Item No. 4 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 1 July 2013 at 10 a.m. ------

Present: - Councillors R. Smith (Chairman), M. Ballantyne, S. Bell, J. Brown, J. Campbell, A. Cranston, J. Fullarton, I. Gillespie, D. Moffat, S. Mountford, B. White. Apologies:- Councillors N. Buckingham, V. Davidson. In Attendance:- Head of Planning & Regulatory Services, Development Manager (Applications), Senior Roads Planning Officers, Managing Solicitor – Commercial Services, Democratic Services Team Leader.

MINUTE 1. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 3 June 2013.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE 2. The Head of Planning and Regulatory Services provided Members with information on the historical measures, trends and performance which were measured in terms of the speed of determining applications, the percentage of population covered by an up-to-date Development Plan and the appeal success rates. These measures had been replaced by the new Planning Performance Framework (PPF). This PPF included a number of new measures covering matters such as communications, engagement and customer service, efficient and effective decision making and a culture of continuous improvement. Feedback on the 1st PPF had now been received from Government and this had mainly been very positive with areas for improvement including a need to also focus on average timescales and tackle some of the longer-running applications, including those subject to legal agreements, which were having a detrimental effect on the department’s statistics. Further changes in performance measures were expected with a central high level working group currently looking at this matter with a view to driving improved performance, promoting the plan-led system, simplifying and streamlining the process and delivering development. The Government had consulted on the increasing of fees to more realistic levels but it was expected that these would not be implemented until local authorities were demonstrating improved performance. In response to a question Members were advised that officers were already working on ways to speed up the legal agreement process and Members asked that a report on how this could be achieved be brought forward for consideration in the autumn.

DECISION (a) NOTED the presentation.

(b) AGREED that a report on improvements to the legal agreement process be brought forward for consideration by the Committee in Autumn 2013.

APPLICATIONS 3. 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 the Appendix to this Minute.

1 Item No. 4 APPEALS AND REVIEWS 4. 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) the Scottish Ministers had sustained appeals in respect of the following;

(i) Change of use of agricultural land to incorporate the siting of 6 yurt tents, shop and associated parking on Land North East of Newburgh Farm Steading, Ettrick Valley; and

(ii) Erection of a camera which looks onto the complainer’s property but is for the purpose of recording another neighbours stable block at Eastfield Buxton, Buxton Road, Selkirk

(b) Appeals had been received in respect of the following;

(i) Erection of wind energy development comprising of eight turbines 125m high to tip and associated infrastructure including: hardstandings, control building, compound and transformers, borrow pit, access tracks and temporary construction compounds on Land South West of Whitelade (Barrel law), Selkirk; and

(ii) Modification of planning obligation pursuant to planning permission reference 02/00963/OUT at Creag an Airidh Venlaw Farm, Edinburgh Road, Peebles.

(i) Erection of Farmhouse on Land North West of Lynedale, West Linton – 12/00943/FUL;

(ii) Erection of Dwellinghouse on Land South West of Creag an Airidh, Venlaw, Edinburgh Road, Peebles – 12/01546/PPP;

(iii) Erection of Dwellinghouse on Ladn North West of Paddockmyre, Coldingham;

(iv) Erection of dwellinghouse on Land South of Easter Lilleisleaf Hose, Back Road, Lilliesleaf; and

(v) Erection of a camera which looks onto the complainer’s property but

(d) there remained 7 appeals outstanding in respect of the following:-

Blackburn, Grantshouse, Duns Penmanshiel, Grantshouse (Corsbie Moor), Westruther Whitmuir Hall, Selkirk Gilston Farm, Heriot Thornbank, Broughton Horn Burn Wind Farm

The meeting concluded at 1.20 p.m

2 Item No. 4 APPENDIX

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Name and Address Nature of Development Location

12/00709/FUL West Register Erection of 42 Coopersknowe (Realisations) Ltd Dwellinghouses and Crescent Per Yeoman McAllister associated Galashiels Architects infrastructure– Phases 4 64 Waterside Studios and 5 Coltbridge Avenue Edinburgh EH12 6AH

Decision: Approved subject to a legal agreement covering affordable housing to be provided on site, Waverley line reinstatement, contributions to schools and, if required, future maintenance of communal open space and play area, and subject to the following conditions and informatives:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. 2. The layout of the site shall accord with the approved plan PL-01-Opt F, with the exception of Plots 17/18 and 25/26 which shall incorporate a step in the building line between each of the two pairs of houses of a specification to be first agreed with the Planning Authority Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved site layout with an adjustment to selected plots in the interests of enhancing the appearance of the development 3. No development shall commence until a phasing programme for the development has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. This shall include all buildings, roads, paths, parking areas, water, foul and surface water drainage services. Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing programme. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in a manner which ensures that occupied residential units are provided with necessary infrastructure and services 4. No development shall commence until - written evidence on behalf of Scottish Water that the development will be serviced by mains foul drainage and water supply; confirmation of future maintenance of communal surface water drainage, incorporating the SUDs attenuation area; and, evidence has been provided which demonstrates that surface water will be attenuated to pre-development greenfield levels, have all been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority Reason: To ensure the development can be adequately serviced and maintained, without flood risk to other properties 5. No development shall commence until a scheme of details of a children’s play area, which shall be developed on the site identified as ‘public open space’ on the approved site plan, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Details shall include the layout, specification, implementation date(s) and future maintenance of the play area. The play area shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme of details Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate children’s play space 6. No development shall commence until further information has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority demonstrating that the driver visibility splay for the proposed junction onto the C77 (illustrated by the perforated red line on the approved plan PL-01 Opt F) will be provided free of obstruction prior to occupancy of the first dwellinghouse within the development and maintained free from obstruction thereafter (with the exception of the tree to be retained under Condition 7). Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety 7. The tree adjacent the proposed access from the C77, illustrated on the approved plans, shall not be lopped, felled or otherwise disturbed without the prior written approval of the Planning 3 Item No. 4 Authority. No development shall commence until a tree protection plan has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority which demonstrates that the tree will be protected from damage in a manner consistent with BS5837:12. Development shall only proceed in accordance with any required protective measures Reason: To safeguard a tree of significant amenity value 8. No development shall commence, (notwithstanding the details provided in the approved drawings), until a revised and augmented scheme of levels (existing and proposed ground contours; proposed finished house floor levels; and all levels of paths and roads) has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme of details shall be sufficient to demonstrate how all proposed ground, path and road levels relate to existing levels and levels on land adjacent the site; how houses relate to the proposed levels; and how the SUDs attenuation area levels relate to existing and adjacent levels. Levels of all works within the visibility splay identified on the approved site layout plan PL-01 Opt F (red perforated line) shall be demonstrated to not interfere with driver visibility in accordance with Condition 6. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved scheme Reason: Further information is required to demonstrate that levels within the site have the most sympathetic visual impact and will not affect driver visibility 9. No development shall commence, (notwithstanding the details provided in the approved drawings), until a revised and augmented scheme of landscaping (incorporating layout, location, species, schedule, implementation date(s) and future maintenance of all new planting and communal open space within the site) has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with implementation and maintenance of the approved scheme Reason: Further information is required to achieve an acceptable landscape scheme for the site 10. No development shall commence, (notwithstanding the details provided in the approved drawings), until a revised and augmented scheme of boundary treatments, including retaining walls, walls and fencing, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the layout/route of all boundary treatments, and their detailed design, height and materials. All boundary treatments within the application site shall accord with the approved scheme Reason: Further information is required to achieve an acceptable boundary treatment scheme for the site 11. No development shall commence, (notwithstanding the details of house types approved under this consent), until a revised series of floor plans and elevations for all house types has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The revised series shall include consistent floor and elevation drawings for all house types; amendments to window proportions and fenestration, and timber cladding (on house types to be first agreed with the Planning Authority); and revised eave and verge fascia treatments. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the revised series of plans and elevations Reason: Consistent floor and elevational drawings, and refinements to house types are required in order to achieve an acceptable, and enforceable, design quality for the development 12. No development shall commence until a scheme of external materials (including specifications and samples of materials and colours) for all houses within the development, and of all roads, paths and parking areas, has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. External wall and roof finishes on plots 1-4 shall match those on the adjacent Coopersknowe Crescent development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme Reason: To ensure external materials are visually appropriate to the development and sympathetic to the surrounding area 13. With the exception of Plots 1-4, no development shall commence on external garages until dimensioned floor plans and elevations, including material specifications, have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The garages shall be constructed only in accordance with the approved plans/drawings and specifications

4 Item No. 4 Reason: Further information on garages is required to demonstrate they are of an appropriate design quality and specification 14. A site notice or sign shall be displayed in a prominent place at or in the vicinity of the site until the completion of the development, which shall be readily visible to the public, and printed on durable material. The Notice shall take the following form:

(i) Development at (Note 1)

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

(iii) The development comprises (Note 5)

(iv) Further information regarding the planning permission, including the conditions, if any, on which it has been granted can be obtained, at all reasonable hours at Scottish Borders Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells, Melrose. Telephone (01835) 825060, or by visiting http://eplanning.scotborders.gov.uk/publicaccess, using the application reference (Note 6). Reason: To ensure compliance with Section 27C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. 15. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the approved drawings, an extension of the existing roadway and footpath to either side of Plot 20 on the approved drawing, shall be provided to the southern site boundary in accordance with a scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details so approved shall be completed upon completion of the houses indicated on Plots 19 and 20. Reason: To make provision for future vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to and from the allocated development site immediately to the south of the application site. 16. A fence between the proposed SUDS attenuation area and the C77 Langshaw Road shall be erected upon completion of the attenuation area in accordance with a scheme of details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work on the site is commenced. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.

Informatives

1. The Notes required of Condition 14 should be completed as follows:

Note 1: Insert address or describe the location of the development Note 2: Delete “subject to conditions” if the planning permission is not subject to any conditions Note 3: Insert the name and address of the developer Note 4: Insert the date on which planning permission was granted (normally the date of this Notice) Note 5: Insert the description of the development. Note 6: Insert the application reference number. 2. If future maintenance of the play area and communal open space planting/landscaping is to be adopted by the Council, this shall require a legal agreement to cover financial contributions for this arrangement. 3. Any unauthorised disturbance to protective species habitats is an offence under European and UK habitat legislation. The applicants/developers should ensure precautions are taken before commencing work on site and the advice of an ecologist is recommended. 4. This application proposes the redevelopment of agricultural land which previously included steading buildings and a sheepwash. In addition an apparently infilled mill pond and landfill are located in the vicinity of the site. This land use is potentially contaminative and it is the responsibility of the applicants/developers to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose. It is recommended that the applicants/developers satisfy themselves that the

5 Item No. 4 development is not at risk of contamination by commissioning a site investigation and risk assessment.

5. The Planning Authority has been advised by the owners of Rowallan that a tail drain for their septic tank is believed to fall within the site. The applicants/developers should address this matter directly with the owner. 6. In relation to the requirements of Condition 12 above, the view of the Planning and Building Standards Committee was that any timberwork should be coloured to pay regard to the existing timber detailing of the existing properties in the Coopersknowe Cresent development. 7. The Planning and Building Standards Committee wished to encourage the developer to explore opportunities to connect to proposals for Combined Heat and Power supplies that may be available locally.

Note Members considered the inclusion of a developer contribution towards the Central Borders Traffic Study with the majority indicating that it was not appropriate in this case given that a previous permission for this site had not included such a contribution.

13/00247/FUL Scottish Power Construction of 400kV Land East of Eccles Transmission Series Capacitor Bank Substation, Eccles Per Denis O'Kane Compound, associated New Alderston House access road, drainage Dove Wynd and landscaping works Strathclyde Business Park Bellhsill ML4 3FF

Decision : Approved subject to the following conditions and informatives:

6 Item No. 4 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. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development. 7. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the hedges to be retained on the land within the control of the applicant shall be protected in accordance with Part 6.2 Barriers and Ground Protection of BS 5837:2012 and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development the existing soil levels around the boles of the hedges so retained shall not be altered. Reason: In the interests of preserving the hedges which contribute to the visual amenity of the area. 8. No development shall commence until precise details of foul water drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water. 9. No development is to commence until a report, by a suitably qualified person, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, demonstrating the provision of an adequate water supply to the development (if required) in terms of quality, quantity and the impacts of this proposed supply on surrounding supplies or properties. The provisions of the approved report shall be implemented prior to the bringing into use of the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately serviced with water without a detrimental effect on the water supplies of surrounding properties. 10. Discharge rates from the surface water drainage system (as shown on drawing number 185F-2-5200-DA-IECEC-005 Rev C dated 30 Nov 2012) to the Todrig Burn shall be limited to the existing Greenfield Run-off Rate or 5 litres/second/hectare, whichever is lower. Reason: To ensure that surface water drainage from the site does not lead to flooding of the Todrig Burn. 11. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining an Archaeological Evaluation. 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 conduct a programme of evaluation prior to development. This will include the below ground excavation of evaluation trenches and the full recording of archaeological features and finds. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered the nominated archaeologist(s) will contact the Archaeology Officer for further consultation. 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. 12. 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 any noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of nearby properties. 13. Any lighting installation installed in connection with the Development should be designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Engineers. If necessary, suitable shuttering should be provided for each lamp to prevent unwanted light affecting the occupiers of properties off site. Reason: In order to protect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

7 Item No. 4 14. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the Species and Habitat Mitigation referred to in the Landscape and Visual Assessment dated 20 February 2013 and cross referenced with the Screening Document dated 4 May 2012. Reason: In order to protect and enhance protected species and habitats. 15. Operational hours and vehicle movements for construction works shall be limited between 8.00am and 5.00pm, Monday to Friday, with no construction or vehicle movements at the weekend or on public holidays. Reason: To retain effective control of the development and protect the residential amenity of nearby dwellinghouses. 16. No development shall commence until a detail Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reasons: In the interests of road safety. 17. No development shall commence until a detailed Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure that the development of the site proceeds in an effective and orderly manner. 18. All vehicular access to the development hereby approved, including during construction phases, shall be limited to the existing substation access from the A697 and from no other location on the public road, including any existing field access. Reason: To limit vehicle movements to a single location from the public road and to minimise the potential for disturbance caused by vehicle movements upon nearby residents.

Informatives

1. In relation to condition No 6 above, the following points should be taken into account when preparing the landscaping plan:

x That all planting shall use cell grown or pot grown stock instead of the stated bare rooted plants. x That all woodland planting be protected by tree tubes (Tubex type or similar) and hedging by spiral guards to enable total weed control within the planted areas for the first 3 years following planting or until establishment. x That there shall be adequate provision through fencing or individual protection against damage by deer, rabbits or hares. x That the proposed ash planting is substituted by another species - hornbeam or field maple is suggested as substitutes. 2. It is recommended that the developers adopt water resilient materials and construction methods as appropriate as advised in PAN 69. 3. The Planning and Building Standards Committee were concerned at the potential for the development to give rise to tonal noise. The Committee has specifically requested that the developer enter into discussions to ensure the delivery of mitigation, as far as possible, to address the issue and the potential impact upon nearby housing.

13/00101/FUL Mr Thomas Gerald Tait Alterations and Coldstream 25 Duns Road Extension to Pavilion, Football Pavilion, Coldstream Erection of Grandstand, Home Park, TD12 4DW Perimeter Fence, Sports Coldstream. Fence and Gates

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and informative:

8 Item No. 4 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3. No development shall commence on the erection of the perimeter fence hereby approved until precise details of the fence, including finish, micro-siting and a programme for future maintenance, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter, no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of development. 4. No development shall commence on the pavilion extension hereby approved until precise details of all external materials have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter, no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of development. 5. The temporary pedestrian gates over the existing public footpath to the south of the application site shall be kept open and free from obstruction at all times except during periods on home match days in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the public footpath is available for all users. 6. The proposed pedestrian gate to the north of the application and adjacent to the existing park entrance on Home Place site shall be kept open and free from obstruction at all times except during periods on home match days in accordance with a scheme which shall first have been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the public footpath is available for all users. 7. No development shall commence until precise details of the pedestrian entrance and footpath extension to the rear of the gates hereby approved (adjacent to the Home Park entrance from Home Place) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. The proposed footpath extension shall tie into the existing path which will form part of adopted path network in the area. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety and to ensure that the proposed path is formed to the specification of the Planning Authority. 8. No development shall commence until precise details of the grandstand hereby approved, including all external materials and micro-siting, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter, no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of development.

Informatives

The applicant should contact the Council’s Neighbourhood Services team at the earliest possible opportunity in order to agree details for future maintenance of the football ground and public park.

13/00108/FUL Mr W Hall Erection of one wind Land East Of Per Gaia-Wind Ltd turbine 24.8m high to tip Mossbank Per Adele Ellis Langshaw 100 High Craighall Road Galashiels Port Dundas Scottish Borders Glasgow G4 9DU

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and ‘applicant informative’

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.

9 Item No. 4 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 Noise from the installation should not exceed 35dBA L90,10 min up to wind speeds of 10 metres per second measured at 10m height, when assessed in free field conditions outside any noise sensitive premises having Planning Consent at the time of determining this Application. This limit shall include the cumulative noise from any other turbines in the vicinity. There should be no tonal character to the noise from the installation, audible within any noise sensitive premises. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445. 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. Noise measurements shall be taken using the methodology contained in ETSU-R-97. Reason: To protect the private amenity of householders living in the vicinity of the development. 4 A location and site plan, showing the exact location of the turbine and foundation, shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The foundations shall then be constructed, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of the surrounding area, the appearance and location of the development hereby consented requires to be as sympathetic as possible to the rural character and setting of the site. 5 The colour and finish of the turbine and tower hereby permitted shall accord with details that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. No symbols, signs, logos or other lettering, other than those required for health and safety management, shall be displayed on any part of the turbines, or any related ancillary structure(s), without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the approved drawings, the turbine shall be mounted on a monopole structure (as opposed to lattice tower), precise details of which shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority prior to installation on site. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of the surrounding area, and to ensure that the development hereby consented is appropriate to the rural character and setting of the site. 6. In the event that the wind turbine hereby consented ceases to be operational, the turbine and any ancillary equipment or structures no longer required for the purposes of electricity generation (including any foundations), shall be dismantled and removed from the site, and the site, or that part of the site no longer in use for electricity generation, shall then be restored to its former condition within 6 months of the cessation of operation of the turbine(s) concerned. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area so that when the turbine hereby permitted reaches the end of its operational life, these will be removed to avoid any unnecessary environmental impact resulting from the retention of a non-operational turbine on the site. 7. Notwithstanding the requirements of condition 7 above, the turbine hereby permitted and any ancillary equipment or structures associated with it and no longer required for the purposes of electricity generation (including any foundations) shall be removed from the site, and the site restored to its former condition, within 25 years of the date of this planning permission unless a further planning permission is achieved that allows for their retention on the site beyond this period. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area so that when the turbine hereby permitted reaches the end of its operational life, these will be removed to avoid any unnecessary environmental impact resulting from the retention of a non-operational turbine on the site. 8. Any temporary structures or equipment installed or used during the commissioning or decommissioning of the wind turbine hereby permitted, shall be completely removed from the site, and from the accesses to the site, upon the completion of the commissioning/decommissioning works, such that no temporary structures or equipment

10 Item No. 4 relating to the commissioning or decommissioning works shall be left in situ during or after the period of operation of the turbine hereby permitted. Reason: To retain effective control over the development hereby consented; and, in the interests of protecting the amenity of the surrounding area, the appearance of the development hereby consented requires to be as sympathetic as possible to the rural character and setting of the site. It is therefore appropriate to require that all temporary structures and equipment are removed from the site and the access to the site, when their presence is no longer required. 9. No development shall commence until the developer has provided the Planning Authority with the date of commencement of construction; the date of completion of construction; the maximum height of construction equipment; the latitude and longitude of the turbine. Reason: The Planning Authority is required to provide the MoD with this information to enable military air crews to avoid overflight of the site.

Note Members requested that officers write to the developer to convey their concerns over the quality of the submission, particularly in terms of the visual impact information and visualisations, which they considered to be unhelpful in understanding the impact of the proposed development.

13/00572/FUL Manor Kingdom (Scotland) Variation of conditions Land North, East And Ltd And De Vere Ltd 14 and 17 of planning South Of Rutherford Argyll Court consent 08/01397/FUL House The Castle Business Park West Linton Stirling FK9 4TT

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions:

1. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: The materials require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting. 2. 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 Local 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. 3. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate): 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. 4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and shall be maintained thereafter and replaced as may be necessary for a period of two years from the date of completion of the planting, seeding or turfing. Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping is carried out as approved. 11 Item No. 4 5. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced detailed drawings showing which trees are to be retained on the site shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and none of the trees so shown shall be felled, thinned, lopped, topped, lifted or disturbed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings, and to ensure that those existing tree(s) representing an important visual feature are retained and maintained. 6. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the trees to be retained on the site shall be protected by a chestnut paling fence 1.5 metres high, placed at a minimum radius of one metre beyond the crown spread of each tree, and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development: (a) No excavations, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut, or pipes or services laid in such a way as to cause damage or injury to the trees by interference with their root structure; (b) No fires shall be lit within the spread of the branches of the trees; (c) No materials or equipment shall be stored within the spread of the branches of the trees; (d) Any accidental damage to the trees shall be cleared back to undamaged wood and be treated with a preservative if appropriate; (e) Ground levels within the spread of the branches of the trees shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, or trenches excavated except in accordance with details shown on the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of preserving the health and vitality of existing trees on the development site, the loss of which would have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area. 7. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, any hedges to be retained on the site shall be protected by a chestnut paling fence 1.5 metres high placed at a minimum distance of 2.0 metres from the edge of the hedge, and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development the existing soil levels around the boles of the hedges so retained shall not be altered. Reason: In the interests of preserving the hedges which contribute to the visual amenity of the area. 8. Only the trees identified on site and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be removed. Reason: The existing trees represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considers should be substantially maintained. 9. The area allocated for parking on the submitted plan shall be properly consolidated, surfaced and drained before the use of the site commences/the buildings are occupied, and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the highway. 10. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the integrated provision of suitable motorcycle and bicycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter permanently retained. Reason: To ensure that a comprehensive range of on-site vehicle parking facilities are made available to users of the development. 11. Prior to the commencement of any development on site a comprehensive Green Travel Plan that sets out proposals for reducing dependency on the private car shall he submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate. The Travel Plan shall identify measures to be implemented; the system of management, monitoring, review and reporting; and the duration of the plan. Reason: In order to meet the requirements of the Scottish Executive Planning for Transport Documents SPP17 – Planning and Transport and PAN75 – Planning and Transport 12 Item No. 4 12. The development hereby permitted shall not exceed a maximum parking provision of 390 spaces. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to be consistent with the requirements of the Scottish Executive Planning for Transport Documents SPP 17 – Planning and Transport and PAN75 – Planning and Transport 13. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development, bus stops shall be provided on both sides of the A702(T), located adjacent to the site generally as indicated in Arup Drawing Number 125383.00 (SK 001), to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to be consistent with the requirements of the Scottish Executive Planning for Transport Documents SPP 17 – Planning and Transport and PAN75 – Planning and Transport 14. Within one month of commencement of development a barrier of a type approved by the planning authority, after consultation with the Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate, shall be provided and maintained along the proposed boundary of the site with the trunk road. Reason: To minimise the risk of pedestrians and animals gaining uncontrolled access to the trunk road. 15. The nature and location of all advertising and external lighting within the site shall he approved by the planning authority, after consultation with the Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate. Reason: To ensure that there is no distraction to drivers on the trunk road network. 16. The proposed development shall incorporate measures to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, and the incorporation of sustainable building techniques and renewable energy technologies, in accordance with a scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. This should include demonstration of a reduction of 15% in CO2 emissions beyond the 2007 building regulations carbon dioxide emissions standard through incorporation of on-site low or zero carbon technologies (LZCT) where technically feasible. Reason: To ensure the development minimises any environmental impact 17. All drainage works shall be completed within one month of the development commencing in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with SEPA. The alternate foul drainage arrangements (private waste water treatment facility) must be carried out fully as agreed with SEPA Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water. 18. Detailed documented construction method statements for the site to be agreed by the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA, before development commences. This method statement must address the temporary measures proposed to deal with surface water run-off during construction in accordance with the requirements of CAR and the relevant General Binding Rules (GBRs) prior to the operation of the final SUDS. It must ensure that the SUDS performance is not compromised during construction, either by avoiding use of the final SUDS or completely reinstating the SUDS used. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water. 19. Details of the proposed finalised SUDS which meets the requirements of GBRs and provides sufficient attenuation that the development would not cause or exacerbate flooding within the receiving catchment, contact should be made with your Roads Department regarding the water quantity issues of SUDS Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water. 20. No trees identified for removal will be felled during the breeding bird season (March- August) Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest 21. An ecologist will inspect the trees on the day of removal to ensure that no protected species are using those trees. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest) 22. Trees identified for removal will be felled and removed in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust guidelines. 13 Item No. 4 Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest 23. A detailed Landscape and Habitat Management Plan is required, to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before any works commence. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest 24. No works shall commence during the breeding bird season without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest 25. Scrub and tree clearance should occur outside of the breeding bird season (breeding bird season March-August). Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest 26. Checking surveys for bats, badgers, otters and breeding birds to be carried out prior to the commencement of work. The survey reports are to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest 27. Measures to protect badgers and otters on construction sites to be implemented: covering of trenches overnight or provision of escape ramps, capping of any temporarily exposed pipe systems to prevent animals gaining access, safe storage of chemicals. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest 28. SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 (general guidance and works affecting watercourses), PPG 3, 4, 7, 13 (site drainage), PPG 2, 8 (oil storage) and PPG 6 (construction and demolition) shall be adopted by the developer as appropriate. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest 29. SUDS proposals should use new ponds and not existing ponds on the site. SUDS provide an opportunity to enhance the local habitat network, connecting with Forest Habitat Network and Wetland Habitat network and provision of habitats for bats. Reason: In the interests of protecting ecological interest

13/00572/FUL Mr Drew Glendinning Modification of planning The Bothy, Per Buccleuch Rural obligation Farmhouse and Solutions Agricultural Land, Weather House Westcote, Hawick Bowhill Selkirk TD7 5ES

Decision: Approved in respect of 13/00660/MOD75 for the modification of planning obligations and the Section 75 Agreement be amended as follows:

x The properties known as “The Bothy” and “Westcote Farmhouse” should be removed from the agreement. x The new house plot subject to planning permission 07/00704/OUT and the remainder of the agricultural land which provides the justification for that dwelling are to remain subject to the amended legal agreement. The agreement will then ensure that sufficient land remains with the dwelling to justify the erection of a dwelling under Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Policy D2 Housing in the Countryside (E) Economic Requirement; and Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018 Policy H8 (Housing in the Countryside: Isolated Housing).

14 Item No. 6(a)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

5 AUGUST 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 11/0144/FUL OFFICER: Carlos Clarke WARD: Leaderdale and Melrose PROPOSAL: Construction of wind farm comprising eight turbines 100m high to tip and associated access tracks and ancillary infrastructure including borrow pit, erection of 1 No permanent anemometer mast, temporary formation of construction compound and erection of 3 No temporary reference/calibration masts SITE: Land North East Of Blythe Farm (Brunta Hill) Lauder APPLICANT: PNE Wind UK Ltd AGENT: None

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located 8km north east of Lauder and 3.5km north west of Westruther, and located north-west of the B6456.

The site comprises undulating grassland, used for arable and livestock farming, with small areas of woodland/forestry. It extends from the B6456 to the south-east (by incorporating proposed access tracks and junctions) as far north as the Boondreigh Burn which runs adjacent the northerly and westerly boundaries of the area where the turbines are proposed. This area comprises undulating hillside which flanks Harecleuch Forest to the north-east and rises to 365m at this end.

The nearest residential properties include Gairmuir (911m); Raecleugh grouping (989m); Brunty/Bruntaburn (1117m); and Flass grouping (1255m).

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks full planning consent for 8 x 2.5MW turbines, each 100m high to blade tip (a reduced scheme from that for which the planning application was originally submitted, that being for 10 turbines, each 126.5m high). All turbines would have associated foundations/hardstandings and transformers. One permanent lattice meteorological mast (60m high) is also proposed, as is a substation. The application includes reference to two access junctions from the B6456 either side of Morven. That to the north-east side comprises the original proposal, with that to the south- west comprising an alternative junction (designed to minimise noise impacts on a nearby livery). The access tracks would include 6.5km of new tracks, 0.3km of upgraded tracks, and a similar extent of underground cabling.

‘Temporary’ works include a site compound and laydown area, a borrow pit and storage area (a 160m by 160m area sited approximately centrally between turbines 1 to 4) and three guyed performance masts, each 60m high.

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

PLANNING HISTORY

Planning consent was granted for a two year period for a meteorological mast on the site in October 2009 (09/01068/FUL) which was renewed in January 2012 (11/01512/FUL)

Of relevance to this application is planning application 11/00888/FUL for the erection of 9 Turbines on land south-west of Hyndsidehill (Corsbie Moor) Westruther. This was refused by the Planning and Building Standards Committee in September 2012 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would have a significantly adverse effect on local landscape character by virtue of its scale and, in particular, the height of the turbines, resulting in significant visibility across a range of sensitive receptors, including, but not exclusively, a number of residential properties and also road users on the A6089. The proposed development would unacceptably extend large scale wind farm development into a medium-scaled, settled landscape. These unacceptable effects would be contrary to Policies N9, I19 and I20 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policies G1 and D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011

2. The proposed development would have a significantly adverse cumulative effect on the enjoyment of users of the northern and western sections (which pass the site) of the Southern Upland Way, in particular the northern section incorporating the Twin Law Cairns iconic viewpoint, when combined with simultaneous and successive views of existing wind farms along this section of the route. These unacceptable effects would be contrary to Policies I19 and I20 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policy D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011

The decision is currently the subject of appeal being considered by the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals. A decision is expected shortly.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

There are 88 submissions objecting to the original application, with a further 16 in response to the revised scheme, and 6 more in response to further information provided by the applicant regarding the revised scheme. (There may be a small number of cases where households are potentially represented by more than one submission). The issues raised are many and varied, and full comments can be viewed on Public Access. The following is a basic summary of the key concerns raised:

x Residential amenity impacts, including on outlook and visual amenity. Significant visual impacts on a number of properties within 1km – guidance states 2km is preferred. A full residential assessment has not been carried out. Particular effects on Gairmuir, including gundog training business, and Raecleugh are raised. Primary outlook from Raecleugh kitchen is northwards. The trees north of Raecleugh includes an opening, an area of thin coverage, is not all in the applicant’s control, is poorly maintained and within 5-8 years the majority will be felled. Deciduous trees outside will take a long time to grow and have less screening value. The area around Raecleugh will be dominated, including curtilage and approaches. Effects on other properties are also raised.

