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 13 April 2009 at 10 a.m. ------

Present: - Councillors T. Jones (Chairman), J. Brown, N. Calvert, J. A. Fullarton, J. Hume, G. Logan, D. Moffat, C. Riddell-Carre, N. Watson, T. Weatherston. Apologies:- Councillors C. J. Bhatia, J. Houston, R. Smith. In Attendance: - Development Control Manager (East), Assistant Road User Manager, Area Offices Manager, Committee Officer – Corporate Resources (Mrs. F. Henderson). ------

CHAIRMAN 1. In the absence of Councillor Houston, Councillor Jones took the Chair.

MINUTE 2. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 9 March 2009.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

DRAFT GREEN SPACE STRATEGY AND SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE 3. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards seeking approval of the Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Green Space incorporating a proposed Green Space Strategy and the Draft Environmental Report as a basis for public consultation. The report explained that the Draft SPG and Green Space Strategy had been prepared on behalf of the Council by Halcrow in association with Kit Campbell Associates, in consultation with officers from Environmental Services (Parks), and Scottish Natural Heritage who also contributed 50% of the costs of undertaking this work. Mr Wanless, Plans and Research Manager and Mr Campbell of Kit Campbell associates were present at the meeting to answer members questions. It was explained that the purpose of the SPG on Green Space incorporating the Green Space Strategy was to provide guidance to those preparing planning applications for one or more dwellings as to what the Council may require in order to mitigate the impact of residential developments on green space and outdoor sport and recreation provision. It was proposed to carry out a 12 week consultation on the draft SPG with Community Councils and local stakeholders, together with national organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. There was considered discussion on Issues such as the drainage at Duns Park, what constituted successful teenage space and how best to achieve well managed allotments.

DECISION AGREED:-

(a) to approve the Draft SPG incorporating the Green Space Strategy and Draft Environmental Report as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period, and that if there were any substantive comments then they should be reported back to the committee;

(b) that the Council’s visions for greenspace, sport and recreation facilities be re- worded to read;- The Scottish Borders will have high quality, accessible green spaces which contribute to the economic social and environmental qualities for the region; and

(c) that guidance be brought to the Planning and Building Standards Committee before commencing the consultation process; and

(d) that any comments arising from the consultation be reported to the Planning and Building Standards Committee.

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE – PLANNING BRIEF FOR EARLSTON HIGH SCHOOL 4. With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 7 July 2008, there had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on the Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to a Planning Brief for Earlston High School. A summary of the responses received in response to the consultation process was appended to the report. The main changes made to the brief following the consultation were to ensure that the potential bridge over the Turfford Burn did not impact on the Special Area of Conservation; to require SUDs proposals to be detailed at the planning application stage; to recognise the need to protect water vole habitats; and, to require the use of native woodland species at the eastern end of the site on the floodplain area. Mr Ged Heaney of Ryden was present to answer Members questions.

VOTE Councillor Riddell- Carre, seconded by Councillor Brown, moved that the recommendations in the report be approved. Councillor Watson, seconded by Councillor Moffat moved as an amendment that the Supplementary Planning Guidance planning brief for Earlston High School be delayed for one month to allow consultation to be carried out with the adjoining landowner (Farmer) on the implications of the brief as he had been unaware of its provision.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion 5 votes Amendment 4 votes

The Motion was accordingly carried.

DECISION DECIDED to approve the Supplementary Planning Guidance planning brief for Earlston High School set out in Appendix I to this Minute in the Minute Book, and that its provisions be material considerations in the consideration of planning applications.

APPLICATIONS 5. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

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

SECTION 50/75 AGREEMENTS 6. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards seeking approval to vary a Section 75 legal agreement related to a development of 70 houses at Meigle Farm, Clovenfords to facilitate alternative access arrangements and to enable the commencement of the proposed primary school on the adjoining site. The report explained that the developer of the Meigle Farm housing site, Barratt East Scotland, was seeking to vary the terms of the legal agreement attached to their permission for 70 houses to the effect that the contributions for the Central Borders Road Network Study and Education would be deferred until the completion of the 25th house on the site. As part of this arrangement, and acknowledging the potential implications for the delay of the provision of the Clovenfords School project, the developer had offered to contribute half the cost of the road that would serve the school from the east (through their development site). The Local Plan policy relating to developer contributions made provision for a pragmatic approach, taking into account the importance in securing necessary developments and it was considered that this was a situation where such an approach was justified.

DECISION AGREED to continue to allow further discussion to take place regarding the possibility of phasing the developer payments throughout the development of the site rather than waiting until the construction of the last house before receiving any contribution.

7. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on a request received the owners of Nether Kidston Farm, Peebles to vary the terms of the original Section 50 Agreement. The report explained that the applicants wished to vary the agreement to allow the house plots (on land to the South West of Nether Kidston Farm Cottages and to the South of Cringletie Farm Cottage) to be excluded from the area over which the Section 50 applied. However, given that the Section 50 had been modified in the past it was considered that the whole Section 50 Agreement should be removed and all associated burdens on the land lifted. Any further applications for residential development would be assessed, on their own merits, against the prevailing policy at the time of their submission.

DECISION AGREED that the Section 50 Agreement at Nether Kidston Farm be removed to allow the development of the current application sites.

8. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on a request received from the owner of Todheugh, Edrom, Duns, to vary the terms of the Section 75 Agreement applied to the farm. The report explained that the applicant wished to vary the agreement to allow the sale of a plot of land to the owner of a neighbouring agricultural unit. Following the conclusion of the sale, the land would continue to be used for agricultural purposes, albeit under different ownership and not tied by any contractual agreement. It was considered that the restriction to the selling off of the land covered by the agreement be modified to allow for this sale.

DECISION AGREED that Clause 2(a) of the Section 75 Agreement be amended to allow the sale of an agreed proportion of the land at Todheugh Farm, Edrom, Duns.

9. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on a request received from the owners of land at Hawthorndean, Coldingham to vary the terms of the Section 75 Agreement applied to the land. The report explained that the applicants wished to vary the agreement to allow the payment of developer contributions only when the houses or the plot had been sold to a third party. Whilst a change to the terms of the Agreement to enable payment of an agreed proportion of the developer contributions on the occupation of each house would be reasonable in the current economic climate, the modification as proposed by the owners would not be acceptable or consistent with current policy and practice and it was therefore proposed that the variation as requested be refused but that it would be reasonable to modify the agreement to defer payment of the contributions to an agreed proportion on the occupation of each of the houses rather than the issue of the completion certificate, or sale of, the first house.

DECISION AGREED to:-

(a) refuse to modify the Section 75 Agreement on the terms as requested by the land owners; and

(b) change the terms of the Section 75 Agreement to enable payment of an agreed proportion of the developer contributions on the occupation of each of the residential units covered by this agreement. APPEALS 10. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Building Standards on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers.

DECISION NOTED:-

(a) that appeals had been received in respect of:-

(i) Erection of dwellinghouse, Allerton House, Oxnam;

(ii) Erection of dwellinghouse, land south of Hallmanor House, Manor Valley;

(iii) Alterations and extensions to dwellinghouse, Breakers View, 3 Fort Road, Eyemouth;

(iv) Change of use from garden ground to residential land, land adjacent 22 Beechbank Selkirk;

(v) Erection of dwellinghouse, garden ground of belvedere, Easter Ulston Cottages;

(vi) Alterations and extensions to dwellinghouse, Rawflat, Ancrum (both full and listed building consent);

(vii) Extension to dwellinghouse, 10 Winterfield Gardens, Duns (enforcement); and

(viii) Siting of temporary office accommodation, 2 No Storage containers and erection of walls , railings and lighting / cctv column (retrospective), Field 0328, Kirkburn, Cardrona (enforcement).

(b) that the Scottish Ministers had dismissed appeals in respect of:-

(i) Erection of 28 holiday chalets and associated facilities, bunk house and ten affordable dwellinghouses, Berrybush Farm, Yarrow;

(ii) Erection of dwellinghouse, land West of Ashton Cottage, Leithen Cr, Innerleithen;

(iii) Erection of two dwellinghouses, land West of Garden Cottage, Whitmuir;

(iv) Erection of dwellinghouse, land South East of Edington Fox Covert, Chirnside;

(v) Erection of nine flats, West Winds and Adjoining Land, Upper Burnmouth; and

(vi) Site a Free Standing Storage Silo, The Yard, Cone View, Dolphinton (enforcement)

(i) Erection of dwellinghouse, site South East of Rogersrigg Cottage, Carlops; and

(ii) Erection of dwellinghouse, land South of Westview, Longbaulk Road, Hawick. The meeting concluded at 1.25p.m. PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE 13 APRIL 2009 APPENDIX II APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Name and Address Nature of Development Location 08/01402/FUL Eildon Housing Erection of 37 extra care Scottish Borders Association apartments and 22 Council Yard, George per Aitken and Turnbull general needs Street, Peebles (Gala) Ltd apartments with 9 Bridge Place associated car parking, Galashiels landscaping, boundary Scottish Borders walls and fences TD1 1SN

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. Sample panels of the external wall finish to be prepared on site for prior approval by the Planning Authority. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting. 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 and play equipment vii. a programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development. 4. Details of all proposed means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work on the site is commenced. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings. 5. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the trees to be retained on the site shall be protected by a chestnut paling fence 1.5 metres high, placed at a minimum radius of one metre beyond the crown spread of each tree, and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development: (a) No excavations, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut, or pipes or services laid in such a way as to cause damage or injury to the trees by interference with their root structure; (b) No fires shall be lit within the spread of the branches of the trees; (c) No materials or equipment shall be stored within the spread of the branches of the trees; (d) Any accidental damage to the trees shall be cleared back to undamaged wood and be treated with a preservative if appropriate; (e) Ground levels within the spread of the branches of the trees shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, or trenches excavated except in accordance with details shown on the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of preserving the health and vitality of existing trees on the development site, the loss of which would have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area. 6. The finished ground floor level shall be a minimum of 164.00m AOD with a free board of 480mm above the 1 in 1000 year flood event. Reason: To ensure that buildings and people are not at risk of flooding. 7. The areas allocated for parking on the submitted plan shall be properly consolidated, surfaced and drained before the buildings are occupied, and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the prospective public road. 8. The site to be developed for affordable housing only consistent with the terms of Scottish Borders Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance No.10: Affordable Housing. Reason: To comply with the Council’s policy on affordable housing provision. 9. Prior to the occupation of the development for residential purposes, new or existing footway crossovers must be constructed or extended to the specification of the Highway Authority with any redundant crossover reinstated to the relevant footway standards. Reason: To ensure that the footway crossover is satisfactorily constructed. 10. No dwelling forming part of the development shall not be occupied until the access roads and footpaths/footways shown on the approved plans have been built to the specification of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that adequate access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles is provided and is at all times properly maintained. 11. Before any development commences a scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority indicating measures to be taken to provide access and facilities for the disabled. Such scheme as shall have been approved in writing shall be fully implemented before any part of the development is brought into use and shall be thereafter permanently retained. Reason: To ensure satisfactory access/facilities for the disabled. 12. All drainage shall be on a rigidly separate system. Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 13. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water. 14. Surface water drainage shall not be taken to the public sewer but shall be disposed of elsewhere and the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until that means of disposal has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the existing combined sewerage system is not overloaded. 15. Before any unit forming part of the development hereby approved is occupied or brought into use, the measures to decontaminate the site as identified in the report prepared by Geovia and dated September 2008, shall be fully implemented and approved by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the potential for health risk arising from any identified land contamination has been adequately addressed. 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 will 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). Reason: To ensure the development minimises any environmental impact.

VOTE Councillor Calvert, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, moved that the recommendations in the report be approved. Councillor Riddell Carre, seconded by Councillor Watson moved as an amendment that the application be continued and the design be re-considered.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion 7 votes Amendment 2 votes

The Motion was accordingly carried.

08/01208/LBC Braedale Developments Demolition of former St Aidans Church Hall 08/01209/FUL Ltd church hall and and St Aidans Per Camerons (Gala) Ltd alterations and Church, Gala park 1 Wilderhaugh extension of former and Builders Yard Galashiels church to form eleven West of 76 St Scottish Borders apartments. Andrews Street, TD1 1QJ Change of use, Galashiels. alterations and extension of former church to form eleven apartments, erection of fifteen apartments and change of use of builders yard to form related car parking area on remote site.

Decision: Continued for further discussion to take place on issues of design taking into consideration the views of the Members on that particular issue while accepting scale, massing, physical relationship and justification of numbers of units, along with the demolition of the hall (provided a suitable redevelopment scheme was agreed).

VOTE Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor Calvert, moved that the recommendations in the report be approved. Councillor Hume, seconded by Councillor Riddell-Carre moved as an amendment that the application be continued and the design be re-considered.

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

The Motion was accordingly carried.

Councillor Watson, seconded by Councillor Logan moved as a further amendment that the alterations to the church be completely re-designed.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- For 2 votes Against 7 votes

Amendment was accordingly defeated.

08/01600/FUL Constable Change of use, Land and buildings at 08/01628/REM Per Edwin Thompson & Co alterations and Meikle Harelaw Farm, 08/01629/REM (Berwick) extension to form seven Greenlaw 08/01630/REM 44/48 Hide Hill dwellinghouses from 08/01631/REM Berwick Upon Tweed steading buildings; TD15 1AB Erection of dwellinghouses x 4 (Plots 1- 4 inclusive) Decision: Approved subject to conditions (all applications) and to a Legal Agreement relating to Development Contributions in respect of 08/01600/FUL (conversion).

08/01600/FUL:

1 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Authority, which comprise the revised drawings received on 29th January 2009, which also describe road improvement works and works proposed in mitigation of protected species/habitat. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details. 2 This permission shall only permit the conversion and adaptation of the existing structures as 7 no. dwelling units. It shall not purport to grant permission for the erection of any new dwellings, nor for any extensive rebuilding which would be tantamount to the erection of any new dwelling. Reason: Permission has been granted for the conversion of existing buildings to habitable accommodation, in a location where new-build dwellings would not otherwise be appropriate. 3 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent Order amending, revoking or re- enacting that Order); (i) There shall be no addition or extension to the dwellings (including the insertion of dormer windows or chimneys); (ii) There shall be no further building, structure or other enclosure constructed or placed on the site; (iii) No additional window or other opening shall be made in any elevation; unless an application for planning permission in that behalf has first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character, appearance and setting of the building to be converted. 4 No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of Historic Building Recording, which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the Archaeology Officer and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the archaeological and historic value of the standing buildings is recorded prior to any alterations being made. 5 No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until a site investigation and risk assessment relating to potential site contamination has been carried out, submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with any mitigation measures identified within the report, as agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: Due to the past use of the site, contamination may be present within the site that must be suitably mitigated against, in the interests of health and safety. 6 Notwithstanding the details shown in the approved drawings, the final paint colour of the external timbers shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The agreed colour shall be utilised at the time of conversion, and shall thereafter be retained unless an amendment is agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the character of the buildings is not undermined by the use of an inappropriate paint colour. 7 The details of all windows and doors in the new development shall be in accordance with details that shall first be submitted to and agreed ion writing by the Planning Authority and shall be recessed in their openings. Thereafter, no adjustment shall be made to the position of any windows and doors in their openings, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is, and remains, appropriate. 8 None of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until such a time as detailed information relating to the repair and maintenance of the existing buildings, describing clearly the extent of proposed reconstruction, re-pointing, re-roofing and the nature of any new materials has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with all details agreed as a result of this condition. Reason: To ensure that the full extent of the works required to facilitate the conversion is known, so that the external appearance of the development is appropriate. 9 The development shall be undertaken in full compliance with the recommendations within the submitted Bat and Bird Survey Report (Baker Shepherd Gillespie October 2008 ‘Final’), relating to bats and their habitat. Reason: Bats and bat habitat are known to be present within the site; the mitigation proposals stated in the Survey Report will enable the circumstances to continue, in relation to the legally protected species. 10 Before any part of the development on the site begins, a scheme for the protection of breeding birds and the enhancement of potential bird habitat shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any development works shall, thereafter, be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Works shall not commence during the breeding bird season (i.e. works to commence after July, prior to March). Mitigation to be guided by a suitably qualified person. Reason: To ensure that the habitat value of the site for breeding birds is enhanced and continued. 11 No construction works shall commence within the application site until such a time as the passing places (5 no.) within the public road to the south of the development have been constructed in accordance with details/locations that shall first have been agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 12 All new and existing private access roads shall be a minimum of 3.7 metres wide and able to withstand a minimum axle load of 14 tonne and parking bays shall be 2.5 by 5 metres. Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety. 13 The Public Right of Way BB120, situated on the southern edge of the development site, shall be maintained open and free from obstruction in perpetuity. This Right of Way shall not form part of the curtilage of properties Plot 1, Plot 2, Plot 4, Unit 7. Neither shall the Right of Way be stopped up or obstructed during or after development. Reason: To ensure that the Public Right of Way remains available for public use at all times in the future and is not obstructed or stopped up during or after the development takes place. 14 The right of way shall be signposted at either side of the development, as indicated in the approved site layout plan, the signage being installed prior to the undertaking of any construction works on the site. The signpost shall be either a metal or wooden fingerpost with “Right of Way”, written on both sides of the blade. Reason: To ensure that the future existence of the Public Right of Way is suitably advertised. 15 No development shall take place until a programme for completion and subsequent maintenance of the proposed landscape planting has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the landscape planting will become properly established and enable the development to be compatible with surrounding landscape and uses. 16 No development shall be commenced until such a time as it has been demonstrated that all matters relating to foul and surface water drainage have been addressed via a drainage management plan, which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and thereafter fully complied with in the event of development being carried out as a result of this permission. Reason: The Planning Authority is aware that drainage issues are likely to arise at this site, that have not been fully addressed in the planning application. 17 The proposal for surface water disposal shall specifically combine environmental improvement and/or habitat provision for flora and fauna with the objectives of the "Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland" 2000. Reason: To ensure that adequate and appropriate means are used in the disposal of surface water and that benefit for local biodiversity is achieved. 18 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 Applicant Informative

The applicant is reminded that this permission does not convey approval for works affecting third party rights which may exist on the land or any adjoining. The applicant is therefore advised to seek the approval of any parties having an interest in any land affected by this permission.

This planning permission does not purport to override the need for any separate consents that may be necessary under Regulations or legislation operated by any other body, including Scottish Natural Heritage, SEPA, Scottish Water and any other Department of Scottish Borders Council. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list.

Further information in pursuant to condition 10 can be found at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/name/s/swallow/encouraging.asp http://www.bto.org/notices/nestbox_guide.htm

08/01628/REM, 08/01629/REM, 08/01630/REM and 08/01631/REM:

Applicant Informative

The attention of the developer is drawn to the conditions applicable to outline planning permissions 05/00450/OUT (Plot 4), 05/00449/OUT (Plot 3), 05/00448/OUT (Plot 2) and 05/00447/OUT (Plot 1). The requirements of conditions of those commensurate permissions must be discharged along with those of conditions on this Reserved Matters approval.

