with the principles of BAT (Best Available Technique) for the specific situation at Whim. SEPA will also be looking for the existing shed ventilation systems to be upgraded to improve the situation.

The consultation response from SEPA notes aspects which are of concern and which need to be addressed as part of the amendment to the PPC permit. In particular, they note the absence of details of the proposed ventilation system and whether the proposed location of the fans is appropriate. Given that mechanical fans will emit noise, it is considered that the required details should also be submitted to the planning authority for further consideration.

Although SEPA are responsible for air quality, the Council’s Environmental Health Team deal with issues relating to local air quality and they have requested that monitoring should take place on the site to ensure that the new development does not have an adverse impact on the air quality of the area and cause unacceptable impacts on the residential amenity of the area. Although the applicant would prefer that this aspect is dealt with by SEPA, it is considered that it would be reasonable to place a condition on any consent requiring air quality monitoring to take place.

The Environmental Health Officer has also suggested that the applicant look at repositioning the manure elevator to the northern end of the shed and away from the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(a) nearest property. However, the applicant has confirmed that it has to be located at the opposite end of the shed from the egg collection equipment. The applicant has also confirmed that the manure elevators are supplied as fully enclosed structures. The manure is to be collected twice weekly filling approximately 4 trailer loads each week. It is taken away from the site to be used a locations away from the Whim area. It is considered that this will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of residents.

The issue relating to increase traffic and increased noise due to traffic has also been raised by the objectors. In addition to the manure collections there will be two feed deliveries per week and daily vehicle movements taking the eggs to the nearby Millennium Farm. These are not significantly large numbers of vehicles but it is considered that it would be appropriate to place a condition on the consent restricting the time of vehicular movements. It is understood that the birds are destocked during the night time as this is the best time to move the birds. There is some noise associated with this activity but it only occurs once every 60 weeks. It is not considered appropriate to recommend any specific conditions relating to this activity. However, in the ES it is stated that the careful timing of vehicle movements will ensure that noise is not created during night periods.

Traffic Scotland and the Roads Planning Officer have not raised any objections to the proposal but the later requires that vegetation is cut back at the entrance to ensure adequate visibility for vehicles turning out of the site.

The drainage from the site is to be through the existing drainage system which discharges through a swale to a reed bed system. To be effective this requires the water to flow slowly through the system. The SEPA licence includes drainage and SEPA has confirmed that there are currently no pollution issues associated with this system and they have no objections to the proposal to add the new drainage to the existing system. A condition to ensure that the drainage does not affect neighbouring properties was placed on the previous consent and, should members be minded to approve this application it is considered that the same condition should be applied.

As this is an amendment to a previously approved application, it is considered that in this instance it is not necessary for the applicants to consider an alternative location. However, the issue is briefly assessed in paragraph 2.3.1 of the Environmental Statement. Consideration was given to locating the replacement shed at the Millennium Farm which, it is noted, would have been a better logistically. However, modelling of ammonia emissions and the upgrading of nearby Peewit Moss from SSSI to SAC status indicated that this may have caused problems.

There is a current consent for a replacement shed on this site and this application is for an amendment to that consent. The new shed will be lower in height, will incorporate a dry manure removal system and a mechanical ventilation system. It is considered that this represents an improvement on the previously approved building and the new shed will not have a significant adverse impact on the residential amenity of the area. It is noted that there are ongoing complaints in respect of air quality, smells/odours, noise and flies. Where appropriate, these are being addressed by SEPA through the PCC process and improvements to the existing sheds may be required to comply with the principles of BAT (Best Available Technique).

CONCLUSION

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

The proposed development complies with the Local Plan policies for economic development in the countryside. It is an appropriate building in terms of design, scale and massing and it is considered that due to the lower height level and the significant reduction in bird numbers, it impact will be less than that of the shed already approved under consent 12/00465/FUL.

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.

The key issues raised by the objectors relate to matters which are controlled by SEPA under the Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Scotland Regulations 2000 and the applicant’s existing permit will require to be amended. SEPA do not object to this application and are satisfied that the development is potentially capable of being authorised under this regime. SEPA also consider that further improvements can be made to the existing operation to comply with the principles of BAT (Best Available Technique). Environmental Health has requested that air quality monitoring should take place to ensure that the measures that are put in place achieve the required standards.

Given that there is an existing consent for a replacement shed and that the current proposals have significant advantages over the approved building in terms of lower height, significant reduction in bird numbers and emissions particularly ammonia, it is considered that the proposed the application can be supported.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES::

I recommend that the application is 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:

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.

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

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

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

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

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. 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.

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 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

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

DRAWING NUMBERS Location Plan - 2032469-AP-01 Site Layout - 2032469-AP-02 Floor Plan and Elevations - 2032469-AP-03 Site Sections - 2032469-AP-04

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 Dorothy Amyes Planning Officer

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

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MARCH 2014

APPLICATION FOR CONSENT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00626/S36

OFFICER: John Hiscox WARD: Leaderdale and Melrose PROPOSAL: Wind farm comprising 24 wind turbines, substation, control room buildings and compound, access tracks, 2 No meteorological masts, borrow pits and temporary constructions and site storage compound (Revised scheme involving deletion of 1 turbine, amendment to turbine layout and reduction in height of further 3 turbines) SITE: Land North East of Cathpair Farmhouse, Girthgate, between Stow and Lauder – Girthgate Wind Farm APPLICANT: Muirhall Energy Ltd & Community Windpower Ltd & Lomond Energy Ltd AGENT: n/a

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To advise the Scottish Government of the response from Scottish Borders Council on the application by Muirhall Energy Ltd, to construct a 24-turbine wind farm on land lying north of the Lauder Common Road (Lauder-Stow – B6362).

2.0 PROCEDURE

2.1 Scottish Borders Council (SBC) is a consultee as a ‘relevant authority’. All of the turbines and new infrastructure would be sited within Borders.

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 bulk of the application site is situated on farmland described by the developer as ‘open moorland…predominantly used as rough grazing pasture by roaming sheep’. It would cover an area of 802 Hectares, but within which it excludes areas of non-site ground at Whitlaw and Trabrownhill. It is situated between the A7 and A68 Trunk Roads, which run in a north-

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

west/south-east direction either side of the development. The nearest turbine to Lauder’s western fringes would be approximately 3km away. From the eastern fringes of Stow the distance is slightly less as the crow flies, at 2.4km approx., although the Craigend Cottages, arguably forming the tail end of the town (Killochyett), are within 2.2km. The site extends eastwards towards the A68 from where it would obtain its principal vehicular access during construction (approx 1.7km north of the fringes of Lauder).

3.2 The developer advises within the non-technical summary (para 2.5) that ‘the elevation of the site ranges from a low of 239m AOD at Ladypart Plantation and a high of 370m AOD to the east of Black Andrew Wood’. The site overall, therefore, has a differential in terms of its height above sea level of 131m from its lowest to its highest.

3.3 Its principle south-east boundary is approximately 3km long, is mostly linear and aligns with Brown Rig, a natural ridge in the landscape roughly parallel with the Lauder Common Road. Its north-east boundary is situated in the vicinity of Trabrown Hill and would be approximately 2km in length, although it is not linear, but is ‘S’-shaped. To the north and north-west the site meets with farmland close to Inchkeith and Mitchelston respectively, and to the south-west lies an area broadly known as Cathpair. The site touches the Lauder Common Road around 2km east of Stow. The site is irregular in shape; its precise boundaries can be seen in maps within the ES.

3.4 The Girthgate, which is a named walking and cycling route with a long history of use of some renown locally, passes through the site. Outwith the site, other long distance walking routes relate to the area, the closest of which is the Southern Upland Way at 3km distance in a southerly direction, which includes Chesters Hill, an Iconic Viewpoint within Borders.

3.5 Two major overhead power transmission lines with their supporting pylons pass through the eastern reaches of the application site, running north to south generally through Trabrown and Whitlaw. The nearest turbine would be just over 1km from the nearest line.

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

4.1 The development would comprise:

x 24 wind turbines and their foundations x Crane hardstanding areas x Substation/control room buildings and compound x Underground electrical and fibre optical cables to each turbine x Access track and onsite access tracks x 2 no. 80m permanent meteorological masts x A 132kV connection to a grid supply point x Borrow pits (up to 3) for use during development, to be reinstated post-construction x Temporary construction and site storage compound

4.2 The current version of the scheme is a revision to the original scheme, submitted as a formal Addendum (or Further Environmental Information – ‘FEI’) in November 2013. One turbine has been deleted from the original scheme; the layout has been amended and the tip height of 3 no. turbines has been reduced (from 132m to 125m). The remaining 21 turbines have a tip height of 132m and a hub height of 85m. Altogether, the output from the development is intended to be 81.6 megawatts (MW). Each turbine would have the potential to produce 3.4MW. The developer explains the reasons for making the revisions in the new Introduction on Page 8 of the Addendum to the ES (Para 0.0.1 to 0.0.9). The superseded and current layouts can be compared in Figure A1 (Page 18 of the same document).

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

4.3 It should be noted that the turbine deleted from the original scheme (T1) was notably the lowest AOD, at 291m. The next lowest (T23) is at 304m AOD.

4.4 A new vehicular site access is proposed to facilitate implementation of the wind farm, which would meet with the A68 – a new junction would be built roughly halfway between Lauderhaugh Farm’s access and the junction connecting the A68 to the A697 near Newmills. In Paragraph 2.9.5 of the ES, the developer states that ‘During the operational phase of the wind farm day to day site engineers will enter the site through Lauder Industrial Estate and along existing track.’ This ‘secondary access’ is identified in the location and block plans submitted, but would become the primary post-construction access.

4.5 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.

4.6 The developer has identified a desire to benefit from a micrositing allowance of 100m for turbines and for tracks if planning permission is granted, to allow for unforeseen issues requiring to be addressed during development.

4.7 Some woodland removal is intended to facilitate the development (3 hectares in total).

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

5.1 Rowantree: A Section 36 planning application to Scottish Government for 23 turbines with a tip height of 125m. Further to Public Inquiry sessions, undertaken in part because SBC objected to the application, a determination is awaited. It is understood that ECDU may be waiting for the Eskdalemuir Working Group to conclude its findings in relation to MoD concerns about noise vibration nuisance undermining the operation of Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station.

5.1.1 Rowantree is situated north north-west of the Girthgate site. The site boundaries are close, with a separation of approximately 500m. The nearest turbines would be approximately 800m apart. The most significant cumulative effects, particularly landscape and visual effects, would occur with Rowantree. Girthgate appears in some visualisations as an extension to, or part of Rowantree but equally, in some visualisations it appears as a distinguishable separate entity, in part because of its different receiving landscape combined with the impacts of the larger turbines. On occasion, Rowantree and Girthgate appear in front of one another or overlap substantially.

5.2 Toddleburn: An operational wind farm situated approximately 4km north north-west of the northernmost Girthgate turbine. Planning permission granted on appeal following refusal by SBC. The windfarm comprises 12 turbines with a tip height of 125m.

5.2.1 Toddleburn is highly relevant in terms of its cumulative relationship with Girthgate, and with other wind energy projects approved (constructed) or awaiting determination. It is adjacent to Rowantree, and acts as a visual link between the established wind farms at Dun Law and Dun Law Extension in a southerly direction towards Girthgate. Toddleburn occurs in visualisations coincidentally with Girthgate on a number of occasions within the photomontages and wirelines of the Girthgate ES. It contributes greatly to the sequential landscape and visual effects arising in the Lauder Common Plateau Grassland Landscape Character Area between the A7 and the A68, would do more so if Rowantree is consented and even more if Girthgate (and Shawpark – see Para 5.4) are approved.

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

5.3 Dun Law/Dun Law Extension: Describable broadly as ‘Dun Law’, this windfarm is the northernmost of those in the aforementioned landscape character area and begins approximately 6.5km north of the Girthgate site. Within the Scottish Borders is it something of an end-stop to wind farms, but beyond is the smaller Pogbie Wind Farm and a further development is consented known as Keith Hill – these are not within Borders (within East Lothian).

5.3.1 Dun Law is perceivably the ‘parent’ wind farm to those others south of it. Notwithstanding the presence of Longpark (see section 5.5 below) some distance south of Toddleburn, the general rhythm created by the placement of Toddleburn and Rowantree, then potentially Girthgate, Shawpark and Longpark begins with Dun Law. Its relevance to consideration of Girthgate arises from both its coincident landscape and visual impacts (for example, when viewed from the south with all other developments in the ‘foreground’) and from the role it plays in creating sequential visual effects when moving through the landscape (for example, on the A68 heading over Soutra Hill) and when seeing the potential progression of wind farms from Dun Law through to Longpark.

5.4 Shawpark: A planning application refused by SBC for 9 turbines with a tip height of 99.5m, currently under appeal with DPEA. This is a major development whose site begins only 200- 300m south of Girthgate’s site. Its placement and design are such that landscape and visual, and amenity effects were considered to be unacceptable.