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

x Effects on the adjacent farm estate operations, including sports shooting and management (including protecting/enhancing the Southern Upland Way and maintaining Black Grouse habitat). x Tourism impact – walkers, bikers, hikers, horse riders, cyclists, bird watchers x Impacts on local communities, including Westruther x The landscape and visual impact assessment sets a high threshold for ‘significance’ and its methodology and findings are questioned x Landscape will be dominated and effects are significant and unacceptable. The site is on a ridge, an important component of the Lammermuir Hills landscape, undermining its designation (now a Special Landscape Area). The effects will be significant and adverse x Similar characteristics to Corsbie Moor – highly visible and towering over small woods and fields. The development will affect the open, wildland character of the site, contrary to the objectives of the then AGLV (now Special Landscape Area) – one of the last residual wild land areas. The development is not part of a cluster x The northern area is within an area of ‘significant constraint’ and development will be a prominent feature within the 2km Southern Upland Way buffer. SPG mapping should be applied with caution x Significant cumulative effect (combined, successive and sequential) on the area, including roads, Southern Upland Way, with a turbine-free view affected, comprising yet another intrusion on the Lammermuirs. The area has reached saturation point. The assessment doesn’t account for emerging cumulative baseline (e.g. Muircleuch, Girthgate etc) x Effects on Twin Law Cairns, Eildon Hills, Hume Castle, Smailholm Tower, Dirrington Little Law, Chester Hill. The assessment acknowledges significant effects on Twin Law Cairns will result x Several cultural heritage sites omitted including Spottiswoode Hill Fort, Heriot’s Dyke, Popping Stone, and the Spottiswoode designed landscape is given scant mention. There will be adverse impacts on the built and cultural heritage x Poor design, too close together, fails the Environmental Statement’s design strategy objectives and SNH design guidance. The reduced scheme has resulted in a design and layout which is challenged,. The site’s location between landscapes of markedly different character means the design cannot successfully relate to both x Landscape/visual impacts of access tracks not assessed x Visual impacts on access routes not fully assessed x Loss of trees x Much of Harecleuch Forest is reaching maturity and will be felled within the consent period x Micrositing (50m) is not assessed fully or justified x Photomontages underestimate the impact, and key viewpoints have been excluded x Traffic impacts, including impacts on farm traffic and rights of way, and use of roads not designed for heavy haulage. Westruther already affected by traffic for Fallago Rig. A Traffic Management Plan will not mitigate the hindrance and traffic information is inadequate x The alternative access route will affect water supply, drainage and exacerbate flooding near Jordonlaw. It will also affect wildlife and rare breed horses x Effects on botanically significant habitat, including flushes and bryophyte x Run-off affecting Special Area of Conservation qualifying species x Effects on hare, reptiles, adders, and bats not fully addressed

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

x The area north of and adjoining Flass Farm and forestry is the most important Black Grouse habitat in the Lammermuirs x Cumulative impacts on birds not fully assessed and the assessment overlooks some species. Moorland and blanket bog within the area is a breeding ground for many upland birds and no comprehensive cumulative assessment has been undertaken x There is no basis to consider that a Habitat Management Plan will mitigate ecological effects x Noise assessment is challenged, including background noise data, methodology, findings. ETSU doesn’t take full account of effects. Only 1 turbine model was assessed Consideration of amplitude modulation, low frequency noise and vibrations is required. The Council’s Environmental Health Service has not fully assessed noise and there are still unresolved noise issues associated with Long Park. Cumulative effects with emerging wind farms need accounted for. x Construction noise will last two years and working times are queried x Traffic and construction noise effects on adjacent livery x Effects on water supplies – reassurance is insufficient, the accuracy of the environmental statement is queried. Precautionary principle should apply x Driver distraction x Environmental damage not proportionate to benefits which are small economically and environmentally. Government targets do not override the need to ensure scheme is environmentally acceptable and should not be ‘double-counted’ in the scheme’s favour x Shadow flicker x Effects on tv, radio, phone and other telecommunication systems x No consideration of alternatives x Community fund is not a material consideration x Potential flooding during construction x No consideration of grid connections x Effects on health x Effects on handling horses x The application does not demonstrate no significant impacts will occur and, therefore, breaches Structure and Local Plan policies, and SPGs on Wind Energy and Local Landscape Designations. It should be refused. The reduced scheme has resulted in only minor changes which do not overcome concerns.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The original application for 10 turbines was accompanied by:

x Environmental Statement (ES) and Non-Technical Summary x Design and Access Statement x Pre-Application Consultation Report x Planning Statement x Confidential habitat annex

The revised proposal for 8 turbines was accompanied by:

x Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI), Non-Technical Summary and Addendum (assessing the alternative access) x Design and Access Statement

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

x Supplementary Consultation Report x Planning Statement x Confidential habitat annex x Pollution Prevention Plan

Following the assessment of the revised application, the applicants responded to matters raised by this department by submitting further environmental information (FEI) (“Further Information Submitted in Response to Consultation on the Revised Application”).

The original application, the revised proposal and the further environmental information were subject to consultation and public advertisement.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SESplan 2013

1B The Spatial Strategy: Development Principles 10 Sustainable Energy Technologies

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

G1 Quality Standards for New Development G4 Flooding BE1 Listed Buildings BE2 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments BE3 Gardens and Designed Landscapes BE4 Conservation Areas NE1 International Nature Conservation Sites NE2 National Nature Conservation Sites NE3 Local Biodiversity NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows NE5 Development Affecting the Water Environment NE6 River Engineering Works EP1 National Scenic Areas EP5 Air Quality H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Inf2 Protection of Access Routes Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Inf11 Developments that generate Travel Demand D4 Renewable Energy Development

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy 2010 Draft Scottish Planning Policy 2013 National Planning Framework 2 2009 National Planning Framework 3 Main Issues Report 2013 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (S) Regulations 2011 Specific Advice Sheet Onshore Wind Turbines July 2013 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology 1/2011 Planning and Noise Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2011

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

PAN 50 Controlling the effects of surface mineral workings 1996 PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008 PAN 61 Planning and sustainable urban drainage systems 2001

SBC Guidance

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Local Landscape Designations 2012 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy 2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees and Development 2008 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Biodiversity 2005

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Ecology Officer:

ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Largely content with the Ecological Impact Assessment and their supporting ecological consultants under the Environmental Impact Assessment. Objects to location of turbine 5 within the proposed development. The impacts of the proposed access tracks should also be reduced by removing tracks between Turbines 3 and 7 , (route is through modified bog over deep peat) and Turbines 5 and 10, the tracks appear to be enclosed loops which are not a necessity and could be re-located to reduce ecological impacts. There are a small number of deficiencies in the EIA, and some further information is required.

Bats The Bat survey is reasonably detailed but does not meet the requirement of the recent Bat Conservation Trust guidelines. Further information should be included to identify location of bat records and indicative flight paths of bats recorded. Impact assessments from other wind farm developments (e.g. Rowantree wind farm, Pogbie wind farm) have recorded noctule bat movements across open landscapes. Will determine whether further survey is required once this further information has been considered.

The habitat value for bats within the local landscape is predominantly of low- moderate value, with isolated coniferous plantation and blocks, small number of potential roosts, (most likely less significant ones), some habitat that could be used by foraging bats with some connection to wider landscape by linear features that could be used by commuting bats particularly on the western part of the site Boondreigh burn, Brunta burn and ancient woodland (ancient of semi-natural origin) This area and areas to the south are of high habitat value for bats.

Mammals Is satisfied with findings of the otter, water vole and badger surveys. Checking surveys for otter and badger will be required prior to the commencement of works.

Reptiles It is unclear why no assessment of impacts on reptile has been included. A survey of reptiles and an appropriate mitigation plan will be required prior to commencement of works.

River Tweed SAC

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

Will comment further on potential impacts on the River Tweed SAC once SNH’s response has been considered

Other habitats Is satisfied with the habitat surveys carried out under the EIA. Avoidance of impacts on flush communities including calcareous flush communities is required. Calcareous flush habitat identified in target note TN13 is adjacent to turbine 5. Design changes need to go further and avoid any impacts on sensitive flush habitats. Is not confident that this can be resolved through micro-siting only as hydrological impacts may arise over a large area. The ES states that the 50m (micro-siting) distance will not fully remove the impacts on these habitats (flush habitat and ponds) as they will remain in close proximity to hydrologically sensitive ecosystems. Is not satisfied that micro-siting will avoid impacts on these habitats. The flush community at this location could be considered regionally important. Objects to the location of turbine 5 and associated infrastructure and tracks. This turbine should be relocated to avoid impacts on sensitive flush habitats.

The track layout consists of two enclosed loops. It is unnecessary for the tracks to be enclosed loops which results in tracks going through modified bog and marshy grassland habitats underlain by deep peat.

Mitigation will also be required to protect flushes B and C (Fig. 9.4).

Black grouse The presence of a lek within the proposed development area is of significance. The lek is within 200m of turbine 9. The recent population crash in the Lammermuir Hills (49 males in 2009, 12 in 2010, 5-6 in 2011), suggests that this lek site, however temporary, represents 17-20% of the Berwickshire population so can be considered significant at a county level, rather than less than local as referred to in the report. The core area of habitat supporting a lek is found within 1.5km of the lek site and this would include much of the proposed development area. This represents a serious concern. Potential impacts can be mitigated through provision of measures away from the turbine areas e.g. within the greater survey area or outwith the site. There is an ongoing Lammermuir black grouse recovery project which might provide an opportunity for delivery of any required offsite measures. On site measures for black grouse and off-site can be included in a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan.

The EIA identifies potential displacement of 2-3pairs of curlew and 2-4 pairs of lapwing (a UKBAP priority species), potentially 18 breeding pairs of curlew are within the proposed development area, and potentially 24 pairs lapwing are within the proposed development area. Curlew is a species that may be displaced within 500m of turbines. Curlew density is well above average for the region. Lapwing density is well above the regional average for the region. There has been no detailed assessment of cumulative impact assessment on birds.

To mitigate for impacts on breeding waders, mitigation measures will be required in a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan,

If works are to be carried out during the breeding bird season, checking surveys for breeding birds and bird mitigation plans will be required to be implemented.

Habitat Management Plan Welcomes the intention to produce a Habitat Management Plan. Further detail on any off-site measures should be agreed prior to determination.

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

Welcomes the intention to submit a Construction Method Statement and Environmental Management Plan including an Ecological Mitigation Strategy.

Borrow pit The current location of the borrow pit lies partly in a deep peat basin. Hydrological impacts could arise over a wider area. Recommends that this borrow pit is located in areas of habitat of less biodiversity value than wet heath and not underlain by deep peat, to avoid impacts on wet heath and other sensitive habitats.

There are a number of deficiencies with the Environmental Impact Assessment outlined above which could be addressed by submission of further information and amendment to the submitted scheme. Should consent be granted for the proposed development, recommends conditions (see original comments):

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES) The revised proposal includes submission of additional detailed habitat surveys . Welcomes the proposed amendment to the locations of turbines and infrastructure including borrow pit to avoid significant impacts on valued bog and flush habitats

Turbine 5 of the original proposal has been relocated west (T6 in revised layout 2012) to minimise or avoid impacts on national important flush habitat. Turbine 2 of the original proposal is moved, which also minimise or avoids potential impacts on sensitive flush and mire habitats. Access tracks between T3 and T7 of the original layout 2011 have been amended to form the track between T2 and T1 in the revised layout, to avoid impacts on sensitive bog habitat. The access tracks between T5 and T10 of the original layout have been relocated (track between T6 and east of T5 in the revised layout). The borrow pit has been relocated to avoid areas of deeper peat (peat depth in revised site between 0-0.49m).

Turbine 3 and the access track to between T3 and T5 is adjacent to rush mire M23 habitat containing marsh valerian (Valeriana dioica) (scarce in Scotland) (Target note T8 NVC survey). This site must be avoided and mitigation implemented to ensure indirect impacts are minimised. Marsh valerian (Valeriana dioica) (Target note T9 NVC survey) is also found in M23 rush mire habitat and associated springheads near to the proposed access track. This site must be avoided and mitigation implemented to ensure indirect impacts are minimised.

To note the NVC maps submitted are fuzzy and difficult to interpret. The NVC report in Appendix 9.1 (p8) also refers to a turbine at NT6033 5299 in the original layout which is assumed to be a typing error.

Compensatory planting Welcomes the proposal for compensatory planting of 1.29ha of native woodland.

Badger Is satisfied with the updated badger survey information. Checking surveys and mitigation for badgers will be required prior to the commencement of works.

Reptiles No survey information on reptiles has been submitted. Checking surveys and mitigation for reptiles will be required prior to the commencement of works

Breeding birds

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

An additional black grouse survey was carried out in 2012, in which no birds were recorded. On a precautionary basis black grouse should be considered to be using the site. His earlier recommendation stands.

The revised proposal may displace 2-3 pairs of curlew and 2-4 pairs of lapwing. Whilst cumulative impacts may be minor at a county scale, adopting the Council’s development plan policies, these losses will be required to be compensated for under a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan. This will require measures to modify the grazing rate on habitats within the site (see 10.151) To note that 3-4 pairs of snipe are identified on site (possibly under recorded, table 10.8), snipe are also potentially at risk of displacementi from areas of the site. Proportionate compensatory measures should be included in a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan.

Recent evidence suggests that there is a risk of long-term impacts arising from construction particularly for curlew. Proportionate compensatory measures should be included to account for this.

Habitat Management Plan- Welcomes the intention to produce and implement a Habitat Management Plan

Original recommendations for conditions stand.

Flood Risk Officer: The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) known as the “second generation flood mapping” prepared by SEPA indicates that the site is not at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years. Although there has been no fluvial flood risk highlighted concerns have been raised as to the issue of surface water management, specifically in relation to the affect of the proposed Western Access Road. The concerns relate to the Jordanlaw access road, ponding in fields to the East and the West of the road and excess surface water run-off flowing towards the B6456 public road. Further information has been submitted by the developer to address these concerns.

The additional information highlights that the existing flooding occurs due a blocked field drain and also the combination of under capacity or blocked field drains and also the blockage of a culvert under the access road, although investigations by the developer resulted in no road culvert being found. However local residents have indicated that a culvert is present. Following on from their investigation the developer has developed flood mitigation measure to address the flood risk. These include:

x The construction of multiple dry culverts under the access road which will allow the passage of surface water from West to East as it does at present. x The existing field drain will be surveyed prior to construction and will be excavated and replaced under the access track.

The additional information does provide some figures which show the increase in surface water run-off as result of a 1 in 100 year storm event and the inclusion of the Western Access Road, however these figures do not include for any mitigation measures or SUD’s which will be included in the final design to limit run-off to the Greenfield run-off rate. He would prefer as a matter of good practice that any mitigation measures and SUD’s are designed to accommodate a 1 in 200 year plus climate change storm event. Therefore, has no objection to the proposed development subject a condition requiring submission of detailed design of the proposed mitigation measures and the proposed SUD’s along with the greenfield run-off rate calculations. An inspection and maintenance regime of the SUD’s should be included in the Environmental Management Plan.

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

Landscape Architect:

ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) The site is located at the southern margin of landscape type 1LP: Dissected Plateau Moorland: Lammermuir Plateau where it meets landscape type 8WPL: Rolling Farmland: Westruther Platform as described in the Borders Landscape Character Assessment (1988). It describes the key characteristics of 1LP as: x Plateau landform consisting of a series of level-topped hills and ridges. x Individual hill masses separated by steep-sided valley features of differing scales. x Semi-natural peatland, heather moorland and grassland communities dominant. x Very low settlement density. x Sense of wildness created by wide horizons and distant, unobstructed views.

The key characteristics of the adjoining area 8WPL are described as: x Undulating relief, becoming more pronounced at higher elevations. x Large-scale field pattern, enclosed by hedgerows, with scattered coniferous woods. x Mix of arable, ley pasture and permanent grazing land. x Moderately densely settled, with frequent farmsteads and small villages.

Given its position on the boundary between these two landscape types, the application should be considered against both these receiving landscapes.

Implications of the Proposal for the Landscape including any Mitigation The application must be assessed against policy D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan (2011). Taking the landscape related elements of that policy in turn:

x Criterion 1: The site is outwith but right on the boundary of the Lammermuir Hills Area of Great landscape Value (AGLV). This area is also a Candidate Special Landscape Area (SLA) in the Scottish Borders Local Landscape Designation Review. Approximately 50% of the area within 5km of the site is designated as described and is therefore classed as ‘potentially sensitive’ in terms of policy I19 of the Structure Plan. Concludes that this criterion is not fully satisfied.

x Criterion 2:The site is partially within the preferred large scale landscape setting of 1LP as described above. However it is also highly visible from 8WPL, an intermediate or medium scale landscape. Criterion 2 is therefore only partially satisfied.

x Criterion 3 is concerned with the extent of any topographical screening. This is best illustrated by the larger scale ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ (ZTV) drawing presented at figure 8-7 of the ES. This shows very high visibility over the adjoining Upland Fringe area (8WPL) to the south within the 2km, 5km and more distant ranges. There is some degree of topographical containment within the Upland (1LP) area to the north where the gullies of small burns cut into the plateau and there is limited screening of the valley floors. Several of the selected viewpoints show the site as a skyline feature (e.g. fig 8-21c) and lead to the conclusion that this criterion is most definitely not satisfied.

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

x Criterion 4 is concerned with sensitive receptors. This proposal will impact a variety of these, most particularly the Southern Upland Way (SUW) which passes about 1km to the north west of the site. Around 9km of this route appear to be affected within the more significant 5km range as there is very little screening between the site and the SUW. Roads affected include the A697 Edinburgh to Morpeth road, the A6089 Whiteburn to Kelso road and the B6456 road over the Westruther Moor and, further away, the B6362 Stow to Lauder road. In addition, numerous residential properties have direct views of the site within the key 2 and 5km ranges as indicated on figure 8-10 of the ES. The great majority of these are within the settled area of 8WPL: Westruther Platform to the south and east. Although there is no set ‘threshold of acceptability, concludes that this application constitutes a significantly higher impact on sensitive receptors than has been accepted elsewhere in the Borders and therefore that this criterion is not satisfied. x Criterion 5(i): This criterion is concerned with areas exhibiting remote qualities as guided by expert advice including the Borders Landscape Assessment. A ‘sense of wildness’ is specifically mentioned in the key characteristics of 1LP (above) and there is clear visual impact on the SUW which would be diminished by a further section of the route running close to a windfarm. Concludes that this criterion is not satisfied.

x Criterion 5(ii): This criterion is concerned with impacts on ‘sensitive receptors’ and is also dealt with under 4 above.

x Criterion 5(iii):This criterion is concerned with potential cumulative impacts. There are several of these. In terms of coincident cumulative impacts the most significant effects can be anticipated with Fallago Rig just over 5km to the north (main affected receptor would be the Southern Upland Way) and the Corsbie Moor proposal 5km to the south, if it is approved. If Corsbie and Brunta were both approved, they would share many of the same sensitive residential receptors identified at 4 above and also many of the same sections of road, albeit in different directions. Is rather more relaxed about the expected coincident cumulative effects with other more distant wind farms although it must be noted that there are potentially a number of these at the 10-15km range including Black Hill, Crystal Rig, Dun Law, Toddleburn and Longpark plus potential further schemes at Keith Hill, Pogbie, Rowantree and Girthgate. x What is of greater concern is the potential for various forms of sequential cumulative impact associated with this proposal with Brunta Hill effectively filling in a gap between the various schemes down the west side of Lauderdale and other schemes in the north east Lammermuirs so that travellers might find they are in constant view of a windfarm over much of the environs of the south side of the Lammermuirs. Sequential cumulative impact would be a particular issue for the Southern Upland Way and approval of Brunta Hill would make a significant addition to this effect.

Conclusion This application is an improvement on a linear array proposal previously considered for Brunta Hill. However, being located on the exposed southern edge of the Lammermuir Plateau and lacking the topographical containment that is identified at criterion 3, it is not surprising that it still scores heavily for impacts on receptors in the inhabited areas immediately to the south and on the quality of the designated landscape to the north. It is also expected to contribute substantially to sequential

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6(a) cumulative effects. The ES predicts a number of significant landscape and visual effects. The proposal does not fully satisfy any of the criteria set out in policy D4 and in particular, fails criteria 3, 4, 5(i), 5(ii) and 5(iii). Although many of the landscape criteria are not absolute (i.e. pass/fail), it seems safe to conclude that this proposal would be ‘expensive’ in terms of its associated landscape and visual impacts. Recommended the application be refused.

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES):

x Criterion 1:The site is outwith but right on the boundary of the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area (SLA) which was designated last year (2012). This replaces the previous designation of Area of Great landscape Value (AGLV). Approximately 50% of the area within 5km of the site is designated as described and is therefore classed as ‘potentially sensitive’ in terms of policy I19 of the Structure Plan. Concludes that this criterion is not fully satisfied.

x Criterion 2: As previous reply

x Criterion 3: Has compared these figures with the ZTV for the original application The coverage of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) is only very slightly reduced as compared to the previous layout. There is still extensive visibility of the scheme from the south and south east. The area within the key 5km range of the site indicates around 80% is within the ZTV of at least 7 or the 8 turbines. This is a very high level of visibility in the close range where magnitude of visibility is also greatest. There is a higher degree of topographical screening to the north and west but this is largely at greater ranges, over 5km. Concludes that criterion 3 is still not satisfied.

In a later comment, notes the applicant’s submission of a comprarative ZTV. This is considered to illustrate his point that the reduction in the extent of the ZTV from the 10 to the 8 turbine scheme is minimal and does not effect his overall conclusion. Also notes and agrees that: “The location of the site on the southern edge of the Lammermuir Hills means that there will be visibility of the proposal across lower lying areas to the south. Topographic screening is therefore limited for views from the south towards this site. The revised scheme design sought therefore to improve the appearance of the windfarm in views...... Although this has been done, it does not necessarily mean that the level of predited impact has been reduced.”

Does not consider that any of the additional information provided changes his assessment of the application against Policy D4 or his recommendation.

x Criterion 4: The removal of 2 turbines and the reduction in height from 126 to 100m will make an appreciable difference to the magnitude of impact on each receptor but the extent of visibility is largely unchanged and the sensitivity of the receptors remains the same. Is happy that the comments made in his original reply are still valid. Remains of the view that this application would have a high impact on sensitive receptors including roads and properties to the south and east and to walkers on the Southern Upland Way and concludes that this application would still have a disproportionate impact on sensitive receptors when compared to other approved applications in the Borders.

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

x Criterion 5(i) Brunta Hill is part of the southern edge of the Lammermuir range of hills that forms the skyline when viewed from the south. Impacts that change skylines over a wide area may be considered as character changing if the existing skyline forms a recognised point of reference, as is the case here. Concludes that this application would have implications in terms of the landscape character of the adjoining areas. Remains of the view that this criterion is not satisfied.

x Criterion 5(ii) Dealt with under 4 above.

x Criterion 5(iii)Is largely content to rely on his previous reply with the proviso that the magnitude of impacts would be somewhat diminished in comparison to the previous larger scheme. The main difference, in terms of other adjoining wind farms, is that Corsbie Moor has now been refused and Fallago Rig is now largely constructed. It is particularly apparent at viewpoints 7 and 10, where glimpses of Fallago Rig are now available, that construction of a new and much more prominent windfarm at Brunta Hill would also serve to draw attention to the other, less visible, Fallago Rig turbines in the background i.e. there would be coincident cumulative effects occurring at these locations. As mentioned in his previous reply, there are also potential issues of sequential cumulative impact, particularly for the Southern Upland Way. Given the potential for both coincident and sequential cumulative effects, remains of the view that this criterion is not satisfied

Access Road In a later response to further information submitted by the applicant regarding the access roads/tracks, notes the details of the proposed 3+km of new access track. It appears from the accompanying text that this track will not require any significant cut and fill earthworks that would create cuttings and embankments that could cause visual impacts. No detail drawings have been provided. This information goes some way to answering the questions raised concerning the access road.

Again, in response to a later submission by the applicant, notes the statement that the borrow pit will have 'limited visibility'. No detail drawing of the borrow pit has been provided.

Conclusion The application is an improvement on the previous layout because there are fewer turbines and they are of a lower height. However the SEI does not provide comparisons in terms of either changes of the extent of ZTV or comparative wirelines that would give a clearer understanding of the degree of reduction in magnitude. The reduction would be noticeable but that the impacts, in terms of policy D4 remain largely unsatisfied. This is not really surprising given that Brunta Hill is an open skyline location at the outer edge of a range of hills and is not a suitable location for a windfarm if landscape and visual impacts are to be minimised.

Recommendation The application site lacks topographical containment being located on the exposed southern edge of the Lammermuir Plateau. This leads to a number of impacts on receptors in the relatively densely settled areas to the south of the site and these are coupled with sequential impacts and loss of ‘wildland’ character on the Southern Upland Way which runs very close to the site on the north side. The application does not fully satisfy any of the landscape and visual criteria in policy D4.

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

Recommends refusal of the revised application.

Roads Planning Service: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) This development will create a significant amount of traffic during its construction period, Sought a meeting to discuss and agree management measures required as soon as possible, and the submission of a Traffic Management Plan to the Councils satisfaction is a prerequisite prior to construction commencing on site.

The main route to access the site is from the A68 Trunk Road via the A697 then onto the B6456. All these roads are constructed to a high standard, though the much narrower B6456 will require a more detailed survey carried out on it should be well documented in the TMP. There are two particular pinch point areas along this route which may need some degree of extra traffic management imposed on them during the delivery of the abnormal loads. The first is on the A697 at Wanton Walls, and the second is on the B6456 at Thorniedykes. Indeed, the delivery of the abnormal loads along the entire length of the B6456 is likely to require significant traffic management measures, and temporary road closures may have to be investigated. Traffic management measures must take traffic associated with Fallago Rig into consideration.

Of the two (originally) proposed locations for access into the site from the B6456, much preferred option would be Detail 2 of the E1 junction - will need an engineering detail and specification for this work including showing how the junction will be scaled down after the construction phase. For security purposes, had thought a new gate and fencing would be required around the new access, but it is not shown on the access drawing.

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES): With regards to the proposed alternative access onto the public road some 500 metres to the west of the original access point has no objection in principle to the relocation of the access to serve the Brunta Hill Wind Farm as detailed on the amended drawing. However, it should be noted that the required visibility splay of 4.5m by 215.0m would have a devastating effect on the mature roadside hedging and trees either side of the new access. Substantial lengths of this hedging and trees would have to be removed to accommodate the splays required for road safety. Would not be in favour of reducing the splays required as this would compromise road safety

Access Officer:

ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Confirms there are outdoor access implications affected by the above development which have a significant impact upon recreational public access routes. Notes planning policies and guidance that apply. Has noted a detailed table of direct development impacts on routes. Has also examined the following implications:

Southern Upland Way The nearest turbines would be within 1km of the Southern Upland Way (SUW) at the closest point. As the SUW passes from west to east, this route will have a view southwards from above the proposed development. The development will also be visible from Twin Law Cairns (on the SUW) some 2.6km to the north-east The SUW also passes through Wanton Walls which is within 4.5km of the development and again all 10 turbines are predicted to be easily seen as outlined in Viewpoint 9. This viewpoint indicates a cumulative impact from both the proposed development and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6(a) that of Fallago Rig development. Cumulative impact also occurs at Viewpoint 15 (Woodheads Hill) near the SUW and predicts the development will lie approximately 9.47km with 10 turbines visible and Fallago Rig development easily seen. From this viewpoint looking north the walker is likely to see Dun Law wind farm (A68) also. Viewpoint 16 (11.85km) identifies 10 turbines visible to the SUW to the west. From this Viewpoint Black Hill wind farm (near Duns) is also visible to the south-east. Viewpoint 23 (Three Brethren) indicates that all 10 turbines will be visible at a distance of 25km. Turbines from Longpark wind farm (A7) are also visible from this viewpoint.

Dere Street Viewpoint 18 denotes that 8 turbine tips will be visible from Kirtonhill (Dere Street) (12.1km away). Within 270° it is estimated that wind farms of Dun Law (A68), Toddleburn (near Oxton) and Longpark (A7) will also be visible.

St Cuthbert’s Way Viewpoint 21 indicates that 10 turbines will be visible at a distance of 20km. From the viewpoint Dun Law (A68), Toddleburn, Longpark (A7) and Duns Law (nr Duns) will also be visible.

Paths Around Galashiels (Meigle Hill) Forming part of Walk 10 within the Paths Around Galashiels network, Viewpoint 20 indicates that at a distance of 17km, 10 turbines will be visible. It is suggested that Toddleburn and Longpark (A7) wind farms will also be visible.

Paths Around Kelso (Smailholm Tower) Forming part of a promoted walk (Walk 4) of Paths Around Kelso network, Viewpoint 20 indicates that at a distance of 17km, 10 turbines will be visible to the north.

Cumulative Impact Cumulative visual impacts can arise in combination (two or more wind farms in the same view), in succession (turning away from one, you see another) or sequentially (as you walk along a route), for example walking the Southern Upland Way.

The SUW is a Long Distance Route (LDR). St Cuthbert’s Way, Border Abbeys Way, John Buchan Way and Berwickshire Coastal Path are all registered as part of the ‘Scotland’s Great Trails’. Official LDRs in particular require that management should ensure that the routes provide high quality recreational opportunities and experience of national significance that meet the expectations of users, particularly long-distance travellers.

Accounting for the above spatial analysis and perceived impacts on walking, it is the view of the Access Ranger Team that the proposed wind farm would significantly transform the visual experience of the Southern Upland Way between Lauder and Longformacus (25km length). The SUW is walked from west to east and according to the viewpoints the turbines will largely all be visible and dominate the view of those experiencing the national long distance route. It is considered that the development is predicted to cause significant cumulative and sequential impact to the route. The team are also of the opinion that walking tourism across the region will be affected negatively across a range of walking routes including Dere Street, St Cuthbert’s Way, Paths Around Galashiels network and Paths Around Kelso network. The proximity of the turbines to the viewpoints would make them appear notable in the landscape, and their presence would form an intrusion into the existing expansive views which are enjoyed whilst accessing these routes. The team regard this impact as unacceptable.

