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

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

MINUTE of MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 5 November 2012 at 10.00 a.m. ------

Present: - Councillors R. Smith (Chairman), M. Ballantyne, S. Bell, J. Brown, N. Buckingham, J. Campbell, A. Cranston V. Davidson, J. Fullarton, D. Moffat, , N. Watson ( Chairman for Item 5(a)), B. White. Apology:- Councillor S. Mountford. In Attendance:- Development Manager (Projects, Review and Performance), Development Manager (Applications), Senior Roads Planning Officer, Solicitor (G. Nelson), Committee and Elections Team Leader.

MINUTE 1. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 1 October 2012.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

ORDER OF BUSINESS 2. The Chairman varied the order of business as shown on the agenda and the Minute reflects the order in which the items were considered at the meeting.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. Councillor Smith declared a non pecuniary interest in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct in respect of planning application 11/01662/FUL and left the meeting during its consideration. For that item of business the chair was taken by Councillor Watson.

APPLICATIONS 4. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

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

ADJOURNMENT 5. The meeting was adjourned at 12.50 p.m. for lunch and reconvened at 1.34 p.m.

MEMBERS Councillors Buckingham and Fullarton left the meeting and were not present for consideration of planning applications 12/01004/FUL; 12/0660/FUL; 12/00959/FUL; and 12/01040/FUL.

APPEALS AND REVIEWS 6. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews.

DECISION NOTED that:-

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

1 Item No. 4 (i) wind energy development consisting of six wind turbines 126.5m high to tip and associated ancillary work on land north west of Blackburn View, Blackburn, Grantshouse, Duns;

(ii) wind farm comprising 15 No turbines 100m high to tip and associated infrastructure including sub station and control room building, 1 No permanent meteorological mast, up to No 6 temporary guyed meteorological masts, 1 No temporary 10 m communications mast, on-site access tracks, site entrance, temporary construction compound, and associated ancillary and engineering works on land east of Penmanshiel Farmhouse, Grantshouse. (Appeal is against non-determination of the application).

(b) a review request had been received in respect of the erection of a wind turbine 24.8m high to tip on land north west of Cottage Farm, West Linton;

(i) Condition imposed in respect of planning permission for the erection of dwellinghouse on land north of Macbiehill Steading, West Linton (terms of the Condition varied);

(ii) the erection of two dwellinghouses on land south east of Sherrifmuir Cottage, Lyne Station, Peebles (terms of refusal varied); and

(iii) extensions to dwellinghouse (revision to planning permission 11/01064/FUL) at 9 Eildon Terrace, Dingleton Road, Melrose.

(d) the Local Review Body had sustained an appeal (subject to conditions) in respect of change of use from (Class I) retail to (Class II) fitness suite at 82 Channel Street, Galashiels.

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

SUMMARY OF PRIVATE BUSINESS

Minute 1. The Committee approved the private section of the Minute of the Meeting of 1 October 2012.

The meeting concluded at 3.00 p.m.

2 Item No. 4 PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 NOVEMBER 2012 APPENDIX I APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Name and Address Nature of Development Location

11/01662/FUL Banks Renewables Wind Farm Development Land North West of Alistair Landells comprising of 14 Quixwood Farmhouse, Banks Group 2nd Floor, turbines 126.25m to tip, Abbey St Block C Brandon Gate anemometer mast and Bathans/Grantshouse, Hamilton ML3 6AU ancillary works Berwickshire incorporating hardstanding, control building, access track and borrow pits.

Decision: Continued to allow further negotiation with the developer in respect of the height and layout of the proposed wind farm.

VOTE Councillor Buckingham, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, moved refusal of the application.

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor Campbell, moved approval of the application.

Councillor Bell, seconded by Councillor Brown, moved that the application be continued to allow negotiations with the developer regarding a reduction in the height of the turbines and an amended layout.

It was agreed that a vote for and against continuation be taken first and only if continuation was unsuccessful would a further vote be taken.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- For - 6 votes Against - 5 votes It was therefore decided that the application be continued and no further vote was taken.

NOTE Having declared an interest Councillor Smith did not take part in the consideration of this application.

12/00980/FUL Scottish Ambulance Erection of ambulance Land northwest of Service station with wash bay Borders General ATKINS Ltd canopy, workshop and Hospital Per Jenon Stewart associated car park and 200 Broomielaw hardstanding Glasgow G1 4RU

Decision: Refused for the following reason:

The proposed development would fail to comply with Policy N10 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policies G1, NE4, EP1 and EP3 in that it would result in the substantial removal of important woodland screening, which would expose the proposed development and, more significantly, the wider hospital campus, thereby undermining the setting of the Eildon Hills and therefore the integrity of the National Scenic Area. The benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the significant adverse landscape impacts that would result and it has not been demonstrated that alternatives to the proposed site are not available or that the landscape impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated.

3 Item No. 4

VOTE Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Ballantyne, moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Buckingham, seconded by Councillor Cranston, moved that the application be approved.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 8 votes Amendment - 3 votes The Motion was accordingly carried.

12/00929/FUL Ian McLachlan Installation of pump Drysdales, McKay And Partners house and associated Old Cambus, 6 Market Place works for effluent Cockburnspath Selkirk TD7 4BT discharge

Decision: Approved as per recommendation, subject to the following conditions and informatives and an additional requirement for legal agreement requiring annual monitoring and review of the condition of the land affected by the path of the pipeline through the area known as “Marley’s Brae” to ensure that any issues arising from the stability of the slope do not increase the visibility or environmental impact of the development proposed.

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Authority, which includes the requirement to replace and affix removed rock along the surface of the route of the pipe across the shore. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3. No development shall commence until a sample of the concrete backfill with applied colour finish shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

4. No development shall commence until slope stability survey assessing the route of the pipeline has been submitted to and approved in writing with the Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the approved details and required methods of mitigation. Reason: Further information is required to ensure that the excavation will not have an adverse effect on the stability of the coastline embankment.

5. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written scheme of Investigation outlining a Watching Brief. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to observe relevant below ground excavation during development, investigate and record features of interest and recover finds and samples if necessary. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered below ground excavation should cease pending further consultation with the Planning Authority. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds

4 Item No. 4 undergo post- excavation analysis the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

6. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with a working method statement, that shall first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect minimise the extent of the damage to the semi-natural coastal grassland habitats and to protect the species and habitats found in the inter-tidal area

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

8. No development shall commencement until a Species and Habitats Mitigation Plan is to be submitted for the approval in writing by the Planning Authority. Any works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To safeguard the ecological interests and biodiversity of the area.

9. The Path as shown by a line of black dotes on the attached plan, must be maintained open and free from obstruction to a width of 2000mm, during the course of development, and in perpetuity. No additional stiles, gates steps or barriers to access may be erected that could deter potential future recreational use. Reason: To safeguard the route of the longer term aspirational Core Path proposed for this site.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. With reference to Condition 6, the working method statement should include the following points; x All vehicular movement on the coastal grassland and intertidal areas to be kept strictly within a tightly-defined working corridor; x all vehicular movement to be kept to an absolute minimum; x only vehicles with low-impact tyres/tracks to be used; x no storage of material on the shore; x all foreign material to be removed from the shore on completion of the work; x contingency plans to be in place to address fuel/oil etc spillages; x any large stones or boulders in the inter-tidal area that are moved to facilitate the work must be placed the same way up as they were to start with, ideally the same distance up the shore as they were.

2. With reference to Condition 8, the Species and Habitats Mitigation Plan should include measures to avoid disturbing wintering birds on the rocky shore e.g. purple sandpiper (Calidris maritima) which are known to frequent this area of shore.

12/01132/FUL Network Rail Re-alignment of railway Land South East Of Per Andrew Roberts and associated works Unit 6 Tweedbank Buchanan House Craft Centre, Haining 58 Port Dundas Road Drive, Tweedbank Glasgow G4 0LQ

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and informatives: 5 Item No. 4

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development shall be carried out in accordance with site layout 129713-ATK-DRG-ST-CV-807-00900 PO1 and platform elevations 129713-ATK- DRG-ST-CV-807-00901 PO1 Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and to ensure the development complies with the approved plans and layout

2. Details of the height, design, materials and detailed route of the retaining wall to be erected alongside the Lowood Road, in addition to a plan and schedules of associated tree removal and mitigation planting/landscaping, including a timescale for the implementation of the planting/landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before this part of the development commences and, once approved, the works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details, plan and schedules Reason: To minimise the visual and landscape impact of the retaining wall works alongside the Lowood Road

3. The external finishes and colours of the platform shall be first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, including submission of samples where required by the Planning Authority, before this part of the development commences and, once approved, the works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved finishes and colours Reason: To integrate the platform sympathetically with its surroundings and the designs, materials and finishes of associated works

4. Notwithstanding the information submitted with the application, further details of the platform shelter, including full elevational drawings of its design, and a schedule of materials and external finishes (including samples if required by the Planning Authority) shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before this part of the development commences and, once approved, the works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved elevations, finishes and colours Reason: To integrate the platform sympathetically with its surroundings and the designs, materials and finishes of associated works

5. The development shall be carried out in compliance with the Code of Construction Practice approved under Section 46 of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 Reason: To minimise the impact of construction on residential amenity.

6. The development shall be carried out and operated in compliance with the Noise and Vibration Policy (Policy Paper on behalf of the Promoter in respect of Noise and Vibration) approved under Section 46 of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006. Reason: To mitigate and monitor the impacts of noise and vibration on the amenity of residential properties.

7. The development shall be carried out in compliance with the approved Borders Railway Project Environmental Management System Manual as it relates to the development approved under this planning permission. Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the development, particularly its potential effects on nature conservation interests

8. The existing stone wall along the northern side of Lowood Road shall be re-constructed along the northern edge of the re-aligned section of the road in accordance with a scheme of details (which shall include a timescale for these works) that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The existing wall makes an important contribution to the setting and appearance of the road at this location.

6 Item No. 4 Informatives

1. Because the scope of this planning application is limited, it does not consider the detailed treatment of the related car park and associated works. The applicants are advised to continue to consult directly with the Council’s Heritage and Design Service and Roads Planning Service, having had regard too for the design brief produced by the former for the overall site. The applicants should also consider the detailed comments made in response to this application by the Council’s Landscape Architect. Approaching the layout and design of the site with the input of these Council services will result in a development which maximises the benefit to the railway operators, users of the railway and local residents.

2. The siting, design and external appearance of the TOC building shall be subject to the Prior Approval of the Planning Authority as required by the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 and General Permitted Development (Scotland) Order 1992 as amended.

3. With respect to Condition 4, the Planning Authority would wish to consider slight alternatives to the design of the shelter framing/glazing arrangement to achieve a more contemporary appearance than that illustrated in the drawings approved under this consent.

4. The stopping up and realignment of Lowood Road will require a formal stopping-up order and Road Construction Consent. The applicant is advised to contact the Roads Planning Service for further advice.

11/01132/FUL Mr Roddam Home Erection of wind turbine Land West Of AMEC Environment And 67m high to tip, and Bassendeanhill Farm, Infrastructure ancillary buildings Gordon Per Neil Marlborough Northumbria House Regent Centre Gosforth Newcastle Upon Tyne NE3 3PX

Decision: Refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on local landscape character by virtue of its scale and, in particular, the height of the turbine, resulting in significant visibility across a range of sensitive receptors, including the A6089 and A697. The proposed development would appear unacceptably dominant in the landscape and would unacceptably extend wind energy development into a medium-scaled, settled landscape. These unacceptable effects would be contrary to Policies N9, I19 and I20 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policies G1 and D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011

VOTE Councillor Watson, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor Campbell, moved that the application be approved. On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 5 votes Amendment - 4 votes The Motion was accordingly carried.

7 Item No. 4

12/00831/FUL Eildon Housing Erection of sixteen Site of Dunwhinny Association dwellinghouses Lodge Home, Glen Assist Design Ltd Road, Peebles 11 Maritime Street Edinburgh EH6 6SB

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and to a legal agreement addressing contribution towards play areas:

2. The proposed residential units shall meet the definition of "affordable housing" as set out in the adopted Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and any accompanying supplementary planning guidance and shall only be occupied in accordance with arrangements (to include details of terms of occupation and period of availability) which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The permission has been granted for affordable housing, and development of the site for unrestricted market housing would not comply with development plan policies and guidance with respect to contributions to infrastructure and services, including local schools.

3. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until samples and precise details of the materials and colour 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: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.

4. The specification of the proposed road, footpaths, turning and parking spaces indicated on the approved drawing shall be agreed with the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Roads Planning Service, and implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is laid out in a proper manner with adequate provision for traffic and in a manner which enhances the character and visual appearance of the development.

5. The pedestrian access link with the existing access to Glen Road to be provided at a stage within the development to be agreed with the Planning Authority and then to be preserved free from obstruction in perpetuity. Reason: To safeguard existing public access through the site.

6. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate): i. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance ii. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored iii. location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates iv. soft and hard landscaping works v. existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations vi. other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, play equipment vii. A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

7. 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 8 Item No. 4 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.

8. All existing hedging and trees within the site (with the exception of identified tree number 5194 in the submitted Tree Survey) shall be retained in perpetuity and shall not be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be protected at all times during construction and building operations, by the erection of substantial timber fences around the trees and hedges, together with such other measures as are necessary to protect the trees, hedges and their roots from damage. Details of the methods it is proposed to use shall be submitted by the applicant to the Local Planning Authority and be approved by them in writing. The approved protective measures shall be undertaken before any works commence on the site and must, thereafter be observed at all times until the development is completed. Reason: To ensure that adequate precautions are taken to protect trees during building operations.

9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing on site, a report will be submitted by the Developer (at their expense) identifying and assessing potential contamination on site. No construction work shall commence until this report has been submitted to, and approved, by the Council, and thereafter implemented as required.

The assessment shall be undertaken by a competent person in accordance with the advice of relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. It shall contain details of proposals to investigate potential contamination and must include a desk study and (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing the following parts of this condition.

If the approved desk study and/or investigations indicate the presence of contamination requiring mitigation, the Developer will then submit for the further written approval of the Council and prior to the commencement of any development at the site:

a) A Remedial Strategy 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). b) A Validation Report (should remedial action be required) by the developer which will validate and verify the completion to be agreed by the Council. c) If necessary, of monitoring statements at periods to be agreed with the Council for such time period as agreed by the Council.

Written confirmation from the Council, that the scheme has been implemented completed and (if appropriate), monitoring measures are satisfactorily in place, shall be required by the Developer before any development hereby approved commences. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Council.

Reason: To ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and, ecological systems arising from any identified land contamination have been adequately addressed.

9 Item No. 4 10. No development to be commenced until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and agreed by, the Planning Authority detailing mitigation of noise arising from the construction of the development. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining residential properties

VOTE Councillor Bell, seconded by Councillor Moffat, moved that the application be approved and that in addition the traffic section of SBC be requested to carry out an assessment of road safety at the junction between Glen Road and Kingsmuir Drive.

Councillor Watson, seconded by Councillor Davidson, moved that the application be refused in terms of being contrary to Policy G1 and the Councils Placemaking and design Guidance.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 7 votes Amendment - 3 votes The Motion was accordingly carried.

MEMBERS Councillors Buckingham and Fullarton left the meeting before consideration of the following applications.

12/01004/FUL Threadneedle Property Erection of Land East of 2 St Investments dwellinghouse Dunstan’s Lane Dave Sinclair Melrose 40 Corstorphine Gardens Edinburgh EH12 6LA

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

I recommend that the application be approved, subject to a legal agreement which covers developer contributions towards local schools and the Waverley Line reinstatement, and tying the 8 remaining car parking spaces to the existing business premises (with exploration of potential for public use outside business hours) and to the following conditions and informative:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved elevations where these are inconsistent with the floor or roof plans Reason: To comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and to ensure the development complies with the approved elevations

2. No development shall commence until an assessment has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority demonstrating that the construction works will not damage the existing stone wall on the north-westerly boundary of the site and, once approved, the wall shall be retained thereafter Reason: To safeguard a feature which contributes to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

3. No development shall commence until details of all hard surfaces within the application site, including samples of materials, have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and, once approved, the development shall proceed only in accordance with the approved details Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

4. No development shall commence until the following details have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority: further details of eave/verge fascia treatments (to address apparent inconsistencies in the drawings) and their materials/colours; of the front 10 Item No. 4 elevation materials of dormers; of the specifications and dimensions of rooflights; of the external colours of windows, doors and cills; samples of natural roofing slate, of the external wall render and basecourse material. Once approved, the development shall be carried out using the materials and specifications identified on the approved plans and the details and samples approved under this condition Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

5. No development shall commence until a car park providing 8 car parking spaces has been completed in accordance with a scheme of details first agreed with the Planning Authority and which include – revisions to the approved site layout plan by means of incorporating overrun areas to either side of the car parking spaces; a marked disabled bay within the 8 spaces; an increase in the length of the bays to 5m (retaining a 6m aisle); and, construction details of the car park, including hard surfaces (including samples) and surface water drainage Reason: To ensure the replacement car park is carried out in accordance with revisions required by the Planning Authority before work commences on the erection of the dwellinghouse, all in the interests of maintaining road and pedestrian safety and maintaining parking provision for the existing businesses

6. No development shall commence until evidence has been submitted to the Planning Authority that mains water and foul drainage connections will be available to service the dwellinghouse and until a surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and agreed with the Planning Authority demonstrating that existing surface water run-off levels from the site will be maintained during and after the construction period Reason: To ensure the dwellinghouse can be served by mains water and drainage and ensure that surface water run-off from the site is not increased to the detriment of neighbouring land and property

7. No development shall commence until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a Watching Brief. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to observe relevant below ground excavation during development, investigate and record features of interest and recover finds and samples if necessary. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered below ground excavation should cease pending further consultation with the Planning Authority. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post- excavation analysis the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

8. Notwithstanding the specifications on the approved plans/drawings, a revised boundary treatment plan, specifying the heights, routes, designs and materials of all altered and new boundary walls on the application site and adjoining car park, shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority and, once approved, the boundary treatments shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan all before the proposed dwellinghouse is occupied. Unless specified on the approved plan, there shall no gates erected on the boundary adjacent St Dunstan’s Lane unless full details of the location and appearance of the gates have first been approved by the Planning Authority. Any such gates shall not open over St Dunstan’s Lane Reason: To address omissions, visual appearance and road safety requirements arising from the current proposals.

9. The dwellinghouse shall not be occupied until the two parking spaces specified on the approved plans have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and the

11 Item No. 4 sample of hard surfacing required to be agreed under condition 3. The spaces shall thereafter be retained free for the parking of two cars Reason: To ensure the approved dwellinghouse has adequate off street parking

Informative

With respect to Condition 8, to the rear of the dwellinghouse, walling according with the height of the existing stone wall, is recommended and the wall bounding the car park alongside St Dunstan’s Lane should not exceed 0.7m in height. Elevations should be consistent with the plan layout and render finishes should be consistent throughout.

12/00660/FUL Mr John Paterson Change of use of Workshop South Of Courtyard Shabby Chic outbuilding to form retail Stonecroft Lamberton Stonecroft unit (retrospective) Lamberton TD15 1XB

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and informative:

Conditions:

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

2 The premises shall be used for a Restored Furniture saleroom and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class 1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order). Reason: To ensure that the use and the scale of operation remains compatible within the site and in the interests of road safety.

Informative

The development proposes the change of use of land which was previously used as agricultural land. This land use is potentially contaminative and prior to any development commencing on site, the developer should identify and assess potential contamination on site and implement remedial strategies if/where necessary in respect of public health.

12/00959/FUL Mr Dilip Trevedi Part change of use, Almstrongs Ltd 10 Aitken Turnbull Architects dormer extension and Oliver Crescent Ltd alterations to form three (Incorporating 4 & 5 9 Bridge Place dwellinghouses Teviot Crescent) Galashiels TD1 1SN Hawick

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

2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing on site, a scheme will be submitted by the Developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site. No construction work shall commence until the scheme has been submitted to, and approved, by the Council, and is thereafter implemented in accordance with the scheme so approved.

12 Item No. 4 The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with the advice of relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination and must include:-

d) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model including (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c, d, and, e of this condition.

and thereafter

e) Where required by the desk study, undertaking a detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of risk such contamination presents.

f) 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).

g) Submission of a Validation Report (should remedial action be required) by the developer which will validate and verify the completion of works to a satisfaction of the Council.

h) Submission, if necessary, of monitoring statements at periods to be agreed with the Council for such time period as is considered appropriate by the Council.

Reason: To ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and, ecological systems arising from any identified land contamination have been adequately addressed.

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

4. Notwithstanding the details indicated on the approved drawings, details of the material, method of opening, thickness and colour of frames and glazing pattern of all new and replacement windows to the submitted to and approved in writing before the development commences. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

5. The works to the boundary walls, including the blocking up of the fire escapes, as shown on Drawing AT2064/Site/03, to be completed before the dwellinghouses are occupied unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard residential and visual amenities.

13 Item No. 4 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, written details shall be provided to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority to set out such mitigation measures as are necessary to address the risk of flooding to the dwellings hereby approved. Thereafter, all physical mitigation measures so approved shall be put in place prior to the occupation of the development. Reason: The properties are at risk from flooding.

12/01040/FUL Sports Duns Erection of 4 No. 18.25m Playing Field, Former 51 Newtown Street floodlighting columns Berwickshire High Duns TD11 3AU School, Langtongate, Duns, Berwickshire

Decision: Approved subject to following conditions and informatives and to a legal agreement:

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

3 The floodlighting shall only be operated between the hours of 18:45 to 21:00 on weekdays and 14:00 to 21:00 on a Saturday. The floodlighting shall not be operated outwith these times. Reason: to protect the amenity of residents close to the site and to ensure that use of the site does not prejudice.

4. If it proves to be necessary upon operation of the floodlights that any mitigative measures to control and reduce light spread requires to be carried out, this shall be undertaken within an agreed timescale in accordance with a scheme of details that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

5. The lighting units shall be positioned so that they are at all times directed toward the playing areas to minimise the potential light dispersal beyond these areas. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

Informatives

1 This planning permission does not purport to grant consent under any other legislation/Regulations operated by other bodies and/or other Departments of Scottish Borders Council. It is incumbent upon the developer to ensure that the requirements of any such legislation/Regulations are met.

2 The installation should be designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Engineers.

14 ITEM 5

MINI PLANNING BRIEF – RENWICK GARDENS &WEST RENWICK GARDENS, MOREBATTLE

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 December 2012

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks approval for the mini planning brief for Renwick Gardens and West Renwick Gardens (Appendix A) and its use as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

1.2 The Council has prepared this mini planning brief for two sites identified in the Consolidated Local Plan in Morebattle to create a development vision, address potential constraints on the sites and encourage good quality new development.

th 1.3 A draft mini planning brief was approved at Committee on the 9 April this year and was used as a basis for a 12 week public consultation. The comments received during this consultation are attached (Appendix B). Following the comments received, the planning brief is being reported back to Committee for approval. Changes to the brief included reference to Sustainable Urban Drainage System treatment and the provision of waste recycling facilities.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend that the Planning and Building Standards Committee approves the mini planning brief for Renwick Gardens and West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle as detailed in (Appendix A) to this report and accepts its provisions as material considerations in the determination of planning applications.

Planning and Building Standards Committee – 10 December 2012 1 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 Policy H3 of the Consolidated Local Plan identifies two housing allocations within Morebattle, Renwick Gardens and West Renwick Gardens. Renwick Gardens (RMO6B) has a site area of 0.4ha and an indicative housing capacity of 9 units. West Renwick Gardens (AMORE001) has a site area of 1.3ha and has an indicative capacity of 20 units.

3.2 The site at Renwick Gardens (RMO6B) is located to the east of the existing Eildon Housing development of ‘Renwick Gardens’. The site is currently used as a playing field with a small area being used as allotments. These uses are informal and they would not appear to have the benefit of formal planning consent. The site can be accessed via the existing housing development of Renwick Gardens. The eastern boundary of the site consists of hedgerow and stone walling. The northern boundary consists of low wooden fencing where the site bounds neighbouring properties.

3.3 The site at West Renwick Gardens (AMORE001) is located at the western edge of Morebattle and fronts onto the B6401; the site adjoins the aforementioned site Renwick Gardens (RMO6B). The site is currently used as an arable field and there are no existing buildings on the site. There is a hedge and trees which run along the roadside northern boundary. The eastern boundary bounds the gardens of properties at Renwick Gardens and Mansfield Avenue. Access to the site would be taken from the B6401 and the site would have a pedestrian link to the Primary School and village centre.

3.4 The public consultation included the local Community Council and national stakeholders including Scottish Water, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and Historic Scotland. The draft mini planning brief was published on the Council’s website. A summary of responses is attached as Appendix B. A small number of changes have been made to the planning brief, taking into consideration the comments received.

3.5 Issues raised in the consultation responses included the need to incorporate SUDS treatments and recycling facilities into the mini brief. Comments were also received relating to access into the site and the need to prioritise affordable housing for local people within the community. Other comments received were outwith the scope of the mini brief and would be addressed at the planning application stage.

4 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Financial There are no costs attached to any of the recommendations contained in this report.

Planning and Building Standards Committee – 10 December 2012 2 4.2 Risk and Mitigations Risk of not providing guidance (a) 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 ad hoc and inconsistent decision making with the policies in the Consolidated Local Plan not being taken fully into account.

(b) Failure to produce a mini planning brief would reflect badly on the Council’s commitment to improve the design of new development.

(c) It is considered that the failure to approve the mini planning brief for the Renwick Gardens and West Renwick Gardens sites would have impacts in terms of resources in the Development Management Section, potentially resulting in delays in processing applications. In addition, it may ultimately impact on the quality of development and the thorough assessment of the environmental impact of development.

Risk of producing guidance There are no perceived risks related to the adoption of the guidance by the Council.

4.3 Equalities An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out on this proposal and it is anticipated that there are no adverse equality implications.

4.4 Acting Sustainably

(a) Economic Growth The proposed development will assist in promoting building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all.

(b) Social Cohesion The proposed development will help to meet the diverse needs of people in the local communities.

(c) Protection of the environment In accordance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 pre- screening assessment of the draft planning brief for the site was undertaken in order to identify whether there will be potentially significant environmental effects. The pre-screening exercise was undertaken using the criteria specified in Schedule 2 of the Act. The pre-screening did not identify any significant environmental effects.

4.5 Carbon Management

The proposed mini planning brief promotes measures to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, including the use of renewable energy and resources and the incorporation of sustainable construction techniques.

4.6 Rural Proofing

It is anticipated there will be a positive impact on the rural area from the proposals contained in this mini planning brief.

Planning and Building Standards Committee – 10 December 2012 3 4.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation There are no changes to be made.

5 CONSULTATION Consultation on this report has been undertaken including with the Clerk to the Council, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, the Head of Audit and Risk and the Chief Financial Officer. Their comments have been incorporated into this report where appropriate.

Approved by

Head of Planning and Regulatory Services Signature Brian Frater

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Hill Planning Officer (01835) 825060 ext: 5064

Background Papers: N/A Previous Minute Reference: Planning and Building Standards Committee, 9th April 2012

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

Contact us at Environment and Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Telephone: 01835 825060. E-mail: [email protected]

Planning and Building Standards Committee – 10 December 2012 4 Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance

Renwick Gardens and West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle Mini Planning Brief December 2012 Renwick Gardens & West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle - Mini Planning Brief Introduction Policy context This mini planning brief sets out the main objectives and issues Structure & Local Plan to be addressed relating to two greenfield sites in Morebattle. Morebattle lies within the Central Housing Market Area, as It provides a framework vision for the future development of defined in the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001- the site which is allocated for housing within the Consolidated 2018. The Consolidated Local Plan identifies two housing sites in Local Plan 2011. Morebattle, Renwick Gardens (RMO6B) which has a site area of 0.4ha and an indicative capacity of 9 units and West Renwick It should be noted that as with all planning briefs, this brief Gardens (AMORE001) which has a site area of 1.3ha and an should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Structure indicative capacity of 20 units. Plan, Local Plan and other relevant published Supplementary Planning Guidance. A number of policies included in the Consolidated Local Plan will be applicable to this site including ’Principle 1-Sustainability’, ‘G1- Local context Quality Standards for New Development’, ‘G7-Infill Development’, Morebattle is located 8 miles south of Kelso. The two allocated ‘H1-Affordable Housing’ and ‘H3-Land Use Allocations’. housing sites are located on the western side of the village Furthermore, key Supplementary Planning Guidance include adjacent to ‘Renwick Gardens’, an Eildon Housing ‘Placemaking and Design’, ‘Renewable Energy’, Landscape and development which comprises eight units of one and one and Development’ and ‘Trees and Development’. half storey properties.

1 Figure 1 – Aerial image of Local Context Figure 2 – Housing allocations within Morebattle Renwick Gardens & West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle - Mini Planning Brief Site Analysis The two adjoining sites are located to the western edge of Morebattle adjacent to the Primary School.