5.4.1 Shawpark would have substantial cumulative effects with Girthgate, in particular when it relates to the town of Stow. Cumulative effects with Longpark (next section) and Girthgate are readily apparent from the photomontages and wireline drawings submitted for both applications. Shawpark is considered to be a poorly designed scheme sited inappropriately and with unacceptable adverse impacts. However, if planning permission is granted it would certainly reduce the space between Longpark and all other developments and would have the potential to leave Girthgate’s area as the only remaining break in what would otherwise appear as a north- south wind farm ‘belt’ when viewed from some vantage points, mainly those looking east and west towards the landscape.

5.5 Longpark: An operational wind farm with 19 turbines, tip height 100m, granted planning permission on appeal following refusal by SBC. Situated approximately 3km south of the Girthgate site at nearest point, although slightly further turbine-turbine.

5.5.1 Longpark is different from other windfarms further north along the landscape character area because it stands alone and does not have the same recognisable relationship with Dun Law, being so distant from it and not causing such a rhythmical sequential effect. However, the consenting of Rowantree and Girthgate, and potentially Shawpark would draw Longpark firmly into the sequence and would mean that the spatial separation would no longer exist. From Longpark through to Dun Law (and beyond to Pogbie and Keith Hill) a belt with no clear spaces would be created.

5.6 Other schemes: Cumulative effects would occur with other wind energy developments including Carcant and Bowbeat in the Moorfoot Hills and Fallago Rig in the Lammermuirs. These are operational wind farms 10-15km away from the Girthgate site and may be seen together with the Girthgate turbines. The cumulative effects with these schemes is arguably less critical and less striking, although in a broader sense the addition of Girthgate to the existing baseline that includes these operational sites is of some significance.

5.6.1 The major development at Brunta Hill, out east towards Westruther is currently under appeal following refusal by SBC. It is approximately 10km from Girthgate and would have visual associations with it if both are consented. Again, the addition of Brunta Hill to the windfarm baseline would give rise to cumulative effects between it and other wind farms, but the effects

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

would be very different and would relate more to the sequential augmentation of the wider area than it would to that of the Lauder Common LCA.

5.6.2 Mention should be made to Muircleugh, a 6-turbine scheme now withdrawn which would have been proposed on the south side of the Lauder Common Road. Although there is no live planning application, SBC is aware that the developer intends to submit a new planning application for 7 turbines on a similar site. A Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) has been submitted and responded to.

5.6.3 With no firm application made, the significance of Muircleugh is at this stage is not high and is not a material consideration. However, were it to come forward and be consented alongside other projects, it would have the most noticeable cumulative effects with Longpark and Girthgate, and would also feature in the broader ‘belt’ character of all the projects potentially to be built in the LCA.

6.0 PLANNING HISTORY:

6.1 04/00350/FUL – Construction of wind farm (‘Sell Moor’) consisting of 19 turbines and associated development. Refused for the following reason:

“The proposed development would be contrary to Policies I20 and N13 of the Structure Plan, Policies 83 and 84 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan and Policies BE3 and D4 of the Consultative Draft Local Plan in that it would have a detrimental impact on landscape character, countryside amenity and on the setting of a site in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. Policy I20 of the Structure Plan in that it would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to the detriment of landscape character and countryside amenity. Policies N14, N15 and N17 of the Structure Plan, Policies 52 and 53 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan and Policies BE1 and BE3 of the Consultative Draft Local Plan in that it would have adverse impacts on archaeological and cultural heritage interests. Policy 118 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan in that it would have a detrimental impact on the existing network of rights of way and the existing recreational uses within the area.”

6.2 Although this scheme has an application site that straddles the Lauder Common Road, its turbines were focussed more on the northern side of the road and their positions overlap to some extent with the Girthgate proposal, and with the Shawpark site. No appeal was submitted following the refusal.

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:

x Volume 1 – Environmental Statement (May 2013) x Volume 2 – Figures (May 2013) x Non-Technical Summary (May 2013) x Planning Statement (May 2013) x Confidential Annex relating to ecology (May 2013)

7.2 The Addendum, or Further Environmental Information (FEI) received in November 2013 included replacement and supplementary items in relation to each of the above documents. Essentially, the revised ES sought to plugs gaps identified by consultees in terms of the quality of information presented originally.

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

7.3 However, the applicants have made changes to the scheme, and took the opportunity to formalise these within the Addendum.

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 26 January 2014, a total of 97 third party representations in objection, and 12 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 BE4 – Conservation Areas Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development

SESplan Strategic Development Plan June 2013:

Policy 10 - Sustainable Energy Technologies

10.0 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

10.1 Adopted SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance and other documents:

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy 2007 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy 2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance for Biodiversity 2005

10.2 Scottish Government Planning Policy and Guidance:

Scottish Planning Policy 2010 National Planning Framework for Scotland (2) 2009 Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011

10.3 Scottish Government On-line Renewables Advice:

PAN 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (S) Regulations 2011 PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008 PAN 58 Environmental Impact Assessment 1999

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

PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation

10.4 SNH On line advice on renewables:

10.5 European Directive(s):

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Conservation of Wild Birds).

11.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

11.1 Landscape Architect: 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, due to (i) potential cumulative landscape effects; (ii) adverse landscape and visual effects caused by scale of scheme in relation to receiving landscape; and (iii) disharmony with other wind farms either in the planning system or operational.

11.2 Archaeology Officer: The SBC Archaeology Officer has given coverage both to direct and indirect development impacts. The pre-existing consultation response of Historic Scotland (Paragraph 12.5 below) has been taken into account in preparation of this response.

11.2.1 In terms of direct impacts, although the consultee requires a more robust approach to evaluating (and potentially preserving) subterranean archaeology, there is a general acceptance that direct effects are mitigatable.

11.2.2 In terms of indirect impacts, however, the consultee describes the cultural and historic significance of the monuments and broader heritage of the environs of Lauder Common, and the potential for the development to harm experience and appreciation of one monument in particular, being the Cathpair Hut Circles, identifiable in visual terms due to the presence of a prominent stone cairn visible on Brown Rig, within the monument. A major, significant adverse impact to the setting of this monument is described, leading to a requirement to delete or relocate not only the same three turbines identified by Historic Scotland (T8, T9 and T15 - see later paragraph 12.5), but also an additional turbine T21 to provide what might be a sufficient level of mitigation to preserve the setting of the monument and historic landscape forming part of its setting.

11.2.3 The effect of this consultation response is to raise an objection to the current scheme, due to the unacceptable level of impacts to the setting of Cathpair Hut Circles and the historic landscape of Lauder Common.

11.3 Ecology Officer: The SBC Ecology Officer has identified deficiencies and mistakes in the report which promote uncertainty and which would require further consideration. The developer would need to be advised that at some stage, preferably pre-determination, further work to clarify matters would be required to give greater understanding and reduce the risk of environmental harm.

11.3.1 Importantly, this consultee has identified risk that is high in relation to two protected bird species. In this context, it is suggested by this specialist that deletion of 4 no. turbines (T12, T11, T13 and T5) would minimise risk and is preferred.

11.3.2 Other matters are discussed in terms of mitigation, which would be achievable via planning conditions.

11.4 Roads Planning Manager: There has been no input from this consultee, at the time of writing this report. It is envisaged that a verbal report will be made during presentation at Committee.

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

11.5 Access Officer: This consultee considers the proposal in the context of a range of national and local policy and guidance. It identifies concerns relating to visual effects of the development on the path network which would be harmful to amenity. A range of public paths, including the Southern Upland Way (which is represented in the visualisations submitted as part of the ES) and other core paths, including those in Lauder Common are discussed. The Lauder Common Riding route is also discussed.

11.5.1 This consultee is recommending that the application is refused due to the overriding visual effects caused on the amenity of the public path network (users).

11.5.2 The response goes on to discuss potential conditions and benefits achievable through planning obligations, if the development goes ahead.

11.6 Environmental Health Officer: 17/1/14: This consultee identifies deficiencies in the noise survey information submitted and forming part of the ES. There is uncertainty in relation to the actual levels of noise that would be produced. There is concern that the predicted cumulative noise levels are not accurate as the methodology used does not utilise precise enough data. There is further concern that properties described as being ‘financially involved’ may not be so, in the context of noise limitations at noise sensitive receptors.

11.6.1 This consultee is recommending that further noise information is required before appropriate assessment can be made of noise issues, i.e. prior to determination.

11.7 Forward Planning Section: 24/7/13: This consultee assesses the proposal in terms of its broad effects, and against relevant national and local planning policy. The specific concerns mentioned in the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan about cumulative wind farm impacts are reiterated and considered to be of relevance.

11.7.1 Summarises by describing main concerns as those relating to impacts on Iconic Viewpoints, Thirlstane Castle HGDL, on settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and potential impacts on residents of Craigend Road, Stow. Gives focus to concern about cumulative landscape and visual impacts with other consented/built wind farms and those also in planning with potential to be consented.

11.7.2 Describes also significance of designations within the Spatial Strategy of the SBC Wind Energy SPG.

11.7.3 2nd consultation response received on 5/12/13, in relation to the Addendum scheme, acknowledges slight improvement insofar as removal of T1 and other changes to height reduce impacts. However, concerns still largely remain and are reiterated.

12.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES (SUBMITTED TO SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT):

12.1 The Ministry of Defence has objected to the planning application on two counts. The first objection relates to interference with the RAF Spadeadam Deadwater Fell Air Defence Radar, 51.4km from the site. The second relates to impacts caused by noise vibrations in relation to Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station, 46.9km from the site. This objection is outstanding.

12.2 Forestry Commission Scotland has indicated that the proposals for tree felling are not consistent with Forestry Commission guidance, in that the nature and extent of compensatory planting has not been clarified.

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

12.3 SNH has indicated that it will object to the application until such a time as further information is provided relating to the River Tweed SAC (Special Area of Conservation). Because the development has the potential to affect internationally important natural heritage interests, the Scottish Ministers will have to undertake an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ (Habitat Regulations Appraisal) in relation to the likely effects.

The consultation reply is submitted in detail, giving focus to biodiversity impacts, and impacts relating to landscape and visual effects. The consultation response may be viewed in full via Public Access, but a summary of the main areas of interest (other than that of the objection) would be as follows:

x Special Protection Areas (Greenlaw Moor, Gladhouse Reservoir, Fala Flow) would not be adversely affected by the proposal x level and nature of landscape and visual impacts (including cumulative) is such that the proposal does not fully comply with SNH guidance – substantial reduction in scale of wind farm could reduce landscape and visual impacts significantly x information within the ES and Addendum relating to ecology and birds is deficient; however, development unlikely to have a significant effect on the habitat and species and bird interests of the site x standard of information presented throughout the ES is not fully accurate and quality is insufficient

12.4 The consultation response of SEPA identifies certain 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 environmental management and pollution prevention x protection of the water environment x flood risk x development layout – adjustment necessary and/or conditions to ensure that impacts on Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs) are minimised – requires turbines T7, T8, T16 and T19 to potentially need to be relocated x decommissioning and restoration x forestry and forestry waste x implications of borrow pit use

12.5 Historic Scotland has indicated that whilst there are no issues of national importance that would lead it to object, the project does promote issues relating to visual impact, which it suggests should be considered at local level (by SBC). Deletion or relocation of 3 turbines may be advisable due to their proximity and relationship to a scheduled monument ‘Cathpair, hut circles and field system 2500m and 2600m ESE of’. The impact of the development in relation to the schedule monument and relates also to the wider heritage setting, which includes related unscheduled archaeological sites.

12.5.1 Whilst it does not object to the scheme on the basis of its relationship with, and impact on the setting of Thirlstane Castle and its associated park and woodland (designated Historic Garden/Designed Landscape), this consultee discusses in detail the importance of the castle and its associated assets and how the visual impacts would affect it.

12.6 The Oxton and Channelkirk Community Council has indicated that it supports the planning application. The full response is available to view on Public Access.

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

12.7 The Stow, Fountainhall and Heriot Community Councils, jointly with the Lauderdale Preservation Group, have indicated that they object to the planning application. The full response, including a range of supporting information is available to view on Public Access.

13.0 KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

13.1 - land use planning policy principle - 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 encourage the principle of constructing a wind farm on agricultural land provided there are no unacceptable environmental impacts. 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 Grassland’ landscape character type. Specifically, this area is the Lauder Common landscape character area within the aforementioned character type. This landscape character area is buffered to east and west by valley landscape types but is highly intervisible with the ‘Undulating Grassland’ type to the south-east of the development (East Gala) which includes much of the Gattonside-Lauder section of the Southern Upland Way. These relationships are depicted in Figure 6.7 of the ES.

14.3 The ES identifies a generally substantial effect on landscape character within 10km (Table 6.9 of ES Volume 1), with some moderate or moderate/substantial effects and moderate/slight effects out to the edges of this 10km area. The ZTV map in Figure 6.12 of the ES (Volume 2) for tip visibility shows high potential for most of the turbines to be seen within 5km of the site in all directions; between 5km and 10km there is a significant level of theoretical visibility out to 10km – approximately 30-40% and covering zones at most points of the compass. Out to 15km there are swathes where a notable level of theoretical visibility still occurs, particularly north-east on the Lammermuir fringes, within most of the Upper Leader Landscape Character Area and also east on and around the B5468 ‘Westruther Road’.