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

In addition to the visual impact the Council’s supplementary planning guidance (SPG - Wind Energy, 2011) as listed above is clear. The guidance approves a spatial framework for wind farms in the Scottish Borders. Regarding outdoor access, there is a 2km buffer area applied from strategic paths (including the SUW) and from key viewpoints (including Twin Law Cairns). The development site therefore is located within that 2km buffer as the SUW passes (less than 1km). Twin Law Cairns is approximately 2.6km away, marginally outside the buffer. However the team advises that the view from the Lammermuir Hills of 180° southwards in particular to that towards the Cheviot Hills and towards the Eildon Hills would be significantly interrupted. The Team regard this impact as unacceptable in landscape and visual terms and is inconsistent with the council’s supplementary planning guidance on wind farms.

Archaeology Officer: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Does not object to this proposal on balance, has concerns about the quality of the EIA assessment and the subsequent suggested mitigation. Does not feel that these will adequately preserve heritage assets within an area of moderate to high archaeological sensitivity that will be directly impacted by this development. Does not feel that the spirit of Structure Plan policy has been met by the EIA as it acknowledges direct impacts on regional and local archaeological assets without proper justification for why this should be the case. Recommends that a statement from the developer specifically related to SPP 15 is needed before this application is determined. If the planning authority is satisfied that the benefits of this development outweigh those of the heritage assets, then approval may be warranted on cultural heritage grounds.

Cannot determine from the EIA whether all potential archaeological sites and features have been identified on the ground. It will be important for a further systematic field survey to take place prior to any development, subject to condition, within the wind farm boundary in order to provide clarity on this point and allow for micro-siting or redesign of wind farm elements if necessary. If at all possible, this can take place prior to determination and would negate the need for a condition.

There is no attempt made to suggest the archaeological potential of this peat nor to suggest mitigation to preserve or record buried archaeological or paleo- environmental deposits or features. Has concerns, therefore, that the EIA has not fully reflected the archaeological potential for this site and that analysis of overall direct impacts is somewhat compromised. Recommends that paleo-environmental coring is conducted in areas where peat below .5 metres will be impacted by development. This would be subject to condition

Generally satisfied that the majority of known and unknown heritage assets have been accounted for, but does have concern about the interpretation of some features and the levels of significance and magnitude of effect ascribed.

In particular, notes that survival of relict field systems has been given either a low sensitivity based on local importance, or a negligible sensitivity. Would agree that post-medieval rig and furrow is of local importance. Medieval rig and furrow is comparatively rare in this part of the Borders and is important for assessment of land- use prior to agricultural improvements. Evidence of medieval, and for similar reasons prehistoric, agricultural practices should be seen as of regional importance. Direct impacts would, under the criteria proposed in the EIA, be of minor to moderate significance. Given this, feels that the access design should better reflect the importance of the features and seek to avoid these in a redesign. In particular, the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(a) proposed access where it would bisect extensive areas of well-preserved rig and furrow north and east of Raecleugh should be avoided and follow lines of existing access and field dykes. If this is not possible, justification is needed. The developer should also consider construction of reversible built up access tracks on bases that spread loads and vibrations evenly over rig and furrow thereby minimising damage to the assets.

The inclusion in the EIA of transcribed evidence for rig and furrow and other features appearing in aerial photos is very useful in this regard, and will be an important aid in the avoidance of visible archaeology. It would be helpful if this information can be produced in our Historic Environment Record. One further concern is with regard to the palimpsest landscape that exists on this site. It is acknowledged that the combined evidence for cultivation and settlement from a number of prehistoric and historic periods is of ‘potential regional importance’. Such landscapes are comparatively rare in this part of the Borders and agrees that this landscape is of regional importance. However, the EIA fails to assess the impacts of the development on the heritage landscape. Elements of this landscape will be impacted both directly and indirectly by affecting its setting. Using the EIA’s assessment methodology, the landscape should be seen as having a medium sensitivity. Given the direct and indirect impacts, believes that the impacts on the landscape would have a moderate effect. Altering the access to avoid impacting relict field systems would likely reduce this to a minor effect. Mitigation of setting impacts would be impossible. However, if an overall moderate effect on the landscape is allowed by unchanged access arrangements, appropriate mitigation that would preserve the understanding and appreciation of this landscape would be the formulation of a study to understand the formation and changes within the landscape over time and between Harefauds and Flass Hill.

The EIA also proposed a number of mitigation measures including targeted watching briefs. Is not satisfied that these measures will adequately address the direct impacts on known and unknown heritage assets. The majority of fields to be impacted by this development are semi-improved or unimproved grazing or moor land. As such, buried archaeology is more likely to survive including in areas of relict field systems. Given the known heritage assets in the area, recommends that watching briefs should take place on all excavations in the semi-improved or unimproved areas of the development. This includes the majority of access and wind farm infrastructure.

In addition, where it has been identified that infrastructure elements could impact buried features such as Heriot’s Dyke, enclosures and old tracks or drove ways, archaeological evaluation is necessary prior to development to determine preservation, extent and perhaps age. Further excavation may be necessary depending on the results.

Setting No concerns regarding setting impacts on the Harefauds and Blythe Scheduled Monuments. Is concerned about the growing cumulative impacts on heritage sites in this area. If Historic Scotland’s response suggests that there are moderate to significant individual or cumulative impacts on Scheduled Monuments in the area, then recommends Council revisits the question

Conclusion Does not feel that the EIA statement has adequately assessed the archaeological sensitivity of this area nor provided appropriate mitigation measures. In his professional judgement the area is of moderate to high archaeological sensitivity. If,

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6(a) as suggested above, the developer is able to satisfy the Council that the development’s benefits clearly outweigh the importance of the heritage, then recommends the application be approved subject to conditions

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES) Has reviewed the amended ES on cultural heritage and is broadly content with the findings. Notes the efforts to avoid as far as possible the remnant rig and furrow along the proposed access as a positive amendment. Is also now content that further peat coring to establish the paleo-environmental sequence of the site will not be necessary. The information in the amendment has removed the need for conditions pertaining to peat coring and historic landscape study.

Original comments (above) on the potential for direct impacts remain and requirement for other planning conditions remain.

Environmental Health Service: (BOTH ORIGINAL AND REVISED APPLICATION)Noise levels from the combined effects of the wind turbines, measured at any noise sensitive premises in existence at the time of the grant of Planning Consent shall not exceed an external free field level of the greater of 35dB (LA90, 10min) or 5dB (A) above the agreed prevailing background noise level during amenity hours, and 43dB (A) during night hours, at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s. 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’. The above levels shall be inclusive of the cumulative noise from all other wind energy developments existing or having Planning Consent at the time of this Application.

In a later comment, also recommends that the mitigation measures described in the applicant’s latest noise submission in respect of construction noise and rock blasting operations, be conditioned if consent is granted.

Statutory Consultees

Scottish Natural Heritage: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Consider that there are matters of local and regional importance presented by this application in terms of the nature of landscape and visual impacts that will result.

Note with concern the following key landscape and visual issues arising:

x The dominant vertical scale and prominence of the turbines and the resultant adverse effects on surrounding local landscape character and visual amenity, particularly as experienced from within 5km of the site; x The intrusion of the turbines into important and panoramic views experienced by recreational users of the nearby Southern Upland Way and from within the Lammermuir Hills Area of Great Landscape Value; x The permanent landscape and visual impacts arsing from the poor siting of the proposed borrow pit in a prominent location on the open hill; x The likely cumulative landscape and visual effects that will be arising from the interaction of the proposal with the (undetermined) application at Corsbie Moor and with the (under-construction) windfarm at Fallago Rig.

(see consultation comments for details)

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

Landscape and Visual Impacts Consider there are matters of local and regional importance presented by this application in terms of the nature of landscape and visual impacts that will result. Key issues include impacts resulting from the scale and turbine height; impacts from the proposal on recreational users of the Southern Upland Way and; potential cumulative impacts of the development with the application at Corsbie Moor and Fallago Rig.

Consider that the borrow pit is inappropriately sited in landscape terms, and that submitted proposals are lacking both in terms of detailed design and adequate mitigation. Recommend an alternative location for the borrow pit should be sought and detailed restoration proposals should be submitted.

While noting that the site has some broad scale characteristics that may be appropriate for windfarm development, highlight that significant and adverse landscape and visual impacts will occur on areas local to the site within 5km. This will be as a result of the height and perceived scale of the turbines, which we consider will be dominant in relation to nearby landscape features and within the local context. In this regard they consider that there is likely to be merit in pursuing a revised proposal which seeks to lower the vertical height of the turbines in order to provide a more visually harmonious design in relation to local landscape scale and character. These aims would be in accordance with the principles set out in SNH published guidance on “Siting and Design of Windfarms in the Landscape” (2010).

Consider that significant and adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts will occur over large areas of the settled lowland Rolling Farmland character type and that cumulative visual effects will extend westwards into neighbouring character types.

Wider Strategic Landscape and Visual Issues Presented by the Proposal On a broader level wish to highlight the strategic implications presented by the location of the proposal in an area that is currently free from large scale wind energy developments. This proposal may set planning precedent for large scale commercial development in the broad areas of upland fringe landscape types, particularly for areas fringing the Lammermuir Hills. It also raises important matters relating to the emerging cumulative picture of windfarm development in the northern Borders and beyond.

Have concerns regarding the wider spatial pattern of windfarm development that is emerging in the northern half of the Borders and the possible scenario that large scale commercial windfarm development may become evident in a much wider variety of locations and landscape contexts than is currently the case. The location of this development in an area between the broad clusters of development activity in Plateau Grassland areas between Lauder and Stow and the Eastern Lammermuir and Berwickshire coast areas is of note.

Development in this location would likely have a resultant effect that very few areas of the northern Borders are without nearby or medium distance views of commercial scale windfarm development, with the potential views of large scale windfarm development to become the unified norm across large swathes of the area. This is of concern to SNH, particularly with regards to the implications for maintaining landscape character, diversity and distinctiveness across the region.

Suggest that it is timely to consider the merits of further strategic planning approaches which seek to identify the clustering and spacing of windfarm development within a regional context.

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

Ecology Note the surveys and assessments carried out and agree with the ES conclusions.

Would expect the mitigation measures proposed to be implemented, and support the use of an Ecological Mitigation Strategy (EMS), an agreed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and a Construction Method Statement (CMS) to achieve this, particularly for those upland habitats that are of local nature conservation value. Also note the intention to use a Drainage Management Plan (DMP), to form part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Note the results of the peat depth survey carried out carried out across the development site, and suggest that the track between turbines 3 and 7 is realigned to avoid the area of deeper peat, identified as dry modified bog in the habitat survey.

In relation to the proposed HMP, note the slight differences in the proposed actions between the bullet-point list in section 9.9.15 and those in section 10.8.6. They suggest that these are combined to maximise the potential for habitat management action.

Note and support the restore-as-you-go approach to track construction. It is their experience that re-instatement works are more successful if restoration is carried out as the work progresses, rather than after construction has finished. This seems particularly true for track edges, as cut turves are more viable and more likely to re- establish themselves successfully the quicker they are re-used.

River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Much of the development site appears to drain through a series of ditches and small watercourses into the Boondreigh Burn to the north and west, and then into the Brunta Burn, which is part of the River Tweed SAC, of interest for the qualifying interests. Atlantic salmon, otter, three species of lamprey and as a water course typically supporting water crowfoot (Ranunculus) species. The rest of the site appears to drain to the Blackadder Water, also part of this SAC.

The SAC interests are sensitive to disturbance to the river habitat, including silt and sediment entering the watercourse and smothering gravel beds, suspended solids in the water column, pollution events, and changes in water quality and in water chemistry, particularly during the construction phase of this type of development. Although it is likely that there is connectivity between the site and the River Tweed SAC, do not consider it likely that there will be a significant effect on its qualifying interests from the construction and operation of this windfarm, providing that all appropriate mitigation measures are implemented to prevent any impact on watercourses on and around the site. Would expect construction activities to be closely controlled to prevent any impact on watercourses, and this will be regulated by SEPA, as regulator under the Water Framework Directive.

Birds Note the surveys and assessments carried out and agree with the ES conclusions. Again, the mitigation measures proposed should be implemented, should the development be granted planning permission. Agree with the conclusion that the proposed development is not likely to have a significant effect on the geese interests for which the nearby Greenlaw Moor Special Protection Area and Site of Special Scientific Interest is designated, despite the proximity of the site.

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

Note that much of the potential for impacts on birds, particularly waders, has been reduced by the re-design of the development such that it does not extend west of the Boondreigh Burn, where there is an area of improved grassland and marshy grassland that appears to be used regularly by several species at all times of year.

Recreation and access issues- securing proposed improvements Primary concerns with the recreation and access impacts of this development relate to landscape and visual impacts that will be experienced by users of the Southern Upland Way (concerns relating to these impacts are noted above). Also highlight that there will be potential landscape and visual impacts from more local paths and farm tracks etc that are used locally. There is also likely to be some degree of direct physical impact on local provision and a right of way that runs through the site. Therefore, they fully welcome the statement in the ES that “Improvement of recreational routes will be developed in consultation with the local community, SBC and the developer.” Suggest that further work is undertaken to establish the detailed objectives, plans and actions needed to support the delivery of this improvement work. Consider that positive opportunities to create and improve the quality of path linkages to the Southern Upland Way should form an important component of this work, and that there will also be merit in looking more widely at issues relating to the funding and on-going management needs for the Southern Upland Way itself.

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES):

Landscape/visual impacts The removal of 2 turbines, the reduction in height of the remaining 8 turbines and the changes to the design layout have somewhat improved the likely appearance of the development and its relationship to key features of the landscape character. However, the revisions have not significantly addressed matters relating to the high levels of visibility of the project that will be afforded from areas within 5km distance from the development which result from the siting of the development in a location on a prominent edge of the Lammermuir Hills. This gives rise to likelihood that a range of adverse landscape and visual effects will be experienced from residential and other important receptors lying in settled areas immediately south, west and east of the development. Although reduced in nature, their initial concerns on this issue remain largely as outlined previously.

Consider that adverse impacts would also still be likely to be experienced by recreational users on key sections of the Southern Upland Way, which runs close to the proposal. While noting some changes to the nature of the impacts, in certain instances along this route turbines will intrude into important open and panoramic views, for example from the key viewpoint at Twin Law Cairns. Their primary concerns on this issue therefore remain. Also, the revisions have not fundamentally changed the anticipated nature of cumulative landscape and visual impacts, particularly in relation to the Fallago Rig Wind Farm, and with less certainty in relation to the Corsbie Moor proposal (currently at appeal). Their primary concerns on this issue remain. Their concerns about the broader strategic location of the development and the wider principles the application presents in terms of establishing a clear regional approach to clustering and spacing of wind farm development at a regional level also remain.

NB Further, more specific comments on the landscape and visual concerns noted above are contained within their consultation response on the amended scheme. Whilst their concerns about the design layout / appearance of the windfarm and the vertical dominance of the turbines within their landscape setting are reduced by the changes their concerns regarding these issues, the landscape and visual impact

Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 Item No. 6(a) impacts on the Southern Upland Way, the landscape and visual impacts of the borrow pit and the cumulative landscape and visual impacts with other wind farm developments remain as previously stated.

Other matters Advice regarding impacts on the River Tweed SAC, ecology, ornithology, recreation and access is unchanged. They agree with the summary and conclusions drawn in the SEI Addendum that the proposed revision to the section of access track around the buildings at Morven would not increase the predicted significant environmental impacts of the scheme overall.

They note the further information submitted and support the re-design of elements of the development to avoid habitats of greater nature conservation value, such as adjustment of the track along the eastern edge of the site to avoid areas of bog habitat, and revising turbine locations to reduce impacts on wetland habitats, including mires and flushes. They are supportive of the principle of managing habitats present on the site to enhance the biodiversity of the development area, and would be pleased to contribute to future discussions on this, should the application gain permission.

Borrow pit

In response to an assessment of the landscape/visual implications of the borrow pit later submitted by the applicant, SNH ultimately advise that based on their understanding of the proposal they fail to see how this feature within such a location, particularly “at” or in certain views “on” the horizon would not be clearly visible, particularly when the skyline is a feature of the landscape that the eye is commonly drawn towards. Furthermore, they would again highlight that the effects of shadow and light on such an excavation will likely highlight the topographical difference of the borrow pit with the smooth profile of its surroundings, thus potentially drawing attention to the void under certain light conditions.

As regards restoration, given the unknown nature of the quantity of fill and the permanent changes to the geology and landscape fabric (and possible residual impacts on landscape character and visual amenity resulting) they consider it worth noting their disagreement with the statement in paragraph 2.10 of the latest submission that “The impacts of the borrow pit would be temporary, and would occur during the construction phase”.

While they do not wish their advice on this issue to become over-stated, their original concerns and advice remain. No information has been submitted that relates to the sole rationale for the borrow pit being at this location, nor whether suitable alternative locations may be available. Nor is there any detail on maximum quarry depth or significant detail on restoration techniques and final quarry profiles. If an alternative location for the borrow pit is not feasible, then they would suggest that the extent and parameters for excavation construction methods and associated mitigation of impacts should be set, and the details and techniques of restoration should be further refined through detailed analysis and submission of appropriate drawings and method statements. They consider these matters could be secured through appropriately worded planning conditions

Transport Scotland: (BOTH ORIGINAL AND REVISED APPLICATION) Overall, there will be minimal increase in traffic on the trunk road during operation. However it is likely that many

Planning and Building Standards Committee 22 Item No. 6(a) construction loads may be categorised as abnormal, and authorisation from the trunk road management organisation may be required.

Scottish Government (Environmental Quality Division): ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Have no comments to offer regarding air quality and noise. Note research reports on wind turbine noise and statutory nuisance compliant methodology

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Object to this planning application on the grounds of lack of information relating to impacts on wetlands

Wetland ecology (including groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems)

Wetlands that are dependent on groundwater are considered to be groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (GWDTEs) under the Water Framework Directive and are subsequently protected under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act (WEWS) 2003. It is therefore important that any direct or indirect impacts to these habitats are minimised. The ES includes a species list which relates to only three target areas (A, B and C) this indicates the presence of wetland dependant communities (M10, M23b and M38). It is highly likely that these wetland habitats are dependent on groundwater and we do not consider that any potential impacts have been adequately addressed. Object to this planning application. It should be demonstrated that the layout of the site has been designed to avoid impacts on all wetlands. If impacts are likely, details of appropriate mitigation measures are required.

Environmental management and pollution prevention

Are satisfied with the general mitigation principles and pollution prevention measures set out in the ES. Some of proposed measures relate to works which may be regulated by them however, many of the works will not be and need to be covered by condition. Request that a condition is attached to the consent requiring the submission of a full site specific environmental management plan (EMP).

Disruption to peatland and disposal of waste peat

The ES states that proposals for peat (e.g. storage) will be included within a site waste management plan (SWMP). While welcomed, they recommend that proposals for excavated peat are considered as early as possible as there are limited uses for extracted peat and important waste management implications to deal with surplus peat. Note that a peat survey has been undertaken and that it was deemed unnecessary to undertake a peat stability assessment. This is a matter for building control authorities and civil engineers, who will need to consider if a detailed assessment of the risk requires to be undertaken. SEPA’s interest relates to the consequences of peat slide or bog burst which can then result in severe environmental damage. If an assessment is undertaken the risk of this occurring should form part of any peat stability report.

Borrow pits

Note that rock for the hardstandings and access track will be extracted from a new a borrow pit. Welcome that this is to be sited well away from watercourses to reduce any impacts. The reinstatement of borrow pits can raise significant waste

Planning and Building Standards Committee 23 Item No. 6(a) management issues. If a borrow pit is not used, SEPA should be notified as to the source of the material to be used as a waste exemption may be required for imported material. Details of borrow pit excavation and reinstatement should be included in the EMP.

Engineering activities in the water environment

They note that five watercourse crossings are proposed including one single span bridge, three bottomless culverts and a single closed culvert. The applicant should be advised that authorisation will be required for these and for any cable crossings of watercourses under CAR. While they are satisfied that the proposed works are capable of authorisation in principle, would recommend that the applicant contact them to discuss details

Flood risk

Have reviewed the Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) which shows that the proposed wind turbines will be located outwith the indicative 1 in 200 year flood plain. However, it has been noted that there may be a potential flooding risk to the area to the east of the proposed access track and entrance. There are a number of locations where the access track might cross watercourses and it is recommended that these are all considered in terms of potential flood risk. Their main concern with regards to flood risk would be the proposed new access road and associated crossings over watercourses. The ES states that all five crossings will be designed to convey the 0.5% AEP (1:200) flood, including climate change. Unless the existing channels can fully contain this flow at the crossing points then it is unlikely that structures can be designed to convey this flow. However, it is noted that the culverts will be oversized and that a qualified hydrologist will be involved in the assessment of flood risk and sizing of the crossing structures. It should be ensured there is no increase to flood risk.

Private water supplies

The proposed engineering works on site have the potential to alter drainage paths which in turn could impact on flow regimes in the streams, ditches and springs. These could impact on the private water supplies. There are a number of private water supplies that have been assessed as sensitive receptors in the ES. A risk assessment has been undertaken for ten sites and it is proposed that a Contingency Plan be designed. The Plan will include monitoring the quality and quantity of supplies over time and developing options to ensure that appropriate quality and quantities of water will be available to those dependent on these private supplies. Note that in the case of an emergency an alternative source of water will be provided, however this should be agreed with the owner of the abstraction

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES):

Wetland ecology (including groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems

Originally maintained objection but, on receipt of further information, removed it. The two NVC maps provided identify that part of the main access track to the site and the access track between turbine 5 and 7, including hard standings, are located on GWDTEs. However, accept that the turbines and hard standings have been sited, where possible, to avoid the areas of GWDTEs. Welcome the provision of mitigation.

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

Recommend that the track between turbines 5 and 7 should be constructed using a porous non-alkaline material to maintain the hydrological connection between the upslope and down slope areas. The main access track to the site should also be of a porous nonalkaline nature to ensure that it does not become a preferential hydrological pathway.

Environmental management and pollution prevention

Request a condition is attached to the consent requiring the submission of a full site specific environmental management plan (EMP).

Borrow pits

Details of borrow pit excavation and reinstatement should be included in the EMP.

Engineering activities in the water environment

Note that three watercourse crossings are now proposed. Developments should be designed to leave the water environment in its natural state with engineering activities such as culverts, bridges, watercourse diversions, bank modifications or dams avoided wherever possible. SEPA have a policy against the closed culverting of watercourses as bridging structures for transportation routes. The piecemeal loss of small watercourses can create wider cumulative impacts on the water environment, including ecology, channel form, flow regime and chemistry. Authorisation will be required for these crossings and for any cable crossings of watercourses under CAR. While satisfied that the proposed works are capable of authorisation in principle, recommend that the applicant contact a member of their local operations team.

Private water supplies

Had previously noted that it appeared that there were three private water supply (PWS) abstractions located less than 100m from the proposed access road. It now appears that the access track route has been amended slightly near these PWS however no details appear to have been provided with respect the distances between the abstractions and the track. If there are any PWS i) within 100m from roads, tracks or trenches or ii) within 250m from borrow pits and foundations then further information is required.

Note that there are three private water supplies (PWS 15,17 and 23) which are within 100m of the proposed access track. However, they are of the opinion that if the proposed mitigation measures are implemented then they consider that there is only a low risk to these spring sources through the construction of the access track. The topography relative to the access track indicates that the hydraulic regime will not be impacted or impeded by the track construction at these three sites. Each of the PWS lies to the east of proposed access track route which runs downhill in a south easterly direction. The localised geology suggests that groundwater may flow from the bedrock and underneath the superficial Till and therefore these works should not create an alternative groundwater flow pathway. Also note that Jordonlaw PWS appears to be within 250m of access track but as this is outwith the buffer (i.e. not within 100m from roads, tracks or trenches) they consider any risk to be minimal. Any proposed mitigation measures to ensure that impacts to PWS are minimised should be detailed within the environmental management plan (EMP) that has been requested is submitted by condition.

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

Flooding

Note that the entrance and part of the access road is within the functional floodplain of the Manse Burn. The road should be maintained at existing levels and no landraising should occur within the functional floodplain. This will ensure there is no increase in flood risk as a result of the proposals. The proposal involves a number of new and upgraded watercourse crossings and culverts. New watercourse crossings and culverts should be designed to convey the 1:200 flow.

It was later established that there are existing drainage and flooding problems associated with the access road to Jordonlaw and within the fields to the east and west of this road. The additional information submitted (May 2013) suggests that this flooding may be related to a field drain that may have been blocked, or cut off, by development at Morven and or a combination of under capacity or blockage of existing field drains or under capacity, blockage or lack of a culvert under the Jordonlaw access road. No culvert was found by the consultants. The proposed western access track for the wind farm will cross the surface water flow path.

There is local concern that this could result in backing up surface water behind any raised track resulting in an increased risk of flooding to the Jordonlaw access road and adjoining fields. The developer proposes to construct dry culverts under the track. It proposes multiple culverts to reduce the risk of full blockage. SEPA suggest consideration be given to constructing the track at existing ground level. Are satisfied that prior to construction the field drain will be surveyed and replaced. If the track is designed to shed water into proposed drainage alongside it then they are satisfied that there should be no increase in flood risk. Are satisfied the track can be constructed without increasing the risk to the Jordonlaw access road and adjoining fields providing that the proposed SUDS are adequately designed and constructed. Similarly the proposed replacement of field drainage under the track should ensure that the sub-surface flow paths should be unaffected by the proposed works and use of the track. Detailed drainage proposals should be included within the EMP.

Historic Scotland: (BOTH ORIGINAL AND REVISED APPLICATION) Comments concentrate on their statutory remit for Scheduled Monuments and their setting, Category A listed buildings and their setting and Gardens and Designed Landscapes appearing in the Inventory. Are content that there shall be no direct impacts on assets within their statutory remit, as a result of the proposed development. In terms of indirect impacts, having reviewed the submitted information, are content that there are unlikely to be any significant adverse impacts on the setting of assets within our statutory remit. Consequently, they offer no objection (full details in original comments). They were consulted on further information provided for the revised application, but have no further comments to make.

Lauderdale Community Council: IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES) The revised proposals with two turbines removed and the height reduced to 100m would result in only minor amelioration of impact on local residents. The impact on more distant viewpoints would be somewhat reduced, but would still be significant. Cumulative impact, with new proposals and those still to be determined or possible on appeal, is now potentially worse than at the time of the original application.

Residential Amenity

The ES does not appear to include a full residential survey. Believe that there are 32 residential properties, several of them in Lauderdale, within 2km of turbines, the

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

distance within which planning guidance states a presumption that wind farms should not be built. The applicants have not justified their disregard of this recommendation. At least one Lauderdale property is within 1000m of a turbine.

The experience of residents within a comparable distance of the Toddleburn and Longpark turbines, as reported at the recent Public Inquiry into the Rowantree proposals, suggests that they will almost certainly be subject to unacceptable noise despite claims to the contrary by the applicants. A professional acoustician has commented on the revised turbine configuration and considers that its large blades relative to hub height could lead to the particularly damaging noise phenomenon known as amplitude modulation.

Cumulative Impact on Lauderdale

At a public meeting organised by this Community Council a show of hands indicated that the overwhelming majority of those attending were opposed to further wind farm development in the area.

Lauderdale is still threatened by Corsbie Moor on appeal, Allanshaws, expanded Muircleugh and Longpark, and the 29 turbines of Girthgate Cathpair. The outcome of the Rowantree Inquiry is still pending. They can now see the impact of Fallago rig, which is greater than local residents had expected. This proposal, like Corsbie Moor, would be particularly damaging as it would represent the intrusion of turbines to the east, previously free from them.

Tourism and Local Economy

Tourism is a crucial element of Lauderdale’s economy, particularly that of the burgh of Lauder. Independent surveys have now confirmed the negative impact of wind turbines on visitors. Believe that tourism in the Borders would be damaged by the visibility of turbines from important viewpoints such as the Eildons, Smailholm Tower and the Southern Upland Way, as well as from key tourist routes.

The damaging effect of wind farms on property values has been clearly identified by estate agents and has now been confirmed by a recent ruling of the Advertising Standards Authority. Many people have moved to the Borders as a quiet rural environment. The attractiveness of Lauderdale as a place to live and work would be damaged by yet another wind farm. The CC do not believe that this development would make any contribution to the local economy besides a very few short term construction jobs.

Summary

This development would damage local amenity and economy. It would bring no countervailing benefit. Object to this proposal and urge Scottish Borders Council to refuse it.

Maintain this objection despite additional information later submitted by the applicants.

Gordon and Westruther Community Council: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Following the Brunta Hill wind farm exhibition held by the developer in Westruther Village Hall on the 18th September 2010, a survey showed that 85% of those who attended were against the proposal. A further 11% were unsure and 4%

Planning and Building Standards Committee 27 Item No. 6(a) were for the proposal. Of the ‘unsure’, several stated that they were awaiting news of the community benefit fund before taking a view.

Summary of points raised:

Visual impact

There are significant predicted views of all ten of the turbines throughout the Gordon and Westruther Community Council area, as it is a large development, not contained or screened by landforms. The access tracks and site tracks, together with the borrow pit, substation and compound will all be dominant in views from across the Merse.

Make detailed comments on viewpoints within the Gordon and Westruther Community Council area (see original comments). Also consider the ES lacking in viewpoint presentations.

Cultural Heritage

The ES identifies 59 sites of cultural interest, however several important sites around Brunta Hill have been omitted, such as Spottiswoode Hill Fort, a well-preserved part of the ancient ‘Black Dyke’ known as Heriot’s Dyke, and the historic ‘Popping Stone’ erected by Lady John Scott of Spottiswoode, the settings of all of these would be greatly damaged by a huge industrial-scale wind farm.

The Designed Landscape of Spottiswoode has been omitted and there is local concern that specimen beech trees and hedges will be damaged or removed. Completely omitted are the nearby historic and iconic Twin Law Cairns just over 2 km from the nearest turbine, which will be dwarfed by these 415-foot turbines.

Ecology

Potential damage to the ecology and biodiversity of the area caused by the construction of access tracks, quarries and turbine foundations is a concern. The ES is considered to be lacking in surveys of various species including bats and reptiles. Until such competent surveys are available, the application should not be considered.