West Renwick Gardens (AMORE001) - The site, which is accessed via the B6401 is currently used as an arable field. The northern, southern and western boundaries of the site follow the settlement boundary of Morebattle in the Consolidated Local Plan and bound arable farmland. The eastern boundary of the site bound the gardens of existing residential properties. The northern boundary runs along the B6401where a variety of View from eastern boundary looking into site

boundary treatments exist, including trees, Figure 3 – Views from within and fences and hedges. around AMORE001

Renwick Gardens (RMO6B) - The site is currently used as an informal playing field with a small area being used as informal allotments. The site can be accessed via the existing housing development of Renwick Gardens. The eastern boundary of the site consists of hedgerow and stone walling. The northern boundary consists of Northern site boundary low wooden fencing where the site bounds neighbouring properties. Where the two sites adjoin the area of land is overgrown and slightly Existing housing within the village elevated.

As the two housing allocations have similar characteristics, opportunities and constraints and are adjacent to each other, it is proposed this mini brief can cover both sites together. It is envisaged the sites may be developed as one site with a capacity of 29 units. Eastern boundary along Mainsfield Avenue Entrance to the village from the west 2 Renwick Gardens & West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle - Mini Planning Brief Opportunities and constraints

Opportunities • There are no special features on the site to be safeguarded, making it relatively easy to develop. • To integrate both housing sites to provide good connectivity within the site and the existing ‘Renwick Gardens’ housing development. • The site benefits from good vehicular access opportunities onto the B6401. • The site is large enough to accommodate a scheme which would be in character with other developed areas in the vicinity. • The site benefits from attractive views across open countryside. • The proposed structure planting on the western site boundary provides an opportunity to establish a defined settlement edge • House design provides the opportunity to take account of south facing aspect. • To create a focal building at the entrance to the site in the north western corner. • Provides an opportunity to create a sympathetic development with the possibility of row housing, a common characteristic of Morebattle and other Borders towns and villages.

Figure 4 – Views from Constraints within the village • Existing hedgerow and trees along the northern boundary should be retained and protected where possible. Supplementary Planning Guidance on ‘Trees and Development’ must be duly considered, including the avoidance of shading onto rear gardens. • Structure planting should not obscure the visibility splay onto the B6401. • The residential amenity of existing residential properties within the vicinity would need to be protected. • Mitigation measures are required to prevent any impact on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation. 3 Renwick Gardens & West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle - Mini Planning Brief Development Vision

The aspiration is to develop a high quality housing development that is responsive to the local context. Careful consideration is to be given to the relationship between the proposed new development and the existing properties within the vicinity.

The following must be considered:

• The design (scale, massing, form and materials) should reflect the character and scale of traditional houses within the area. The design should take advantage wherever possible of the southernly aspect of the site. • In terms of layout, orientation, construction and energy supply, appropriate measures must be taken to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, including the use of renewable energy and resources and the incorporation of sustainable construction techniques. Figure 5 – Development Vision – for illustrative purposes only • The site is to be accessed via the B6401 and a road link through the site linking the B6401 to the minor public road south of Mainsfield Avenue is desirable. • A Pedestrian link from the site to the village centre and Primary School are required. • Mitigation measures are required to prevent any impact on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation. • The land to the extreme east of the properties at the ‘Renwick Gardens’ development (RMO6B) may be accessed via the existing established access. • Use of appropriate styles of high quality boundary treatment in order to help frame spaces and improve landscape amenity within the site. • Structure planting along the southern and western boundaries will be required to provide a setting for the development and to reinforce and define the edge of the settlement, minimising the visual impact from the west. • Landscaping should also be provided along the eastern and northern boundaries of the site to protect the residential amenity of neighbouring residents. Properties should be a mix of one, one and a half and two storeys high while ensuring minimal impact upon the rural aspect of the village. This would be in keeping with the character of other properties within the area. • A SUDS treatment would be required for all hardstanding areas (including roads). As best practice this level of treatment should be source control such as porous paving for the driveways and filter trenches for the road. • Waste and recycling facilities and collections need to be considered in the layout and design and should be discussed with the Council’s Waste Strategy Manager (see Contacts) prior to the submission of a formal planning application. 4 Renwick Gardens & West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle - Mini Planning Brief Development Contributions

• Affordable Housing - The requirement for affordable housing should be met in line with Local Plan Policy H1. A contribution of 25% would be required from this site. • Waste Water Treatment - A financial contribution will be required to update works to provide additional capacity. • Play Area Provision - It is likely that, and reflecting View into site from the south west the Greenspace Strategy SPG, there will be a requirement for on-site provision and/or contributions towards the expansion of, where appropriate, existing facilities. This View into site looking south from should be confirmed be confirmed with eastern boundary the SB Local Area Manager (Parks) prior to

application submission.

Figure 6 – Views from Submission Requirements and within RMO6B

• Context study: demonstrate an understanding of context. • Site photos: highlight key views and View into site looking north from eastern boundary how the design will respond to these. • 3D visualisation material: sketches or computer generated visualisations showing the development in context. • Design statement. • Energy statement. • Landscape plan. • Management scheme for planting. Access to the site via Renwick Gardens Boundary to adjoining housing site AMORE001 5 Renwick Gardens & West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle - Mini Planning Brief Contacts Built & Natural Heritage

Planning & Regulatory Services Andy Millar (Built & Natural Heritage Manager)

Laura Hill (Assistant Planning Officer, Plans and Research) Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825062 E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: 01835 825060 Email: [email protected] Andy Tharme (Ecology Officer)

Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA John Hayward (Applications Manager) Tel: 01835 826514 E-mail: [email protected] Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA

Tel: 01835 825068 E-mail: [email protected] Mark Douglas (Principal Officer, Built Heritage & Biodiversity)

Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Colm McKee (Planning Officer, Development Management) Tel: 01835 826563 E-mail: [email protected] Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 826743 E-mail: [email protected] Carol Cooke (Urban Designer)

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

Derek Inglis (Principal Roads Planning Officer, Roads Planning Julie Rankine (Waste Strategy Manager) Service) Council Headquarters - Scott House (A), Sprouston Road, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0QD Tel: 01835 826639 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 01835 825111 Email: [email protected]

Anthony Carson (Regulatory Services Manager) Jason Hedley (SB Local Area Manager) 34-42 High Street, Hawick, TD9 9EF Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose TD6 0SA Tel: 01450 364706 E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 01835 824000 E-mail: [email protected]

Engineering & Infrastructure Economic Development

Richard Sweetnam (Economic Development Manager) David Green (Flood Protection Programme Manager) Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 825060 Tel: 01835 825180 Email: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

6 Renwick Gardens & West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle - Mini Planning Brief Alternative Format/Language Paragraph Parágrafo de formato/língua alternativos You can get this document on tape, in large print, and Pode obter este documento em cassete audio, impressão au- various other formats by contacting us at the address be- mentada e vários outros formatos contactando a morada indi- low. In addition, contact the address below for cada em baixo. Pode ainda contactar a morada indicada em information on language translations, additional copies, or baixo para obter informações sobre traduções noutras lín- to arrange for an officer to meet with you to explain any guas, cópias adicionais ou para solicitar uma reunião com um areas of the publication that you would like funcionário para lhe explicar quaisquer áreas desta publicação que deseje ver esclarecidas. clarified.

Параграф об альтернативном формате/языковой версии 其他格式／外文譯本 Чтобы получить данный документ в записи на пленке, в 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 крупношрифтовой распечатке и в других различных форматах, вы можете обратиться к нам по приведенному 以透過以下地 ниже адресу. Кроме того, по данному адресу можно 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 обращаться за информацией о переводе на различные языки, получении дополнительных копий а также с тем, 取本資料的中 чтобы организовать встречу с сотрудником, который 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 сможет редставить объяснения по тем разделам публикации, которые вам хотелось бы прояснить. 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。 Jacqueline Whitelaw Environment and Infrastructure [Alternatywny format/język] Scottish Borders Council Aby uzyskać kopię niniejszego dokumentu w formacie audio, Council Headquarters dużą czcionką, oraz innych formatach prosimy o kontakt na Newtown St Boswells poniższy adres. Uzykać tam można również informacje o Melrose tłumaczeniach na języki obce, otrzymaniu dodatkowych kopii TD6 0SA oraz zaaranżowaniu spotkania z urzędnikiem, który wyjaśni wątpliwości i zapytania związane z treścią niniejszej Telephone: 01835 825060. publikacji. E-mail: [email protected]

7 Appendix B: Summary of the consultation responses received relating to Renwick Gardens and West Renwick Gardens, Morebattle Mini Planning Brief

Consultee Comment Summary Council Response Recommendation Scottish A SUDS treatment would be Comments noted, change to be made to Add the following sentence to Environment required for all hardstanding areas the mini brief. the mini planning brief: Protection (including roads). As best practice Agency (SEPA) this level of treatment should be A SUDS treatment would be source control such as porous required for all hardstanding paving for the driveways and filter areas (including roads). As trenches for the road. best practice this level of treatment should be source control such as porous paving for the driveways and filter trenches for the road. Scottish The Consultee recommends Comments noted, change to be made to Add the following sentence to Environment reference is made to waste the mini brief. the mini planning brief: Protection management and recycling facilities Agency (SEPA) within the mini brief. Waste and recycling facilities and collections need to be considered in the layout and design and should be discussed with the Council’s Waste Strategy Manager (see Contacts) prior to the submission of a formal planning application. Kalewater The consultee raised concerns In preparing the brief the Road Planning No change to the Brief. Community regarding the proposed access to Team were consulted and considered Council the site particularly the south that an exit on to Mainsfield Avenue entrance from Whitton Road. (Whitton Road) would be acceptable. Obviously this would be subject to ensuring standard road safety measures including appropriate visibility and control of traffic speeds. Kalewater In relation to the 25% affordable The Council ensures there is sufficient No change to the Brief. Community housing on the site the consultee affordable housing in areas where there Council requests that priority be given to is an identified need through the local people within the community. approved Affordable Supplementary Planning Guidance and the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy. Occupancy of the affordable units is outwith the scope of this mini brief and could be addressed at the planning application stage in discussion with the Council’s Housing Strategy Team. Kalewater The consultee also raises some Issues regarding potential loss of views No change to mini brief. Community concerns from residents in and privacy would be addressed at the Council Mainsfield Avenue regarding the planning application stage. loss of views and privacy and also the added pressure on the currently overloaded sewage system. Kalewater The consultee also raises some During the Local Plan process, No change to mini brief. Community concerns from residents in consultation is undertaken with key Council Mainsfield Avenue regarding the agencies including Scottish Water, SEPA added pressure on the currently etc to ensure the existing infrastructure overloaded sewage system. can support development at the location and scale suggested. It is not envisaged there are any infrastructure issues and any developer would need to contact the relevant agencies regarding this matter. Kalewater Some residents see the Comments noted. No change to mini brief. Community development as an opportunity to Council enhance the community. Eildon Housing The consultee requests the brief It is possible that the two sites which form No change to mini brief. Association states that each site may be part of this brief will be development by developed independently without the separate applicants at different times. requirement for a combined However care should be taken to ensure Masterplan or other overall design the development of either site does not consideration. prejudice development of the other. Therefore it is good practice to prepare an overall masterplan/ planning brief. Eildon Housing The consultee requests a context The brief promotes good planning No change to mini brief. Association study is required, although the brief practice of trying to ensure continuity and should clarify each site may submit appropriate design standards between its own context study without the the two sites. However within the scope requirement of a combined study of the brief it can allow an appropriate considering both parts of the site. degree of flexibility between the two sites. Eildon Housing Where the brief states “land to the Reference can be made to site code Amend sentence to make Association extreme east of Renwick Gardens” RMO6B. However site RMO6B has a reference to site code may be accessed from the pinch-point in the central part which may RMO6B. established access The consultee prejudice how the site could be would like the brief to clarify that this developed and whether an access route sentence should refer specifically to can link into the Renwick Gardens site RMO6B stating that this site development. This would be addressed at may be developed without prior the planning application stage when construction of, or requirement to detailed surveys of the site are carried fund a spine road. out. Mr McIntyre The consultee raises concerns as to During the Local Plan process, No change to the Brief. whether the village infrastructure can consultation is undertaken with key support more housing. agencies including Scottish Water, SEPA etc to ensure the existing infrastructure can support development at the location and scale suggested. It is not envisaged there are any infrastructure issues and any developer would need to contact the relevant agencies regarding this matter. Mr McIntyre The consultee raises concerns In preparing the brief the Road Planning No change to the Brief. regarding the exit from the site onto Team were consulted and considered Mainsfield Avenue. that an exit on to Mainsfield Avenue would be acceptable. Obviously this would be subject to ensuring standard road safety measures including appropriate visibility and control of traffic speeds. Matilda Hall The respondent wishes to ensure The site is allocated for 29 units with a No change to the Brief. houses have decent sized gardens total site area of 1.7ha which is and there is an appropriate housing considered an appropriate density. The density. sizes of the gardens would be addressed at the planning application stage but it is considered that the illustrative development vision addresses this sufficiently for the purposes of the brief. Matilda Hall The respondent queries whether The Council promotes communal heating No change to the Brief. there will be a communal heating and energy saving features where plan and makes reference to possible and this would be addressed at proposed energy saving features. planning application stage. Matilda Hall The respondent raises concerns In preparing the brief the Road Planning No change to the Brief. regarding the exit from the site onto Team were consulted and considered Mainsfield Avenue. that an exit on to Mainsfield Avenue would be acceptable. Obviously this would be subject to ensuring standard road safety measures including appropriate visibility and control of traffic speeds. Matilda Hall The respondent has made other These comments are outwith the scope of No change to the Brief. comments which are not specifically the brief. relevant to the brief. These include reference to the planting of fruit trees for blossom and eating purposes and suitable storage space within the houses.

Item No. 6(a)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING & BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR CONSENT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/01114/S36

OFFICER: Craig Miller WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Erection of wind farm extension comprising of 54 No wind turbines (amendment to original proposal) SITE: Land South West Of Glenbreck House (Clyde Wind Farm Extension) Tweedsmuir Scottish Borders APPLICANT: Clyde Windfarm (Scotland) Ltd AGENT: SSE Renewables Developments (UK) Ltd

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To advise the Scottish Government of the response from Scottish Borders Council on the application by Clyde Windfarm (Scotland) Limited submitted under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, the Electricity Act (Scotland) Regulations 2000 and deemed planning permission under Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, for a wind farm comprising 54 wind turbines and associated infrastructure within an area of upland west of the A701/Tweed Valley and east of Camps Reservoir north of Moffat. The site is partly within the Scottish Borders area but mostly within the South Lanarkshire Council area. This wind farm is seen as an extension to the consented Clyde Wind Farm which lies to the south and west of the site, comprising 152 turbines and now largely constructed. The application for 54 turbines represents an amendment to the initially submitted scheme for 57 turbines.

2.0 PROCEDURE

2.1 The Scottish Government process applications for wind energy developments exceeding 50MW generating capacity but consult relevant Local Authorities for their views on such proposals. They advertise the application and have carried out direct consultation with other interested bodies including South Lanarkshire Council, Scottish Natural Heritage and Community Councils in the area. They have also followed this procedure for the revised scheme and the Addendum. There is, therefore, no need for Scottish Borders Council to undertake a tandem process although consultation has taken place with relevant officers within the Council.

3.0 BACKGROUND TO REPORT

3.1 A request for a scoping opinion on the proposed wind farm extension was submitted to the Scottish Government and formally received by the Council in June 2010

3.2 In general the Council was satisfied with the methodologies to be used in the preparation of the Environmental Statement. Advice was provided on the information

Planning & Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(a) required in the Environmental Statement to address the potential visual impact of the development on the landscape, including the cumulative effect of this proposal with the existing windfarms in the area, the need for detailed ZTV information, the cultural heritage, ecology and access. In particular, the impacts from the A701 in the Tweedsmuir Area were identified. Further, it was noted that any felling of woodland should be compensated adopting Forestry Commission Scotland policy and Scottish Borders Woodland Strategy policy.

4.0 SITE AND APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

4.1 The site lies to the north and east of the existing Clyde wind farm of 152 turbines, within generally upland areas south of Biggar and north of Abington and Moffat. Camps Reservoir lies to the west of the site and the River Tweed and A701 road to the east. The site comprises open moorland, agricultural land and forestry with several valleys and tributaries to the River Tweed and Camps Reservoir. The characteristics of this Southern Upland landscape are rounded dome-shaped hills with steep sided valleys, boundary stone walls, post and wire fences and coniferous forestry plantations. The site is generally 9.5km north to south and 5.5km east to west, the core area covering 2760 hectares. The largest area of forestry stretches along the south-eastern part of the site, merging with a larger area of forestry outwith the site boundary.

4.2 The site lies within the Tweedsmuir Uplands Special Landscape Area (SLA) which has replaced and widened the AGLV designations. The original scheme for 57 turbines proposed only 7 within the Scottish Borders, the remainder being within South Lanarkshire. The turbines would be up to 142m to tip and would produce between 114 and 171MW electricity. The turbines would have associated infrastructure including foundations and crane hardstanding areas.

4.3 The scheme also involved the following –

x Site entrances, access tracks off the public road, access tracks within the site and upgrading of forestry tracks – covering approximately 70,000 linear metres. x 21.2 ha of hardstandings. x Three permanent met masts. x On site power collection system including control and office buildings. x Up to three temporary construction compounds adjoining entrances. x Up to ten on-site borrow pits. x On-site concrete batching. x Site signage. x Forestry removal of 245 hectares with all but 22ha replanted.

4.4 Following revisions to the scheme and submission of an Environmental Statement Addendum, the following changes were made –

x The deletion of three turbines resulting now in a 54 turbine scheme. x The relocation of nine turbines. x The reduction in height of ten turbines by 16.5m to 125.5m. x Access track reduction by 1.2km. x Omission of one borrow pit. x Relocation of one met mast. x Modification in cable route.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(a) 4.5 It is also identified that the scheme will cost over £246 million to construct which could generate 149 jobs in the Scottish Borders and South Lanarkshire. Annual maintenance could result in the need for 13 jobs locally and the Community Benefit Fund has a value of £20.3 million over the lifetime of the project for communities in the area.

4.6 This is now the scheme that should be considered by the Council and the Scottish Government.

4.7 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (comprising three volumes), a non-technical summary, a Planning Statement, a Design and Access Statement and a Pre-Application Consultation Report. The Addendum revises the ES, the Planning Statement and the non-technical summary. A Construction Method Statement will also be prepared by the contractor which will include drainage details and a restoration statement.

4.8 All new documents are available for viewing on the case file on Public Access – 12/0114/S36.

5.0 THIRD PARTY RESPONSES

5.1 Third party representations are submitted to the Scottish Government and it is for the Government to take these into consideration when assessing the proposed development. Members may be aware, however, of the lack of objection from South Lanarkshire Council Planning Department to the proposals and the views of Scottish Natural Heritage who also do not object provided an Appropriate Assessment is carried out and strict conditions are imposed in relation to the Tweed SAC. Members may also be aware of local support from The Tweedsmuir Community Company and objection from Manor Stobo and Lyne Community Council on the grounds of impact on the National Scenic Area.

6.0 PLANNING ISSUES

6.1 The key factors relevant to determination of this application are whether the revisions and reductions would allow the wind farm to now comply with Development Plan Policies on renewable energy development, landscape and visual impact and nature conservation. The proposal should also now be considered against the Wind Farm SPG and Spatial Strategy Map.

7.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan – The New Way Forward 2001- 2018

PRINCIPLE S1 - Environmental Impact POLICY N1 - Local Biodiversity Action Plan POLICY N2 - International sites POLICY N3 - National Sites POLICY N5 - Local Biodiversity Action POLICY N6 - Environmental Impact POLICY N7 - Protection of Nature Conservation Interest POLICY N8 - River Tweed System POLICY N9 - Maintaining Landscape Character POLICY N13 - Gardens and Designed Landscapes POLICY N14 - National Archaeological Sites Planning & Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(a) POLICY N15 - Regional and Local Archaeological Sites POLICY N16 - Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording POLICY N17 - Listed Buildings POLICY N20 - Design POLICY E16 - Rural Economic Development POLICY E22 - Protection of the Tourist Industry POLICY C8 - Access Network POLICY I5 - Cycling POLICY I13 - Water Quality POLICY I14 - Surface Water POLICY I19 - Renewable Energy POLICY I20 - Wind Energy Developments

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan: Adopted February 2011:

PRINCIPLE 1 - Sustainability POLICY G1 - Quality Standards for New Development POLICY BE1 - Listed Buildings POLICY BE2 - Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments POLICY BE3 - Gardens and Designed Landscapes POLICY NE1 - International Nature Conservation Sites POLICY NE2 - National Nature Conservation Sites POLICY NE3 - Local Biodiversity POLICY NE4 - Trees Woodlands and Hedgerows POLICY NE5 - Development affecting the Water Environment POLICY EP1 - National Scenic Areas POLICY EP2 - Areas of Great Landscape Value POLICY D4 - Renewable Energy POLICY H2 - Protection of Residential Amenity POLICY INF2 - Protection of Access Routes POLICY INF6 - Sustainable Urban Drainage POLICY D1 - Business, Tourism and Leisure Developments in the Countryside

8.0 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

A Planning Framework for Wind Energy Developments: Policy Guidelines 1995 – now superseded by Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy - approved May 2011 The Borders Landscape Assessment 1998. Visibility Mapping for Windfarm Developments – The Scottish Borders October 2003. Landscape and Development SPG (approved March 2008) Local Biodiversity Action Plan (launched June 2001) Renewable energy SPG (approved March 2007) Local Landscape Designations SPG (August 2012) The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) (Scotland) 1999 Scottish Planning Policy National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 National Planning Policy Guideline 5: Archaeology and Planning1994. National Planning Policy Guideline 6: Renewable Energy Developments (Revised 2000) National Planning Policy Guideline 18: Planning and the Historic Environment 1999.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(a) Planning Advice Note 42: Archaeology – the Planning Process and Scheduled Ancient Monuments 1994. Planning Advice Note 45: Renewable Energy Technologies 2002 (Now replaced by Web-based advice) Planning Advice Note 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation 2006. Planning Advice Note 56: Planning and Noise 1999. Planning Advice Note 58: Environmental Assessment 1999. Planning Advice Note 60: Planning for Natural Heritage 2000. Planning Advice Note 73: Rural Diversification 2005. Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape SNH 2009

9.0 ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION

9.1 The Environmental Statement (ES) has considered and identified significant effects that might be expected as a result of the proposed windfarm extension at Clyde together with mitigation measures. Through reference to national guidance, Council Policies and the use of ZTV mapping, photomontages and wireframe drawings, the Statement draws a number of conclusions.

9.2 In assessing the impacts of the development on the Scottish Borders, the proposed revised scheme needs to be assessed against the following national and local policies and guidance:

Scottish Borders Council Policies

9.3 The development requires to be assessed against a number of relevant policies in the Approved Structure Plan 2001-2018 and Adopted Consolidated Local Plan 2011. The approved Structure Plan policy I19 “Renewable Energy” supports the development of renewable energy that is developed in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Structure Plan also identifies areas for search for wind energy developments based upon a broad methodology of designated landscape sites being marked as sensitive. Diagram 18 consequently demonstrates that the site falls within an area classified as “Potentially Sensitive”.

9.4 Policy I20 states the criteria against which any proposals for wind farm developments will be assessed. These are:-

x Impact on the landscape character x Structure Plan environmental policies x Impact of noise on residential and other noise sensitive developments x Interference with aircraft activity x Significantly increased risk of shadow flicker or driver distraction or x Any unacceptable cumulative impacts.

All Structure Plan policy assessment must be guided by the Borders Landscape Assessment.

9.5 The Adopted Local Plan supports large scale and community scale renewable energy development through policy ‘D4 Renewable Energy Development’. This policy identifies the key features considered necessary in identifying appropriate locations for wind farm developments. Appropriate locations normally being (a) within large scale landscape settings defined as Upland Type in the Landscape Classification hierarchy contained in the Borders Landscape Assessment, and (b) enclosed by Planning & Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6(a) surrounding landform thereby minimising external visibility of the development. The area where the windfarm is proposed is described in the Borders Landscape Assessment as part of “Landscape Type 4 BG Southern Uplands Type with Scattered Forest – Broadlaw Group”.

9.6 Whilst these policies are generally supportive of renewable energy development, they set out a series of criteria against which any particular scheme should be assessed. These are taken in turn by subject below.

9.7 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy for the Scottish Borders has been developed as a requirement of Scottish Planning Policy to give more detailed advice on this type of development. The SPG was presented to the Planning and Building Standards Committee on 16 May 2011 and was approved. In addition, it should be noted that the site now lies wholly within the Tweedsmuir Uplands Special Landscape Area which determines that the site is “Potentially Sensitive” in terms of Policy I19 of the Structure Plan.

9.8 The Wind Energy SPG should be considered in assessing this application as it indicates the Council’s more detailed guidance and recent thinking on renewable energy and wind farm developments. It advises that there are only limited opportunities remaining for windfarm proposals of a sufficient scale in the Scottish Borders. The spatial strategy of the Wind Energy SPG clearly demonstrates this. The application site is identified as being partly within the red Areas of Significant Protection and the remainder within the blue Areas of Moderate Constraints – the main influence in this area is the visual impacts from the A701 tourist route corridor.

Scottish Planning Policy

9.9 In addition to the Structure Plan and Local Plan policies, national policies will need to be taken into account. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) published in 2010 sets out the national policies on renewable energy developments.

9.10 Of relevance to the consideration of this proposal is Para.37 which states that “The planning system has an important role in supporting the achievement of sustainable development through its influence on the location, layout and design of new development. Decision making in the planning system should contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the commitment to reduce emissions by 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, contribute to reducing energy consumption and to the development of renewable energy generation opportunities”.

9.11 These targets are set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 which requires all public bodies to act:

x in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of the emissions targets in the Act, x in the way best calculated to help deliver the Government’s climate change adaptation programme, and x in a way that it considers is most sustainable.

x The previous target was for 80% of Scotland’s electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2020 and 31% by 2011. This was increased to 100% by 2020 following a statement by the First Minister in May 2011. A further statement at the end of October updated the target to 50% by 2015, recognising the progress that had been made. Whilst other technologies will contribute in the longer term, hydro and on-shore windfarms will be the main contributors to Planning & Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(a) meeting this target. Planning authorities are encouraged to support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.

9.12 Guidance is given in the SPP on the criteria that should be included in Development Plans. It also notes that when considering cumulative impact, planning authorities should take account of existing wind farms, those which have permission and valid applications for wind farms which have not been determined. Decisions should not be unreasonably delayed because other schemes in the area are at a less advanced stage in the application process.

9.13 The SPP also states that that planning authorities give full consideration to sites that have ease of connection to the existing grid thus allowing early achievement of this target.

The SPP in paragraph 187 states: “The design and location of any wind farm development should reflect the scale and character of the landscape. The location of turbines should be considered carefully to ensure that landscape and visual impact is minimised”.

Whilst the former SPP6 has now been revoked, PAN 45 “Renewable Energy Technologies” still contains valid advice about the type of criteria that should be used in assessing wind farm developments, including noise, landscape impact, ornithology and cumulative effects. Annex 2 on production of SPGs has now been replaced by web-based advice. SNH have also produced useful advice, especially the 2009 publication “Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape”.

10.0 Landscape and Visual Impacts

10.1 In the decision letter on the Dunion Hill Wind Farm, the Reporter identified that all landscape and visual effects were taken to be adverse and that he agreed with this stance, albeit public opinion would often be divided. Certainly, this is an approach taken across all decision making on wind farm impacts in the landscape and is evidenced by the number of representations against the current application based on adverse landscape impact grounds. The Reporter in the decision on the Minch Moor application also chose his assessment of landscape and visual effects from those with the greatest magnitude.

10.2 In their advice note “Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape”, SNH state – “It is therefore important that care continues to be taken to ensure that further windfarms are sited and designed so that adverse effects on landscape and visual amenity are minimised, and that areas which are highly valued for their landscapes and scenery are given due protection.”

10.3 The Council’s Development Plan Policies I19, I20 and D4 recognise the crucial role and quality of the Borders landscape to the character, attraction and economy of the area, identifying the types of locations where wind farms are more likely to be accepted than others and what type of containment and avoidance of skyline impact would be sought. This has been developed by the Wind Energy SPG through a series of landscape constraint filters to create a Spatial Strategy Map, intended to demonstrate the Council’s approach to wind farm development by classification of area protection.

10.4 The application site and its immediate surrounds now lie within the Tweedsmuir Uplands Special Landscape Area which has superseded the previous AGLV Planning & Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(a) designation. The site also lies outwith and some distance to the south of the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area. As a result of the former AGLV designation, the Structure Plan under Policy I19 classifies the site and area as potentially sensitive. The development would, therefore, have to be very carefully assessed with regard to its landscape impacts on these landscape designations if the proposal is to comply with the Council’s Policies and Guidance on wind energy development and landscape protection. Part of this assessment has to be the analysis against the existing Clyde wind farm which has now seen turbines introduced into the landscape in the southern and western part of the Tweed Valley.