08/01915/FUL Sainsbury’s Ltd & CWP Erection of Class 1 retail Land North West of 08/01928/FUL Per Turley Associates store, petrol filling Croall Bryson & Co, 2 Multrees Walk station and kiosk with Pinnaclehill Industrial Edinburgh associated 5 arm round- Estate, Kelso. EH1 3DQ about, car parking, access and landscaping. Infrastructure for Land South East of extension to industrial Croall Bryson, estate and erection of Pinnaclehill Industrial Unit 1. Estate, Kelso.

08/01915/FUL

Decision: Approved subject to a legal agreement, and the following conditions and informative:

1. Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall contain details of proposals to deal with contamination to include: a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model, measurement of pollutant linkages through a detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of risk such contamination presents. The scope and method of this investigation to be agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority, and be undertaken in accordance with PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2001. b) Remedial Strategy (if required) to treat/remove contamination to ensure that the site is fit for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works, and proposed validation plan). c) Submission of a Validation Report (should remedial action be required) by the competent person employed by the developer who will validate and verify the completion of works to a satisfactory standard as agreed with the Local Planning Council. d) Submission, if necessary, of monitoring statements at periods to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority for such time period as is considered appropriate by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the potential for health risk arising from any identified land contamination has been adequately addressed. 2. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a detailed written scheme of investigation, prepared by a contracted archaeologist, outlining a watching brief. During a Watching Brief, an archaeologist will remain on site during any excavation of undisturbed land in order to identify surviving archaeological remains. If archaeological remains are identified, the archaeologist should be given 2 hours for proper recording of the evidence. If significant archaeology is discovered work must cease pending further consultation with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the archaeological interest of the site. 3. Details of all proposed means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work on the site is commenced. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings. 4. 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, to be assessed in accordance with BREEAM principles (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) which must achieve an ‘Excellent’ rating, and in accordance with a scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced. 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. 5. 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 external surfaces of the building and the development as a whole 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. 6. The disposal of surface water to comply with the “Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems – Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland” published by CIRA in 2000. Reason: To ensure that adequate and appropriate means are used in the disposal of surface water. 7. The junction improvement works, which include the formation of a new 5 arm roundabout which would serve the new Retail Store and its associated petrol filling station and would remove the existing double T junctions of Yetholm Road and Station Road onto the A698, shall only be carried out in strict accordance with a programme of phasing which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development of the estate proceeds in an orderly manner. 8. 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. 9. The floor area of the retail store must not exceed 4,500 square metres gross floor area and with no more than 20% of its sales area to be devoted to non-Retail comparison goods. Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of Kelso town centre. 10. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of a suitably located and designed pedestrian crossing on the A698 to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The pedestrian crossing shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: To ensure adequate access to the site for pedestrians and to ensure the crossing is satisfactorily constructed. 11. Prior to the commencement of the development, engineering drawings for the roundabout, including geometry and construction details, and other road works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details must include pedestrian links between the existing footway on Station Road and the proposed pedestrian crossing as required by condition no. 10. The roundabout and other road works shall be undertaken and completed in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 12. Prior to the commencement of the development, a travel plan must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed travel plan. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 13. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a share of planting to the north of the proposed petrol station and for the planting and provision of screen fencing along the eastern boundary of the site , which had first been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority Prior to the commencement of the development, the speed limit for the area of road which shall be incorporated into and surrounding the roundabout shall be agreed by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented before the development becomes operational. The associated cost in implementing the agreed speed limit will be borne by the developer. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 14. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Road Safety Audit (Stages 1-4) for the roundabout construction and associated works as well as the internal parking layout to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and must thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 15. Prior to the commencement of the development, alterations to the junction between Station Road and Jedburgh Road must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and must thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 16. Prior to the commencement of the development, the locations and details of trolley bays, which must be provided within the parking area to the north east and south west of the store. to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and must thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety. 17. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the finished road surfaces and drainage systems must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and must thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 18. Prior to the commencement of the development, the details of the cycle park area, which must be covered to offer dry parking, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and must thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 19. A sign must be erected where vehicles sit whilst awaiting access to the car wash within the garage area, to the specification of the Planning Authority, before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 20. The footway at the southern end of the bus lay-by must be a minimum of 1.8 metres wide. Reason: In the interest of pedestrian safety. 21. Prior to the commencement of the development, the location of the bollards proposed adjacent to the parent/child spaces in front of the store, must be agreed by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the agreed details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 22. Prior to the commencement of the development, a swept path analysis must be carried out for the internal layout for a 12m bus. The findings of this must be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any required changes required as a result of the swept path analysis must be undertaken in approval with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 23. A bus shelter, of a type to be approved by the Local Planning Authority, must be provided at the proposed bus lay-by. The construction and design of the bus shelter must by agreed by the Local Planning Authority and must be installed in accordance with the agreed details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 24. Before the development is commenced, a Development Impact Assessment to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Water, and an appropriate scheme to be in place to accommodate the development within Scottish Water’s local infrastructure. Reason: To ensure the site is adequately serviced. 25. Before the development is commenced, details of all signage, lighting and any provision for CCTV within the site to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area. 26. No sub-letting of retail floor space within the food store to be permitted without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. 27. No retailing of any description to be permitted outside the food store or petrol filling station without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area. 28. Noise levels emitted by any plant and/or machinery used on the premises must not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR30 when measured at the façade of the nearest noise sensitive residential property. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area.

Informative: Please find attached a copy of a letter received from Scottish Power, dated 20 November 2008, for your information.

In respect of condition no. 4, as of June 2007 it is approved Council policy that “all future developments with a total cumulative floor space of 500m2 or more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) by 15% beyond the 2007 Building Regulation carbon dioxide emissions”. Please see attached copy excerpt. The full document can be viewed online at http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/pdf/20328.pdf. This understanding is in line with approved Scottish Executive planning policy SPP6: Renewable Energy published in March 2007.

In respect of condition no. 11, these details must also include information regarding the proposed signing and while lining for the development. It should be noted that the initial comments from Scottish Borders Council’s Design Services Section indicate that there are amendments required to the layout and design of the roundabout.

08/01928/FUL

Approved in principle and that powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Standards to address the issue of the internal layout and access position, subject to a legal agreement addressing the requirements detailed in the report, and the following conditions and informative:

1. 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. This must include buffer screen planting along the boundaries of the site. Details of the scheme shall include:

i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance

ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored

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 vii. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development. 2. 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. 3. No trees or hedgerows within the application site shall be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The existing trees and hedgerows represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained. 4. A pedestrian link from the site to the existing Industrial Estate to the north to be provided to the specification of the Local Planning Authority before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 5. Details of all proposed means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work on the site is commenced and shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings. 6. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced detailed drawings showing which trees and hedgerows 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 or hedgerows 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 and hedgerows representing an important visual feature are retained and maintained. 7. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Transport Statement must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority indicating how sustainable travel requirements are to be met, particularly those relating to walking, cycling and public transport use and must thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 8. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the tie-in with the existing road from the Pinnaclehill Industrial Estate in the north eastern corner of the site must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and must thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 9. The finished floor levels of the building hereby permitted shall be consistent with those indicated on a scheme of details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall indicate the existing and proposed levels throughout the application site. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the amenity of the area. 10. The radii of the junction with the B6352 must be 10 metres with entry and exit tapers to the specification of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 11. The existing street lighting must be continued beyond the proposed access into the development to the specification of the Local Planning Authority before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 12. Visibility splays of 6 metres x 150 metres to the north and 180m to the south to be provided at the junction with the B6352 before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 13. Visibility splays of 4.5 metres x 70 metres to be provided and retained at internal junctions within the development before the development becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 14. Prior to the commencement of the development, the speed limit for the B6352 between the proposed vehicular access to the application site and the new five arm roundabout approved under 08/01915/FUL shall be agreed by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented before the development becomes operational. The associated cost in implementing the agreed speed limit will be borne by the developer. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 15. The disposal of surface water to comply with the “Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems – Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland” published by CIRA in 2000. Reason: To ensure that adequate and appropriate means are used in the disposal of surface water. 16. Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water.

08/01530/LBC BL Developments Internal and external Reston Auction mart 08/01531/FUL Per Simpson & Brown alteration to auction ring Ltd, Main Street, Architects (08/01530/LBC) and Reston. St Ninian’s Manse Erection of 112 Quayside Street dwellinghouses, district Edinburgh heating building and EH6 6EJ associated workd (08/01531/FUL

08/01530/LBC

Decision: Approved in principle with delegated powers to the Head of Planning and Building Standards in order that the proposals can be pursued and suitably amended in accordance with the requirements of Historic Scotland. The application would ultimately be referred to Historic Scotland for clearance.

08/01531/FUL

Decision: Approved in principle with delegated powers to the Head of Planning and Building Standards in order that the outstanding issues can hopefully be resolved and subject to the conclusion of an appropriate legal agreement and the following conditions:

1. Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used in connection with the district heating system should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR30 when measured at the façade of the nearest noise sensitive dwelling. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of existing and prospective neighbouring residents. 2. Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbance the developer will engage a certified archaeologist to produce a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a course of evaluation to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Evaluation may include geophysical survey and evaluation trenching to determine the presence or absence of buried archaeological features or finds. If significant archaeology is discovered, the Planning Authority will be contacted to discuss further mitigation. Reason: The site of archaeological interest. 3. Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with contamination on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall contain details of proposals to deal with contamination to include: a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model, measurement of pollutant linkages through a detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of risk such contamination presents. The scope and method of this investigation to be agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority, and be undertaken in accordance with PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2001. b) Remedial Strategy (if required) to treat/remove contamination to ensure that the site is fit for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works, and proposed validation plan). c) Submission of a Validation Report (should remedial action be required) by the competent person employed by the developer who will validate and verify the completion of works to a satisfactory standard as agreed with the Local Planning Council. d) Submission, if necessary, of monitoring statements at periods to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority for such time period as is considered appropriate by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the potential for health risk arising from any identified land contamination has been adequately addressed. 4. Before the development is commenced, a Construction Method Statement to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The works must thereafter be undertaken in accordance with these agreed details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form of the development. 5. The disposal of surface water to comply with the “Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems – Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland” published by CIRA in 2000. The management and maintenance of the SUDS system to be agreed with the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To ensure that adequate and appropriate means are used in the disposal of surface water. 6. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: The materials require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting. 7. The access roads, footpaths/footways, and parking spaces shown on the approved plans to be completed to the specification of the Planning Authority in accordance with a programme of phasing submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: To ensure that adequate access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles is provided and is at all times properly maintained. 8. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in strict accordance with a programme of phasing which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development of the estate proceeds in an orderly manner. 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (or amendments or re-enactment or re-enactment thereof) no extension, enlargement; or other alteration of any dwelling shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Council, to whom a planning application must be made. Reason: The Planning Authority considers that the development hereby permitted is the maximum that can be reasonably allowed without causing detriment to the amenities of adjoining properties, and for this reason would wish to control any future proposals or alterations or extensions. 10. Before the development is commenced, a Development Impact Assessment to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Water, and an appropriate scheme to be in place to accommodate the development within Scottish Water’s local infrastructure. This may be on a phased basis with the agreement of the Planning Authority in liaison with Scottish Water. Reason: To ensure the site is adequately serviced. 11. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored 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, street lighting, play equipment vii. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development. 12. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of soft landscaping works, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and shall include: i. indication of existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be removed, those to be retained and, in the case of damage, proposals for their restoration ii. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas iii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density iv. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings. 13. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons for each agreed phase 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. 14. No trees within the application site shall be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The existing trees represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained. 15. Gates must not open onto the public highway. Reason: To ensure safety for users of the public highway. 16. The areas allocated for parking on the submitted plan shall be properly consolidated, surfaced and drained to the specification of the Local Planning Authority before the dwellinghouses which they serve are occupied, and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the prospective public road. 17. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of the equipped play area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme so submitted shall include- i. type and location of play equipment, seating, fences, walls and litter bins ii. surface treatment of the play area iii. proposals for the implementation/phasing of the play area in relation to the construction of houses on the site. Reason: To ensure that proper provision is made for recreational facilities within the site. 18. All works required for the provision of the play area shall be completed in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as approved. 19. No development shall be commenced until an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The assessment must include air quality issues arising from the operation of the district heating system and pollution arising from additional road traffic associated with the district heating system. The use of the district heating shall not commence until any mitigation measures found to be necessary as part of the assessment have been undertaken and must thereafter be permanently maintained. Reason: In the interests of environmental health. 20. The district heating system shall only burn fuel of the grade and quality specified by the Local Planning Authority and the manufacturer of the combustion plant. Reason: In the interests of environmental health. 21. The efflux velocity and discharge point of the flue serving the district heating system must be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and must thereafter be so retained. Reason: In the interests of environmental health.

Informative:

In respect of condition no. 2, it would also be desirable that if any archaeology is discovered this could be marked in an appropriate way for the public.

In respect of condition no. 4, this method statement must satisfactorily address the temporary measures proposed to deal with surface water run-off during construction in accordance with the requirements of CAR and the relevant 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.

06/01293/FUL CWP Scotland Erection of eighteen Garden Allotments Per Smith Design dwellinghouses and Shedden Park Road, Associates change of use of Kelso 16 Lynedoch Crescent allotments to garden GLASGOW G3 6EQ ground.

Decision: Agreed to continue to enable Officers the opportunity to seek the re-design of the proposed houses.

VOTE Councillor Weatherston, seconded by Councillor Calvert, moved that the recommendations in the report be approved. Councillor Riddell - Carre, seconded by Councillor Hume moved as an amendment that the application be continued to enable Officers the opportunity to seek the re-design of the proposed houses.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion 4 votes Amendment 5 votes

The amendment was accordingly carried. PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS ITEM 5

15 June 2009

REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS

DRAFT PLANNING BRIEF – BORDERS COLLEGE, MELROSE ROAD, GALASHIELS

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To seek approval for the draft planning brief for the Borders College site on Melrose Road, Galashiels (see Appendix A) to be adopted.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Borders College site at Melrose Road, Galashiels is allocated in the adopted Local Plan for redevelopment (zRO202). The site is 1.9 ha and can under policy H3 be considered for development of housing, employment (classes 4, 5 and 6 of the Use Class Order), retailing, community facilities or open space.

2.2 The majority of the site is currently owned by Borders College. The college is relocating its activities to a new site at Netherdale in Galashiels in April 2009 and their current site will become surplus to requirement and available for redevelopment. Borders College has instructed Colliers CRE to sell the landholding on behalf of Borders College.

2.3 Colliers CRE has in conjunction with the Council prepared a draft planning brief for the site to create a development vision and address potential constraints on the site. The planning brief will provide guidance to any developer of the site.

3 CONSULTATION

3.1 The draft planning brief was subject to a 12 week public consultation. Public consultation was held with the local Community Council and national stakeholders including Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The draft planning brief was also published on the Council’s website.

3.2 The summary of the consultation responses are set out in Appendix B of this report. Following the consultation, some minor changes have been made to the Waste Management, Water, Drainage and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and the Development Vision sections.

3.3 Consultation on this report has been undertaken with the Heads of Corporate Administration, Legal Services, Corporate Finance and Financial Administration and the Directors of Technical Services and Social Work and their comments have been incorporated in this report. 4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 There are no direct financial implications arising from adoption of the draft planning brief. The approved brief will provide guidance to developers for development on the site.

4.2 There are ongoing costs related to staff resources needed to carry out research and management relating to the production of the framework. These costs can be met by Planning and Economic Development.

5 RISK COMMENTARY

5.1 The key risks are considered to be:

Risk of not providing guidance

(i) The lack of guidance would cause uncertainty for landowners, developers and the public and be a barrier to effective decision-making by the Council. This could result in ad hoc and inconsistent decision making with the policies in the Local Plan not being taken fully into account.

(ii) Failure to develop planning briefs would reflect badly on the Council’s commitment to improve the design standards of new housing developments.

(iii) It is considered that the failure to approve the Planning Brief would have impacts in terms of resources in the Development Management Section, potentially resulting in delays in processing applications. In addition, it may ultimately have a negative impact on the quality of development and the thorough assessment of the environmental impact of development.

Risk of providing guidance

(i) There are no perceived risks related to the adoption of the guidance by the Council.

5.2 In accordance with Section 7 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 a pre-screening assessment of the draft Planning Brief for Borders College, Melrose Road, Galashiels has been undertaken using the criteria specified in Schedule 2 of the Act. The pre-screening assessment identified minimal effects in relation to the environment hence draft Planning Brief for Borders College, Melrose Road, Galashiels is exempt from SEA requirements under Section 7 (1) of the Act.

6 EQUALITIES

6.1 There are no equality issues in approving this report.

6.2 With respect to Rural Proofing, there is no expected impact on the rural area.

7 SUMMARY

7.1 The draft planning brief seeks approval for adoption to provide guidelines for development of the site.

8 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 It is recommended that the Planning and Building Standards Committee approves the draft Development Brief for the Borders College site as detailed in Appendix A to this report and accepts its provisions as material considerations in the determination of planning applications. Approved by Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards

Author(s) Name Designation Beatrice Nichol Assistant Planning Officer Kristina Bell Assistant Planning Officer

Background Papers: None Previous Minute Reference: None

Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Linda Ross can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.878

Contact us at Business Services, Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Council HQ, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Phone: 01835 825060. Fax: 01835 825158. Email: [email protected] Scottish Borders Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance on

Draft Planning Brief – Borders College Melrose Road – Galashiels

June 2009

Contents Page No:

1. Introduction 2

2. Site Context 2

3. History of Site 4

4. Policy Context 6 4.1 National 4.2 Structure Plan 4.3 Local Plan 4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance

5. Development Vision 7

6. Development Guidance 10 6.1 Energy Efficiency 6.2 Parking and the External Environment 6.3 Ecology and Habitat 6.4 Waste management

7. Constraints 10 7.1 Listed Building 7.2 Access (vehicular & pedestrian) 7.3 Water, Drainage and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

8. Development Contributions 12 8.1 Education 8.2 Waverley Line 8.3 Play Areas

9. Housing Density 13

Alternative Format/Language Paragraph 14

Appendix One – Historic Scotland Listed Building Report 15

Appendix Two – Contacts within Scottish Borders Council 18

List of Images

Image 1: Entrance to Borders College 2 Image 2: Example of surrounding houses 2 Image 3: Southern aspect of Thorniedean House 10 Image 4: Listed gates of Thorniedean House 10 Image 5: Access to Sports Centre 11 Image 6: Entrance to Langhaugh Lane 11

List of Figures

Figure 1: Local context 3 Figure 2: Existing buildings 5 Figure 3: Redevelopment plans 9

1 1. Introduction

1.1 This planning brief sets out the main opportunities and constraints relating to the redevelopment site at Borders College, Melrose Road, Galashiels. It provides a framework for the future development of the site within the period of the recently adopted Local Plan, over the next five years.

1.2 The brief identifies where detailed attention to specific issues is required and where development contributions will be sought. The brief should be read alongside relevant, national, strategic and local planning guidance, a selection of which is provided within this document.

2. Site Context

2.1 Galashiels is located within the Central Borders, approximately 36 miles south of Edinburgh and connected via the A7. The town lies at the bottom of the steep sided valley, through which the Gala Water runs. Although the town presently has no railway service, the “Waverley Line” between Edinburgh and Tweedbank received royal assent to re-open in July 2006, with construction beginning in 2010 and with the rail line scheduled to open in 2013.