14.4 There are two aspects of this development intrinsically that render the landscape impacts unacceptable. The first of these arises from the vertical scale of the proposed turbines. The ambition to utilise mainly 132m tip-height turbines makes them clearly the tallest of all those under consideration or approved/constructed in this part of the Borders. This, added to the fact that the topography of (and surrounding) the site does not offer a sufficient levels of containment, makes the development overtly prominent.

14.5 The second arises from the spread/massing and horizontal scale of the development, and its proposed occupation of a wide expanse of land which does not have the capacity to contain it within the upland core of the landscape.. As can be seen from the submitted montages and wireframes, the development ‘leaks out’ eastwards and westwards from the upland, and

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

arguably southwards towards Lauder Common because there is no wide plateau or bowl that has the scale and capacity to absorb the development. Entire turbine columns are seen either perched on horizons or in front of the horizons.

14.6 The effects of the windfarm on the landscape character of the Lauder Common would be to dominate. It would constitute the most prominent component of within it when viewed from distance, and would be particularly apparent when compared to other wind farms that are more modest or which occupy more logical sites with better containment.

14.7 The landscape and visual information presented with the ES demonstrates some of these adverse landscape impacts. It is important to analyse these effects in response to how they have been presented. A total of 27 non-heritage viewpoints have been selected to enable the developer to provide graphical information showing the landscape and visual effects. Although some viewpoints show broadly similar effects as others, the following have been selected for specific comment on landscape effects:

14.7.1 Viewpoint 5 (Three Brethren): from this well-known vantage point on the Southern Upland Way, the distance to the wind farm is approximately 15km. Although it is not fully clear from looking at the A3 montage image, existing development at Toddleburn and Dun Law is visible, as is Longpark, being the closest wind farm. Girthgate would be easily viewed in this landscape along with the others mentioned and would begin to fill the gap that exists between Toddleburn/Dun Law and Long Park. Rowantree would effectively complete the belt of wind farms along with Girthgate. This view looks right up through the Lauder Common LCA via the ‘West Gala’ Undulating Grassland Landscape Character Area. Although distance reduces the magnitude of effect, the bulk of the turbines (up to 19) would be theoretically visible to hub, and many of the support columns would be highly visible. Although the overall view has the potential to be occupied as a ‘landscape with windfarms’, and thereby making it difficult to tell which project is which, Girthgate compares badly with Rowantree in terms of its containment and would be the most prominent wind farm in the view. This occurs due to the prominence of the site and lack of containment combined with the scale of the scheme.

14.7.2 Viewpoint 13 (Stagehall Hill): From this viewpoint, at approximately 3.5km from the wind farm, landscape effects arise from the sheer dominance of the development in relation to the horizon, and the importance this piece of landscape has, as backdrop to the town of Stow. The viewpoint is situated within the Pastoral Upland Valley – ‘Gala Water’ LCA, hence this view drops into the valley then rises again, which adds to the sense of verticality of the development on top of the horizon. The landscape within which the development would be accommodated has a strong horizontal emphasis and contains only modest components such as plantations and very small hills, whereas the scale of the turbines in this view is very large and the effect is one of dominance. The central and dominant landscape component in this view (presently) is the Common itself, but in terms of scale it can neither compete with turbine scale, nor contain the turbines successfully.

14.7.3 Viewpoint 15 (Southern Upland Way, near Rutherford’s Cairn): The viewpoint looks along the line of the SUW at approximately 14km from the Girthgate site. The view is southwesterly and sees the wind farm from the Lammermuir Plateau LCA via the Upper Leader LCA, but with the rolling farmland of the ‘Westruther Platform’ in the left of the view. Despite the distance it is a good viewpoint from which the potential relationship of Girthgate with the landscape and with other wind farms can be appreciated. The view is quite panoramic and has a long, relatively flat horizon, although its horizontality is broken by several hills. Dun Law and Toddleburn projects are visible in the right side of the panorama, and Longpark in the left side. Whereas the break in development from Toddleburn to Longpark is currently substantial, the chain that would be formed by Rowantree, Girthgate and potentially Shaw Park would connect the schemes up and cause the Lauder Common LCA to be dominated by turbines. Girthgate would be the most prominent and central to the view. Due to the lack of topographical containment afforded to the

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

site, the scale of the turbines and the massing of the development, it would not be harmonious with its receiving landscape.

14.7.4 Viewpoints 17 (Addinston) and 18 (Huntington) – both on A697: These viewpoints represent fairly well the sequential visibility of the wind farm that would be experienced travelling the A697 to the east of the development between Carfraemill and Thirlstane Farm, over a stretch of around 7km. There is theoretical visibility from this entire stretch of most of the turbines (see Figure 6.12, ES Volume 2), although there are significant stretches where visibility does not occur due to screening woodlands. Both are situated within the Upland Valley with Farmland landscape character type, more specifically within the Upper Leader LCA. VP18 in particular has added interest because it includes the northern end of the Thirlstane Castle HGDL, and looks across it towards the development.

14.7.5 From the A697 along this stretch, and from further east on higher ground (for example, from the Southern Upland Way near Wanton Walls Farm) the Girthgate wind farm would become a highly prominent new component of the Lauder Common LCA, and due to its vertical and horizontal scales would not harmonise with the landscape. Add to this the apparent ‘leaking’ of the development over the edge of the higher ground formed by the Common landscape with columns appearing on the downwards eastern slopes of the Common and the landscape is demonstrated not to be capable of providing a suitable platform for the development.

14.7.6 Viewpoint 19 (Southern Upland Way, Kedslie Hill) and Viewpoint 21 (Black Hill): From these viewpoints, the effects of the potential string of wind farms along the Lauder Common LCA is highly apparent. Figure 6.60b and 6.62b of the ES Addendum show not only the overlapping, simultaneous landscape impacts of Girthgate, Toddleburn and Rowantree but also the sequential cumulative impacts of all existing and proposed developments, from Keith Hill through to Longpark. Notwithstanding the difference in distances to each project from the viewpoints, most would be prominent and clear and the landscape effect would be high, causing the horizon to resemble a ‘landscape with wind farms’ with no significant spaces between their peripheries and with the biggest and most confused multi-depth turbine area occupied heavily with the combined presence of Toddleburn, Girthgate and Rowantree.

Visual Impacts:

14.8 There are several types of visual impact to consider in relation to the Girthgate scheme. These relate to (i) the relationship with the towns of Stow and Lauder; (ii) effects on settings of cultural heritage assets; (iii) effects of the appearance of the development, due to its placement, layout and design; (vi) impacts on Lauder Common and its ‘access’ users; and (v) relationship with private residences in terms of proximity and physical presence to the environs of the residences. The range of adverse visual effects again stems from the number of turbines proposed, their vertical and horizontal scale effects in relation to that of the receiving landscape, the absence of good topographical containment, and the placement of the development in relation to a range of ‘receptors’.

14.9 Some of the adverse visual effects are illustrated within the ES. The following give examples of the affects mentioned in paragraph 14.8:

14.9.1 Viewpoint 1 (Girthgate {path} on Lauder Common): Lauder Common is an important recreational asset, within which public access is wide ranging and includes a network of paths including the Girthgate. Its ‘official’ northern edge is defined by a long stone dyke, clearly seen in Figure 6.42c. Historically, the common extended northwards into what is now farmland, and although the dyke is a strong visual component of this view, it must not be considered as an end stop to the common area – it is integral to the common environs. The visual effects of the development would be experienced by users of the Common at close quarters – 750m from the viewpoint, but significantly closer and lower to the turbines where access extends northwards.

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

Users of the common in this locality would get a sense of being ‘with’ the wind farm due to the scale and placement of the turbines, the openness of the ground and the proximity of the development to the common. In effect, no significant buffer would exist between the common’s northern edge and the turbines. Several of them (T2, T3, T9, T15, T8 and T21) would have the potential to be overbearing, while the entire development would always be highly visible as an entity, its vertical and horizontal massing causing a dominant effect.

In simple terms, the development appears too close to the core of the Common due to placement and scale of development. The visual effects are high, and adverse, changing the character of the Common to one which is dominated by the wind farm.

14.9.2 Viewpoint 7 (Thirlstane Designed Landscape): Although the viewpoint is not located within what might be described as the core curtilage to the listed Thirlstane Castle, it is fairly central to the HGDL (Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes) designated area. Walkers frequently use this accessible area.

The development at just under 4km would occupy the horizon above residences at the northern end of Lauder. The hubs of at least 17 of the 24 turbines would be seen above the horizon, despite the containment that horizon potentially offers to limit their prominence.

In this view, the appearance of the development does not flow and includes two double and one triple ‘stacking’ effect, where turbines in front of and behind each other overlap and cause a degree of visual discordance. These effects would change and vary when moving through the wider area that relates to the viewpoint, mainly because of the number of turbines and the depth of the layout when viewed from most directions. This type of effect generally lessens when there are fewer turbines.

The visual effects combine with those caused by existing electricity pylons, increasing visual clutter by accumulation with them. The view also demonstrates the overbearing relationship that the turbines have to the Conservation village of Lauder.

14.9.3 Viewpoint 9 (A68 Lauder Barns): This viewpoint is fairly low in relation to the wind farm, and although it begins to represent what the visual relationship would be when viewed from the town’s environs, this picture could be enhanced with additional visualisations from higher vantage points back towards the south on the same road (approaching from Earlston).

Lauder’s approach would include a strong image of both the town and the wind farm behind it, giving Lauder an early association with the development when approaching from this direction. The combined view of the town, its landscape backdrop and then the development sitting on top/behind this is neither cohesive nor desirable. It demonstrates that there is inadequate topographical containment for a development of this scale, in this location.

14.9.4 Viewpoint 12 (Craigend Road, Killochyett/Stow) and Viewpoint 13 (Stagehall): These viewpoints represent the fringes of Stow, close to its settlement boundary in the case of the former, as per the Local Plan. In addition to the landscape effects mentioned earlier at 14.7.2, the Stagehall viewpoint shows significant visual effects.

Both viewpoints begin to show the strong visual relationship that would exist between Stow town and the wind farm. Stow nestles in the valley of the Gala Water, and is a conservation settlement with distinctive buildings and vegetation within it. The effects are to some extent similar to those relating to Lauder, although it is acknowledged that the A7 sits mainly within the valley on approaches to the town so the effects are different. The visual associations arise mainly when viewing the town, its setting and the development from the south-west in association with the valley environs of the burn running from Killochyett to Cathpair. The

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

visualisations do not show the complete picture of the potential visual relationship between the town and the wind farm. It is considered that it environs would feel dominated by the development, which would become a very strong visual entity above and behind the town, regularly seen in contrast to its conservation setting. These components would conflict visually, with the development potentially overwhelming the setting of Stow, viewed from a range of vantage points in and around the town. This visual impact on Stow when this windfarm is considered in relation to Langhope and Shawpark would be significant and domineering.

14.9.5 Viewpoints 17 (Addinston) and 18 (Huntington) – both on A697: These viewpoints have also been previously considered in terms of landscape impacts, but also show adverse visual impacts that relate primarily to the design and appearance of the wind farm.

From these points, and potentially from higher ground to the east of the A697 (and indeed from many points along the A697 where the development is poorly contained) the ‘bumpy’, undulating character of the wind farm may be observed. The development has a messy (cluttered), ranging appearance that is disharmonious with the ridge it relates to, sitting in front of, on top of and behind it. The absence of good topographical containment and the scale of the turbines in relation to the receiving environs add prominence to the development and accentuate these effects.

Furthermore, it is from the A697 and higher ground to the east that the visual relationship between Lauder and the development would be evident. From Viewpoint 18 at Huntington, the northern reaches of the earlier mentioned Thirlstane Castle HGDL can be observed in the foreground, with the castle itself and Lauder town in the wider scene. Lauder appears set into its valley environs; the development would look even more conflicting when viewed from further east above the valley. The conservation setting of Lauder and Thirlstane would have a strong and disharmonious relationship with the setting of the wind farm. The visual association between these items would be strong and not benefit from good separation by topography.

14.9.6 Viewpoint 19 (Southern Upland Way, Kedslie Hill) and 21 (Black Hill): From this location on the SUW and from further back on Black Hill, as shown in the wireframe drawings for the viewpoints, massed cumulative effects would occur with the combination of Toddleburn, Rowantree and Girthgate.

This massed effect of wind farm in front of wind farm in front of wind farm would cause a high level of visual confusion and would present an inevitable lack of cohesion to those observing the view from the SUW or from Black Hill. The central cluster would seem to carry on and on beyond the closest turbines, with little clarity on which development is which, and with overlapping and stacking effects seen at their potential most noticeable.

14.10 In essence, even if the principle of developing a wind farm in this location might be agreeable, visual impacts associated with sensitive receptors would have to be reduced substantially to enable an agreeable level of visual harmony.

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts:

14.11 Girthgate Wind Farm would be seen cumulatively with a range of commercial wind farm developments, as is clear from the ES and the attention to this matter in the ES and Addendum. However, it is the relationship with those closest to the Girthgate project that have most influence cumulatively, plus those which have the potential to link together to cause an overall cumulative effect (a ‘cluster’).

