APPENDIX 2

Consultation responses – Planning brief Clovenfords West, Clovenfords

Contributor Summarised comments Response Scottish SEPA are satisfied the areas of flood risk, drainage and waste Noted. Environment have been adequately addressed in the brief. Protection Agency Due to the morphology of the catchment with steep slopes that Noted. The Council (SEPA) surround Clovenfords pluvial (over land) flooding is also an has used the 2nd issue. generation flooding maps to inform the planning brief and early consultation on the brief has included the Council’s flood prevention section.

SEPA note that the brief includes the erection of a new school. Noted. The school Due to the sensitive nature of the school, it is recommended is not proposed on that the building is free from flooding from the 1 in 1000 year the site subject to event as recommended in the SPP7 risk framework. the brief, but on a site on higher grounds and closer to the village centre. Any flood risk issues will be dealt with at planning application stage for that site.

Not all of the site may be developable and areas of flood risk Accepted in part. should be avoided in the first instance. SEPA recommend that The constraints the constraints section of the brief is updated to state that “no section will be built development should take place on the functional flood updated to say that plain, and that this area should be safeguarded as open development of space”. housing or major structures should not take place on the functional flood plain and the area should be safeguarded for open space. The development proposed, in the finalised brief, is a bridge for pedestrians/cyclists to minimise impact on the flood plain and the SAC. There are other pedestrian/cycle links to and from the site if flooding occurs.

The Flood Risk Assessment should be undertaken in Accepted. The accordance with SEPA’s technical guidance. This guidance is flood risk section in available on our planning website through the following link: the annex on www.sepa.org.uk/customer_information/planning/flood_risk.as Developer px. Guidance SEPA recommends that the flood risk section in the developer document will be guidance in Annex 2 is updated to include reference to this updated to include technical guidance. the link to SEPA’s technical guidance.

The flood risk assessment for this site should in particular Accepted. The include: requirements for x an assessment of the risk of flooding from all the flood risk sources, including fluvial and pluvial; assessment will be x identify the location of the culverts (out with the included in the site boundary) and the assess the potential flood annex on risk associated with these structures; Developer x the hydraulic model should include the culverts Guidance. and bridges located along the two main watercourses and allow a degree of blockage.

For residential developments such as this, two levels of SUDS Noted. treatment (source control measures and pond or wetland) would be required for all hardstanding areas (including roads).

It is important to ensure that adequate space to accommodate Noted. Figure 3 is SUDS is safeguarded within the site layout, and that this is out for illustrative with the 1 in 30 year flood plain. We note that space for SUDS purposes only and has been allocated adjacent to the watercourse in Figure 3 – if further research Development Vision, which may not be possible due to the shows that the associated flood levels. location is not suitable adjustments to the location in the development vision can be made at planning application stage.

SEPA require all developments within a sewered area to Noted. Developer connect to the public sewer. As this site is within close Guidance in Annex proximity to a sewered area we would expect the necessary A makes reference upgrades to be undertaken to enable connection. Early contact to Local Plan policy with Scottish Water is encouraged. SEPA is unlikely to support Inf. 5 on Waste an application for a private waste water system. Water Treatment Standards and recommends developers to contact Scottish Water early in the planning process. SEPA supports the need for a Drainage Impact Assessment. Noted. The In addition SEPA recommends that the SUDS section in the Developer developer guidance in Annex 2 is updated to reflect our Guidance on requirement for two levels of treatment, and for features to be SUDS will be located out with the 1 in 30 year flood plain as specified above. updated to include the requirement for two levels of treatment and for SUDS to be located outside the 1 in 30 year flood plain.

As specified in the planning brief, SEPA would expect space Noted. for collection, segregation, storage and possibly treatment of waste (e.g. individual and/or communal bin stores, compositing facilities, and waste treatment facilities) to be allocated within the site layout.

We note that the site is located in close proximity to a Special Noted. The Council Area of Conservation, and as such the ecological impact of the is aware of the development will need to be considered. Please note that in an location close to effort to reduce duplication of effort between us and Scottish SAC and is in the Natural Heritage (SNH) we no longer provide advice on finalised planning ecological issues. As you are aware, SNH have a clear lead brief including only on biodiversity and nature conservation policy and we ask that a pedestrian/cycle their comments on the planning brief are taken into account bridge to be constructed over the burn to minimise impact. Scottish SNH supports the publication of planning briefs as a means for Noted. Natural clearly setting out expectations of the Council and constraints Heritage and opportunities in the development of the site as means of (SNH) improving the design of housing development in the Borders.