Tourism

This application is adjacent to the Lammermuir Area of Great Landscape Value and as such would have a large impact upon the views experienced from it and towards it. Those walking along The Southern Upland Way would experience significantly different views should the wind farm be constructed to those which they experience today. Views towards the Eildon Hills from the path east and west of the Twin Law Cairns would be adversely affected. Have grave concerns that the enjoyment of those walking this important long-distance footpath is being eroded by continuous views of wind farms. Nor is there a visualisation from the popular tourist Hume Castle.

Noise

Are not satisfied that the applicants have ensured that there will be no noise nuisance at the 32 properties within 2km of the proposed development during both construction and operation, especially those at Raecleugh, Flass and Brunty. Ask that the noise assessment results be independently assessed.

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

Private water supplies

The ES does not provide sufficient assurance that private water supplies will not be detrimentally affected. Concern has been expressed that the methodology of the assessment of the water catchment areas was not sufficiently thorough.

Access

Have grave concerns regarding the access to the site. The B6456 is distinguished by the large number of mature beech trees along its length. Construction of the access would require substantial removal of these and other vegetation which is entirely unacceptable to the local community. Furthermore, there is no detail within the ES to show that access is possible around the bends at Thorniedykes

Consider any damage to Raecleugh Bog to be entirely unacceptable. Furthermore, there is no assessment of it within the ES.

Overall the assessment of the effects of the arrival of 46.49m lorries is inadequate.

Grid Connection

Grid connection being considered by separate application is entirely unacceptable as the impact of such should be taken into account during this application. There is local anxiety regarding the health risks of routing more cables through the area.

Economic effect

There will be no long term benefits to the local economy from this development. It is noted that there may be some short-term benefits to the community in terms of construction workers staying in local B&Bs and using the local pub. It is understood that the applicants have agreed to provide Gordon and Westruther Community Council with a share of a community benefit package.

Construction period

There are concerns that the construction period will produce a noise and traffic nuisance. Should the application be successful, the CC wish to be consulted to assist in forming a traffic management plan.

Cumulative visual impact

Brunta Hill wind farm would add to the picture of wind farms and individual large turbines in a significantly detrimental way.

Sequential cumulative impact

Whilst driving, walking or cycling through the area, one will at some time have view of Black Hill, Crystal Rig, Fallago Rig, Dun Law 1 and 2, Toddleburn, (Halkburn) Long Park, Easter Howlaws, consented/constructed wind farms. There are also proposals at Rowantree, Wester Dod (Aikengall 2), Corsbie Moor, Penmansheil, Girthgate, Cathpair, Shaw Park, Bassendean and Birkenside which should be considered. Given that this is a rapidly expanding area in the planning system, they would ask that all known schemes be considered.

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

Conclusion

Until such time as the above issues have been addressed to a satisfactory level, object to the proposal to site ten wind turbines on Brunta Hill.

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES) Find no indication that the impact on the community is lessened in any way. In fact some of the assessments are more detailed and raise further concerns from the Community Council. Assert that the applicant has had ample time to retake photographs from viewpoints to improve the clarity of their application. This has not been done, and is a blatant disregard for the Community Council’s requests.

Views from the Berwickshire Merse and Westruther Village, of the locally important Twin Law Cairns, would become secondary to the proposed wind farm, the turbines of which would be higher than the Cairns.

Further assessment has not allayed concerns with regard for Private Water Supplies, and the mitigation proposals thereof, not only at the settlements of Raecleugh and Spottiswoode, but also those dwellings close to the proposed access tracks.

Continue to object on the loss of amenity to those living nearer the proposals by the over dominant and overbearing effect of such turbines, together with the noise issues which they understand will be considerably worse than at first predicted due to the larger blades on smaller towers. The assessment understates and inadequately assesses the numbers of dwellings within a 2km radius.

Concerns are raised with the potential impact on wader breeding sites, with particular reference to curlew and lapwing.

They are surprised to discover proposed change to the access without prior discussion. Confirm their objection to the access. Also note that the access would involve the removal of many large mature beech trees and a significant stretch of tall beech hedging, which is characteristic of the approach to Westruther Village.

Are unhappy with the noise assessments for the access track, the borrow pit and the wind farm construction and do not see that the impact upon the communities at Morven, Jordonlaw and Raecleugh have been adequately assessed.

Their previous submission stands. Object to the planning application as it is an inappropriate site for a wind farm given its proximity to dwellings, the Southern Upland Way and The Twin Law Cairns. Furthermore it is contradictory to the Local Development Plan, and contravenes many of the guidelines as set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy 2011.

Cranshaws, Ellemford and Longformacus Community Council: No reply to original application.

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES): Note the proposal is the latest iteration for the site and has fewer turbines at a reduced height of 100m. Most of the significant on-ground infrastructure, including tracks, hard standings, borrow pits, compounds, substation, ditches, external transformer housings and the long access track are relatively unchanged. The cable route for power out of the site is not assessed. The overall height is reduced, but the blades are almost unchanged, with a rotor diameter of 80m against the earlier proposal of 82m. Essentially they are

Planning and Building Standards Committee 30 Item No. 6(a) the same large size of turbines but on shorter towers, so the reduction in overall impact will be less than the height reduction suggests. The reduced height does not minimise or escape effects, it potentially just reduces them. Brunta, on the prominent southern flanks of the Lammermuirs, would introduce large-scale turbines into one of the few aspects from the Lammermuirs currently without them and their scale would impose impacts across a wider area. Inescapable, significant and adverse impacts would be inevitable across much of the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area and their Community Council Area too.

Object with respect to the following:

x Adverse Impacts on the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area x Harmful to the Southern Upland Way and other recreational routes x Detrimental to Tourism x Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts x Ecological Issues x Deficiencies in the Environmental Information x Contrary to the Scottish Borders Local Plan and Wind Energy SPG

NB: Detailed comments on each of these points is provided in the original consultation comments.

Conclusion.

Brunta is an overly-large large windfarm imposed on a sensitive and inappropriate location adjacent to the Southern Upland Way and one of the Borders’ rare Special Landscape Areas. It is contrary to a raft of SBC policies and the Local Plan. Whilst it would add additional adverse impacts on those in or enjoying their Community Council area, it would make the adverse impacts of large scale wind farms inescapable over large and currently unaffected areas of the Scottish Borders. Suggest it should be robustly refused on the widest range of grounds to ensure the best possible case can be made should an appeal response be required.

The Community Council also draw attention to the expanding baseline of wind farms in the area and note that it is some time since the applicant’s cumulative assessment was undertaken. A database is included. At the time of writing March 2013, it is contended that:

x 412 large-scale wind turbines constructed or consented affecting the Scottish Borders of which 345 impact Berwickshire. x 106 are at Appeal of Public Local Inquiry with a high probability of consent by Scottish Ministers, 54 would affect Berwickshire. x 166 are live applications of which 70 would affect Berwickshire. x There are proposal of application notices for imminent applications for a further 40 turbines and numerous others progressing via the Section 36 process.

It is asserted that it is increasingly clear that there are significant areas of the Borders where wind turbines are becoming the defining, and dominant, landscape characteristic, smothering the landscape’s inherent character. Parts of the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area clearly exhibit this effect, notably at Fallago Rig just north of Brunta Hill.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 31 Item No. 6(a)

Oxton and Channelkirk Community Council: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Raise an objection based on:

x Continuous development of wind farms in Lauderdale giving rise to negative visual impact x The development of wind farms in close proximity to residential properties giving rise to unacceptable noise impact x The continuous development of wind farm in a localised area providing loss of amenity value

No reply to revised application consultation.

Heriot Community Council ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) (were not formally consulted but as a Community Council submitting a representation, their comments are included here): Object on the grounds of cumulative impact. The nature of this will be visual, combined and successive (or sequential). It was noted that the proposed wind farm will be a prominent feature of the east side of the Leader Valley an area that up to now has been free of any wind farms. It will be visible from a number of points on the western side of the Leader Valley, notably Lauder Common which is used by many local residents for recreation. On its own it will cause a significant break in the skyline. When it is combined with Fallago Rig (which is already under construction) and also Corsbie (in planning currently) it will create a major combined cumulative intrusion into the extraordinarily attractive views of the Lammermuir Hills from the west.

There are other aspects of the proposal that are contentious, especially its design, which situated on a ridge will create widespread visibility of Brunta Hill. This will lead to successive or sequential impact to road users in the area, notably on parts of the A68, but much more on the A697. This is a major tourist route, and already has extensive views of Toddleburn and Dun Law. Brunta Hill will add substantially to this at the southern end of the area in question, and taken with all the other proposals for wind farms along both sides of the Leader Valley will give the impression of driving through a vast wind farm, or more accurately a giant industrial landscape.

SNH guidance makes clear that all proposals in planning should be considered, and they are also asking for proposals where there exists a planning application notice (PAN) to be included. This objection considers that the combined cumulative impact on the area of Brunta Hill, taken with Corsbie, Halkburn, Allanshaws, Muircleugh, Girthgate, Cathpair, Rowantree, Toddleburn, Dun Law, Gilston, Keith Hill, Pogbie and Fallago Rig to be totally unacceptable. This list of proposed, approved or constructed wind farms only covers nearby, major sites, and does not include smaller applications or ones that are further away. They believe this list speaks for itself this area is being subjected to an unprecedented assault on its landscape and its character by totally inappropriate industrial projects.

Urge a recommendation of rejection.

No reply to revised application consultation

Health and Safety Executive: No comments (BOTH ORIGINAL AND REVISED APPLICATION)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 32 Item No. 6(a)

Scottish Water: No replies to original or revised application consultations. In response to further consultation on the latter, advise that they have no objection. There are no public sewers or mains in the vicinity of the development site.

BAA Airports Ltd: Does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. No objection (BOTH ORIGINAL AND REVISED APPLICATION)

Ministry of Defence: (BOTH ORIGINAL AND REVISED APPLICATION) No objection to the proposal. Request that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD with respect to the development of wind turbines relates to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. If planning permission is granted information regarding the date construction starts and ends; the maximum height of construction equipment; and, the latitude and longitude of every turbine, is required

NERL (NATS En Route): Does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. No objection (BOTH ORIGINAL AND REVISED APPLICATION)

Other Consultees

Brunta Hill Action Group: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Object to the above Planning Application. The reasons for their objections are set out in full in their consultation response. The following is a summary:

Landscape/Visual Impact

x lack of any topographical containment being on the south side of the Lammermuirs –.

x Policy D4 states that appropriate locations for wind farms would be a) within large scale landscape setting and b) enclosed by surrounding landscape to minimise external visibility. The development does not meet either of these criteria.

x Visibility from long distances

x AGLV/Candidate SLA immediately adjacent to windfarm –

x The BHWF would be 1km from the Southern Upland Way and 3 km from Twin Law Cairns. Visual aspects to the south and west particularly those towards the Eildon Hills, would be severely blighted.

x ES photomontages give a misleading impression

x The highly intrusive effect on the landscape is likely to have a significantly negative impact on local tourism and potentially the wider economy of the Scottish Borders.

Cultural Heritage

Planning and Building Standards Committee 33 Item No. 6(a)

x The ES lists 59 cultural heritage sites – whilst listing many of the sites a number of important ones, not least (unbelievably) the Twin Law Cairns, have been omitted from the ES.

x Historic context damaged – Historically significant monuments such as Twin Law Cairns would be over-dominated by the turbines. Other important cultural edifices such as the listed archways and other structures at Spottiswoode, the scheduled ancient monuments of Harefaulds and Heriot’s Dyke are within 3km of the proposed turbines.

x Spottiswoode Designed Landscape is contiguous to the site boundary – this historic and well-preserved Designed Landscape is formally recognised and recorded as being of local importance.

Proximity

x Impact on amenity – the hamlets of Spottiswoode, Raecleugh and settlements of Flass Woodheads, Gairmuir and Brunty would suffer significant detriment.

x Proximity Impact on housing – The proposed turbines are to be located within 2km of 32 residential properties and less than 900 metres from 10 residences.

x Dwellings within 5km – the ES states that Westruther is the only nucleated settlement of any size, this is factually incorrect as there are several which will be impacted upon significantly.

Noise

x All noise assessments undertaken by the developer have been modelled on the Enercon-E-82 turbine. –If a different make or model is installed, the results of the modelling will be incorrect and therefore noise impacts would need further detailed scrutiny. x Construction and Access road – the proposed access road is only 300m from the hamlet of Raecleugh. Significant noise will be generated during its construction which may last up to 2 years. Activity such as thousands of heavy lorry movements, borrow pit blasting and other associated general activities will generate significant noise. Again no noise assessment has been made of its impact. x Wind Turbine Noise – Assessments have been made following guidelines ETSU-R-97. These guidelines have been called into question to such an extent that the UK Dept of Energy and Climate Change (the sponsor Dept for the ETSU Guidelines) commissioned Hayes Mackenzie Partnership (HMP) to review them. HMP’s Report dated 6 April 2011 highlighted significant flaws, therefore the applicant, who should have been aware of the Review, should have taken the Review’s findings into account and also the WHO guidelines and ISO standards which are referenced in the Report. They would strongly suggest that Planners review with extreme caution any assessments which only use the ETSU-R-97 guidelines. x Assessment Results – even using the (flawed) ETSU-R-97 guidelines the BHWF ES (figure 7.2) shows that the “below 40 dB(A) contour” is in close proximity to the hamlet of Raecleugh and Gairmuir Settlement

Planning and Building Standards Committee 34 Item No. 6(a)

x The intermittent shelter belt between Raecleugh and the BHWF site does not offer any mitigating protection, given that it is c50 years old and has never been maintained.

Shadow Flicker

x Proximity – the nearest residence to the turbines, Gairmuir, is only 10m from the theoretical limit of the shadow flicker as set down in PAN45 as a guide. Moreover the ES states the developer actually accepts that shadow flicker may affect residential amenity.

Water

x Private Water Supplies (PWS) – the springs on Brunta Hill supply domestic water to all the houses at Raecleugh and some in Westruther and Spottiswoode, as well as supplying the drinking water tanks for livestock in the surrounding fields and farm buildings, all of which will be put at significant risk. x ES states that all houses at Raecleugh, Spottiswoode House, Whaups Whirr and Flass are at significant risk to the quantity and quality of supply from the construction of the new access road and turbine construction, which is not acceptable. x This real and significant admitted threat to the water supply is not limited to the construction phase only but will be present throughout the life of the windfarm and beyond. x Borrow Pit - The excavation of the borrow pit and consequential removal of peat will most likely cause contamination to the only water supplies from Brunta Hill. x Water Catchment Areas – there are two water catchments shown on Brunta Hill and any roads which are newly constructed and cross them will increase the likelihood of water contamination. The catchment area described above seems too small and arbitrary for the number of supplies it feeds. x Drainage/Flooding – any changes to the existing natural or man-made water drainage routes could cause excess water flowing off the hill to flood houses at Raecleugh hamlet.

Ecology

x International, national and local designations – in relation to birds, mammals, plants and reptiles have in some cases been ignored x Tweed SAC – although this lies outside the development it will still be impacted by the development x Flush Communities – The survey of aquatic flora undertaken by the Developer is flawed; x The cumulative effect, on species such as Curlew and Golden Plover will be very significant x Protected Birds – The ES considers the impact on 4 internationally protected species (Black Grouse, Golden Plover, Hen Harrier and Peregrine) and 8 species known to be sensitive to wind farms (Black Grouse, Curlew, Golden Plover, Goshawk, Greylag Goose, Pink-Footed Goose Hen Harrier and Peregrine) to be not significant. This is disputed. The survey has also disregarded species such as Merlin and Red Kite which are known to occur in the area.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 35 Item No. 6(a)

x Protected mammals – Both Brown Hare and Mountain Hare are listed as ‘UK BAP Priority Species’ and also listed on the Scottish Borders ‘Species of Conservation Concern’. Have been given cursory mention or omitted entirely. x Protected Reptiles – Common Lizards are frequently sighted, and adders, whilst less frequent, are regularly seen on Twin Law, and occasionally recorded nearby. Both are protected and a survey is required x Raecleugh Bog has been identified as an important wader breeding site. The access road should therefore follow the southern alternative route

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES): Original objections still stand. The following comments are an addendum:

Landscape/Visual Impact

The clustering of the turbines now appears to lead to more overlapping of blades (‘stacking up’), which doesn’t adhere to the guidelines from SNH. The amended documents fail to show that there are nine consented dwellings at Raecleugh, and omits two residential dwellings yet to be constructed between Windyedge and The Cakehouse (formerly The Stackyard). The highly intrusive effect on the landscape is likely to have a significantly negative impact on local tourism and potentially the wider economy of the Scottish Borders.

Cultural Heritage

Believe there is no possible mitigation from the damage the application would impose upon our cultural heritage.

Proximity

There are more than 100 residents living in 32 dwellings within 2km of the proposed wind farm. Not every property has been assessed, which they believe to be entirely inappropriate and misleading. Draw reference to the decision on the Spittal Hill wind farm (Caithness)

Noise

Refer to Lauderdale Preservation Group comments regarding noise (objection comment on Public Access). Do not feel that the impacts upon Raecleugh residents of noise associated with the construction of the access track and borrow pit have been adequately assessed. Assessment of Bruntaburn and The Pheasantry (Raecleugh Cottages) are approximately 300m from the access track and their assessment would have been more appropriate.

Private Water Supplies

Not all of the dwellings drawing their water from the proposed site have been adequately assessed. Continue to have grave concerns that water supplies could be either reduced or contaminated. Indeed the track cuts across the presumed Raecleugh catchment area, by turbine three. This supplies nine dwellings, not the four described in the SEI. It is totally unacceptable that their right to draw water from the hill as set out in property deeds is in any way adversely affected. Are concerned that one of the suggested mitigations is of boreholes, which would require an electrical source. The community experiences regular, prolonged power cuts. Ask

Planning and Building Standards Committee 36 Item No. 6(a) that should consent be granted that monitoring of the water quality and quantity be continued for the lifetime of the windfarm.

Ecology

The greater in-depth assessment has flagged up more concerns than before, with particular reference to the maps showing greater clusters of breeding waders in and amongst the turbine locations. Figs 10.4 and 10.6a illustrate the particular prevalence of Lapwing and Curlew, which is more characteristic than the previous assessment of the birdlife on this hill. Support the recommendations of the Ecology Officer. There is still no reptile survey. The Raecleugh Pond has 3 species of dragonfly, which have not been assessed.

Conclude that the SEI shows the initial application to have been inadequately assessed. This further assessment, while in some areas has been done adequately; in general it shows up the deficiencies and the unsuitability of this location. Respectfully ask that their very strong objection be taken into account during your deliberations.

Joint Radio Company: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) This proposal cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by Scottish Power does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided.

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES) Notes that they analyse wind farms on behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry. Does not foresee any potential problems.

Scottish Badgers: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) The survey works seem to be adequate and fit for purpose. No comments to make.

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES) Raise concerns regarding stand off distances. Best practice would dictate a stand off from a sett of 30metres plus the height of the turbine, which would mean 130 metres. It is noted in the SEI that any future alterations to the layout will need to maintain a 50 metre buffer. Should there be any future alteration, they should be asked to adhere to best practice.

RSPB: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Is satisfied that the appropriate ornithological survey methodology was adopted, including Vantage Point watches to assess utilisation of airspace, and winter- and breeding-bird surveys of species using the area. The results of these indicate that the development is unlikely to represent a significant threat to species of conservation concern or important assemblages of commoner birds. On this basis, do not object to the proposed development. Do, however, note particular issues.

x Lapwing. Figures 10-6a, 10-6b, 18-8 and 10-9 demonstrate a relatively high level of use of the proposed development site by this species. This includes flyovers, and the presence of nesting birds at a density of about 12 pairs per square kilometre. Lapwing is Red Listed, the highest level of conservation concern as defined by the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The species has experienced a 53% decline over the 25 years from 1969 to 2006 in the UK as a whole. In Scotland, the breeding population declined by 37% between 1995 and 2009, with a further 41% decline, detected by the Common Bird Census of the British Trust for Ornithology, between 2009 and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 37 Item No. 6(a)

2010. While this decline has been attributed largely to the transformation of old, botanically-rich grasslands into improved grasslands through draining and reseeding, wind-farm development may compound this loss. Steps should be taken, therefore, to ensure that there is no net loss of breeding lapwings locally as a consequence of the proposed development. x To this end, habitat creation, enhancement and management for lapwing should be undertaken at suitable sites adjacent to or near the development site. Nearby existing areas of unimproved grassland, where the species is known to breed, should be retained and managed accordingly to benefit the species. Works at the construction site and along the access track should take place outwith the species’ breeding season (April-July) or surveys carried out prior to works commencing to ensure that no nesting birds are likely to be disturbed or displaced. x Curlew This is another wader that has experienced significant national decline in recent years. It is now classified as “near threatened” globally under IUCN criteria, and is Amber Listed according to UK conservation assessment. Figures 10-4 and 10-9 indicate a relatively high level of use of the area by this species, with a density of some 9 pairs per square kilometre. Data gathered at operational wind farms have demonstrated displacement of curlew such that breeding populations may decline by an average of 42% within 500 metres of the turbines. Timing of works and offsite habitat enhancement should, therefore, apply to this species as for lapwing (above). The nature of the habitat work and the areas where it will be applied for lapwing and curlew should be addressed and agreed upon in the Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan proposed by the developer x Black grouse. Figure 10-7 illustrates incidental observations of black grouse. A small lek also occurs on the proposed development site, not far from turbine 9. Black grouse is a Red Listed species of the highest national and local conservation concern. It has experienced a marked decline in recent years, with south-east Scotland experiencing the most pronounced population decrease. The current Lammermuirs population is estimated to be less than 10 lekking males. Appropriate mitigation and offsite habitat creation and enhancement work should, therefore, also be undertaken for this species. Suitable areas and measures should be identified in consultation with the existing Lammermuirs black grouse recovery project, Scottish Borders Council and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Details of such measures should be included in the Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan. x Cumulative Impact. The ecological effects of the proposed development with existing, approved and planned wind farms in the area need to be addressed in terms of cumulative habitat loss, hazard to birds in flight, and displacement of birds through disturbance and habitat modification. Guidance on this issue, currently under revision, is available from SNH. x Tree felling. If removal of plantation trees is to be undertaken, a schedule of felling should be drawn up that avoids the bird breeding season (mid-March to July, inclusive). x Other bird species. Recognise that a number of other species of conservation concern were recorded during the survey work. Do not consider, however, that the proposed wind-farm development poses a significant threat to these species because their occurrence is highly infrequent and in very low numbers, or they are relatively common and widespread in the Borders (such as redpoll and skylark). This proposal is unlikely, therefore, to represent a significant threat to these species at the population level and they would not form a basis for objecting to the development.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 38 Item No. 6(a)

In summary, RSPB Scotland would expect there to be no net loss of, specifically, lapwing, curlew and black grouse as a result of the development, nor any overall biodiversity loss resulting from the development.

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES) Confirm that they do not object to this application. Make further comments regarding:

Farmland waders The survey results show extensive use of the Brunta site in the breeding season by curlew and lapwing. The site as a whole supports 4-12 pairs of curlew and ca 25 pairs of lapwing Both these species are of conservation concern at a local and national level. The UK population of lapwing has declined by almost half since 1970 and it is a ‘Red List’ species on this basis. Curlew has declined by 60% over the same period and is now categorised as globally “near threatened” under IUCN criteria. Subsequent declines between 1995 and 2009 were 20% and 41% for lapwing and curlew, respectively Survey work has demonstrated that the Borders has not been immune to the decline of these wader species.

Although the predicted collision risks are low for both species, curlew is known to be displaced from wind farms during the construction and operational periods. Any construction carried out in the bird-nesting period (April to July, inclusive) must, therefore, be preceded by an ornithological survey to locate active curlew and lapwing nests and to establish an appropriate buffer to ensure that there is no disturbance of nesting waders. Mitigation in the form of habitat creation or restoration should also be undertaken to make up for potential loss of habitat and displacement of birds. Where this cannot be undertaken onsite, suitable areas offsite should be identified to ensure that there is no net regional loss of waders as a result of the proposed development.

Black Grouse

Notes that no Black Grouse were detected during survey work for the species in 2012. Would ask, however, that the species is taken into account as the site historically held birds and the Lammermuir Hills support a small but locally important population of this declining species. Habitat restoration and creation for black grouse would be expected in mitigation of this population. The developer should support the measures currently being undertaken to benefit the species in the Lammermuirs. As with waders (above) appropriate survey work should be undertaken to determine the presence of black grouse at the site in the spring. If lekking birds are detected, then access by vehicular traffic and any construction works during the lekking season (March to June) should not take place between one hour before and two hours after dawn to avoid disturbing the birds at this critical time of year.

Habitat Management Plan

Welcome outline proposals for habitat creation and improvement are and recommend that they are included in the proposed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as a condition of any planning consent. A programme of ornithological monitoring should also be included as a condition of any planning consent. This should be agreed with SNH and RSPB, and be undertaken in years 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 15 of the operational lifetime of the wind farm.

ScotWays: ORIGINAL APPLICATION (10 TURBINES) Rights of Way BB115 and BB116 are affected. The ES states public access would not be permitted during construction. The Society is very concerned at this potential loss of public access

Planning and Building Standards Committee 39 Item No. 6(a) during the entire duration of the construction phase. If temporary diversion is required for health and safety reasons, then a diversion should be for the shorter period during which it is directly affected.

Note Welsh guidance which advises that turbines be set back from public routes by a distance equivalent to blade tip height. The ES states a buffer of 50metres. The Society finds this unacceptable.

Member of the public have contacted them with concerns regarding impacts on the Southern Upland Way. The Society is aware of a large number of wind farm applications along this nationally important route. Request that cumulative impact be taken into account.

IN RESPONSE TO REVISED APPLICATION (8 TURBINES) Make comments supplementary to the original comments. Note that Right of way BB115 is unusual in that it ends not at a public place, but at the boundary between the Berwickshire and the Ettrick & Lauderdale districts. It is evident that BB115 has been incompletely recorded and should extend westwards to meet right of way BE17.

Whilst acknowledging the probable necessity of temporary closure on the grounds of health and safety, the Society remains very concerned at the loss of public access for the entire duration of the construction phase. The Society requests that rights of way BB115 and BB116 remain open and free from obstruction both during and after the proposed construction period. If temporary diversion or closure is necessary, then a route’s diversion/closure should be only for the period during which it is directly affected. It is clear from the SEI that the applicant intends that right of way BB115 be diverted during the operational life of the wind farm. A diversion should be: x of at least an equivalent standard, x not significantly longer, x no less convenient, x accessible by at least the same categories of access taker as use it at present, x available for use before the present route becomes unavailable.

The SEI (figure 14.2) shows the diversion to be longer. In later correspondence, in response to additional information provided by the applicant, they advise that the applicant confirms that it is their intention to close rights of way BB115 and BB116 for the duration of the construction period. The Society remains unhappy at the general principle of a blanket closure with no explanation as to why the applicant feels that it necessary.

They welcome the additional information about the proposed diversion of right of way BB115 but the proposed diversion as shown just follows the application boundary, then terminates at the Boondreigh Burn with no indication of how it is to link to either the remainder of its historic line or the rest of the access network. Although the applicant intends to close right of way BB115 for the duration of construction, they have indicated that the diversion will not be put in place until construction is complete. Unless the applicant shows that it is necessary to restrict access to the line of the diverted route for health and safety reasons for the whole of the construction period, as well as to the recorded line of right of way BB115, then there will have been insufficient provision.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 40 Item No. 6(a)

Reiterate concerns regarding the proximity of turbine 1 to the right of way and find this to be unacceptable.

The Society acknowledges that there may be an opportunity to help mitigate the impacts on public access rights by making improvements to the access network in the vicinity of the proposed development. However, as this appears to be reliant upon a post-consent recreation plan, and in the absence of any detail even about the proposed right of way diversion, they cannot be confident that the development will result in an improvement to public access locally. The Society would very much like to receive details of any such proposals once they become available. The Society has yet to see tangible commitments to improvements.

Repeat concerns regarding impacts on the Southern Upland Way.

In their most recent correspondence, the Society continues to object to the proposed wind farm development on the following grounds - insufficient justification of the proposed blanket closure of rights of way during construction, inadequate diversion of right of way BB115 during operation, turbine proximity to right of way BB115 and the potential impact on the amenity of the SUW and other recreational routes nearby.

Ofcom: No advice provided.

Scottish Wildlife Trust: No replies

Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland: No replies.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Whether or not the proposed development complies with development plan policies relating to the development of a commercial wind farm, having accounted for other material considerations.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Principle

National Planning Policy, via the National Planning Framework 2 and Scottish Planning Policy identify support for renewable energy in order to meet current targets but also identify the need to consider landscape and visual impacts, and safeguard the cultural and national heritage. The Government’s Specific Advice Sheet Onshore Wind Turbines provides policy guidance related to wind farm developments that are material to this application.

The SESplan supersedes the Structure Plan. It is principally designed to guide the Local Development Plan. It ultimately promotes the renewable energy sector provided environmental impacts are accounted for. Its policies are not directly relevant to assessment of this application, but it is worth noting that Policy 1B expects Local Development Plans to ensure there are no significant adverse impacts on the integrity of designated sites, and that regard is to be had to improving the quality of life in local communities by conserving and enhancing the natural and built heritage to create more attractive and healthy places to live. The LDP is at too early a stage, but the current adopted Local Plan seeks to achieve these objectives. Assessment of this application against the Local Plan will tally with the SESplan. Policy 10 also promotes ‘sustainable energy sources’. The SESplan expects LDPs to set a framework that meets national energy targets – 100% of electricity; 11% of

Planning and Building Standards Committee 41 Item No. 6(a) heat; at least 30% of overall energy; and 500mw of community/locally owned schemes, all by 2020. The SESplan, however, makes it clear that account must be had of relevant economic, social, environmental and transport considerations. It also cautions that consideration of location, landscape, environmental quality and community impacts will be required of onshore developments and notes that concerns have been expressed regarding cumulative impacts. Ultimately the thrust is to support renewable energy, provided environmental impacts are adequately accounted for.

Thus, determination of this application against the current Local Plan (particularly Policy D4) and policy guidance (particularly the Council’s SPG Wind Energy), will reflect the requirements of the SESplan. The application must be determined on its own merits, albeit accounting for cumulative impacts. Exploration of alternative sites is not necessary, and the ES already demonstrates the constraints that have led to the choice of site, and evolution of the design and scale of the scheme.