11.0 Landscape character

11.1 The Borders Landscape Assessment 1998 has been seen as an impartial and helpful analysis of landscape characteristics in the region. It forms a major basis for the Council’s Development Plan Policies on wind farms. Structure Plan policy requires that the impact of development on the landscape character be assessed and guided by the Borders Landscape Assessment.

11.2 The policy applies a broad ‘area of search’ methodology whereby areas containing designated sites, such as National Scenic Areas and Areas of Great Landscape Value, are described as sensitive, and those areas not containing any such designations are described as preferred. Diagram 18 “Wind Energy Development – Area of Search” in the Structure Plan identifies that the current site falls within a “Potentially Sensitive” area where the capacity of the landscape to accommodate the proposed development must be carefully considered against the requirements of designated landscape protection. Because of the previous AGLV designation which is now replaced by the Special Landscape Area designation, the relevant criterion of Local Plan Policy D4 is not wholly complied with.

11.3 The Wind Energy SPG utilised a series of constraints to inform the final Spatial Strategy Map which identifies the site partially within the red zone of “Areas of Significant Protection” and the remainder within the blue zone “Moderate Constraint” areas. The blue is derived from the former AGLV designation and the red from the potential for cumulative visual impact from the A701 tourist route in the valley. The boundary between the two largely depends on the visibility of the land from the A701, yet because of their height, turbines in blue areas are visible from the A701 and the Spatial Strategy also takes no account of intervening forestry screening.

11.4 The area where the windfarm is proposed is described in the Borders Landscape Assessment as part of “Landscape Type 4 BG Southern Uplands Type with Scattered Forest – Broadlaw Group”. Landscape Type 4 BG is an upland classification which is favoured by development plan policies, exhibiting high summits, extensive coniferous plantations and a wild land atmosphere, but with high visual sensitivity due to the number of “A” Class roads passing through the area. Type 4BG is a very large area and the main affected parts for this development are along the upper margins of an extensive area of coniferous forest on the west side of the Upper Tweed valley.

11.5 The Environmental Statement concluded that the landscape type would not be adversely affected by the proposed wind farm extension as in nearly all viewpoints, the new turbines would be viewed against the existing Clyde Wind Farm turbines. The ES suggests that this part of the Landscape Type has almost become a sub-type “Southern Upland, Windfarm”. This also takes into account the cumulative impacts on landscape character type which identify the impacts of the Clyde existing wind farm, Glenkerie and the proposed Earlshaugh development.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(a) 11.6 It is concluded that the preferred large scale setting of 4BG “Southern Uplands Type – Broadlaw Group” and its lack of immediate relationship with any fringe or valley landscape character types results in compliance with the initial criteria contained with Structure Plan Policy I20 and Local Plan Policy D4.

12.0 Containment

12.1 The effects of the development on views requires to be considered as a separate, but related issue, and is mainly concerned with the impact of the development on the perceptions of those who view the landscape within which the proposal is to be located.

12.2 Policy D4 of the Local Plan provides a useful assessment tool, based on the Macaulay Enterprises Study “Visibility Mapping for Wind Farms in the Scottish Borders”, for turbines with a 100m high blade tip.

12.3 This guidance provides a useful benchmark for making a judgement on this issue, since PAN 45 also contains a similar method of assessing visual impact. The guide suggests that receptors within 0-5km of a proposal will experience visual intrusion (dominant and major impacts) as a result, and those 5km or more away will experience a moderate impact. PAN 45 suggests that up to 2km away the proposal will have a prominent impact, while a 2-5km distance will result in a relatively prominent impact, with 5km or more having an impact in clear visibility

12.4 Policy D4 states that sites contained by surrounding landscape are preferred as these can benefit from the screening of surrounding hills. Criterion 3 of Policy D4 is concerned with the level of containment achieved by any wind farm proposal. This is illustrated by the various figures produced by the applicant in the ES relating to Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) (Fig 7.14a) and the larger 1:50,000 plans for each viewpoint position.

12.5 As might be expected for this large site with 54 turbines proposed, visibility is spread over a very large area. The undulations in landform do create areas of visual shadow so there is a degree of topographical containment but, in terms of the more sensitive receptors along the A701 corridor, there is only partial topographical screening because some parts of the development on the eastern edge are not well contained and may be seen as skyline features. The principle areas of visibility do not commence from the A701 until south of The Crook Inn. Whilst considering that this particular criterion of Policy D4 is not wholly complied with for the aforementioned reasons, it is acknowledged that the ES Addendum reduces the visual impacts in this regard.

13.0 Visual Impacts on Sensitive Receptors – the A701

13.1 Policy D4 identifies major tourist routes and popular public viewpoints as sensitive receptors which should be considered in assessing the visual impacts of a wind farm development. The SPG quotes Figure 8 in PAN45 and identifies several main tourist roads where wind farms within 2km would be seen as sensitive and problematical. Clearly, the A701 scenic tourist route from Edinburgh to Moffat will be significantly affected in places, a number of Viewpoints being identified as being necessary at the Scoping stage and subsequently being provided in the ES and accompanying figures.

13.2 In assessment of the initial submission of 57 turbines, it was identified that there were significant visual effects arising from the proposal along the various viewpoints

Planning & Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(a) generally south of The Crook Inn. Table 7.8 in the ES identified High and Medium Sensitivities on the road at Tweedsmuir, south-west of Tweedsmuir, north of Tweedshaws and south of Badlieu. The principal affected Viewpoints were numbers 1, 4, 7, 20 and 25 and the most prominent turbines were noted from these locations, allowing for the presence of the turbines belonging to the consented Clyde Wind Farm which also now appear on the skyline from certain Viewpoints.

13.3 Of these turbines, the most prominent and obvious ones were highlighted as contributing to the significant and adverse visual effects from these Viewpoints – numbers 30, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52 and 57. It was felt that these turbines in particular, created an increased degree and extent of adverse visual intrusion into a sensitive scenic landscape. In recognising this, it was acknowledged that the existing turbines were now a prominent feature from many of the A701 Viewpoints, generally ahead on the skyline when travelling south. It is also recognised that there is managed forest between the development and most of the A701 Viewpoints which represents additional screening, albeit intermittent due to growth, felling and restocking.

13.4 Following discussion of these concerns with the applicants, it was stressed to them that the concept of “cluster and space” was generally supported and that, given the change in the landscape already experienced in this part of the Tweed Valley, the significant extension of the Clyde Wind Farm could not generally be opposed provided the most intrusive turbines could be removed and the visual effects significantly reduced.

13.5 Taking into account other responses from consultees to the initial scheme, the formal ES Addendum was submitted and it is on this basis that the proposals require to be considered by consultees and determined by the Scottish Government. As mentioned, three turbines have now been deleted from the scheme – numbers 19, 30 and 57, the latter two having been identified by the Department as requiring removal. There has also been a combination of relocation and reduction in height of nine and ten turbines respectively. The remaining five turbines the Department identified for removal have been relocated (numbers 43-45) or reduced in height from 142m to 125.5m (numbers 51 and 52).

13.6 The visual impacts on the A701 Viewpoints have now been reassessed following these changes, as follows:

Viewpoint 1 on the southern edge of Tweedsmuir displays a continuous view of existing and proposed turbines, the latter extending slightly westwards and being closer to view at just under 5km – compared to the existing turbines at just under 9km. The ES Addendum describes the visual effects during operation as Significant from this Viewpoint albeit the vertical extent of the turbines has been reduced and there has been an increase in turbine spacing and reduction in overlapping. The movements, height reductions and removal of turbine no. 57 have improved the impacts from this Viewpoint.

Viewpoint 4 at Tweedshaws provides an extensive panorama of existing and proposed turbines ahead as vehicles travel north. There is some forestry screening but the height and scale of the existing Clyde Turbines are more prominent at a lesser distance than the proposed turbines which extend the linear spread northwards and eastwards. Again the ES Addendum identifies the visual effects here as Significant although the relocations and reductions in height have made slight improvements to the impacts from this Viewpoint.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(a) The removal of turbine numbers 57 and especially 30 have also helped reduced impact further and the eastwards spread. The overwhelming impact here remains the consented Clyde turbines in the foreground.

Viewpoint 7 south of Badlieu provides the closest views of the turbines at just under 2km range although the forestry screening will soften the impacts, albeit on a temporary basis. The existing wind turbines are less of an influence here and there will be some notable impacts from the proposed turbines, especially numbers 20, 28 and 29 on the distant hills to the north viewed through the gap in the trees carrying the road. Again the omission of turbine 57 and the reduction in height and relocation of others has made a useful improvement to the impacts from this Viewpoint, the omission of turbine 30 also being important as it would appear somewhat detached as one travels north from this point. The ES identifies the visual effect as Significant although there have been improvements from this Viewpoint – an opinion the Department would agree with.

Viewpoint 20 at the Tweedhopefoot lay-by has been transformed by the removal of turbine 30, the remaining impacts being negligible as turbines are concealed by the shoulder of the hills to the west of the A701. The ES identifies the effect now as Not Significant.

Viewpoint 25 south-west of Tweedsmuir has always remained the Viewpoint on the A701 which would experience the greatest level of visual impact and change, even allowing for the undoubted impacts of the existing Clyde wind farm turbines. These turbines are located straight ahead on the skyline at over 7km distance whereas the proposed turbines spread around to the west at less than 4km distance. The linear spread introduces a much greater panoramic view of turbines, the initially submitted proposals being especially intrusive and prominent on the skyline. The removal of turbine 57 has been an improvement as has the lowering and relocation of others. Whilst the improvements here may be more subtle, they have almost all resulted in turbine towers slipping over the skyline away from the Scottish Borders side, albeit still visible. The ES Addendum acknowledges the improvements but still sees the visual effects as Significant.

More than any other Viewpoint on the A701, the impacts in this location will be significant, increasing the spread of turbines nearer to the road user and over a wider panorama. There is no doubt that six further turbine deletions in this location as initially sought by the Department would have improved the visual effects even further and it may be the Members may still wish to recommend this to the Scottish Government in their consideration of the application. As it stands, the improvements and reductions present a better impact than the initial scheme did and do not represent, in themselves, a reason to oppose the whole development when consideration of forestry screening and the impacts of the consented scheme are taken into account.

14.0 Visual Impacts on Sensitive Receptors – Special Landscape and National Scenic Areas

14.1 The ES and ES Addendum summarise that the effects on the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area and Tweedsmuir Uplands Special Landscape Area are classed as “Not Significant” after they had assessed the special qualities of these landscape designations. In terms of the NSA, the revisions have been largely requested by Scottish Natural Heritage who are now no longer in opposition to the revised scheme. As requested by SNH guidance, a 10km ZTV from the NSA was carried out which revealed little impact apart from elevated ground north and south of the Glenholm Planning & Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6(a) Valley and Worm Hill. It is claimed that the impacts out across the hills from these locations are of lesser importance than the views within the valleys which were instrumental in the 1978 designation.

14.2 It is known that Manor Stobo and Lyne Community Council criticise the methodology employed in assessing impact on the NSA and particularly the lack of Viewpoints within the southern part of the NSA, concluding that the analysis is lacking and that there will be a much greater adverse cumulative impact than stated.

14.3 In terms of Viewpoints taken, Viewpoints 10, 11 and 24 show the impacts from the NSA. Viewpoint 10 at Black Meldon represents a distance of nearly 24km and it is felt that even though the new turbines will be in the foreground, at such distance, they will be very difficult to view clearly and will not have a significant adverse effect.

14.4 Viewpoint 11 from Dreva Craig Hill Fort is the closest selected Viewpoint with minor blade overtipping at a distance of over 13km, a view much improved since the deletion of turbine number 19 to meet SNH concerns. Viewpoint 24 from Trehanna Hill is more affected with more hubs and tips visible in the foreground compared to consented Clyde turbines behind. However, at a distance of over 15km, the impacts are again considered to be Not Significant and have been reduced by the changes made in the ES Addendum. Visibility from the valley floor is distant and fleeting, either screened by woodland or at distances in excess of 10km.

14.5 Whilst local concerns are noted about the assessment of impacts on the NSA, Members will also be aware that Scottish Natural Heritage have dropped their objections to the scheme on the basis of the changes made within the ES Addendum.

14.6 It is concluded that there are no grounds to oppose the wind farm extension on the grounds of significant and adverse impacts on the qualifying interests of the NSA.

14.7 In terms of impacts from within the new SLA above the valley floor and A701, an example is taken at Viewpoint 12 from Culter Fell where the impacts will be reduced by both the extent and panoramic view of the existing 142 turbine Clyde Wind Farm and the fact that the turbines will be below the skyline, albeit in the foreground. Wirelines from Broad Law and Hart Fell also show at a distance of about 9.5km that the impacts, whilst intensified, are not introducing a new and adverse character to the SLA given the wide-ranging panoramic impacts of the existing Clyde wind farm. It is also noted that the wind farm extension will not be visible from 20% of the former AGLV area compared to the existing Clyde wind farm.

14.8 It is concluded that, particularly due to the existing impacts of the consented Clyde Wind Farm, there are no significant alterations to the character of the landscape designation receptors that would justify opposition to this scheme for 38% addition to the number of turbines already in position.

15.0 Visual Impacts on Sensitive Receptors – Other Receptors

15.1 The ES and ES Addendum assess the significance of impacts on other sensitive receptors such as residential properties and recreational routes and there is no elements of significance identified that would result in the scheme being contrary to Policies and Guidance.

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

The numbers of houses affected are very small indeed and although some are close to the Government recommendation of 2km (which is actually for settlements and not individual houses), they will either be screened by forestry or often have their main outlooks orientated towards or away from the A701. Some significant impacts are identified at Glenbreck, Tweedshaws, Hawkshaw and Fingland but it has been shown in other wind farm cases that such low numbers of properties are within the tolerances allowed in considering such cases to be acceptable.

15.2 As previously identified, there are no rights of way through the site that could be immediately impacted by the turbines although assessments have been carried out of recreational routes, hill summits used by walkers etc throughout the surrounding area and no significant impacts have been identified that could result in refusal of the scheme being justified, especially given the scale of impacts already caused by the consented Clyde Wind Farm.

16.0 Cumulative Impacts

16.1 The SPP considers that in taking into account cumulative impacts in terms of visual and landscape considerations, the relevant factors should be set out in the Development Plan and SPG. Local Plan Policy D4 refers to the visual impact of the cumulative effect and the Council’s SPG on Wind Energy discusses what issues cumulative impact causes and what approach should be taken to it.

16.2 It lists the impacts stated in the web guidance notes attached to PAN 45 and describes the three types of cumulative impact identified by SNH –

Combination – two or more developments visible in the same view. Succession – two or more developments from same viewpoint but observer has to turn Sequence – have to travel to different viewpoints to see two or more.

SNH also outline a difference between cumulative visual effects and landscape effects, the latter being character changing.

16.3 The SPG takes the approach of “cluster and space” ie. concentrating wind farm development around some existing wind farms and keeping the spaces in between, wind farm free. In this way, there is avoidance of the most pernicious form of cumulative impact which is sequential where wind farms are present as features over very wide areas and with few or no areas left unaffected.

16.4 In approaching the “cluster and space” strategy, the SPG identifies the location of existing or approved wind farms then identifies high visual sensitivity sites using landscape classification when viewed from roads, strategic footpaths, viewpoints, cultural and natural heritage sites. As previously mentioned, the outcome of the Spatial Strategy for the Clyde wind farm extension indicates that the turbines lie both within the highest protection area and that of moderate constraints. However, this generally represents the portions of the SLA that can be seen from the A701 tourist route and, given the height of the turbines, it can be deduced that they are all “effectively” to be considered on the basis of the red area. Given the dominant presence of the Clyde Wind Farm in the area when viewed from the A701, it can be taken that the cumulative impacts of the Clyde extension are immediate and generally viewed within the same view as that of the extension – thus generally complying with the main aims of the “cluster and space”.

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

16.5 Even though PAN45 and the SPP consider that all schemes should be taken into account at all stages in the process, it is not considered that schemes refused on appeal should have any material weight in assessment of cumulative impacts on undetermined applications. Indeed, the response from the Scottish Government previously on schemes still to be determined suggests that the most weight should be attached to schemes actually with approval.

16.6 Consequently, the most significant schemes to be considered in terms of cumulative visual impact are clearly the consented Clyde Wind Farm for 142 turbines which lies to the south and west of the proposed extension – and the Glenkerie Wind Farm to the north – which is now at Scoping stage for an extension, the extension not having been taken into account. There is also the Earlshaugh development to the south-east of the site, towards the Scottish Borders boundary which remains an undetermined Section 36 application with the Scottish Government.

16.7 Coincident cumulative impacts normally are only classified as major within a 5km range of at least two sites and wind farms more than 10km apart will usually only display cumulative effects in the low or moderate categories. Because of the relatively well contained Glenkerie Wind Farm, the main coincident cumulative impact is that of the Clyde Wind Farm which is visible and the dominant element in most Viewpoints. Similarly, this wind farm also contributes greatly to the sequential cumulative impacts which is generally felt when a traveller enters the zone of visual influence of one site soon after leaving the zone of its neighbour – thus spreading the extent of the effects of wind farms on the landscape more widely.

16.8 It could be argued with the Clyde Wind Farm extension that the sequential visibility of wind turbines will now be extended from the Devil’s Beef Tub south of the Council boundary to the Crook Inn north of Tweedsmuir. In this respect, the coincident and sequential visibility of wind turbines will be high for this stretch of road. However, given the seamless way in which the extension attaches to the existing turbines and the magnitude of change already experienced along this stretch of the Upper Tweed Valley by turbines at the southern head of the valley, it is better and more compliant with the SPG to allow the existing wind farm to expand rather than allow new wind farms in places elsewhere along this road or elsewhere in the valley that could increase the impact and length of the sequential occurrences.

17.0 Wild Land

17.1 Local Plan Policy D4 refers to protection of areas of remoteness as guided by expert advice including the Borders Landscape Assessment. A “significant wildland atmosphere” is mentioned in the description of distinctive features for the Broad Law Group although it is considered more applicable to the core areas of 4BG to the south and east where the landscape is more mountainous and less impacted by actively managed foreground forestry.

17.2 The Council took a different view of the landscape within which the Earlshaugh scheme is proposed compared to the more “rolling hills” landscape occupied by the Clyde Wind Farm and the proposed extension. Given this position, it is not felt that the issue of impact on remote or wild land justifies opposition to the wind farm extension proposal.

18.0 Cultural Heritage

Planning & Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6(a) 18.1 Government and Local Development Plan Policies and guidance require full assessment of wind farm developments against those buildings, structures and deposits which contribute to an area’s historic environment.

18.2 The ES was based upon desk based studies of cultural heritage assets, a walkover and specific site visits. There were seven scheduled monuments and 29 undesignated cultural assets identified within the Inner Study Area – It was also recognised that there is low to moderate potential for previously unrecorded archaeological features to be present, especially below 400m AOD. Within 5km, 45 scheduled monuments and ten listed buildings were identified.

18.3 No construction impacts are anticipated for any known cultural heritage assets although it is identified that impacts could occur below 400m AOD, the impact being considered to be moderate. The Council’s Archaeology Officer identifies this issue, especially in areas unaffected by forestry.

18.4 He recommends all excavations below this level are monitored through an archaeological Watching Brief which should be secured through a condition. Any areas of deep peat encountered should be subject to archaeological evaluation and paleo-environmental assessment.

18.5 The Archaeology Officer is otherwise content with the scheme and the ES approach to mitigation, welcoming the intention to employ an Archaeological Clerk of Works. He also has assessed the potential for indirect effects on the settings of Scheduled Monuments and there is nothing more than minor effects that would not warrant refusal of the application. Similarly, impacts on listed buildings are minor and not of sufficient concern to warrant refusal or adjustment to the proposals.

19.0 Ecology, Habitats and Wildlife

19.1 Following response from the Council’s Ecology Officer, the Ecological Impact Assessment contained within the ES is accepted and there is no objection to the proposed wind farm extension. Main ecological issues relate to the impacts on the Tweed SAC, Blanket Bog, certain breeding birds and forest felling.

19.2 In terms of bats, the greatest risk is from forestry felling at the Badlieu plantation and FCS guidelines should be followed. The Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan (HMP) should make provision for bat habitat enhancement. Other mammals have been adequately surveyed including otter, water vole and badgers but checking surveys will still be required before commencement of works. A survey will also be required for reptiles.

19.3 The impacts on the Tweed SAC are likely to be significant and no apparent cumulative assessment has been included within the ES. Since the SNH response has been received, it is accepted that subject to mitigation as advised by SNH, then the likelihood of significant impacts on the SAC can be avoided.

19.4 There is concern over the loss of blanket bog habitat as identified as M19 and M20 in the ES. Turbines, tracks and infrastructure will result in direct and indirect loss to Whitecamp Brae and Black Dod as well as areas of deep peat in various locations including the eastern ridge of the site within the Scottish Borders area. Taking into account the requirements of the “Biodiversity” SPG, the loss of active blanket bog is of serious concern, especially as two turbines have been relocated into blanket bog

Planning & Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6(a) rather than wet heath. The amount of loss is not significant but it should be compensated for through a Legal Agreement and the HMP.

19.5 With regard to ornithology, there are some concerns with the methodology employed in assessing the significance of the loss of pink footed geese and other concerns with regard to black grouse and breeding waders, including golden plover and curlew. There should be pre-construction checking surveys carried out and satisfactory compensatory measures and habitat enhancement in the HMP. The cumulative impact assessment on birds is accepted.

19.6 The felling of woodland is noted as being significantly reduced from the initial scheme but any replacement planting should be carried out in accordance with Forestry Commission guidance and the Scottish Borders Woodland Strategy.

19.7 The intention to produce an HMP is welcomed which should include measures in the ES including management and enhancement of blanket bog/upland heath, ancient woodland, native woodland, scrub, bracken, black grouse, golden plover, curlew and drainage management. The intention to produce a Construction Method Statement and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is also welcomed although it is also recommended that an Ecological Clerk of Works is appointed to ensure pre-checking surveys are carried out and secure compliance with the EMP.

19.8 The Ecology Officer recommends a series of conditions covering the following:

x Checking surveys and mitigation pre-commencement for otter, bats, water vole , badger, breeding birds and reptiles. x Felling carried out in accordance with the FCS guidelines for protected species preceded by checking surveys for bats. x Species Mitigation and Management Plan submitted for approval before the development commences. x A Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan to be submitted for approval before the development commences, including on and off-site measures for bats, black grouse, breeding waders, grassland, woodland, wetland blanket and heathland management and enhancement. x A compensatory planting scheme of woodland enhancement to be submitted for approval before the development commences. x The appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works before the development is commenced. x The production of a Construction Method Statement, an Ecological Mitigation Statement, an Environmental Management Plan and Decommissioning Method Statement. x A Before and After Control Impact Monitoring Statement including a habitat survey and black grouse/breeding wader surveys at 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 year intervals.

20.0 Traffic, Transport and Access

20.1 Policy D4 seeks assessment and consideration of access to the wind farm both during its operation and especially during the construction phase, which can be much more disruptive. The Environmental Statement identifies that no local roads need to be used to access the site and that strategic “A” class roads and the M74 can be used. The wind farm extension will utilise two of the consented Clyde Wind Farm access junctions within the South Lanarkshire Council area and a third access from

Planning & Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(a) the A701 within the Scottish Borders Area using an existing forestry access north of “Fingland”. This access point will be upgraded.

20.2 With regard to construction traffic impacts within the Scottish Borders, these would be restricted to the A701 where southbound vehicles would be heading only for Access 3 near to “Fingland”. This would involve traffic passing through Broughton and Tweedsmuir, the ES identifying up to a 20% increase in the current 75 HGV vehicle movements. Much of this is assumed to be traffic associated with tree felling as the construction vehicles associated with the construction of the wind farm extension are more likely to use the other accesses within South Lanarkshire.

20.3 When taken together with up to 2.1% increases in non-HGV traffic, the ES concludes that the traffic impacts on the A701 and in Broughton and Tweedsmuir are not significant and could only be considered “Moderate” in Broughton because of the narrow street, proximity of houses to the street, parking and school traffic. The ES Addendum identifies further traffic reductions especially associated with the 130ha reduction in tree felling and the deletion of three turbines.

20.4 The Roads Planning Service is content with the proposals and the findings of the ES but recommend conditions to secure the following –

x A full engineering drawing at the forestry access onto the A701 designed to cater for the swept path of the largest associated vehicles and appropriate junction sightlines. x Details of all necessary public road improvements, their implementation being required before commencement of development. x Details of traffic management measures to cater for abnormal vehicle movements as part of a traffic management programme. x Submission and approval of a Traffic Management Plan. x Programme of monitoring of public roads used and remedial/maintenance costs secured and completed within 3 months of completion of the wind farm construction. x Proposals to intercept dust and mud from reaching the public road.

These requirements remain following the submission of the ES Addendum.

21.0 Access

20.1 The ES identifies no Rights of Way or other access routes within the Scottish Borders part of the site and there have been no requirements or comments from the Council’s Access Officer. The wind farm extension will remain open to public access except during construction and periods of maintenance. Temporary diversions of identified routes will be carried out for health and safety reasons.

22.0 Noise

22.1 The impacts of mechanical and aerodynamic noise caused by wind turbines are a material factor in assessing wind farm developments, SPP and the superseded PAN 45 provided advice on them and the latter set out detailed best practice, including compliance with ETSU-R-97. Policy D4 requires full assessment of the noise impacts of renewable energy developments.

22.2 The ES concludes that operational noise levels from the wind farm extension will be within the levels deemed by national guidelines to be acceptable for wind energy Planning & Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6(a) schemes. This is the same conclusion reached in the ES Addendum. Within the Scottish Borders, the nearest noise sensitive properties are located in the Tweed Valley alongside the A701 such as at Glenbreck, Hawkshaw, Badlieu, Fingland, Tweedhopefoot and Tweedshaws. The Addendum assumes a negligible impact even after taking into account the operation of the already consented turbines and after taking into account varying wind speeds.

22.3 The summary shows that at all the aforementioned properties, the daytime and night- time limits are well below the levels required by ETSU-R-97, Badlieu being the nearest to the acceptable thresholds but still 4-6dB below in worst case scenarios. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has not objected but still recommends conditions be attached to any consent as follows:

x Noise levels (where no financial interest) should not exceed an external free field level LA90, 10min level of the greater of 40dB(A) or 5dB(A) at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s above the agreed prevailing background noise level during amenity hours and 43dB(A) during night hours. x Where there is a financial interest, the same as above but 45db(A) or 5dB(A) at all times. x Any tonal elements assesses using the Joint Nordic Method and the tone level shall not exceed 2dB above the “Masking Threshhold for Tones in Noise” x No development commenced until a scheme for ongoing monitoring of noise submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.

23.0 Hydrology

23.1 The ES concludes that there will be no significant impacts on hydrology in the area nor on hydrogeology.

23.2 The surface water and groundwater assessment has also taken account of forestry felling which is greatly reduced in the Addendum. It is acknowledged that the site occupies the headwaters of the River Clyde and River Tweed SAC/SSSI and within the catchment of public and private drinking water supplies. Although the design and siting of the development has already taken into account impacts and the potential of a pollution incident affecting run-off, measures and mitigation are proposed in a draft Site Environmental Management Plan and further measures proposed during the forestry operations. Subject to these, the impacts on the water environment are considered to be negligible to minor/moderate.

23.3 The Council’s Flood Protection Officer accepts that none of the infrastructure is proposed within the 1 in 200 year flood envelope of the River Tweed although there is the potential for increased flood risk from pluvial flooding. Nevertheless, there are no known receptors and the Drainage Management Plan indicates sufficient mitigation to avoid this occurrence. Although there is some deforestation, the area covered by the development is a relatively small part of the Tweed Catchment and its tributaries. The Flood Protection Officer, therefore, is content with the proposal and the mitigation in the ES but sought additional information which can be provided to comply with conditions.

The information should include –

x The existing greenfield run-off rate for the affected Tweed Catchment Area. x Detailed design proposals for sensitive areas within the Catchment are submitted for prior approval. Planning & Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 6(a) x A detailed inspection and maintenance plan of all drainage channels, ponds and swales is submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority.

24.0 Other Issues

24.1 In terms of Policy D4, radar and aviation impacts are considered as well as telecommunications.

24.2 It is known that the MOD have objected to this revised wind farm extension due to the fact that the wind farm lies within the 50km radius of the Eskdalemuir Seismic Array and will exceed the established low frequency noise budget for the array. They also had issues with a low-flying area and the previous consented wind farm. NERL have also identified issues with the consented Clyde Wind Farm in relation to Lowther Hill radar. The developer states that mitigation is being worked on in liaison with NERL.

24.3 There are no known issues with other telecommunication given that the area is now switched to digital broadcasting. Little or no properties are projected to experience problems although the developer will provide mitigation if required.

24.4 It seems, therefore, that there are issues with aviation and radar caused by the wind farm extension and that, consequently, the relevant part of Policy D4 is only partially met.