SNH expect the developer to submit a design statement with Noted. Design their planning application, in accordance with PAN 68 – statement is Design Statements. included in the key submissions on page 15.

SNH welcomes the advice regarding landscape considerations Noted. and design, pedestrian and cycle access and sustainable building design.

Specific comments; The sentence referring to the designated Accepted. (SAC) site, Special Area of Conservation (page 6) and (AGLV) will be should include (SAC) so that the use of the acronym on page included on page 6 7 is self explanatory. Note that the SAC is not a landscape and the heading on designation (page 7) and inclusion in this paragraph is page 7 will be misleading. SNH strongly suggest a link to SNH website is changed to included so that a developer can locate the citation for the ‘Designated sites’. designation. Web link will be included.

Accepted. The last Protected species: No reference to the potential requirement sentence in the for European protected species (EPS – bat and otter are most Phase 1 Habitat likely) surveys, depending on the extent of the development Survey paragraph impact – especially in relation to the and will be expanded to woodland. The Phase 1 habitat survey paragraph (page14) include’ including may be appropriate place to include reference to need for a habitat for simple survey of suitable habitat for EPS and badger setts. European protected species and badger setts.’ Historic Historic has no comments to offer for our statutory Noted. Scotland historic environment remit.

The Council’s conservation and archaeology service should Noted. Countryside advise on conservation area and Category B and C9S) listed & Heritage section building issues and on the potential archaeological interest has been identified in para 5.8. consulted on the draft planning brief before the public consultation.

For information; Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings Noted. and Conservation Areas is being replaced. Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Note is out for consultation. The guidance notes have been designed to offer clear, consistent advice to professionals. Developers and applicants and be published on-line. CALA Homes The contributor fundamentally disagrees with the proposal for Accepted. The (East) Limited site access via Caddonfoot Road. When discussed at Local finalised brief Plan Inquiry, roads officer agreed point of access from Cliff includes access Road (A72) was acceptable, and provision of roundabout from the A72 to would assist in reducing traffic speeds into the village. follow the decision Representation includes quote from the Report of Inquiry made at the Local (page 55-44, 2nd last para.). “the site is well related to the Plan Inquiry and village, with even the most remote part of the proposed new avoid unnecessary housing conveniently located for pedestrian access (about impact on the 600m from the village core); visually well concealed and Special Area of contained within the local topography to the west and the Conservation woodland to the south; largely free of flooding constraints; and (SAC) and the that suitable road access (acceptable to the Council’s Roads flood plain. Officer) could be provided by means of new roundabout on the A72”. Access arrangements contained within the Draft Planning Brief are contrary to the reasons of justification for the allocation of the subjects.

The proposal for Caddonfoot Rd access would necessitate Accepted. A provision of a bridge structure to span a considerable area of carefully designed flood plain, leading to significant infrastructure disproportionate minor bridge to local surroundings and character of Caddonfoot Rd. should have less of an impact on flooding and the character of the area.

CALA has provided the Council with a copy of Flood Risk Accepted in part. A Assessment, and if applied correctly, the ‘indicative crossing’ Flood Risk (figure 3) could be regarded as not representative of the Assessment flooding characteristics. should be included in any planning application submitted for development on the site, in line with the planning brief. CALA is disappointed to note continued pursuit for excessive Noted. planning gain contributions when housing market and wider Contributions will economy is in recession. Rigid application of contributions be required in line serves to further stifle development and would impact on with the Council’s deliver family housing and affordable housing. policies and SPGs on Developer Contribution and Affordable Housing. The policies do include flexibility in terms of negotiating contributions and the terms of the contributions using an independent ‘open book’ assessment.

There are considerable cost for off-site infrastructure (water Noted. and drainage), the provision of a roundabout at the A72 will Contributions will benefit wider community and thereby provide direct planning be required in line gain ‘in –kind’. These matters and sought enhancements with the Council’s beyond Building Regulations should be taken into account on policies and SPGs a site by site basis and not as a blanket approach. on Developer Contribution and Affordable Housing. The policies do include flexibility in terms of negotiating contributions and the terms of the contributions. Vera Lawson New access road would spoil and detract from amenity of the Accepted in part. area; it would reduce quality of our safety, increase traffic flow, The finalised brief reduce value of our house and interfere with the tranquillity includes access and peace of the area. from the A72 to follow the decision made at the Local Plan Inquiry and avoid unnecessary impact on the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the flood plain.