Landscape impacts

Policy D4 requires an assessment of landscape impacts, a requirement reinforced by the Council’s SPG. Policy G1 is also relevant as regards protection of the character of the surrounding area.

The policy states a preference for developments within areas outside environmental designations. This site is not within a designation, albeit it is adjacent the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area to the north.

Policy D4 states that locations within Upland landscape types (defined as such in the Borders Landscape Character Assessment (BLCA)) will normally be more acceptable than other landscape types subject to assessment of the fragility of the area to change. The turbines proposed here would be within the Lammermuir Plateau Landscape Character Area (LCA), an Upland Landscape Type which incorporates the southern edge of the Lammermuirs. The access track runs through the smaller scale, more managed Rolling Farmland Landscape Type of the Westruther Platform LCA, an Upland Fringe type. A key issue here is, therefore, the location of the development on the edge of the uplands, where it merges with more settled, populated landscapes. This is considered in more detail later.

Policy D4 provides broad support for locations where surrounding landform minimises visibility and where there is no interference with prominent skylines. The site is on the south-western slope of Flass Hill and surrounding hills in the Lammermuirs which provide some containment from north-west to east. Concerns amongst key consultees, however, are that despite a reduction during the application in the height of the turbines to 100m, their siting on a prominent skyline edge of the Lammermuirs, combined with their height and elevation, mean the development will not comply with this policy. The original Environmental Statement (ES) stated that 98% within 2km and 78% within 2-5km would have theoretical visibility, and this is little changed in the revised scheme, despite the drop in height. The Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) acknowledges that the revised scheme sought to improve the appearance of the wind farm in views and reduce the magnitude of change but that this does not mean that the level of perceived impact has been reduced. Comparative ZTVs show very little improvement. The skyline itself is not distinctive, and it forms part of a long undulating skyline punctuated by woodland belts and building groups. Its prominence, however, greatly increases the visibility of the development from the south. The lower turbine heights have led to a more comfortable fit between their scale and that of the landform. The layout is more

Planning and Building Standards Committee 42 Item No. 6(a) ordered than before, effectively comprising two rows of turbines. There are some variations/stacking of views, but overall the arrangement is fairly well balanced. The arrangement relates reasonably well to the landscape profile. SNH are more content in this regard. It is inevitable that this type of development will have a significant effect on the immediate landscape. However, the location of the turbines, on this prominent edge of the Lammermuirs, remains a concern, resulting in clear exposure of the turbines on the hillside above the more settled landscape to the south.

Of some, albeit limited value, in establishing the capacity of the site to host a commercial wind farm is SNH’s Strategic Locational Guidance. This identifies the site as being within the zone of least sensitivity, albeit flanking medium sensitivity landscape applied to the Lammermuir Hills. The Council’s SPG on Wind Energy notes that the turbines would be sited within and on the edge of an area of ‘significant constraint’ associated with the Southern Upland Way (SUW).

The applicant’s assessments consider the effects of the development on the Lammermuir Plateau and Westruther Platform LCAs to be significant. In terms of the former, the site is on the outer edge of the LCA. It will be a relatively small component of the LCA, particularly when compared with the nearby Fallago Rig. The BLCA identifies one of its key characteristics as being its sense of wildness, wide horizons and distant unobstructed views. On this southern edge, the development would interfere with currently uninterrupted views and detract from the wildness of the landscape. In terms of the Westruther Platform LCA, the development's location means it will have an obvious presence over the mix of agricultural land and settled, managed landscape. There will be a clear juxtaposition of scale between the wind turbines and existing landscape features within the LCA. Ultimately it is the location of the development which renders it more likely to have a harmful effect on landscape character than this scale of development might otherwise have. This concern remains the view of SNH. Beyond these LCAs, the effect will not be significantly adverse for other landscape types.

The Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area is also located to the north. Its key qualities include its large scale, open landscape, naturalness and contrast with settled valleys. As noted above, the development would feature on its southern, open edge, towards farmland, with open views from within it on the SUW and from Twin Law Cairns. Thus the development would intrude on the openness of the southerly aspect of the designation. This effect is highlighted by SNH. The resulting effect of this development on the designation is a concern. There would be no significant risk to other designations.

Masts

The application includes one permanent lattice and three temporary guyed masts (two of which would be on the site of turbines and removed for their installation). The landscape effects of these elements will be relatively minor within the context of the larger turbines.

Borrow Pit

The borrow pit has been moved from the original location. No detailed information has been provided. The applicant’s submissions suggest views will be limited due to its location on the broad horizon. It would then be restored as closely as possible to the existing. There are, however, no details on which to firmly judge this, and any judgement would be speculative. SNH are clearly concerned with the potential landscape (and visual) effects of the borrow pit. The applicants have recently offered

Planning and Building Standards Committee 43 Item No. 6(a) further information, but this is too late in the processing of this application. This department considers that, in the absence of firm evidence to the contrary, the proposal’s risk of significant adverse landscape effects is not acceptable. The applicants have advised that they will accept a planning consent without the borrow pit. This can be addressed by condition. The deletion of the borrow pit will have implications for construction traffic, though this is explored later in this report.

Compound

‘Typical’ details have been provided of a construction compound. This aspect will be temporary, on a relatively low level site, if one which is rather detached from the main site. A condition can secure full details and removal

Substation

‘Typical’ details have been provided of a pitch-roofed building within a fenced compound, to be sited behind an area of woodland nearby the turbines. The landscape impact of the substation will be mitigated by woodland alongside it though it will, in any case, be a small scale element when viewed alongside the turbines. A condition can require full details.

Cables

All cables within the site will be undergrounded. Off-site grid connections are a matter to be considered under a separate consent process, though the site is not particularly remote from the grid to suggest that an acceptable arrangement is unlikely to be achieved.

Tree felling and planting

Areas of woodland to be felled include two blocks of woodland at the south-western end of the site. Compensatory planting is proposed by way of infill woodland to the east and north-east of Raecleugh and new planting behind it. There would be no significant landscape implications from either the tree removal or planting. A condition can secure the planting (it is not all within the site boundary but it is understood to be on land within the applicant’s control).

Access tracks

Access tracks would be 5.5m wide, cut or floating, surfaced in crushed stone (unless gradients require a bound surface). They would incorporate three watercourse crossings. Again details are imprecise and more information would be required by condition (with the watercourse crossings being designed in liaison with SEPA). A condition can also require downgrading after the wind farm has commenced to minimise long term landscape impacts. Information submitted by the applicants suggests the tracks will follow field boundaries as far as possible, with existing gateways widened rather than new openings formed where possible.

No trees or hedging will be affected except where tree felling would be necessary to facilitate one of two possible access junctions onto the B6456 (see below). The track will run close to the shelter belt east of Raecleugh but the applicant’s submission states it will be outwith root protection zones.

Access from the B6456 was originally to be located at a mid-way point in a field north-east of Oak Cottage, the landscape implications of which would not be

Planning and Building Standards Committee 44 Item No. 6(a) significantly adverse, albeit the track would swing through the field and be remote from the application site (planting would assist to integrate it with its surroundings). Using the existing access alongside Oak Cottage was explored but ruled out due to visibility splay requirements. Noise implications have, however, since resulted in the applicant proposing an alternative access to the south-west of Morven, near Jordonlaw. The specification for this access junction is not completely precise, but the applicant’s submissions suggest the large access junction will involve a substantial loss of the existing hedging and trees. These losses are regrettable landscape implications. The effect is localised and the track itself would then follow low level topography. Replacement planting could be provided, albeit this would take a considerable time to establish itself. The landscape implications of the junction are not, in their own right, sufficient to render the scheme unacceptable in landscape terms when gauged against planning policy. They do, however, contribute to the overall effect of the development on the character of the landscape.

Beyond the junction, the route cuts across gentle topography for the most part, between the B6456 and the minor road to Raecleugh, before it would cross the latter, follow the route of the existing shelter belt, and then will rise up the hillside towards the turbines. The arrangement of tracks around the turbines is a more simplified version of the original scheme, and will follow a gently topography between them. The applicants have provided information to suggest that groundworks will be limited and, where alterations to ground levels are required, these will be limited to 1 metre or so. This would all be subject to detailed survey and design. Ultimately the landscape implications of the access tracks are not a significant concern and efforts can be applied to micro-siting their route, their specification and downgrading following construction of the turbines.

Decommissioning

A decommissioning scheme could require removal of all turbines, transformers, masts, substation and unnecessary infrastructure. Downgrading of tracks can be secured earlier by condition. The decommissioning scheme can be required by condition, as can a bond to secure the works.

Cumulative landscape impacts

With respect to other wind farms, it is acknowledged that the baseline of wind farms within the planning system in the Borders is constantly changing. Indeed, it is this very fact which makes it quite impractical for this application, or any other, to continually be reassessed to account for every wind farm proposal that enters the system. The assessments made on behalf of the applicants, as well as the information available to this department, allow a firm conclusion to be drawn on the most likely significant cumulative effects.

The SEI predicts no significant cumulative landscape effects would arise from the proposed development. However, a key concern held by this department, and others including SNH, is the interaction of the proposed development with Fallago Rig (7.9km) and Corsbie Moor (6.7km) in particular. The proposal would ‘fill a gap’ in coverage along the southern edge of the Lammermuir Hills, which would combine with Fallago Rig in particular to undermine the openness of the landscape and its Special Landscape Area designation. Further to this, the proposal would sit on the skyline on the northern edge of the farmland landscape, combining with Corsbie Moor to frame the LCA. As SNH note “The proximity of the proposals to each other and the generally open and expansive nature of the views towards both schemes, particularly from the south and west within 10km (of the Brunta Hill scheme), will

Planning and Building Standards Committee 45 Item No. 6(a) mean that there will be a close visual and landscape relationship between the two schemes. They will be frequently seen together simultaneously in the same view, or successively, or sequentially as part of a journey… We note that within such distances, significant and adverse cumulative effects, both in landscape and visual terms, will often occur.” The cumulative landscape effect of this proposed development, particularly when viewed with Fallago Rig and Corsbie Moor, is a key concern.

Visual impacts

Policy D4 requires consideration of visual effects on high sensitivity receptors. The applicant’s submissions are considered sufficient to make an informed assessment. Viewpoint selections and photomontages must be treated with caution, but ultimately are a tool and represent a snapshot of predicted effects. This assessment focuses on the visual effects of the turbines. The visual effects of other works are less significant. The visual implications arising from the borrow pit are a concern though these are covered in the earlier comments in this report (under ‘Landscape Impacts’).

Roads and recreational routes

Of the strategic routes noted in the Council’s SPG, users of the SUW are likely to experience the most significant effects. Much of its passing route within 5km is exposed. It is not unusual for the SUW to be subject to views from wind farms, but here the visual impact will be particularly pronounced, affecting the uninterrupted southerly outlook towards the Eildons. The SEI acknowledges that the wind farm would be a prominent feature between Edgarhope Wood and Twin Law Cairns and predicts a significant effect within that area.

From roads, there is virtually no visibility predicted from the A68. There is more theoretical visibility from the A697, A6089, A6105. This will depend on opportunities to view where there is no screening by woodland and other features. Where visible, the development will be seen as part of a broad skyline, with intervening farmland, building groups and framed to a degree by forests to north-east and south. The SEI predicts a significant effect only on the minor road serving Raecleugh. Effects on this route will be most dominant, and the implications would be significantly adverse for residents who use it, and the other roads, and it is this visual effect which is of particular concern, especially when combined with Corsbie Moor (see later).

From other rights of way, again it is not unusual for access routes to run close to wind farms and, indeed, Scotways wish to see rights of way retained here (see later in this report). There will be effects on the natural qualities of experience for users of the BB115 in particular, but a relatively minor consequence overall.

Cumulative visual impacts on roads and recreational routes

In terms of the SUW, cumulative visibility with Fallago Rig and Corsbie Moor was identified as significant in the ES. Though exposure from the western leg is not a concern, the impact on the northerly section is a concern to many consultees/objectors. The SEI notes that this proposal will increase the presence of wind farms along with Fallago Rig and Corsbie Moor on the northerly section of the route which incorporates Twin Law Cairns. Fallago Rig would be to the north, and this scheme and Corsbie Moor to the south, obstructing the currently uninterrupted views in this direction. Sequential effects have not been examined robustly in the applicant’s submissions. However, our SPG identifies buffers to protect the SUW from sequential impacts and this development will intrude on the buffer. The

Planning and Building Standards Committee 46 Item No. 6(a) applicant’s submissions do not respond positively to this concern. Corsbie Moor was determined as being unacceptable because of its effect on the open outlook from the SUW towards the south, and this development will exacerbate this effect, in a much more direct fashion.

In terms of roads, the SEI identifies no significant cumulative effects on main roads and SPG buffers are safeguarded from the turbines. However, the proximity of the development to Corsbie Moor, with several roads within 5 to 10km, including the A697, A6089 and B6456, suggests a high risk of cumulative visibility. The development will also draw attention to Fallago Rig in certain views. SNH note the potential for the proposed scheme and Corsbie Moor to be frequently seen together simultaneously, successively or sequentially. While individual effects may not be of such concern (and it is to be acknowledged that screening along routes will limit cumulative impacts to varying degrees) the cumulative effects potentially arising from the interaction of this development and Corsbie Moor in particular is a concern. In addition, the SEI predicts a significant cumulative effect on the minor road to Raecleugh. Resulting effects on the amenity of local residents in particular who regularly use this and other roads is a key concern.

From local rights of way, combined effects with Corsbie Moor and Fallago Rig are likely too, albeit the consequences of effects on minor routes are not considered to be a justifiably overriding concern.

Tourist attractions landscape viewpoints

The development avoids buffers for key viewpoints applied by our SPG. The applicant’s submissions have included assessment of effects. Albeit not comprehensive, the assessments are sufficient to establish the most significant effects. In this regard, of key concern is the effect of the development on the southerly view from Twin Law Cairns. Viewpoint 5 illustrates the potential effects. This is a key viewpoint which, in a southerly direction, is uninterrupted towards the Cheviots and Eildons. This development would introduce a wind farm which would, according to the SEI, would have a major impact. This major impact is of serious concern. The value of the viewpoint will be significantly eroded.

Cumulative visual impacts on tourist attractions landscape viewpoints

The applicant’s submissions have been less than comprehensive regarding cumulative effects across the range of viewpoints noted in our SPG, in order to examine its effect on the tourist/recreational source as a whole, combined with other wind farms. However, there is sufficient information to establish where significantly adverse effects may occur. As with individual impacts, the key cumulative effects will be on the enjoyment of Twin Law Cairns. Fallago Rig would be to the north, Black Hill to the east, other wind farms (Toddleburn and others) to the west. To the south, Corsbie Moor would interrupt a view of the Eildon Hills. This development would then be in the foreground. With or without Corsbie Moor, the effect would be to fill the gap in views from the viewpoint, prominently positioning a wind farm in an area which has otherwise been left free of such intrusion.

Settlements and residential properties

It is worth noting that, while Planning Advice Note 45 (now revoked) suggested that wind farms up to 2km would have a prominent impact, with those sited between 2- 5km away relatively prominent, and those beyond only having an impact in clear visibility, this guidance is no longer a material consideration. Its successor, the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 47 Item No. 6(a)

Specific Advice Sheet Onshore Wind Turbines, reiterates guidance in the SPP that a 2km buffer be encouraged between wind farms and settlements which the Council’s SPG also refers to. It is clear that this is a rule of thumb, however, and breaching this is simply not sufficient in its own right to suggest that visual impacts will be unacceptably adverse. There is no universally accepted guidance on what constitutes an unacceptable visual impact from a wind farm and each case must be treated on its own merits. In addition to Policy D4, Policy H2 requires that residential amenity be safeguarded.

The ES originally identified 193 houses within 5km, 190 of which would have theoretical visibility. Within 2km, 2 would have a direct view with 30 with filtered, oblique or screened views. It suggested there would be significant effects on 22. The ES did not identify the properties by address, nor where the significant effects would be. Despite a request to do so, the SEI has not elaborated on the matter and notes only that no significant effects on settlements at Blythe, Pyatshaw, Whiteburn and Houndslow would result and that properties were not assessed or visited individually. Within 5km the only ‘settlement’ is Westruther at 3.5km. There is some screening within the settlement from buildings and planting, but the wind farm will appear as a clear and significant feature on the horizon. Albeit this will have a visual implication, its implications for the amenities of properties within Westruther at this distance is not considered unacceptable. Beyond 5km, Gordon may have visibility, though other settlements, including Lauder will not. Visibility from Gordon will not be significantly adverse at this distance. Approaches to Greenlaw may have visibility though distance is again a mitigating factor. Views from Nether Blainslie will be beyond the Leader Water valley. Large settlements will not have any visibility.

Of concern, however, is the visual effect of the development on the closest residential properties. These include Gairmuir and the Raecleugh grouping. Other properties will experience visual effects to varying degrees, and the development will comprise a clear and significant visual intrusion on the skyline. However, distance orientation and screening in many cases, will all play mitigating roles to the extent that the wind farm will not be overbearing.

Gairmuir currently has a very open approach and outlook. Viewpoint 1 illustrates the potential effects. The wind farm would be offset from the main orientation of the house beyond a valley, but would be large scale and very exposed from this property at 911m away. The development would have a very significant effect on the appreciation of Gairmuir, especially its curtilage and surroundings, from where it will become a dominant feature.

Raecleugh contains existing and as yet unbuilt houses, at 989m to the closest turbine. The properties will avail of woodland behind which would screen views of the wind farm from the properties. However, reliance on this belt is not recommended. It already has a gap within it, and its lifespan is not predicted to outlive the wind farm. The applicants propose compensatory planting behind it but this would take a great deal of time to establish. In any case, approaches to and from the houses would not significantly benefit. The effect on the general amenity of residents in this grouping would be significantly undermined by the exposure of the turbines in such close proximity, whether the woodland is in place or not. Viewpoint 2 illustrates the potential effects from the nearby road.

Cumulative visual impacts on settlements and residential properties

Though the SEI identifies no significant effects on settlements, and includes no assessment of cumulative effects on residential amenity, it does note that there will

Planning and Building Standards Committee 48 Item No. 6(a) be a sense of the presence of more than one wind farm near Westruther. The development would also combine with Corsbie Moor to introduce a wind farm into views from many other residential properties, particularly those sited between them with views. The Raecleugh grouping, in particular, would be between the two. Residents would approach their properties with this development firmly in the background, to then be able to view Corsbie Moor once they had arrived. Where individual visual effects from each may not be harmful to their amenity (though in the case of Raecleugh and Gairmuir, they would be), any such visual effect would be compounded by the prospect of seeing another wind farm in a different direction within relatively close proximity, whether from houses, curtilages or approaching routes. The applicant’s submissions do not allay concerns in this regard.

Cultural Heritage

Direct

No formal designations would be directly affected. The ES identifies 58 sites within the study area around the site, 20 within the site itself, none of international or national importance but including one of regional importance (Spottiswoode Non- Inventory Garden/Designed Landscape), and one of potentially regional importance (Heriot’s Dyke). It suggests any direct effects will not be significant and can be offset by a written scheme of investigation, including avoidance where possible, watching brief, including excavations and analysis of finds.

Historic Scotland raise no issues with respect to their remit. Our archaeology officer had concerns initially. The amended scheme now includes a revised access designed to minimise impacts on rig and furrow plantation, a revised design to the turbine layout to minimise effects, and the SEI included more information on peat depth. Our archaeology officer considers the response to be a positive one, and notes that the SEI acknowledges that mitigation requirements will be imposed as conditions.

Indirect

Scheduled Monuments

The applicant’s submissions assessed impacts on Scheduled Monuments (SM) within 15km with potential visibility and found no significant effects were likely. There have been no objections from Historic Scotland. Our archaeology officer accounted for potential impacts on Heriot’s Dyke, the Standing Stone (not a SM) and enclosure at Spottiswoode before making his comments. To clarify also, Twin Law Cairns is not a SM. Smailholm Tower is outside the study area and, therefore, there are unlikely to be any significant effects on its setting.

Listed Buildings

Impacts on A Listed Buildings within 15km have been assessed. The closest is Wedderlie at 3.1km. No significant effects are predicted, including Hume Castle (at 14.5km). Historic Scotland raise no concerns.

Effects on Category B Listed Buildings within 15km were assessed and Category C Listed Buildings within 5km were assessed. The closest would be Spottiswoode (2km). The SEI predicts no significant effects. This department agrees that factors including orientation, setting, screening, distance, all mitigate sufficiently in terms of Listed Buildings

Planning and Building Standards Committee 49 Item No. 6(a)

Gardens and Designed Landscapes

Impacts on GDLs were assessed within 15km. Two would have potential visibility, Carolside and Leadervale (12.4km) and Mellerstain (13.4km). No significant effects are predicted and Historic Scotland raise no issue.

Conservation Areas

There are no Conservation Areas within 15km with potential visibility

Non-designated Landscapes

Non-designated landscapes (NIDLs) within 10km were accounted for, four of which would have potential visibility, including Spottiswoode, the closest at 2.9km. No significant effects are predicted on the other three. Spottiswoode lies south of the site, west of the access track, the eastern part of the track running through it. The landscape was designed around Spottiswoode House which was demolished in the 1930s. Though the applicant’s assessments acknowledge the presence of the wind farm, they do not consider the setting of the NIDL would be affected. The local value of this site must be acknowledged, and the character of the landscape, including woodland and parkland, roads, varied groupings of buildings. It is agreed that this landscape will not be significantly undermined in a manner which is of overriding concern.

Cumulative impacts

The proximity of the development to Fallago Rig, Corsbie Moor and Black Hill potentially lead to the most damaging cumulative effects. The applicant’s submissions considers no significant effects would result, noting that the relative positions of the wind farms mean developments aren’t in the same arc of view. It is noted that Historic Scotland raise no concerns as regards national assets. Increased exposure to B and C Listed Buildings and NIDLs will result, but impacts are not significant enough to be overriding, taking account of the extent of effects and significance of the assets.

Noise

Policy D4 requires that noise impacts be considered.

Construction Noise

It is expected that noise during construction (and decommissioning) will comply with BS5228. Aside from part of the track originally proposed (see later) the works are predicted not to exceed the guidance. Borrow pit blasting cannot be assessed but would be subject to controls over frequency/timing. Crushing noise predictions at the borrow pit suggest no breach of guidance. A management plan for the construction phase, including blasting, can be made subject to planning condition.

In terms of the tracks, the first 75m from the B6456 were predicted to lead to noise levels over the recommended limits. The original proposal included an intention to limit work on this section to 3.5 hours per day. However, given this would affect a working equestrian business (Beeches Barn Livery), an alternative access has since been proposed to overcome this. The alternative access has itself generated concerns regarding impacts on Jordonlaw, including rare breed horses. The

Planning and Building Standards Committee 50 Item No. 6(a) applicants have considered the implications and propose mitigation measures, including prior notification, temporary screen fencing and others, and note that construction will be temporary. The owner is not satisfied. While this is understandable, this aspect is not sufficiently overriding given the temporary effects. A concern raised by another objector regarding impacts on gundogs has also been considered by the applicants. For both, it is expected that a reasonable scheme of mitigation can be agreed to limit effects during construction. A condition can secure this. Time limits can also be applied to construction times more generally by condition.

Operational Noise

In terms of operational noise, it is noted that the Scottish Government’s advice note, Onshore Wind Turbines specifically states that ETSU-R-97 should be used for the assessment of noise from wind farms “until such time as an update is available”. Our SPG also refers to the ETSU report. It is acknowledged that concerns are raised over ETSU being outdated, and concerns exist regarding health effects from stress caused by sleep deprivation, however, this is the accepted model for assessment of wind farms guided by these key advice notes. The Government’s advice note also refers to a report that there is no evidence of health effects arising from low frequency noise or ultrasound. It also refers to a report on aerodynamic modulation (fluctuating noise described as a thump as blades pass towers) where its findings were apparently inconclusive.

ETSU suggests that noise should be limited to 5dB(A) above background levels (or, in low noise environments, above a lower fixed level of 35-40dB(A)) and above a lower fixed night-time level of 43dB(A). An increase of the lower fixed limit to 45dB(A) is possible for both day and night-time periods for properties where the occupier has a financial interest in the development. There is no requirement to apply a limit of 35dB(A) for all surrounding properties as ETSU make this recommendation applicable only to single turbines or wind farms with a very large separation distance between it and neighbouring properties and applied only in the absence of any background noise surveys.

The ES included assessment of five properties, and assessments on four were repeated in the SEI (Blythe now outside the 35dB zone). These include Gairmuir, Flass, Windyedge (at Raecleugh) and Bruntaburn. All predictions met limits. Our Environmental Health Service (EHS) is content with background levels and monitoring locations and no evidence has been received to contradict the predictions. Only 1 turbine has been assessed but the chosen turbine will need to demonstrate compliance with ETSU limitations in any case, as will any material changes to noise predictions as a result of micro-siting. Challenges to noise predictions are acknowledged but there is insufficient evidence to contradict the findings in the applicant’s assessments and no issues are raised by our EHS regarding scope, methodology or findings. No significant cumulative effects with wind farms including Corsbie Moor are predicted. Applications for schemes subsequently entering the planning system will be required to be assessed for their own cumulative impacts with this proposal.

Operational activity is otherwise relatively minimal and no mitigation is considered necessary.

Telecommunications and infrastructure

Planning and Building Standards Committee 51 Item No. 6(a)

There have been no objections to the application (or as part of the applicant’s assessments) from utility companies or operators with respect to phone or radio links. Domestic television reception is not predicted to be at risk, though mitigation is offered if required. A condition can address this. There is no apparent risk to radio reception.

Ecology

The site has no statutory designations. Watercourse catchments eventually drain to the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The nearest designations beyond are the Pogden Moss SAC and Greenlaw Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The ES predicts no significant effects on the River Tweed SAC but includes best practice mitigation measures which SNH appear to accept. No effects are anticipated on Pogden Moss SAC or Greenlaw Moor SSSI due to distance and lack of connectivity.

A habitat survey identified 28 types, mainly improved grassland, and predicts no significant loss of habitat value. However, consultees were concerned with impacts on wetland habitat as a result of the turbines, tracks and borrow pit. In response, the amended scheme, supported by further surveys, involves redesigns to avoid areas of bog and flush habitat, including Nationally Scarce Moss and areas of deeper peat. Mitigation would then address indirect effects. SEPA since received sufficient information to allow them to advise that sufficient effort has been applied to avoid wetlands/ground water dependent eco systems, subject to an Environmental Management Plan. An informative note can be applied which accounts for their advice regarding track construction.

A bats survey identified no sites, with limited good foraging habitat. Our ecology officer asked for and received more information in this regard and considers that pre- checking surveys and micro-siting will address any issues. Turbine locations will be in adherence to siting guidance TIN51.

Other species considered include Great Crested Newt, otters and vole, as well as badger. No significant effects are predicted for these. Scottish Badgers seek a 30 metre plus blade tip buffer for badger setts, but the turbines are well away even from this stand-off distance.

No significant effects on fish are predicted, with mitigation measures applied including timing and watercourse crossing designs. Further information was provided with respect to reptiles and no significant effects found.

No significant cumulative effects are predicted and consultees appear content with the scope of the ES and SEI combined, with any other species raised by objectors not considered of sufficient nature conservation interest.

Hydrology and geology

The number of watercourse crossings proposed is 3 (reduced from 5 originally). Authorisation from SEPA will be needed though the principle is not a concern. A condition can secure details in liaison with SEPA. A 50metre buffer would otherwise be applied for excavation or piling works close to watercourses.

A Pollution Prevention Plan has been submitted, to be developed as part of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). This has not been reviewed in any detail as

Planning and Building Standards Committee 52 Item No. 6(a) part of this assessment of the planning application. It will be considered in pursuance of the relevant planning condition on this point, should consent be granted.

In terms of private water supplies, there are 28 identified sources within 2km. The revised scheme notes that 3 are within buffers recommended by SEPA but it is contended that no significant effects will result, with mitigation measures applied such as good practice measures during construction, EMP, Construction Method Statement and a water quality monitoring and contingency plan. SEPA advised that calculating water supply catchments accurately is not an issue if their recommended buffers are applied from the source. The SEI notes that the three water supplies within SEPA’s buffers (within 100metres of tracks) are livestock supplies and SEPA accept further information submitted on behalf of the applicants that there is only a low risk to them during construction of the access tracks if mitigation measures are implemented. Works outwith SEPA’s buffers are not considered to risk water supplies.

It was later contended that a supply at Jordonlaw had not been accounted for. The applicant acknowledges this was not covered in the previous assessment but notes that it is more than 250metres away from the works. SEPA consider that since it also falls outside its buffers, then no comment is required as risk is low. It is noted that the objector considers that vibration should also be accounted for and does not agree with the findings. However, SEPA is this authority’s statutory consultee and is responsible for securing protection of water supplies. This matter is satisfied with respect to this application subject to conditions securing mitigation measures.

Site drainage, surface water drainage plans and pollution prevention measures appear capable of addressing potential impacts on the ground and surface water environment during construction and after as well as during decommissioning. The borrow pit, if it is to be implemented, would need a specific scheme.

Flood risk was initially considered to be limited to the access track originally proposed to the east though, if no land raising was to occur, and mitigation measures during flood events were applied, SEPA appear to be satisfied. The SEI also noted a minimal risk of run-off to Raecleugh though this can be contained. However, the new access proposal alongside Jordonlaw resulted in concerns being raised that this would exacerbate existing flooding. The applicants considered this and note that inadequacies in the existing drainage system are the cause of current flooding, with the proposed access road then crossing the flow pathways potentially causing a back up. The applicants have advised they will survey existing drainage, excavate and replace it under the new track, including multiple culverts under it and raise the track slightly (levels will be confirmed at the detailed stage). SEPA endorse the proposal, albeit they suggest that keeping the track level may be better. This would be subject to a detailed drainage scheme. Our flood prevention officer has no objection to the proposal subject to agreeing detailed design of the drainage measures and that these demonstrate they will accommodate a 1:200 plus climate change event, as well as an inspection and maintenance regime.

Direct effects on private drains and water supply pipes is a matter for the developer to address, just as with any other works that may involve direct damage to another’s property.

Water supplies for the development during construction would be via browsers imported on site, and potable water for the control building would be provided for maintenance staff on an ad-hoc basis, and a rainwater tank would be used to collect rainwater run-off and stored and directed to a cistern. Drainage would be via

Planning and Building Standards Committee 53 Item No. 6(a) chemical toilets and septic tank. These issues are not queried by relevant consultees.