24.5 Other matters are assessed within the ES and it is concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts as a result of shadow flicker, driver distraction, impact on tourism/recreation, safety and climate/carbon omissions. With regard to the latter, the carbon payback period for the Clyde Extension wind farm is calculated as 2.0 years.

25.0 Scottish Natural Heritage/South Lanarkshire Council responses

25.1 As members will be aware, Scottish Borders Council are only one of a number of consultees who the Scottish Government contacts in relation to Section 36 applications. South Lanarkshire Council will be considering their response at their Planning Committee on 4 December but it is believed that the recommendation in front of them will be one of no objection subject to conditions and a Legal Agreement.

25.3 As previously mentioned, Scottish Natural Heritage has raised no objections to the scheme as revised and reduced, provided specific measures and controls are imposed. They do identify that the Scottish Government will need to carry out an Appropriate Assessment of the impacts of the development on the Tweed SAC but that, subject to mitigation and implementation of such measures, the impacts could be controlled and not be considered to adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. SNH also now accept the revised scheme which they had previously felt would have had an unacceptable impact on the Upper Tweeddale NSA, even beyond the impacts already occurring as a result of the development of the consented Clyde wind farm.

From two viewpoints within the NSA to the north in particular (VP 11 Dreva Craig Hill Fort and VP 24 Trahenna Hill), the impacts are much reduced. They also recognise the improvements in impact from local and regionally important landscapes.

25.4 SNH also detail further controls required with regard to birds and protected species and management of the development.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 6(a) 25.5 The comments and views of South Lanarkshire Council and SNH are material considerations for the Scottish Government to consider when assessing the windfarm extension application. Their comments are included in this report for completeness but should not directly influence Members when providing Scottish Borders Council’s view on the application.

26.0 CONCLUSIONS

26.1 The proposal, as now amended, satisfies a number of landscape and visual impact requirements set out in Development Plan Policies and the SPG, representing a level of change within the area that, whilst significant from certain receptors, is either limited in occurrence or in level of change and cumulative impact given the scale of the existing consented Clyde Wind Farm which now influences and changes the landscape character and perceptions of it. Significant impacts are generally limited to the A701 corridor and the omissions, relocation and reduction in turbine heights now proposed have resulted in lesser visual effects. Significant impacts still remain to the south of Tweedsmuir and it is suggested that further omissions should be considered by the Scottish Government to minimise the impacts in this part of the Tweedsmuir Hills SLA.

26.2 Other issues can be resolved though appropriately worded planning conditions and a Legal Agreement covering roads, ecology, archaeology, noise and hydrology/

27.0 RECOMMENDATION OF HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES

27.1 That the council indicates to Scottish Ministers that it has no objections to the Section 36 application with the proviso that the Ministers consider further omission of turbines to improve the visual impacts when viewed from the A701 south of Tweedsmuir village, namely turbine numbers 43, 45, 50, 51 and 52.

27.2 Should Scottish Ministers be minded to approve this application it is suggested that the following conditions should be applied and a Section 75 Legal Agreement entered into as per the requirements below:

28.0 CONDITIONS SUGGESTED FOR A DEEMED PLANNING PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997

TIMING

1. The Development authorised by this permission shall commence within 3 years of the date of the permission deemed to be granted by Scottish Ministers. Reason: to accord with the provisions of section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. This permission shall be for a period of twenty five years from the date of first output of electricity to the grid network on a commercial basis (“Final Commissioning” of the Development). Within twelve months of the end of that period, unless a further application is submitted and approved, all wind turbines together with their foundations to a depth of 1.0 metres, ancillary equipment and buildings shall have been dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition, or other such condition as may be agreed, in accordance with the restoration and after-care schemes to be submitted for the approval of the planning authority and in accordance with condition 26 below, no later than 1 year prior to the expiry of the 25 years period, referred to above. Planning & Building Standards Committee 20 Item No. 6(a) Reason: to allow the planning authority to review the circumstances of the permission, which is temporary, and in the interests of the amenity of the area in the longer term, beyond the 25 year period covered by the permission.

3. In the event that, after the Final Commissioning of the Development, any wind turbine fails to produce electricity supplied to the local grid for a continuous period of 6 months, or longer if agreed in writing with the planning authority, not due to it being under repair or replacement, then it will be deemed to have ceased to be required, and unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority, the wind turbine together with its foundations to a depth of 1.0 metres, and its ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the site restored to a condition to be agreed by the planning authority. The restoration of the land shall be completed within 6 months of the removal of the turbine, or any such longer period agreed by the planning authority. Reason: to ensure the turbines are removed from the site at the end of their operational life and to protect the visual amenity of the area.

DETAILS OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT

4. The number of turbines shall not exceed 54 and the position of the turbines shall be as shown on plan reference 3.2 contained within the Environmental Statement Addendum Figure 5.1a dated August 2012, subject to micro-siting agreed in consultation with the planning authority through condition 19 to this permission. The blade tip height of turbines shall not exceed 142metres in height except for the ten turbines identified in Table 5.1 of the Environmental Statement Addendum which shall not exceed 125.5m in height to blade tip. The colour and finish of the turbines shall be agreed with the planning authority prior to the erection of any turbine. All turbines on the site shall be substantially identical in appearance, unless otherwise agreed by the planning authority. Reason: in the interests of the amenity of the area and to ensure the development complies with the information submitted.

5. All turbines and components shall be installed to meet the safety standards set by British Standard BS EN 61400-1: 2005 ‘Wind turbine generator systems: Safety requirements’ or International Electro-technical Commission IEC 16400. Reason: in the interests of public safety

6. Prior to the erection or installation of any ancillary equipment or buildings, the design, colour and finish of the equipment and buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter, the Development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: in the interests of the amenity of the area and because these details have not been provided.

7. All turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction. Reason: to prevent a discordant image, in the interests of the amenity of the area.

8. No symbols, signs or logos or other lettering, other than those required for health and safety and for traffic management, shall be displayed on any part of the turbines nor any other building or structures without the written consent of the planning authority. Reason: in the interests of the amenity of the area

Planning & Building Standards Committee 21 Item No. 6(a) 9. The developer shall commission a survey measuring existing television reception quality, which shall be submitted to the planning authority prior to installation of the turbines. In the event that the wind farm is found to cause interference to television reception in the vicinity following a complaint made within two years of the Final Commissioning of the Development, the developer shall take whatever action is deemed necessary by the planning authority to alleviate the problems. Reason: to safeguard television reception in the area

CONSTRUCTION

10. Prior to the commencement of the Development, the developer shall prepare a Construction Method Statement (to include a Risk Assessment and an Environmental Management Statement) for the approval of the planning authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The Construction Method Statement shall comprise the following details:

x a scaled map to include the anticipated layout and width of temporary and permanent tracks, cable routeing, turbine bases, crane standings, site storage compound, substation, on-site switch gear and equipment store and any ancillary buildings; x all on-site construction, and construction of access tracks, including drainage, mitigation, post-construction restoration, and reinstatement work, as well as the timetables for such work; x any temporary diversions of rights of way and associated signage; x surface water drainage measures to comply with national guidance on pollution prevention, including surface water run off from internal access roads; x the arrangement for the on-site storage of fuel oil; x the working and re-instatement of borrow pits; x the method, frequency and duration of ecological monitoring, particularly of watercourses, over the construction period of the wind farm Development; x the principles of the Land Management Plan referred to in condition 26 below.

Subject to the following paragraph, no work shall begin on the Development until the Construction Method Statement has been approved. Once approved the works specified in the approved Statement shall be carried out as approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority.

The provisions of this condition shall not prevent the improvement/construction of the permanent access track [Access 3 along the route shown on Figure 5.1a of the Environmental Assessment Addendum August 2012] (subject to such modification as may be approved by the planning authority) to the temporary site storage compound and the sub-station platform (“Enabling Works”) in advance of the approval of the Construction Method Statement, provided that such works shall not be carried out until details of them (including any necessary measures for public road improvements outwith the site, traffic management, works to be implemented at the entrance to the site to prevent dust and mud entering the public highway or any related programme of monitoring the condition of public roads) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Planning & Building Standards Committee 22 Item No. 6(a) Reason: to ensure necessary contingencies are in place and to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities.

11. The site compound shall be constructed in accordance with methods to be agreed with and approved by the planning authority in advance of the commencement of the Development. The compound shall be removed and any works for the reinstatement of the land shall be carried out within 6 months of the completion of the construction works. Reason: in the interests of the amenity of the area and to prevent pollution.

ROADS ISSUES

12. No development to take place on the site until an engineering drawing has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority showing the proposed access off the A701 with geometry and construction designed to cater for the swept path of the largest associated vehicles and junction sightlines to the required standard.

13. Prior to the commencement of Development, save in respect of any Enabling Works as provided for in Condition 10, the applicant shall provide for the approval of the planning authority detailed proposals for any necessary public road improvements outwith the site and, save for any Enabling Works, no Development shall take place on the site until the approved improvements have been implemented.

14. Prior to the commencement of Development, save in respect of any Enabling Works as provided for in Condition 10, the applicant shall provide for the approval of the planning authority a programme of necessary traffic management measures to cater for abnormal vehicle movements and, save for any Enabling Works, no Development shall take place on the site until the approved measures have been implemented.

15. Prior to the commencement of Development, save in respect of any Enabling Works as provided for in Condition 10, details of the measures to be implemented at the entrance of the site to prevent dust and mud entering the public highway shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority and, save for any Enabling Works, no Development shall take place on the site until the approved measures shall be implemented. The approved measures shall remain in place throughout the construction and decommissioning phases of the Development. 16. A traffic management plan for the construction period shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before the development commences and, once approved, implemented in accordance with the terms and timescales set. Reason for conditions 12-16: in the interests of road safety

17. Prior to the commencement of Development, save in respect of any Enabling Works as provided for in Condition 10, a programme of monitoring the condition of the public roads serving the site before, during and after the construction phase of the development to be agreed with the Planning Authority. [Any remedial works, or payment of extraordinary maintenance costs incurred by Scottish Borders Council, to be agreed within three months of completion of the construction of the windfarm.] Reason: To ensure that any damage to the public road network is rectified.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 23 Item No. 6(a) RIGHTS OF WAY

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

x the identification of any area proposed to be excluded from statutory access rights and the reasons for such exclusion; x details of the closure or temporary diversion of any identified rights of way at the site and any associated signage; x details of the measures to ensure safe public access along the identified or diverted paths, tracks and rights of way during the construction phase of the development; x details for the reinstatement and upgrading of the affected routes, including details of way marking and route interpretation. Reason:

MICRO-SITING

19. Following the formation of the access road and completion of the ground investigation studies, details of the precise micro-siting of each turbine and of all ancillary equipment and buildings shall be submitted for the approval of the planning authority prior to the erection or installation of the aforementioned turbines, equipment and buildings. The micro-siting shall be no more than 50 metres in any direction from the position of each turbine as it is shown on Figure 5.1a of the Environmental Statement Addendum, unless agreed with the planning authority in consultation with the MOD. Reason: to ensure that environmental assets on the site are protected and to advise the MOD of any changes.

NOISE

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

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

22. When assessed in accordance with the attached guidance notes, noise limits at the agreed sensitive receptors identified will be met inclusive of any tonal penalty.

23. Noise levels at any noise sensitive premises from the combined effect of the wind turbines where the proprietor or the occupier of the property has no financial interest in the Development shall not exceed an external free-field LA90, 10 min level of the greater of 40dB(A) or 5dB at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s above the prevailing background noise level from 07:00- Planning & Building Standards Committee 24 Item No. 6(a) 23:00, and the greater of 43dB(A) or 5 dB at any 10 metre wind speed height up to 12 m/s above the prevailing background noise level from 23:00-0:700. For properties where the occupier has a financial interest, the noise levels should not exceed the greater of 45dB(A) or 5dB(A) at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s above the agreed prevailing background noise level at all times. The data provided in the noise assessment presented in the Environmental Statement provides the prevailing background noise level at various wind speeds and the methodology used within that document should be the basis for assessment of future investigations for consistency’s sake. Any assessment of compliance with this condition shall be made in accordance with the attached guidance notes. Reasons 20-23: to minimise disturbance and protect the amenity of nearby residents.

24. Wind speed data must be maintained for a period of no less than 12 months from the date of the first output of electricity to the grid network from the wind farm, and for each 12 month period of operation of the wind farm and be made available to the planning authority on request. Reason: to demonstrate compliance with the condition 19 above.

HYDROLOGY

25. Prior to the commencement of any development, further details are provided for the approval of the Planning Authority indicating the existing greenfield run-off rate for the affected part of the River Tweed Catchment Area, an inspection and maintenance plan of all drainage channels, ponds and swales and detailed design proposals for any identified sensitive parts of the Catchment Area. Once the details are approved, the development then to be carried out in accordance with those details. Reason: To manage surface water run-off and safeguard against flood risk.

ARCHAEOLOGY

26. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a Watching Brief. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist to observe relevant below ground excavation during development, investigate and record features of interest and recover finds and samples if necessary. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report.

If significant archaeology is discovered below ground, excavation should cease pending further consultation with the Planning Authority. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post excavation analysis, the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority. Reason: to safeguard any archaeological interest on the site.

ECOLOGICAL ISSUES

27. Prior to the commencement of the Development, the applicant shall appoint an independent full-time Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) acceptable to the

Planning & Building Standards Committee 25 Item No. 6(a) planning authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The terms of the appointment shall be submitted for the approval of the planning authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and shall include that the appointment shall be for the period of wind farm construction, including micro-siting and the finalisation of the wind farm layout, as well as subsequent post-construction restoration.

The ECoW shall have a duty to carry out pre-construction surveys and monitor compliance with all the ecological and hydrological aspects of the Construction Method Statement, Environmental Management Plan, Species Mitigation and Management Plan and Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan, including post-construction restoration, which have been approved under the terms of other conditions. The ECoW shall have a duty to report promptly to the developer’s nominated Construction Project Manager any non-compliance with the hydrological or ecological aspects of the Construction Method Statement. The ECoW shall have the power to stop any construction or restoration activity on-site which in his or her view (acting reasonably) could lead to significant effects on the River Tweed SAC, and shall without delay, report the stoppage, with reasons, to the applicant’s nominated Construction Project Manager and to the planning authority, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. Reason: to avoid/ mitigate potential impacts on the River Tweed SAC.

28. Prior to the Final Commissioning of the Development, plans for the method, frequency and duration of ecological monitoring over the operational life-span of the proposed wind farm are to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

The monitoring shall be carried out in strict accordance with the terms set out in the agreed monitoring plan and should include a habitat survey and a black grouse and breeding wader survey at 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 year intervals, together with monitoring of other protected species such as bats and badger. Reason: to monitor the watercourses over the operational life-span of the wind farm development and confirm, by monitoring, that no significant effects are occurring to the River Tweed SAC.

29. Prior to the Final Commissioning of the Development, the applicant will submit an Operational Protocol for approval in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. This will set out details for working practice and wind farm maintenance over the operational life-span of the wind farm.

The wind farm shall be operated in strict accordance with the terms of the Operational Protocol. Reason: to avoid/mitigate potential impacts on the River Tweed SAC.

30. Prior to Development commencing on site, save in respect of any Enabling Works as provided for in Condition 10, the applicant will submit a detailed Environmental Management Plan, Ecological Mitigation Statement, and Species Mitigation and Management Plan for approval in writing by the planning authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 26 Item No. 6(a) The Plans will set out proposed long-term management of the wind farm site. The Plans, as approved shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the planning authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Reason: in the interests of maintaining the ecological interest of the site.

31. Prior to development commencing on site, checking surveys for protected species (otter, bat, water vole, badger, breeding birds and reptiles) should be carried out by a suitably qualified person and the results together with any necessary mitigation identified submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, including checking surveys for bats should any mature trees be intended to be removed. Reason: to safeguard any protected species within the site.

DECOMMISSIONING AND RESTORATION

32. Within 5 years prior to the expiry of the planning permission for the Development, a Decommissioning Method Statement shall be submitted for the approval of the planning authority outlining the programme of decommissioning of the wind farm. The Decommissioning Method Statement will include details of all site decommissioning, the work to remove the infrastructure from the site, any subsequent aftercare required following site restoration and will include provision for the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works acceptable to the planning authority (in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency), whose role will be to oversee implementation of the plans so approved. These plans will include the method, frequency and duration of ecological monitoring, particularly of watercourses, over the decommissioning period of the wind farm Development. Within six months prior to the expiry of the planning permission, the Decommissioning Method Statement shall be reviewed by the wind farm company and the planning authority, and any alterations deemed appropriate and mutually acceptable shall be made.

Within six months, or any alternative timescale agreed by the planning authority, of the wind farm ceasing to be used for the generation of electricity, the site shall be restored to such condition as set out in the agreed Decommissioning Method Statement. Reason: in the interests of the amenity of the area and to ensure the site is satisfactorily restored.

33. Prior to the commencement of the Development, the developer shall provide to the planning authority details of the bond or other financial provision which it proposes to put in place to cover all decommissioning and site restoration costs on the expiry of this consent.

34. No Development shall commence on the site until the company has provided documentary evidence that the proposed bond or other financial provision is in place and written confirmation has been given by the planning authority that the proposed bond or other financial provision is satisfactory.

The developer shall ensure that the approved bond or other financial provision is maintained throughout the duration of this consent.

The bond or other financial provision will be subject to a five yearly review, paid for by the developer, from the commencement of the Development, to be

Planning & Building Standards Committee 27 Item No. 6(a) conducted by a competent independent professional who has relevant experience within the wind energy sector and provided to the company, the landowners, and the planning authority. Reason: to ensure that there are sufficient funds available to ensure the full restoration of the site. HEADINGS FOR A SECTION 75 AGREEMENT

To ensure woodland is felled in accordance with the Scottish Government/Forestry Commission Policy on the Control of Woodland Removal.

To require submission of a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan which shall include on and off-site measures for bats, black grouse, breeding waders, grassland, woodland, wetland blanket and heathland management and enhancement. It should also include a scheme for compensatory planting and woodland enhancement. Once approved, all works to be carried out in accordance with the Plan.

GUIDANCE NOTES RELATING TO CONDITIONS 20-23

These notes form part of Conditions 20-23. They further explain these conditions and specify the methods to be deployed in the assessment of complaints about noise emissions from the wind farm.

NOTE 1

Values of the LA90,10min noise statistic should be measured at the complainant’s property, using a sound level meter of IEC 651 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1, standard (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using a fast time weighted response.

This should be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997 (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements).

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

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

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

NOTE 2

Planning & Building Standards Committee 28 Item No. 6(a) The noise measurements should be made so as to provide not less than 20 valid data points for the range of wind speeds, wind directions, times of day, turbine operations requested by the Local planning authority excluding periods of rainfall. In specifying such conditions the Local planning authority shall have regard to those conditions which were most likely to have prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise.

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

NOTE 3

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

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

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

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

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

The tonal penalty shall be derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below. The rating level at each wind speed shall be calculated as the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level, as determined from the best fit

Planning & Building Standards Committee 29 Item No. 6(a) curve described in Note 2, and the penalty for tonal noise.

NOTE 4

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

L2/10 L3/10 L1 10 log >10 10 @ The rating level shall be re-calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if any) to the derived wind farm noise L1. If the rating level lies at or below the values set out in the conditions then no further action is necessary. If the rating level exceeds the values set out in the conditions then the Development fails to comply with the conditions.

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Craig Miller Principal Planning Officer

Planning & Building Standards Committee 30 Item No. 6(a)

Planning & Building Standards Committee 31 Item No. 6(b)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR CONSENT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 AND MARINE LICENCES UNDER PART 4, SECTION 20 OF THE MARINE (SCOTLAND) ACT 2010

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/00966/S36

OFFICER: Ian Aikman WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: To construct and operate an offshore windfarm comprising of up to 125 turbines SITE: Neart Na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm, Firth Of Forth APPLICANT: Mainstream Renewable Power AGENT: None

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To advise the Scottish Government of the response from Scottish Borders Council on the application by Mainstream Renewable Power to construct and operate an off shore windfarm at Neart Na Gaoithe in the Firth of Forth.

2.0 PROCEDURE

2.1 Marine Scotland process applications for off-shore renewable energy developments of more than 1 MW within 12 nautical miles of the shore but consult relevant Local Authorities for their views on such proposals. They advertise the application and carry out direct consultation with other interested bodies. There is, therefore, no need for Scottish Borders Council to undertake a tandem process although consultation has taken place with relevant officers within the Council. Marine Scotland has made officers aware of comments received from other interested parties.

2.1 Unlike for shore windfarm development, it is Marine Scotland, rather than the planning authority, that are also the relevant enforcement authority responsible for monitoring compliance with the terms of an approval and any conditions imposed thereon.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION:

3.1 The proposed Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm is located to the north east of the Firth of Forth, 15.5 km directly east of Fife Ness. At its nearest point the proposed windfarm will be over 30 km to the north of the Scottish Borders coastline.

3.2 Neart na Gaoithe is adjacent to other proposed off shore windfarms at Inch Cape (approximately 180 turbines; 1GW) and Firth of Forth Round 3 (three phases, totalling 3.5GW). These other proposals are at different stages of the

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

planning process and it is unlikely, due to their relative distance from the Scottish Borders, that the Council will be consulted on these applications.

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

4.1 In May 2008, the Crown Estate invited developers to bid for potential offshore wind farm sites within Scottish territorial waters .The Crown Estate subsequently offered exclusivity agreements for ten sites around Scotland, with the potential to generate over 6 Gigawatts (GW). Mainstream Renewable Power was awarded one of these exclusivity agreements and is now seeking to apply to the Scottish Government for consent to construct and operate an offshore wind farm at Neart Na Gaoithe.

4.2 The proposed wind farm will cover an area of approximately 105 km2, comprising between 75 and 125 turbines, and have a maximum capacity of up to 450 megawatt (MW). The proposal sets out a range of potential turbine options ranging from 64 to 125 turbines at between 175m to 197M to blade tip height above lowest astronomical tide (LAT). The options being considered are set out table 21.2 below, which is extracted from the Environmental Statement:

Table 21.2 MW

Turbine Number of Tip height above Hub height above Rotor Options turbines lowest LAT diameter astronomical tide (LAT) 7 MW 64 197 m 115 m 164 m 6 MW 75 175.5 m 115 m 121 m 4.1 MW 109 171.25 m 115 m 112.5 m 3.6 MW 128* 175 m 115 m 120 m

* - a maximum of 125 will be constructed

4.3 At this stage, the design of the wind farm, in terms of turbine height, turbine numbers, and layout, has not been finalised. The application is therefore being progressed using a ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach, which allows flexibility for the project to evolve during the consenting process. This approach has been agreed by Marine Scotland. The Environmental Statement therefore makes its assessment of visual impacts on the basis of two scenarios: a maximum height scenario and a maximum density scenario. The turbines will be painted a pale grey colour and will have navigational and aviation lighting fitted.

4.4 There is no on-shore development within the Scottish Borders. The power cabling for the windfarm will come ashore at Thorntonloch in East Lothian and will then proceed underground to a new substation next to the existing substation at Crystal Rig II windfarm. The precise details of this connection will be subject to a section 37 application.

4.5 It is anticipated that the offshore construction would start in 2015 with the windfarm being fully commissioned by mid to late 2016.

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

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY:

5.1 There is no local planning history of relevance to the proposal.

5.2 A scoping opinion was issued by Marine Scotland and was attached with the submitted application papers at Appendix 6.1 in the Environmental Statement.

6.0 APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

6.1 The application has been supported by a full Environmental Statement (ES) which is available to view on Public Access. The ES provides an assessment of potential impacts on the following:

Geology and Water Quality Physical Processes Air Quality Nature Conservation Ornithology Marine Mammals Benthic Ecology Fish and Shellfish Ecology Commercial Fisheries Shipping and Navigation Military and Aviation Maritime Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Ordnance Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impacts Other Users

6.2 A Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment produced by Land Use Consultants has been submitted, along with a series of technical appendices addressing the topic areas outlined above.

7.0 REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

7.1 Third party representations are submitted to Marine Scotland and it is for that agency to take these into consideration when assessing the proposed development on behalf of Scottish Ministers.

8.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Principal S1 – Environmental Impact Policy N6 – Environmental Impact Policy N7 – Protection of Nature Conservation Interest Policy N9 – Maintaining Landscape Character Policy N11 – Areas of Great Landscape Value Policy N12 - Coastline Policy N14 – National Archaeological Sites Policy N15 – Regional and Local Archaeological Sites Policy N20 – Design Policy E22 – Protection of the Tourist Industry Policy I19 – Renewable Energy

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

Policy I20 – Wind Energy Developments

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011:

Principle 1 – Sustainability Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy BE2 – Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy EP2 - Areas of Great Landscape Value Policy EP4 - Coastline Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development

9.0 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Adopted SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance and other documents:

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy 2007 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy 2011 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Local Landscape Designations 2012 Supplementary Planning Guidance for Biodiversity 2005

The Borders Landscape Assessment, 1998

Scottish Government Planning Policy and Guidance:

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

Scottish Government On-line Renewables Advice PAN 1/2011 Noise PAN 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (S) Regulations 2011 PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008 PAN 58 Environmental Impact Assessment 1999 PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation

SNH On line advice on renewables

10.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Landscape Architect:

10.1 The applicant has submitted a detailed Environmental Statement including Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (SLVIA) dated February 2012, prepared by Land Use Consultants.

Table 8.4 of the SLVIA identifies a ‘Moderate’ impact on St Abb’s Head which I expect is the most significant effect on our area.

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

The ES includes a number of photomontages from coastal viewpoints such as figures 21.27.1d and 2d showing anticipated views from St Abbs. Such views, when possible in clear visibility, will perhaps be considered as objects of interest rather than giving any sense of intrusion?

In terms of potential impacts on Scottish Borders receptors, I am content that this development is acceptable.

Recommendation

I have no objection to the application on landscape / seascape grounds and I recommend that the findings of the submitted ES are accepted.

Roads Planning Officer:

10.2 Given that the proposed site is located some 30km off the coast, it is anticipated there will be no significant impact on the public road network within the Scottish Borders. However there appears to be no information on the transportation of components and materials to the site, should any part of this journey be by land. If any of the transportation routes involve the public road network within the Scottish Borders, I will require a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to be submitted for approval. The TMP should include the following information; all proposed transportation routes, swept path analysis for any abnormal load routes and details of any mitigation measures required as part of the works

Ecologist:

10.3 The Environmental Impact Assessment identifies a likely significant effect on two designated sites in Scottish Borders, Fast Castle to St Abbs Head SPA and the Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC. I note that a Habitats Regulations Appraisal has been carried out. The Competent Authority (Scottish Government) is required to carry out a Habitat Regulations Appraisal. I am content to follow the recommendations of SNH and RSPB.

Archaeologist:

10.4 Direct impacts from marine development on archaeological assets are solely the remit of Marine Scotland and Historic Scotland, so I will restrict my comments to impacts on historic environment assets within the Scottish Borders.

There will be broad visibility of the wind farm from a number of Scheduled Monuments in the Borders including the sites of Fast Castle, Kirk Hill St Abbs and Ewieside Hill. However, given the distance of the wind farm from these sites I do not feel that the visual connections to the coastline and sea that in part mark the settings of these monuments will be impacted by this development.

Given the low impacts to heritage assets in the Scottish Borders, I have no objection to this development.

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

11.0 KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

11.1 The proposed development gives rise to a range of potential landscape and environmental impacts and these are identified in the Environmental Statement that accompanies the application. A balanced judgement must be made as to whether the extent and significance of the resultant impacts allows the Council to support or formally object to the proposed windfarm.

12.0 ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

12.1 This is the first off shore windfarm proposal to be considered by the Council.

12.2 The application is supported by an Environmental Statement that has considered the potential magnitude, the significance and the acceptability of the predicted changes to the seascape, landscape and illustrated the potential visual impacts in the study area (50km which is beyond that normally required for an on-shore EIA due to the scale of the development), as well as the range of potential impacts to the marine environment.

12.3 Through reference to national guidance, Council policies and through the various submitted studies, the Environmental Statement draws a number of conclusions concerning the potential impacts of the development and their mitigation. In general, officers are content with the terms of the ES but acknowledge that there are matters such as the impacts on the physical environment, biological environment, commercial fisheries and shipping and navigational interests, which will be more appropriately addressed by other agencies and interested parties in their responses to Marine Scotland. SNH have also highlighted some concerns about the content of the ES (see 13.1 below)

Planning Policy Principle:

12.4 Wind energy development (both on-shore and off-shore) is considered positively in principle, and this project, if delivered, will make a significant contribution to meeting Scottish Government targets for renewable energy generation as set out in the SPP and in subsequent Ministerial policy statements.