2.2 The Borders College Melrose Road Campus is 1.93 Ha (4.77 acres) and lies immediately east of Galashiels Town Centre (see Image 1). The site is located on the south side of Melrose Road (B6374) on an area of generally level ground. Residential properties rise in levelled tiers up the steep slope to the north (see Image 2). From within buildings on the site, views down into the town and across the valley are obtained. Figure 1 demonstrates the location of this site in Galashiels.

Image 1: Entrance to Borders College Image 2: Example of surrounding houses

2.3 There are a range of different buildings on the site. On the western campus, the dominant property in terms of scale is the stone built former Galashiels Academy building, which has been subject to extension and alteration at its eastern extent. Behind this property there is a single storey brick built ‘Vocational Training’ building. To the west of the Queens Sports Centre is the ‘Electronics Building’ which is single storey with a brick façade. There are car parking areas at the front and a walled herb garden to the west of these buildings. In the eastern extent of the campus, the Category ‘C(S)’ Listed Building of Special Architectural and/or Historic Importance, Thorniedean House, is situated. To the south of this structure, on a lower level and utilising the levels to provide accommodation are the ‘Technical Workshops’. Figure 2 shows the existing buildings on the site.

2 Fig. 1 - Local Context For illustrative purposes only ¯ *

! ! ! ! zRO25! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! zRS2! ! ! !! ! ! ! zCR3 ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! zIR1!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! zTI1 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! ! !

! !

#! ! * ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

zCR1 ! ! zRO202 ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! EGL13B

! ! !

! ! zCR4 !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

zCR2 !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! EGL16B ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! zEL41 ! ! ! ! EGL20B ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *# ! ! ! ! ! ! !

zEL40

0300150! Metres

zRO202 Redevelopment Site Commercial Redevelopment (H3) Development Boundary (G8) Inner Relief Road (H3)

! !

! ! Town Centre (ED5) Railway Station (H3) Conservation Area (BE4) Transport Interchange (H3) Employment Land Safeguarding (ED1) Core Path Network !!! Transport Safeguarding (Inf1) Rights of Way Network 3 Housing (H3) *# Primary Non-Denominational School

Redevelopment (H3) ! Listed Building 2.4 It should also be noted that the Queens Sports Centre within the western area of campus is owned by the Scottish Borders Council. This landholding does not form part of the developable area and will remain in situ. This section of the site could be incorporated into the developable area if an alternative location were found for the Queens Sports Centre in Galashiels.

2.5 There are currently three access points into the campus: the car park entrance and exit on the western section of the site and Langhaugh Lane on the eastern side adjacent to Thorniedean House, a private road that bisects the eastern and western halves of the campus. The nearest bus stop is located at the entrance to the site and has a good town service and is a stopping point for many of the country services to other Border towns.

2.6 There is a boundary wall and gates to the front of Thorniedean House that is also listed. The boundary to the south is tree lined, before the land, which is currently landscaped, falls down to the Langhaugh Industrial Estate and two supermarkets. A pedestrian access links this site with the Estate. Mature trees and shrubs make up the existing open space within the site.

2.7 Figure 2 provides an aerial image of the existing buildings on this site.

3. History of Site

3.1 The site has always been used for educational purposes, having been built originally for Galashiels Academy in the inter war years. Thereafter the site was used by Galashiels Technical College.

3.2 Borders College was formed in 1984 by the amalgamation of Galashiels Technical College, Henderson Technical College (Hawick), Duns Agricultural Centre and the Agricultural Centre, Newtown St. Boswells and the site has been used by Borders College from 1984 to date.

3.3 Thorniedean House was built in approximately 1868 as a residential villa for William Sime of Sime & Sanderson, the original owners of Botany Mill in Galashiels. During the Second World War the house was used by a girl’s school that was evacuated from Edinburgh. Thorniedean House became part of Galashiels Academy thereafter in 1949 and has been used for educational purposes to date. Thorniedean House was used by the Council’s Assessors from 1975 to 1984.

4 Fig 2 - Existing Buildings For illustrative purposes only ¯ W y lie s Br ae St ation Brae

M e lro se R o ad

1 scent Ellwyn Cre

2 3

e n a L 4 h g u a 5 h g n a L

C urrie

Ro a d

Gala

1 - Electronics Buildings

2 - Queen's Sports Centre

3 - Former Galashiels Academy

4 - Vocational Training Building 5 5 - Thorniedean House

6 - Technical Workshops 4. Policy Context

4.1 National The Scottish Government has a number of policy and guidance documents that could be useful to this development:

SPP 3: Planning for Housing SPP 6: Renewable Energy SPP 17: Planning for Transport PAN 61: Planning & SUDS Designing Places: A Policy Statement for Scotland PAN 65: Planning & Open Space PAN 67: Quality Housing PAN 76: New Residential Streets PAN 77: Designing Safer Places PAN 78: Inclusive Design

4.2 Structure Plan The Scottish Borders Council Structure Plan was approved in 2002. Galashiels lies within the ‘Primary Hub’ that is to be promoted as part of the strategic development strategy (Principle S3) to accommodate additional housing, retail and employment generating development. An alteration to the Structure Plan on housing was approved with modifications by the Council in May 2008 and submitted to the Scottish Ministers in summer 2008.

4.3 Local Plan The Local Plan identifies the Melrose Road Campus in land use terms as a Redevelopment Opportunity (zRO22). Under policy H3 a number of uses as housing, employment (classes 4, 5 and 6 of the Use Class Order), retailing, community facilities or open space, can be considered on a redevelopment site. The following policies also closely relate to this development:

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Housing Policy G6 – Infill Development Policy H1 – Affordable Housing Policy H3 – Land Use Allocations Policy BE 1 – Listed Buildings Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance The Council has produced supplementary planning guidance (SPG) on a number of topics for further policy guidance. For development of this site SPG on affordable housing, renewable energy and the draft SPG on play areas should be specifically considered.

6 5. Development Vision

5.1 This is an exciting opportunity to provide a new use for the former Galashiels Academy, the listed Thorniedean House and the College campus, creating a distinct and attractive new residential area within Galashiels. The vision for this site is to produce a well designed and sustainable development that can take advantage of great views across the town and good linkages into the centre. Maintenance of existing and proposed planting and landscaping should be addressed as part of any planning application for this site. Any development proposal submitted to the Council is required to demonstrate that existing trees within and adjoining the site are not affected by new development. This includes consideration of overshadowing from existing trees. Figure 3 represents the main aims of this vision.

5.2 The key requirements of this development are as follows (see figure 3):

Site A 1. Retention of Thorniedean House and listed features of the property 2. Conversion and subdivision of Thorniedean House 3. Existing mature woodland and shrubs to be retained and enhanced 4. Creation of attractive open space surrounding listed building 5. Retention, enhancement and extension of stone boundaries on northern boundary of site facing Melrose Road 6. Car parking to be located in existing northern edge location for flats

Sites B & C 1. Housing (terraced) in site B should be no higher than 2 stories 2. Housing (terraced) in site C should be no higher than 1 ½ stories and fully consider any potential issues with overshadowing from existing trees 3. Housing layout to reflect courtyard 4. Parking should be kept to the rear of the houses 5. Retention and enhancement of the private Langhaugh Lane to ensure access to existing residential houses 6. Visitor car parking required for listed building and new housing to be landscaped to ensure minimal impact on views from Thorniedean House

Site D 1. Retention of former Galashiels Academy building for renovation and conversion into flats 2. Any new build proposals for this area must be designed to a high standard and with architectural merit to reflect the existing building. 3. Retention and enhancement of pedestrian linkages into town centre 4. Parking located to the rear of the property and not visible from Melrose Road 5. Landscape area to front of building to be pedestrian dominated space

Site E 1. Replacement of college extensions and buildings with new build flats that reflect the height and proportions of the former Galashiels Academy 2. Parking located to the rear of the property and not visible from Melrose Road 3. Car parking for the Queens Sports Centre to be sited at front of the development and limited to 15 spaces

Site F & G: 1. Creation of a new play area on site F 2. Retention, enhancement and maintenance of existing woodland boundary in site G

8 Fig 3 - Redevelopment Plans For illustrative purposes only ¯

W y lie s Br ae St ation Brae

F M e lro se R o E ad

scent Ellwyn Cre

e n a L

h g u a h A g G n a L

C C u rr ie R o a d

G a la W a te r 0 25 50 Metres

IST ID: 121264 © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Scottish Borders Council Licence 100023423, 2009. Key Listed Wall - To Be Retained Local Plan Site Boundary Sports Centre 1 1/2 Storey Housing (C) Sports Centre Parking 2 Storey Housing (B) Residential Parking 2/3 Storey Housing (E) Visitors Parking 2/3 Storey Housing - Existing Building Retained (D) Landscaped Areas Pavement 9 Required Planting Road Existing Planting (F) Listed Building (A) Existing Woodland (G) 6. Development Guidance

6.1 Energy Efficiency The development will be expected to comply with all relevant national policy to reduce carbon emissions from development, to achieve high standards of energy conservation and to provide on-site renewable energy production where appropriate. These provisions are highlighted in Policy G1 (5) – Quality Standards for New Development of the adopted Local Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. Developers must comply with these policies and provide evidence of how they have addressed them. On site energy generation should be incorporated into the development wherever possible as well as sustainable building construction and design.

6.2 Parking Where car parking spaces are allocated to individual properties the provisional requirement will be two car parking spaces per dwelling unit (discounting garages). There will be a 25% requirement for visitor parking to be provided in groups of two spaces or more. For communal car parking the provisional requirements, which include visitor parking, is 1.5-1.75 spaces per dwelling unit.

6.3 Ecology and Habitat A phase one habitat survey of the site will be required to ensure that the ecological and fauna implications of the development proposal are taken into account from the outset. This must also allow for habitat reinforcement and creation through the development proposal and connections to the wider green corridors/network.

6.4 Waste Management Waste management facilities for recycling and collection should form an integral part of the development, in terns of storage provision within the site and off site collection. Waste material needed in the construction of the development should only be carried in if a waste management licence is in effect or SEPA are aware of the activity.

7. Constraints

7.1 Listed Building 7.1.1 Thorniedean House, located at the eastern end of the site, is included on the Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural and/or Historic Interest at Category C(S), see Image 3. Appendix 1 provides the “list description” associated with Thorniedean House. It should be noted that both the interior and exterior are listed, and that in particular the boundary walls, railings and gatepiers are also specifically included in the listing, see image 4.

Image 3: Southern aspect of Thorniedean Image 4: Listed gates of Thorniedean House House

7.1.2 Redevelopment proposals for the listed building, including alterations or extension, will be assessed taking account of the advice contained in the “Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas” published by Historic Scotland. It should be noted that there is a presumption in favour of the retention of the property. It is recommended that pre- application discussion is undertaken with the Planning Authority in connection with the proposals for the redevelopment of this property. The notes included as part of the list description comment that Thorniedean House is of particular interest for the quality of its interior, and as such high quality proposals will be required.

7.2 Access (vehicular & pedestrian) 7.2.1 The Melrose Road Campus presently has two access points to the western extent of the campus that require to be rationalised according to the Technical Services, slight modifications are also required to meet the junction visibility standards of 3m x 90m (see Image 5). The Council will also wish to ensure that access to the Queens Sports Centre remains in place. Any requirement to replace or extend the frontage stone walls will need to accommodate revised sightlines.

7.2.2 The eastern extent of the campus, including Thorniedean House, and rear of the western extent of the campus, is accessed from Langhaugh Lane, a private road that bisects the eastern and western halves of the campus, it is in poor condition in terms of geometry and state of repair, according to Technical Services (see Image 6). The sight lines and visibility splays at the junction of Langhaugh Lane and Melrose Road do not meet current standards, but have been used by the College and residents for a significant period of time. As there is sufficient land within the College’s control to the east and west of this junction, visibility improvement work is capable of being undertaken, if required. It should be borne in mind that to the east of this junction, the boundary walls, gatepiers and railings are all listed, therefore the opportunity to improve this visibility splay will have to take account of the built environment considerations. Stone walls are required to be rebuilt in a position accommodating improved sightlines. Technical Services note that the developer will be expected to meet the cost of or contribute towards the cost of, identified off-site transport work as a result of the development and/or the cumulative effect of the development in a wider scale. In this regard a Transport Assessment will be required.

Image 5: Access to Sports Centre Image 6: Entrance to Langhaugh Lane

7.2.3 Utilising the Central Borders Traffic Study, developers will have to assess the impact of the development on the road network and contribute to the cost of identified upgrades required on a proportional basis. It is also noted that any development proposal should have a Street Layout compliant with the concepts of PAN 76. This document will be replaced by the ‘Designing

11 Streets’ manual later this year, its replacement will encourage innovative street design with well connected less car dominant layouts, where traffic calming is achieved more naturally.

7.2.4 The existing pedestrian access to the south of the site leading to Langhaugh Industrial Estate needs to be retained at present. Potential issues with the Waverley line route and pedestrian access to the site should be further investigated and alternative access may be required to achieve best possible access to the town centre.

7.3 Water, Drainage and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems There are no surface watercourses within the site and the nearest watercourse, the Gala Water lies 200m to the south. A Drainage Impact Assessment will be required at the planning application stage by Scottish Borders Council together with an assessment of water capacity. Early work on these matters in conjunction with Scottish Water is encouraged as is any change to existing infrastructure. Sewerage disposal should be connected to the public foul sewer. Developers may be required to fund works that mitigate the impact on existing networks. Provision for Sustainable Urban Drainage, effectively managing the flow of rain water run off by treating it within the site, which accords with current design principles, as detailed in Planning Advice Note 67 – Housing Quality will be required.

8. Development Contributions

8.1 Affordable Housing This site is located within the Central Borders Housing Market Area in which on-site affordable housing provision is sought at a rate of 25% for residential developments exceeding 4 units. There are a variety of means by which the requirements emanating from policy H1 can be satisfied and potential developers would be encouraged to make contact with the Planning Authority to establish potential solutions.

8.2 Education Currently, in terms of educational infrastructure, developer contributions for Galashiels Academy (secondary schooling) are £1,361 for each house and £204 for each flat. For Langlee Primary (primary schooling) the amount requested from developers is £3,162 per house and £474 for each flat. Galashiels Schools’ Review will take place in 2009 and the outcome will determine exact level of contribution for both the High School and Primary School. It is likely that a combination of significant extension with remodelling and new build is required. Exemptions are available for houses/flats that are one bedroomed and for affordable housing. Contribution levels are updated via the BCIS index in March every year.

8.3 Waverley Line Due to the site’s location and the anticipated benefit that will result from the reinstatement of the Waverley Line, Development Contributions will be necessary to comply with Policy G6. Waverley Line reinstatement contributions are currently required at a rate of £1,829 per unit, though are not sought from units complying with SBC’s affordable housing definitions. This contribution level is reviewed annually on 1st April in line with BCIS indices.

8.4 Play Areas According to the Council’s standards relating to the provision of children’s play space, and reflected in the draft SPG for Play Areas, developments exceeding 9 family dwellings are required to provide play facilities on site.

12 There are a variety of methods by which this play provision can be satisfied, potentially including enhancement of any suitably located existing facilities and the options can be discussed accordingly.

8.5 Transport Contributions are required in respect of work identified in a Transport Assessment which links into the Central Borders Traffic Study.

9. Housing Density

9.1 The site has been assessed as developable for an indicative capacity of 68 housing units. The number of units will depend on final design and size of units. The assessment has identified the following breakdown of density:

Up to 8 houses (terraced) Up to 10 flats in redeveloped listed building Up to 50 flats in redeveloped/rebuilt buildings on main part of site

The development must consider height of surrounding buildings, open space and car parking requirements.

13 Alternative Format/Language Paragraph

You can get this document on tape, in large print, and various other formats by contacting us at the address below. In addition, contact the address below for information on language translations, additional copies, or to arrange for an officer to meet with you to explain any areas of the publication that you would like clarified.

其他格式／外文譯本這份資料冊另備有錄音帶、大字體版本以及多種其他格式。你可以透過以下地址與我們聯絡，索取不同版本。此外，你也可以聯絡以下地址索取本資料的中文和其他外文譯本或索取更多拷貝。亦可要求我們做出安排，由我們的工作人員當面為你解釋你對這份出版物中的不明確之處。

[Alternatywny format/język] Aby uzyskać kopię niniejszego dokumentu w formacie audio, dużą czcionką, oraz innych formatach prosimy o kontakt na poniższy adres. Uzykać tam można również informacje o tłumaczeniach na języki obce, otrzymaniu dodatkowych kopii oraz zaaranżowaniu spotkania z urzędnikiem, który wyjaśni wątpliwości i zapytania związane z treścią niniejszej publikacji.

Parágrafo de formato/língua alternativos Pode obter este documento em cassete audio, impressão aumentada e vários outros formatos contactando a morada indicada em baixo. Pode ainda contactar a morada indicada em baixo para obter informações sobre traduções noutras línguas, cópias adicionais ou para solicitar uma reunião com um funcionário para lhe explicar quaisquer áreas desta publicação que deseje ver esclarecidas.

Параграф об альтернативном формате/языковой версии Чтобы получить данный документ в записи на пленке, в крупношрифтовой распечатке и в других различных форматах, вы можете обратиться к нам по приведенному ниже адресу. Кроме того, по данному адресу можно обращаться за информацией о переводе на различные языки, получении дополнительных копий а также с тем, чтобы организовать встречу с сотрудником, который сможет редставить объяснения по тем разделам публикации, которые вам хотелось бы прояснить.