Peat levels are acknowledged to be low within the site and the borrow pit avoids areas of deeper peat. SEPA query the waste management implications of removal, though this can be covered in a dedicated waste management plan.

Ornithology

The ES identifies the main issues as being disturbance, loss of habitat and displacement, and collision risk. Further information was provided in the SEI in response to initial concerns.

Surveys identified 78 species, including one as potentially part of the Greenlaw Moor Special Protection Area qualifying interest (Pink Footed Geese), four of international importance (Golden Plover, Black Grouse, Hen Harrier and Peregrine) and 8 species sensitive to wind farms. Impacts on target species were assessed including lapwing due to the level of activity. The SEI also included an extra black grouse survey but none were found. The ES considers the impacts are not significant and that good practice measures (including avoiding the bird breeding season unless protection measures are applied, overseen by a Clerk of Works, a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and Construction Method Statement) are adequate mitigation.

The RSPB accepts the methodology and results and aside from controls within the breeding season, and habitat enhancement to offset impacts on lapwing, curlew and black grouse, does not object. SNH do not raise any concerns subject to mitigation measures, and similar comments are made by our ecology officer who particularly seeks mitigation and enhancement measures with respect to black grouse. The ES includes outline proposals for a HMP which include new planting outwith the site but on land understood to be within the control of the applicant. Conditions can apply to secure these measures.

A major issue in response to the original ES was, however, raised by several consultees and that was with regard to the lack of conclusive cumulative assessment. The SEI then included further information in this regard but found no significant impacts. The RSPB are concerned with impacts on lapwing and curlew and both they and our ecology officer seek habitat creation/restoration to account for losses. These can be within a HMP. Works within the breeding season will need to be preceded by a survey of curlew and lapwing nests and a buffer applied to ensure no disturbance.

Traffic

In terms of construction traffic, movements are likely over a 12 month period, with the main route from the Port of Leith via the A68, A697 and B6456. The route has been assessed as suitable for abnormal loads, subject to some minor works. It is noted that Transport Scotland raise no concerns. The Roads Planning Service notes that all roads leading to the site are constructed to a high standard though the narrower B6456 will require a more detailed survey documented in a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). Two pinch points may need extra traffic management, at Wanton Walls and Thorneydykes, indeed dealing with abnormal loads along the entire route may need significant traffic management levels.

Traffic movements with and without material being sourced from the proposed borrow pit have been assessed. Without the borrow pit, movements will include an

Planning and Building Standards Committee 54 Item No. 6(a) average 62 daily HGV movements, with the most intense period being in months 5 and 6 when access tracks and turbine foundations will be undertaken, with peak activity comprising 126 HGV movements per day and 20 staff movements. It is estimated that any increase in road traffic on the A68 and A697 would be negligible but have a more significant effect on the B6456 with an approximate 24% increase in traffic during the peak period. This could reduce to just below 7% if the borrow pit is used for most of the aggregate required. No significant effects in terms of disruption, delay, safety, amenity, severance or dirt and dust are predicted if a TMP is followed.

During the operation phase there would be no more than 2 movements per week and 2 extra movements every 6 months. Decommissioning would require its own assessment at that time and related TMP.

There are no significant cumulative effects predicted with Corsbie Moor, Rowantree and Shaw Park constructed together (Fallago Rig having been completed). None of these would share the B6456 and only Corsbie Moor would share the A697.

The RPS has not objected to either the original access or alternative access proposal, but notes that a 215m by 4.5m visibility splay would be needed which would affect trees and hedging. More information is required on the access construction, including demonstration of visibility splays, though these can be sought by condition if consent is granted.

Ultimately, impacts on the B6456 during construction will be a particularly significant impact, particularly if material is not sourced from the borrow pit. However, roads authorities do not raise any concerns regarding safety, and a TMP can be used to minimise disruption and amenity effects as far as possible. It is not considered that temporary effects would be sufficient justification to refuse the application.

Aviation

The MOD require lighting which can be required by condition, and the details they seek regarding construction of the development can be required by condition. No issues have been raised by them or other consultees as regards aviation interests that would preclude the granting of consent.

Benefits

Environmental

The overriding thrust of national and local planning policy is to support renewable energy as a sustainable and reversible source of energy generation. This scheme will make a direct contribution in this regard. The 8 turbines would have a capacity of 20MW, generating 49,300mwh of electricity per year, based on approximately 28% capacity. A 22,548 tonne reduction in CO2 emissions is anticipated, with net savings achieved after 2.9 years. The contribution of the proposal in national terms is relatively minor, but it will positively contribute to meeting Government targets.

Economic

Community benefits paid by wind farm developers are not material to a planning application unless these are directly attributable to impacts from the development identified as material considerations when determining the application itself. None are identified within this department’s assessment and no weight is, therefore, given to any payments that may be intended.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 55 Item No. 6(a)

Constructing and decommissioning are temporary and any effects must be considered in that context. The applicants propose mitigation measures to minimise, as far as possible, the impact of the construction period, including on the nearby livery (effects on which have led to the relocation of the access junction). The majority of the land is agricultural grazing with areas of plantation woodland. Construction is predicted to involve twenty jobs.

Potential impacts on other businesses are acknowledged, but there is no evidence to support claims that this particular development will harm existing businesses, including countryside estate activities, during the operation phase of the development. Significant impacts on tourism are also without clear evidence. Effects on tourist resources are considered as part of the landscape and visual assessment. Effects on house prices are immaterial to the determination of the application.

Long term employment associated with the development is, however, predicted to be low, at 1 full time equivalent post over the operational phase of the development.

Shadow Flicker

The Council’s SPG and the Scottish Government’s advice note refer to shadow flicker as being a potential issue for properties within a 10x rotor diameter distance of a turbine and sited within 130 degrees north of it. The effect is only likely to impact on narrow openings. In this case, a distance of 800 metres would satisfy this guideline. The nearest property is Gairmuir at 911 metres. This addresses the matter and allows for micro-siting without breaching the guideline.

The nearest public road is to the south-east so there should be no effects from shadow throw.

Safety

Scottish Government guidance, Onshore Wind Turbines, notes that the wind energy industry operates to strict international, European and British standards. Site operations tend to have rigorous systems in place and the control room can detect icing of blades. Danger to houses or animal life from falling parts or ice throw is rare and appropriate lightning protection measures are incorporated, albeit warning signage is suggested as being useful. In this case, the SEI states that the development will comply with safety standards as regards construction and all relevant legislation and the site will be closed to public use during construction. Ice throw risk is considered to be minor and monitoring systems, protocols and warning signage will be put in place. The turbines will automicatally shut down if damaged by lathing.

There is no planning policy guidance that requires set back distances from turbines to public routes in order to account for safety. Planning considerations in this regard are relevant only as far as being sure that the design and layout of the scheme has accommodated the safety obligations the developer must first apply. Determination of this application does not override the applicant’s obligations to ensure the development is constructed and operated safely. Scotways have concerns regarding proximity of the development to a right of way. They quote Welsh guidance that is not material to the determination of this application. The applicants have, in any case, offered to micro-site the diverted right of way BB115 to keep it outwith the distance sought by Scotways.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 56 Item No. 6(a)

Rights of way

The development will affect four public rights of way. Routes BB115 and BB116 cross the site, though both are noted to be in poor condition. CPL1 is the minor road to Raecleugh which will be crossed by the access track and CPL2 is the B6456. The applicants propose that the first two routes will be closed during construction as it is not safe to keep them open. Signs will be displayed advising of closures. A Traffic Management Plan will cover management of the crossing of the CPL1 during construction and of construction traffic on CPL2 (B6456). Measures to control noise and dust will also apply. After construction, it is planned to reinstate BB116, divert BB115 and promote a new network of paths to improve access provision in the local area as part of a post consent recreation plan, in addition to interpretation boards at agreed locations.

Scotways have raised concerns regarding closure of public access during construction, and regarding the diversion of BB115. The applicants acknowledge that closing routes is inconvenient but note that alternative routes exist, signage will be applied and that it is possible for users to reach destinations via diversions. They consider that the diversion of BB115 is better than the current route, though Scotways have challenged this. The diversion is not wholly objectionable to the Council’s access team. It is considered that the timing and method of closing the routes during construction, to minimise impacts on public access, and further discussion regarding the details of the diverted route, can be addressed by condition (in liaison with Scotways).

As regards local improvements, the applicants have advised they will undertake an assessment of routes on land within their control and implement improvements agreed with the Council’s access team. However, the Council’s access team consider there is scope to explore whether financial contributions to the Council to allow improvements to be undertaken outside the applicant’s land would meet their priorities for local improvements more effectively. This requires further discussion with the applicant in the event that consent is to be granted, and may best be resolved by legal agreement.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development complies with development plan policies, in particular Local Plan Policy D4, in a number of regards, subject to mitigation measures being secured by condition and, possibly, legal agreement (subject to further discussions).

However, by virtue of its prominent location, the development will lead to significant and unacceptable impacts on the landscape character of the surrounding area, including undermining the integrity of the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area. The development would also lead to adverse visual effects on the northern section of the Southern Upland Way, incorporating Twin Law Cairns, all contrary to Local Plan Policies G1 and D4.

Also of concern is the likely overbearing and dominant impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties, including Gairmuir and the Raecleugh grouping, contrary to Local Plan Policies D4 and H2

With Corsbie Moor and Fallago Rig in particular, the development will also lead to unacceptable cumulative effects on landscape character and the integrity of the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area, and lead to significant and unacceptable cumulative visual effects on the northern section of the Southern Upland Way,

Planning and Building Standards Committee 57 Item No. 6(a) incorporating Twin Law Cairns, and on roads (minor road at Raecleugh, B6456, A697 and A6089) and residential properties

These conflicts are not outweighed by any other material considerations.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is refused for the following reasons:

1. The development would, by virtue of its prominent location, lead to significant and unacceptable impacts on the landscape character of the surrounding area, and would undermine the integrity of the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area. The development would also lead to adverse visual effects on the northern section of the Southern Upland Way, incorporating Twin Law Cairns, all contrary to Policies G1 and D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011.

2. The development would have an overbearing and dominant impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties, including Gairmuir and the Raecleugh grouping, contrary to Policies D4 and H2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011.

3. In combination with Corsbie Moor and Fallago Rig, in particular, the development would also lead to unacceptable cumulative effects on landscape character and the integrity of the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area, and lead to significant and unacceptable cumulative visual effects on the northern section of the Southern Upland Way, incorporating Twin Law Cairns, and on roads (minor road at Raecleugh, B6456, A697 and A6089) and residential properties, all contrary to Policies G1, D4 and H2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Drawing 1 Site Location 7401/LP/255b Drawing 2 Site Layout 7401/SL/257c Drawing 3a Typical Turbine and Permanent Meteorological Mast 7401 CS C025a Drawing 3b Typical Temporary Meteorological Mast 7401 CS C025b Drawing 4 Typical Foundations, Installation Area and Construction Compound 7401 CB C026a Drawing 5 Typical Control Building 7401 CB C027a Drawing 6 Typical Access Tracks and Cable Trench 7401 CB C028a Figure 7 Site Entrance Access 7401/SL/256b

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 Carlos Clarke Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 58 Item No. 6(a)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 59 Item No. 6(b)

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

5TH AUGUST 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER:12/01068/PPP OFFICER: Dorothy Amyes WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Residential development including affordable housing and associated infrastructure SITE: Land South Of 10 Springwell Brae Broughton Scottish Borders APPLICANT: Mrs Emma Lambe AGENT: Strutt and Parker

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site comprises two fields bounded on the north east side by the Dreva Road and to the west by the Broughton Burn and existing housing and the playing fields. It covers an area of approximately 3.25 Hectares.

The northern half of the site is within the development boundary, while the (larger) southern half is not and from the widespread growth of rushes, shows signs of poor drainage. The site is located within the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This is an application for planning permission in principle for a residential development of 25 houses (including 6 affordable housing units) and associated infrastructure including roads, SUDS pond and a small bridge providing a pedestrian link to Smithycroft. An indicative layout has been submitted with the application which shows two vehicular accesses onto Dreva Road. This indicative layout has been amended and the proposed number of houses reduced from 30 to 25 to take into account the potential flooding of the site following consultation with SEPA and the Council’s Flood Protection Officer. The indicative layout shows a mixture of detached, semi-detached and small terraced properties.

The Design Approach submitted with the application indicates that the layout has been achieved by using the natural features already existing on the site i.e. the orientation of the drainage channel which crosses the site will become the route of a semi- formal tree lined route that leads down towards a bridge to access the southern part of the site.

Development along Dreva Road will be similar in context to the existing properties with single and two storey houses largely parallel to the road but set back. The road would be widened at the junctions to allow for passing places.

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

Parking will be provided within the site with a mixture of on street parking and rear courtyard parking. Pedestrian access through the site will be formed through a mixture of shared surfaces and new links to the school and Smithy Croft.

PLANNING HISTORY

Planning Applications

1962 – Planning consent was granted on 13 March 1962 for a housing development on this site (planning refT.P.148/61). This comprised of 36 houses on the main site plus a small number of houses in Smithy Croft. The main access to the site was over a bridge linking the site to Smithy Croft. The site was not allocated for housing in the Development Plan and approval had to be sought from the Secretary of State to amend the Plan. There is no time limit on this consent and it is accepted that it is still extant. No details of the proposed design of the dwellinghouses was submitted with the application and there is only a layout of the site indicating the position of the plots.

In 1971 and 1972 amendments to the layout were sought (planning ref. TP/EN/14/71) and a further revised layout was submitted in 1974 but was not progressed further.

In 1972 an application was made for the erection of one dwellinghouse to be located at the southern end of the site and this was subsequently approved with two conditions which related to a temporary access onto Dreva Road which was to be closed immediately that the alternative access through the housing development and Smithycroft to the A701. This house, Elmsfield, has been built.

Other houses within the original site boundary at Smithy Croft and along Dreva Road have been built under separate planning consents.

PAN – Prior to the submission of the current application a Pre-application Notification was submitted and public consultation was undertaken. A report on the consultations has been submitted with the application.

Settlement boundary

Of relevance to the deliberation on the application later in this report is the position of the settlement boundary.

In the Tweeddale Local Plan adopted 1996, the site was not allocated for housing but was within the settlement boundary. The site allocated for housing in this plan was south of the former hotel site – now Hawdene.

Similarly, Scottish Border Local Plan Adopted 2011 did not allocate the site for housing and only part of site was retained within the settlement boundary. There are two allocated sites within the settlement boundary, TB200 – on the opposite side of Dreva Road to the application site with an indicative number of units being 10 and TB10B at Springwell Brae again with an indicative number of 10 units. Both of these sites would require access onto Dreva Road.

There are no changes proposed to the settlement boundary through the current Local Development Plan review.

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

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Eleven letters of representation objecting to the development have been received from nine different households and one on behalf of the Bananas pre-school play group .

The objections can be summarised as follows: - if the land is developed it will increase the risk of flooding elsewhere in the village especially at Hawdene and Woodilee - access onto A701 is narrow and increase of traffic from development will create road safety issues - road safety issues along the Dreva Road - introduction of parking restrictions in a village situation not appropriate and might impact on village shop - lack of capacity in Primary School and impact on pre-school play group to cope with potential increase in pupils - potential capacity issues with water supply and drainage - lack of local demand for new housing - views of residents not taken into account at PAN stage - lack of public transport - no local employment – new housing will encourage commuters - little or no benefit to the community - inadequate screening - impact on wildlife - APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant has submitted the following documents in support of the application:

Supporting Statement Illustrative Layout Topographical Survey Pre-application Consultation Report Flood Risk Assessment and additional Flood Risk information Drainage Impact Assessment Design Approach Access Strategy Ecological Walkover Survey Correspondence from Agent dated 28 May 2013 and 19 July 2013

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SESplan Strategic Development Plan June 2013

Policy 1A – The Spatial Strategy: Development Locations Policy 1B – The Spatial Strategy: Development Principles Policy 5 – Housing Land Policy 6 – Housing Land Flexibility Policy 7 – Maintaining A Five Year Housing Land Supply Policy 8 – Transportation Policy 9 – Infrastructure Policy 11 – Delivering The Green Network Policy 12 – Green Belts Policy 13 – Other Countryside Designations Policy 14 – Waste Management And Disposal

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

Policy 15 – Water and Flooding

Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4 - Flooding Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy G7 – Infill Development Policy G8 – Development outwith Settlement Boundaries Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy D1 – Housing in the Countryside Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf3 – Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4 – Parking Standards Policy Inf5 – Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy Inf11 – Developments that Generate Travel Demand Policy EP1 - National Scenic Areas

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2010 Draft Scottish Planning Policy 2013 PAN 69 Planning & Flooding Supplementary Planning Guidance on Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking & Design 2010

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Archaeology Officer: There are no archaeological implications.

Ecology Officer: Adopting the Council’s requirements is given in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for biodiversity an ecological impact assessment is required.

River Tweed SAC

SNH (26/09/12) object to the proposal and advise that there is a likely significant effect on the qualifying interest of the site (River Tweed SAC) and that the Council is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying features. However, if planning conditions ensure that mitigation set out in their response is implemented, this will ensure that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Tweed SAC for the European qualifying interests. This will remove the need for an appropriate assessment and presumably remove their objection.

SEPA (19/09/12) also object to the proposal and require more information on the assessment of flood risk. SEPA welcome the proposals in the Flood Risk Assessment (section 5) that no development should be undertaken in the flood plain.

Ecological walkover survey

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

I am satisfied with the Ecological Walkover Survey carried out in January 2012. There are constraints on carrying out an extended phase 1 habitat survey at that time of year.

The fields where identified as being semi-improved grassland with dense areas of rushes. No evidence of protected species (otter and water vole) was recorded. Our records identify the site as potential flood plain fen (Borders Wetland Inventory) and semi-improved acid grassland (Phase 1 habitat inventory derived from aerial interpretation).

It is possible that the site is used by breeding birds and will support amphibia such as common frog and common toad. A species mitigation plan will be required to mitigate impacts on these species.

It is preferable that the SUDS pond is located exterior to the created/buffer woodland within the development site to present an open aspect to the surrounding floodplain to the south-east.

There are opportunities to enhance the habitat network of the site by planting native and riparian woodland (FCS Native seed zone 204) along the Broughton burn and within the functional floodplain non-development area. There are opportunities to create wetland and species rich grassland habitat and species rich hedgerows within the design of the site.

Recommendation:

x No development should occur in the functional flood plain of the Broughton burn (River Tweed SAC)

x Prior to the commencement of works a Species Mitigation and Management Plan (notably checking surveys for protected species (otter) and bats (if mature trees to be felled) and mitigation for breeding birds and amphibia) to be submitted to for the approval in writing by the Planning Authority. Any works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

x Prior to the commencement of works a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan, including native woodland creation (FCS Native seed zone 204., native thorn species rich extended hedgerows, wetland and grassland management and enhancements 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.

Flood Protection Officer: The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) prepared by SEPA indicates that the site is at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years. That is the 0.5% annual risk of a flood occurring in any year.

The Flood Risk Assessment and initial comments from SEPA were assessed and comments were made and further information requested. Following the receipt of the further information and the later comments from SEPA which removed their objection subject to certain mitigation measures being put in place, the following comments were made:

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

1. As indicated in my previous response I am happy that the areas to be developed are outwith the flood envelope. As the flow data has now been agreed with SEPA the applicant is now in a position to develop appropriate finished floor levels (FFL). As recommended in the FRA I would require that a freeboard of 600mm is included. In accordance with recommended good practice I would require that the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood levels are used to determine the FFL including 600mm freeboard.

2. In relation to the Unnamed Burn I undertook some simple calcs in relation to 1 in 200 year flows and the flow capacity of the 300mm pipe under Dreva Road at Springwell Brae. I agree with SEPA that the maximum flow of the pipe is less than the 1 in 200 year flow. Rainfall events in the past 12 months have shown that culverts of this size and also those which are larger are susceptible to backing up of water and also blockage by debris resulting in overtopping and overland flow. To mitigate this, the site layout should be designed which allows for excess overland flow to flow through the site without affecting individual dwellinghouses or gardens.

3. There is still no further information provided on the layout and the design of the bridges that were shown in the Sketch Layout Design which was submitted as part of the initial application. Structures such as these can have significant affect on the level and mechanisms of flooding and will be required to be investigated and designed thoroughly before the final site layout is confirmed. Again bridges should be located out with the indicated flood envelopes.

4. My comments with regards to SUD’s systems and Greenfield Run-Off are still as highlighted in my Consultation reply dated 3rd October 2012.

In summary I have no objection to the proposed development provided the following conditions are included.

1. No development should take place in the 1 in 200 year + CC floodplain as detailed in the flood design levels submitted on 9th January 2013. 2. Finished Floor Levels should be set above the 1 in 200 year + CC change flood levels with a freeboard of 600mm. 3. Overland flow paths through the site from Dreva Road which do not affect dwellinghouse or their gardens should be developed to mitigate the risk of flooding from blocked ditches and culverts in particular the Unnamed Burn at Springwells Brae and the Ratchill Burn. 4. The detail design of any bridges to be included as part of future development at this site should be submitted prior to any planning consent being given to ensure that such structures do not have an adverse affect on the flooding mechanisms at the site. 5. All SUD’s system information including Greenfield run-off calcs should be submitted prior to any planning consent being given.

The Flood Protection Officer reviewed the updated site layout and welcomed the fact that the SUD's pond has been moved outwith the Flood Envelope.

However, as it stands at the moment the information highlighted above would still be relevant in particular the required conditions. If these conditions are not fulfilled during the full application process the Flood Protection Officer would not be in a position to consent to the development.

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

Plans & Research Officer: It is acknowledged that there is an extant planning permission on the site. However, any planning application must be considered against current Planning Policy.

The Adopted Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 places the majority of the application site outwith the Development Boundary for Broughton. Therefore, the proposed development located outwith the Development Boundary must be assessed against Local Plan Policy G8.

As the proposal submitted through this application is not in line with Policy G8, Plans and Research are unable to support this application in its current form in that the proposed housing located outwith the Development Boundary is not an affordable housing development that can be justified under Policy H1 Affordable Housing.

In conclusion, the Plans and Research Section consider that this application does not comply with planning policy.

Landscape Officer: Query the proposal to develop the south eastern field on grounds of its poor drainage, my main concern is the potential impact on the Dreva Road. The size of the Dreva Road and the character of this road could be permanently altered by the need to widen the road to provide adequate vehicular and pedestrian access to this site (and the site on the east side of the road which is zoned for housing in the Local Plan.) I would hope that further consideration could be given to the access, both vehicular and pedestrian, which would ensure the retention of the majority of the roadside trees.

In light of the sensitive nature of the site and the Dreva Road in particular, I suggest that only the northern section of the site (within the development boundary) is developed, which would limit the impact on the roadside trees (the majority of which are located along the verge on the eastern boundary of the southern field) and that the field to the south (or at least some of it) is used to create structure and screen planting to the development.

I do not support the proposal as it stands as I consider there will be too great an impact on the trees along the Dreva Road, which have a special character that contributes to the area’s National Scenic Area status.

Roads Planning Officer: There have been significant pre-application discussions with regards to this site. It was stressed throughout these discussions that it would be desirable to have multiple access points to the site, with various options from Hawdene, Smithy Croft and Dreva Road available.

I understand that third party land and flooding issues meant that vehicular access from Hawdene and Smithy Croft were proving problematic. If access is to be taken solely from Dreva Road I will require direct pedestrian routes from the site to Smithy Croft and the playing fields/school. I will also require significant upgrades to Dreva Road, in terms of width, pedestrian facilities, lighting and an extension to the 30mph limit.

I will also require improvements to the junction of Dreva Road with the A701, this should be looked at in greater detail with any subsequent application, however it is likely to involve the ‘give way’ marking being pulled out into the A701. This will have the benefit of improving site lines whilst also adding essential radii to the junction which will help the passage of two vehicles at the bellmouth. A well designed improvement will also help to highlight the presence of what is an obscured access at

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(b) present. It should be noted that some parking restrictions may be required to help any proposed improvements work efficiently.

The upgrades and extra connectivity and integration will give the benefit of allowing the existing residents of Dreva Road and Springhill Brae a safer more user friendly route to the Primary School and surrounding areas. The improvements to the junction of Dreva Road and the A701 will also benefit the wider community as it is obvious from the planning file that there are concerns within the village with regards to this access as it stands at present.

As the application is currently in principle only any comments on the internal layout will be made at the detailed stage of design.

Development Negotiator: Education contributions are required towards the Peebles HS at the extension rate will be required, the prevailing rate being £1,213/house and £182/flat.

Although there is no identified requirement for the expansion of Broughton Primary School, should this position change in the future, there are circumstances under which the fresh policy position would be applied e.g. a renewal application or completely new one.

Affordable Housing - On-site provision of AH for developments exceeding 4 residential units will be required. The Housing Needs Assessment has identified a requirement for AH provision at a rate of 25% for this Housing Market Area.

It is potentially feasible that AH can be approved in planning terms on sites outwith designated settlement boundaries.

It currently appears unlikely that an RSL would seek to participate in a development opportunity in this location and at this juncture. Consequently, other policy compliant delivery mechanisms, and as detailed in the relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance, will require to be considered.

As this comprises a PPP application, I believe that it will be feasible to draft the associated and necessary S75, within reason, in a manner which will enable flexibility and without the requirement to be overly prescriptive.

Play Area - Concerns regarding the proposal to expand facilities at the Tennis Club, and in the absence of further communication on the matter, remain valid. It would therefore, in my view, be sensible to work on the basis that a cash contribution towards the expansion of the existing play area in Broughton would be a prudent default position unless a compelling case for alternative options is presented and accepted.

Statutory Consultees

Scottish Natural Heritage: Object to the application but will remove the objection if specific mitigation measures are put in place through suitably worded conditions on any consent.

The proposed development is in close proximity to the Broughton Burn (part of the River Tweed SAC). There is the potential for adverse impact on the SAC through siltation and other pollution, particularly to juvenile fish and eggs (salmon and lamprey species). In our view, this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(b) qualifying interests of the site. As a consequence, Scottish Borders Council is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interests. However, if the proposal is amended so that the works are done strictly in accordance with the following mitigation, this significant effect can be avoided and an appropriate assessment will not be required

River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC) - The development area is adjacent to the Broughton Burn, which is part of the River Tweed SAC, designated under the EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (the “Habitats Directive”), for its biological interest, including Atlantic salmon, river lamprey, brook lamprey, sea lamprey, European otter and as a watercourse characterised by Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion communities.

There are two small burns on the proposal site which drain into the Broughton Burn which could impact upon the SAC.

We note within the Drainage Impact Assessment that there is a Construction Methods Statement (CMS) which addresses potential pollutants and high risk work practices with the intention to follow the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s (SEPA) Pollution Prevention Guidelines. Scottish Borders Council need to be satisfied that the following mitigation is adequately covered in the CMS, but if not it should be addressed through the inclusion of suitably worded planning conditions addressing the following mitigation. x Encroachment onto the SAC should be avoided by the proposal and any associated infrastructure which leads to the loss of ‘natural’ riparian corridor with associated impacts, particularly on otters. Any built development should be kept back from the watercourse edge, to a minimum of 20m. The banks of the River Tweed should be temporarily fenced off at least 10m from the edge of the watercourse prior to the commencement of any development operations, separating the river and its banks from building operations etc, and providing an undeveloped buffer strip which retains the existing natural vegetation. Any plantings should be with appropriate native species on the river bank. No intervention work should be carried out on the watercourse itself. x Intervention work should not be carried out on the watercourse, for example through the use of hard engineering, leading to the loss of ‘natural’ riparian corridor and associated cumulative impacts. Development of the site may lead to the desire to tightly manage the riparian boundary and protect property through armouring. This would reduce in-stream habitat diversity with associated adverse impact on future passage through the river by otter, salmon, lamprey species and water-crowfoot habitat. x Contamination of the River Tweed with silt, building material or debris must be prevented during construction works or after their completion. There is the potential for adverse impact on the SAC through siltation and other pollution, particularly on juvenile fish and eggs (salmon and lamprey species). There should be no storage of materials or equipment on any areas which are vulnerable to flooding. x There should be no changes in floodplain dynamics through the loss of floodplain and the consequential loss of capacity for water storage during flood. This can put pressure on the watercourse and lead to the loss of supporting habitat for the qualifying features of the SAC. The storage capacity of the floodplain and the through flow of water should be safeguarded.

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

x Since the proposed development area is in such close proximity to the Broughton Burn, it is possible that the area is subject to flooding. SBC should satisfy itself that the proposed development accords with the provisions of the national planning policy guidance and advice, with particular regard to SPP 7 and PAN 69, prior to the determination of the application. SBC and SEPA should be satisfied that the proposal is not vulnerable to flooding and that the development does not compromise floodplain function, in particular loss of floodwater storage. We would wish to see details of any flood alleviation measures to assess any potential adverse impact on the SAC and seek assurance that storage capacity of the floodplain is safeguarded.

National Scenic Area (NSA) - This proposal is entirely within the Upper Tweeddale NSA. However, it will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the NSA or the qualities for which it has been designated.

Protected Species - We note the Ecological Walkover Survey conducted and that no evidence of protected species such as otter was found on the site.

No evidence of any other protected or notable species was recorded during the site surveys.

Scottish Water: Scottish Water does not object to this planning application. However, planning approval does not guarantee a connection to our infrastructure. Approval for connection can only be given by Scottish Water when the appropriate application and technical details have been received.

Due to the size of this proposed development it is necessary for Scottish Water to assess the impact this new demand will have on our existing infrastructure. With any development of 10 or more housing units, or equivalent, there is a requirement to submit a fully completed Development Impact Assessment form.

The water network that serves the proposed development may be able to supply the new demand.

Rosebery Water Treatment Works – has limited capacity available for new demand. The Developer should discuss their development directly with Scottish Water.

Water Network – Our initial investigations have highlighted there may be a requirement for the Developer to carry out works on the local network to ensure there is no loss of service to existing customers. The Developer should discuss the implications directly with Scottish Water.

Broughton Waste Water Treatment Works may have capacity to service this proposed development.

The waste water network that serves the proposed development may be able to accommodate the new demand.

Wastewater Network – Our initial investigations have highlighted there may be a requirement for the Developer to carry out works on the local network to ensure there is no loss of service to existing customers. The Developer should discuss the implications directly with Scottish Water.