14.12 For example, the picture portrayed from Three Brethren, a well-known viewpoint on the Southern Upland Way, and being Viewpoint 5 utilised to portray landscape and visual effects in the ES. The cumulative wireline drawing facing towards Girthgate includes long range views

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

towards the north-east that include operational and consented schemes (plus those either in, or recently withdrawn from planning). The decision for Rowantree is awaited with great interest because it has significant intrinsic and cumulative landscape and visual impacts. Assuming that it may gain consent, Girthgate would occupy the space between a cluster formed by Rowantree, Toddleburn, Pogbie, Dun Law and Dun Law Extension, and a cluster formed purely by Longpark, but with Fallago Rig clearly in view behind and to the right of Longpark and causing coincidental cumulative effects.

14.13 Girthgate would occupy the space between these developments and begin to redefine the modest limitations created by the cluster and space effects already occurring. It is not a natural end stop to development creeping southwards from the original Dun Law scheme via Dun Law Extension and Toddleburn; whereas, arguably, Rowantree would be such an endstop. This cumulative effect can also be seen from Viewpoint 15, again on the Southern Upland Way but this time looking in a south-westerly direction. Girthgate would occupy the remaining space left if Rowantree is consented and built. From Viewpoint 18 at Huntington on the A697, these effects can be seen at closer quarters, but with the exacerbated effect caused by the scale of the Girthgate turbines, the absence of successful containing topography compared to other schemes and the clear lesser effects caused by other schemes.

Residential Amenity impacts (Visual):

14.14 There are, according to the developer (para 6.4.66 of main ES Volume 1) 25 dwellings within 2km of the nearest turbine; 11 of these are within 1km. The environs of several of the dwellings within the 2km zone would experience a high, and new level of visual impact which has the potential to be overbearing. This includes curtilages, not merely habitable rooms or front facing ‘principal views’. It is generally accepted that it is very important to consider how people ‘use’ their residences, including how they approach and depart from them, and whether the visual effects of turbines in close proximity would be so dominant as to be perceived as overwhelming.

14.15 The ES contains a residential amenity impact assessment. Pages 84-102 of Section 1 (Landscape and Visual Impact assessment) identifying 19 individual properties or property clusters selected for appraisal of visual effects. In every case the conclusion drawn is that the visual effects of the wind farm in relation to private residences is ‘not overbearing’. However, it seems unlikely that this would be the case, taking into consideration how strong visual effects can be in relation to the use of residences, approaches and environs, rather than from the dwellings themselves. Although visualisations from private residences have not been provided, two of the montages contained within the Cultural Heritage appraisal (Section 4 of the ES Addendum) give an indication of how the perceived level of visual impact could be overbearing.

14.16 Montages and wireframes are available in relation to:

x Trabrownhill (Fig 4.21, but note that the dwelling is 0.5km south of this viewpoint, and the intervening woodland is not present) x Mitchelston (Fig 4.16, a very good indication of how development would be seen from this farm, at 1.2km approx. distance)

14.17 Current Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) advocates a 2km separation distance between dwellings and wind farms. 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 For any dwellings to be within 1km of a wind energy development, in the light of this precautionary approach to policy from Scottish Government, there must be a very clear

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

justification of the appropriateness of dwelling-turbine proximity. In the case of the following dwellings/dwelling groups, which are either within or very close to 1km from the nearest turbine, the effects may be overbearing and such be unacceptable and have not clearly been demonstrated to be acceptable within the ES:

x Trabrownhill – at 1.1km from the nearest turbine, despite the presence of other structures and vegetation, the addition of the turbines would notably change the experience of the residents in using their dwellings, with the wind farm a new and engaging fixture sitting prominently to the west of the dwelling’s environs and highly visible from west-facing windows

x Ladypart House – the effects of Trabrownhill are likely to be similar but potentially more noticeable because the separation is only 784m

x Whitlaw Farmhouse and Cottages – similar effects but from 813m and 926m respectively

x Cathpair Farmhouse – easterly views to the development, with a separation of 764m to the nearest turbine and with the development generally higher than Cathpair, the sense of prominence would likely be increased by elevation

x Mitchelston – all 6 properties would have clear views of the development as it stands on top of the higher ridge opposite the farm, at approx 1.2km from their curtilages and/or environs. The nearest turbine base would be substantially higher than the general elevation of the residences at Mitchelston Farm (circa 65m) and again this elevation increases the perceived prominence of the turbines when viewed from below

x Inchkeith – at 750m – 800m from the nearest turbine, despite there being limited visibility from the immediate curtilages and the dwellings themselves, occupiers would be highly aware of the turbines at this distance from the slightly wider environs outside the curtilages – this is acknowledged in the ES

14.19 The developer has indicated, in Paragraph A1.5.31 (Page 83) of the Addendum, that: “having considered each property in the round, and whilst acknowledging that some properties would experience significant visual effects due to the proposed development, it is not considered that any property would experience such an overbearing effect on residential visual amenity that it would become an unattractive place to live”. This conflicts with the developer’s indication within the assessment of each residence that the effects would not be overbearing, because it acknowledges that there is an overbearing effect but that it is not overriding. This claim is largely unsubstantiated in any event. Individual montages from affected properties would have been very helpful.

Cultural Heritage Impacts:

14.20 Taking into consideration the specialised consultation replies of both the SBC Archaeology Officer and Historic Scotland (the latter submitted directly to Scottish Government) it is considered that although there would be significant impacts on subterranean archaeology, mitigation would be achievable through analysis, framed via planning conditions.

14.21 Apart from the relationship of several of the main viewpoints with cultural heritage receptors (VP7, Thirlstane Castle, VP1, Lauder Common are examples) there is a separate analysis of visual impacts relating to monuments in Section 4 of Volume 1 to the ES Addendum. This includes an array of montages and wireframe drawings that identify possible views from the monuments.

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

14.22 These visualisations have been useful in enabling the appearance and visual effects of the wind farm from the selected monuments to be shown. The wind farm features prominently in several of these montages, examples of this would be seen in the following:

VI-SM-16 – Addinston, Fort (6km approx to nearest turbine) VI-SM-4 – Bowerhouse Fort VI-SM-12 – Burncastle Fort (6km approx to nearest turbine) VI-SM-21 – Cathpair Hut Circles & Field System (1.7km approx to nearest turbine) VI-SM-27 – Craigend, Fort (2.5km approx to nearest turbine) VISM-11 – Dabshead Hill, Fort and standing stone (6.5km approx to nearest turbine) (Unnumbered) – Mitchelston Farm (approx 1.2km to nearest turbine)

14.23 As identified by the Archaeology Officer, although these visualisations identify visual effects, there is no assessment of ‘setting impact’ of each monument. Historic Scotland defines setting as the combined appreciation, experience and understanding of a monument or building where originally intended, consequential and associative links with the landscape remain within the current land use. Given that the EIA has not addressed this issue on the Scheduled sites assessed, Historic Scotland and the Archaeology Officer do not agree with the majority of analyses on indirect cultural heritage impacts as submitted. However, having looked independently at the sites most likely to see impacts within 5km, with particular focus on the sites of Trabrown Hill, Craigend, Hartside and the Cathpair hut circles and cairns, it has been concluded that the settings of all Scheduled Monuments but one will not be impacted to a major degree of significance.

14.24 The Archaeology Officer consultation reply sets out the status and setting of the scheduled Cathpair Hut Circles and Field System, and describes in detail the implications for the setting from the development. It also gives broader context to the site within the Lauder Common. The most relevant wording of this response is as follows:

“I disagree with Historic Scotland’s assessment of impacts to one Scheduled Monument and do feel that the development will have a major significant adverse impact on the setting of Cathpair,hut circles and field system 2500m and 2600m ESE of. Lauder Common within which the site exists is a significant historic landscape in the area that preserves a number of regional and locally significant features and has a long historic association with both Lauder and Stow. Per SPP and Local Plan Policy BE2, impacts on the setting of the historic landscape are also a material consideration, though little analysis has been made on the potential impacts on this element of cultural heritage. Historic Scotland acknowledge the historic landscape and the links with the Scheduled Cathpair circles and cairn.

However, I disagree with Historic Scotland’s assessment of how this historic landscape and the Scheduled Monument within it are experienced and appreciated, or how the wind farm will impact on these elements of the Scheduled Monument’s setting. While I agree that the hut circles within the Monument are, as Historic Scotland point out, intimately connected to the surviving relict cultivation on Brown Rig, I do not believe that they have adequately accounted for the experience and appreciation of the Scheduled cairn which is the most obvious visible element (perhaps the only visible element) of the monument. The experience, understanding and appreciation of the monument is not, therefore, with the hut circles or cultivation remains but with the prehistoric burial cairn which was intended to be highly visible in the landscape from a wide visual envelope. The cairn on the ridge of Brown Rig is one in a series of cairns that extend along the ridge-line to the north and east. The Scheduled cairn is widely visible from Lauder Common and beyond element owing to the placement of a more recent shepherd’s cairn or bught built on top of it. The other undesignated cairns are also apparent and all are clearly set within the modern heather moorland and relict cultivation. The presence of the cairns and

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

other heritage assets add to a deep sense of time depth within Lauder Common and as one experiences it from beyond.

The historic landscape of Lauder Common around Brown Rig is experienced, understood and appreciated in two principle ways; as a prehistoric landscape (outlined above) with burial cairns as the most visible elements, and as an historic Common Land for the Burgh of Lauder with intimate social and cultural connections for both Stow and Lauder such as its use in the annual Lauder Common Riding which is steeped in history and tradition associated with the Common. These multi-layered associative qualities of the Lauder Common historic landscape leads to a higher sensitivity of its setting. Impacts from a highly visible wind farm are therefore of potentially regional significance, and of national significance within the Scheduled Monument.

Having examined the submission and attending a site visit I have concluded that the current design of the wind farm will have a major impact to the settings of both the Scheduled Cathpair complex and the historic landscape of Lauder Common. Unfortunately the photomontage provided for this purpose by the applicant was not adequate as it was taken from nearly a kilometre and a half away from the Scheduled Monument, well below the Brown Rig ridge line and with a modern plantation in the foreground. Nevertheless, my site visit to the Scheduled Monument allowed me to appreciate the intimate link between Brown Rig and the semi- improved and improved fields to the north where the nearest turbines would be located. From the cairn within the Scheduled Monument there is a clear link to the fields to the north which share a common topography to Lauder Common and it is my view that the monuments on Brown Rig were intended to be seen are still clearly visible from within this connected landscape. The connections to the north are only disturbed by historic plantations west of Whitlaw Farm. Wind turbines to the south of the line of plantations would effectively break up and dominate the intimate landscape connections to such a degree that it would not be possible to experience, appreciate or understand the Scheduled Monument, the historic landscape and their links to the northern topography. Their proximity to Lauder Common would also significantly disrupt the ability to appreciate and experience the Scheduled Monument and historic landscape from within the Common boundaries.

While Historic Scotland have acknowledged impacts to the setting of the Scheduled Monument and wider historic landscape they have not objected to the development due to their judgement that the settings are much more intimately linked within Lauder Common itself. However, their concerns over impacts have also led them, perhaps confusingly, to recommend that the Council consider setting impacts to the historic landscape setting of the Monument. They suggest that impacts to both the Scheduled Monument and its historic landscape setting can be mitigated by ‘deletion or relocation’ of turbines 8, 9, and 15. Given my assessment above that the topography of the fields between Lauder Common and the more recent plantations to the north forms part of the setting for these assets, I agree that turbines within this intervening area should be removed from the wind farm design. However, I feel that in order to fully mitigate the setting impacts to the historic landscape turbine 21 should also be removed or relocated.

Removal of these 4 turbines would effectively push back the visual envelope to the line of plantations (i.e. Elliot’s Plantation, Long Strip) to the north and lessen the impact to the Scheduled Monument and historic landscape by removing the most dominating elements of the development within their setting.”

Residential Amenity (Noise):

14.25 There is a lack of clarity and certainty relating to noise issues. The specialised response of the SBC Environmental Health Officer identifies these issues. This means that assessment of noise matters, and potential noise problems has not been undertaken to the point where common ground is available. In the event of common ground being achieved, it is highly likely that control of noise output and monitoring could be achieved via planning conditions. However, noise is

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

presently an issue where outstanding concerns about the information available make it unresolved without the submission of improved information.

14.26 The outcome of this is that until noise matters have been resolved, potential concerns relating to noise would promote a reason to object to the application.

Biodiversity and Habitat impacts:

14.27 Taking into account the specialist views provided in response to the application in relation to biodiversity and habitat, the main issue for SBC is the potential impact on ‘Annex 1 and 2’ (as listed in the European 2009 Birds Directive) protected birds. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the SBC Ecology Officer that impacts relating to at least 2 species can be mitigated or tolerated in the context of the current layout.

14.28 This consultee identifies a need to substantially revise the development to minimise risk to these bird species, both of which are important in terms of their scarcity on a national level. The current level of mitigation proposed is not acceptable. Until such a time as it has been demonstrated that any risk associated with the protection of biodiversity, in particular the birds, can be successfully mitigated, this issue would be outstanding and should be fully resolved prior to determination.