Business Services Manager, Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Telephone: 01835 825060. E-mail: [email protected]

14 Appendix One - Historic Scotland Listed Building Report

15 Appendix One - Historic Scotland Listed Building Report

16 Appendix One - Historic Scotland Listed Building Report

17 Appendix Two - Contacts within Scottish Borders Council SBC Planning and Economic Development: John Hayward (Development Manager West), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825068 E-mail: [email protected]

Martin Wanless (Plans & Research Manager), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825063 E-mail: [email protected]

Andy Tharme (Ecology Officer), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 826514 E-mail: [email protected]

Jon Bowie (Developer Negotiator) Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825060 E-mail: [email protected]

Carlos Clarke (Principal Planning Officer), Galashiels Area Office, Paton Street, Galashiels TD1 3AS Tel: 01896 662747 E-mail:[email protected]

Andy Millar (Countryside & Heritage Manager), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825062 E-mail: [email protected]

Waverley Line team: Steven Renwick (Project Manager – Waverley), Council Headquarters, Lancaster House, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 826687 Ext: 6687 E-mail: [email protected]

SBC Technical Services: Ron Elliot (Transport section - Road User Manager), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825079 E-mail: [email protected]

SBC Technical Services (Environmental Services) Graham Prentice (Refuse Collection Manager) Council Headquarters - Scott House (A), Sprouston Road, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0QD Tel: 01835 825111 Ext: 5612 Email: [email protected]

Julie Rankine (Waste Strategy Manager), Council Headquarters - Scott House (A), Sprouston Road, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose. TD6 0QD Tel: 01835 825111 Ext 6629 Email: [email protected]

18 Appendix B: Consultation comments & responses

Issue No. Consultee Comment Summary Council response 1. Historic Scotland 1. Content with the brief and have no 1. Notes support for brief. further comments. 2. SEPA Provided a number of detailed comments for 1. A sentence has been added to 6.4: “Waste consideration. Several of these are really material needed in the construction of the more applicable at the planning application development should only be carried in if a waste stage of the process. This included: management licence is in effect or SEPA are 1. Advice on construction and aware of the activity.” landscaping in terms of waste 2. A line has been added “On site energy material and where it should be generation should be incorporated into the deposited development wherever possible as well as 2. The importance of ensuring sustainable building construction and design.” renewables, energy efficiency & 3. Other guidance provided reflects additional sustainability through building detail that will be required at planning design and construction application stage. 3. Impact air quality through 4. The site is on brownfield in Galashiels in generation of more road traffic walking distance of the centre and is on a main 4. Waste management bus route. This will limit the generation of more 5. Biodiversity enhancement through traffic and is noted in the brief. SUDS and requirement for SUDS 5. Advice on SUDS is provided in the brief at 7.3. to address surface water issues 6. An additional line has been added: “Sewerage 6. Sewerage disposal should be disposal should be connected to the public foul connected to public foul sewer. sewer.” 7. Contaminated land is the Council’s 7. Contaminated land has not been identified on responsibility. this site. 3 Scottish Water Provided comments on the following: 1. Comment noted. 1. Were supportive of the paragraph 7.3 2. Advice on SUDS is provided in the brief at 7.3. on Drainage Impact Assessment. 3. Sentence has been added: Early work on these 2. Recommended SUDS provision matters in conjunction with Scottish Water is 3. Diversions of existing infrastructure encouraged as is any change to existing should be discussed at an early stage infrastructure. with Scottish Water. 4. Water and waste water capacity is discussed in 4. Water and Waste Water capacity section 7.3. should be discussed at earliest 5. Sentence added: “Developers may be required opportunity. to fund works that mitigate the impact on 5. Local Networks funding from existing networks.” developers. 4 Ewan Doyle Comments on: 1. The brief recommends that the building is 1. Borders College Building is not listed retained even though it is not listed. To further 2. 8 dwelling houses for sites B, C & E is discuss issues regarding listing, please context too higher density as all neighbouring the Heritage and Design Officer in the Scottish properties are detached or semi Borders Council for advice. detached. Unsure why taller units are 2. Due to the nature of the buildings already on the on higher ground. site, higher density can be incorporated and indeed, would be more appropriate to the actual existing buildings. Site B & C are intended to provide a courtyard type development that will be in keeping with the listed building and not obscure the setting of it. This requires the buildings to be smaller and lower. The taller units are on the higher ground to the side of the listed building; the buildings directly in front of the listed building are lower to ensure they do not obscure its setting or views. 5 Colliers CRE Change the following: 1. The term townhouse is now replaced with 1. “New townhouses in sites B & C terraced housing. should be no higher than the buildings 2. Sentence is added: “Any new build proposals that currently exist upon the site.” for this area must be designed to a high 2. Additional bullet point to site D “New standard and with architectural merit to reflect build proposal for this area designed to the existing building.” high standard and with architectural merit.”

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS ITEM 6

15 JUNE 2009

REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE ON PLACEMAKING AND DESIGN

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To seek approval for the Draft Placemaking and Design Supplementary Planning Guidance (see Appendix A) to be subject to a 12 week public consultation period.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 In the past four years, the Council has embarked upon a process to improve the design quality of planning applications and new developments in the Scottish Borders. A range of strategic and detailed initiatives have been implemented to raise the standards of design. This has included new Local Plan policy, Planning Briefs and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

2.2 The Placemaking and Design Supplementary Planning Guidance aims to be the culmination of this programme of work and marks a new beginning for assessing planning applications in terms of design criteria.

2.3 The SPG consists of a policy and character appraisal specific to the Scottish Borders, provides the key principles to be looked at when putting forward a development proposal and offers guidance on the criteria to be met for different types of housing development. It also gives clear policy criteria on which a development proposal should be assessed in terms of placemaking and design.

2.4 The document format is as follows: a checklist at the beginning of the document summarising the key placemaking issues; an introductory section on how to use the guide; the policies that have influenced the document; an area appraisal that details the Borders characteristics in terms of landscape and settlement pattern; A key set of principles that look placemaking issues in the wider, local and building context; a set of worksheets that covers key housing developments; a policy section that will be applied as a material consideration when assessing planning applications. A glossary of urban design terminology is at the back of the document.

3 CONSULTATION

3.1 The Draft Placemaking and Design SPG will be subject to a 12 week public consultation. Public consultation will be held with local Community Councils and national stakeholders including Historic Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The Draft SPG will also be published on the Council’s website. 3.3 Consultation on this report has been undertaken with the Heads of Corporate Administration, Legal Services, Chief Financial Officer and the Directors of Technical Services and Social Work and their comments have been incorporated in this report.

4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The cost of producing and consulting on the SPG will be met from the department’s existing budget. The Guide is being designed for easy use on line to minimise the costs of printing hard copies.

4.2 Ongoing costs related to staff resources needed to carry out research and management relating to the production of the framework can be met from the Planning and Economic Development budget.

5 RISK COMMENTARY

5.1 The key risks are considered to be:

Risk of not providing guidance

(i) The lack of guidance would cause uncertainty to the developers and the public and be a barrier to effective decision making by the Council. This could result in an ad hoc and inconsistent decision making with the policies in the Local Plan not being taken fully into account.

(ii) Failure to produce the Placemaking and Design SPG would reflect badly on the Council’s commitment to improving the design of new housing developments.

(iii) It is considered that the failure to approve the Draft Placemaking and Design SPG for public consultation would have resource impacts in the Development Management Section, potentially resulting in delays processing planning applications. In addition, it may ultimately have both a negative impact on any housing development and the design criteria that it should address to meet government standards.

Risk of providing guidance

(i) There are no perceived risks related to the adoption of the guidance by the Council.

5.2 In accordance with Section 7 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 a pre-screening assessment of the Draft Placemaking and Design SPG has been undertaken using the criteria specified in Schedule 2 of the Act. The pre-screening assessment identified minimal effects in relation to the environment hence Draft Placemaking and Design SPG is exempt from SEA requirements under Section 7 (1) of the Act.

6 EQUALITIES

6.1 There are no equality issues in approving this report.

6.2 With respect to Rural Proofing, there is no expected impact on the rural area.

7 SUMMARY

7.1 The Draft Placemaking and Design SPG seeks to set out clear standards for improving the design of new developments in the Scottish Borders. It will be an invaluable tool for developers when developing new schemes, for officers considering planning applications, and for Committees determining applications. The document has been prepared in draft for and will now be issued for a 12 week period of public consultation. 8 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 It is recommended that the Planning and Building Standards Committee:

(a) Approves the Draft Placemaking and Design SPG as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period, and that if there are any substantive comments then they should be reported back to this committee

(b) Agrees that if there are no substantive comments arising from consultation that the SPG should be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Building Standards.

Approved by Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards

Author(s) Name Designation Beatrice Nichol Assistant Planning Officer Carol Cooke Urban Designer

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. Tracey Hutchison can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Telephone: 01835 825060. E-mail: [email protected] Item No. 7(a) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

15 JUNE 2009

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: 7(a) REFERENCE NUMBER: 09/00230/FUL

OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Kelso and District PROPOSAL: Erection of dwellinghouse SITE: Land North of Lime Avenue Cottage Nenthorn APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs P Cooper AGENT: Sidney Palmer

SITE DESCRIPTION

Nenthorn House is situated to the west of Nenthorn village and has extensive grounds. To the south west of Nenthorn House is Beechbank, a large two-storey dwellinghouse. Lime Avenue Cottage is situated to the south east of the main house.

The application site is situated to the east of Nenthorn House and is part of a larger field grazed by horses. There is a mature tree belt to the north on the boundary of the public road to Girrick. A ménage is being constructed to the south west.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is to erect a one-and-a-half storey dwellinghouse on the site. This would have pitched roof dormers and sash and case style windows. It would have blockwork walls with a dry dash render finish and a natural slate roof. The existing access onto the Girrick road would be improved to serve the new house and a driveway, parking spaces and a turning area would be provided within the site.

PLANNING HISTORY

Nenthorn House has a complicated planning history but the most relevant planning applications are listed below:

R287/92: Development of 45 community care units, private house plots, extension of nursing home and new access road. Nenthorn House. Granted 1st July 1994 subject to a legal agreement controlling the development, which included the following requirements: x No work will begin or continue on the erection or extension of any building on the land until the new public road has been constructed in accordance with a construction consent issued by the local roads authority and has been certified by them as complete; x In every application for planning permission in detail for developments involving the erection of houses in the community care village not fewer than three quarters of the houses shall be Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 identified as houses reserved for occupation by persons who are not less than 55 years of age or who, because of infirmity, are in need of housing in a sheltered environment; x The nursing home to always be managed as a nursing home.

The legal agreement was amended in April 1997 to state that:

x Preliminary works may begin or continue on the erection or extension of any building on the land subject to the road being constructed to base course level and subject to the proprietors delivering to the Council a Roads Bond for any sums due to complete as well as any remedial works to the public road and for maintenance costs for one year after the date of issue of a completion certificate from the Council and no building shall be occupied until the road has been completed to an adoptable standard.

x The development shall be completed in three phases; the first phase comprising of 20 dwellings and in the applications for planning permission in detail not fewer than 8 houses shall be restricted to occupants not less than 55 years of age or who, because of infirmity, are in need of housing in a sheltered scheme and these houses shall be developed in the ratio of three unrestricted to two restricted properties. The second phase of 20 houses shall be so restricted and in the third phase of six houses, none shall be restricted giving the total minimum ratio of restricted houses to non-restricted houses as 28:18. The proprietors to notify the Planning Authority which houses have been sold to qualifying persons and in what manner the purchasers meet the qualifying criteria.

R383/93: Two continuing care cottages. Nenthorn House Avenue Field Nenthorn Kelso. Granted 1st July 1994.

R258/94: Erection of continuing care cottage and house. Nenthorn House Avenue Field Nenthorn Kelso. Granted 11th October 1994.

R259/94: Erection of continuing care cottages (revised layout). Nenthorn House Avenue Field Nenthorn. Granted 7th October 1994.

R415/94: Housing Development. Nenthorn House Avenue Field Nenthorn Kelso. Granted 10th April 1995.

96/186/C: Erection of dwellinghouse. Market Garden Site Nenthorn House Nenthorn Kelso. Granted 27th August 1996.

99/00072/FUL: Erection of nine residential units at plots 2 – 9 and 23 (amended house designs). Nenthorn House Avenue Field Nenthorn Kelso. Granted 10th March 1999.

00/00616/FUL: Residential development Phases 2 and 3. Nenthorn House Avenue Field Nenthorn Kelso. Granted 23rd June 2000.

00/01564/FUL: Deletions of conditions 1 and 2 of previous consent R259/94. Nenthorn House Avenue Field Nenthorn Kelso. Granted 21st February 2001.

03/01033/COU: Change of use from nursing home to dwellinghouse. Nenthorn House Kelso. Granted 4th July 2003.

04/02365/FUL: Erection of stable block and formation of two service bays. Nenthorn House. Granted 22nd February 2005. Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 07/00426/OUT: Erection of dwellinghouse. Land West of Nenthorn House Nenthorn Kelso. Withdrawn 21st January 2009.

08/00323/FUL: Erection of dwellinghouse. Land North East of Lime Tree Cottage Nenthorn Kelso. Withdrawn 21st January 2009.

08/00326/FUL: Change of use of annex of former nursing home to form three self catering holiday units. Granted 2nd May 2008

08/00438/OUT: Land West of Beechbank Nenthorn. Erection of dwellinghouse. Withdrawn 19th May 2008.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Three representations have been received. These are available for Members to view on the Public Access System. The following planning issues have been raised:

x The exit from Nenthorn is down a single track road onto a dangerous hairpin bend and increased traffic flow will heighten the risks of a serious accident. The proposal would add to the pressure on existing roads.

x The site is within a horse paddock but is high grade agricultural land that would be permanently lost.

x The application states that the existing use of the ground is 'Garden/Estate Grounds' whereas in fact it is an agricultural field, formerly used for growing barley and does not have a current change of use to recreational nor residential use.

x The site boundary marked is different on the location plan to that shown on in the detailed plans.

x The plans are not accurate as two of the existing houses within this building group are not shown on the plan.

x The application form does not indicate the site area.

x The application states that the access is to be by an improvement to an existing access, whereas the access referred to, is an agricultural access, and does not have planning consent for residential use.

x The proposed access is already subject to a planning condition laid down in application 04/02365/FUL granted 22/02/2005, not yet complied with despite the stable buildings being complete and in commercial use for several years, namely provision of two utility lay-bys (both of which involve ground not belonging to the applicant), neither of which have been created to the specified standard.

x The applicant does not own all the land as indicated in the detailed plans.

x The drawings do not indicate the proposed location of the septic tank nor the tail pipe and route to a watercourse nor the access of other services, which ought to be indicated, it being an application for FULL planning permission. Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 x The applicant is currently building another house which does not appear to have a valid planning consent.

x The site is not related to a building group as so is contrary to Council policy. The site is separated from other distant houses by mature trees, a substantial hedge and an area of agricultural ground. The site is open countryside not linked to any building group.

x No justification for this house has been submitted.

x This site is the subject of a Section 50 agreement, which states (clause 5) that the ground can only be developed while Nenthorn House remains a nursing home. This was one of the conditions that the Heritable Proprietors agreed to as part of their planning consent, from which they benefited financially, so the Section 50 agreement is binding on them and all subsequent Heritable Proprietors, currently Mr and Mrs Cooper, who would have been fully aware of the Section 50 agreement when they purchased the property. This prohibition on further development was confirmed by the Planning Department in a letter dated 14th July 2000: "The Section 75 (was 50) legal agreement requires that Nenthorn House shall always be managed as a nursing home and requires the provision of care services to the community care village, should this development proceed. If the nursing home closes, the development cannot proceed."

x Approving this proposal would result in future development continuing south with a further loss of open countryside and of the natural boundary surrounding Nenthorn House.

x The loss of open ground surrounding Nenthorn house would diminish its architectural character.

x There is an agricultural building to the east within 400m of this site that is close enough for potential issues of odour and noise nuisance to occur. This is a general purpose building but also used for livestock. Agricultural activity starts early in the morning and continues into the night and this would affect occupants of the proposed house. Any dispute arising from inappropriate siting would impact on the small and growing business in a detrimental way.

APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION

None

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011

Policy N20: Design Policy H5: New Housing in the Countryside – Building Groups

Scottish Borders Local Plan: Adopted 2008

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5: Developer Contributions Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 x Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008. x Supplementary Planning Guidance - Developer Contributions April 2008

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Director of Technical Services (Roads): Further to previous responses regarding applications for the erection of dwellings in this vicinity where we have recommended against the proposals, I am now prepared to allow limited development within this area due to the changes in traffic regulations within the village. As such, I will not recommend against this proposal provided the following conditions are adhered to: parking and turning for a minimum of two vehicles, excluding garages, must be provided within the curtilage of the property and retained in perpetuity; a passing place as per detail DC1 or 1a must be provided between the site and the A6089, at a location to be agreed with this department, prior to the dwelling commencing; a service lay-by as per detail DC3 must be constructed at the access into the site. This must be surfaced to my specification prior to the dwelling being occupied. No gates are to be erected at the access that open out over the public road and verge.

Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: The proposed development is located within the catchment area for Gordon Primary School and Earlston High School. A contribution of £3,162 is sought for the Primary School and £4,439 for the High School, making a total contribution sought for education infrastructure of £7,601.

Environmental Health: The Scottish Executive Code of Practice entitled “The Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity” advises that, in order to minimise odour from livestock buildings, when designing new buildings, their siting in relation to residential accommodation should be considered, and sites within 400 metres of such developments should be avoided. In addition, where possible, sites downwind of residential areas should be chosen. The statutory nuisance provisions under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 give local authorities power to act on complaints arising from agricultural activities. Using these powers, an abatement notice may be served requiring a decrease of the nuisance or prohibiting or restricting its reoccurrence and the use of appropriate practices allied to good planning and management of both new and existing installations/structures can help minimise the risk of causing a nuisance. The aim is to contain the smell within the farm buildings or surrounding agricultural land by reducing emissions at source and allowing the diluting effect of air movement and distance to complete its dispersion.

With this guidance in mind, if approved, the dwellinghouse would be within 400 metres of an existing agricultural building to the east of the proposed site/location, which is used for the housing of livestock and/or agricultural equipment/machinery. If the Environmental Health Department should then receive complaints relating to nuisance associated with the agricultural building that are subsequently considered to be a statutory nuisance the livestock business would be required to take actions to abate the nuisance conditions.

Statutory Consultees

Floors, Makerstoun, Nenthorn and Smailholm Community Council: The site is in no way related to a building group as so is contrary to Councillor's policy. Granting permission would open the way for several more houses, both to east and west of this site in ribbon development. The site is agricultural land. The nearest building group consists of only two houses, and a Continuing Care Cottage which was to be the Show House for a Community Care Village which was never constructed, and, despite a Section 50 agreement requiring the construction of a new access road prior to occupation, was granted residential status under very special circumstances. From the site, the Show House is the only house to be clearly seen, the other houses are separated by mature trees and a substantial hedge. The site is located in the area zoned for Community Care Housing,

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 whose permission as long since lapsed. Several local residents have complained about the level of traffic using this narrow lane and the implication for safety, it being frequently used by walkers with dogs and horse riders, however it is generally agreed that the amount of traffic is low. The applicant owns plenty of ground within the 'building group' that could be developed.

Other Consultees:

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES

Whether the proposal complies with the Council’s housing in the countryside policies and whether an adequate access can be achieved.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION

Planning Policy

This application must be assessed against policy H5 of the Approved Structure Plan 2001 – 2011, policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 and Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008.

Building Group

The Council’s Housing in the Countryside policy requires the existence of a building group, which normally consists of residential buildings comprising at least three dwelling units, including existing buildings capable of conversion to residential use, before additional housing can be considered.

Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 requires that the site is well related to an existing building group. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008 states that the existence of a group will be identifiable by a sense of place which will be contributed to by natural and man made boundaries. Sites should not normally break into undeveloped fields where there is a definable natural boundary and the new development should be limited to the area contained by that sense of place. Any new development should be within a reasonable distance of the existing properties within the building group and this distance should be guided by the spacing between the existing properties in the building group.

There are three existing houses in this location, Nenthorn House, Beechbank to the south west and Lime Avenue Cottage to the south east. It is considered that these properties constitute a building group as each are well related to the other and they are all within the grounds of Nenthorn House and are identifiable by a sense of place. It is considered that the tree belt along the Girrick road and to the east of the site is the natural boundary to the building group and there are no significant boundaries between the site and the existing houses. The building group is characterised by well spaced houses and the propose site reflects this spacing within the building group whilst being within a reasonable distance of Nenthorn House and Lime Avenue Cottage. Therefore it is considered that the site is within the boundaries of the building group and the proposal would be an appropriate addition to it.