In some circumstances it may be necessary for the Developer to fund works on existing infrastructure to enable their development to connect. Should we become

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(b) aware of any issues such as flooding, low pressure, etc the Developer will be required to fund works to mitigate the effect of the development on existing customers. Scottish Water can make a contribution to these costs through Reasonable Cost funding rules.

A totally separate drainage system will be required with the surface water discharging to a suitable outlet. Scottish Water requires a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) as detailed in Sewers for Scotland 2 if the system is to be considered for adoption.

Appropriately sized grease traps must be installed on all drainage outlets from food preparation areas. No substance may be discharged to the public sewerage system that is likely to interfere with the free flow of its content, have detriment to treatment / disposal of their contents, or be prejudicial to health.

If the connection to public sewer and/or water main requires to be laid through land out-with public ownership, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s). This should be done through a deed of servitude.

SEPA: SEPA originally objected to the proposal as the site is at risk of flooding contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and Pan 69. A Flood Risk assessment was been submitted with the application but SEPA required additional information.

Following the submission of additional information SEPA consider that they are in a position to remove their objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds provided that, should the Planning Authority be minded to approve this application, the following planning conditions are imposed (please note that if any of these conditions are not imposed, please consider this response as an objection):

* Any development is avoided within the 1:200 year floodplain as per the flood design level table in the letter dated the 9 January 2013.

* Any proposed footbridge or road bridges proposed are designed to convey a 1:200 year flow and not increase the risk of flooding to existing properties. Any approach embankments should not encroach into the 1:200 year floodplain. If the bridge can not be designed to show it will not increase the risk of flooding to existing properties it should be omitted from detailed planning application.

* The detailed layout of the housing within the site include appropriately sized overland flow relief channels to mitigate against for water spilling over Dreva Road (including the Ratchill and Unnamed Burn) into the site. It is recommended that these channels avoid including garden grounds of the proposed properties.

In the event that the planning authority proposes to grant planning permission contrary to this advice on flood risk the application must be notified to the Scottish Ministers as per The Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009.

As the information stands SEPA would advise the Local Authority that there are two issues still to resolve at this location. Whilst development is possible at this site, the layout and number of properties will be constrained.

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

Technical Report

1. We requested further information with regard to the site at Dreva Road, Broughton. Additional information has been submitted in the form of a letter clarifying some of the points we raised in an email dated 16 November 2012.

2. Our previous email indicates that the site is a risk of flooding and the FRA (dated November 2012) requires to be updated with corrected and further information submitted. There are still two items outstanding where further flood risk work is required prior to submission of final designs for site layout of housing at this location.

3. The tables have been updated which were contained in the FRA (Nov 2012 Appendix F) to show changes to the design flood level, including an allowance for climate change and sensitivity to mannings ‘n’ variation. These figures indicate that the flood design level on the Broughton Burn is slightly lower than the original FRA. It has been confirmed that this is due to the removal of the portion of the flow for the Ratchill Burn to be modelled to enter the Broughton Burn downstream of the site. The sensitivity analysis shows that flood design levels can vary between 0 and 100mm considering changes in flow (to allow for climate change), channel roughness and downstream boundary. We support the FRA which recommends that a freeboard of 600mm be applied to any finished floor levels of buildings.

4. The long section of the Ratchill and Broughton Burn has been reproduced minus an error contained in the FRA (Nov 2012).

5. Details have been submitted about the dimensions of the Unnamed Burn culvert under Dreva Road. The consultants indicate from the model outputs that this culvert has the capacity to convey a 1:200 year flow. From a simple manning’s calculation using the same parameters as the consultants we are not able to agree with this view and the culvert may only convey a significantly smaller flow. This may also be supported by the evidence that other culverts (Ratchill Burn) on this stretch of road have not been able to convey flows and have flooded the road previously. There is still very limited information available regarding the consequences of overland flow from potentially block culverts from the small watercourses spilling over the road and entering the site. Were water flows over the road (from the unnamed Burn and Ratchill Burn) we recommend that an appropriate relief channels are proposed to allow the flow to enter back into the Burns or channelled to the Broughton Burn without affecting the proposed housing. These channels have the potential to constrain the layout and numbers of housing appropriate on this site. For example the unnamed Burn flows between two existing houses to the NE of the site. If water were to flow directly SW (as indicated in the letter 9 Jan 2013) over the road it would enter this site and potentially affect 4 houses (as per the “Sketch” Layout Drawing No 0.01 Revision A) before entering the Broughton Burn. The site layout plan should be altered to account for appropriately designed relief channels. We also recommend that garden grounds are kept out with these areas to allow easy access and maintenance of it. This will also prevent unplanned alterations by residents.

6. Neither the FRA nor the letter has taken account for proposed new bridges on the Broughton Burn (footbridge) and in the site (footbridge and road bridge). They have the potential to alter the site layout required within the site. For instance the footbridge over the Broughton burn would need to show that it can be constructed so

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6(b) as not to increase the risk to the existing houses as well as the proposed houses. We highlight that any bridging solutions should be designed to leave the bed and banks of the watercourse in a natural state and should be limited to a single span bridge with the deck level above the 1:200 flood level with no abutments / embankments encroaching into the floodplain or channel.

7. The 1:200 year flood design levels have been estimated on three watercourses and are documented within the “Design Water Level” table of the letter dated 9 January 2013. All development should be avoided within these areas. This would include the raising of land to create bridges or embankments for approaches to any bridge. The flood extent map (Figure 6.1 in the Nov 2012 FRA) has been superimposed onto the development sketch layout plan to show that development can occur in a large area of the boundary of the site. However, would like to highlight that we can not fully accept Figure 6.1 and the drawing previously submitted “Sketch Layout Plan Revision A – 1:1000@A3 dated 23.07.012 by Camerons Drawing No 0.01 Revision A” due to the lack of detail about how overland flow resulting from out of bank flows from the small watercourses (Unnamed Burn and Ratchill Burn) will be managed through the site.

8. We recommend that the applicant contacts the Flood Prevention Authority for guidance on an appropriate freeboard allowance for development design levels in this area. The finished floor levels should also be set an appropriate height above the 1:200 year flood level (and an allowance for climate change as modelled if required by the Flood Prevention Authority). For information we recommend within our technical guidance in line with CIRIA report C624 a freeboard allowance of 500 to 600mm to account for uncertainties involved in flood design and physical imponderables such as post construction settlement. This freeboard would be in addition to an allowance for climate change.

Upper Tweed Community Council: The community council object to the development on the following grounds:

Flooding – the field where the development is proposed is currently a soakaway and if much of the field is concreted over there is a risk that heavy rainfall will cause a sudden runoff into the Broughton Burn which could overflow into neighbouring properties.

We recommend that a sufficiently strong standard should be adopted for measuring the likelihood of flooding so that any risk of flooding in the next 20 years, based on historic weather patterns is reduced, making an allowance for climate change. Consideration should also be given to the possibility of the developer installing additional flood barriers to protect existing properties.

Access - The proposed access to the A701 from the Dreva Road could well be inadequate to cope safely with the volume of traffic which it is likely to be generated from the development especially when account is also taken of the traffic from other development sites included in the Local Plan. Remain sceptical about the suggested changes at the junction and consider that traffic lights would become necessary to give an acceptable standard of safety. The problem would not be so great if the site was to be developed at a significantly lower density. We believe that there are other alternative accesses onto the A701 which should be fully explored. These include -via Hawdene - via Smithy Croft

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

- via a new stretch of road which would run from the Dreva Road behind the village hall car park and out to the A701 at a new junction slightly to the north of the entrance to the car park

Other concerns Capacity constraints at the sewage works Lack of extra capacity at pre-school playgroup Strain on capacity of Broughton Primary school

Conclusion

As currently proposed the development is considered to be unacceptable and we therefore object to it. In particular we believe that the proposed housing density should be reduced which would help with flooding and access problems, and would also help to maintain the village’s attractive character as a rural community. This rural character of Broughton has been adversely affected by the density of some of the other developments which have been approved in recent years and we consider that the density which is proposed on such a central site would further aggrevate the position.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Whether the proposal comply with the current Development Plan policies for housing development in the Broughton area and whether the proposals will have any significant adverse impact on the National Scenic Area, the local landscape, the ecology of the area and the character and residential amenity of the village.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Policy

Housing Supply

SESplan Stategic Development Plan Policy 7 relates to maintaining a five year housing land supply and states that:

‘Sites for greenfield housing development proposals either within or outwith the identified strategic development areas may be allocated in local development plans or granted planning permission to maintain a five years’ effective housing land supply, subject to satisfying each of the following criteria: a) The development will be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area: b) The development will not undermine green belt objectives; and c) Any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either committed or to be funded by the developer.’

The agent for the developer has responded to this new policy by indicating that approving this application it would enable the “ownership constraint” to be removed from this site in the Housing Land Audit and enable it to make an effective contribution to the 5 year land supply and help in meeting any potentially increased requirement that might arise from the SESplan Supplementary Guidance that has yet

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

to be prepared. The ownership constraints relate to the required access via Smithy Croft.

The agent also expresses the view that the development will be entirely in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area, filling in a logical gap in the settlement which has previously been considered suitable for development and currently benefits from an extant planning permission. In addition, he confirms that any additional infrastructure will either be provided by Scottish Water on receipt of planning permission, or by the developer.

In relation to the Housing Land Audit, the site has consistently been included due to the planning permission on site. Currently the Audit details that the site has a capacity of 25 units of which 6 have been completed. The remaining 19 units (Established Supply) are identified as constrained. Whilst the site has been included within the established housing land supply, due to the constrained nature of the site it has not been included as part of the effective supply.

The site continues to be included within the Housing Land Audit because as noted in Planning Advice Note 2/2010:

“A housing land audit should contain relevant information about the established and effective housing land supply, allowing for monitoring and comparison with the housing land requirement. The starting point each year will be the inclusion of: • all land with planning permission for residential development, including the remaining capacity of sites under construction; …”

The housing numbers did rise as a consequence of the site being allocated within the Finalised Local Plan 2005 but as the site was removed from the Plan (due to a Reporters recommendation) the numbers were subsequently reduced.

The Finalised Housing Land Audit 2012 found that the Northern Housing Market Area has 5.8 years supply when comparing the effective supply with historic completions; or 6.4 years of housing supply when comparing the requirement in the SESplan Housing Need and Demand Assessment compared to five year effective supply.

Therefore there is no requirement for further housing land to be brought forward within the short term as the Consolidated Local Plan already provides a generous supply as required by Scottish Planning Policy. (It should also be noted that the Housing Land Requirement set out in the Consolidated Structure Plan already contained an additional 20% for flexibility and this was brought forward through the Local Plan Amendment.)

In policy terms, there is no short term requirement for this additional housing allocation.

It is noted in the SESplan Strategic Development Plan 2013 that ‘there is a significant amount of land currently allocated or with planning permission across the SESplan area. The extent to which those sites remain capable of delivering house completions by 2024 will be re-assessed in local development plans. Where necessary, alternative sites will be allocated, and a five years’ effective housing land supply will be maintained at all times to ensure that delivery is not unnecessarily constrained.’

The site is not required as there is a sufficient housing supply in the area and therefore, an approval of the planning consent cannot be justified at the present time.

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

Development Plan

In the current Local Plan adopted in 2011 part of site is outwith settlement boundary.

In the Inquiry considering the Local Plan the whole of the site was suggested as a site for housing allocation and it is considered appropriate to copy the Reporter’s decision in full below (Chapter 8, SouthTweeddale 8-6 HMA(Landward) )

‘Turning to the effectiveness of site TB9 (Elmsfield), I agree that it is obviously very boggy, and appears to lie partly in the little flood plain of the Broughton Burn. This ‘burn serves a significant hill catchment area, so it easy to envisage spate conditions affecting the site. This may explain the lack of development despite the stated existence of a planning permission for many years. It is not clear what extent of flood prevention works would be required; what knock on effects they might have elsewhere; and whether development here would comply with the more stringent planning policies relating to flood risk that have been introduced in recent years, especially with regard to land raising. I note the Council’s comments about the improved housing market in the area in recent years, but (in the absence of a flood risk assessment and a business case) it is not possible to conclude that this has made this site financially viable. I also note the criticisms of the Dreva Road, which may also have deterred interest in this site for such a large number of houses. For these reasons, I conclude from the prolonged absence of development on this site that it is not effective, and I am not convinced by the Council’s submissions that there is good reason to expect the situation to change. Deletion of the site from the local plan would not take away any right to develop in accordance with an extant planning permission, if one exists.

Recommendation Delete site TB9 from local plan (all references) and amend development boundary accordingly.’

These conclusions were accepted by the council and the settlement boundary was adjusted accordingly. This fact does not support the views expressed by the applicant’s agent that the settlement boundary at this location is an anomaly.

The site therefore can be divided into two sections and assessed under different Local Plan policies. The section within the settlement boundary should be assessed under policy G7 – Infill Development while the section outwith the settlement boundary must be assessed under policy G8 – Development Outwith Settlement boundaries and D2 – Housing in the Countryside.

Firstly, assessing the part of the site within the settlement boundary, appropriate housing development which avoids the areas liable to flooding will not conflict with the established land use of the area or conflict with the character or amenity of the area. As shown on the revised indicative layout it would be possible to build 13 dwellinghouses on the site, 25% of which could be affordable housing. This number of houses would have a smaller impact on the traffic on the Dreva Road, on infrastructure and on the capacity of the primary school to take in additional pupils. Although vehicular access to this part of the site would be via the Dreva Road a pedestrian/cycle route could be provided to Smithy Croft. This would provide ease of access to the school, village shop and cafe, post office and to the bus stops. It is unlikely that the development would have significant adverse impacts on the existing residential developments and issues relating to any potential overlooking or over

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(b) shadowing could be addressed at the detailed planning stage. It is considered that it would not be unreasonable to allow the required SUDs pond and drainage to be located outwith this part of the site and in the location shown on the submitted plan. It is considered that, if the application was for this part of the site alone, it is likely that it could be supported subject to appropriate conditions, particularly in relation to flooding and protection of the nature conservation interests of the River Tweed SAC, and a legal agreement to secure the required development contributions. This part of the site is considered to comply with policy G7 – Infill Development.

Secondly, when assessing that part of the site outwith the settlement boundary, the amended layout indicates that 12 dwellinghouses would be constructed on this part of the site. It has been suggested that the affordable housing element of the development could be located in this area.

Policy G8 - Development outwith Development Boundaries states that proposals for new development outwith the settlement boundary and not on an allocated site identified on the proposals map will normally be refused. There can be exceptions to this provided that there are strong economic reasons, that the development provides required affordable housing, meets a housing land supply deficit or significant community benefit.

Although jobs would be generated during the construction phase, the development of houses at this location would not be job generating in the long term and it is considered that the proposal cannot be justified in economic terms.

It is proposed that the affordable housing element of the scheme could be built within this area but this would only be 6 units of the 12 units proposed outwith the settlement boundary. The development would not therefore be consistent with policy in that limited evidence of housing need has been provided for the units and also that the proposal would include a similar proportion on open market units.

As noted elsewhere, although the site has been included in the housing land audit due to the extant planning consent, the existence of a current 5 year effective land supply and also allocatations for 20 house units at two sites elsewhere in Broughton which are available for development, mean that the development is not consistent with Polgy G8 (3).

The development, if approved, has the potential to provide a number of community benefits including safer access to the school and playing fields for existing residents along Dreva Road, an improvement of the junction of Dreva Road and the A701, in addition to some affordable housing and improvements to the existing play facilities or possibly improvements to the tennis courts. However, it would impact on the capacity of the school, other services and infrastructure and add to traffic along Dreva Road. It is considered that at the present time there is no demonstrable demand for affordable housing, and as there are few employment opportunities in the area, it would increase commuter traffic on the A701.

It is acknowledged that there is an extant planning consent on the site but this has not been developed over 50 years and it would appear that no developers have shown an interest in developing the site during this time. To approve a new application for this site to achieve development contributions which would not be payable under the old consent is not a valid reason for approving an application.

It is considered that the proposals do not offer significant community benefits that outweigh the need to protect the Development boundary.

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

In relation to policy D2 – Housing in the Countryside, the preferred location for housing is in village locations.

Flooding

It is acknowledged that there are flooding issues over part of the site and extensive work has been undertaken to demonstrate the likely risks to both new houses and the existing residential development in the village and to identify mitigation measures. As a result of this work, a revised indicative layout has been submitted and the proposed number of houses reduced from 30 to 25. Subject to a number of conditions and further work being undertaken at the detailed planning stage both SEPA and the Council’s Flood Protection Officer are satisfied that the development could be supported.

Access

The extant planning consent clearly shows access to the site from the A701 being via Smithy Croft and a bridge over the Broughton Burn. The later consent for one house, Elmsfield, allowed the property to be constructed subject to the temporary access onto Dreva Road being closed when the access via Smithy Croft was completed.

This clearly demonstrates that, even 50 years ago when there would have been considerably less traffic, the Dreva Road and its junction with the A701 was not considered suitable for additional traffic.

However, the applicant’s agent has had detailed discussions with staff in Roads Planning Services and it is their view that with improvements along Dreva Road and at the junction with the A701 the application could be supported. It should also be noted that the two sites allocated for housing in Broughton in the Local Plan would both use the Dreva Road/A701.

The applicant has submitted an Access Strategy in support of the application which addresses mitigation and additional pedestrian access through the site.

Whilst it would be preferable to look at alternative access points to the site any new access would have an impact on nearby residents and given that Roads Planning are not objecting to the proposals, subject to improvements, the issues raised are not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application on access and road safety grounds.

Landscape

The site is located within an area of open space sloping down towards the Broughton Burn and separating the housing developments along Dreva Road and those along the A701.

It is considered that the proposed housing will not have a significant adverse impact on the wider landscape and will not affect the National Scenic Area. However, there are potential local impacts due to the loss of trees along the Dreva Road which are considered to be an important landscape feature. Structure planting is shown on the indicative layout which will help to reduce any impact of the buildings and provide a green corridor along the burn. It is considered that if the committee are minded to approve the application, further consideration should be given to retaining as many of the mature trees as possible along the Dreva Road. Further details of the landscaping would be considered at the detailed planning stage.

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

Subject to the appropriate landscaping and notwithstanding other policy considerations noted above, it is considered that the development would not significantly prejudice the character of the village or its landscape setting.

Ecology

The Broughton Burn which runs through the site is part of the River Tweed SAC and any housing development close to the burn will have implications for the wildlife and qualifying interests of the SAC. SNH have objected to the application as they considered that there is the potential for adverse impact on the SAC through siltation and other pollution, particularly to juvenile fish and eggs (salmon and lamprey species). The Council’s Ecologist has also raised concerns. However, it is acknowledged that there is mitigation that can be put in place and, if the committee are minded to approve the application, it is suggested that the conditions required by SNH and the Council’s Ecologist should be placed on the consent. If this is the outcome, SNH would remove their objection.

Infrastructure and public facilities

Scottish Water have not objected to the proposed development but there are issues relating to capacity that will require further discussions between Scottish Water and the developer as some upgrading of existing facilities may be required.

A SUDs pond is proposed to be located at the south western end of the site for surface water drainage.

Although Peebles High School is nearing capacity (and development contributions are required for an extension) it is considered that there is still capacity at Broughton Primary School although this may change in the future. It is recognised that any capacity issues at the Primary School may also impact on the pre-school play group.

However, this is an application for planning permission in principle and, as far as is known, there is no developer in place to take the proposals forward to the detailed planning stage. It is considered that these matters should therefore be considered again if the proposals were to reach a detailed planning stage.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is considered that, notwithstanding an extant planning consent on the site, the proposals as submitted are not acceptable as part of the site is located outwith the settlement boundary and it has not been demonstrated that an exception can be made in terms of policy G8 – Development outwith Development Boundaries. There is no immediate requirement for additional housing to be added to the effective housing land supply.

However, it is considered that the portion of the site within the development boundary does comply with policy G7 for infill development and, if Members are minded to accept the recommendation to refuse the application, that an informative should be placed on any decision notice informing the applicant that should an application be resubmitted for housing development on this part of the site that the application is more likely to be supported.

The proposed development raises a number of issues relating to flooding, impact on the River Tweed SAC, access and road safety but if appropriate mitigation is put in

Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 6(b) place any potential adverse impacts can be overcome. Infrastructure improvements may be required but it is likely that these can be achieved without any adverse impacts on existing residents.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES::

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

1. The proposals development is contrary to Policy G8 of the consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 in that over half the site is outwith the Development boundary of Broughton and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are exceptional reasons for granting approval that outweigh the need to protect the Development Boundary. In this respect, there is no shortfall in the effective 5 year housing land supply in the Western Borders, the development would not offer significant community benefits or wholly affordable housing and there is no economic justification for the development. The development, if permitted, would lead to a unacceptable unplanned expansion of the settlement contrary to the principles of the Development Plan that seek to ensure development is effectively assimilated into the form and nature of the settlement and that the settlement has the capacity to accommodate programmed growth within the lifespan of the Local Plan.

Informative:

The proposals for developing the land within the existing Development boundary for housing comply with Local Plan policies for Infill Development and any new application for this part of the site may be given favourable consideration.

DRAWING NUMBERS

90604 0.01 Rev C – Sketch Site Layout Plan Location Plan Illustrative Layout Supporting Statement 10/019/01 - Topographical Survey Pre-application Consultation Report Flood Risk Assessment and additional Flood Risk information Drainage Impact Assessment Design Approach Access Strategy Ecological Walkover Survey

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 20 Item No. 6(b)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 Item No 6(c)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

5th AUGUST 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00610/FUL OFFICER: Deborah Chalmers WARD: Hawick and Hermitage PROPOSAL: Change of use from commercial and alterations to form dwellinghouse SITE: 9 Crown Close, Backdamgate, Hawick APPLICANT: Mr K Elliot AGENT: Stuart Patterson Building & Timber Frame Design

CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE:

This application requires to be determined by the Planning and Building Standards Committee because the site is in the ownership of the Council. Under the adopted Scheme of Delegated, a Committee decision is required on applications in which the Council has an interest.

SITE DESCRIPTION:

9 Crown Close, Hawick is situated within the Hawick Conservation Area and Town Centre boundary, as identified within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. The property is not a listed building. The building is located to the south of the High Street and is accessed from ‘Backdamgate’, lying within a cul-de-sac. The surrounding area is characterised by residential and other town centre uses such as retail and office buildings. The building is partially attached to the rear of the restaurant located at No.14 High Street and to the rear elevation of No.7 Crown Close.

The property is a two storey building finished in creme wet dash render, slate roofing and timber sash and case windows (painted white) with stone cills. The building is owned by Scottish Borders Council and is currently vacant, with the last use being offices. There is associated car parking to the front of the property, also in Council ownership, which would form part of the sale of the property.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use from former offices to residential use at No. 9 Crown Close, Hawick. The proposal includes the replacement of the upper floor window on the south east elevation. The upper floor window requires to be replaced for Building Standards Regulations, in respect of fire escape. The existing window has a 3 over 6 glazing pattern, with a small upper opening, which currently does not meet Building Standards Regulations. The proposal includes replacing the window with a tilt and turn or reversible style window to provide fire escape, in a style to match the existing with a 3 over 6 glazing pattern. However, the final design and details have not been agreed to date. The proposed dwelling will accommodate a lounge, w.c and kitchen on the ground floor and two bedrooms and bathroom on the upper floor. The proposal also includes the following

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No 6(c) minor alterations; inclusion of two extractor fan outlets on the front elevation, passive trickle vent on the side elevation and new vent stack/drainage for the first floor bathroom.

PLANNING HISTORY:

No planning history associated with the proposed development.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY:

There have been no representations to date.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

The agent submitted a Design Statement which states that there will be no major external alterations and the feature slate roof and external walls will remain the same, with only one window requiring to be altered to meet the fire escape regulations within the current building standards. The only other external changes are the inclusion of two extractor fan outlets to the front elevation, a passive trickle vent to the side elevation and the formation of a new vent stack/drainage conneation for the first floor bathroom.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011:

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy BE2: Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy BE4: Conservation Areas Policy ED5: Town Centres Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards Policy G5: Developer Contributions

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Guidance:

Replacement Windows (2012) Privacy & Sunlight Guide (2006)

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees:

Education: No contribution towards education provision is sought as part of the proposal.

Roads Planning Service: Advised no objection to the principle of the building being regenerated as a dwelling. However, the Officer initially had concerns regarding the parking provision, advising there is no dedicated parking proposed within the submission and the parking immediately in front of the property is not public. Furthermore, the surrounding roads are already experiencing difficulties with parking. However, as the current planning guidance is generally to support such changes of use within town centres and given that the previous use of the building would have

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No 6(c) generated traffic, the Roads Planning Service do not object to the proposal . The applicant however will have to accept that they may not be able to gain vehicular access to the front of the property.

The agent responded to the above comments, highlighting that there is a designated parking space within the private courtyard area under the ownership of the building and a ‘visitor’ parking area within the courtyard. The Roads Planning Service were re-consulted and advised that they now had no objections.

Archaeology Officer: The Officer was initially consulted and advised that the building dates back to between 1824 and 1858 and is of local historic significance. Its redevelopment is beneficial to the historic environment of Hawick as it will ensure its long term survival. It is the Officer’s understanding that the building has been modified internally in recent years. That said, there is a possibility that the redevelopment of the building will reveal evidence of its original use and history over time. The Officer recommends that the building undergo BASIC historic building survey and recording after all stripping out work has finished but before the existing staircase is removed. This should be done to current historic building survey standards and ideally by a qualified buildings archaeologist. In addition, they recommended that as many original features as possible be incorporated into the final design of the dwellinghouse. The Officer recommended that if the Council is minded to approve the application, a condition should be attached requesting a developer funded historic building survey of the property.

The agent provided further information in response to the above and the Archaeology Officer was re-consulted. The Officer later advised that if the proposal does not involve stripping out, then there is no requirement for a building recording, as outlined above.

Statutory Consultees:

Hawick Community Council: No response to date.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

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

x Is an appropriate use for a town centre location; x Would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; x Would impact upon the residential amenity or visual amenities of the wider area.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Policy

The proposal to change the use of the existing building to residential has to be assessed against the Council’s policies, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

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

Principle

The site is located within the Hawick Town Centre, however, outwith the Prime Retail Frontage area, therefore, the provisions outlined within Policy ED5 apply. The policy aims to encourage an appropriate mix of town centre uses that will maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. Outwith the ground floor level of defined Prime Retail Frontages, the Council will support a wide range of uses appropriate to a town 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 centres will be maintained and enhanced. Any proposed development which would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the town centre will be refused. Policy G1, aims to ensure that development does not negatively impact upon the existing buildings, or surrounding landscapes or visual amenity of the area.

It is considered that the proposed change of use to a dwelling is an appropriate use for a town centre location, in accordance with Policy ED5. It is noted that the annual footfall study of Hawick town centre has seen the number of pedestrians drop annually since the survey began in 2007. However, it is not considered that the proposal will have a negative impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre, given that the property is currently vacant and not generating any footfall at present. Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposal will result in any adverse impacts upon the existing building, surrounding landscape or the visual amenities of the wider area. Overall, the re-use of this building is to be welcomed and the principle is in compliance with Policy G1 & ED5.

Conservation area

Policy BE4, states that the Council aims to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Replacement Windows (2012), advises that for Conservation Area locations, where white painted timber sash and case units are the predominant window type, white coated upvc or white coated aluminium sash and case units will be acceptable alternatives, although timber if preferred. In all instances, the general glazing patter should mirror the existing unless there are strong reasons for permitting a change.

Development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on its character or appearance will be refused. All new development must be located and designed to preserve or enhance the special architectural or historic character of the Conservation Areas. Other than some minor alterations and replacement of one window, there are no other external changes proposed to the appearance of the existing building. The exact details of the replacement window have not been agreed to date, therefore a condition will be attached to planning consent, requesting that the precise details, design, materials and method of opening of the replacement window, are submitted to and agreed with the Planning Service. This will ensure the replacement window is in compliance with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Replacement Windows (2012). The Planning Service do not consider that the proposed changes will result in an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the wider Conservation Area and that the proposal is in line with Policy BE4.

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

Amenity

Policy H2, states that all development that is judged to have an adverse impact upon the amenity of residential area will not be permitted. It is acknowledged, there are residential properties located within the immediate vicinity, which must be taken into consideration. The windows are positioned on the front and side elevations of the property, overlooking the existing car parking area. It is not considered that the proposed development would result in any overlooking concerns. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed use is typical for such a town centre location and would not give rise to any adverse impacts upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties or the visual amenities of the wider area, in compliance with Policy H2 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Privacy & Sunlight (2006).

Roads

Policy Inf4 is designed to ensure that development proposals incorporate adequate provision for car parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards. The Roads Planning Service were consulted in respect of the parking provision associated with the proposed dwelling. They advised that they have no objection to the proposed development and it is acceptable. The agent has confirmed that there is a designated parking space within the private courtyard under the ownership of the building. This will be written in the title deeds for the property. Although there is only a single parking space allocated, there is also a defined ‘visitor’ parking area within the courtyard. The Planning Service consider that the proposal complies with Policy Inf4.

Developer Contribution

There is no developer contribution required for the proposal.

Archaeology

Policy BE2, aims to give historical sites protection from any potentially damaging development. Archaeological sites represent an irreplaceable part of the Scottish Borders heritage. The Archaeology Officer initially advised that there is a possibility that the redevelopment of the building will reveal evidence of its original use and history over time. The Officer recommended that the building undergo BASIC historic building survey and recording after all stripping out work has finished but before the existing staircase is removed. In addition, he recommended that as many original features as possible should be incorporated into the final design of the dwelling and that a funded historic building survey should be undertaken of the property.

The agent responded, advising that the property had already been stripped of all existing features. The ground floor had been re-laid with a new concrete slab, complete with damp proof membrane. The inner face of the external walls had all been stripped, re-framed, insulated and plaster boarded. The existing staircase is of modern timber construction, of which there is no apparent historical significance. As a result of the modernisation, the developer has no intention of stripping back any of the walls.

The Archaeology Officer was re-consulted in respect of the above information and advised that if the proposal does not involve stripping out, there is no requirement for a building recording, as outlined above. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is in compliance with Policy BE2.