Kate Harvey, Logical entry to the site is from A72 and access could be Accepted. The A.J. Smith, gained by forming roundabout opposite the site. This is how finalised brief Roderick M the site was promoted through Local Plan Inquiry process includes access Beatson, where Roads Officers agreed this form of access was from the A72 to K Scott acceptable and would further slow down traffic entering the follow the decision village. The Reporter agreed with this viewpoint in his made at the Local summary. Plan Inquiry and avoid unnecessary impact on the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the flood plain.

Noted. The Lothian’s and Borders Police find it necessary to have speed proposed access checks on this part of the road as traffic regularly exceeds the from the A72 would 30 mph limit entering from Peebles. Traffic has crashed on the help reduce speed roundabout as they have been going to fast. of vehicles going into the village.

There is a roundabout at the industrial estate in Hawick, and Noted. this seems to be no problem with the busy road.

Caddon Water has history of flooding where the bridge is Accepted. proposed. Taking in the need to avoid flooding upstream at Caddonhaugh a two lane bridge with a very long span to the rising ground on the other side would be needed. Such a bridge would be entirely out of place in this scenic area.

There would be the loss of community parking and walking Noted. areas as Murray and Burrell were to develop the area on Caddonfoot Road for the community.

The brief presents a very real environmental impact on the Noted. Policies are Caddon Water, which is included in River Tweed Special Area in place to protect of Conservation. the environment. The development of a pedestrian link over the Caddon Water and the vehicular access to the site from the A72 should reduce the risk to the environment.

B710 is a narrow country road and to impose hundreds of lorry Accepted. The loads during the construction phase and traffic from 60 houses finalised brief is inappropriate. At both end the junctions are poor. There are includes access areas where no pavement can be built. The Planning Brief from the A72 to refers to the road as potentially dangerous route for walkers. follow the decision First Bus no longer route their buses down Caddonfoot Road. made at the Local Plan Inquiry and avoid unnecessary impact on the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the flood plain. The A72 has existing pavement going into Clovenfords.

There is significant concern from village residents that the Noted. Water and main sewer pipe down Caddonfoot Road is not adequate for sewage capacity the proposed development and to have this replaced the entire and infrastructure length of the road would have to be excavated creating traffic is assessed by hazard. Scottish Water. Contribution from developer may be required for new/upgrade of infrastructure.

The Brief represents an opportunity to increase road safety by Accepted. The an access from the A72, and poses a threat to road safety in brief will be considering the use of Caddonfoot Road. presented to Planning and Building Standard Committee with the proposed access from the A72. Senga Brown The contributor is concerned that entry to the site is Accepted. The considered from the Caddonfoot Road and not from the finalised brief A72.The B710 is far too narrow for heavy construction vehicles includes access or to cope with extra traffic from 60 new houses. At the local from the A72 to Clovenfords council meeting it was agreed by all present that follow the decision access to the new site from the A72 was a much safer option made at the Local and would slow down traffic coming in and out of the village. Plan Inquiry and The B710 is dangerous for walkers and cyclists at present and avoid unnecessary more traffic, especially large vehicles, would increase the impact on the dangers. The contributor believes that Road Officers agreed Special Area of that the A72 access was acceptable and the Reporter agreed Conservation with this viewpoint. (SAC) and the flood plain. Clovenfords The contributor preference is vehicular access off A72 via a Accepted. The and District roundabout on that road. The Community Council has raised finalised brief Community with the Council and police their concerns about speed of includes access Council vehicles approaching and leaving on the A72, since the from the A72 to straightening the route to the Nest. Issues include speeding, follow the decision road safety and noise. With reference to the preference from made at the Local the Roads Department for ‘balanced’ roundabouts; there are 3 Plan Inquiry and legged roundabouts on Melrose By-pass and Peebles High avoid unnecessary Street and can therefore be acceptable in Clovenfords. The 3 impact on the legged roundabout at the Nest is not balanced. Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the flood plain.