Full planning permission (reference: R259/94) was granted for a revised layout for two continuing care cottages on 7th October 1994 and two conditions were attached to this planning permission regarding use and occupancy. Of the two cottages one was built and this is now Lime Avenue Cottage. As the planning permission has been implemented the planning permission for the second

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 cottage remains live and so it would be possible to erect this cottage at any time, provided that it is built in accordance with the plans approved in 1994. The applicants have now commenced construction work on the second cottage. Lime Avenue Cottage was built as a show home in connection with the continuing care village but in 2000 the nursing home closed and a planning permission was granted to delete the two conditions attached to planning permission R259/94 restricting occupancy of the two cottages. This meant that the two cottages can be occupied as private dwellinghouses.

100% Rule

Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 allows for the expansion of existing building groups by up to 100% of the existing number of houses during the local plan period, provided suitable sites can be identified in compliance with other parts of the policy and the Housing in the Countryside Policy and Guidance Note.

The Local Plan was adopted in September 2008. At this time there were three existing houses within this building group and a live consent for one more, which is now being built. Under the 100% rule within the current Local Plan additional development would be permitted within this building group provided the proposal complies with other parts of the housing in the countryside policy.

Design

Policy N20 of the Approved Structure Plan states that the Council will encourage a high quality of layout, design and materials in all new developments. Policy G1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 requires that developments respect the character of the surrounding area.

The proposed dwellinghouse would be one-and-a-half storey with traditional features such as pitched roof dormers and sash and case type windows. The house would have a slate roof, rendered walls and smooth bands around the windows. It is considered that the design is acceptable and would not harm the character of the building group or the visual amenities of the area.

Details of the surface and foul water drainage have been requested from the agent and the adequate servicing of the site can be controlled by planning conditions.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

There is a tree belt of mature trees along the Girrick road to the north and along the eastern boundary of the site which would screen the development from public view. Nenthorn House is situated in extensive, tree-lined grounds and so the proposal would not be prominent in the landscaped when viewed from the public road to the south. The house has been sited to ensure that none of the mature trees are affected by the proposal.

Residential Amenities

The proposed dwellinghouse would be positioned to the north east of the nearest cottage separated by the field and ménage and so the proposal would not harm the residential amenities of the occupants of the existing houses.

Access and Parking

The Director of Technical Services has no objections to the proposal provided that his requirements are met. The site is large enough to accommodate a turning area and two car parking spaces.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Agricultural Building

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008 states that sites within 400m of existing intensive livestock units will not normally be permitted unless required in connection with the farm business.

Consent was granted in 2007 for the erection of a general purpose agricultural building on land to the east of the application site at Cakemuir Nenthorn. Although this building is being used to house livestock it is not an intensive livestock unit and so the proposal is not contrary to this aspect of the housing in the countryside policy. It should be noted that the agricultural building is sited within 400m of existing houses.

Existing Legal Agreement

Outline planning permission was granted in 1994 for the extension of Nenthorn House Nursing Home and the provision of a community care village within its grounds. The planning permission was subject to a legal agreement that required the formation of a new road, regulated the phasing of that development, ensured that a sufficient number of the new builds were to be preserved for those in need of sheltered accommodation and there were a number of ancillary provisions relating to the management of the care village to be constructed.

The Minute of Agreement has been varied twice to exclude certain areas of land from the provisions of the Agreement and to alter the phasing of the building of the sheltered housing. The Agreement does however remain substantially intact and remains as a burden on that land.

There has now been a substantial change of circumstances. Nenthorn House is no longer used as a nursing home and therefore the scheme whereby this land was to be used as a care village is no longer appropriate in policy terms nor achievable upon the land affected. The original consents that allowed the development of the care village have now lapsed and would not be implementable. The removal of the burden imposed by the Agreement would not expose the Council to the prospect of an unregulated development happening should permission to remove the legal agreement be approved.

The proposed new development falls within land still covered by the Section 50 Agreement and so is covered by the requirements of the legal agreement.

A Section 50 Agreement amounts to a Real Burden on the property of individual land owners. This amounts to an interference with the Landowners enjoyment of their property and should not therefore be used or retained when there is no proper planning purpose for that Burden. It was imposed appropriately at the time since its purpose was to ensure the proper development of a care village. In accepting a change of use at Nenthorn House from being a nursing home to being a private dwelling house, the Council has accepted that a care village is no longer feasible at the location. The Section 50 Agreement serves no further purpose. Therefore while the Council acted properly and appropriately by entering into the Agreement in 1994, it is recommended that the Council, acting reasonably, should now consider discharging the Section 50 Agreement in its entirety and thus relieve the land owners from an unnecessary Land Burden affecting their properties

Developer Contributions

Should Members be minded to approve the application a financial contribution would be required towards education facilities in Gordon and Earlston and would be secured through the completion of a legal agreement between the applicant and the Council.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 CONCLUSION

It is considered that there is a building group at Nenthorn House and that the proposed dwellinghouse would be sited within the boundaries of the building group whilst respecting the spacing and character of the building group. The design and materials of the dwellinghouse are considered to be acceptable and an adequate access can be achieved.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:

I recommend that the existing Section 50 Legal Agreement be discharged in its entirety and the application be approved subject to an appropriate legal agreement securing the necessary contribution towards educational facilities in the locality and subject to the following conditions and informative:

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

3. The proposed development shall incorporate measures to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, and the incorporation of sustainable building techniques and renewable energy technologies, in accordance with a scheme of details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the development.

4. Details of all proposed means of enclosure around the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before work on the site is commenced. The development then to be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.

5. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of soft landscaping works for the site which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and shall include:

i. indication of existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be removed, those to be retained and, in the case of damage, proposals for their restoration

ii. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas

iii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density

iv. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance.

Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 6. The means of water supply to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. If the water supply is to be a private supply a report by a qualified person is to be submitted to the Planning Authority containing information on the quantity and quality of the private water supply to serve the proposed dwellinghouse and the impact of the proposal on the water supply to existing properties. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

7. The means of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

8. A passing place to the specification of the Planning Authority to be provided between the site and the A6089 at a location to be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

9. The access to the site to be improved to the specification of the Planning Authority before the dwellinghouse is occupied. This to include the provision of a service lay-by at the entrance of the site with the public road to the specification of the Planning Authority before the dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

10. No gates to be erected at the access that open out over the public road and verge. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

11. No trees within the woodland adjacent to the access to the site shall be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: The existing trees represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained.

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

Informative Note: The passing place required by condition 8 to be formed as per detail DC1, attached. The service lay- by required by condition 9 to be constructed as per detail DC3, attached.

Approved by Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards

“The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.”

Author(s) Name Designation Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 7(b) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

15TH JUNE 2009

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: 7(b) REFERENCE NUMBER: 08/02124/OUT

OFFICER: Miss Karen Hope WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Erection of nine dwellinghouses SITE: Land West Of Oldfield, Westruther APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Tom Walker AGENT: Richard Amos (Duns)

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site lies on the eastern edge of Westruther, just outwith the settlement boundary identified in the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008. Its western edge adjoins the Kirk Park development on which new build housing is currently in progress. To the north the site lies behind a roadside frontage of four Rural Home Ownership Grant dwellings which have previously been approved under the exceptions policy. Three of these sites are presently under construction. Access from the public road would be formed through that development site.

The site is generally level ground and occupies an area of 1.06 hectares. An established line of mature trees separates the development from Kirk Park while there is a small stand of trees at the north east corner of the first phase of development proposed. A second phase of development which includes a small football pitch is suggested for the eastern edge of the site.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The current application seeks consent for a first phase of 9 plots in a part quadrant form layout with a second with a second quadrant of 12 drawings shown as a potential second phase. The development is a mix of detached and semi detached plots. A significant level of planting is shown on indicative plans, along with a small area for a 5 a-side pitch, although that falls into the second phase.

A supporting letter from the Agent indicates that the development would provide a range of low and medium cost housing to counterbalance recent high end range development. It is argued that such a mix was sought by Committee when the development here was previously considered. The play area also formed a response to previous Committee comments. The Agent contends that the development would help retain village vitality.

PLANNING HISTORY

Four affordable plots were granted consent at the northern edge of the site these being treated as exceptions to policy to cater for affordable housing need.

A larger scale development involving the current site area was refused at the May 2008 meeting of the Planning and Building Standards Committee. That decision was part of a larger report on developments at Westruther and the background to that presentation is set out below: Background:

This introductory section sets the background for the consideration of three outline applications for housing development on the periphery of Westruther. The department frequently presents single reports consolidating consideration of applications at the same development location, such as farm steading conversions with associated new build proposals. In this instance the applications are for discrete sites and each for a number of dwellings. These will each be the subject of full individual reports and recommendations. Given the nature of the submissions, however, it has been judged appropriate that they are considered sequentially and in the context of this introductory statement.

All of the applications lie outwith the settlement boundary of Westruther. All have sought special consideration as exceptions to policy on the back of asserted affordable housing provision. In total these proposals are suggesting some 36 new build dwellings of which 31 are described as being for affordable housing development. Members need also to be aware that a further application on the edge of Westruther which had been recommended for refusal, but was which was withdrawn prior to determination, has been the subject of further speculation that it could be brought forward for “affordable development”.

Westruther is a small and comparatively remote rural community of some 60 inhabitants. Within the Local Plan village envelope it presently comprises 52 dwellings and there are a further 6 consented but undeveloped sites. Four plots on the edge of the settlement boundary have previously been consented under the “exceptions” policy for affordable units. These are in varying stages of progress, the permissions having been granted in line with Rural Home Ownership Grant projects accepted by Community Scotland. Amenities within the village include the Primary School, The Thistle Inn, the Church, and the Village Hall. There is a limited level of diverse employment opportunities in the rural hinterland.

While there is an indication of general demand for affordable housing at the wider Berwickshire Housing Market Area, no detailed assessment has been carried out by Scottish Borders Council Housing Strategy Unit of specifically local demand. Berwickshire Housing Association has concurred that there may be a limited demand for some rented and/or shared ownership development in Westruther (4 for rent and 4 shared ownership) but not on the scales intimated by some of the applicants. They have also intimated that mechanisms for the provision of affordable housing are in a degree of flux with new approaches being promoted, possibly at the expense of existing schemes. Submissions by the individual applicants have highlighted RHOG style housing demand, GRO Grant Scheme housing, and private provision. These have also been reinforced by anecdotal evidence of demand.

The actual application submissions are:

1. 07/01879/OUT Land West of Oldfield: Erection of 13 Affordable Houses

2. 07/01957/OUT Land North of 4 Edgar Road: Erection of 6 Affordable Houses

3. 07/02149/OUT Land Northeast and West of Oldfield: Erection of 17 dwellings (12 affordable) and provision of new community facilities etc.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Objections have been received from nine households. These can be viewed in full on the Council’s public access system. The following is a summary of the objections received.

x There is insufficient drainage capacity to accommodate the proposed development; x The proposal would adversely effect the rural setting of the area; x The development would compromise the amenity of existing residential properties; x The proposals would greatly impact on the wildlife at this site; x A similar application for the development of this land was refused in 2008. Although the design is a little different in appearance, the fact remains that the Applicant is still seeking permission to build a large number of houses in a village that does not have the necessary infrastructure to sustain any increase over and above the current population (e.g. no local shopping facilities, no public transport facilities, little chance of employment, the requirement for private transport). Furthermore, additional exits to an already increasingly busy stretch of the B6456. x There would be a lack of adequate parking for the proposed football pitch. The facility would also result in road safety concerns as well as a nuisance and disturbance to local residents; x The proposed Phase 1 appears to include a footpath around the outskirts of the housing area, this would infringe upon the privacy of existing neighbouring properties; x The site is outwith the settlement boundary of Westruther as defined within the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008; and x The existing school is at capacity.

One letter has also been received which raises general concerns in respect of the lack of information supplied, including the following:

x The plans do not show how it is intended to provide access to amenity services from the road side to the proposed plots; x There is at present a dispute over the sewage works/access rights/capacity.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A supporting letter has been provided by the agent. It highlights that the previous refusal was for a larger number of units. It also emphasises that the approach of a mix of low and medium cost housing and the provision of play area/amenity land were responses to comments made when the previous application was refused. The streetscape would provide a mix of single and 1.5 storey houses in a crescent form layout catering for the lower end of the market to provide balance to the community. The site is reasonably related to settlement form, meets servicing standards and would add vitality to the village. There is a demand for the type of housing proposed.

A separate response has been received from the applicant in relation to the various comments raised about the application. This repeats a number of the foregoing points, highlights the need to review the settlement boundary, confirms that modifications can be made to resolve points of detail, and disputes a number of the grounds of objection.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Director of Technical Services: Has no objection in principle but has suggested the indicative scheme does not lend itself to current standards. He has highlighted a range of issues which would need to be resolved.

Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: All plots would require to contribute to High School provision.

Statutory Consultees;

SEPA: No objection in principle. They would encourage connection to the public sewer network. A SUDS scheme would be required.

Scottish Water: A water supply is presently available as is a foul drainage connection. These though can not be guaranteed.

Gordon and Westruther Community Council: The Community Council has reiterated its previous comments related to the earlier application. “Object to the proposal. A village questionnaire has been undertaken and the detailed results have been provided with their response. The majority oppose the development (72%). It would breach the settlement boundary and set a precedent; the village is large enough and is growing too fast: the need for low cost housing has been exaggerated; village character would change; there is a lack of infrastructure. A limited level of low cost development linked to demonstrable local need might though be supported.”

OTHER CONSULTEES

None.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011

Policy N20 - Design Policy H9 - Affordable and Special Needs Housing –Exceptions Policy C7 - Play Areas Policy I4 - Public Transport Provision

Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008

Policy G1 - Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 - Developer Contributions Policy G8 - Development outwith Development Boundaries Policy H1 - Affordable Housing Policy Inf11 - Developments that Generate Travel Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: x Scottish Borders Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 9 on Developer Contributions, Updated April 2008. x Scottish Borders Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 10 on Affordable Housing, March 2007. x Scottish Borders Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees and Development, March 2008. x Scottish Borders Council’s Housing Needs Study and Affordable Housing Policy Report dated 5 December 2006. x New Housing in the Borders Countryside Policy and Guidance Note 1993 as Amended April 200 and August 2004. x Scottish Borders Local Plan Amendment Draft 2008.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key determining issues for this application are: x Whether the scale of development proposed is appropriate to the location. x Whether there is a justified demand for this provision. x Whether the site is compatible with exception status.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Principle:

The site lies outwith the defined settlement boundary of Westruther and as such its development would be contrary to the main thrust of Planning policy. Exceptions can be considered, primarily in terms of Policy G8. That policy however sets out a range of criteria against which proposals should be judged. Affordable Housing is one category, but it should be reflected on that the Local Plan did not choose to make a substantial land allocation for development at this locality. Questions of appropriate scale in relation to the size of the community, impact on the landscape setting and the potential cumulative effect with other developments also have to be taken into account as does infrastructural capacity.

The Draft Local Plan Amendment has recognised the need to review land allocation in Westruther. The current site is not though one of the sites preferred for consideration.

Access and Services:

The Director of Technical Services has not objected to the principle of this development. He has though highlighted that improvements to the submission would be required to gain his support. In terms of water and drainage too, no insuperable obstacles to the scheme have been intimated by either SEPA or Scottish Water. The availability of facilities in the locality is however somewhat limited, although there is a school, hall, church and pub. Education have recently withdrawn the requirement for contributions against the Primary School, implying there is capacity there.

There is an absence of shops in the locality and that, in consequence, raises a pressure to travel. Similarly employment opportunities are also limited, again placing pressure on travel. That in turn raises the question of catering for demand which is not directly local in origin and need, especially in the context of Policy Inf11.

Housing Need:

There has been no local assessment of demand for affordable housing, though it has been identified in the Housing Needs Study with respect of the wider housing market area. Through its own analysis, Berwickshire Housing Association has previously concurred that there may be a demand for some rented and shared ownership development in the locality. They have also previously indicated an interest in pursuing development opportunities in the area but may now be slightly distancing themselves from that position. Clarification of the need and demand position would clearly be beneficial to the Departments assessment of Housing Land requirements in Westruther.

The attraction of occupants from outwith the immediate area, albeit they may meet Community Scotland criteria could hardly be said to offer significant community benefits that would outweigh the need to protect the Development Plan boundary (Policy G8 criterion 4). It remains the view that substantial need should be addressed through the Local Plan/Local Housing Strategy process rather than by an exceptions policy which by inference implies small scale.

Developer Contributions:

The development has not been progressed as an affordable development. It would therefore be liable to contribute to affordable housing and to Earlston High School.

Landscape Impact:

The creation of a new housing layout of this size and adjoining the recent development would add substantially to the building mass of Westruther and would significantly move the character of the village towards suburban and away from the more traditional ad hoc settlement pattern that characterises the community. It is an open site especially from the east and there is a landscape concern that the proposal could also threaten the viability of the existing mature trees along its western boundary. Although the indicative layout shows existing trees to be retained, it has not taken account of the space requirements for these retained trees. The procedures outlined within the Council’s Trees and Development SPG would need to be followed and a tree survey prepared (in accordance with BS5837). Representations:

A range of objections to the proposal have been highlighted. These emphasise the lack of local justification for this scale of development, coupled with its conflict with policy. Pressure on services and lack of facilities has been detailed as has the lack of information and potential problems of a play area in the heart of the area.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Policy G8 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 as the site lies outwith the settlement boundary of Westruther and in respect of the exceptions contained within this Policy, the development does not comply with the requirements. Whilst the application proposes the erection of nine dwellinghouses of low to medium cost, the application does not propose affordable housing per se. In any event, the need for affordable housing should be addressed through the Local Plan / Local Housing Strategy process rather than by an exceptions policy. Furthermore, it is not considered that the site represents a logical extension to the settlement, it is not of an appropriate scale in relation to the size and character of the village and would have a detrimental visual impact upon the landscape setting of this part of the village. The development would also result in the loss of existing tree cover, contrary to Policy NE4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:

It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy G8 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the application site lies outwith the Development Boundary of Westruther and would be in conflict with criteria 5,6,7,and 8 of that policy in that:

x it does not form a logical or appropriate extension to the built up area of village, x it is of an inappropriate scale of development in relation size of the village, x it would result in a detrimental visual impact on the landscape setting of this part of the village.

Further, there is insufficient justification to support the case for the development under the ‘exceptional approvals’ criteria.

2. The proposed development is contrary to Policy NE4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that it would result in the potential loss of existing tree cover which would be harmful to the visual amenities of this part of Westruther.

Approved by Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards

“The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.”

Author(s)

Name Designation Karen Hope Senior Planning Officer

Item No. 7(c) SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

15th JUNE 2009

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: 7(c) REFERENCE NUMBER: 09/00308/OUT

OFFICER: Karen Hope WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Retirement village SITE: Land North of Peelwalls House, Ayton APPLICANT: Excel Securities PLc AGENT: Graham & Sibbald

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is located on land to the North of Peelwalls House near Ayton. The site extends from the Ayton to Chirnside road (B6355) in the east to the strong break of slope down to the Eye Water to the west where the land is more wooded. The northern boundary to which the land falls gently is an open field boundary looking towards Ayton Castle over the ground of a single dwellinghouse.