14.29 The SNH consultation reply gives detailed coverage to biodiversity matters, identifying potential impacts on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation that would promote an objection until such a time as improved coverage within the ES has been provided. This reply also advises about the ES not providing the proper level of information to enable consideration of all the biodiversity issues.

14.30 The SNH consultation reply is not fully aligned with the SBC Ecology Officer’s views on birds. On page 2 of the SNH reply, the following extract is of most relevance:

“Whilst we have no reason to doubt the surveys carried out, the presentation and analysis of that information is problematic. We have used the basic survey data presented in the ES Addendum, our local knowledge, a brief site visit and our experience to conclude that the development is not likely to have a significant effect on the habitat and species and bird interests of the site, although there are effects for which mitigation is required.”

14.31 The Annex 2 to the SNH consultation reply goes into detail about the inaccuracies and mistakes in the ecological impact assessment. Give that both SBC and SNH have identified such a level of concern about the quality of the ES in biodiversity terms, it is not possible to make assumptions in relation to the validity of the conclusions, especially where they relate to sensitive, protected species.

Public Access/Path Network:

14.32 To some extent, the effects of the development on the public access/path network have already been discussed in this report. The Senior Countryside Ranger has identified in the consultation reply concerns relating to amenity impacts for users of the path network and access land. These are felt by this specialist consultee to be so significant as to warrant refusal of the application.

14.33 Landscape and visual impacts relating to the use of long distance paths have been discussed primarily in relation to the Southern Upland Way in paragraphs 14.7.1, 14.7.3 and 14.7.5 above. Visual impacts in relation to local paths and public access areas are discussed in paragraphs 14.9.1, 14.9.2 and 14.9.6. The last of these is on the SUW, but is also local to Lauder.

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

14.34 Use of the path network and of Lauder Common would have the potential to continue without any major physical interruptions. Taking into consideration the likelihood of being able to achieve, via planning conditions or legal obligations, improvements to public access (as requested in the SCB Countryside Ranger’s consultation reply) it is likely that the actual network would remain in place and be more ‘useable’.

14.35 Importantly, consideration must be given to the landscape and visual (amenity) impacts relating to the path network and whether the implementation of the scheme would deter users or enable successful use to continue.

14.36 Undoubtedly, the experience for users of paths in the site would change dramatically. The Girthgate path would lie between turbines and rather than the experience of being in open countryside, users would potentially feel that they are within an industrialised area of land. In part, this is due to the massing of the wind farm, its dominance of the locality and its scale in relation to the underlying landscape. This is an undesirable effect but may be tolerable.

14.36 Use of the long distance path network would not be overwhelmed by this development by itself, despite the significant landscape and visual impacts that would be witnessed from the SUW. The sequential landscape and visual impacts of the Girthgate scheme and others at Dun Law, Toddleburn, Longpark and potentially Rowantree and Shaw Park, together with developments further along the SUW east and west are already significant, and would be augmented with the placement of Girthgate. However, it is unlikely that the effects in relation to long distance paths would in themselves give rise to a sustainable objection. It would not be plausible to suggest that the Girthgate Wind Farm would cause overwhelming damage to the long distance path network or undermine its status and usability.

14.37 However, the proximity to Lauder Common’s northern edge (notwithstanding the strong likelihood that wind farm would occupy part of what used to be part of the common) and its impacts on the visual amenity of Common users, and their enjoyment of the Common with its open, accessible character would be highly significant. The effects would include a sense of being dominated by close and very large turbines. As mentioned earlier in relation to Viewpoint 1, from which a good sense of what the sensation might be can be established, ‘the development appears too close to the core of the Common due to placement and scale of development. The visual effects are high, and adverse, changing the character of the Common to one which is dominated, arguably contained by the wind farm’.

14.38 It may be concluded that the only overriding planning concern relating to use of public access and paths is that of the visual impact on the Common, a very important recreational and amenity resource.

Traffic Management and Road Safety:

14.39 Both the primary construction access and the secondary access (to become the primary access, post-construction) through Lauder Industrial Estate would be considered mainly by Transport Scotland, with these being onto a trunk road. To date, Transport Scotland has not submitted any consultation responses to the ECDU in respect of the application.

14.40 The SBC Roads Planning Manager has not yet provided a formal response to the consultation (at the time of writing this report). An early verbal indication is that the issues have been considered and none are likely to promote an objection. It is anticipated that a verbal presentation relating to this topic will be made during the Committee Meeting.

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

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.

15.2 Several key issues stand out in this report. There are clear benefits from the potential production of 81.6MW of electricity. This would make a sizeable 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, in planning terms that is perhaps the only significant positive attribute of the scheme. Mitigation proposed in relation to the environmental impacts the development would create cannot be portrayed as positive attributes of the scheme. They simply seek to offset what will be caused.

15.4 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 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, or those in planning and having the potential to be consented x proximity to cultural heritage assets would cause overbearing visual effects, too harmful to be tolerated and requiring substantial redesign of the scheme x proximity to towns, individual residences and public path/access space would cause high levels of visual impact; thereby harming private and public amenity x potential unacceptable noise output causing levels of harm to private amenity of nearby residents. x potential unacceptable levels of harm to Annex 1 and 2 protected species of bird, requiring removal or wholesale relocation of turbines in certain locations

15.5 A scheme with this many overriding planning issues cannot be supported, despite the potential 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.

15.6 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 a 24- turbine wind farm on the Girthgate site. The 2 no. reasons for the objections are as follows:

16.2 Reason for Objection 1: Impact on Landscape Character:

The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1 and D4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 and Policy 10 of the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SESplan) 2013 in that, taking into consideration the following factors, it would unacceptably harm the Borders landscape:

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

(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 (ii) the unacceptable vertical scale of the turbines in relation to the scale of the receiving landscape and absence of good topographical containment (iii) the appearance of the development resulting from its massing, spread and layout design and its scale in relation to other wind energy developments with which it has cumulative landscape effects (iv) the coincident and sequential cumulative effects with other wind farms at Dun Law, Dun Law Extension, Toddleburn, Longpark and potentially at Rowantree and Shaw Park if consented; and (v) the adverse impacts caused in particular to the Lauder Common Landscape Character Area, which is highly sensitive to change due to its importance as a recreational/amenity landscape and its already high level of impact caused by consented developments,

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

The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1, D4, BE2, BE4, H2 and Inf2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 and Policy 10 of the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SESplan) 2013 in that, taking into consideration the following factors, the development would give rise to unacceptable visual and amenity effects:

(i) the unacceptably high level of visibility of the development due to lack of good topographical containment (ii) the adverse effects experienced by users of the Lauder Common, which is utilised as an important public recreation/amenity space and which includes several well used public paths (iii) the strong and unacceptable visual relationships of the development with the (conservation) towns of Lauder and Stow and the potential for the development to be dominant in relation to those towns due to the high level of visibility from the towns’ environs (iv) the 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 (v) the lack of certainty relating to the appropriateness of applying certain noise limitations in relation to properties having a financial interest in the development, when the nature of the financial interest is not clear, (vi) the adverse visual impacts relating to settings of scheduled monuments within a culturally rich landscape; and (vii) the coincident and sequential cumulative effects with other wind farms at Dun Law, Dun Law Extension, Toddleburn, Longpark and potentially at Rowantree and Shaw Park if consented, in particular due to the design of the Girthgate scheme which would introduce the tallest and most poorly contained of all the turbines stemming from Dun Law through to Longpark,

16.4 Advisory Note:

Although not identifying Harm to Biodiversity as a reason to object to the proposal, it is advised, taking into consideration the following factors: (i) the lack of certainty arising from deficiencies in the material provided within the Environmental Statement in relation to ecology, ornithology and habitat; and (ii) the potential for harm to be caused to Annex 1 and Annex 2 (Birds Directive) protected species of bird, in particular by turbines T12, T11, T13 and T5 the development would have the potential to generate unacceptable levels of harm to biodiversity, and would currently conflict with Policies G1 and NE3 of the Scottish Borders 2011

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

Local Plan. Greater certainty relating to biodiversity and mitigation should be obtained prior to determination.

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 John Hiscox Planning Officer (Major/Wind Energy Developments)

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

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MARCH 2011

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00526/FUL OFFICER: Mr Scott Shearer WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Erection of dwellinghouse SITE: Garden Ground of The Mount Coldingham APPLICANT: Cold Sans Ltd AGENT: Erection of dwellinghouse

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is located to the east of the village of Coldingham at a location known as Coldingham Sands. The site occupies part of the garden ground of a large single pitched roof building with extensions known as the Mount. The thin ‘L’ shaped site wraps around the north eastern and south eastern sides the existing building and it garden area. The northern side of the site occupies a plateau at the top of an embankment which descends down towards the beach and offers views across Coldingham Bay. The southern area of the site slopes towards Milldown Burn and is well vegetated with planting. Access is afforded by a track which leads to the Milldown Farm area and adjoins the public road at a junction opposite St Vedas Hotel.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Full planning permission is sought to construct a single storey dwellinghouse under a flat planted roof on the north eastern end of the site. The dwelling will be cut into the plateau at the top of the embankment. The frontage will be recessed under its roof with large aluminium framed glazed areas and Natural Welsh Pillared Slate clad walls.

A new private access road will wrap around the existing building which will also require to be cut into its existing slope. Two parking spaces are provided next to the front of the building. The development will be supported by retaining walls which will be clad with a timer crib to take planting and a slated wall at the corner of the site.

PLANNING HISTORY

10/00788/FUL - Change of use from youth hostel and alterations to form two dwellinghouses and two flats and erection of two detached garages. Approved 9th February 2011.

11/01522/FUL - Change of house design for dwelling known as ‘H2’ previously approved on 10/00788/FUL. Approved 20th December 2011.

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

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Twelve third party objection letters have been received from different addresses. The objection comments are available in full on Public Access and can be summarised as follows;

x Contrary to Local Plan x Density of Site x Detrimental to environment x Detrimental to residential amenity x Inadequate access x Private access road can not accommodate more traffic x Inadequate drainage x Inadequate water supply x Increased traffic x Over provision of facility in area, properties at the Mount are still to sell x Road safety x Smell x Trees/landscape affected x Adversely detract from tourist attraction of Coldingham Bay x Detract from ability of Coldingham Bay to act as a education resource x Poor Design does not respect architectural character of the surrounding area x Designated conservation area x Inadequate screening x Land affected x Subsidence of coastal slope x Impact on stability of existing building of The Mount x Adverse and irreversible impact on Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area x Proposal will be directly visible and will detract from the visual amenity of the area x Loss of open space which is a backdrop for Coldingham Sands x Inadequate boundary/fencing x Impinge on fragile eco-system x Adversely affect wildlife habitats x Continues adverse precedent set by Pavilion development x Fire safety x Results in the development of a greenfield site x Density of site

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant has provided a Design Statement (entitled Design Commentary) which also includes an appendix from Structural Engineers on ground stability and intended construction method. An Arboricultural Report, composed by Robert Grey identifying trees which are to be removed has been submitted. These documents are available for Members to view in full on Public Access.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development

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

Policy G5 Developer Contributions Policy NE3 Local Biodiversity Policy EP2 Areas of Great Landscape Value Policy EP4 Coastline Policy H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2 Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy D2 Housing in the Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy 2010 Draft Scottish Planning Policy 2013 PAN 72 Housing in the Countryside

Supplementary Planning Guidance: x Biodiversity 2005 x Privacy and Sunlight Guide 2006 x New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008 x Placemaking and Design 2010 x Development Contributions 2011 x Local Landscape Designations 201

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Ecology Officer: Following the undertaking of a site visit, it is recommended that the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on ecological interests, rendering that a pre-development ecological appraisal is no longer required. The development will however remain to have consequences for breeding birds, therefore any site clearance, including tree felling should be carried outwith the breeding bird season (March to August). If works are to commence during the breeding bird season, supplementary surveys and appropriate mitigation will be required to be agreed with the Planning Authority before any works start on the site.

Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: The proposed development is located within the catchment area for Coldingham Primary School and Eyemouth High School. A financial contribution of £3956 towards the new Eyemouth High School which replaces a previous building that was under sever capacity pressure and with facilities unsuitable for further expansion is being sought. Payment of the contribution should be received on receipt of consent or at an agreed phased schedule. No contributions are being sought towards the primary school.

Heritage and Design Officer: The development of properties at Coldingham Bay is a relatively recent development. On the OS map of 1899 only Seaneuk and an early part of St Vedas were evident. By 1908 a number of bigger developments had occurred, in particular St Abbs Heaven and Dunlaverock. Some earlier properties exhibit arts and crafts influences, otherwise there is no single architectural style of properties at Coldingham Bay. The recent development of the Pavilion is a contemporary addition. The beach also supports a range of varied beach huts.

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

No conservation area covers Coldingham Bay and none of the buildings within the locality are listed.

The Mount is the building which dominates this side of the Bay. The proposal is set down into the slope and is judged to be well designed to present a simple façade towards the bay under a planted roof. The Mount will remain the dominant building on the skyline with the proposal being very much a subsidiary element. It is recommended that the new building, in architectural design terms, is an acceptable scheme and reflects the continuing evolution of development at Coldingham Bay.