12.5 The development requires to be assessed against a number of relevant policies in the Consolidated Structure Plan 2001-2018 and Consolidated Local Plan 2011. The approved Structure Plan Policy I19 “Renewable Energy” supports the development of renewable energy that is developed in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policy I20 states the criteria against which any proposals for wind farm developments will be assessed. These are

12.5 The Council’s principal Development Plan Policy for windfarm development is Local Plan Policy D4, which sets out a clear spatial preference for commercial scale windfarms when considering on-shore windfarms. However, no such

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

spatial guidance is available to assess off-shore development. Locational criteria (1) to (3) in Policy D4 focus fundamentally on land based proposals and identify the key components for a suitably accommodating landscape type. They are clearly not applicable to off shore windfarms. Similarly, the spatial strategy in the Supplementary Guidance for Windfarms gives little assistance in this respect.

12.5 Officers consider that there is no policy conflict with the provisions in respect of noise, traffic generation and access, telecommunications and aviation and the provisions for decommissioning and that these matters are adequately addressed by the terms of the Environmental Statement.

12.6 It is therefore necessary to focus on the development’s compliance with the remaining policy criteria relating to impact on landscape/seascape, a range of receptors and visual impacts.

Seascape and Landscape Character Impacts

12.7 The site lies off shore in Firth of Forth over 30km from the nearest landfall in the Scottish Borders. The ES has established through a base line Seascape Character Assessment of the east coast of Scotland (from Aberdeen to Holy Island), 21 Regional Seascape Character Areas, of which 16 are listed within the Neart Na Gaoithe study area. The key characteristics of these areas are listed along with their sensitivities to the development. In the Borders, the Seascape Units are SA18 Torness Point to St Abb’s Head, SA19 St Abbs Head to Eyemouth and SA20 Eyemouth to Berwick upon Tweed and they are identified as having medium to high sensitivity.

12.8 It is accepted that there will be both direct and indirect impacts during construction and operational periods of the windfarm and that the introduction of a large number of large structures into an area of open sea will undoubtedly change the perception of the seascape by receptors. In gauging the degree of impact, an examination of the ZVT for SA18 highlights that the development is theoretical visible along the whole coastline of this seascape, extending to most of the hinterland. The ES also accepts that views of turbines may be more likely to affect perceptions of the southern area, particularly at headlands such as Fast Castle, In respect of SA19 and SA20, the ZTV indicates theoretical visibility around the prominent St Abb’s Head, but shows that this headland would screen much of the coast to the south. As such, theoretical visibility is relatively limited in these seascapes. Whilst the turbines would be a noticeable feature in views, the distance they would be located from the Berwickshire coast line and the influence of weather conditions would limit visibility and the degree or significance of impact.

12.8 There will undoubtedly be interplay between the development and the Berwickshire coastal zone. This will, according to the ZTV, extend up to 5km inland from the East Lothian border to St Abbs Head and as mentioned already, to a lesser extent to the south of that headland. The ES identifies a number of landscape receptors in Berwickshire including the Lammermuir Hills and Berwickshire Coast AGLV’s within the extended study area (although these are now superseded by the designation of Special Landscape Areas).

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

12.9 In the Lammermuir Hills AGLV visibility is limited to hilltops and ridges, and most of the area, particularly the Scottish Borders, will have no visibility. It is accepted that from this landscape receptor the impact is negligible.

12.10 The Berwickshire Coast AGLV’s is a dramatic and open landscape, although there are forest plantations that filter some views from this landscape area. The turbines would be a visible feature on clear days but at a distance of between 32 and 35 km, it is acknowledged that they would be a relatively small feature on the wider horizon. It is accepted that the turbines would have a “low to negligible” impact on the character and appearance of the AGLV.

12.11 The Landscape Character Areas identified in the Scottish Borders Landscape Assessment are referred to in the ES and the coastal landscape character types are stated to have a “medium sensitivity” to offshore development as coastal views are an important feature of this landscape, and offshore development has the potential to affect its character. Whilst it is considered that the landscape’s sensitivity to change is higher than that specified in the ES, its findings that the impacts are “low to negligible” are accepted.

12.12 Cumulative impacts on the landscape are often addressed by considering whether an area will become a ‘wind farm landscape’. Due to its position some distance offshore, there is limited potential for the Neart na Gaoithe Wind Farm to alter the perception of adjoining character areas or landscape designations. It is accepted that the development will not result significant cumulative landscape impact.

12.13 It is accepted that the impacts on the seascape adjoining the Borders and the landscape character of the Berwickshire coastline will be limited. The policy provisions relating to these issues are complied with.

Visual Impacts:

12.14 Policy D4 requires consideration of visual effects on high sensitivity receptors including major tourist routes, residential properties, recreational users and important landscape viewpoints.

12.15 A number of visual receptors are identified at 21.5.5.2 in the ES and it is clear that the greatest potential for receptor impact in the Borders is along the coast, both for those living and working in the area but also for tourists and recreational users. Many sections of the Berwickshire coastline have a high recreational value, and as a result there are numerous coastal cliff-tops or beach-side car parks, viewpoints and short recreational walks, as well as piers and harbours in the coastal settlements.

12.16 Due to the location and distance the windfarm will be located from the Berwickshire coast only two viewpoints have been identified in the ES to represent key locations where the windfarm will be viewed and to the illustrate the potential impacts. The viewpoints are Viewpoint 20 - Coldingham Moor and Viewpoint 21 - St Abb’s Head. A range of visualisations are produced in the ES to illustrate the degree of impact for both maximum density and height scenarios at St Abb’s Head – Fig 21-27 -1a to 1c and at Coldingham Moor - Fig 21-26 -1a to 1c and Fig 21-26 -2a to 2c.

12.17 The sea view at Coldingham Moor occupies a significant percentage of the view itself and it is accepted that in good clear weather conditions, the

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

turbines will be seen in front of the distant Fife coast, which is 70 km away. In both assessment scenarios, the vertical form of the turbines and their movement will contrast with the horizontal open sea. Comparatively, both scenarios will appear similar from this viewpoint. Due to the distances involved any change in height and spread of the windfarm will be difficult to discern. It is worth noting that weather conditions will also reduce the number of days the turbines will be visible of up to 47% of the year, although that figure may be a degree optimistic.

12.18 The viewpoint from St Abbs Head has a higher degree of sensitivity due to the recreational interests, its open sea views and the rugged nature of the headland, which is without human influences. The viewpoint is only marginal closer to the application site boundary (0.2km) than viewpoint 20, so the range of impacts is broadly similar, although the spread of the development in the field of view does reduce due to the angle of view. It is accepted that the level of visual impact from both viewpoints will not be significant.

12.19 Whilst there will also be change to the both views at night through the introduction of navigational and aviation lights, this is not considered to add significantly to their impact from receptors in the Borders.

12.20 In terms of impacts on other receptors, it is considered that users of the Southern Upland Way and coastal walkways will have limited views of the windfarm. No significant impacts are predicted, due to the short section of the long distance route affected. In addition, users of the A1 Trunk Road and the railway will only experience intermittent oblique views of the windfarm. The impact on the views will often be fleeting dictated by the speeds that vehicles/trains are travelling at the time they pass through the Borders.

12.21 It is also accepted that there will be no impacts on road users in terms of distraction using coastal routes or any problems of shadow flicker to residential properties along the coast.

12.22 It is considered that the overall visual impact of the development will be within acceptable limits. The policy provisions relating to this issue are complied with.

Cumulative Visual Impact

12.23 Policy D4 states that the cumulative impact of wind farm development, including developments in adjoining local authority areas must be considered. Unacceptable cumulative impact may restrict development potential in otherwise appropriate areas. In assessing potential cumulative impact, account will be taken of the effect of perceived visual impact.

12.22 The ES includes a series of visualisations that illustrate the potential cumulative impact of the windfarm with the two other proposed off windfarms and also windfarm proposals on shore that are located close to the coastline. These are shown at St Abb’s Head - Fig 21.60.1 VP21 and 21.60.2 and Coldingham - Fig 21.59 VP20 -1 and Fig 21.59 VP20 -2. The ES considers cumulative impact on the basis of offshore and on shore development separately and from each viewpoint in turn.

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

12.23 From Coldingham Moor it is accepted that the proposed windfarm at Neart na Gaoithe would be visible in conjunction with Inch Cape (50 km) largely behind. The tips of Round 3 turbines would be visible at 65 km, slightly to the east.

12.24 In terms of on shore cumulative impacts, the viewer would be conscious when looking along the coast and towards the west of the proposed Penmanshiel and Drone Hill wind farms at close range (5 km), and of Aikengall and Crystal Rig visible to the west. There are distant theoretical views of onshore wind farms in Fife and Angus but these are so distant that they are unlikely to influence the perception of impacts from this viewpoint.

12.25 The ES accepts that the construction of Neart na Gaoithe would increase the presence of offshore turbines, but in a view already affected by a high level of onshore development. It is accepted that the degree of cumulative impact from this viewpoint is “Moderate – minor”, as specified in the ES.

12.26 The cumulative impacts offshore from St Abbs Head viewpoint would be very similar to those from Coldingham. It is also acknowledged that there would be no visibility of nearby onshore proposals. The theoretical visibility of schemes in Fife and Angus is negligible. It is accepted that the degree of cumulative impact from this viewpoint is also “Moderate – minor”.

12.26 There are concerns about the overall impact that this scale of offshore development will have on the east coast of Scotland by spreading large scale development along the coastline but in terms of immediate impact on the views from the Borders it is considered that, although there will be a noticeable intensification of visual impact, it would not be so sufficient to warrant objection.

Other Impacts

12.27 There have been objections and concerns expressed by a number of agencies and interested parties about the impact the development would have on Special Areas of Conservation, fisheries operations, fish stocks, wave formation, etc. These are matters which are most appropriately dealt with directly by Marine Scotland and those parties.

13.0 SNH RESPONSE

13.1 SNH has concerns about some of the information provided in the ES and in particular the standard of assessment of the cumulative impact of the development and how seascape and landscape character and impacts have been considered.

13.2 Notwithstanding these concerns, they indicate that in respect of the Scottish Borders coastline, Neart na Gaoithe would be seen at distances of 30-45km, lying to the north. Here the coastal landscape becomes simpler, emptier and larger scale, with broad sections of low-lying land coastal land rising eastwards to plateaux and cliffs around 200m high near St Abb’s Head. This section of coast is sparsely settled and has fewer prominent coastal features and almost no offshore islands or other features. Although it is of relatively high scenic quality and wildness, with most of the coast being AGLV, its inherent seascape, landscape and visual sensitivity to wind energy development is less than in East Lothian; in addition the windfarm is further

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

away. Seascape, landscape and visual impacts are therefore expected to be minor or locally moderate. Neart na Gaoithe wind farm is unlikely to detract significantly from the simple seascape composition that currently exists.

14.0 CONCLUSION:

14.1 The assessment of the application has been carried out in terms of the development’s implications for the Scottish Borders only. It is anticipated that other planning authorities consulted will consider the implications for their areas, which may ultimately be more consequential than those for the Scottish Borders. It will also be legitimate for Scottish Natural Heritage to consider the wider consequences for the east coast of Scotland of this development in association with the other proposed off shore windfarm developments.

14.2 In terms of impacts on the Scottish Borders, it is considered that the distance and location of the windfarm combine to limit any significant impact. At over 30km to the north of the Borders the visual and landscape impacts would be at worst moderate and would be minor or negligible from many receptors.

15.0 RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

15.1 That the Council indicate to Scottish Government that it has no objections to the application for an off-shore windfarm at Neart Na Gaoithe.

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Ian Aikman Major Applications, Review & Enforcement Manager

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

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 11/01680/FUL

OFFICER: Dorothy Amyes WARD: PROPOSAL: Wind Farm comprising 7 wind turbines, connection building, site access roads, drainage infrastructure, borrow pit and temporary site compound SITE: Land at Gilston Farm, Heriot APPLICANT: RidgeWind Ltd AGENT: SLR

BACKGROUND

This application is one of two applications for a wind farm which straddles the boundary between Midlothian and Scottish Borders Council, south of the A68 between Fala and Soutra Mains. The total area of the wind farm is 340 hectares with half of the area within each local authority boundary. It is for this reason that two applications have been submitted.

The supporting Environmental Statement refers to the wind farm as a whole as local authority boundaries are wholly artificial when considering the impacts on local environment. However, this report relates only to the application site within the Scottish Borders although reference will be made to the adjacent site, where appropriate. The planning reference for the Midlothian application is 11/00847/DPP and it can be viewed on the Midlothian Council website,

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site lies immediately to the west of the B6368 which links the A68 to the north with the A7. It stretches from just north of the small settlement of Gilston westwards up to the SBC boundary and includes the summit of Brotherstone Hill at a height of 418m above sea level.

It covers an area of approximately 170 hectares and is mainly upland grazing with a few shelterbelts. The site is on the north facing slopes of Brotherstone Hill which, as the north eastern extent of the Moorfoot Hills, coalesces with the Lammermuir Hills to form the northern edge of the Southern Uplands, as they steps down to Fala Moor and to the rolling farmland of Midlothian and East Lothian beyond. The proposed turbines will be set down from the summit with the highest located at 355m and the lowest down to the 305m.

To the east of the site is the valley of the Armet Water and then the hills rise up again to Dun Law (393m) and Turf Law (383m) forming the edge of the Lammermuir /Moorfoot plateau which at this location is covered by extensive conifer plantations.

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

The site is grassland located wholly within 2LC Lauder Common – Plateau Grassland within an Upland Landscape type as described in the Scottish Borders Landscape Assessment (BLA).

The boundary between Council areas runs in a SW /NE direction along the north west edge of the site. To the north, and within Midlothian Council area, it is bounded by the 2 Fala Moor Uplands landscape type as described above and in further detail in the Lothians Landscape Character Assessment (LLCA), and it is this landscape character area within which a further 9 turbines are proposed.

The site lies outwith any statutorily designated landscapes, designed historic gardens or Conservation Areas although the western edge is adjacent to The Fala Moor SSSI/ SPA and the Fala Moor Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). There is also likely to be runoff into the River Tweed SAC. It also lies close to Soutra Aisle and Dere Street Scheduled Monuments.

The nearest dwellinghouses to the site within SBC area are located at Gilston, Upper Brotherstone and Brothershiels (Dere Street Farm is located within Midlothian although the access is on the B6368). There is also a Right of Way which runs through Brothershiels towards and across Fala Moor. This is used as a recreational walking/riding route.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is proposed to erect 7 turbines (plus a further 9 turbines in Midlothian), each of which would have a generating capacity of 2.0MW, giving a total potential electrical output of approximately 32MW. The energy generated would be exported either via by a connection to the nearby Dun Law extension substation or to a substation by Cockenzie Power Station. It is expected that the connections would be made by underground cables.

Six of the turbines would have a hub height of 70m and a height to tip of 115m whilst one turbine (T3) would have a hub height of 60m and a tip height of 100m. They would be of typical modern design with each incorporating a tapered tubular tower and three blades attached to a nacelle that would house a turbine generator, gearbox and other generating equipment. They would be finished in a semi-matt pale grey colour and placed on a concrete base of approximately 18m diameter. An electrical transformer is to be located on hardstanding close to each turbine and the housing for this will measure 4m by 6m by 3m. The actual models of turbines used have not been confirmed as these will be subject to a competitive tendering process.

Access to the site will be from the B6368 north of Makimrich wood by way of a purpose built junction. A detailed analysis was undertaken for the most appropriate route to bring in the large loads from Leith Docks to the site. The A68 and B6368 were considered to be the most suitable option. Details of the new access indicate that it will be finished with a dry stone wall and timber gates. From the new entrance an access track of approximately 5m wide would be constructed through the site to link up all 16 turbines and to allow for construction and future maintenance. Laydown areas close to the position of the turbines will be used as passing places with a further laydown areas being provided between Turbine 3 and 4 for an additional passing place. There would also be a number of water crossings required for the access track. The site compound with a substation will be located close to the entrance to the site on the south side of the track and a concrete batching area is indicated on the plans as being adjacent to the compound.

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

It is proposed that there will be a borrow pit located to the south of Brothershiels. Access to this will be partly along the existing Right of Way/ farm track within Midlothian and then by a new track from Brothershiels southwards. The borrow pit would be approximately 80m by 100m and would yield in the region of 60,000m of aggregate. The excavated stone would be crushed on site and stored at the edge of the borrow pit. The material would be hauled by dumper truck to the wind turbine sites. While it is proposed that the Right of Way will remain open, there will be times that, for Health and Safety reasons, a temporary diversion would need to be created. Once the construction has been completed the borrow pit will be restored, details of the restoration will be contained in a Construction Management Statement (CMS) to be agreed by SBC and Midlothian Council before any construction works begin on site.

It is anticipated that the construction phase will last for a period of between 12 to 14 months and, in addition to the above, it will include clearance of vegetation and felling of woodland. However, no woodlands are to be felled within this application site although approximately 14.65Ha of trees will require to be felled within the Midlothian site.

At the peak of activity approximately 25 people will be employed on site. Once completed the wind farm will likely be managed and operated remotely with operatives on site on a weekly basis. The proposed hours of operation during the construction phase are 0700- 1900hours Monday to Friday and 0700-1300 hours on Saturday with no construction taking place on Sundays.

Planning permission is sought for an operational life of 25 years after which time the facility will be decommissioned and the site restored to the satisfaction of the Council. It is anticipated that the decommissioning could be completed within 1 year.

PLANNING HISTORY

The planning history relevant to the consideration of this application is:

Gilston

11/00607/PAN – Construction of Windfarm and Associated Works

A Pre-application Notification (PAN) was received in May 2011 and a Pre-Application Consultation Report was submitted as part of the application. Heriot and Lauder Community Councils (in addition to 3 other community councils outwith SBC area) received the PAN. An advertisement for the public events was placed in the Southern Reporter and a public event was held in the McFie Hall in Heriot on Wednesday 5 June 2012.

11/0002/FUL – Land north west of Gilston Cottages, Erection of temporary 60m anemometer mast – approved March 2011

Other relevant wind farm applications

Dunlaw

96/01130/FUL - Wind farm comprising of 31 turbines (Tower height not to exceed 42m), control building, substation, 2 monitoring masts & access roads – approved July 1997

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

05/00847/FUL - Extension to wind farm comprising 35 wind turbines (up to 75m to blade tip), turbine transformers, substation and control building, access roads and temporary borrow pits and construction compounds – approved January 2006

Toddleburn

04/01744/FUL - Construction of wind farm comprising twelve turbines and sub-station connected by access tracks and accessed via an existing track from the A7 – approved August 2005 (hub heights 65m and 80m, blade tip heights 110m and 125m). Initially refused by committee for following reason:

The proposed development would be contrary to Policy I20 of the Approved Structure Plan in that its proximity to the Dun Law Wind Farm will result in unacceptable cumulative impacts.

Appeal against this refusal sustained in January 2007

Rowantree

Section 36 application for 23 wind turbines and ancillary works (hub height 80m tip height 125m) – considered by committee in July 2010. Committee objected to application. Public Hearing held in 2012 and Reporter’s report expected to be with Scottish Ministers before the end of 2012.

Falahill

04/02420/FUL - Erection of three wind turbines with associated access tracks, a climate monitoring mast, switchgear building and temporary construction compound – refused in May 2006 (60m to hub, 101m to blade tip). Reason for Refusal:

The proposed development would be contrary to Policy I20 of the Structure Plan, Policy 84 of the Ettrick and Lauderdale Local Plan and Policy D4 of the Finalised Local Plan in that it would have a detrimental effect on landscape character and countryside amenity and Policy I20 of the Structure Plan in that it would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to the detriment of landscape character and countryside amenity.

Outwith Scottish Borders

Gilston (Midlothian) The application for the 9 turbines on the adjacent site was considered by Midlothian Planning Committee on 20 November 2012 and the decision was taken to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development will significantly exceed the capacity of the landscape around Fala Moor to accommodate a wind farm development of this scale, to an extent that it will have a significant adverse impact upon the landscape character and visual amenity of the area and the setting of the Moorfoot Hills contrary to Midlothian Local Plan policies RP6, RP7 and NRG1.

2. The proposed development would, if built, be viewed from distance with a series of other operational and consented wind farms and this cumulative impact would significantly exacerbate the detrimental impact on the landscape contrary to Midlothian Local Plan policies RP6, RP7 and NRG1.

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

3. Due to the significant difference in turbine size between the proposed wind farm and the operational wind farm at Dun Law, there would be an awkward relationship between the two wind farms which would lead to a confusion in the scale of the respective landscapes on which the opposing wind farms are located to the detriment of the landscape character of the area contrary to Midlothian Local Plan policies RP6, RP7 and NRG1.

4. The proposed wind farm development is contrary to the recommendations of the Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Turbine Development in Midlothian, adopted by Midlothian Council as a non-statutory guideline in February 2007, as this site, which is within the “Plateau Grassland” landscape character area as defined by that study, is classified as being of high sensitivity with no capacity to accommodate further wind farm development without significant adverse landscape and visual impacts.

5. The proposed wind farm development is contrary to policy NRG1 of the 2008 Midlothian Local Plan as it will; a. have an unacceptable effect on the wider environment by reason of landscape and visual impact; b. without the imposition of planning conditions, the development would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the wildlife interests of the adjacent Special Protection Area, with particular regards to ornithological interests, and also to the peat land habitats of the development site itself; c. with reference to policy RP6, it will have a significant adverse impact upon the special scenic qualities and integrity of the Area of Great Landscape Value; and d. it fails to comply with the guidance provided on siting, design and location in the report "Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Turbine Development in Midlothian”.

Dere Street (Midlothian)

Application for two wind turbines 29.9m to tip (12/00206/DPP) currently under consideration. The proposed location is to the north west of the B6368 between the proposed entrance to Gilston wind farm and the block of woodland close to Soutra Aisle.

Pogbie (East Lothian)

Pogbie Wind Farm (PWF) is a proposed 6 turbine wind farm with a capacity of 5MW located in East Lothian which was granted planning consent in 2009 by East Lothian Council (East Lothian Council ref 08/00823/FUL).

09/00029/Ful – Land East of Huntershall, Soutra Hill - formation of access track- approved but consent not issued as legal agreement not completed

11/01193/FUL - Land North East of Dun Law Wind Farm, Formation of access track and upgrading of existing wind farm access track to connect Pogbie wind farm to the public road network – approved December 2011

Keith Hill (East Lothian) Initial application (09/00010/FUL) for 10 wind turbines (110m in height) and associated infrastructure was refused by East Lothian Council and the subsequent appeal was dismissed. The reason given for the dismissal was that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the Lammermuir Hills AGLV.

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

A revised application (10/00985/FUL) for the erection of 5 wind turbines, 76m to tip height, and associated works on the same site was approved on 1 April 2011.

Access to both Pogbie and Keith Hill will be via the eastern extension of Dun Law wind farm.

Other smaller turbine applications

There are also a number of approvals for smaller scale turbines in the proximity of the proposed windfarm at Fallahill, Upper Brotherstone and Cowbraehill.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Planning Statement Pre Application Consultation Report Environmental Statement Volume 1: Non Technical Summary Volume 2: Written Statement Volume 2 Part 2: Written Statement Volume 3: Drawings Volume 4: Technical Appendices Volume 4: Technical Appendices 7C Figures and 7K Technical Appendix 7E (confidential) – Badger Survey

Addendum – Landscape and Visual Amenity - May 2012

Report – Technical Clarification to SEPA response - May 2012 Report – Landscape response to submissions by SNH, Scottish Borders Landscape Section and Midlothian Landscape Officer – September 2012 Report – Addendum Noise Report – September 2012 Report – Response to Scottish Borders Council consultation advice in respect of Archaeology – August 2012 Report – Actual Vs Theoretical Visibility – September 2012

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

PRINCIPLE S1 - Environmental Impact POLICY N1 - Local Biodiversity Action Plan POLICY N2 - International sites POLICY N3 - National Sites POLICY N5 – Local Biodiversity Action POLICY N6 - Environmental Impact POLICY N7 - Protection of Nature Conservation Interest POLICY N9 - Maintaining Landscape Character POLICY N13 - Gardens and Designed Landscapes POLICY N14 - National Archaeological Sites POLICY N15 - Regional and Local Archaeological Sites POLICY N16 - Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording POLICY N17 - Listed Buildings POLICY N20 – Design POLICY E16 – Rural Economic Development POLICY E22 - Protection of the Tourist Industry POLICY C8 - Access Network

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

POLICY I13 - Water Quality POLICY I14 - Surface Water POLICY I19 - Renewable Energy POLICY I20 - Wind Energy Developments

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

PRINCIPLE 1 – Sustainability POLICY G1 - Quality Standards for New Development POLICY BE1 - Listed Buildings POLICY BE2 - Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments POLICY BE3 - Gardens and Designed Landscapes POLICY NE1 - International Nature Conservation Sites POLICY NE2 - National Nature Conservation Sites POLICY NE3 - Local Biodiversity POLICY NE4 - Trees Woodlands and Hedgerows POLICY NE5 - Development affecting the Water Environment POLICY D4 – Renewable Energy POLICY H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity POLICY INF2 - Protection of Access Routes POLICY INF6 - Sustainable Urban Drainage POLICY D1 – Business, Tourism and Leisure Developments in the Countryside

Other Planning Considerations

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy - approved May 2011 The Borders Landscape Assessment 1998. Visibility Mapping for Windfarm Developments – The Scottish Borders October 2003. Landscape and Development SPG (approved March 2008) Local Biodiversity Action Plan (launched June 2001) Renewable energy SPG (approved March 2007)

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(Scotland) Regulations 2011 Scottish Planning Policy National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 Planning Advice Note 2/2011- Planning and Archaeology Planning Advice Note 45: Renewable Energy Technologies 2002(revoked) Planning Advice Note 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation (revised 2006). Planning Advice Note 1/2011: Planning and Noise Planning Advice Note 58: Environmental Impact Assessment 1999. Planning Advice Note 60: Planning for Natural Heritage 2000. Planning Advice Note 73: Rural Diversification 2005.

Historic Scotland - Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2009 Historic Scotland - Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Setting 2010

SNH - Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind farms in respect of natural heritage. SNH – Wind farms impacts on Birds Guidance

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

INTERNAL CONSULTEES

Planning & Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(c)

Archaeologist:

There are archaeological implications for this proposal. There will be both direct and indirect impacts on the historic environment as a result of this development. There will be moderate to major impacts where mitigation is necessary. If the suggested mitigation cannot be accommodated, the proposal would be contrary to the SBC Structure Plan and should be refused.

At present, the scheme poses one major direct impact to the historic environment and one potential indirect impact of major significance. The removal of Turbine 6 from the scheme and upfilling infrastructure elements within the area of rig and furrow would mitigate the first impact. A legal agreement to retain the woodland south-west of Soutra Aisle would mitigate the second. If neither of these can be achieved, then it is recommended that the scheme is contrary to Structure Plan Policies N14 and N15 and should be refused.

If the Council is minded to approve this scheme, it is recommended that conditions relating to the following are placed on any consent:

• A suitably worded condition seeking a pre-development paleoenvironmental evaluation on any deep peat that will be affected by development • A Developer Funded Watching Brief • In Situ Protection of Archaeological Features • Notification in advance of Archaeological Works

Landscape Architect:

There are concerns that the LVIA may not accurately reflect the visual effects of the turbines on the sensitive receptors. It is considered that some of the viewpoints were poorly chosen, particularly along the A68. It is also considered that the photomontages, while useful, do not convey the true visual effect under all conditions and therefore must be treated with an appropriate degree of caution.

In consideration of the proposed development this has been assessed against Local Plan Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development and the following comments are made:

x the introduction of turbines into the lower lying rolling landscape beneath (to the north of) the Southern Upland landmass will be detrimental to the perceived scale and character of the area and to panoramic views to and from the north. x the additional cumulative visual impact of this proposal together with the existing Dun Law windfarm and consented Pogbie (within East Lothian) windfarm would be unacceptable when viewed from the north.

x As the majority of the visual effects of this application will be on the Midlothian area it is recommended that due weight is given to the considerations of Midlothian Council.

Taking all of the above into account, on landscape and visual grounds, it is considered that the application cannot be supported.

Access Officer:

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

According to the records held by Scottish Borders Council there is 1 Right of Way on this area of land as detailed below:

Rights of Way Code BE4 Start (Approx. Grid Ref) A7 roadside (NT 404549) Finish (Approx. Grid Ref) Brothershiels Farm (NT 420560) Length 2.25 km

If planning consent is granted a planning condition should be placed on the consent to ensure that the Right of Way remains open and free from obstruction at all times. Any temporary diversions must be agreed in advance with the local planning authority.

Ecologist:

No objections to the proposals but have serious concerns regarding the regionally important black grouse population. Consider that the detailed Ecological Impact Assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is acceptable.

The potential impacts on the River Tweed SAC are likely to be mitigated by standards mitigation techniques. It is unlikely that an Appropriate Assessment will be required.

Potential impacts may arise from the proposed development that may affect Fala Flow SPA located within Midlothian, a site designated for internationally important numbers of passage and wintering pink-footed geese. The detailed impact assessment suggests that no significant impacts from collision, disturbance and displacement will arise. Whilst approved methodologies have been adopted, it is possible that a more qualitative assessment is required on a precautionary basis given the international designation. Observations are unlikely to be made during poor visibility when birds are most vulnerable to collision risk, nor where night time observations made.