Peelwalls House operated until recently as a registered nursing home in private ownership having previously been run by the Local Authority. It is a Category B listed building which has been the subject of a number of applications and approvals for alterations and extensions over the years to meet the needs of its nursing home use.

Five retirement dwellings have been erected within the south eastern corner of the site and a significant proportion of the road network approved under previous schemes has been constructed. The existing five dwellings are currently unoccupied and have been so since they were constructed.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

In 1998 full planning consent was granted for the development of 36 retirement/care dwellings to be sited in the paddock lying to the north of Peelwalls House. The consent was subject to a legal agreement restricting, amongst other things, the occupancy of these dwellings. Existing peripheral planting to the roadside and to the west was to be retained and a new access replacing the former access was to be formed. That new access was also to provide the access point for the adjacent private dwelling to the north of the site. The development envisaged 36 single storey 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings set in 5 small courtyard groups with a mixture of detached and semi detached properties with separate parking, car port areas and pedestrian linkage and a limited variation in design detail and finishes.

Although approved by the then Planning and Development Committee in April 1998 the formal consent was not issued until 27th October 1998. Within the 5 year timescale of that consent work was undertaken on the site by the owner to maintain the consent. The original planning consent and legal agreement remain live today and are capable of being implemented in full although with the closure of the nursing home at Peelwalls House the development no longer complies with the requirements of the legal agreement.

Full planning consent was later granted in November 2005 for modifications to the aforesaid approval in terms of layout, design and in the content of the legal agreement. The overall road design was essentially similar to the original approval; one of the courtyard style cul-de-sacs at the western edge was replaced with a more linear layout. Semi-detached dwellings under the original approval largely disappeared although there would still be some linkage of dwellings by either adjoining garages or car ports. The application also introduced six two-storey dwellings and nineteen one-and-a-half storey units. One dwellinghouse was dropped from the overall scheme providing a 35 unit development. Several revisions were made to the internal layouts of the dwellings to better respect the aspirations of a care/retirement village and to pick up on recommendations from Social Work regarding function, circulation and adaptability.

The 1998 approval was subject to a Section 75 Legal Agreement which required the following:

x No work to begin or continue until – (1) the new access route to serve Peelwalls and the development has been formed and made up to adoptable standards and the existing access closed off. A scheme for the management of open areas; x Occupancy reserved to those over 55 years who because of age of through infirmity need a sheltered housing environment. House approvals subject to conditions (i) requiring they are designed for care need – wheelchair access, calling equipment, (i) occupied by persons employed in the work of the nursing home or of the community care village (and dependents) (iii) if any building is built they should all be; x Peelwalls shall always be managed and used as (i) a nursing home (ii) for the provision of care services to the Community Care Village. But for no other services. The care services to be provide at reasonable cost to residents (lists services); x Proprietor to operate management scheme for the open and other areas; and x Permission required for alterations and structure in terms of the agreement (outwith normal GDO rights).

This Agreement was revised as a result of the November 2005 approval, including minor modifications in respect of the access arrangements and an additional requirement relating to the future occupancy and disposal of the properties to preclude them from coming on to an unrestricted general housing market.

The retirement/care village was seen as being for people aged 55 plus living with their family and it was expected that the care needs of the occupants would be significantly lower than those within the nursing home environment.

This current application seeks outline planning consent for a retirement village on the site. The agent has confirmed that the planning application has arisen as a result of the failure to sell any of the five completed houses on the existing development. If this application is approved, the agent has indicated that a subsequent reserved matters application would be forthcoming for the whole site. The two key differences between this proposal and the previous consents are that there would be no link to a care home (as one no longer exists at Peelwalls House) and there would be no legal agreement preventing the use of the properties as second homes.

PLANNING HISTORY

90/00038/FULLBC Borders Nursing Home, Peelwalls House, Ayton Upgrading and refurbishment of existing property Approved subject to conditions, 30 April 1990

91/00034/FULLBC Borders Nursing Home, Peelwalls House, Ayton Thirty four bed extension to nursing home Approved subject to conditions, 15 July 1992

95/00041/OUT Land adjacent to Peelwalls House, Ayton Erection of dwellinghouse Refused, 15 January 1996

97/00143/FUL Land adjacent Peelwalls House, Ayton Erection of 36 retirement / care dwellinghouses Approved subject to conditions and legal agreement, 27 October 1998

97/00693/OUT Field No 2419 Peelwalls Cottage Farm, Ayton Erection of dwellinghouse Approved subject to conditions, 8 April 1998

97/05014/LBC Borders Nursing Home, Peelwalls House, Ayton Internal alterations Approved subject to conditions, 5 June 1997

98/00210/LBC Land adjacent Peelwalls House, Ayton Erection of 36 retirement / care dwellinghouses Approved subject to conditions and the conclusion of a Legal Agreement, 27 October 1998

98/00868/REM Field No 2419, Peelwalls Cottage Farm, Ayton Erection of dwellinghouse Approved subject to conditions, 28 September 1998

99/01085/OUT Site adjacent Mayar, Peelwalls, Ayton Erection of dwellinghouse Refused, 9 November 1999

03/02278/FUL Land adjacent Peelwalls House, Ayton Erection of 36 retirement / care dwellinghouse Approved subject to conditions and the conclusion of a Legal Agreement, 4 November 2005

06/02051/FUL Land north of Peelwalls House, Ayton Erection of dwellinghouse on Plot 6 (change of house type) Approved, 15 December 2006

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

One letter of objections has been received. This can be viewed in full on the Council’s public access system. The following is a summary of the objections raised: x The previous approvals had a care provision from the nursing home as a requirement. This legal requirement remains; x This application is contrary to housing in the countryside and rural development; and x The access off the B6355 is totally inadequate.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A supporting statement has been submitted by the agent. This is available to view in full on the Council’s public access system. The following is a summary of the contents of the document:

This current application seeks outline planning permission for residential development, with occupancy to be restricted to persons aged 55 and over. The two key differences between this application and the previous consents are that there would be no link to a care home (as one no longer exists at Peelwalls House); and there would be no legal agreement preventing the use of these dwellings as second homes.

x Whilst there is conflict in terms of this proposal as set against Development Plan Policies with regard to the principle of this form of development in the countryside; it is submitted that the provisions of detailed policies with regard to access; design etc can all be complied with; x The applicant is a commercial lending company who was not involved in any previous planning applications relative to this site; nor any development undertaken to date on site; x The applicant is seeking the best way forward with this site; following a review of options; x The change of circumstances – i.e. the closure of the nursing home and the significant financial deficit on the site – is such that the development cannot and will not be completed as originally envisaged; x The submission of a new outline application is considered the most appropriate course of action; since this offers the opportunity to renegotiate the occupancy restrictions; whilst at the same time seeking to move towards a reserved matters application for the whole site which can subsequently be implemented and monitored efficiently; x The proposed dwellings would not be for mainstream housing – they would cater for a particular market (the active elderly) which is continuing to grow in Scotland in general and in the Scottish Borders in particular; x Such development avoids any impact on local primary education providers; x Affordable housing would be provided in accordance with Policy; x The completion of development on this site would clearly have a positive visual impact; and x The proposal is of an appropriate scale in relation to Ayton (assuming that the scale will be in the region of the previous consents at this site), it would not prejudice the character, visual cohesion or natural built up edge of the settlement, nor would the development cause a significant adverse effect on the landscape setting of the settlement or the natural heritage of the surrounding area.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Director of Social Work (Housing Section): I am not able to provide any information to support the need for this development. I note the recommendations and have no comment / objections to these. In the event that the proposal is agreed by Committee , I would suggest that Commuted Sum Contribution should be sought from the developer in line with precedents set for similar projects within Borders.

Director of Technical Services (Flood Prevention Engineer): In terms of information that this Council has concerning flood risk to this site, I would state that The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) known as the “second generation flood mapping” prepared by SEPA indicates that the northern part of 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 Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) has primarily been developed to provide a strategic national overview of flood risk in Scotland. Whilst all reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the flood map is accurate for its intended purpose, no warranty is given. Due to copyright restrictions I cannot copy the map to you however, if you wish to inspect the maps they can contact me to arrange a suitable time to come in and view them.

Before commenting further, however, I would request a topographical survey, to Ordnance Datum, covering the area of the development and including the far banks of the Eye Water and the adjacent unnamed watercourse to see if a flood risk assessment will be necessary.

Please note that this information must be taken in the context of material that this Council holds in fulfilling its duties under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 as amended by the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1997.

Director of Technical Services (Roads): The principle of development at this location with restricted ownership has already been accepted. Therefore I have no objections in principle to this latest proposal of a similar nature. More formal comments with regards to the layout will be provided when a detailed application is submitted, should such an application be forthcoming. It should be noted that a significant proportion of the internal roads have already been constructed to various degrees, therefore I expect the overall layout to remain largely unchanged.

Statutory Consultees

Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland: No response.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: No objections. Provide advice in respect of flood risk, foul drainage, surface water drainage, landscaping, waste management and recycling and pollution prevention.

Scottish Natural Heritage: No objections but recommends that a detailed landscaping scheme for the whole site is agreed with SBC, should approval be granted, and a badger survey of the development site should be undertaken, by a suitably qualified wildlife consultant, prior to work starting.

Scottish Water: No objections. Due to the size of the proposed development, a Development Impact Assessment form would need to be completed.

Other Consultees

Ayton Community Council: Supportive in principle although the Community Council would wish to make the following comments: x As things stand at present, it would seem highly unlikely that the development, in its present state, will ever succeed given the restrictions imposed by the current Section 75 conditions, exacerbated by the fact that the nursing home no longer exists and looks unlikely to in the foreseeable future. The Community Council do however welcome the opportunity to include affordable housing whether as part of the development or as a contribution to be provided by a social housing provider. x The applicant’s proposal to retain the condition relating to the restriction on ownership to 55 years of age and over is noted. One of the reasons given for this relates to the final paragraph on page 15 of the supporting document relating to ‘any future development having implications on the capacity of Ayton Primary School’ as defined in the Local Plan Settlement Profile. Over the past few years the pupil numbers at Ayton Primary School have declined steadily to a figure hovering around 40, which is well below the school’s capacity of 75 pupils. It is therefore suggested that the imposition of an age restriction on this development, no longer linked to a nursing home, is irrelevant and is potentially detrimental to the future of the local primary school. x It is assumed that the original planning application back in 1997 would not at that time be subject to developer contributions. However, since this is in essence a new application, would it be subject to developer contributions in line with SBC policy? Should such contributions be imposed relative to both Eyemouth High School and presumably Ayton Primary is there also opportunity for contributions to be allocated to community specific items? The Community Council has in mind in this context the efforts currently ongoing to provide a community hall in the village involving the refurbishment of the former Church Hall which was purchased by a community group (ACHA) last year. It is worth emphasising that Ayton is unique in the Borders in being without such a facility.

NHS Borders: Although the construction of an additional 35 houses within the area would impact on both GP and Primary Care Services provided from Health Centre / GP Surgeries based within Eyemouth and Chirnside there is sufficient resource within this area to cope with additional demand.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011

Policy H7 – Affordable and Special Needs Housing – Proportion Policy H8 – Affordable and Special Needs Housing – Assessment Policy H9 – Affordable and Special Needs Housing - Exceptions

Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy BE1 – Listed Buildings Policy BE2 – Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy BE7 – Care Homes Policy D1 - Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside Policy D2 – Housing in the Countryside Policy G2 – Contaminated Land Policy G4 – Flooding Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy G8 – Development outwith Development Boundaries Policy H1 – Affordable Housing Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf3 – Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4 – Parking Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy Inf11 – Developments that Generate Travel Demand Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: x Scottish Borders Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 9 on Developer Contributions, Updated April 2008. x Scottish Borders Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 10 on Affordable Housing, March 2007. x Scottish Borders Council’s Housing Needs Study and Affordable Housing Policy Report dated 5 December 2006. x Scottish Borders Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008. x Scottish Borders Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance on Landscape and Development, March 2008. x Scottish Borders Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees and Development, March 2008. x Structure Plan Alteration: Consultation Draft, September 2007. x Scottish Borders Local Plan Amendment: Consultative Draft, October 2008.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

There are extant permissions in place for the development of retirement dwellings on this site. These permissions do not however comply with the requirements of the legal agreements as the properties can no longer be linked to the former care home at Peelwalls House which is no longer in operation. The main issues at this time are whether the development of a retirement village at this location can be supported where there would be no links with any care facilities and where the properties could be occupied as second homes for persons aged 55 years and over.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Whilst there are extant consents in place for the development of this site for retirement / care dwellinghouses, the principle of such a development must be reassessed as part of these current proposals, taking into account the change in circumstances, namely the closure of the nursing home at Peelwalls House, the proposal to remove the restriction preventing the use of the dwellings as second homes and the change in the policy context since the earlier approvals were granted. There is no specific policy that provides for sheltered accommodation and this type of housing is not classified as affordable housing or special needs housing. Sheltered housing is still classified as general market housing, although providing for a more restricted element of society. The proposal must therefore be assessed against the terms of the Council’s general development policies and its policies on housing.

Planning Policy

Policy G8 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 requires that development is contained within the Development Boundaries defined within the Proposals Maps which indicate the extent to which towns and villages should be allowed to expand during the Local Plan period to 2011. Proposals for new development outwith this boundary and not on allocated sites identified on the proposals maps will normally be refused. Exceptional approvals may be granted provided strong reasons can be given that:

1. It is job-generating development in the countryside that has an economic justification under Policy D1 (Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside) or Policy D2 (Housing in the Countryside), OR 2. It is an affordable housing development that can be justified under in terms of Policy H1 (Affordable Housing); OR 3. there is a shortfall identified by Scottish Borders Council through the housing land audit with regard to the provision of an effective 5 year housing land supply; OR 4. It is a development that it is considered would offer significant community benefits that outweigh the need to protect the Development Boundary.

The development of the site must also represent a logical extension of the built-up area, be of an appropriate scale in relation to the size of the settlement, does not prejudice the character, visual cohesion or natural built up edge of the settlement and must not cause a significant adverse effect on the landscape setting of the settlement or the natural heritage of the surrounding area.

The application site is located some 600 metres to the south west of the settlement boundary of Ayton. The application must therefore be assessed against the above ‘exceptional’ criteria. In respect of criterion no. 1, consideration must be given to the requirements of Policies D1 and D2 of the Local Plan. Policy D1 states that business, tourism or leisure development in the countryside will be approved and rural diversification initiatives will be encouraged provided the development is to be used directly for agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations, or for uses which by their nature are appropriate to the rural character of the area; or that the development is to be used directly for leisure, recreation or tourism appropriate to a rural location; or that the development is to be used for other business or employment generating uses.

The proposals are not related to agriculture, horticulture or forestry operations and it is not considered that the nature of the proposal is essential in this rural area. Indeed, a retirement village within a settlement would be most appropriate where access to services and facilities is more readily available without the need for travel. The development is not directly related to leisure, recreation or tourism and is not understood that employment would be generated by the development following the construction of the site. It is therefore contended that the proposal would not accord with the requirements of Policy D1.

Policy D2 of the Local Plan requires that, in respect of an economic requirement, the housing development is a direct operational requirement of an agricultural, horticultural, forestry or other enterprise which is itself appropriate to the countryside; such could include businesses that would cause disturbance or loss of amenity if located within an existing settlement or the housing development would help support a business that results in a clear social or environmental benefit to the area, including the retention or provision of employment or the provision of affordable or local needs housing. Whilst the supporting material indicates that the development would incorporate an element of affordable housing in accordance with the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy, the development as a whole would not constitute an affordable housing development or local needs housing in accordance with the requirements of Policy D2. Without the integral link to the care home and without the requirement that the properties are not used as second homes, the dwellings could effectively become holiday homes for those over 55 years of age.

Overall, it is not considered that the proposed development would accord with the requirements of Policy G8 of the Local Plan.

It is also necessary to consider the application within the terms of the Housing in the Countryside Policy more generally. Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 requires that the site is well related to an existing building group. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008 states that the existence of a group will be identifiable by a sense of place which will be contributed to by natural and man made boundaries. Whilst there are a number of buildings in existence at Peelwalls the 5 units currently built were approved on the basis of an integrated care complex and restricted occupancy and are not able to be lived in as separate dwellinghouses in their own right. It is not considered that their development provides justification for the creation of an extended building group at Peelwalls. The level of development now proposed is far in excess of that allowed by the “100% rule” and is therefore out of scale with nature of the group of buildings at the locus.

Access

The Director of Technical Services (Roads) has raised no objections to the principle of development at this location with restricted ownership as this has already been accepted. More formal comments in respect of the layout would be provided during the process of any detailed application.

Flood Risk

The Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) indicates that the northern part of 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 submission of topographical information would be required covering the area of the development and including the far banks of the Eye Water and the adjacent unnamed watercourse in order to establish if a flood risk assessment would be necessary. Should the Committee be minded to support this application, it is advised that further information in respect of this matter should be sought.

Ecology & Landscaping

Should the Committee be minded to approve the application, it is recommended that a badger survey of the site is undertaken and a full landscape scheme is submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority.

Design and Heritage

The proposed development site is to the North of Peelwalls Estate. The estate consists of Peelwalls House (Category B listed); Peelwalls Walled Garden (Category C(S) listed); Peelwalls South Lodge (Category C(S) listed); and Peelwalls North Lodge (also Category C(S) listed.) All these buildings comprise a B-Group listing.

It is considered that the proposed development would have a minimal impact upon the setting of Peelwalls House as its principal elevation is to the south overlooking the main gardens. It would, however, be important to give full consideration to the boundary treatments between any new development and the House and its ancillary buildings, and the North Lodge.

Other Material Considerations

It is understood that there are no archaeological implications associated with the development and there would be no conflict with any Rights of Way. Development Contributions

An appropriate contribution towards addressing affordable housing in accordance with Scottish Borders Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing would be required for this development, if permitted. Any decision to approve this application would therefore require to be subject to the conclusion of a Section 75 or alternative agreement securing the appropriate financial contributions.

CONCLUSION

The development of retirement properties at this location was previously consented as the proposal was targeted towards the elderly and would have offered care services in association with the operations of the nursing home. This link has been severed and the original justification for the development has been removed. It is not considered that a retirement village, independent from any adjoining care services, is justified at this location under the aforesaid Development Plan policies. Removing the requirement for the properties not to be used as second homes would effectively allow occupiers over the age of 55 years to use the premises for holiday purposes. This is not accordance with the original reasons for consenting the development and is not in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s policies relating to development outwith settlement boundaries and housing in the countryside.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:

I recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy G8 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that it is not justified under the ‘exceptional approvals’ criteria in that:

no substantive economic case has been forwarded to justify the proposed dwellinghouses complaint with the terms of Policies D1 & D2 of the Local Plan;

it does not constitute an affordable housing scheme compliant with the terms of Policy H1 of the Local Plan;

the development would not provide significant community benefit;

there is no land supply shortage within the Berwickshire Housing Market Area that would justify the release of this land for housing.

In addition, to not being able to meet the qualifying criteria for Policy G8, as set out above, the proposed development would not constitute a logical extension of the built-up area or have a cohesive boundary with or satisfactory relationship to the settlement of Ayton.