Landscape Architect: Express satisfaction with the recommendations of the Arboricultural Report and do not object to any proposed tree removal and associated works. Otherwise recommend that; x If new planting is to be covered by a condition, a planting plan and schedule in accordance with out Landscape and Development SPG will be required. It is noted that coastal conditions at Coldingham are demanding and any plant specification should be suitable for coastal exposure. x Details of planting and vegetation management on land outwith the ownership boundary (e.g. to the east of the site) should be sought. These undertakings should also be covered in a planting plan, covered by condition. x Details of new fences, walls and boundary treatments should be included in landscape plans x Precise details of the proposed turf/sedum roof should be sought.

Roads Planning Officer: The road serving the proposed site is single track with limited sub standard passing places. The proposed development would result in the need to upgrade the access road to an adoptable standard.

Express satisfaction with the road upgrades, illustrated on Drawing No 5180/P06. These works will improve the private road to a suitable adoptable standard. Details of the construction specification of each surface treatment and the timescale for implementing the works should be agreed prior to construction.

The realigned section of private road illustrated on Drawing No 5180/P08 appears satisfactory in principle, subject to the construction detail for the road and the embankment along with any edge protection i.e. fencing/barriers to prevent vehicles slipping down the embankment. The access may pose implications for Building Control in respect of access for the Fire Brigade so it would be worthwhile to liaise with Building Standards and Fire Scotland.

Statutory Consultees

Community Council: Commend design, however express concern upon the lasting effect which the proposed development will have upon Coldingham Bay. The Following concerns were reflected in response; x The development would damage and potentially result in the loss of a fragile environment of wildlife habitat and eroding dunes which is promoted by SBC for its Biodiversity. x Construction works would be detrimental to visitors pursuit of promoted walking and wildlife interests in area. x Development will fail to comply with policy N11 by detracting from the Special Landscape Area, being visible from beach, coastal paths and proposed planting unlikely to sufficiently screen views.

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

x Access roads do not have capacity to cater form additional traffic, especially construction traffic.

Note that a public representation at the meeting was vocal against the proposal.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining planning issues relevant to the consideration of this application are; x Whether the development represents a suitable a addition to a building group against development plan policy specifically relating to new Housing in the Borders Countryside x Whether the design of the proposal respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area including the Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area (SLA); x Whether adequate access and parking can be achieved.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Policy Principle

The application site is not located within any recognised settlement within the Local Plan. For the purposes of planning policy, therefore, this location is rural and as the proposal relates to housing, it therefore falls that this proposed development must be primarily considered against Local Plan Policy D2 which specifically relates to the development of housing in the countryside.

Section (A) Building Groups of Policy D2 advises that additional dwelling units should only be permitted where the site relates well to an existing building group of at least three houses and will only result in the addition of two dwellings or a 30% increase to the group, whichever is greater, during the period to the Local Plan. The existence of a building group will be identifiable by a sense of place which will be contributed to by natural and man made boundaries.

There are potentially two ways of defining the extent of a building group at this site; firstly, that the conversion of the Mount has created a standalone building “group” of four dwellings or second, that The Mount forms part of a wider group including the existing houses to the south-west.

Under either definition, there is scope for further development but, for completeness, both situations are explained as follows:

As its name suggests, the Mount is a building which sits prominently at the top of the coastal slope. The northern boundary of the site is the edge of the plateau on which the Mount sits before the landform descends dramatically towards the Bay. This edge is also the point at where vegetation at the top of the coastal slope ends. It is the significant change in landform combined with planting which act as the identifiable boundaries of the building group – and thus, the sense of place – at the Mount.

As noted, the Mount does however have a relationship to a group of buildings to the south-west, which comprises four dwellings in an obvious group with another property known as ‘Milldown Cottages’ a little distance beyond. In addition, a site to the south of Milldown Farmhouse (noted on the submitted drawings as a ‘Building Plot’) has historically benefited from planning permission and a recommendation to

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6(c) renew planning permission for a dwellinghouse on this land is awaiting the conclusion of a Legal Agreement, (Planning ref; 13/00167/FUL). An argument could be made that The Mount forms part of this wider group.

There is only limited intervisibility between the Mount building and the dwellings at Milldown. However, these neighbouring properties are visible from the access into the Mount. Their relationship is strengthened by their shared containment provided by the mature planting belt on the northern side of Milldown Burn.

Furthermore, the break in development to the north of The Mount (separating it from the larger Coldingham Sands group) and to the south of Milldown adds to the argument that they combine to form a single group. From the top of Homeli Knoll, a headland on the Coastal Path to the east of the application site, the relationship of the Mount to other properties at Milldown becomes clear.

If it is accepted that The Mount and properties at Milldown form a combined group, this would result in a total of nine existing dwellings. This figure does not include the imminent renewal of permission at Milldown Farm. Policy permits a growth in capacity of a building group by two dwellings or not more than 30% whichever is the greater. Against either calculation, this would allow two further units at the group overall. However, when the existing recommendation to renew consent for a house at Milldown is taken into account, this would mean that the wider nine unit building group only has the capacity to accept one more dwelling unit during this Local Plan period.

However, if The Mount is taken as a “building group” in its own right, policy would still permit a total of two new houses, which is unaffected by any other nearby development.

Paradoxically, then, the smaller the boundary of the group is drawn in this case, the greater the scope there is for housing development.

Nevertheless, however the extent of the group is defined, there is sufficient scope in policy terms to permit the addition of one house.

It is therefore considered that the principle of a new house at this site accords with the requirements of Local Plan Policy D2 and relates sufficiently well to the sense of place of an identifiable building group, whether or not that includes the houses at Milldown.

The site falls within the designated Coastline area, which is covered by Policy EP4. whose principal aim is to protect the coast from inappropriate development. This policy does however allow for development where an application site relates to a building group. It has already been established that this site relates to a building group and, as such, there is no conflict with Policy EP4.

The site is located within the Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area (SLA), which is protected by Policy EP2 which again seeks to resist inappropriate development, but allows development that is consistent with other policies in the Plan. Again, there is no conflict, in principle, with this policy.

Local Plan Policy G1 seeks to ensure that new development is of a high quality and respects the environment in which it is contained. The visual impact of the proposal will be viewed against the dominant presence of The Mount itself, however it is the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(c) impact, particularly on the character and appearance of the SLA which is pivotal to the assessment of this application.

Design

The narrow nature of the site and its sloping topography on its south eastern side presents a potentially awkward site to develop. The proposed design solution is a simple contemporary styled building set into the slope. Its slender and linear form directly relates to the proportions of its site and the length of the Mount behind it. The development requires an element of cutting into the existing ground levels. Along the front of the site, where the house itself will sit, the proposal will be approximately set 3.1m into the ground. This level of excavation retains a short lip along the front of the site. The flat turfed roof effectively produces a continuation of the level of the existing garden ground at The Mount, giving the house a discreet natural appearance, with the overhang of the roof and the lip across the front of the site recessing the façade of the building. While significant excavation might sometimes negatively alter the landscape, the result of this intervention is a low profiled development which is unobtrusively tucked underneath the garden of the Mount.

The proposed material finishes of natural slate walling integrates with the existing material finish on the roof of the Mount. The darker tone of this material will result in a more subtle intervention into the landform than a lighter coloured render as exhibited on the walls of the Mount. The large glazed openings create a structure which has a light weight appearance which recedes into the slope. The blue-grey aluminium frame colouring does not cause concern and is likely to assist in this regard. The use of a sedum roof and planted retaining walls provide suitable natural finishes which assist in assimilating the building well into the embankment. The dwarf walling to the front of the site would not appear prominent above the planting to the front of the building. Its scale does not undermine the appearance of the building and its material finish can be sought by condition. The specified material finishes do appear to be high quality surfaces which are compatible with the architectural design of this building and its positioning in the landscape in accordance with provisions of Policy G1. It is however recommended that owing to the sensitive location of the development that if Members are minded to approve the proposal that samples of all materials used should be agreed before construction commences.

Visual and Landscape Impact

Visually, the proposal has been designed to have minimal visual impact. The excavation of the development into its site is seen to enable the development to integrate into the existing landform in a sensitive manner with limited wider implications for the coastal slope and the distinctive character of the SLA.

The design of the proposal would relate well to the sense of place at Mount and its wider building group. On the southern side of the Coldingham Bay, the Mount is the principal building in the landscape. The modest physical intervention of this proposal with its low lying form being set into the slope ensures that the Mount building retains its place as the dominant building in the skyline with this development would appear as a subsidiary element. If it is visible in longer range views at all, it will be very much read as part of The Mount. This architectural approach which has been endorsed by the Heritage and Design Officer will also give the acceptable impression that this addition appears as a basement level to the Mount. In terms of its containment within the wider setting, the development is restricted to the top of the coastal slope. As it would not project seaward beyond the plateau and existing coastal vegetation down

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(c) the embankment of the Bay, there would be no inappropriate encroachment into the wider coastal environment.

The supporting information includes sightlines from public view points around Coldingham Bay. These confirm that it is only from distant viewpoints from the Beach, at higher ground on Homeli Knoll and the coastal path on the north side of Coldingham Bay that the development will be more visible. Owing to the low profile nature of the building and its siting in the landform, only limited views from these points will be possible. From these viewpoints the existing crescent of planting in front of the development provides screening to obscure the proposal. From all viewpoints, the close relationship of the proposal with the Mount is significant, and as already noted, the new house would remain a subordinate element of that setting.

Through the course of the application, it has been confirmed that the applicant has obtained control to prune existing vegetation immediately in front of the application site. As noted in the design statement, this landscape framework clearly plays an important role for this proposal. It is therefore recommended that the management of this planting should be incorporated into a condition, in order that the important role that this vegetation plays in the wider setting and, to some extent, the assimilation of the new building into it setting, is acknowledged.

The visual impact of the works to accommodate the access to the building will be screened for users of the nearby footpath which sits below the level of the works with trees and shrubs in between. Some care in particular will have to be taken around the area where provision for parking is provided to ensure that vehicles are not too visible, which would have the unfortunate effect of drawing attention to a development whose design is intended to minimise impact. This may necessitate some additional screen planting across this short section which can be sought by a condition.

The development will necessitate the removal of trees and Sea Buckthorn within the site to facilitate the access, with one Sycamore along its frontage being removed. These works have been informed by an arboricultural report. During the redevelopment of The Mount, trees have already been removed from this area. The additional works have been assessed and, importantly, this further removal will not adversely expose the site. Generally, it is the vegetation outwith the site (which is unaffected by these works) which is more important to this development given its landscape value and importance in assimilating built development in the wider setting. Sufficient numbers of trees will be retained within the grounds of the Mount so that its setting is not eroded and these works have been accepted by the Council’s Landscape Architect. To control the appropriate development of the site, it is recommended that a condition is used to require that only the removal of the trees identified within the arboricultural submission, and reflected in the additional site plan, can be undertaken.

Overall, the effect of proposal in the landscape is not is considered to have an adverse impact upon the quality of the SLA, with adequate control existing through the control of landscaping conditions to ensure that the development successfully assimilates into its surroundings.

Structural Impact

The proposal has been supported by a statement and drawings from structural engineers which is added as an Appendix of Design Statement and Drawing

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

Numbers 12/382/100, 12/382/SK1 and 12/382/SK2. These works were informed by a site investigation.

The structural engineers do not oppose the development of this site. The main engineering issue with the site is ensuring that the stability of the existing slope is not compromised, during and after construction. To achieve this, temporary sheet piles should are proposed to be used until the retaining walls are in place to support the existing gardens at the Mount. This proposed undertaking along with the recommended construction sequence (as set out in the Appendix of Design Statement) appears logical. The independent engineers suggest that provided the development follows the recommended sequence, it would be expected that the development works do not give rise to any structural concerns, including in relation to the stability of the slope. The physical stability of this development will eventually be informed by the Building Warrant process. Form a planning perspective, there is nothing to suggest that the development cannot be achieved in the manner described by the structural engineers. Nevertheless, given the sensitivities surrounding this location, it is recommended that the development of this site strictly follows the recommendations of the structural engineers and any changes to this process should be first agreed with the Council in order to limit environmental and visual impact. This can be secured by condition.

Access and Parking

The present single track access road to the site which adjoins the Coldingham village to Coldingham Beach road is acknowledged as being in a substandard state of repair. This development would be the fifth new build to be accessed by this route. Against Local Plan Policy Inf4, the result of this development means that this access road needs to be upgraded to an adoptable standard.

An ‘Access Road Modifications’ drawing has been submitted following a site meeting with the Roads Planning Officer. The plan illustrates; road widening, formation of two new passing places, new drainage at its foot and a turning area for refuse vehicles at the junction into the Mount. The Roads Planning Officer is satisfied that the indicated improvements will upgrade this access to an appropriate adoptable standard which removes their original objection and ensures that the development can be safely accessed in accordance with requirements of Policy Inf4. Further details in the form of construction specification for each surface and intended timescales to complete the improvements will however be required. These matters can be agreed via an appropriately worded condition.