The site contains a regionally important population of large heath butterfly (UKBAP species), which is associated with blanket bog habitat. There are only 18 sites recorded in Scottish Borders 1995-2006. Two populations were identified, the larger one being in the east of the site in Scottish Borders. Infrastructure of the proposed development avoids these bog sites. Mitigation measures will be required so that no disturbance areas are set up and that no vehicles, compounds or storage of chemicals are allowed in areas that may directly or indirectly affect the site.

Habitats The habitats are largely of moderate or low conservation value but include areas of high conservation value (blanket bog and acid fen). There are opportunities to enhance habitats on the site, including habitats within the area proposed for felling.

Turbines 5 and 7 and crane pad appear to be on peat 51-100cm deep. This turbine should be re-sited to avoid peat >50cm deep.

Ornithology other than Fala Flow SPA qualifying interest

Vantage Point watches have been carried out and the approach is consistent with SNH guidance. A collision risk estimate of 1 peregrine lost every 25 years is not significant.

Breeding waders

Planning & Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(c)

To address impacts of disturbance and displacement, mitigation will be required including habitat measures for lowland breeding waders on-site and off-site as appropriate. If works are to be carried out during the breeding bird season, checking surveys for breeding birds and bird mitigation plans will be required to be implemented.

Should consent be granted for the proposed development, adopting the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for biodiversity, then a number of conditions should apply relating to:

• a goose mitigation and monitoring plan • checking surveys for protected species (including otter, badger, breeding birds • If mature trees are subsequently to be removed, checking surveys for bats • Felling operations to be consistent with the requirements of FCS guidance for protected species including European Protected Species, badger and breeding birds • Species Mitigation and Management Plan • Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan • the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works shall be appointed to carry out pre-construction surveys, to inform an Environmental Management Plan and to oversee compliance with the EMP. • a Construction Method Statement, Ecological Mitigation Statement, Environmental Management Plan and Decommissioning Methods Statement. x A Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) monitoring programme

Environmental Health Officer:

Noise Comments - No objections.

Noise levels from the combined effects of the wind turbines at any noise sensitive premises (in existence at the time of the permission) shall not exceed an external free field level LA90, 10min level of the greater of 35dB(A) or 5dB(A), at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s, above the agreed prevailing background noise level during amenity hours, and 43dB(A) during night hours.

Any tonal elements in the noise spectra shall be assessed using the joint Nordic Method and the tone level shall not exceed 2dB above the ‘Masking Threshold for Tones in Noise’.

Noise measurements shall be taken using the methodology contained in ETSU-R-97.

Roads Planning Officer:

No objections in principle subject to conditions relating to the submission of details for the new access, public road improvements along B6368 from site entrance to junction with A68, a traffic management plan for the construction period, a programme of monitoring public roads during the construction phase and the payment to SBC of any extraordinary road maintenance costs and measures to prevent dust and mud entering the public road.

Although, ideally the construction materials should be sourced on site, there would be no objections if they were to be sourced from Soutra Quarry. It is recognised that this would require a temporary suspension of the restriction of vehicles from the

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

quarry using the B6368 and Roads Planning would need to be satisfied that vehicles from the quarry would not use the B6368 to access the A7 and that the quarry access was reinstated once the construction phase has been completed.

EXTERNAL CONSULTEES

SNH

Note that the applicant has submitted a single ES to cover both development sites (this was agreed in advance after discussions with both planning authorities) and have concerns about this. SNH considers that this approach has not been undertaken in accordance with best practice, results in a lack of information to inform the decision-making process and is wholly inappropriate. All references to the landscape and visual effects of the scheme/proposal/wind farm should be considered to refer to the combined schemes subject of both planning applications.

SNH consider there are matters of local and regional importance presented by this application in terms of the nature of landscape and visual impacts that will result. In relation to other impacts on the natural heritage, it is our opinion that these can be adequately addressed through the use of conditions on any permission granted.

Landscape and visual impacts

SNH have serious concerns regarding the landscape and visual effects arising from the siting and design of the proposed (combined) windfarm at this location which can be summarised as follows:

1. The adverse landscape and visual effects arising from the scale and visual prominence of the proposal when seen within its local landscape context and as will be experienced by a wide variety of receptors within 10km; 2. The adverse nature of landscape and visual effects that will be experienced from receptors using the key road corridors of the A7 and A68. Such effects will also be frequently experienced cumulatively (both in combination and sequentially) with other existing or consented developments; 3. The generally poor siting and design relationship of the proposal to the nearby existing windfarm developments at Dun Law (phase 1 and 2) and the consented proposals at Pogbie and Keith Hill, which we consider will result in adverse cumulative effects, potentially promoting a sense of uncoordinated windfarm development over a wider area.

River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Do not consider it likely that there will be a significant effect on its qualifying interests from the construction and operation of this windfarm, providing that all appropriate mitigation measures are implemented to prevent any impact on watercourses on and around the site.

Fala Flow Special Protection Area (SPA)

Agree with the conclusion that the proposed development is not likely to have a significant effect on the pink footed geese (PFG) interests for which the nearby Fala Flow SPA/SSSI is designated, despite the proximity of the site.

Other Ecological Issues

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

These can be adequately addressed through the use of conditions on any planning permission granted.

NATs Safeguarding: Object to the proposal for the following reasons:

The radar safeguarding assessment reveals that the development is located within an area where there is insufficient terrain shielding from the Primary Radar Service at Kincardine. Due the distance from the radar it is anticipated that the reflected power will be of adequate value to be detected and consequently generate false plots. A reduction in the radar’s probability of detection, for real targets, is also expected. The operational assessment has determined that this would have an unacceptable negative impact on the operations of Prestwick ATC. There have been further discussions between the applicant and NATs Safeguarding and a possible technical solution has been found and agreed in principle. However, until final agreement has been reached on how this will be achieved and guarantees put in place for implementation, the objection remains.

Scottish Water:

No objections

Health and Safety Executive:

No comments

Transport Scotland:

Overall there will be a minimal increase in traffic on the trunk road during the operation of the facility therefore the proposed development is not likely to have a significant impact on the operation of the trunk road network. However, it is likely that as many of the construction loads may be categorised as abnormal, authorisation from our management organisations Amey and BEAR Scotland may be required. It is advisable that they are consulted as to the feasibility of transportation of these items to site. Due to the frequency and number of these loads it is UK policy to restrict these movements via the nearest suitable port.

Scottish Badgers:

Seek assurance that any setts (as identified in the Badger Survey report which is confidential) will be monitored for a reasonable time prior to the commencement of construction and that any necessary mitigation required will be put in place should the sett be found to have been put back into use by badgers.

As long as neither of the access route and the power extraction route do not impact on any badger setts then no other problems with this application.

MOD:

Initially, objected to the proposal as some of the turbines would be detectable by and would cause unacceptable interference to the ATC radar at Deadwater Fell, RAF Spadeadam.

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

This objection was subsequently removed for the 7 turbines within SBC boundary.

MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point.

Defence Infrastructure Organisation Safeguarding wishes to be consulted and notified of the progression of planning applications and submissions relating to this proposal to verify that it will not adversely affect defence interests. If planning permission is granted we would like to be advised of the following; xthe date construction starts and ends; xthe maximum height of construction equipment; xthe latitude and longitude of every turbine. This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure that military aircraft avoid this

Historic Scotland:

No objections. There will be no significant impacts, either direct or indirect, on any nationally important heritage assets.

JRC:

Initially objected to the proposal but objection removed when the turbine positions were specified and the dimensions confirmed.

Heriot Community Council:

Objects to the proposals for reasons which are summarised as follows:

x Heriot already has Carcant and Toddleburn wind farms within its boundaries, the Dun Law complex is close to its boundary as well. Heriot is also a member of the group of 7 Community Councils that are objecting to the proposal to build Rowantree wind farm, just to the south of Toddleburn. The common position of the group of CCs is that Lauderdale and Gala Water are at risk of reaching saturation point from the number of wind farms that can be accommodated in a very small area. x Impact on Fala Flow SSSI and Ramsar Site x Loss of woodland x Impact on landscape of access roads x Effect on recreational users along existing path and walkers with distance views of turbines x implications for the geology and wild life of the area particularly black grouse lek x damage to peat x visual impact for local residents, including cumulative impact x impact on landscape x impact on tourism and grouse moors x Cumulative Impact - strong sequential impact on roads users in particular as they travel along the A68 and A7. x Noise - 3 groups of properties at Brothershiels, Gilston and Upper Brotherstone will be very close to the limits laid down by ETSU-R-97. So close in fact, that any small difference would breach the ETSU limits.

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

x Construction noise assessment needs revision as consider number of mistakes and a number of properties that should have been included. x do not however accept the bland assertion that the large winter population of geese will simply accept the close proximity of major construction disturbance. x consider the suggestion that the geese will generally just manage to avoid the turbines and so few will get killed to be very questionable. x consider that the most likely event if the wind farm goes ahead is that the transformation of the area, and the huge disturbance, will result in the geese deserting the area for good.

The community council considered that the proposed wind farm breaches a number of the policies set out in SBC Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development. It should therefore be refused planning permission.

Oxton and Channelkirk Community Council:

Object to the application on the following grounds:

x The continuous development of wind farms in the local area of Lauderdale, giving rise to a negative visual impact for the area x The development of wind farms in close proximity to residential properties giving rise to an unacceptable noise impact for these residents x The continuous development of wind farms is a localised area, providing loss of amenity value to this area

Lauderdale Community Council:

No comment

SEPA:

Initially, objected on grounds of a lack of information in relation to the re-use and disposal of excavated peat. Further information was provided by the applicant and the objection was removed.

SEPA welcomes the general mitigation principles and pollution prevention measures which have been set out within this document and throughout the ES. In line with this, they request that a condition is attached to any approved consent requiring the submission of a full, site specific Environmental Management Plan, prior to works commencing. They provide further advice on what they would expect to be covered in the EMP.

They are pleased to note that a National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey has been carried out to inform the site design process and ensure the protection of wetlands (Technical Appendix 7B) and welcome the Outline Habitat Management Plan (Technical Appendix 7K) and in particular the objective to enhance areas of blanket bog as identified under Aim 1.

It is acknowledged through the ES that there is Groundwater Dependant Terrestrial Ecosystem’s (GWDTEs) present within the site, however SEPA are satisfied that the design of the proposal has largely avoided the more sensitive areas. In addition,

Planning & Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6(c) where there may be a degradation of GWDTEs, adequate habitat enhancement has been proposed as mitigation.

SEPA are generally satisfied that the design layout has avoided deeper areas of peat where possible. However, Figure A4-1 indicates that Turbine 5 is located on peat with a depth of between 0.5 and 1 metre. It is expected that final site infrastructure will be micro-sited and SEPA would request that impact on peatland in this area is specifically considered through this process. SEPA would expect the requested EMP to detail any proposals for micro-siting and any changes to layout should be discussed with SEPA prior to the plan being finalised.

Borrow pits

The proposed borrow pit is located in close proximity to the Stobbingdean Burn. It is proposed to contain surface water within the borrow pit and pump this out once settlement has occurred. However, it is not clear that the proposed 1 in 100 gradient for the borrow pit would provide sufficient capacity to contain and allow settlement of surface waters and in addition, the volume of water ingress in the event of groundwater inflow being encountered could be considerable.

Pollution events have occurred at nearby wind farm sites involving siltation from borrow pit run-off and there has been resulting impact on a significant reach of the Tweed Special Area of Conservation. SEPA therefore advise that additional settlement ponds should be planned and constructed prior to the borrow pit excavations. Suitable areas of ground for pumping waters for infiltration should also be considered. If surplus peat from the development is being used for borrow pit restoration, this should be confirmed and agreed with SEPA as there may be waste management implications.

Engineering activities in the water environment

Five watercourse crossings are proposed within the Scottish Borders Council boundary as part of the access track construction (numbers 1,8,9,10 and 11 as detailed on drawing number GW9-10). The proposed crossing will require authorisation from us under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 CAR). SEPA is satisfied that the proposed crossings are capable of consent, and recommend that the applicant contact a member of our local operations team in order to discuss the crossing options in more detail. The design of the watercourse crossings must be agreed with SEPA prior to construction starting at the site.

Scottish Government:

No comments in relation to air quality and noise

Scotways:

The National Catalogue of Rights of Way shows that right of way LM29/BE4 is affected by the area shown on the Site Location plan. Our records show that this right of way has been signposted and waymarked, and also that it is promoted in various guides for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Right of way LM29 has also been identified by the Heritage Paths project as being of historic interest; it appears on the project's website as the Fala Moor Road.

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

The Environmental Statement acknowledgeds the existence of the right of way and states that "Ridge Wind will seek to ensure that access along the core path is not impeded during the construction works whilst complying with health and safety" (p38). This statement is to be welcomed; the Society asks that it is made a condition of planning consent that right of way LM29/BE4 remains open and free from obstruction during construction, operation and de-commissioning of the proposed wind farm.

The Society suggests that any signage or other measures deemed appropriate to safeguard recreational access be agreed in advance with the access teams at Scottish Borders and Midlothian Councils.

It is acknowledged that the right of way across the site is quite well used and it is stated that there will be "a moderate adverse impact on the amenity of recreational users within the Site due to the construction works".

Scotways also has concerns about the proximity of several turbines to the path. These are located within the Midlothian site.

BAA:

No objections

OTHER CONSULTEES

Forestry Commission:

Comments relate to proposed removal of 14.65ha of existing woodland and compensatory planting. This lies within the Midlothian site.

RSPB:

RSPB Scotland is generally supportive of the use of renewable energy, but believes that the locations of wind farms must be carefully selected to avoid negative impacts on sites and species of conservation importance.

This scheme extends into the adjoining Scottish Borders Council (SBC) authority in the form of seven turbines and associated infrastructure (SBC ref 11/01680/FUL). The Midlothian part of the development cannot be considered in isolation from the Borders as any ecological impacts of the respective sections will not be wholly independent and, in certain instances, may compound each other. The response therefore applies to both applications.

RSPB Scotland has serious concerns in relation to a number of potential impacts on bird populations and has the following observations to make on the proposed development and the findings reported in the ES.

Pink-footed Geese

The flights recorded (see, in particular, Figure GW6-8) indicate that relatively few of the high numbers of birds recorded leaving and entering the Fala Flow roost passed directly through the proposed wind farm area. The collision risk mortality derived from Vantage Point watches indicate a predicted mortality that is not significant at a local or national level.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(c)

Nevertheless, we remain concerned that in this particular instance, where such a large number of roosting birds is involved, a potentially significant risk remains. Birds could be vulnerable when, for example, poor visibility and wind direction combine to divert them towards the turbines. Given the proximity to the SPA, a precautionary approach should be undertaken with respect to potential impacts on qualifying species. A strategy of mitigation should, therefore, be employed that includes shutting down turbines at times when the geese are most at risk by dint of numbers and weather conditions.

Black Grouse

Black grouse is a Red Listed species of conservation concern and a Biodiversity Action Plan priority species. It has experienced significant local and national declines in recent years with south-east Scotland experiencing the greatest population loss. A black grouse lek was recorded at the development site in both 2010 and 2011. The number of birds was small but the lek represents a potentially important link between the Lammermuir Hills and Moorfoots populations of the species. The former population has experienced a particularly sharp decline over recent years. It is important, therefore, that connectivity between the areas is maintained and not disrupted by the wind farm.

Habitat restoration and creation for black grouse would, therefore, be expected in mitigation of this local population. The developer should contribute towards habitat restoration and other measures currently being undertaken to benefit the species in the Lammermuir Hills, details of which may be obtained from SNH and the SBC ecologist.

Access by vehicular traffic and any construction works during the black grouse lekking season (March to May) should not take place between one hour before and two hours after sunrise to avoid disturbing the birds.

Curlew

Curlew has experienced a 51% national decline over the past 12 years. The global conservation status of the species has recently been raised by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to “Near threatened” on account of its more general decline.

The survey found three pairs of curlew within the Midlothian section of the proposed development, with three more just outwith it to the north (Fig GW6-15 refers). These numbers are not significant at a regional or local level. Appropriate off-site measures to benefit this species would, nevertheless, be required in light of (a) the species’ local, national and international conservation status, and (b) breeding birds are known to be displaced by wind farm developments (as per the research by Pearce- Higgins et al 2009, cited in the ES).

Habitat improvement for curlew should, therefore, be provided. Measures should also be taken to benefit lapwing, another species that has undergone a significant recent decline (33% in 12 years) and is presently Red Listed. Three breeding pairs were recorded in the wind farm site, and one just outwith it to the north-west.

In order to maintain net regional biodiversity interests, including wading birds, while avoiding impacting upon the botanical integrity of the moor, appropriate habitat improvement measures at suitable sites elsewhere in the region should be

Planning & Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6(c) considered as part of a broader contribution to community/environmental enhancement by the developers.

Woodland

This relates to the removal of trees in the MiIdlothian site.

Summary

The ecological effects of the proposed development with existing, approved and planned wind farms in the area need to be addressed in terms of cumulative habitat loss, hazard to birds in flight, and displacement of birds through disturbance and habitat modification. Suggest that if the Council is minded to grant consent, that mitigation measures are secured through a number of conditions.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Nineteen representations have been received; fifteen (from twelve separate households and from Burncastle Estate and Raeshaw Farms Ltd) raise objections to the proposal, while the remaining four support the application.

The objections can be summarised as follows: x Proliferation of wind farms in area and particularly along B6368 which are both environmentally and aesthetically destructive, a ‘wind farm too far’ x Over-provision of wind farms in area x Cumulative impact at odd with benefits it brings x Location inappropriate x Increase in traffic x Contrary to policy as proposal will affect landscape, water environment and biodiversity x industrialising the landscape, damaging tourism x Adjacent to Fala Moor SSSI which has a rich biodiversity of soils, wildlife and natural environment offering a bleak untouched landscape matched by no other in the area x Impact on users of bridleway linking A7 to A68 x Will ruin walk along Falamoor x Visual impact and cumulative impact x Trees which act as screening will be felled during lifetime of windfarm x Impact on Soutra Aisle valuable tourist attraction and archaeological site x Loss of peat bog x Impact on residents of noise/pollution/road safety related to borrow pit and transportation of materials x Impact of borrow pit /transport on adjacent streams and wildlife x Residents’ water supply spring close to borrow pit x Assessment of flight path of geese may not be accurate/right of way x Detrimental impact on bird populations including Black grouse habitats x Impact on adjacent estates and commercial shooting

Issues relating to rights or wrongs of government policy on wind as a renewable energy and value of properties are not material to the consideration of this planning application.

The support comments can be summarised as follows:

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

x Ideal location as turbines will hardly be visible from A68 and A7 x No towns or villages will be affected x None of houses at Brothershiels will look directly into the site x Site has all attributes for efficient generation with minimal environmental impact x Significant green energy will be produced x Will provide employment in the area

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main planning issues relevant to the determination of this application are whether or not the proposals comply with national and local planning policies governing the location of wind turbine developments, particularly in relation to landscape and visual impact, cumulative impact, noise, traffic, tourism, recreation natural and cultural heritage.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning policy

National Planning Policy

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) published in 2010 sets out the national policies on planning matters including renewable energy developments. Para.37 of this document states that “The planning system has an important role in supporting the achievement of sustainable development through its influence on the location, layout and design of new development. Decision making in the planning system should contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in line with the commitment to reduce emissions by 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, contribute to reducing energy consumption and to the development of renewable energy generation opportunities”.

These targets are set in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 which requires all public bodies to act:

• in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of the emissions targets in the Act, • in the way best calculated to help deliver the Government’s climate change adaptation programme, and • in a way that it considers is most sustainable.

The Scottish Government targets for electricity to be generated from renewable sources have increased from figures of 80% by 2020 and 31% by 2011, to 100% by 2020.

Whilst other technologies will contribute in the longer term, hydro and on-shore wind farms will be the main contributors to meeting this target. Planning authorities are encouraged to support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 6(c)

Guidance is given in the SPP on the criteria that should be included in Development Plans. It also notes that when considering cumulative impact, planning authorities should take account of existing wind farms, those which have permission and valid applications for wind farms which have not been determined. Decisions should not be unreasonably delayed because other schemes in the area are at a less advanced stage in the application process.

The SPP also states that that planning authorities give full consideration to sites that have ease of connection to the existing grid thus allowing early achievement of this target.

Scottish Borders Planning Policy

The development requires to be assessed against a number of relevant policies in the Consolidated Structure Plan 2001-2018 and Consolidated Local Plan 2011. The approved Structure Plan policy I19 “Renewable Energy” supports the development of renewable energy that is developed in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Structure Plan also identifies areas for search for wind energy developments based upon a broad methodology of designated landscape sites being marked as sensitive. Diagram 18 in the Structure Plan consequently demonstrates that the site falls within a Preferred Area of Search.

Policy I20- Wind Energy Developments states the criteria against which any proposals for wind farm developments will be assessed against. These are:

x Impact on the landscape character of the areas, and neighbouring \Structure Plan areas, as guided by Landscape Character Assessments x Structure Plan environmental policies x Impact of noise on residential and other noise sensitive developments x Interference with aircraft activity x Significantly increased risk of shadow flicker or driver distraction or x Any unacceptable cumulative impacts.

All Structure Plan policy assessment must be guided by the Borders Landscape Assessment.

The Adopted Local Plan supports large scale and community scale renewable energy development through policy D4 Renewable Energy Development. This policy sets out the key features considered necessary in identifying appropriate locations for wind farm developments. Appropriate locations normally being (a) within large scale landscape settings defined as Upland Type in the Landscape Classification hierarchy

Planning & Building Standards Committee 20 Item No. 6(c) contained in the Borders Landscape Assessment, and (b) enclosed by surrounding landform thereby minimising external visibility of the development.

The area where the windfarm is proposed is described in the Borders Landscape Assessment (BLA) as ‘wholly within 2LC Lauder Common – Plateau Grassland within an Upland Landscape type. it is located ‘in the central section of the Moorfoot/ Lammermuir plateau bounded by the valleys of the Gala Water and the Leader….distinguished from the main ‘parent’ type’ (1Moorfoot Plateau/1Lammermuir Plateau) ‘by a slightly lower elevation and a dominance of grassland cover.’ It is characterised as having a:

• Large scale, rolling plateau topography with gentle slopes and smooth relief • Vegetation cover dominated by coarse grassland with localised patches of heather moorland, rush pasture and scattered small coniferous plantations and shelterbelts • Low density settlement with widely dispersed farm buildings • Open panoramic views

Whilst these policies are generally supportive of renewable energy development, they set out a series of criteria against which any particular scheme should be assessed. As noted above the site falls within a Preferred Area of Search and thus this satisfies the first of the criteria. The remainder are addressed below under Landscape and visual impacts.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Wind Energy was approved in May 2011 and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Appendix E of the SPG is the Spatial Strategy and this indicates that the application site is located within an area of ‘Moderate Constraints (Higher)’.

An SPG on Local Landscape Designations was approved in August 2008. This document contains a review and update of Local Landscape Designations. The site does not lie within any proposed Special Landscape Areas (SLA). However, it is noted that the western boundary of the Lammermuir Hills SLA is located along the A68 from the top of Soutra southwards.

Landscape and visual impacts

All wind farms by their very scale and location will have a visual impact on the landscape. The main question is whether the impact that the proposed Gilston wind turbines is considered to be acceptable or whether the impacts are so significantly adverse for the application not to be supported. By considering the proposals in relation to the criteria set out in policy D4, it is possible to reach a conclusion on this.

Criterion 2 is concerned with landscape settings and states that those defined as Upland type will normally be more acceptable that other types. The site is within an Upland type landscape as defined by the BLA. However, it is considered that although it is located within an Upland landscape type, being on the very edge of the character area it is more akin to an upland fringe landscape type with the site visually relating more to the rolling farmland of the Fala Moor and North Lammermuir Platform landscape character areas and therefore less able to accommodate the very largest (i.e. 80+m to tip) turbines. The proposed development would introduce large turbines (100m -115m) into a medium scale landscape and create a visual intrusion

Planning & Building Standards Committee 21 Item No. 6(c) on the Southern Uplands when viewed from the north, both from surrounding settlements and from the A68 (a sensitive receptor).

The introduction of an additional windfarm in this location would contrast with the existing windfarm on Dun Law in scale and in its relationship to the Southern Upland landmass, when viewed from the north, creating a confusing image, neither relating particularly well to the skyline or to the horizontal emphasis of the Uplands.

Criterion 2 favours locations where the surrounding topography minimises the external visibility of the development. The ZTV adequately demonstrates that the major visual effect will be to the north with the intervening topography of the Southern Uplands which, running in a south west/ north east direction, greatly limiting the impact on the Scottish Borders. Within Scottish Borders, within a 5km radius of the outermost turbines, there will a high degree of visibility from the section of the Lammermuirs immediately to the east of A68, from the Moorfoot Hills immediately to the west of A7, and from the uplands immediately to the east and south of the application site which lie between Dun Law and Hangingshaw Hill. When the original application at Dun Law (immediately to the south east of this application, where there are currently 61 turbines with tip heights of 63.5m and 75m) was under consideration a considerable amount of effort was put into keeping the developments away from the northern edge of the Southern Uplands land mass, in order create the best relationship with the Southern Uplands and to minimise the visual impact on settlements in the Lothians. The proposal for a wind farm at this location negates the efforts made to limit the landscape and visual impact of the Dun Law wind farm by introducing an even larger scale wind farm into this visually sensitive landscape.

While the existing turbines on Dun Law ‘skyline’ when viewed travelling south along the A68, as this is restricted to only a few stretches of the road, and these are over 5km from the nearest turbine, the visual impact is deemed as not being prominent, with the wind farm seen as part of the wider landscape. This would not be the case with the much taller turbines proposed which would dominate much of the immediate surrounding landscape to the north.

Criterion 4 deals with the landscape impacts on high sensitivity receptors. Despite the low visibility from the majority of the Borders, there are concerns about the extent of the visual effect on areas to the north and particularly on the A68 over a 7.5km stretch approaching the Borders (Soutra Hill) from the north (most of which is within 5km of the nearest turbine.) The visual effect on the setting of Soutra Aisle is also of concern, despite the current screening offered by the coniferous plantation, there is potential for the landscape setting of this historic site to be further diminished, when the plantation is felled in the future. This is clearly demonstrated in Drawing GW5-30 Viewpoint 6 Soutra Aisle.

Criterion 5 (i) deals with impact on landscape character and ‘remote’ qualities of an area. As noted above it is suggested that the landscape character of the site is transitional between an Upland and an Upland Fringe type and it is considered that turbines of this scale could have a significant negative effect on the character of the area, by dominating it and destroying to a high degree, the characteristics that make this medium scale landscape, special. The site on the slopes of Brotherstone Hill could not considered as be regarded as exhibiting ‘remote qualities’ but located in such close proximity to Fala Moor, would affect the ‘remote’ qualities that Fala Moor exhibits.

5(ii) This criterion deals with views from ‘sensitive receptors’ and is covered in 4 above.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 22 Item No. 6(c)

5(iii and ix) Both these criteria deal with assessing the cumulative impact of wind farm developments. There are concerns about both the coincident cumulative and sequential cumulative impacts of this development when viewed from various points on the A68 south of Pathhead, as well as from some residential receptors, when viewed in conjunction with the existing wind farm on Dun Law (61no turbines with tip heights of 63.5m and 75m). There are also concerns that the location of the development on what is transitional between an upland moorland landscape and a medium scale land use pattern associated with agriculture on the north facing slopes could appear discordant, particularly relative to the existing turbines on Dun Law, when viewed from the north and particularly from points on the A68 trunk road.

SNH, whilst not objecting to the application have also expressed serious concerns regarding the landscape and visual effects arising from the siting and design of the proposed (combined) wind farm at this location for similar reasons to those noted above.

The applicants have submitted a response to the comments on landscape made by SBC, Midlothian and SNH. The report concludes that there is no need to revise the findings of the landscape and visual impact assessment contained in the ES. The applicants are of the view that the position remains that on balance, the proposed wind farm generally complies with development plan policy, it is supported by many of the relevant material considerations and that there are no material justifications that justify refusal of the proposed wind farm. Additional information was also submitted showing actual v theoretical visibility assessment.

Notwithstanding this additional information, it is considered that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the immediate landscape of Fala Moor which is designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value, on the setting of Soutra Aisle (if the tree belt is removed), will breach the area of containment achieved with the nearby consented applications and will not relate well to these existing turbines both in scale and layout.