There will still be a need for pedestrian/cycle access to the Accepted. The development from the B710 over the Caddon. pedestrian/cycle link over the Caddon to the B710 is included in the brief to increase connectivity between the site and the village.

The brief is orientated towards the view of the village from the Accepted. The development site. Consideration should be given to the view of consideration of the development from the village. In particular the developer the views from the should be expected to a)avoid locating the tallest houses at settlements has the highest point of the site, b)make some use of natural been further materials particularly on walls facing the village so as to avoid highlighted by a regimented line of white and cream houses standing out. expansion of the Trees would help it to blend in. In terms of Viewpoints and ‘Opportunities’, Vistas – Need for statement for specific consideration given to ‘Materials’ and the view of the development site from properties on higher ‘Scale and layout’ locations on the North end of the village sections.

Proposed woodland on western boundary is important to Noted. soften visual impact and protection from prevailing wind for properties on that edge on the site.

Required that affordable housing is built on the site, and will be Noted. fully integrated within the development. The contributor doesn’t Requirement for want commuted sum to be agreed as compensation for on-site developer not meeting obligation to provide affordable development of housing. affordable housing that is integrated with mainstream housing is included in the brief.

Noted. The contributor’s experience is limited use of play areas for Contributions very young children and higher priority should be placed on towards play areas providing or upgrading facilities for older children. The should be in line Community Council is pursuing specific options and asks that with the SPG on the brief specify the exact provision is agreed in consultation Provision for play with the Community Council. areas. The Community Council will have the opportunity to get involved in the consultation on the planning application stage.

Accepted in part. Map on page 8 shows pedestrian/cycle path along western Reference to the edge. The contributor ask that as an infrastructure proposed improvement the developer is required to complete the route extension will be along the line of the old railway where the track from made in the Caddonlee farm goes down to the A707. The land of the section on ‘Access proposed path is in the same ownership as the site, so and links’ and establishing rights for a path could be agreed with the owner at ‘Development the time of completing purchase of the development site. Such contribution’. a path would provide pedestrian connection between Clovenfords and outlying communities of Peel and Craigmyre. There are requirements for developer to pay to improve infrastructure (Roads, Railways, Schools) outside our village. This requirement will give real benefit to the community of Clovenfords and District. Tony Birch The site is currently under water and a number of issues need Noted. The brief further investigation. The contributor objects to development includes until issues as drainage, access, water sewage supply are requirements for resolved. Drainage Impact Assessment, no housing development in flood area and the finalised draft to be presented to Planning and Building Standard Committee has proposed access from the A72. Developer guidance in Annex A makes reference to Local Plan policy Inf. 5 on Waste Water Treatment Standards and recommends developers to contact Scottish Water early in the planning process. John Bruce The contributor raise a number of issues relating to road safety Accepted. The including logical and safer access from the A72, roundabout finalised brief on the A72 would reduce speed and create safe access to the includes access site, existing pavement give safe access for pedestrians. The from the A72 to Caddonfoot Road is a narrow, winding country road. Proposed follow the decision access is on a flood plain where it bursts it banks, which it made at the Local does frequently. Suggested bridge would need to be a large Plan Inquiry and construction and be out of place in the scenic area. If flood avoid unnecessary plain was interfered with there is risk of flooding upstream at impact on the Caddonhaugh. Construction traffic on Caddonfoot Road would Special Area of be a threat to road safety. Conservation (SAC) and the flood plain. The A72 has existing pavement going into Clovenfords.

James H The contributor thinks changing the access from A72 to B710 Accepted. The Hayes is the wrong decision for the following reasons. finalised brief includes access 1. Caddonfoot Road is narrow, twisty with no footpath to from the A72 to the south, is not suitable for construction traffic. follow the decision 2. Junctions on Caddonfoot Road (north end and Selkirk made at the Local Road) are not suitable for the volume and type of Plan Inquiry and heavy traffic. avoid unnecessary 3. Access road would cross field and Caddon Water. The impact on the field is subject to serious flood risk and has flooded Special Area of twice in the last month. Road or bridge access over Conservation the field would add significantly to the flood risk (SAC) and the upstream and risk of flooding to properties on the flood plain. The south side of the Caddonhaugh development. A72 has existing Access road should be raised in its original position, pavement going roundabout would be similar to one in Hawick at Homebase into Clovenfords. and slow down traffic entering and leaving the village and have police speed checks on this section of the A72.