From an important visual perspective, the upgrades to the access road do not diminish the rural character of the area or result in introducing a suburban level of infrastructure. Chiefly, this has been achieved by avoiding the use of street lighting and by delivering the road widening and passing places within the existing boundaries of the carriageway without the need for further extension either side or retaining walls. These upgrades are therefore not found to have any adverse impact upon the character of the SLA.

The new private access to the site within the grounds of the Mount is not objected to by the Roads Planning Officer. Further information is requested regarding the construction works for this road and the embankment along with edge protection means to prevent vehicles slipping down the embankment. These works can be sought through a condition for further agreement with the Roads Planning Officer. In addition to this requirement it has been noted that this access should meet the requirements of Building Standards and the Fire Service. These requirements fall

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(c) beyond the scope of planning involvement, but this point is recommended to be relayed to the applicant by way of an informative so that any considerations of these other specialists taken into account in the development of the scheme.

Services

The application form suggests that water supply will be taken from the public mains. Objection comments have raised concerns about means of water supply although there is nothing to suggest that the public provision can not adequately provide for another property without causing any detrimental impacts to neighbouring properties.

The handling of foul drainage via a septic tank and soakaway does not appear to cause any concerns on planning grounds. This process will ultimately be regulated through the Building Warrant process.

The disposal of surface water to new and existing soakaways appears appropriate.

Protection of Residential Amenity

Policy H2 supplemented by the Council’s SPG on Privacy and Daylight seeks to ensure that development does not have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing dwellinghouses.

The only residences which could be materially affected by a house being built on the application site would be the properties at The Mount. The proposed design solution is not considered to have any adverse impacts to the amenities of these neighbours, given its position below the existing ground level. The visual changes for neighbours will be restricted to a small section of retaining wall just above the height of their existing boundary fence and to part of a sedum roof which appear a natural extension of their grassed garden. Neither of these changes will cause any neighbouring amenity issues. Although not a planning matter, the proposed development does not cause the loss of any of outward views to the sea for occupiers of The Mount. Nor does the proposal give rise to any loss to their garden ground.

During the construction phase, it is possible that the development may cause some disturbance to the occupiers of The Mount in particular. This however is not a material planning consideration and will therefore be a matter for agreement between the parties concerned.

As already noted, the application has been accompanied by a structural appraisal which confirms that the site can be constructed safely without compromising the slope or the existing building.

Ecology

The site has no natural heritage designations. Third party concerns, especially from the Community Council have questioned the implications that this development will have upon habitats at the Milldown Burn which is close to this application site. Acknowledging the proximity of these habitats, the Council’s Ecologist did initially suggest that there was a need for a preliminary survey. However, after undertaking a site visit, this recommendation has been withdrawn. Having viewed the development area in question, the recommendation is now that provided site clearance works, including tree felling and removal of vegetation is not carried out during the breeding bird season, the development will not adversely affect any habitat. Should any

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(c) clearance works be required during the breeding bird season there is a need for supplementary surveys to first be carried out. If Members are minded to approve this development, this requirement can be controlled by an appropriately worded condition to ensure that adequate protection is being afforded to local biodiversity in accordance with Local Plan Policy NE3.

Development Contributions

The proposed development will be required to comply with Local Plan Policy G5 on developer contributions and with the relevant SPG. The Director of Education is seeking financial contribution towards the new Eyemouth High School.

If Members are minded to approve this proposal, these financial contributions will need to be secured through Legal Agreement.

CONCLUSION

Subject to the conclusion of a legal agreement, and subject to compliance with the schedule of conditions, it is considered that the proposed development represents a suitable addition which is well related to the sense of place of an identified building group which has the numeric capacity to accept an additional dwelling. The modern design of the proposed development represents a sensitive addition to the character of its building group which is anchored by the Mount and does not cause significant demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the setting of Coldingham Bay and the surrounding area. The proposal is considered consistent with the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance having accounted for other material considerations.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES::

I recommend the application be approved subject to a legal agreement addressing local schools and subject to the following conditions and informative:

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 No development shall commence until a sample of all materials to be used on all exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

4 No development shall commence until a sample of the external finish of the dwarf wall and precise details of the surface paving and gravel surface

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

finishes have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

5. No development shall commence until a scheme of landscaping works, which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and shall include; i. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges within the site, in particular this should include provision of planting to the north eastern corner of the site to screen the parking area ii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density iii. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance for the new planted areas and also future management of the existing screen planting along the north eastern boundary of the site iv. location and design, including materials of any other walls, fences and gates Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.

6. Only the trees identified for removal on Drawing No P08 shall be removed from the site and all other trees shall be retained unless the written agreement is received from the Planning Authority for any further removal. Reason: The existing trees represent an important visual feature which the Planning Authority considers should be substantially maintained.

7. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the Construction Sequence specified within Chapter 4.00 Appendix of the Design Commentary and Drawing Numbers 12/382/100, 12/382/SK1 and 12/382/SK2. Any variation to this construction method informed by McKay and Partners Structural Engineers shall first be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: The site is in a sensitive location and it is essential that construction methods are known and approved, to ensure minimal environmental impact occurs.

8. No development shall commence until a schedule of implementing the upgrades to the sites access road illustrated on Drawing No P06 and precise details of the proposed surface treatments have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Thereafter the works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless any variation thereto is agreed in with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the access to the site is upgraded to the required adoptable standard in order to achieve safe access.

9. No development shall commence until the construction specification of the site’s new private access road, including gradients and details of the edge protection, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless any variation thereto is agreed in with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that safe access to the site is achieved.

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

10. The parking area shall be properly consolidated within the site before the occupation of the dwellinghouse and retained in perpetuity. Reason: To provide adequate parking.

11. No site clearance works, which includes tree felling and scrub clearance, shall be carried out during the breeding bird season (March-September) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Supplementary surveys will be required to be submitted for agreement with the Planning Authority with possible appropriate mitigation measures if site clearance works are to commence during the breeding bird season. Reason: To safeguard the ecological interests of the site.

Informatives

With reference to Condition 9, the applicant may wish to liaise with the Council’s Building Standards Team and the Fire Service to ensure that the sites private access road meets the design requirements of these other specialists.

DRAWING NUMBERS

P01 Site Plan and Location Plan 18.02.2014 P02 Elevations and Floor Plan 30.04.2013 P03 Elevations and Cross Section 30.04.2013 P04 Elevations and Cross Section 30.04.2013 P05 Cross Section 30.04.2013 P06 Access Modifications 18.02.2014 P08 Site Layout and Section 18.02.2014 12/0382/100 Site Plan and Section 09.10.2013 12/382/SK1 Site Investigation 09.10.2013 12/382/SK2 Sheet Pile Location 09.10.2013

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Scott Shearer Assistant Planning Officer

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

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MARCH 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 14/00189/MOD75 OFFICER: Lucy Hoad WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Modification on planning obligation pursuant to planning permission 97/00143/FUl and 03/02278/FUL SITE: Borders Nursing Home Peelwalls Eyemouth Scottish Borders TD14 5RL APPLICANT: Mr Paul Hyde AGENT:

SITE DESCRIPTION:

Peelwalls, a B Listed symmetrical 2-storey, 5-by2-bay classical house with full-height rear addition forming near square-plan, was originally built in about 1830 for use as a private country house. It was converted for use as residential nursing home in the C20, with internal alterations and a side extension carried out to suit this use. The private care home has been closed for a number of years. The house sits in a formal parkland setting to include an area of ancient woodland. The site lies outwith the development limits of any settlement, with the nearest being Ayton, approximately 1Km to the north east. The property is accessed off the B6355.

PLANNING HISTORY:

Peelwalls House was used as a registered nursing home in private ownership for several years, having previously been run by the Local Authority. The closure of the care home was caused by the financial collapse of the operating company and the property has lain empty for a considerable period, the private company having been dissolved in 2003.

Prior to closure full planning permission had been granted in 1998 for the development of 36 retirement/care dwellings to be sited in the paddock lying to the north of Peelwalls House with the intention was that these houses would be related to the operation of the care home. That permission was, as a result, subject to a legal agreement whose principal purpose was to restrict the occupancy of these dwellings, but which also sought to make a connection with the operation of the nursing home.

The intention of the legal agreement was to ensure that the occupiers of the care village would have had access to the specialist services and facilities of the nursing home, as and when they needed them, but could live independent lives in their homes while their health allowed. This legal agreement placed a burden on Peelwalls House to the effect that it would always be operated and used as a care home in

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

order to provide these services and facilities for the care village residents. A new access to serve both developments, replacing the existing access was also to be formed.

As far as this current application is concerned, the agreement contained the following clauses:

x A requirement for the creation of a new access route linking the former nursing home and the new housing and the closure of existing accesses (Clause 2(i)); and x A requirement that Peelwalls House should always be used as a nursing home and should be the provider of specialist care services and facilities for those living in the care village (Clause 4).

There remain a number of other clauses, including in relation to woodland management and restrictions on occupancy and further development at the care village among other matters, which are not affected by the current proposal. However, the existing agreement can be viewed in full on the Public Access website.

In the intervening period, the Care Home has never re-opened and the care village development has stalled due to the financial situation of the owner, with the land holdings having been split and acquired through sale by different landowners.

In 2013, permission was minded to be granted for the conversion of the former nursing home to a residential property, enabling the building, to be brought back into use. That decision has had the effect of separating the intended use of the parent nursing home from the associated housing.

Members may recall considering a request earlier this month to amend a legal agreement affecting the occupancy of the houses so far constructed to allow their use as affordable housing.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

This application seeks to modify Clauses Two and Four of the original legal agreement which requires formation of a new access to service Peelwalls House and the adjacent care village to the east, and the requirement for Peelwalls House to be always managed and used as a nursing home to provide care services and facilities to the community care village, and for no other purpose. The request seeks to modify the agreement in order that Peelwalls House can be returned to its former use as a private dwellinghouse, utilising the existing access, and for the removal of a requirement to provide a range of central services and facilities in respect of the care village.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY:

No representations received from interested parties.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

The application is supported by a planning application form, and site location plan.

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

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011:

G1 Quality Standards for New Development D2 Housing in the Countryside BE1 Listed Buildings H2 Protection of Residential Amenity

SPG New Housing in the Borders Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

SPG New Housing in the Borders Countryside

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

• Whether the proposal for removing the restriction for the building to operate as a care home and provide a care service to other buildings with associated road access would conflict with current development plan policy

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Peelwalls House, originally built in about 1830 for use as a private country house was converted for use as residential nursing home in during the 20th Century, with internal alterations and a side extension carried out to suit this use. The private care home has been closed for a considerable number of years. As described in the planning history, the principle of a change of use from care home to private residential has been accepted by the Council, subject to conclusion and legal agreement, in relation to an education contribution.

The Care Home and the adjoining paddock, where the housing development has now commenced, are now under different land ownerships. The North and South Lodges are also under separate land ownership. This application relates solely to the land under the applicant’s control which comprises the site of Peelwalls House but including surrounding parkland with ancient woodland with existing access taken off the B6355.

With the Care Home facility no longer operating and the new owner of Peelwalls House having successfully applied for private residential use, it is highly unlikely that the approved retirement village will ever serve the original intended purpose in the long term. It is accepted that the original consent for 32 retirement units within the paddock has been implemented as a result of the construction of the first five dwellings. In respect of these five constructed units, this Committee has recently agreed a modification to the original legal agreement that had required occupancy of those units to be by over 55s or the infirm. This requirement has been replaced with a new requirement for occupancy of those units by those with general affordable housing needs. The future of the remaining site, while potentially significant in the context of the wider picture, is not relevant to the matters being assessed under the current application. Members may only consider the suitability of the proposed modifications, and even then, only on the basis of whether what has been requested is acceptable or unacceptable.

It is recognised that the future of this Listed Building is to be secured through its proposed upgrading to serve as a family home, and the applicant intends to continue

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(d) to utilise the existing access route to the main house. The applicant has provided confirmation of his intentions to manage and maintain the parkland setting to include the ancient woodlands under his control and these factors would indicate that the recent decline of Peelwalls House and its surrounds is to be reversed. The longer term protection of the listed building and its grounds has been at the core of the decision to allow its return to residential use.

Clause 2 Section 1 of the agreement requires a new access route to serve the Nursing Home and the approved community care village and once formed the existing access and egress at the North and South Lodges is to be closed off. Given the clear separation of sites and uses, it would be considered unreasonable to expect the landowner of Peelwalls House to provide a new access road to service both the House and the adjacent site, on which development, at this stage, is limited to 5 dwellings. In addition, the approved plans indicate that the new access is to be provided on land over which the applicant has no longer has control.

Clause 4 required Peelwalls House to be 1) managed and used as a nursing home and 2) used for the provision of care and related services and facilities to the community care village and buildings elsewhere. With the closure of the nursing home and the land for the retirement village now under separate ownership there appears nothing to be gained by insisting that the applicant be responsible for providing care services, security services and recreational facilities to the occupiers of housing on the adjoining site. The original intention of the legal agreement was to ensure that residents of the care village had accesses to the services and facilities of the Care Home which is no longer in existence. It is clear the use of the Peelwalls House is to be returned to private residential status and that it is unlikely that the care village will be built and put to use in its originally intended form.