Access and transportation

The proposed access to the site would be from a location off the B6368 to the north of Makimrich Wood with vehicles coming to the site travelling along the A68 and B6368. Clearly, the most intense period of traffic generation will be during the construction phase which it is predicted will be within the first year of the development. Figures are given for HGV trip generation for the worst case scenarios where the material and concrete are delivered from off site. The applicant has tried to reduce these number by proposing that there is a borrow pit and concrete batching plant on site. However, it is considered that the location of the borrow pit and the haul road connecting this to the turbine sites will have a significant adverse impact on the residents of Brothershiels and the applicants have agreed that materials may have to be brought into the site from elsewhere. However, if the material is brought from Soutra Quarry which has its own concrete batching plant then the impact of these vehicular movements would be restricted to a small stretch of the B6368. There are no residential properties directly along this stretch of road that would be directly affected by this additional traffic, although Dere Street Farm access is on this stretch of road and there would be some impact on regular users of this road. Roads Planning Services have raised no objections to this although it is recognised that there is an existing restriction (through a planning condition) on vehicles turning left

Planning & Building Standards Committee 23 Item No. 6(c) out of the quarry entrance. A temporary amendment to this condition would be required.

It is considered that the increase in vehicular movements generated along the A68 would be minimal and Transport Scotland have raised no objections to the proposal as it would not have a significant impact on the operation of the trunk road network. It is likely that the movement of the abnormal loads may require further consents from Transport Scotland’s management organisations.

Due to the frequency and number of these loads it is UK policy to restrict these movements via the nearest suitable port. It is intended that the turbine components would be delivered to Leith Docks, which is the nearest port, and then transported by road to the site.

Public access through the site along the right of way which runs in a northerly direction from Brothershiels across Fala Moor is for the most part within Midlothian. However, the original proposals intended that this track should be used as the haul route for construction vehicles to and from the borrow pit located to the south of Brothershiels. As noted above, the applicants would be willing to remove this from the proposals and use Soutra Quarry. This would result in few vehicular movements along the track which would be allow for public access to be maintained, although it is accepted that minor deviations may be required within the Midlothian section as two turbines (11 and 14) are located close to the track.

Cultural Heritage

Built Environment, Conservation Areas and Designed Landscapes

There are no conservation areas or designed landscapes within the SBC boundary that will be affected by the proposal. There two scheduled monuments, Soutra Aisle, and Dere Street and the impact of the proposal on Soutra Aisle is discussed below.

Archaeology

Direct Impacts:

National and local planning policies and guidance presume in favour of preservation of heritage assets in situ. Structure Plan Policy N15 states: ‘development proposals which will adversely affect an archaeological site of regional or local significance will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the benefits of the proposal will clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site or feature’.

It is the view of the Council’s archaeologist that the entire development area has a moderate to high archaeological sensitivity based on the lack of agricultural improvement and the preponderance of prehistoric and medieval sites and features within and immediately beyond the site.

It is noted that Historic Scotland have raised no objections to the proposal. However, it is considered that there will be both significant indirect and direct impact on the archaeology of the area.

Firstly, there is a sizeable area of relict rig and furrow cultivation within the site which will be directly affected by the introduction of turbines 6 and 7, as well as associated hard standings, access tracks and cabling routes. Turbine 6 in particular will be central within this area of relict cultivation of local to regional significance. The

Planning & Building Standards Committee 24 Item No. 6(c) significance is based on the relative scarcity of rig and furrow in this area, and the potential contemporary relationships with medieval sites in the vicinity including the nationally significant site of Soutra Aisle. The proposed mitigation in the ES of watching brief is considered to be insufficient.

To reduce the direct impact of the development it is considered that turbine 6 and associated infrastructure should be removed from this area unless it can be clearly demonstrated that this turbine will outweigh the local significance of the site per SPP N15. If this cannot be satisfactorily achieved then the development proposals will be contrary to the Structure Plan Policy N15.

Furthermore, the impacts to the area of rig and furrow are compounded by the associated infrastructure to the turbines. Access tracks and crane hard standings should be designed to avoid impacts through upfilling on a combination of geotextile and hardcore. These should be sufficient to spread loads so as not to destroy the earthworks through compression. The hard standings and access tracks in this area should be removed following decommissioning. Again, if it can be clearly shown that these infrastructure elements clearly outweigh the significance of the sites, then a less favourable option would be for a combination of aerial photo transcription of the relict field system and a monitored strip of all elements within it. It is accepted that construction of turbine bases will require excavation, and these should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. The cabling can be channelled within the upfilled tracks.

Similarly, the ES Site 4, the remnants of a square enclosure, will be directly impacted by an access track. It is recommended that the track be redesigned to avoid this per Structure Plan Policy N15.

Given this sensitivity, it is recommended that all groundworks be supervised by a professional archaeologist through a monitored strip to the first archaeological horizon or culturally sterile soils. Excavators should be equipped with a flat bladed ditching bucket, and the monitoring archaeologist should be afforded the ability to specify excavation depths and halt excavation if necessary in order to investigate and record buried archaeology.

Finally, it is noted that the development area is within an area of dry modified bog. Such areas, despite later modification, can have a tremendous time depth and will preserve environmental evidence of past human activity in the area. This evidence is archaeological material of high significance given its ability to inform on past human land-use, activity and diet.

The newly submitted material on bog has been examined, and it is considered that there is a moderate to high likelihood that preserved paleo-environmental evidence will exist within the development area. Before development commences, it is recommended that an assessment of the paleoenvironmental potential of deep peat that will be impacted by development takes place. If it is found that sufficient evidence will exist, an archaeological study by a qualified archaeologist should take place through targeted paleoenvironmental coring of any deep peat areas affected by wind farm infrastructure. This study should be submitted to the local authority in a report, and the results disseminated in an appropriate manner in agreement with ourselves.

To summarise the recommendations for mitigation of direct impacts, through the following suitably worded conditions:

Planning & Building Standards Committee 25 Item No. 6(c)

• Removal of Turbine 6 and associated infrastructure from the area of relict rig and furrow

• Creation of access tracks and crane hardstandings through upfilling with geotextile and hardcore over the area of relict rig and furrow

• Redesign of the access track to avoid the ES site 4

• A watching brief of all wind farm infrastructure elements within the development area

• An initial assessment of paleoenvironmental potential for the site, the formulation of a Written Scheme of Investigation for a paleoenvironmental study and commencement of the study if appropriate per the initial assessment

Indirect Impacts:

It is considered that the proposed wind farm will have an adverse impact on the settings of Scheduled Monuments in the area, and potentially on the medieval site of Soutra Aisle in particular. The Council’s archaeologist does not agree that in the case of Soutra Aisle these impacts will be of minor significance only, and the ES has not clearly demonstrated that the development outweighs the national significance of the site per Structure Plan Policy N14.

The site of Soutra Aisle is of national significance as an example of a medieval hospital with the upstanding remnants of an associated chapel. Excavations from the 80s to the present by local interest groups has led to an increased awareness and understanding of the site, though much of this work has not been published through peer review. Soutra Aisle is signposted from the A68 and is enhanced by car parking and on-site interpretation, and its experience and appreciation stems from its central landscape location relative to the Pentland Hills, Moorfoots, Fala Moor, the Lammermuirs, Edinburgh and the Lothians.

Soutra Aisle’s setting is an amalgam of historic and modern features in the landscape. Whilst the findings of the ES that the setting is partly focussed on the site itself is accepted, the assessment that wider views are not consequential it is not accepted. The location of the Aisle on the upland fringe with wide panoramic views from south-west to north-east is both a key feature of its modern setting and its historic setting. The elevated position and visibility of the site would have been an attraction to travellers of Dere Street from the north and south, and the King’s Road which extended over Soutra Hill to the east. Visibility was a key element in its location and design. Indeed, Soutra Hill, and perhaps Brotherstone Hill, are known to have been medieval beacon sites emphasising the importance of views from and to Soutra from the medieval power centre of Edinburgh Castle.

While much of the landscape has changed since the medieval period with the addition of modern agricultural elements, forestry, and wind developments, Fala Moor and the wind farm site itself preserves evidence of medieval and early modern agricultural features that add to the understanding of Soutra Aisle within a landscape context. The Aisle’s original setting would have been a combination of cultivated fields, pasture and moorland with occasional stands of managed broadleaf woodland interspersed. Where surviving elements of these medieval land-use regimes exist (within the development site for instance), these should be viewed as positively contributing to Soutra Aisle’s setting context. Indeed, removal of the woodland block

Planning & Building Standards Committee 26 Item No. 6(c) that currently screens the Aisle from the wind farm site will ultimately be beneficial to the setting of the Aisle but only if the connecting views are unencumbered by modern industrial elements or further woodland creation.

The loss of this woodland block would also open wide views to the wind farm and would dramatically increase the individual and cumulative setting impacts on the Aisle creating a major adverse impact. While the block of woodland to the south and west of the Aisle will mostly screen these impacts, retention of the woodland at present cannot be guaranteed for the life of the wind farm. Without this woodland, the wind farm would be central within a key view from the Soutra Aisle chapel towards the south west.

An already present and highly visible aspect of Soutra Aisle’s modern setting are the large-scale wind farm developments to the south and east. At present, it is considered that these existing wind developments do not undermine the connection of Soutra Aisle with its wider setting. However, opening the view to an operational Gilston development would create a significant cumulative impact to the setting of Soutra Aisle. The views to the south east to the south west will be to wind developments in a wide arc of view (virtually 90 degrees) in conjunction with the proposed Dere Street farm and Gilston. It is not accepted that inclusion of the Gilston wind farm in this will be a minor cumulative impact only. As a prominent, nationally significant, receptor with frequent visitation, it is felt that the ability to appreciate, understand and experience Soutra Aisle within an appropriate setting will be impacted to a major degree if the woodland block to the south-west is removed and views opened to the Gilston wind farm.

Therefore, it is considered that the retention of the woodland block is essential. The applicants are aware that should the application be approved there would be a requirement for the woodland to be retained for the lifetime of the windfarm and this would be secured through a legal agreement as it is outwith the application site. The woodland block is currently not within the control of the applicant and it is known that the applicant has been in discussions with the woodland owner regarding this matter. The age and condition of this woodland is not known and even if it were to be retained, given the relatively exposed nature of the site, it is likely that there could be some wind blow which would affect the screening.

However, if this cannot be achieved then the major cumulative setting impact of the wind farm on Soutra Aisle that would result from felling will be contrary to Structure Plan Policy N14.

The applicant has submitted a further supporting statement in relation to the Council’s comments on archaeology but has not demonstrated that the development’s importance outweighs the national significance of Soutra Aisle. The submission concludes that there would no impact under existing conditions but that there would be a small degree of visual awareness if the conifer plantation were to be removed. They consider that the removal would result in a general improvement and would help with the appreciation of Soutra Aisle within its modern setting. Futhermore, they conclude that any direct damage to the rig and furrow would be minimal in the context of the overall extent of the site and that the mitigation of archaeological investigation would beneficial to the understanding of the nature of the site.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 27 Item No. 6(c)

Natural Heritage

The EIA contains the result of a number of surveys of habitats, birds and mammals and the findings of these surveys are generally accepted. The proposals for mitigation, habitat management plans and the recognition that further plans would be required is welcomed. There is general agreement with the conclusion that the proposed development is not likely to have a significant effect on the pink-footed geese (PFG) interests for which the nearby Fala Flow SPA. However, there are questions about the surveys of the birds flying over the site. The RSPB, those making representations and Heriot Community Council have raised concerns that, where such a large number of roosting birds is involved, a potentially significant risk remains. Birds could be vulnerable when, for example, poor visibility and wind direction combine to divert them towards the turbines. Given the proximity to the SPA, it is considered that a precautionary approach should be undertaken with respect to potential impacts on qualifying species with mitigation which should, include shutting down turbines at times when the geese are most at risk by dint of numbers and weather conditions.

The majority of any other ecological issues can be adequately addressed through the use of conditions on any planning permission granted.

With regard to the Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC) it is considered that it is not likely that there will be a significant effect on its qualifying interests from the construction and operation of this windfarm, providing that all appropriate mitigation measures are implemented to prevent any impact on watercourses on and around the site.

The main area of concern remains the Black grouse population and contrary to what is stated in 6.125, it is considered that the population and habitats at this site do provide a critical link between neighbouring populations that would otherwise be isolated. The Lammermuir population, which is well monitored in an initiative involving SBC, GWCT and East Lothian Council, has crashed in recent years from 49 in 2009 to 5-6 breeding pairs in 2011, probably due to the severe winters in 2010 and 2011. Linkage to the Moorfoot population is vital if the Lammermuir population is to be maintained. The black grouse population at this site use adjacent habitats within Scottish Borders and the birds form a component of the Border Hills Natural Heritage Zone population largely contained within Scottish Borders region. There are serious concerns about the potential impact on this regionally important population. Mitigation, compensation, and habitat enhancement measures on-site and off-site will be required to address this concern.

The site consists largely of semi-improved acid grassland, marshy grassland, dry modified bog, wet modified bog, coniferous plantation, blanket bog, dry dwarf shrub heath acid grassland mosaic, and areas of fen, swamp, wet heath and running water. The blanket bog habitats and fen habitats are of high conservation value. The site within Scottish Borders is predominantly semi-improved acid grassland and marshy grassland predominantly. Loss of any habitats including bog, fen, heathland, acid grassland and marshy grassland should be compensated for in a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan. There are opportunities to maintain and enhance habitats of high and moderate conservation value within the HMEP.

Noise

Potential Noise sensitive receptors within Scottish Borders area have been identified identified as:

Planning & Building Standards Committee 28 Item No. 6(c)

Upper BrotherstoneBrothershiels (several properties) Gilston (several properties)

These properties could be potentially affected by: construction noise, construction traffic noise and the cumulative effect of turbine noise from the proposed development combined with noise from Dunlaw, Dunlaw extension, Toddleburn and the two approved sites at Pogbie and Keith Hill.

The impact on these properties has been assessed using the accepted methodology and the results are reported in the ES including measurements of the existing background noise at locations agreed in advance with Environmental Health. The results indicate that anticipated noise levels will be within appropriate limits, although they may be close to the maximum allowed in certain locations.

Environmental Health has raised no objections to the proposals provided that the noise does not exceed the accepted limits. If the committee were minded to approve the application appropriately worded conditions could be placed on any consent to ensure that noise levels were monitored and appropriate action taken in the event that noise levels were exceeded. Furthermore, if the borrow pit and access track to it are removed from the proposals, this would considerably reduce the noise levels at Brothershiels and to a lesser extent at Upper Brotherstone, during the construction phase.

Heriot Community Council have raised a number of points in relation to noise, including the accuracy of construction noise and the number of properties that should have been included as sensitive receptors.

Whilst a number of properties, for example at Nettlingflat and Crookston North Mains, were identified as potential noise receptors only the properties closest to any one of the turbines were included in the assessment as it was assumed that noise levels at any of the other properties would be no higher than at those assessed.

In addition, the community council have submitted further information based on a report prepared for Northumberland County Council which questions the validity of some of the noise levels permitted by ETSU-R-97. Environmental Health are aware that this and other such reports exist but consider that Scottish Government policy is quite clear that ETSU-R-97 is the appropriate methodology to use when assessing noise from wind farms.

Driver Distraction

When viewed from within the SBC area, the most significant areas where the turbines will be viewed will be from a short stretch of the A68 on the descent down from Soutra and along the B6368 at the proposed entrance to the wind farm.

At both these locations drivers will be aware that there are wind farms in the area with Dunlaw and Dunlaw extension clearly visible. The proposed Gilston wind farm is to be located as some distance from these roads and will only be seen for a short period. It is considered that the proposal will not result in any significant driver distraction.

Tourism and recreation

Planning & Building Standards Committee 29 Item No. 6(c)

The application site is located between two of the main north-south tourist routes through the Scottish Borders, the A7 and the A68. As noted above, the turbines may be visible for only a short distance on the A68 at Soutra. From the A7 any views will be more distant and are likely to be blade tips rather than whole turbines. The proposed wind farm will not have any significant effects on these routes in relation to tourist traffic.

There is little in the way of holiday accommodation in the locality with the exception of small scale B&B accommodation. The holiday chalet accommodation at Airhouse near Oxton is relatively close by but the Gilston turbines will not be visible from this location and, given the existing wind farms in the area, this and other tourist accommodation should not be affected by this development.

Of the main long distance recreation routes the Southern Uplands Way (SUW) is some 13km to south east of proposed development. The photomontages submitted with the application suggest that it will not be clearly visible from the SUW. Other photomontages suggest that it will be visible to walkers from some of the higher summits of the hills but that it will rarely viewed in isolation from the existing nearby wind farms. Although no figures are given, it is likely that walkers in these off-track locations will be relatively small in number.

The Moor road across the site is well used for recreation, particularly by local residents and it is considered that the wind turbines will have a significant impact on the landscape and effect recreational experience of those using the track.

The nearest visitor attraction to the site within the Scottish Borders is the historic site at Soutra Aisle and the potential impact of the proposed wind farm has been discussed elsewhere in this report.

Research suggests that the majority of tourists are not put off visiting an area because of the proximity of wind farms and, with the exception of Soutra Aisle, it is considered that the proposal will not have any significant impact on tourism in the area. The Moor road through the site lies wholly within Midlothian but is used by local residents from Scottish Borders and it is likely that it will have an impact on their enjoyment of this recreational route. Although this could be positive or negative depending on individual views on wind farms.

Air traffic

The MOD initially objected to the application as they considered that it would cause unacceptable interference to the ATC radar at Deadwater Fell, RAF Spadeadam. After further investigations this objection was removed. However, the MOD would require conditions on any consent to ensure the safety of low flying aircraft.

Whilst BAA do not object to the proposals, NATS Safeguarding object on the grounds that it could affect the operation of the Primary Radar Service at Kincardine. Following receipt of this objection, there have been on-going discussions between the applicant and NATS and it appears that a technical solution can be found. As this still requires further work, the NATS objection remains in place but it is likely to be removed.

It is considered that the proposals subject to technical solutions will not affect air traffic in the local or wider area.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 30 Item No. 6(c)

Shadow Flicker

As noted above, the nearest residential properties to the proposed wind farm are Gilston, Brothershiels and Upper Brotherstone. Due to their distance from the turbines and the intervening topography, it is accepted that they will not be affected by any shadow flicker.

Telecommunications

No objections have been raised by any telecommunications operator to the proposals. However, it is likely that some properties (estimated number 26) may have their television reception affected as a direct result of the proposed wind farm. It is accepted that technical solutions can be found to any problems that arise.

Decommissioning/After-Use

It is proposed that the wind farm will be temporary for a period of 25 years. After this period it is proposed that the turbines and much of the associated infrastructure will be removed from the site, which should take approximately 12 months. The proposals to remove only a sufficient depth of concrete from the areas of hardstanding and the plinths which would allow for ground reinstatement are similar those that have been considered acceptable at other wind farm sites. The proposed restoration of the site would be considered in further detail in a Decommissioning Methods statement that would be required, if approval were to be given. It is likely that a legal agreement would also be required to ensure the provision of a suitable financial bond to secure restoration.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the scale of the proposed turbines at this location do not reflect the scale and character of the landscape which is considered as being more akin to an upland fringe landscape, which is less well able to accommodate the proposed large turbines. Furthermore, the scale of the proposed turbines does not relate well to existing smaller turbines at Dunlaw and Dunlaw extension and those proposed elsewhere in the vicinity which, when combined, would have the potential for promoting a sense of uncoordinated wind farm development over a wider area.

When assessing the application against policy D4 the proposals do not fully satisfy the criteria when related to the impact on the landscape and it is considered that the application cannot be supported.

It is considered that the proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the setting of Soutra Aisle, particularly if the existing tree belt is felled at any time during the 25 year lifetime of the wind farm. This tree belt is a critical landscape feature as its removal would not only affect the setting of Soutra Aisle but it would open up the landscape and the long distance views across the Midlothian lowlands towards the Pentlands. The wind turbines would be clearly visible and would adversely impact on these views. Although it is known that the applicants have been discussing the retention of the tree belt with its owner, at the time of writing this report, there is no agreement in place. In addition, there will be direct impacts on

Planning & Building Standards Committee 31 Item No. 6(c) identified and unknown archaeological features at the location of at least one of the turbines. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the policies relating to archaeology and historic monuments, in particular, Structure Plan Policy N14, and cannot be supported.

There are concerns that the proposed wind turbines will have an adverse impact on the wildlife in the area, in particular on the pink footed geese and the black grouse populations. However, it is accepted that mitigation can be put in place to minimise the impacts on wildlife and on the existing habitats. It is therefore considered that the potential adverse impacts on the ecology of the area are not sufficient to provide a reason for the application to be refused.

It is considered that the proposals are acceptable in terms of access and transport, telecommunications, air traffic and noise and that there are technical solutions to any issues that may arise. There are only a limited number of residential properties in the locality that have been identified as sensitive receptors and, subject to the removal of the borrow pit and access track to the borrow pit from the application and the use of Soutra quarry for the stone and concrete, the impacts on these properties will be insufficient to provide a reason for refusal.

In conclusion, the advantages of the development would not outweigh the disadvantages relating to harmful landscape and visual impact, both intrinsically and cumulatively with other wind energy proposals in the area.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

The proposed development is contrary to Policies N9, N14, N15 and, I19, I20 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001-2018, and Policies G1, BE2 and D4 of the 2011 Scottish Borders Local Plan in that:

(i) it would be located outwith the natural containment of the Lammernuir Hills and would introduce large turbines (100m -115m) into a medium scale landscape that is not capable of accommodating them successfully. The migration of large scale turbines into this more transitional landscape accentuates their scale and dominance and creates an unacceptable landscape change and visual impact.

(ii) the potential cumulative landscape and visual impact of the development with other approved schemes and those pending decision would give rise to a poorly planned, piecemeal form of wind energy development which would prejudice the integrity of nearby landscapes;

(iii) the height and scale of the development would have a significant adverse impact on the local landscape and, in particular on Fala Moor which has been designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value by Midlothian Council;

(iv) due to the location and height of the proposed turbines, the development would potentially harm the local visual environment, and in particular the setting of at least one Scheduled Ancient Monument at Soutra Aisle;

(v) due to the location of part of the development within an area of known archaeological interest it has not been demonstrated that the benefits of the proposal will clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 32 Item No. 6(c)

Approved by

Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

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

Author(s) Name Designation Dorothy Amyes Planning Officer

Planning & Building Standards Committee 33 Item No. 6(c)

Planning & Building Standards Committee 34 Item No. 6(d)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/00748/PPP

OFFICER: Mr C Miller WARD: Tweeddale East PROPOSAL: Installation of mechanical uplift, bike park and tourist attraction with associated site access, parking and visitor facilities SITE: Land east of Traquair House, Innerleithen APPLICANT: Aim Up Ltd AGENT: P MacDonald

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located south of Innerleithen and the River Tweed on the southern corner of the B709 between Innerleithen and the Yarrow Valley. The site comprises of an agricultural field 16.75 ha in size sloping down to road level from east to west, together with a section of afforested hillside accommodating the chair-lift and toboggan run. Woodland and hedgerows border the field which is also bounded on its southern boundary by the Stell Burn. It borders the hill of Plora Rig which lies within the Elibank and Traquair Forest and lies to the east of Traquair House and to the south of the “Red Bull” car park by the River Tweed. The site lies within the eastern part of the Tweedsmuir Uplands Special Landscape area and close to but outwith the Traquair House Historic Garden and Designed Landscape. The River Tweed is an SSSI and SAC. The land to the north and east is currently used as part of the Innerleithen downhill mountain biking trails.

The applicant is a community group who has applied to become a charitable organisation. The group’s purpose is to develop the communities and economies of Walkerburn and Innerleithen by encouraging the growth of off-road cycling through provision of a mechanical uplift, bike park and visitor attraction at Innerleithen.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The development is seen as an extension of the existing mountain biking facilities within Traquair Forest which is already one of Scotland’s 7 Stanes mountain bike trail centres. The application is a “Major” application which has been submitted for Planning Permission in Principle to develop the following:

x A mechanical uplift system. x An all-weather toboggan run. x A visitor centre housing a café, retail units and community/social accommodation. x An area for car, bike and coach parking. x A top station with café, toilets and viewing platform.

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

The uplift system would be based upon a German rail-mounted design which is of low-profile without the need for towers for overhead wires. The route is approximately 1.4km in length towards the summit of Plora Rigg with a return following the same line. A mid-station will be provided at the middle forestry road. The toboggan run will be a similar low profile design with a length of 1.1km based upon an uplift track and a meandering return over a smaller footprint than the main uplift, returning to the base station area.

The visitor centre is intended to be a low-rise light-weight timber clad building with mono-pitched roofs positioned in the southern corner of the site with outlook towards Innerleithen and Plora Craig. The centre will include a café, two retail units, meeting rooms, bike hire and storage, ancilliary rooms and plant connected with the uplift systems. The mid station will have an uplift platform and the top station will have a café, composting toilets and a viewing platform. The top station will be positioned at the top of the current downhill trails.

Clear felling tracks will be necessary for the uplift system and the uplift for the toboggans. This cutting will be between 6 and 12m but the toboggan return is intended to meander within woodland without any significant tree loss.

The site access from the B709 is on the corner at the area of lowest level difference. The existing access further south-west was not suitable due to visibility restrictions and will be retained for landowner/farmer access and possible emergency access in the case of large events. The access road would curve into the site following the contours and service potentially 200 car parking spaces situated beside the woodland screening in the south-western quadrant of the site. Coach set-down will be provided for but coach parking should occur in the existing “Red Bull” car park. Pedestrian access will be alongside the access road and dedicated cycle track entrances will also be formed.

PLANNING HISTORY

As the application is a “Major” application under The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, there was community consultation carried out pre-application submission and the necessary report is included with the application which is available for viewing on the Public Access System. The report concludes that the exercise was a success with no objections or points which had not already been addressed and overwhelming public support.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Together with the Pre-Application Consultation Report, the submission includes a Design and Access Statement and a Transport Statement which are available for viewing on the Public Access system.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2018

Principle S1 Environmental Strategy Principle S2 Development Strategy Policy N4 Precautionary Principle Policy N5 Local Biodiversity Action Policy N6 Environmental Impact Policy N7 Protection of Nature Conservation Interest

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

Policy N8 River Tweed System Policy N9 Maintaining Landscape Character Policy N11 Areas of Great Landscape Value Policy N13 Gardens and Designed Landscape Policy N15 Regional and Local Archaeological Sites Policy N16 Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording Policy E16 Rural Economic Development Policy E21 Tourism Development Policy C4 Sports Facilities Policy C8 Access Network Policy I5 Cycling Policy I6 National Cycle Network Policy I11 Parking Provision in New Development Policy I13 Water Quality Policy I14 Surface Water Policy I15 Flood Risk Areas

Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4 Flooding Policy BE2 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy BE3 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy NE3 Local Biodiversity Policy NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy NE5 Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy EP2 Areas of Great Landscape Value Policy Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy Inf11 Developments that Generate Travel Demand Policy D1 Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

“Local Landscape Designations” SPG August 2012 “Biodiversity” SPG December 2005 “Landscape and Development” SPG March 2008 “Trees and Development” SPG March 2008

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: No objections. Noted there will be a significant amount of traffic generated but will generally be outwith the AM/PM peak periods when the road system is more able to cope without upgrading. Site access is difficult but an acceptable access on the bend of the B709 should be possible with appropriate sightline visibility. Cross corner visibility is also needed and will involve agreement of the landowner. Full access engineering drawing is necessary at the Detailed application stage.

Economic Development: Supports the application as it accords with the Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy Action Plan and the South of Scotland Competitiveness Strategy, building on the growth and success of mountain biking. It complements the

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

investment carried out at Glentress and the cycle path being constructed between Peebles and Innerleithen.

Landscape Architect: No objections subject to a detailed planting plan and appropriate clearing routes through the afforested areas for the uplift and toboggan run. Impacts are relatively limited from public roads and green roof technology might limit the impacts further. A tree survey and replanting proposals around the site entrance will help mitigate. Straight edge forestry clearance may draw more attention to the uplift and toboggan run and edges may need to be widened and feathered.

Ecology Officer: An ecological impact assessment will be needed at the Detailed application stage including habitat surveys and impacts on ancient woodland. As broadleaved trees are being felled, bat and otter surveys will be needed prior to determination. Notes SNH responses on no need for an Appropriate Assessment for impacts on the SAC if appropriate conditions are attached. Woodland loss should be compensated for using Scottish Government and Forestry Commission guidance and a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan submitted for approval.

Upon subsequent surveys, accepts reports on badger and otter but sought “climb and inspect” surveys of affected trees for bats. Checking surveys will still be necessary for protected species prior to construction. The “climb and inspect” survey then revealed bat presence and the felling of the tree and destruction of the bat roost may not be licensable nor should any decision on the planning application be taken until activity surveys are carried out in May-July. If an amended access drawing was submitted avoiding the tree felling which was acceptable to Council Officers, then the problem would be resolved.

Archaeology Officer: The field to the south of the site contains cropmarks indicating prehistoric activity which could raise the likelihood of encountering unknown buried features within the site. Recommends a Watching Brief condition.

Flood Protection Officer: The site is potentially at risk from flooding from both the River Tweed and potentially the Stell Burn, being located on the edge of the flood risk envelopes. Welcomes the preparation of a Flood Risk Assessment at the Detailed application stage which should assess risks from both watercourses, culverts, surface water management and safe access and egress from the development.