2. The proposed development is contrary to Policies H5 and H6 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 and the terms of Scottish Borders Council’s on Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008 in that:

The site is not associated with an existing building group to which it is appropriate to add additional dwellinghouses;

The level of development goes beyond that allowed by the 100% rule;

the need for the proposed dwellinghouses has not been adequately substantiated; Approved by Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards

“The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.”

Author(s)

Name Designation Karen Hope Senior Planning Officer

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE ITEM 8(a)

13 JUNE 2009

REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS

PLANNING APPEALS - MAY

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this report is to give details of appeals which have been received during the last month with a brief summary of the grounds of appeal. Appeals which have been determined are also listed with a summary of the reasons for the decision given by the Reporter in his decision letter. This report had originally been prepared for the May Committee, which was subsequently cancelled, due to lack of other business. It contains information that has already been presented to May meetings of Area Committees, but is included in this agenda for completeness.

2 APPEALS RECEIVED

2.1 Planning Applications

2.1.1 Reference: 07/02073/FUL Proposal: Erection of six dwellinghouses with integral garages Site: Land North and East Of 3 Whitehaugh Cottages, Overhall Road, Hawick Appellant: Mr. Michael Gallacher

Reasons for Refusal:

1 The proposed development represents an inappropriate addition to the existing building group at Whitehaugh, owing to its incompatible cumulative impact upon the landscape and amenity of the surrounding area, contrary to the criteria contained within Policies G1, D2 and H2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008. 2 The proposed development would be remote from means of public transport, and therefore occupiers of the proposed development would be likely to be reliant upon private means of vehicular transport, resulting in an unsustainable form of development, contrary to the Principle 1 and Policy G1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008

Grounds of Appeal: Local Plan Policy allows for additions to building groups in the manner proposed. The proposed development represents a 100% addition to an existing recognised building group to which the proposed development will be well- related; two of the proposed houses will be appropriate infill, with the remaining four respecting the open character of the surrounding environment, but successfully linking to the remainder of the group. Sufficient landscaping is proposed to provide an edge to the development and the group more generally. The development is within 1km of public transport and not unacceptably remote from infrastructure. Method of Appeal: Written Representations

2.1.2 Reference: 08/00225/FUL Proposal: Erection of ten flats with associated parking Site: Site Adjacent St James RC Church, Traquair Road, Innerleithen Appellant: Glentress Homes Ltd

Reasons for Refusal:

1 The proposed development, by virtue of its design, scale and massing represents an inappropriate form of development, which would be harmful to the setting and character of the site, which occupies a prominent location in the Innerleithen Conservation Area, and would therefore be contrary to the criteria contained within Policies G1, BE4 and G7 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 and Policy N18 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 – 2011.

2 The proposed development would, by virtue of its design, scale and massing would give rise to an unacceptable relationship with the adjoining listed buildings, to the detriment of their character and setting, contrary to the criteria contained within Policy BE1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 and Policy N17 of the Policy N18 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 – 2011.

Grounds of Appeal: The principle of residential development on this site has previously been accepted. The site is located within the Innerleithen town centre boundary and relates satisfactorily with the adjoining listed buildings. There is no impact upon any adjoining residential amenity and the majority of the existing trees at the site will be retained. An acceptable level of car parking can be achieved within the site.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

2.1.3 Reference: 08/01926/FUL Proposal: Replacement Windows Site: 3 Duns Road, Greenlaw Appellant: Mr & Mrs A G Henderson

Condition Appealed: The replacement windows on the front elevation of the dwellinghouse shall be timber framed; shall have the same glazing pattern as the windows they are replacing; and shall have the same opening mechanism as the existing.

Grounds of Appeal: Although the application site is located within a Conservation Area, there are many other properties with uPVC windows within the same conservation area. The requirement for windows to be constructed from timber is unnecessary.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations.

2.1.4 Reference: 07/00091/LBC and 07/00092/FUL Proposal: Alterations and extension to form dwellinghouse Site: The Old Coach House Old Thistle Inn, Westruther Appellant: Mr & Mrs M Struthers

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policy 9 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policy Inf4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that the parking provision does not meet road standards and would compromise road safety. Grounds of Appeal: The design of the proposal is appropriate to the building and road safety issues already exist, given the current workshop/garage, and will not alter as a result of the development. Obstructions to pedestrians have arisen from the actions of adjoining owners, rather than the Coach House.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

2.2 Enforcements:

Nil

3 DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

3.1.1 Reference: 05/02336/FUL Proposal: Erection of eight wind turbines and ancillary development including permanent meteoroligist mast, substation and control building, borrow pits, construction of new access roads and upgrading of existing access roads Site: Land South West of Dunion Hill, Jedburgh. Appellant: Windjen Power Ltd

Reason for Refusal: 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policies I19, I20 and N9 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policy 83 of the Roxburgh Local Plan 1995 and Policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that:

x The proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of Dunion and Black Law Hills and the wider countryside; x The proposal will be located in an Upland Fringe Landscape Type classification as defined in the Borders Landscape Assessment 1995 and as such is not a landscape type where windfarm development is promoted; x The turbines are out of scale with the perceived scale of the hill on which they are to be located and this associated with the lack of enclosing surrounding landform means that the site is not suitable or capable of successfully accommodating a windfarm development; x The turbines will be highly visible from within the 5km zone of the site where there will be Dominant and Major visual impacts; x The proposal involves the development of a prominent skyline to the detriment of countryside amenity; x The turbines will have a significantly harmful visual impact on high sensitivity receptors that includes residential properties within the 5km zone of the windfarm, a range of public viewpoints within this zone and users of footpaths and bridle paths in the vicinity of the site; 2. The site compound, substation and proposed borrow pits are located in prominent positions on Dunion and Black Law Hills and will be detrimental to the landscape character and visual qualities of the site.

3. The proposed development is contrary to Policies N14 and N15 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 -2011, Policies 54 and 55 of the Roxburgh Local Plan 1995 and Policies BE2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that it would have adverse impacts on archaeological interests at the site and that the applicant has been unwilling to modify the proposals to take account of these interests. There is no conclusive evidence that the benefits of the development outweigh the impact on these archaeological interests.

4. The proposed development is contrary to Policy N5 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy NE3 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that insufficient information has been provided by the applicant to properly determine the impact of the development on the ecological interests at the site.

Grounds of Appeal: There is no presumption in policy against the development of a windfarm in this landscape type. It is inappropriate to consider the wider countryside when determining a discrete development proposal. The windfarm will present a small, closely grouped single composition in a broad landscape where many of the views are obscured by intervening development. There will be impact on receptors in the 5km zone of the site but the overall impact on their visual amenity will not be significant or unacceptable. Dunion Hill and Black Law do not present a prominent when considered in relation to the surrounding topography. The imposition of conditions would address concerns raised by SNH and other ecological and habitat related issues. The impact on archaeology at the site is low and Historic Scotland raised no objections. . Method of Appeal: Public Inquiry

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed.

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Mr M Mahoney, concluded that the determining issues related to landscape character and visual impact and that the impact of the development would be adverse.

He accepted the windfarm would have a low degree of visual containment and would have one of the highest levels of potential visibility, to the highest number of receptors, of any windfarm in the Scottish Borders.

He accepted that, if taken in isolation, the landscape character type could accept a windfarm of the scale and layout proposed. However, the lack of visual containment and the relationship of the site with adjoining landscape character types meant that the turbines would appear to be too large, out of scale with the locus and would not fit comfortably in the mosaic of landscape types, to the detriment of landscape character.

He did not therefore consider that the development’s contribution to wider economic and environmental benefits, including meeting the Government targets, would outweigh its potential harm.

3.1.2 Reference: 08/00791/FUL Site: Cone View, Dolphinton, West Linton Proposal: Installation of portable cement silo (retrospective) Appellant: Alastair Brown

Reason for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to Policy D1- Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside of the Scottish Borders Local Plan finalised December 2005 as the cement silo does not respect the amenity and character of the surrounding area and has a significant adverse impact on nearby housing. The location of the cement silo would lead to an unacceptable precedent and would exacerbate the adverse impact on the residential amenity of nearby dwellings.

An enforcement notice was subsequently served and also appealed. Grounds of Appeal: No change of use has taken place, and the structure in question is portable. Nevertheless, the intention was to introduce a safer and quieter facility, having regard to the adjoining houses, and as a result there have been less deliveries to the site.

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Alan Walker, accepted that the cement silo did not constitute building, engineering, mining or other operations, but felt that it did involve development in that it concerned a material change of use of land. The siting of the silo also affected the appearance of the premises, and therefore he concluded that planning permission was required.

The silo was visually dominating and severely impacted upon the residential amenity of the adjoining properties. Notwithstanding the longstanding commercial use of the premises, the siting of the silo was unacceptable in its present location, and the decision to serve an enforcement notice was therefore also appropriate, although he extended the period for compliance with that notice to four months.

3.1.3 Reference: 06/000232/OUT Proposal: Demolition of garage and erection of 4 dwellinghouses. Site: Bonjedward Garage and Surrounding Land Appellant: Lothian Estates

Reasons for Refusal:

1. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy H5 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the development site does not form part of a recognised building group, and would therefore not be an appropriate extension to the existing pattern of development. 2. The proposed development would result in the loss of existing employment land, and would therefore be contrary to Policy ED1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008.

Grounds of Appeal: The proposed development site is central to the Bonjedward settlement which has been in existence for nearly 200 years and there are a number of residential properties in the vicinity. The proposed use is an entirely reasonable use of the site. The relevance of Policy ED1 is questioned as the site is not allocated as such in the Local Plan. There is in any event no obvious lack of employment land I the area.

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Roger Wilson, considered that the loss of the prevailing employment use was inconsistent with Policy ED1, regardless of the strategic importance of the site; whether the lease of the current tenant is renewed was immaterial to the case.

The proposal should be regarded as development in the countryside, and because the existing triangle of roads that surround the site create such a strong definition, the proposed dwellings could not be seen as an extension to the building groups that lie outside that triangle. There was no exceptional justification for the houses, and a case based upon the previous existence of housing on the site should be afforded little weight, given that there is now no evidence of it above ground.

3.1.4 Reference: 08/00820/FUL Proposal: Change of use of land to form DSA motorcycle training area and change of use of barn to form archery teaching centre Site: Land And Barn East Of Chain Bridge Farm House, Annay Road, Melrose Appellant: Tom Prentice

Reason for Refusal: The works associated with the proposed motorcycle training use are contrary to Policy N18 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policies 47 and 48 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan 1995 and Policy BE4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 (advertised for adoption) in that they would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The works associated with the proposed motorcycle training use are contrary to Policy N17 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policy 52 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan 1995 and Policy BE1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 (advertised for adoption) in that they would adversely affect the setting of nearby Listed Buildings,

The proposed motorcycling training use and its associated works are contrary to Policies G1 and D1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 (advertised for adoption) in that they would adversely affect the amenity of the area and inadequate justification has been provided demonstrating the need for the location.

The proposed motorcycling training use is contrary to contrary to Policy I11 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policy 94 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan 1995 and Policy Inf 4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 (advertised for adoption) in that it would displace existing vehicles and generate further vehicles which, because of the limited availability of off-street parking, would result in congestion on the public road, to the potential detriment of road and pedestrian safety.

Grounds of Appeal: The Council have failed to take proper account of the information provided to them and have been wholly restrictive in the application of the policies which they should have considered.

Reporter’s Decision: Allowed; Enforcement Notice quashed

Summary of Decision: Motorcycle training operates for no more than 28 days per year, and as there is only one participant at a time and the trainer lives close to the site, it does not generate excessive traffic; there is no dispute that the public road can get busy at times, but the Reporter was not convinced that this was directly attributable to the training use. It was acknowledged that the appellant’s other vehicles also use the public road when the farmyard is fenced off, but this is neither illegal nor unreasonable. The road surface markings are barely visible from a public perspective and any visual effect would be insignificant. There were sufficient local economic benefits to justify the grant of permission. The location of the site within a National Scenic Area had no bearing on the proposal, given the broader intentions of such designations.

3.15 Reference: 08/01217/OUT Proposal: Erection of three dwellinghouses. Site: Land North West of Quarry Bank, Hume Appellant: Mr C Dalgleish

Reason for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to policies H5 and H6 of the Approved Structure Plan, policies 7 and 8 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994, policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan 2005 and the Housing in the Borders Countryside Policy and Guidance Note in that: (i) the development represents an inappropriate addition to the building group constituting as it does an unacceptable ribbon form of development along the minor public road which would be detrimental to the appearance and character of Hume; and (ii) the need for three dwellinghouses at this location has not been adequately substantiated.

Grounds of Appeal: The proposal is not contrary to policy H5 and the Borders Structure Plan, D2 of the Local Plan and complies with Policy 7 of Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and the New Housing in the Borders Countryside (Policy Guidance notes 1993). The proposal should not be assessed against H6 of the structure plan nor Policy 8 of 1994 Berwickshire Local Plan. The proposal is an appropriate addition to the building group. The applicant should not have to substantiate need for dwelling houses in applications to augment building groups.

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed

Summary of Decision: The reporter, Mike Culshaw, concluded that, whilst the existence of a building group was accepted, the proposed development was considered to be an inappropriate extension to that group. The development would represent an undesirable extension beyond the area which provides the sense of place and into open countryside. The housing proposed was suburban in form and did not relate well to the linear character of the village.

3.16 Reference: 08/00597/OUT Proposal: Erection of single storey dwellinghouse with detached garage Site: Land And Buildings East Of 5 Eshiels Holding, Eshiels Appellant: Mr C Mackay

Reason for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to Policies H5 and H6 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan, Policies 7 and 8 of the Tweeddale Local Plan 1996 and Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Finalised December 2005 in that the site is outwith any recognised building group and the need for a dwellinghouse has not been adequately substantiated. This would create an undesirable precedent and an inappropriate impact on the existing dwelling.

Reporter’s Decision: The Reporter, Mike Culshaw, concluded that application site did not form part of, or relate to, an existing building group. Even acknowledging the present condition of the site, any visual benefit accruing from the redevelopment of the site would not be sufficient to outweigh the policy objection to the proposal.

3.2 Enforcements

See reported planning decisions above.

4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING

4.1 In addition to those listed in section 2 of this report, there remained 11 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 7 May. These relate to sites at:

x Huddersfield Street, Galashiels x Bogangreen Cottages, Coldingham x Co-op Supermarket, Duns x Breakers View, Fort Road, Eyemouth x Hallmanor House, Manor Valley, x Garden Ground, 1 Easter Ulston Cottages, Peebles Jedburgh x 22 Beechbank, Selkirk x Allerton House, Oxnam Road, Jedburgh x Rawflat, Ancrum x Kirkburn, Cardrona x Winterfield Gardens, Duns x

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards

This report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy is retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation John Hayward Development Manager (West)

Background Papers: None. . Previous Minute Reference: None.

Contact us at Planning and Economic Development, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells TD6 0SA Tel. No. 01835 825407 Fax No. 01835 825158 Email : [email protected] PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE ITEM 8(b)

15 JUNE 2009

REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS

PLANNING APPEALS - JUNE

1 PURPOSE

2 APPEALS RECEIVED

2.1 Planning Applications

2.1.1 Reference: 08/01460/FUL Proposal: Erection of 10 holiday chalets, formation of new access road, services and landscaping. Site: Land south west of Milkieston Toll, By Eddleston Appellant: Mr Simon Gibbs

Reasons for Refusal: The proposed development would be contrary to Policy D1 – Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the timber chalets would have a harmful effect on the amenity and character of the area. The erection of 10 holiday chalets at this location would set an unacceptable precedent for development in River Valley Landscape types.

The proposed development would be contrary to Policy D1 – Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that adequate access arrangements cannot be met. A tourism related development in this location would result in significant levels of traffic generation and reliance on private cars to the detriment of road safety and the free flow of traffic on the A703 public road.

The proposed development would be contrary to Policy I15 – Flood Risk Areas of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy G4 – Flooding of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the site is at significant risk of flooding. The erection of chalets and associated works would place people and buildings at risk of flooding and would materially increase the probability of flooding elsewhere.

Grounds of Appeal: Awaited.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations 2.1.2 Reference: 08/01581/ADV Proposal: Erection of two signboards Site: Site east and west of cottage hospital, Kelso Rd, Coldstream Appellant: Douglas and Angus Estate

Reasons for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policy E24 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 – 2011 and Policy BE5 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that it is contrary to the Council’s Tourist Signposting Policy and in that the most westerly advertisement would be poorly related to its location and both signs would contribute to excessive signage in the locality to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area.

Grounds of Appeal: It is not clear how the signs would adversely affect the character or amenity of the area. The signs will help support a tourism enterprise. The signs replace existing signs and are similar to other that exist for other attraction sin the Borders.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

2.1.3 Reference: 09/00323/FUL Proposal: Modification of planning condition no. 2 on application 06/01404/FUL in respect of alterations to access arrangements Site: Land south of Meigle Row, Clovenfords Appellant: Barrett East Scotland Ltd.

Reason for refusal: Deemed refusal.

Grounds of Appeal: The application has not been determined within the prescribed timescale.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations.

2.1.4 Reference: 08/01649/FUL Proposal: Siting of Temporary Mobile Home Site: New Jeaniefield Farm, Blainslie, Lauder Appellant: Mr M J Carlisle.

Reason for refusal: The proposed development would fail to comply with Policy H6 of the Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 and New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008 supplementary planning guidance in that it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a full-time, temporary caravan on the site.

Grounds of Appeal: Council policy supports housing in the countryside required for agriculture. The applicant is a farmer and there is justification for the proposed mobile home. There is no suitable alternative accommodation available. Approval will ensure the establishment of a small but viable farming unit.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations.

2.1.5 Reference: 08/00256/FUL Proposal: Erection of free range poultry house Site: Land SW of Easter Happrew Farmhouse Appellant: J P Campbell & Sons

Reason for refusal: The proposed development would be contrary to Policies N9 and N10 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy EP1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that there would be a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the landscape character and the landscape value of the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area. The erection of a free range poultry unit of industrial scale would have significant adverse implications for the landscape resource and would not offer substantial national benefits that clearly outweigh the landscape value of the area.

Grounds of Appeal: The application was recommended for approval by officers. There are no objections from statutory consultees. A professional assessment demonstrated the building will have minimal visual impact. The proposal would offer significant economic benefits.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations.

2.2 Enforcements:

2.2.1 Reference: 08/00111/UNUSE Proposal: Service of notice requiring proper maintenance of land. Site: Bowden Stand Dam, Bowden Appellant: Ian Falconer

Reason for refusal: Appeal Against service of Amenity Notice

Grounds of Appeal: The condition of the site is not injurious to the amenity of the area and the materials and equipment are required in connection with the lawful use of the site which is used as a small holding.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations.

3 DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

3.1.1 Reference: 08/01228/FUL Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Allerton House, Oxnam Appellant: Mr & Mrs Leask

Reason for Refusal: The proposal is be contrary to Policies G1, G7 and H2 of the Scottish Borders Finalised Local Plan in that the proposal constitutes an over- development of the site that is out of keeping with the character and form of the area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area and of the residential amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring property.

Grounds of Appeal: The site is scrub ground detached from the hotel but which relates well to the existing build pattern and can absorb a dwellinghouse without detrimental impact. It is considered to be appropriate infill development. The dwellinghouse is of modest scale, traditional in form and sympathetic to its setting. The major constraints of the site were parking and retention of the lime tree. Lengthy negotiations with the Consultees resulted in favourable responses thought he application was refused on the grounds of over-development.

Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed.

Summary of Decision: The reporter, Gill Stewart, concluded that the proposal would result in a cramped development that would not respect the spacious character of its surroundings. It would also increase the likelihood of requests to fell a TPO’d tree which makes a significant contribution to the visual amenities of the area. Further, it would be harmful to the residential amenity of the existing dwelling.

3.1.2 Reference: 08/00866/OUT Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse Site: Land south of Hallmanor House, Manor Valley Appellant: Mr D Coltman

Reason for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to Policy H5 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011 and Policy D2 (Building Groups) of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the site does not form part of a recognised building group. This would create an undesirable precedent for housing in the countryside.

The proposal would be contrary to Policy H6 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011and Policy D2 (Economic Requirement) of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the proposed dwelling is not a direct operational requirement of an established agricultural business and the need for the house has not been adequately substantiated. The erection of a dwelling in this location would result in an undesirable precedent.

Grounds of Appeal: There is economic justification for a dwellinghouse as significant investment is required to stock the hill land at Castlehill in order to start a viable farming enterprise. Operating Castlehill from the appellant's existing farm would involve considerable travelling and expense. There is precedent for the development which is supported by an independent report.

Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed.

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Gill Stewart, concluded that the appeal site is particularly obtrusive and the proposed dwelling would cause harm to the landscape qualities of the area. She further concluded that the business case relating to agricultural justification was not sufficiently robust to demonstrate a clear operational need.

3.1.3 Reference: 08/01635/FUL Proposal: Alterations and extensions to dwellinghouse Site: Breakers View, 3 Fort Road, Eyemouth Appellant: John Wilson

Reason for Refusal: The proposals would be contrary to Policies G1 and H2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the extensions would, by virtue of their inappropriate scale form and design, have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the existing dwellinghouse and the surrounding residential area as a whole. Furthermore, the proposals would be harmful to the residential amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties due to an unacceptable level of overlooking.

Grounds of Appeal: It is not considered that the proposal would result in loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. No objections have been submitted by neighbours. There are various different styles of property in the area and the proposal would not look out of place against them.

Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed.

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Edward Hitchings, concluded that the front extension would look incongruous and be unsympathetic to the appearance of the existing houses. The roof ‘balcony’ would result in a loss of privacy and have harmful effects on the adjoining property.

3.1.4 Reference: 08/01401/OUT Proposal: Change of use from garden ground to residential land Site: Land adjacent 22 Beechbank Selkirk Appellant: C T Pymont

Reason for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to Structure Plan Policy I11 and Policies G7 and Inf4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan in that the proposals would have a significant negative impact on existing on-street parking provision in a constricted area with associated impacts on vehicular movements along the public road all to the detriment of road user safety.

Grounds of Appeal: The proposal is for an infill development in a sustainable location affordable in scale and close to amenities. The proposal accords with the Council’s policies and would have only a marginal impact on parking in the area.

Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.

Reporter’s Decision: Sustained.

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Gill Stewart, concluded that the site occupies a very sustainable location, that approval would not cause any critical threshold to be breached, and that adequate parking and access can be achieved as required by policy. In conclusion the scheme would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on traffic conditions or highway safety. The decision was therefore to approve subject to seven conditions and conclusion of a legal agreement securing a financial contribution to the reinstatement of the Waverley line.

3.1.5 Reference: 08/00759/OUT Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse. Site: Land East Of The Old Stables, Lennel House, Coldstream Appellant: H Fleming

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policy H5 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan, Policy 7 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies D2 and BE1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 (advertised for adoption) and the terms of the New Housing in the Scottish Borders Policy and Guidance Note 1993, as amended, in that

• the site would break beyond the linear form of this part of Lennel constituting a backland form of development and an inappropriate addition to the building group; • the proposal would potentially have an adverse effect upon the setting of category B listed properties at Lennel • the access to the site is inadequate in terms of its width, gradient and visibility at its junction with the public road. Furthermore, the land required to facilitate the necessary access improvements is outwith the control of the applicants.

Grounds of Appeal: The proposal complies with the requirements of Policy H5 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 – 2011, Policy 7 of the Berwickshire Local Plan 1994 and Policies BE1 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2008 in that the site represents an appropriate addition to the building group at Lennel and that satisfactory access, including appropriate visibility, can be achieved. Furthermore, adequate justification has been provided in that the dwellinghouse would be occupied by a retiring farmer in compliance with the Council’s Housing in the Countryside policies and guidance note.

Method of Appeal: Written Submissions. Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed.

Summary of Decision: The reporter, Edward Hitchings, concluded that a house in the proposed location would not be well related to the building group, would detract from the landscape character of the area and would intrude into the pleasant view of the Tweed valley. It would also fail to maintain the special architectural and historic quality of the boundary wall and the setting of the Italianate garden.

3.1.6 Reference: 08/00865/OUT Proposal: Erection of two dwellinghouses. Site: Land South of Bogangreen Cottages, Coldingham Appellant: A J Henry

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policies H5 and H6 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2011, Policies G8and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan adopted September 2008 in that:

a) the application site is situated out with the Development Boundary for Coldingham and is not identified for development, b) the dwellinghouse is not justified on an exceptional basis; and c) the site does not relate appropriately to a building group which is suitable for the addition of further dwellings.

The proposed development is contrary to Policies G1 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan adopted September 2008 in that:

a) the application site, including the area of land included to provide access, would encroach into open farmland and would give rise to an adverse impact on the local landform and landscape setting. This would give rise to an undesirable precedent and an inappropriate visual impact on the setting of the group.

Grounds of Appeal: The proposal complies with objectives of Structure Plan (H5) and Local Plan Policies (G1 and D2) and conforms to recommendations in 1993 Rural Housing SPG. Policy G8 of the Local Plan not relevant. The proposal would not have adverse landscape or visual impact and an undesirable precedent would not be set as building group is appropriate.

Method of Appeal: Hearing.

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed.

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Martin H Seddon, agreed with the Council that the existing building group is essentially complete and not suitable for further addition as proposed. The proposal would intrude into an undeveloped field and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape setting of the group.

3.1.7 Reference: 06/01453/FUL Proposal: Erection of fence to form enclosures for refuse containers and paper storage and erection of 2 lighting columns. Site: Co-op supermarket, Newtown St, Duns Appellant: Lothian Borders and Angus Co-op.

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policy BE4of the Scottish Borders Local Plan: Finalised December 2005 in that the proposal would adversely impact on the character of the Conservation Area and further would be to the detriment of pedestrian safety by removing a safe, remote pedestrian access to the store. Grounds of Appeal: The proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the character or amenity of the conservation area, and would be detrimental to road or pedestrian safety. It would enable the appellants to continue to operate effectively within the town centre and to contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre.

Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.

Reporter’s Decision: Partially sustained.

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Roger Wilson, concluded that the two lighting columns be allowed but the remaining elements be refused. The proposals would reduce pedestrian permeability to the town and would consequently neither maintain nor enhance the character of the conservation area. The bin storage proposals would not be visually satisfactory and again would not maintain nor enhance the character of the conservation area.

3.2 Enforcements

3.2.1 Reference: 08/00098/UNDEV Proposal: Siting of temporary office accommodation, 2 No Storage containers and erection of walls , railings and lighting / cctv column (retrospective) Site: Field 0328, Kirkburn, Cardrona Appellant: Andrew Cleghorn

Reason for Service of Notice: A retrospective application has been refused. The notice requires breaches of planning control to be addressed including the erection of a low level wall with metal fence, the siting of a Portacabin and static caravan and the depositing of items of construction materials, plant, equipment and other detritus within the vicinity of the agricultural building.

Grounds of Appeal: The caravan on the site is not static but mobile. The portacabin is used for the storage of materials essential to the use of the smallholding. Heras fencing is essential for safety and other works and materials are used either in connection with the smallholding or the construction of a consented shed. Walls and railings can be reduced to comply with permitted development heights.

Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed.

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Gill Stewart, concluded that the majority of works, materials and equipment on the site could not be justified for legitimate agricultural purposes, that planning permission should have been obtained, and that the appeal on the basis that consent was not required therefore failed. It was further concluded that the site would not be appropriate for use as a builders yard and deemed approval must therefore be refused.

3.2.2 Reference: 08/00191/UNDEV Proposal: Extension to Dwellinghouse Site: 10 Winterfield Gardens, Duns Appellant: Mr C Aitchison

Reason for Service of Notice: The structure which has been built on site differs markedly from the approved plans and a subsequent planning application seeking its retention has been refused. Grounds of Appeal: That the works do not constitute a breach of planning control, that the steps required by the planning authority are unnecessary, and that permission should in any event be granted.

Method of Appeal: Written Submissions.

Reporter’s Decision: Sustained.

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Edward Hitchings, concluded that the scheme, as amended, would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area and should therefore be approved.

4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING

4.1 In addition to those listed in section 2 of this report, there remained 8 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 4 June. These relate to sites at:

x Huddersfield Street, Galashiels x Easter Ulston Cottages, Jedburgh x Rawflat, Ancrum x Westruther (2 Appeals) x Whitehaugh, Hawick x Traquair Rd, Innerleithen x Duns Rd, Greenlaw

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards

This report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Building Standards and the signed copy is retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards

Background Papers: None. . Previous Minute Reference: None.

15 JUNE 2009

REPORT BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS

VARIATION OF SECTION 75 AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO PLANNING PERMISSION ON LAND AT MEIGLE FARM, CLOVENFORDS

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To seek Members approval for variation to a Section 75 legal agreement related to a development of 70 houses at Meigle Farm, Clovenfords to facilitate alternative access arrangements and to enable the commencement of the proposed primary school on the adjoining site

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Full planning permission was granted by the then Development and Building Control Committee at its meeting on 2 July 2007 for three distinct but related developments, namely: x The erection of 70 houses on a site at Meigle Farm in Clovenfords x The erection of a primary school on land immediately to the west of the housing site described above; and x The creation of an access road linking the proposed school and Caddonfoot Road

2.2 The permission for the housing development was subject to a legal agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, requiring a series of commitments, including contributions toward the Waverley Line, Education and Lifelong Learning (E & LL), Affordable Housing, Central Borders Road Network Study, footpath link provision and local play park enhancement. The agreement was completed and signed on 29 November 2007.

2.3 Of these contributions, those relating to Waverley Line and Affordable Housing (totalling £319,330) are not triggered until the completion of the 25th and 50th units; Play park contributions (£42,000) prior to completion of the 25th unit; that relating to the Road Network study (£70,000) is triggered prior to completion of the first unit; the footpath link contribution (£27,500) and the E & LL contribution (£296,386) are required to be settled prior to the commencement of any works.

2.4 In addition, there is a planning condition attached to the permission itself that requires the completion of the road through the site to the school site as follows:

1 No development shall commence on site until the road linking the site to Caddonfoot Road is approved by the planning authority. Once approved, the road link and its related pedestrian links shall be implemented as part of the first phase of the development and completed to the specification of the planning authority before any dwellinghouses are occupied Reason: To ensure the site is adequately serviced by transport links and provides the maximum degree of connectivity with the adjacent school site

2.5 Barratt East Scotland has made the decision not to commence the works associated with their permission immediately. This appears to be primarily the direct result of the economic conditions making the proposed development commercially unattractive at present, but also because it would trigger the requirement for the education contribution in advance of those works commencing.

2.6 The decision to delay commencement of development is the prerogative of the developer. However, there are associated implications for the development of the school on the adjoining site which is scheduled to start in April 2010.If Barratt East do not commence development there will be no requirement on them to complete the road link to service the school site. In that circumstance the Authority will have to bear the entire costs of completing the link as part of the school project.

2.7 Whilst the developer has made it clear that they are willing to honour the requirements for all of the contributions at the levels sought, they are seeking to vary the current terms of the legal agreement; it would seem that there may be scope to allow some variation in the scheduling of E & LL and Road Network contributions in a way that would ultimately still achieve the requested contributions, but without affecting the timeous delivery of the school project. The offer originally tabled by the developer was to settle the E & LL, Road Network and Footpath link contributions upon completion of the 25th unit, which would have been consistent with other contributions. However, when the proposal was considered by Members in April, concern was expressed that the development should be allowed to progress without any contribution, and it was the view of the Committee that, whilst a revised arrangement might be acceptable, a more phased approach would be preferable. The subsequent negotiation and revised arrangement is discussed in greater detail below.

2.8 The deferral of the footpath contribution is less well justified; to delay the provision of the footpath link is considered inappropriate, as this is a site-specific requirement necessary for the proper connectivity of the housing scheme. It is therefore considered that the timing of this contribution should remain as currently proposed.

2.9 In return for the variation of the terms of the current agreement, the developer has offered to contribute half the capital cost of the road provision to their site which will also serve the school, accommodating the Council’s school development schedule. They propose either to construct the road themselves and seek the Council’s 50% of cost contribution, or allow the Council to construct and then settle their 50% share. In either scenario, settlement would be made upon completion of the road.

2.10 The Council’s Local Plan policy on Developer Contributions, G5, allows flexibility in the approach to seeking contributions, and specifically states that the Council “will pursue a pragmatic approach, taking into account the importance in securing necessary developments”. It is considered that this is a situation where such an approach is justified.

2.11 Having regard to the current economic climate, it is entirely appropriate to employ a flexible approach to the timing of the payment contributions; ultimately, the outcome of either arrangement would be the same, and the required contributions will be settled at the originally agreed rate. However, the additional benefit to SBC by agreeing to the 2 developer’s proposals is that the scheduled programme for the school’s delivery will not be further implicated by current residential market conditions

2.12 As the alternative would be that the Council carries out the road works itself in order to achieve the linkages to the school, there are attractions to the suggested approach, which also include the possibility that the developer can carry out the road works at a lesser cost. Crucially, however, it allows the road to be completed to facilitate the development of the school. The alternatives are likely to involve the Council unilaterally bearing the cost of road provision, possibly through the use of complex and time- consuming compulsory purchase powers.

2.13 However, even were the approach described above accepted, there is still the requirement for an application to vary the terms of the condition set out in paragraph 2.4. To that end, a planning application incorporating a slightly amended layout has already been submitted (reference 09/00323/FUL, received 20 March 2009).

3 CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

3.1 This proposal was considered by the Planning and Building Standards Committee at its meeting on 13 April 2009, when it was resolved to defer a decision to seek a revised arrangement for payment of contributions.

3.2 Whilst the Committee were not unreceptive to the principle of allowing a deferral of payments, they were concerned that the development should be allowed to progress without any contribution. The suggestion was therefore proposed and agreed by Members that the payment of contributions – particularly as they relate to Education – should be more evenly phased, rather than completely deferred as originally proposed.

3.2 Discussions have taken place with the developer, and agreement has been reached that the Education contribution would be split into three phased payments.

In its entirety, the proposed compromise solution, as it affects the developer contributions, is (with the revisions shown in italics):

x 50% Waverley (£60,305 - indexed) on completion of 25th unit x 50% Waverley (£60,305 - indexed) on completion of 50th unit x 50% Affordable Housing (£99,360) on completion of 25th unit x 50% Affordable Housing (£99,360) on completion of 50th unit x33.3% E & LL (£89,793 - indexed) prior to commencement of works x33.3% E & LL (£89,793 - indexed) on completion of 25th unit x33.3% E & LL (£89,794 - indexed) on completion of 50th unit x 100% Road Network Study (£70,000) on completion of 25th unit x 100% Play provision (£42,000 - indexed) prior to completion of 25th unit x 100% Footpath (£27,500 - indexed) prior to commencement of works

3.3 This arrangement appears to reflect the views expressed by Members, and ultimately achieves the required contribution resulting from the development, as well as the 50% contribution toward the access road.

4 CONSULTATION

4.1 Comments have been received from the Head of Legal Services and Chief Financial Officer, and have been incorporated into this report.

3 5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The Council had initially expected the road provided by the developer to reach the school site at no cost to the Council. Now, in order to achieve the school build timetable, a site access is likely to be required separately from the housing development, and therefore the financial implications centre on the additional cost of contributing 50% of the new shorter road costs. However, this is clearly still preferable to any requirement to meet the entire cost.

5.2 It is understood that the costs of the contribution will be met within the school total build budget, and this may mean reprioritising what is provided at the school. However, that would is a matter for the Education & Lifelong Learning Director, and is not a matter that could be addressed through the land use planning process, which is more directly concerned with the timeous provision of the road.

6 RISK COMMENTARY

6.1 There is an element of financial risk in that ordinarily contributions should be paid in advance of the scheme being implemented. However, there is the potential for exposure to a greater cost, if the Council is required to undertake the works itself or to pursue land acquisition compulsory purchase powers.

6.2 There is likely to be a greater risk if the approach suggested by the developer is not accepted, as any alternative is likely to have greater potential not only for exposure to greater cost, but also to the prospect of delay in the delivery of the proposed Clovenfords School project.

7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 None directly arising from this report.

8 EQUALITIES

8.1 None directly arising from this report.

9 SUMMARY

9.1 The developer of the Meigle Farm housing site, Barratt East Scotland, had sought to vary the terms of the legal agreement attached to their permission for 70 houses to the effect that the contributions for the Central Borders Road Network Study and Education would be deferred until the completion of the 25th house on the site. A compromise solution, whereby the Education and Lifelong Learning contribution is phased into three payments, prior to the commencement of works, and on completion of the 25th and 50th houses, has been agreed.

9.2 As part of this arrangement, and acknowledging the potential implications for the delay of the provision of the Clovenfords School project, the developer has offered to contribute half the cost of the road that would serve the school from the east (through their development site).

9.3 The Local Plan policy relating to developer contributions makes provision for a pragmatic approach, taking into account the importance in securing necessary developments and reflecting the views expressed by Members. For the reasons set out in the report, it is considered that this is a situation where such an approach is justified.

4 10 RECOMMENDATION

10.1 I recommend that the Planning and Building Standards Committee agree to vary the terms of the legal agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) 1997 as set out below, to allow payment of contributions toward education and the Central Borders Road Network Study to be phased and deferred respectively and also to make provision in that agreement for meeting half of the cost of the road construction to service the proposed Clovenfords School scheme from the eastern boundary of the school site.

x50% Waverley (£60,305 - indexed) on completion of 25th unit x50% Waverley (£60,305 - indexed) on completion of 50th unit x50% Affordable Housing (£99,360) on completion of 25th unit x50% Affordable Housing (£99,360) on completion of 50th unit x33.3% E & LL (£89,793 - indexed) prior to commencement of works x33.3% E & LL (£89,793 - indexed) on completion of 25th unit x33.3% E & LL (£89,794 - indexed) on completion of 50th unit x100% Road Network Study (£70,000) on completion of 25th unit x100% Play provision (£42,000 - indexed) prior to completion of 25th unit x100% Footpath (£27,500 - indexed) prior to commencement of works

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Building Standards

The original signed copy of this report is retained by the Planning and Economic Development Department

Author(s) Name Designation John Hayward Development Manager (West)

Background Papers: None Previous Minute Reference: Development and Building Control Committee 2 July 2007 Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 April 2009

5 6