The proposal for removing the requirement for Peelwalls House to always be operated as a Care Home must be considered acceptable in principle, given the decision to grant permission for its residential use, which was itself a means to secure the future of the Listed Building and associated formal parkland.

The proposal for removal of the burden from the land title of the applicant for the provision a new access route, to serve Peelwalls House and the adjacent site, with closure of the existing routes, would appear to be acceptable in principle: The connection between the developments arising from use of the house and the adjoining development no longer exists and has not since the closure of the nursing home some years ago, and so the physical connection is now difficult to justify, particularly as this requirement lies beyond the control of the current owner. The House has a satisfactory existing access which the applicant intends to utilise. It is noted that the existing accesses also serve the North and South Lodges, under separate land ownership and there appears little to be gained by closure of these accesses.

The proposal to remove the burden from the land title of the applicant for the provision of care and security services, and recreational facilities, for the residents of the adjacent site would appear to be acceptable in principle, as the Care Home is no longer in existence, and the intended occupiers of the adjoining site in respect of the 5 constructed units are not now required to be dependent on the services formally provided by the Care Home.

In conclusion, the decision to amend the legal agreement in respect of the applicant’s landholding cannot be taken without regard to the prevailing circumstances of the site. It is considered that the pragmatic solution here is to enable occupation and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(d) restoration of the Listed Building and parkland setting that has remained unused and been in decline for some number of years in a manner that meets other Council objectives, in this case the preservation of cultural heritage.

The recommendation is that the requested modifications be agreed to the effect that the use of Peelwalls House is no longer to tied to a requirement to provide Care Home facilities or related services for the adjoining land holding nor the landowner be required to provide any new access route to serve the House or the adjoining landholding which remains outwith his control, with the effect that the existing access routes remain to service the individual dwellings comprising Peelwalls House and the respective Lodge Houses.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend that the modification request is approved for the following reason:

Having regard to the exceptional circumstances of this site, the request to modify the existing legal agreement would enable the use of Listed Building Peelwalls House to be reinstated to a private dwelling securing management and preservation of the Listed Building and formal parkland with related historic accesses, which will meet cultural heritage policy objectives, acknowledging the separate ownership of the land holdings affected by the agreement.

It is therefore recommended that the requested modifications listed below are agreed: a) amendment of the Second Clause to remove the requirement to provide a new access route on the adjacent land and to the closure of the existing accesses serving Peelwalls and the Lodge Houses, and, b) amendment of the Fourth Clause to remove the burden to restrict the use of Peelwalls House to be solely for care home purposes and for the provisions of care home and associated services and facilities to buildings elsewhere

DRAWING NUMBERS

Site Plan Received 21.02.2014

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 Lucy Hoad Planning Officer

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

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MARCH 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 14/00061/FUL OFFICER: Deborah Chalmers WARD: Jedburgh and District PROPOSAL: Change of use from office to form licensed meeting rooms SITE: Office, Millfield Gardens, Canongate, Jedburgh APPLICANT: Rory Stewart

CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE:

This application requires to be determined by the Planning and Building Standards Committee because the applicant is an elected Member for Scottish Borders Council. Under the adopted Scheme of Delegation, a Committee decision is required on applications in which an elected Member is the applicant.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site lies within Jedburgh and is located within the Jedburgh Conservation Area and Town Centre, as defined within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. The building in question is not listed. The building is located to the east along the Canongate, to the south of the Health Centre and Millfield Gardens Residential Home and to the west of the A68. The building fronts the Canongate, with a pathway and flower bedding between the road and building. It is a detached two storey property, finished in natural stone, slate roof and timber windows painted brown. The existing layout includes a reception, office, wc and kitchen on the ground floor and an office on the upper floor.

The building is owned by Scottish Borders Council and was last used as Class 2 (Offices). The building was last occupied by Scottish Borders Housing Association as offices and has been unoccupied since 2005.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of the building to a meeting room with bar facilities (private) from its current Class 2 (Office) use. The meeting rooms would also be used as the Provost’s Room and would be available for local clubs and associations to use. The building will primarily be for the use of ‘Jedhart Ex-Callants Association’, as a private club and they would be taking on the lease of the building. There are no external alterations proposed to the building and any internal alterations do not require planning consent. This application is merely concerned with the change of use for the building.

The building would provide a secure facility for the Royal Burgh of Jedburgh’s Provost to use as the robing room and a secure room for the two Royal Burgh of Jedburgh’s ceremonial flags to be on display along with the sashes and Jedhart

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

Axes. It is the intention of the applicant, to in time, apply for a Private Members Club License so that the Association can run functions.

PLANNING HISTORY

No planning history associated with the proposed development.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

No representations have been received.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant submitted information outlining the aims of the proposed development. As outlined above the applicant has indicated that the purpose of the change of use is to provide the many and wide varied organisations within Jedburgh a chance to meet in premises. As outlined above, the lease would be taken out by the Jethart Ex- Calllant’s Association, who plan to form a management team, with an office bearer serving a three year period. The facility would provide other clubs and organisations within Jedburgh with a place to undertake meetings. It will also provide a space for displaying the town flags and provide a room to be used as the Provost’s Room.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy BE4: Conservation Areas Policy ED5: Town Centres Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4: Parking Provision and Standards

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: None

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service:

Advised that whilst there would appear to be no dedicated parking for this property, given the proposed use and the public parking in close proximity to the site, they raise no objection.

Environmental Health:

Advises that the applicant has proposed a meeting room to allow community groups to hold meetings and events. In the future there is a possibility that one of the clubs may look to have a license to sell alcohol.

The proposed meeting room is close to a health centre and residential dwellings.

The applicant has listed some of the proposed uses of the meeting room and none appear to raise an alarm for possible noise nuisance.

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

Agrees with the application in principle, however, requests that the following informative is attached to planning consent;

‘As the applicant intends to get a license to sell alcohol in the future, I would advise that they contact a member of the licensing team closer to the time’

‘If food is to be prepared onsite, the applicant should contact the food team as soon as possible to discuss the layout of the premises and registration’.

Statutory Consultees

Transport Scotland: The Director does not propose to advise against the granting of permission.

Jedburgh Community Council: Advised that they support this application and it will utilise an empty premises.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key planning considerations of this proposal are whether the proposed development complies with the Development Plan policies, including whether the development;

x Will result in any adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; x Will result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of residential properties and users of the surrounding area; x Will be an acceptable use for such a town centre location and building.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

The application seeks planning permission for the change of use from Class 2 (Office) to form licensed meeting rooms, associated with the Jedhart Callant’s Association and would be available for other clubs/organisations within Jedburgh to use. The proposal has to be assessed against the Council’s policies, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011.

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development, states that all new development must be compatible with, and respects the character of the surrounding area, neighbouring uses and neighbouring built form.

Policy BE4: Conservation Areas, states that development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on its character and appearance will be refused.

Policy ED5: Town Centres, states that outwith ground floor level of defined Prime Retail Frontages, the Council will support a wide range of uses appropriate to a town

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6 (e) centre. Proposals for shopping development and other appropriate town centre development, will generally be approved within defined town centres of the larger settlements provided that the character, vitality, viability and mixed use nature of the town centre will be maintained and enhanced. Appropriate development other than Class 1 uses include; food and drink, offices, commercial, leisure and entertainment, residential, health care, education and tourism. Any proposed development which would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the town centre will be refused.

Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity, states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas will not be permitted. To protect the amenity and character of these areas, any developments must ensure that they do not result in any adverse amenity impacts upon the occupants of neighbouring residential buildings.

Policy Inf4: Parking Provision and Standards, is designed to ensure that development proposals incorporate adequate provision for car and cycle parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.

Principle

The principle of the change of use is considered acceptable. The building is located within the designated town centre, but not within any Prime Retail Frontage, therefore Policy ED5 allows a mixture of uses within such locations. It is not considered that the proposed change of use will create an unacceptable impact on the town centre in respect of vitality and viability. The building is currently unoccupied and the take up of such a building can only be seen to contribute to the overall vibrancy of the wider town centre, in compliance with Policy ED5. The re-use of an unoccupied building within the town centre presents some benefits in principle.

Conservation Area

The proposal involves no external alterations to the building or associated signage. Therefore, it is not considered that the proposed change of use will result in any adverse impacts upon the character or appearance of the wider Jedburgh Conservation Area, in compliance with Policy BE4. However, an informative will be attached to planning consent which advises that if any signage or external works are proposed, the applicant should seek advice to ascertain whether planning permission or advertisement consent is required.

Roads and Parking

Transport Scotland and the Roads Planning Service were consulted in respect of the proposed development and advised no objections. Although there is no associated car parking provision with the building, the Roads Planning Officer has advised that the building is within close proximity of a public car park, which is considered acceptable in this instance, in compliance with Policy Inf4.

The town centre location also means that many users will walk to the premises.

Residential Amenity

The proposed development must be assessed against Policy H2, in order to ensure the protection of residential amenity. Given the potential for impact upon nearby residential properties, the Environmental Health Officer was consulted in respect of the proposed development and advised no objections, subject to two informatives

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6 (e) being attached regarding alcohol sales and food preparation. It is not considered that the proposed use will result in any adverse impacts upon the amenity of the occupants in neighbouring residential properties or the wider visual amenities of the area, in compliance with Policy H2 and G1.

The Jedburgh Community Council has written in support of the proposed application.

Overall, the proposed development is considered acceptable and in compliance with the policies contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that, subject to the compliance with the schedule of conditions, the proposed change of use is acceptable, and would accord with Policy G1, BE4, H2, Inf4 and ED5, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. It is not considered that the proposed development would impact upon the visual amenities of the wider area, residential amenities of neighbouring properties or the character and setting of the Conservation Area and would be an appropriate use for such a town centre location.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

Conditions:

Informatives:

1. As the applicant intends to get a license to sell alcohol in the future, the Environmental Health Officer would advise that they contact a member of the licensing team closer to the time.

2. If food is to be prepared onsite, the applicant should contact the Council’s Environmental Health food team as soon as possible to discuss the layout of the premises and registration.

3. If any external alterations or signage is proposed, the applicant should contact the Planning Service to ascertain whether planning consent or advertisement consent is required for the proposed development.

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

DRAWING NUMBERS

1. General: MILLO P1: 06.01.2014

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Deborah Chalmers Planning Officer

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 ITEM 7

PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS

Briefing Note by Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31st March 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

3.1.1 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 20th March 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 31st March 2014 1 5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED

Nil

6 REVIEWS DETERMINED

6.1 Reference: 11/01657/FUL Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage Site: Plot 1 Land South West of Blackhouse Farm Cottages, Reston Appellant: Mr C W Swan

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would be contrary to Policy D2 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and New Housing in the Borders Countryside SPG 2008 in that the siting of the proposed development is not well related to the sense of place of the existing building group by virtue of its positioning extending beyond the definable western boundary of the group and into an undeveloped field. Insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrating that the economic and operational requirements exist for the farm holding to require a house to be located at this site.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned (Subject to Conditions)

6.2 Reference: 11/01658/FUL Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage Site: Plot 2 Land South West of Blackhouse Farm Cottages, Reston Appellant: W B and A G Swan Ltd

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would be contrary Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and New Housing in the Border Countryside SPG in that the siting of the proposed development would not relate well to an existing building group and would break into a previously undeveloped field.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned (Subject to Conditions)

6.3 Reference: 13/00892/FUL Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse and outbuilding/stables Site: Plot 2 (Site 2) Land at Huntshaw Farm Steading, Huntshaw Road, Earlston Appellant: Mr Spencer Pitman

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would fail to comply with Policies G1 and D2 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan, as well as with the advice of approved Supplementary Planning Guidance notes on New Housing in the Borders Countryside (2008) and on Placemaking and Design (2010), in that the proposed dwellinghouse would represent an isolated form of development whose siting and layout would fail to respect the character and sense of place of the existing building group. Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st March 2014 2 Method of Review: Review of Papers and Further Written Submissions

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned (Subject to Conditions)

6.4 Reference: 13/01121/FUL Proposal: Removal of condition from planning consents B315/94 and 00/00458/FUL to allow residency to be outwith connection to business or agriculture Site: Kinegar House, Cockburnspath Appellant: Mrs Mary Mitchell

Reason for Refusal: The removal of the occupancy condition from planning consents B315/94 and 00/00458/FUL would be contrary to Policies D2 and H2 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011, in that: - development of a dwelling in this location would only be permitted on an exceptional basis, because it is located outwith the settlement boundary and not associated with a rural building group; and - the close proximity of the dwelling with the quarry site and the sharing of the commercial quarry access, would make it unsuitable for occupation as a non-tied dwelling because there would be a conflict between the site operations and the amenity of future occupiers of Kinegar House.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned

7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING

7.1 There remained 1 review previously reported on which a decision was still awaited when this report was prepared on 20th March 2014. This relates to the site at:

x Deanfoot Road, West Linton x

Approved by

Brian Frater Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

Signature ……………………………………

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Wemyss Administrative Assistant 01835 824000 Ext 5409

Background Papers: None. Previous Minute Reference: None.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st March 2014 3 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 31st March 2014 4