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

CONCLUSION:

It is considered that the proposed development would comply with policies G1, H2, BE2, BE4, ED5 and Inf4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Sunlight & Privacy (2006) and Replacement Windows (2012). It would not harm the residential amenities of occupants, neighbouring properties, visual amenities of the area, or the character and appearance of the conservation area and would be an appropriate use for the building.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

2. Notwithstanding the description in the application, prior to the commencement of development precise details of the replacement window (including design, material, method of opening, profile and thickness), to be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Drawing Reference General 13-426-PL-1002 Existing Layout 13-426-PL-1001

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(c)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No 6(d)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

5th AUGUST 2013

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00369/FUL OFFICER: Stuart Herkes WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Change of use from ancillary studio to business use (retrospective) SITE: Studio, Fairydean Mill, Black Barony, Old Manse Road, Eddleston, Peebles, Scottish Borders, EH45 8QW APPLICANT: Mr David Cessford & Ms Mandi MacKenzie AGENT: KCC Consulting Ltd

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is an existing outbuilding (‘Studio’) within the curtilage of a residential property at ‘Fairydean Mill’, around 0.6km to the northwest of, and out with the Development Boundary at, Eddleston.

The dwellinghouse was formed from the conversion of a former mill, and the Studio, a new build structure, replaced a pre-existing garage. These two buildings lie either side of an access road that is shared with surrounding properties, and to the immediate south of the point at which the same road crosses the Fairydean Burn.

The Studio is a split-level building, providing accommodation over two floors, which lies immediately adjacent to the aforementioned access road. In closest proximity to the road, it is a one-and-three-quarters-storey structure, with first floor accommodation facilitated by wide dormers on its northeast elevation. To the rear, it is single storey only, but due to the requirement to negotiate a steep slope at this point, this accommodation is accessed internally, at first floor level. The roof is slated; the walls are rendered (although observed to be unfinished at the time of the Planning Officer’s site visit); and the windows, doors and external joinery, are timber.

The dwellinghouse lies to the northeast of the Studio, and occupies a position between the aforementioned access road (to its north and west) and the Fairydean Burn (to its north and east). It is clad in similar materials to the Studio.

The access road which the residential property at ‘Fairydean Mill’ straddles, is shared with other properties in the surrounding area, and is both a Core Path (150) and a Right of Way (BT 46). Uphill of the main access to Barony Castle, this road is narrow and undulating, with two very pronounced bends along its course (one to the immediate north, and one to the south, of the site). This section serves four residential properties: the applicants’ own home at ‘Fairydean Mill’; and three others, ‘Black Barony Home Farm’ and ‘The Fairydean Lodge’ (both further uphill of, but on the same side of the Fairydean Burn as, the site) and ‘Dean Cottage’ (which lies on the opposite side of the Burn, and is accessed from a point just before the road crosses the Burn to the site).

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

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application seeks retrospective planning consent for the accommodation of a business use - specifically the operation of the applicants’ wedding cake-making business - within the Studio at ‘Fairydean Mill’.

PLANNING HISTORY

Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL approved the conversion (alterations and extension) of the former mill building at Fairydean Mill, and the erection of the new- build Studio building on the site of the pre-existing garage. This consent was subject to seven planning conditions, including the seventh; which explicitly requires:

The studio to be ancillary to the use of the dwellinghouse and not to be occupied as a separate studio/workshop or residential unit. Reason: Permission is for one dwellinghouse only and to safeguard the residential amenity of occupiers of the dwellinghouse.

This, according to the above noted reason given for its imposition, is to safeguard the residential amenity of occupiers of the dwellinghouse at ‘Fairydean Mill’ itself. Accordingly, the planning condition is understood to have been imposed, firstly, to ensure that the Studio would not be used as an independent dwellinghouse, and secondly, to prevent any potential conflict that might arise due to the close proximity of the two buildings that were approved by Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL, in the event that these were to end up in separate occupations/ownerships; including any scenario in which the outbuilding might operate independently of the dwellinghouse as a separate business premises.

There are discrepancies between the design of outbuilding that was originally consented by Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL and that which has actually been built. (The latter is also not consistent with drawings that were provided by the Applicants at the time of the current planning application). This matter has been drawn to the Applicants’ attention, and at the time of writing, the agent has advised that revised drawings describing the actual building are to be prepared. The building as constructed has been viewed on-site by the Planning Officer, and appears to have been built higher than the consented design, while the front walls of the dormers rise directly from, and flush with, the wallhead on the front (northeast) elevation. Objectors correctly note an additional window at first floor level.

Further to the issuing of Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL, a revised design for the main dwellinghouse, and the subject of Planning Application 09/01384/FUL, was allowed at appeal (Planning Consent 09/01384/FUL).

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Objections have been received from six different households (three of whom are also represented by the advice of a Planning Consultant who has made four separate representations on his clients’ behalf, including details of the objectors’ own survey of vehicle movements at the site). These objections specifically advise that the proposal is contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policies D1, D2, ED2, H2, Inf2, G1, G8, and Inf11. The identified grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:

x No demonstrable need/justification for a countryside location;

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

x It could more reasonably be operated from within the Development Boundary; there are existing and available business premises/employment land within the Development Boundary (at South Park and Cavalry Park in Peebles); x Surrounding area lacks the appropriate infrastructure to accommodate the operation of a business (in the past, the Roads Planning Section has had concerns about new residential development); it cannot coexist satisfactorily with surrounding uses due to access concerns; x It would have an unacceptable impact upon road safety, including the safety of pedestrians; dogs; cyclists; and horses/horse riders; using the Right of Way/Core Path; x Road unsuitable to accommodate traffic impact associated with operation of business (employees; customers; deliveries from and to premises) in addition to existing residential properties and applicants’ own B&B business; x Account needs to be taken of the impacts on the surrounding area, associated with the continued growth of the business; x Siting encourages over-reliance on motor vehicles, whereas operation within a development boundary would afford greater and more sustainable access opportunities; x No significant economic or employment benefit to be derived from its proposed siting; and it cannot coexist satisfactorily with surrounding issues due to access concerns; x Need for a business justification for countryside location (now provided) x In its size and scale, the proposed business is not appropriately ancillary to the residential use of the property; x In its size and scale, the proposed business is not sympathetic to the predominantly rural and residential nature of the surrounding area; x Operation of a business from the premises is contrary to the requirements of a planning condition on the original consent for this building; x Applicant should have sought to remove or vary the planning condition which restricts use of the premises to residential only; x Not a justifiable exception to Adopted Local Plan Policy G8, particularly since it offers no significant community benefit; x It is a travel-generating proposal but is not sustainably located; x Lack of information about transport arrangements (prior to submission of applicant’s Mini-Transport Statement’); x Planning agent has provided records of traffic movements within April this year; which it is advised demonstrate normal traffic movements of up to six vehicles per day (results are shown to vary between three and eight vehicles); x It would not appropriately protect public access rights over the access track; x unacceptable impact upon amenity of neighbouring residential properties; x Studio does not conform to the approved design; x Applicants continue to offer three bedrooms for Bed & Breakfast use; x No account should be taken by Planning Authority of fact that business is extant and operational; x If consent were granted, and existing business moved on, the premises would be liable to be occupied by a new business.

20 representations have been received in support of the planning application. These largely take the form of expressions of personal support (including ‘character references’) for the Applicants; express concern about the implications for the business were the application refused; and/or dispute/refute objectors’ advice/concerns. Positive support for the proposal is however expressed in terms of the following planning reasons:

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

x Applicants’ business is very low impact environmentally; much business being carried out over internet; x Building blends into local environment; x Business makes an important contribution to the local and rural economy; with the potential to help draw investment into the area (staging of weddings) x No unacceptable impact on local road network/Right of Way/Core Path; and x Account needs to be taken of impacts upon access road associated with operation of neighbouring residential properties.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

In response to advice from the Planning Officer, the applicants have provided:

x Supporting Statement; x Mini-Transport Statement; and x Drawings (apparently prepared in support of Building Warrant drawings) showing layout and elevation drawings

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Section: initially responded to note that Roads has previously expressed concern about the sub-standard nature of the road leading to this site, and asked that a mini transport statement be prepared to detail how many trips the proposal would be likely to generate, at what times these trips would likely be and the size of the anticipated vehicles.

Further to the submission of a Mini-Transport Statement (not to mention additional clarification requested directly by Roads), the Roads Planning Section has responded to advise that following a review of the information supplied by the Applicants, and taking account of the advice of the representations both in support and objection to the proposal, it is of the view that the proposed operation of the wedding cake business whilst creating additional traffic, does not give rise to sufficient concern to justify Roads objecting to the application. In reaching this position, it is noted that: x this is an existing building which currently has approval for use as a private studio, and has the possibility to create traffic in its own right; x the Applicants’ Transport Statement has suggested that there will be a maximum of 9 vehicles visiting the site per working week, whilst the objectors have stated that over a 3 day period 13 delivery vehicles had visited the site. Whilst it is appreciated that this may seem like a large amount of vehicles visiting the site served by a single track road, it equates to, at worst, just over 4 vehicles each day, almost all of which are likely to be out with peak hour traffic; x It is also fair to assume that as the business is operated from a residential property that some of the journeys would be already be associated with that property and potentially may also even be visiting other properties in the vicinity.

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

In terms of whether or not access to the property requires to be improved to accommodate the traffic impact associated with the operation of the wedding cake making business, it is noted that the short access road leading to the site from the existing ambulance centre, is single track and currently has two passing opportunities. While the road could do with some maintenance work and a further passing place, it is not considered that this would be enough to merit an objection to the application.

It has been confirmed with Roads that the above advice has taken account of the fact that the access road is a Core Path and Right of Way, and with specific regards to the requirements of Adopted Local Plan Policy Inf11, it has been advised that it is not considered that the proposal would be appropriately characterised as a development liable to generate significant travel demand.

Environmental Health Section: has advised that the objections have been reviewed, and it is noted that these seem to relate to privacy and access issues. There is no indication that noise or odour has been an issue. Depending on the expansion of the business, there is always potential for noise and odour nuisance. It is therefore recommended that standard noise and odour conditions should be applied to address this possibility.

Statutory Consultees

Eddleston and District Community Council has objected to the planning application on the following grounds:

x Proposal is in clear breach of Adopted Local Plan Policies D1, ED2, G1, G8, H2, Inf2 and Inf11; x Proposal would increase traffic on unsuitable roads; x There has been a loss of privacy as a consequence of two upper windows and a conservatory of the business overlooking Dean Cottage; and x Precedent would be set for business growth in the future.

Other Consultees

None

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Approved SESplan 2013

None

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy D1 - Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside Policy D2 – Housing in the Countryside Policy ED2 – Employment Uses Outwith Employment Land Policy EP5 – Air Quality Policy G1 - Quality Standards For New Development Policy G8 – Development Outwith Development Boundaries Policy H2 - Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes

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

Policy Inf4 - Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf11 – Developments that Generate Travel Demand

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether or not the proposed business use is sympathetic to the character, amenity and environment of the site and surrounding rural area;

x Whether or not the operation of the proposed business use would have any unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of neighbouring residential properties; and/or

x Whether or not the operation of the proposed business use would have any unacceptable impacts upon the local road network; Right of Way or Core Path.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

The applicants initially sought to argue that the key consideration in terms of the assessment of the principle of the proposal is whether or not, it would be contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy H2. Objectors advise that the proposal is contrary in principle to both Planning Condition No 7 attached to Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL and the policies of the statutory development plan, specifically, Adopted Local Plan Policies D1, D2, ED2, G8, and Inf11.

While Adopted Local Plan Policy H2 is clearly relevant to the assessment of the impacts upon neighbouring properties associated with the specific proposal (considered below), it is not considered that the principle of the proposal is appropriately assessed against this policy.

Although the use of the Studio is regulated by Planning Condition No 7 attached to Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL, the current planning proposal can, and should, be assessed on its own planning merits only. Any approval issued in terms of the use of the Studio would therefore appropriately supersede the requirements of Planning Condition No 7. As is discussed in more detail below, this is not to say that there may not be a concern to maintain at least some of the requirements of Planning Condition No 7 (e.g. maintenance of the Studio and dwellinghouse at ‘Fairydean Mill’, within the same planning unit), but in the event of planning approval, such matters could be appropriately addressed by the imposition of new planning conditions on any planning consent issued.

The proposed operation is in any event of a scale that is beyond that which might reasonably be considered ancillary to the residential use of the property, and therefore it is both appropriately the subject of a planning application and appropriately assessed against planning policy as a business use in its own right.

With regard to the policies of the statutory development plan, it is considered that the assessment of the principle of the proposed change of use of the Studio from

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6(d) residential annexe to business (light industrial) use, is not appropriately assessed in relation to either Adopted Local Plan Policy D2 (which explicitly relates to new housing in the countryside) or Adopted Local Plan Policy ED2 (which explicitly relates to employment/business use within the Development Boundary only). Nor is it considered that the proposal would be appropriately assessed in relation to Adopted Local Plan Policy G8 (which in all but exceptional circumstances, seeks to conserve the approved Development Boundary). Policy G8 in any case, does recognise the potential for a development to be the subject of an exceptional planning approval, where it complies with Adopted Local Plan Policy D1. It is considered that the latter is the most appropriate planning policy against which the principle of the proposal should be assessed. The same policy, and specifically its Criterion 8, makes direct reference to Adopted Local Plan Policy Inf11, and accordingly, an assessment in terms of this policy too, also requires to be made, in order for it to be established whether or not the principle of the proposed change of use would be contrary to the statutory development plan.

Adopted Local Plan Policy D1 requires that business, tourism or leisure development proposals in the countryside be approved, where these accord with the descriptions of Criteria 1, 2 or 3, AND all of Criteria 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

In the specific case of the current proposal – that is, a change of use of an existing residential building to business use; and more specifically, to the accommodation of a wedding-cake production and distribution business – it is considered that Criteria 1 and 2 of Policy D1 can be disregarded as being irrelevant to the assessment (the former relates to agricultural, horticultural and forestry operations or to uses which by their nature would otherwise be appropriate to a rural area; and the latter only to leisure, recreation or tourism). Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is only capable of being appropriately assessed in relation to Criterion 3, which relates to development that is: “to be used for other business or employment generating uses, provided that the Council is satisfied that there is an economic and/or operational need for the particular countryside location, and that it cannot reasonably be accommodated within the Development Boundary of a settlement”.

Criteria 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Policy D1, relate to the need to ensure that any new business development in the countryside would not have any unacceptable impacts upon the amenity and/or environment of the site and/or its surroundings. Criterion 6 relates to new building only. Since the current proposal relates to an existing building, this criterion can be disregarded in the context of the current assessment. Accordingly, it is not considered that the applicants need to demonstrate that there is any more appropriate existing building or site in the near vicinity, precisely because they are proposing to make use of an existing building. Similarly, Criterion 7 relates explicitly to the expansion or intensification of an existing use, which strictly speaking, and notwithstanding that the current application is being made retrospectively, does not describe the current proposal, which proposes the establishment of a new business use rather than the expansion of an existing one. An assessment of the use and scale of the development are in any case, commensurate with the requirements of assessment in terms of Criteria 4 and 5, which require that the proposal must respect the amenity and character of the surrounding area and have no significant adverse impact upon nearby uses, particularly housing. In addition to these two criteria, Criterion 8 is also relevant to any assessment of the current proposal, requiring that the development should take account of accessibility considerations in accordance with Policy Inf11.

In terms of the assessment of whether or not the current proposal is contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy D1, it therefore needs to be considered whether or not the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No 6(d) proposal accords with Criterion 3, and beyond this, whether or not it is capable of meeting the requirements of Criteria 4, 5 and 8 of the same policy; the latter effectively being an assessment of whether or not the proposal would be able to comply with the requirements of Adopted Local Plan Policy Inf11.

Strictly speaking, the proposal does not comply with the requirements of Criterion 3 of Policy D1 in that it is patently not a business with an economic and/or operational requirement for a countryside location (let alone the specific countryside location in which it would be operated) and, further, there is nothing inherent within its operation that would prevent it reasonably being accommodated within the Development Boundary of a settlement. Indeed objectors cite examples of similar businesses that operate from industrial parks within the Peebles area. The Applicants have provided an explanation as to why they propose to operate from the outbuilding from this specific location but these are in nature, fairly general reasons as to why anyone operating a business, might wish to do so from their own home. However, as previously noted, the proposed business use is sufficiently significant in its scale as not to be capable of characterisation as ancillary to the residential use of the property. Accordingly, the applicants’ lifestyle choices do not in themselves justify in planning terms, the specific choice of this site for a business use. However, Adopted Local Plan Policy D1 is permissive in that its explicit aim (given in the Policy’s own justification) is: “to allow for appropriate employment generating development in the countryside whilst protecting the environment in the countryside and to ensure that business … developments are appropriate to their location”. Critical considerations then, are whether the proposed business use would have any unacceptable impacts upon the environment and amenity of the site and its surroundings.

It is considered that these concerns are most appropriately assessed in relation to the specific types of impacts that would be associated with the operation of the proposed business use at the site, and to this end, these matters are considered in more detail below.

Residential Amenity

As described, the proposed cake-making business is more reasonably classified as a light industrial use (Class 4) rather than an industrial use (Class 5), and therefore it is of a nature that in principle at least, can be considered compatible with a residential environment. This assessment is both informed, and borne out, by the advice of Environmental Health, which does not identify any immediate concerns with regard to noise and odour output, although the potential for both of these impacts to be increased through time is recognised, and the imposition of planning conditions is recommended to ensure appropriate long-term control of these matters. Such conditions could be imposed if Members consider that this is appropriate, but given that no existing noise nuisance and/or odour complaint has been identified in association with the existing operation, and given that in the event of any future noise and/or odour nuisance complaint, Environmental Health would have recourse to its own legislation, it is not considered that it is reasonable to impose planning conditions to control matters that have not been demonstrated to exist.

An additional aspect to potential disturbance or annoyance to neighbours from light industrial operations however, would be the potential in the event of approval, for other businesses (at least within Use Class 4 and Use Class 6) to commence operating from the site at a subsequent point in time and as a permitted change of use. Given the potential for a new business even within these classes, to raise additional concerns, it would be appropriate in the event of planning approval to restrict planning consent to the applicants’ own specific business.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No 6(d)

There would be a concern were the dwellinghouse at Fairydean Mill and the Studio, to end up in separate ownerships, since the proximity of the latter to the former would raise concerns with regard to the potential for the proposed business use to adversely impact upon the amenity of the dwellinghouse. Accordingly, and in the event of planning approval, it would be appropriate to retain the aforementioned requirement of Planning Condition No 7 attached to Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL, that the two buildings remain within, and indivisible from, the same planning unit.

Objectors have drawn attention to the fact that the Studio, as built, does not accord with the design that was approved by Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL and advise that this has raised privacy/overlooking issues. The Planning Officer has also noted what appears to be an increase in height of the Studio above that which was actually consented. It is understood that the Applicants will supply detailed drawings of the structure as built in order for the full extent of the changes to be properly assessed. At that point in time, a view requires to be taken as to whether or not the changes are so significant that they should be made the subject of a new planning application, or whether they can reasonably be considered as non-material variations to the design that was consented by Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL. Accordingly - and notwithstanding that the position with regard to the discrepancies in the design of the building in any event, requires to be addressed – it is considered that revisions to the design of the Studio are both capable of, and are in fact, more appropriately addressed out with the processing of the current planning application.

Notwithstanding the need for the revised design to be reviewed, an additional window could, in time at least, have been inserted into the gable elevation facing Dean Cottage as a permitted householder development. Further, as per the approved design, there was in any event to have been a window at first floor level lighting a ‘work room’. As such, it is not considered that an additional window per se can reasonably be considered to raise any planning concerns that were not capable of consideration at the time of the determination of Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL. Further, and given the explicit identification of the room as a ‘work room’ (albeit within what was understood to have been a residential context, but still potentially an area in which someone might be expected to spend long periods of time, engaged in a business activity), it is not considered that the proposed light industrial use of the building would be liable in principle to raise any greater concerns with regard to loss of privacy at Dean Cottage. The room would still be accommodating a work area (as per the approved design), and there are no grounds for supposing that the light industrial use would necessarily result in any more intensive use of the room than could reasonably be expected in connection with the operation of the consented residential use. Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed change of use would in itself, be liable to have any unacceptable impacts upon the residential amenity of Dean Cottage, or for that matter, upon any other residential property within the surrounding area. (For clarity, it is recognised that the apparent increase in height of the building, has potential to have exaggerated any overlooking/privacy concern beyond that which was discernible at the time of Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL but, as explained above, it is considered that this is more reasonably progressed as a matter distinct from the current proposal).

Subject to the imposition of planning conditions to address the above highlighted concerns, it is not considered that the operation of the proposed cake-making business would in itself, be liable to have any unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of any surrounding residential properties or indeed, upon the amenity of the dwellinghouse at ‘Fairydean Mill’.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No 6(d)

Road Safety, Parking and Public Access

Objectors have advised of their concern that the operation of the wedding cake business is having an unacceptable impact upon the access road, Core Path and Right of Way, endangering all its users; drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, horses and riders.

The Applicants have supplied a Mini-Transport Statement and some additional information to describe the existing operation. These have been reviewed by the Roads Planning Section. The results of Roads’ assessment are noted in detail above. Taking account of the Applicants’ advice, and also taking account of the advice of the Objectors (including the results of an alternative survey of actual traffic movement to and from the site), Roads has concluded that the traffic impact relating to the operation of the wedding cake business is not unacceptable. It is acknowledged that the access road is in need of maintenance and a further passing place, but it is not considered that the existing arrangement is objectionable.

It has been further clarified with Roads that this assessment has taken account of the fact that the access track is a Right of Way and a Core Path, and hence of the potential for drivers to encounter pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Further, and in terms of the type of assessment that requires to be carried out in relation to the criteria of Adopted Local Plan Policy Inf11, it is simply not considered to be a significant travel generating development, and therefore it does not contradict the requirements of the five criteria of this same planning policy.

Objectors express concern that the business might expand beyond its existing size, with the potential for a consequential increase in traffic movements (additional staff; deliveries to and from the site, etc). Other than any expansion in the operation realised through an intensification in the use of the existing building, any new build elements (including any extension or alterations to the existing building) would require planning consent in its own right, and the Planning Authority would be afforded an opportunity to consider whether or not the operation was still liable to be appropriately accommodated at the site in the event of any future proposals to extend or augment the existing accommodation at the Studio. Again, the proposed planning conditions previously identified (both that to maintain the tie between the Studio to the dwellinghouse, and that to prevent any permitted change of use from the wedding cake business to another Class 4 or Class 6 use), would further serve to ensure that no significant increase in traffic above the current levels could occur, without this increase first having been directly or indirectly referred to the Planning Authority within a new planning application for change of use, and/or for expansion of existing accommodation at the site.

Given that it is not considered that the site would be capable of facilitating any particularly significant expansion of the business without the need for a planning application, it is considered that there is no reasonable need to seek to restrict or control the Applicants’ business operation beyond that which has already been outlined above. It might be added that if the business were to expand very significantly, then the strong likelihood is that the Applicants would be compelled to seek to accommodate that expansion elsewhere owing to the limited scope afforded at the site.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No 6(d)

Planning Condition No 7 attached to Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL

Objectors have expressed concern that the applicants have not made a planning application to remove or vary Planning Condition No 7 attached to Planning Consent 06/01526/FUL, which was imposed to regulate the use of the Studio. However, the requirements of this planning condition would be superseded by an approval of the current planning application. In this event, the use of the building would be capable of being appropriately regulated by the imposition of new planning conditions. Moreover, the proposed change of use of the Studio in its entirety, from ancillary residential use to business (light industrial) use, would only ever be appropriately progressed through a new planning application directly seeking consent for the proposed change of use, rather than through a proposal to remove or vary the aforementioned planning condition.

It may be a mute point but the current proposal does not actually conflict with the main concern that Planning Condition No 7 was actually imposed to regulate in that the two buildings – in accordance with the requirements of the planning condition – remain within a single ownership, and in connection with a single residential property.

Other Concerns

Given this is an existing, and recently constructed, building, there are no natural heritage or cultural heritage implications.

Objectors have advised that no account should be taken of the fact that the proposed business use is already operating at the site. It is the case that since the business is operational, there have been sources of information available that would not otherwise have been, had it not. However, and notwithstanding that this has helped more emphatically demonstrate that there would be no unacceptable impacts associated with its operation, no account should be, nor has been, taken of the fact that the business use is extant, albeit unconsented.

Objectors have advised that the Council’s Roads expressed an objection to an outline planning application for a new house that would be served by the same access track (04/01216/OUT). However, Roads were ultimately content to support an amended version of the proposal, revised to include appropriate mitigation for its concerns.

The advice of objectors with regard to the inclusion of three rooms within the Applicants’ Bed and Breakfast business is noted, but this does not appropriately form part of the consideration of the current proposal.

Conclusion

It was concluded that in order for the principle of the proposed change in the use of the Studio, from residential to business, to be capable of support in compliance with Adopted Local Plan Policy D1, critical considerations would be whether or not the proposed business use would have any unacceptable impacts upon the environment and amenity of the site and its surroundings.

Provided appropriate planning conditions are imposed (a) to retain the requirement that the Studio and dwellinghouse at Fairydean Mill remain within the same planning unit, and (b) to prevent another potentially less suitable business use (e.g. a more intensive use of the site, such as offices) from being able to succeed the wedding cake-making operation as a permitted change of use, it is not considered that the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No 6(d) proposal would be liable to have any unacceptable impacts upon the environment or amenity of the site, or upon those of the surrounding area including neighbouring residential properties, the local road network and the Right of Way/Core Path. As such, it is considered that the proposed change of use is capable of meeting the requirements of Criteria 4, 5 and 8 of Adopted Local Plan Policy D1 and does not conflict with the requirements of Adopted Local Plan Policy Inf11.

Notwithstanding the strict requirements of Criterion 3 of Adopted Local Plan Policy D1, and given the permissive nature of Adopted Local Plan Policy D1, and the view that has ultimately been reached through the above assessment, that the proposed change of use would be capable of complying with Criteria 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Adopted Local Plan Policy D1, it is legitimate to ask whether there would be any reasonable basis for the Planning Authority to seek to refuse the planning application. While this is not in itself positive support for the principle of locating and operating the wedding cake making business as proposed, no basis for objection has been identified, and in accordance with the assessment described by the justification of Policy D1, it is considered that the proposal is capable of characterisation as an appropriate employment-generating development in the countryside, the operation of which would be acceptably accommodated at the site, and would not have any unacceptable impacts upon the rural environment.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions:

1. The Studio at ‘Fairydean Mill’ shall be used, and retained in perpetuity as a single and indivisible planning unit with the dwellinghouse at ‘Fairydean Mill’, and shall at no time be used independently of that same dwellinghouse unless an application for planning permission in that behalf has first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. Reason: To retain effective control over the development hereby approved and to safeguard the residential amenity of occupiers of the dwellinghouse

2. Unless an application for planning permission to change the use of the premises (’The Studio’) has first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority, the Class 4 use of the same shall be restricted to wedding cake-making business only, with no permitted change(s) of use to any other uses within Class 4 and/or Class 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1997 (as amended). Reason: To retain effective control over the use of the premises in the interests of ensuring that the uses of the site is, and remains, appropriate to this locality in terms of its impacts upon the amenity of neighbouring properties (including residential properties),and upon access and parking in the surrounding area.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Ref Plan Type

K2029 Location Plan

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No 6(d)

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 Stuart Herkes Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No 6(d)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 ITEM 7

PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS

Briefing Note by Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

5th August 2013

1 PURPOSE

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

2 APPEALS RECEIVED

2.1 Planning Applications

Nil

2.2 Enforcements

Nil

3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

Nil

3.2 Enforcements

Nil

4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING

4.1 There remained 9 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 17th July 2013. This relates to sites at:

x Blackburn, Grantshouse, Duns x Penmanshiel, Grantshouse x (Corsbie Moor), Westruther x Whitmuir Hall, Selkirk x Gilston Farm, Heriot x Thornbank, Broughton x Horn Burn Wind Farm x Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk x Creag an Airidh Venlaw Farm, x Edinburgh Road, Peebles

Planning & Building Standards Committee 5th August 2013 1 5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED

5.1 Reference: 12/01385/FUL Proposal: Erection of two dwellinghouses Site: Land North of 5 Edrom Newton Steading, Duns Appellant: Prime Property Venture Ltd

Reasons for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to development plan policies H7, N17, N20 (Structure Plan 2009) and BE1, G1 (Consolidated Local Plan 2011), in that the form and appearance of the existing building group at Edrom Steading would be adversely affected by the proposed additional development to the detriment of the Listed Building. Whilst it is accepted that there is a building group at this location, the dwellings are contained within a single building. The group is regarded as being complete and further residential development would be inappropriate at this location.

6 REVIEWS DETERMINED

6.1 Reference: 13/00102/FUL Proposal: Change of use, alterations and extension to provide dwellinghouse and garage Site: Land and Buildings North East of 1 Rutherford Mains Farm Cottage, Kelso Appellant: Mr K Booker

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposal is contrary to Approved Structure Plan Policies H6, H7 and H8; Adopted Local Plan Policy D2; and the advice of Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside (December 2008), in that: i) the proposal does not appropriately constitute a conversion in that (a) one of the two buildings identified for conversion ('sawmill building') is neither physically capable of conversion nor worthy of conversion in terms of its contribution to the historic environment and local landscape, while (b) the other building ('seed kiln building') is too small a structure and too insignificant a structure in landscape terms, to appropriately serve as the basis for a residential conversion; and ii) the site lies outwith any recognised settlement or building group, and the need for a new dwellinghouse on this site has not been adequately substantiated. 2. The proposal is contrary to Approved Structure Plan Policies H6, H7, H8 and N20; Adopted Local Plan Policies D2 and G1; and the advice of Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside (December 2008) and Supplementary Planning Guidance - Place-Making and Design (January 2010), in that the resulting building would not be in keeping with the scale, design and character of the site (including the existing buildings identified for retention) or the surrounding area (including the building group at Rutherford Mains Farm Cottages). 3. The proposal is contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy G1 in that the access arrangements identified for vehicular traffic operating in relation to a residential use of the site, raise road safety concerns in that the junction between the proposed private access and the existing local road is not suitable for the passage of residential traffic.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld Planning & Building Standards Committee 5th August 2013 2 7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING

7.1 There remained 7 reviews previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 17th July 2013. This relates to sites at:

x Creag an Airidh, Venlaw, x Former Brydons Dairy, Galashiels Edinburgh Road, Peebles x Lynedale, West Linton x Bleachfield Road, Selkirk x Paddockmyre, Coldingham x Lilliesleaf House, Lilliesleaf x 2 Crown Crescent, Earlston 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.

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 5th August 2013 3