Heritage and Design: No objections to the potential impact on the setting of Traquair House Category “A” Listed Building as the works are outwith the Policy setting and well screened from the House, away from the principal vista of the formal avenue leading to the House.

Environmental Health: If a private water supply is used, then a condition should be attached ensuring a report is submitted for approval before the development commences, detailing the quantity and quality of the supply and its impacts on other users. Makes various recommendations regarding food handling and preparation.

Statutory Consultees

SEPA: Initially objected on the grounds of lack of information relating to flood risk given the location of the site on the boundary of the River Tweed 1:200 year flood risk envelope and close to other watercourses for which flood risk information is not known. Sought a Flood Risk Assessment or other appropriate information at the PPP stage. Provides advice on surface water drainage and SUDS discharges. Removed

Planning & Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(d) objection on the basis of additional information being submitted and on basis of condition requiring a Flood Risk Assessment

SNH: Objection to the scheme on the basis of likely impacts on the River Tweed SSSI/SAC and landscape and visual impacts. Would not object if the application was subject to conditions including restriction of contamination of the River Tweed involving production of a Construction Method Statement and no storage or deposition of materials on the river banks or within flood areas. Surface water drainage should also be controlled. Also recommend surveys are carried out of protected species including breeding birds, badgers, bats and otter. Conditions should also be attached ensuring access/visibility impacts on mature vegetation are carefully addressed, a tree survey and protection plan produced, a detailed planting plan to be submitted, lighting proposals submitted, forest clearing and replanting proposals submitted and a long term site maintenance and management plan submitted. Subsequently responded to bat survey that if one tree is to be removed which houses a bat roost, a licence will be required which can only be considered after an emergence survey is carried out.

Scottish Water: Response awaited.

Innerleithen and District Community Council: Supports application as it complements other developments at Glentress and the Shared Pathway. Transport Statement identifies that the road system can cope. Will generate jobs and cater also for a large proportion of non-biking visitors.

Other Consultees

Visit Scotland Borders: Response awaited

REPRESENTATIONS

There have been a total of 112 representations on the planning application from third parties, all of whom have been in support of the application. Members can view their responses in full on the Public Access web site. The support comments include the following:

x Augmentation and enhancement of nationally recognised mountain biking facilities at Innerleithen and Glentress, complementing them. x Encouragement of additional visitors and major boost to local tourist economy, to benefit of employment opportunities and existing businesses. x Well designed and sensitive proposals. x An imaginative, hard-working and visionary proposal and group behind it. x A valuable addition to the recreational provision in the area. x Mechanical uplift a major improvement on current uplift facilities. x Will increase year-round tourism. x Traffic impacts have been addressed. x Support from “Scottish Cycling”. x Can only increase training and proficiency which is already at world class level, complying with Government and SportScotland strategies. x Design ideas are sympathetic to the site.

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

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining issues with this application are whether the proposals comply with Development Plan Policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance on the establishment of new tourism facilities within the countryside, the economy of the local area the access arrangements, the visual and landscape impacts, impacts on watercourses in the area and on other natural and cultural heritage issues.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning policy

The application should be principally assessed against Structure Plan Policies E21 and Local Plan Policy D1 on tourism development within the countryside. Both Policies support and encourage such developments in line with the Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy and subject to various criteria. The response from the Economic Development section clearly indicates that these proposals for augmentation and growth of the existing mountain biking downhill facilities at Innerleithen are fully complementary to the aims of various Government and Local Strategies and Action Plans for growth of recreation and activity-based tourism in Scotland and in the Borders. They improve upon an existing nationally-recognised facility and link in with other cycle-led initiatives in the Tweed Valley, especially given the new cycle path linkages between Peebles and Innerleithen, and the links with Glentress Peel which has seen large investment and improvement in recent years

It is clear from the significant support for the proposals from the public, local organisations and existing participants in the sport that the local economy and the sport can benefit from an uplift facility and from improved parking and visitor facilities. It is also noted that the facilities with visitor centre, café and toboggan run will also appeal to non-participative visitors. The applicant’s initial feasibility studies revealed that the facility could create 126 jobs and result in an expenditure within the Borders of £5.9 million per annum with £2.3 million additional Gross Value Added benefits. There is no doubt that there is a growth in mountain biking in the Tweed valley in recent years which is projected to continue – and any development associated with that sector would be firmly encouraged by Structure Plan Policy E21 and Local Plan Policy D1.

There may be some competition with the recently development Glentress Peel Centre and the shop units within the proposed visitor centre with shops in Innerleithen itself. However, in practice, it is envisaged that there is no reason why all facilities would not result in more people visiting the area for mountain biking and associated activities rather than the new facility simply taking custom from other facilities. With regard to shops, the units will be ancilliary in scale and nature to the overall purpose of the visitor centre which would not be approved as a Class 1 retail unit – rather as it is described which is a support attraction for the main purpose of the site which is to transport bikers and others up Plora Rig for the downhill trails or toboggan run. Shop units by virtue of their scale and association are not likely to be in major competition with shops in Innerleithen High Street and, indeed, existing shops could benefit from the spin-off of increased visitor numbers to Innerleithen.

Because of the purpose of the facility and support buildings, it is accepted that the development could not utilise any existing buildings or brownfield sites within Innerleithen – which is a further clause of Policy D1. Whilst the use of the “Red Bull” car park was considered, even that is outwith the settlement boundary of Innerleithen and there are no current buildings on the car park to be used. The facility needs to be

Planning & Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(d) located at the foot of Plora Rig to provide a base station for the mechanical uplift so it is logical to concentrate the support buildings and parking at that location.

It is concluded that the proposal is in compliance with the general principles of Development Plan Policies supporting tourism initiatives in the countryside, given it takes a growing sport in the area and improves the facility. The Policies have various criteria which also need to be met and these are discussed in the following sections.

Landscape and visual impacts

Policy D1 seeks tourism developments in the countryside to be of appropriate scale and use and to respect the amenity and character of the surrounding area. The field and hillside where the facility is proposed lies within the new Tweedsmuir Uplands Special Landscape Area and immediately to the east of Traquair House which is a Category A Listed Building and its Policies which are a designated Historic Garden and Designed Landscape. The applicant’s submissions address the visual and landscape impact of the development, especially in Sections 4.4 and 5.8 of their Design and Access Statement.

The Council’s Landscape Architect and Scottish Natural Heritage identify the sensitivities of the area to landscape impact but do not lodge objections provided conditions are imposed which minimise the impacts. The new Special Landscape Area has a series of Management Recommendations which seek to preserve the wildness character of the majority of the hills, to focus recreational activity, to promote the use of forest design plans and to consider the effects of tall development.

It has to be accepted that this part of the SLA does not exhibit the same qualities of wildness as the higher hills to the south-west, given the presence of afforestation and well used tracks and trails. Provided the development can be focussed and as well screened as possible from main public views, then there is no reason to oppose it on grounds of potentially significant landscape impacts. The main impacts will arise from three separate sections of the development – the car parking, the buildings and the uplift/toboggan facilities through the forest. Photographs within the Design and Access Statement show the impacts from various public roads and areas, including from the A72 for a brief stretch travelling eastwards, from Howford on the minor road to Cardrona and from within Traquair.

It is clear that the main impacts will probably arise from the building on the upper saddle of the field and especially the uplift and toboggan routes through the forest, including any top station viewing platforms and café structure. It is acknowledged that the development is not likely to have significant adverse effects on Traquair House or Policies, given the different orientation of the main setting of the House and the mature tree backdrops and screening. Despite these potential landscape impacts, the Council’s Landscape Architect and SNH are content with the proposals and believe the impacts can be successfully mitigated through appropriate conditions without any significant adverse impacts on the landscape or the qualities leading to its designation as an SLA. These conditions would include:

x Ensuring the retention of the existing woodland and hedging around the site which would help screen the car parking and access which occupy the lower parts of the site and to provide a backdrop to the proposed buildings and commencement of the uplift infrastructure.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(d)

x New planting proposals to augment this existing landscape structure especially around the site entrance to ensure any felling is adequately compensated and to screen impacts from the north and Innerleithen. x Detailed forestry clearance and restocking proposals where the uplift tracks and toboggan run are proposed, to soften the edges and minimise the open straight channels that could appear to various views from public roads and areas. x Control over night-time lighting. x Long term management and maintenance proposals for the landscape and habitats

Subject to imposition of these conditions, it is not considered that there would be landscape or visual impact reasons to oppose the application. Any detailed submissions would clearly need to be accompanied by full details of the landscaping and design and siting of any buildings, including any structures within the forest and at the top station.

Design

The application is submitted only for Planning Permission in Principle and all issues relating to design will be addressed at the stage of Approval of Matters Reserved as Conditions. The submission has detailed where the various elements would be positioned within the site, ensuring the car parking and access are at the lowest points and that the buildings are positioned at the lowest edge of the higher rearmost parts of the field.

The Design and Access Statement clarifies that the visitor centre buildings will be low-rise and light-weight in appearance utilising timber frames with shallow pitched roofs aimed at partially harvesting solar energy. The Landscape Architect recommends a green roof technology to integrate into the rural surroundings. The most appropriate designs for the site would be those with the lowest visual impact from distance, keeping heights down, utilising glass and timber cladding and dark- coloured or green roof technology.

These issues can be addressed at the stage of the Reserved Matters applications and the issue of the design of the development cannot represent any justification to oppose the principle of the application at this stage.

Cultural heritage and archaeology

Local Plan Policy BE2 seeks to ensure care is taken when potential archaeological sites and areas of sensitivity are encountered. The Council Archaeologist has identified the presence of cropmarks in the field immediately to the south of the development which may indicate prehistoric pits. For that reason, it is recommended that a Watching Brief be imposed by condition.

Natural heritage

Policies N4-N8 of the Structure Plan and Policies NE3 and NE4 of the Local Plan seek to protect natural heritage interests and designated sites from the potentially adverse impacts of development. The responses and dialogue involving SNH and the Council’s Ecology Officer on this application centre on the potential impacts of the development on the River Tweed SAC/SSSI and on certain Protected Species, especially bats.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(d)

With regard to the latter, surveys have revealed the presence of bats within woodland that would have to be removed for the access into the site. Although only at the stage of PPP, this access has been identified as the only position where acceptable gradients and sightlines could be achieved. The advice from the Ecology Officer and SNH would be that any removal of trees would not be allowed without a bat licence and that such a licence could not be granted until an emergence survey was carried out, next May at the earliest. As national guidance, and the provisions of the Habitats Directive and Regulations, requires Local Planning Authorities not to determine planning applications subject to granting of bat licences (as there is no guarantee that such a licence would be granted in this case), contact has been made with the agent to ascertain whether the relevant tree(s) could be retained with a slight amendment to the access drive within the site. This is a significant issue that could have fundamental implications for the project. The agent has stated that a drawing will be produced for consideration by the Council and SNH and Members will be updated at the Committee meeting on the outcome of the deliberations on this matter.

Other protected species surveys for badger and otter have proved acceptable at this stage although further checking surveys for these species and bats will be required before development commences. Further conditions will also be required seeking the submission of an Ecological Impact Assessment at the next planning application stage, a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan before development commences and proposals for full compensatory planting.

SNH had objected to the potential impacts on the River Tweed SAC and had sought the Council to carry out an Appropriate Assessment. However, their objection would be withdrawn if suitable conditions were imposed on any consent minimising the impacts of the construction and operation of the development on the SAC. This would involve the need for submission of a Construction Method Statement, no storage or depositing of materials on the river banks or within the flood plain and the control of surface water drainage. Relevant conditions are recommended within this report.

Flooding

Local Plan Policy G4 requires development not to be at risk from flooding and not to lead to unmanageable flood risks elsewhere. SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Officer have identified that the site is potentially partially at risk of flooding from the River Tweed and there are also likely to be effects from the Stell Burn. SEPA had initially objected until further information was provided to them and now would not object provided a condition was imposed seeking a Flood Risk Assessment at the Approval of Matters Reserved as Conditions stage – this is the same position as the Council Flood Protection Officer.

Access and parking

Policies D1, Inf 4 and Inf11 of the Local Plan relate to traffic impacts of development and consideration of the road safety implications. Although it was decided that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required, a Transport Statement was submitted as part of the application and Members can view this in full on the Public Access website. The Statement identifies good existing links with public roads, bus transport and cycle ways and the excellent sightlines that can be achieved from the chosen access point. It identifies that further visibility clearance will be needed at the corner of the road leading to Walkerburn which lies outwith the site.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(d)

In terms of trip generation, the Statement takes the expected number of annual visitors (80,000) and apportions them seasonally then by modes of transport and times of the day. In comparison with existing trip levels, it anticipates 25-35 vehicle movements across the peak hour with 80% arrivals and 20% departures in the morning peak and the reverse in the evening peak. These traffic levels are not considered significant against existing traffic flows and it is contended that the surrounding road network can handle the development without any improvements being required. The Transport Statement also details proposals for Traffic Plan and Event Traffic Management Plan Frameworks to minimise impacts at peak times and in times of major competitions. The latter will be developed in liaison with the Council and a condition should be imposed securing this submission and agreement.

The response from the Roads Planning Service to the development has been favourable provided detailed access point drawings are submitted and adequate visibility can be achieved – this also includes cross-corner visibility involving trees outwith the site. This can be detailed in conditions. There is acceptance of the findings of the Transport Statement and the capacity of the road system to cope with the expected traffic generation, given a significant amount will be generated outwith the AM/PM peak periods. This includes acceptance of the capacity of the existing bridge back to Innerleithen and the area of ground intended for on-site car parking and coach turning.

It is concluded that there are no reasons to oppose this development on the grounds of road safety or traffic impacts on the local area.

Infrastructure

Concerns have been expressed from SNH, SEPA and the Council’s Flood Protection Officer over the impacts of surface water drainage from the development, given its elevation above and proximity to the River Tweed SAC. SEPA provide advice on surface water management and the use of SUDS facilities – and a condition should be imposed securing a full drainage plan at the stage of submission of Reserved Matters.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the development, subject to appropriate conditions, complies with Development Plan Policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance on tourism developments within countryside and developments with potential impacts on access, natural heritage, landscape, cultural heritage and flooding. Clearly, compliance depends on the ability to achieve an access into the site without disturbing identified bat roosts and Members will be updated at the Committee meeting.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS:

Subject to a demonstration that the main access to the site can avoid disturbance of identified bat roosts, I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions and Applicant Informatives:

1. Approval of the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s) and structures, the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(d)

Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

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

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

4. No development to be commenced until full engineering drawings of the access to the site have been submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Once approved, the access to be completed in accordance with the approved drawings before the use becomes operational. The drawings to include visibility splays to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and cross corner visibility improvements on the northern side of the public road junction. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

5. No development to be commenced until drawings of the access and parking within the site have been submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Once approved, the access and parking to be completed in accordance with the approved drawings before the use becomes operational. The drawings to include visitor and staff car parking, car and coach turning facilities, cycle parking and access and pedestrian access.. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

6. Before the development is commenced, an Event Traffic Management Plan should be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

7. A Flood Risk Assessment should be submitted with the first application for Approval of Matters Specified as Conditions for the approval of the Planning Authority. The Assessment should assess risks from all watercourses, culverts, the need for safe access/egress and surface water drainage. Once approved, any mitigation included within the Assessment should be carried out prior to the use becoming operational. Reason: To safeguard the development and surrounding property from flood risk.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6(d)

8. No development is to commence until a report, by a suitably qualified person, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, demonstrating the provision of an adequate water supply to the development in terms of quality, quantity and the impacts of this proposed supply on surrounding supplies or properties. The provisions of the approved report shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the uses hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately serviced with water without a detrimental effect on the water supplies of surrounding properties.

9. No development shall be commenced until such a time as it has been demonstrated that all matters relating to foul and surface water drainage, which are known to be a significant issue within/adjacent to this site, have been addressed via a drainage management plan, which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority as part of any detailed submission, pursuant to this application for Planning Permission in Principle. Reason: The Planning Authority is aware that drainage issues are likely to arise at this site, that have not been fully addressed in the current planning application, which establishes only the land-use principle of the area of land identified in the submitted drawing(s).

10. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a Watching Brief. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to observe relevant below ground excavation during development, investigate and record features of interest and recover finds and samples if necessary. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered below ground excavation should cease pending further consultation with the Planning Authority. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post-excavation analysis, the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

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 (as appropriate): x existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance x existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored x location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates x soft and hard landscaping works, including replacement tree planting. x existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations x other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, play equipment x A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6(d)

12. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced detailed drawings showing which trees are to be retained on the site outwith the commercial forestry parts of the site shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and none of the trees so shown shall be felled, thinned, lopped, topped, lifted or disturbed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings, and to ensure that those existing tree(s) representing an important visual feature are retained and maintained.

13. 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.

14. Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced detailed drawings showing the forestry clearance necessary to achieve the mechanical uplifts, mid and top stations and toboggan run to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, including compensatory replanting proposals and all felling/replanting based upon appropriate Government and Forestry Commission Guidance. Once approved, the forestry works to be carried out before the use becomes operational and maintained thereafter in perpetuity in accordance with the approved drawings. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings, and to ensure that forestry clearance routes are minimal and of natural integrated appearance..

15. No development to be commenced until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) detailing measures to protect the River Tweed and its banks, public roads and adjoining property has been submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Once approved, the construction works are to proceed in accordance with the CMS and any mitigation identified within it. The CMS should include measures to protect the surrounding watercourses from contamination through silt, building materials and debris and prohibit storage of materials or equipment on any land vulnerable to flooding. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards against contamination of surrounding watercourse, public roads and private property potentially arising from construction activities.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 6(d)

16. No development to be commenced until a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan (HMP) has been submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Once approved, the works are to proceed in accordance with the HMP and any mitigation identified within it. The HMP should include measures for bats, breeding birds, field boundary features, grassland, existing and proposed planting, woodland and wetland management and enhancements Reason: To safeguard natural heritage interests at the site.

17. No development to be commenced until an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) has been submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Once approved, the works are to proceed in accordance with the EcIA and any mitigation identified within it. The EcIA should include a scheme for protection of habitats and species, a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and an assessment of impacts on ancient woodland. Reason: To safeguard natural heritage interests at the site..

18. Further checking surveys for Protected Species including breeding birds, badger, bats, red squirrel and otter to be carried out and findings submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority in liaison with SNH before the development is commenced. Reason: To safeguard protected species at the site.

19. No development to be commenced until a scheme of site and building lighting has been submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the landscape character and visual amenity of the area.

20. No development to be commenced until a scheme indicating the treatment of access to adjoining land has been submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard surrounding uses and control the points at which cyclists and pedestrians enter or exit the site.

Informatives

1. The Environmental Health Service of the Council recommends the following in relation to food handling:

x If the proposed premises are to be used for food handling more detailed plans will be required to ensure compliance with current food legislation. x The applicant is advised to discuss appropriate finishes and equipment with an Environmental Health Officer.

x Food Business operator and staff will be required to be trained and/or supervised in Food Hygiene.

x The Food Business operator must have in place at the establishment a food safety management system based on the principles of HACCP.

x The food business operative is required to register with the Environmental Health Department at least 28 days prior to operating.

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

2. This consent does not relate to on or off-site signage. A separate application for Advertisement Consent will require to be submitted.

Approved by

Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

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

Author(s) Name Designation Craig Miller Principal Planning Officer

Planning & Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6(d)

Planning & Building Standards Committee 16 Item No.6(e)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 10/01123/PPP OFFICER: Scott Shearer WARD: Selkirkshire PROPOSAL: Erection of 28 holiday lodges with proposed access and land treatment SITE: Land North West of Whitmuir Hall, Selkirk APPLICANT: Mr Alan Williams AGENT: Burnet Bell

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site occupies an area of 4.4ha directly to the north east of Whitmuir Hall, which is located in between the settlements of Selkirk and Midlem. The site is a southwest facing pasture which generally slopes towards the southwest but also contains localised peaks and ridges within the western half of the site which have been formed as a result from a previous quarry activity. The south western corner previously used as an off road bike track with tracks still delineated by old tyres. The site is bound to the east by a stone dyke wall which encloses the site from the minor road that connects Whitmuir to the A699. To the south and west, is the Whitmuir Loch Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This is a lowland basin mire of mesotrophic fen surrounding the loch which includes most of the mixed woodland that encloses the west and southern most corner of the site with further woodland enclosing the southeastern edge of the site.

The wider landscape surrounding the site is a pastoral landscape with shelterbelts and large parkland trees interspersed within the field pattern. Notable surrounding features include; Selkirk Race course to the north west of Whitmuir Loch, a path which runs along the eastern edge of Whitmuir Loch connecting the minor road to the south of Whitmuir Hall and the A699, a tree lined avenue along the northern access road at its connection with the A699 and approximately 7 dwelling houses are located within the vicinity of Whitmuir Hall.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks planning permission in principle (PPP) for the erection of 28 holiday lodges served by a new access formed on to the minor road to the north east of the site with an additional access formulated from an existing gated access to the south of the site through woodland within the existing Whitmuir Hall complex.

A revised site plan has been submitted following a Landscape Appraisal. It should be noted that at this PPP stage the proposed development illustrated on the plans should be read as indicative. The revised layout has restricted the development to four distinct areas to enable a phased construction, the four areas are connected by

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No.6(e) a road network. An existing soakaway is contained within the south eastern corner of the site, with a new area for a septic tank and a series of reed beds and/or swales and a pumping station to serve the development is located within the south western corner of the site. The proposed drainage discharge will require authorisation from SEPA under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011(CAR). Surface water from roofs and driveways will discharge to a soakaway via permeable paving and a granular filter bed. Run-off from roads will discharge over a grass cleaning strip into a soakaway. Members are advised that although the plans illustrating the indicative layout of the development have been revised the initial plans illustrating the drainage proposals have not, however it is not understood that the treatment methods have been altered.

PLANNING HISTORY

A previous planning approval 90/01539/OUT obtained consent for the erection of 25 self catering chalets with new internal road access within the site. No detailed application followed this approval. In 2009, a planning application 09/00577/OUT sought consent for the erection of 28 holiday chalets, this application was withdrawn following a range of concerns expressed by the department about the application which most significantly related to; compliance with Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy (SBTS), landscape and visual impact, drainage concerns and impacts upon the SSSI. Essentially this current planning application is a revised submission which has sought to address the concerns previously raised.

It is also relevant to note that in 2008 planning approval (08/00890/FUL) was obtained for the extension to the existing leisure centre at Whitmuir Hall to provide function area, café and changing facilities as well as the formation of a new access which correlates with the access proposed as part of this current application to its south western corner.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

There are 50 submissions objecting to this application. (There may be a small number of cases where households are potentially represented by more than one submission). It should be noted that one objection comment contains a petition. Comments can be viewed in full on Public Access. Key concerns raised include: x Fails to respect character and amenity of surrounding area x Detracts on surrounding uses, most notably farming and housing x Existing road network can not support additional traffic x Road safety x No public accessible public transport links existing within area x Surrounding road/path network are popular walking and horse riding routes x Lack of need as existing tourist accommodation at Whitmuir Hall is under – utilised/under occupied and not operating at capacity rendering the development unviable x Lack of genuine need for additional tourist accommodation x Scale of development will detract from rural area x Scale of development is disproportionate to existing built development at Whitmuir x No evidence provided to show if lodges are high quality a represent a sustainable form of development x Developers should look to upgrade existing underused accommodation as oppose to requiring new units

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

x Adversely impact on integrity, qualifying features and enjoyment of Whitmuir Loch SSSI x Adversely impact on water environment via discharge of sewage and drainage x Adversely impact on wildlife habitats and local bio diversity features x Adversely impact on various and unprotected species; bats, badgers, newts, otters, plants, birds and fish x Unbalance and adversely affect ecosystem x Detract from natural beauty of area and unsympathetic to surroundings and will suburbanise rural area x Flooding risk x Directly visible from significant surrounding view point, most notably Gala Rig, Selkirk Common, the Eildons and high ground to the west of the A7 x Lack of business case x Adversely affect the Central Borders Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) x Development should have required a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) x Development should have required a full Ecological Impact Assessment x Treatment plant bounds land outwith ownership of applicant x Applicant has no legal permission to discharge effluent into watercourse x Noise and Light pollution x Loss of views x Trees and hedging adversely affected/removed x Smells x Phasing of works in particular delivery of sewage system will result in a piecemeal and unsatisfactorily serviced development x SBTS promotes the Borders as a short break destination, proposed units represent long stay accommodation x Proposed cul-de-sac arrangement is un-conducive to a holidaymaker seeking a rural experience x Development appears to represent housing not holiday accommodation x No linked properties have been provided x No design statement submitted x Topography of site is unsuitable to development x Ground conditions will restrict ability to develop site sensitively x No reference in applicants submitted information to relevant Local Plan Policies x Existing amenities/facilities are insufficient x Development will not significantly create jobs x No benefits to local residents x Insufficient Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) undertaken x Validity of Tourism Resources Company submission questioned x Whitmuir Loch is a valuable bird sanctuary containing BTO hides for watching and recording x No local support for proposals x Visit Scotland have not supported this application x Visit Scotland’s annual figures do not support proposal x Development will pollute and litter rural area x SUDS treatment plan will not safeguard the SSSI x Applicants do not have ownership to provide access to the site x Development adversely impact on archaeological local archaeological interests

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

x Applicants indicated ownership is incorrect, in particular the road verge x Neighbouring successful bed and breakfast business would become unviable x There is no path from the site to the Loch

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The following supporting documents have been submitted by the applicant’s agents and are available for Members to view in full on the Public Access.

x Planning Statement in Support of the Erection of 28 Holiday Lodges (27 July 2010) x Engineering Statement (Scott Wilson March 2010) x Response to Scottish Borders Council N.B. this includes a Landscape Appraisal Report (24th February 2012) x Tourism Resources Company (TRC) Whitmuir Hall Market Overview of Scottish Borders Self Catering Sector (26th September 2012)

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy E21 Tourism Development Policy I11 Parking Provision in New Development Policy I12 Provision of Water and Sewerage Services Policy I13 Water Quality Policy I14 Surface Water Policy I15 Flood Risk Policy N1 Local Biodiversity Action Plan Policy N3 National Sites Policy N5 Local Biodiversity Action Policy N9 Maintaining Landscape Character Policy N15 Regional and Local Archaeological Sites Policy N16 Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording Policy N20 Design

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy BE2 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy D1 Business Development in the Countryside Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development Policy G2 Contaminated Land Policy G4 Flooding Policy H2 Residential Amenity Policy Inf2 Access Routes Policy Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy NE2 National Nature Conservation Sites Policy NE3 Local Biodiversity Policy NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy NE5 Development Affecting the Water Environment

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

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy SPG Landscape and Development 2008 SPG Biodiversity 2009 SPG Trees and Development 2008 PAN 69 – Planning & Building Standards Advice on Flooding

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

It should be noted that on the submission of the amended indicative lay of Drawing No 152 rev B that a re-consultation exercise was undertaken with appropriate consultees that included SNH, SEPA and the Community Council.

Archaeology Officer:

Archaeological implications exist as Whitmuir Hall is centred on the medieval settlement of Whitmuir therefore the area around Whitmuir Hall and Gala Rig has a moderate potential for buried archaeology. It is likely that any development of this area as part of an FUL application will require an archaeological evaluation to determine the presence or absence of buried archaeology. A condition requiring a development funded evaluation to be carried our prior to development is recommended.

Ecology Officer:

The site is of no ecological significance, however, the protected mammal surveys identify bat interests within the surrounding woodlands and Badgers setts are likely to be affected by the development. However, he is content to follow advice of SNH regarding impact on these species. In particular, he notes that lighting of the site, southern boundary access route and whether blasting or pile driving is required could impact on bats. It is recommended that additional planning conditions to protect the ecological interest of the site will be required, covering the following points;

x Site clearance should be carried out outside of the breeding bird season (breeding season March- August). x Tyres on site to be carefully removed to avoid impacts on herptiles. Works to be guided by a suitably qualified person. x A Landscape and Habitat Management Plan should be implemented to mitigate impacts and enhance the biodiversity of the site including for protected species. There are opportunities to plant broad-leaved woodland and scrub (FCS Native seed zone 204) to enhance the local forest habitat network associated with the woodland within and adjacent to the Whitmuirhall loch SSSI and retention of areas of semi-natural neutral grassland.

Economic Development:

Content with the figures referred to by the TRC which equate to suggesting that there is a demand for the development and a proposal which provides year round accommodation meets SBC’s targets. They advise that the business seems to be fairly successful with good facilities and existing accommodation, therefore the application should be in a position to determine if they have a demand for additional

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No.6(e) beds. Suggest that SBC’s Tourism Business advisor can meet with them to discuss their business plan prior to or on submission of a detailed application.

Environmental Health:

No objection. Acknowledge that the site is a former quarry which has been part in filled. An informative is recommended to be used to make the applicant aware of potential land contamination may have occurred through backfilling and recourse if contamination is discovered.

Flood Protection Officer:

No objection. Advise that if the loch bursts its banks the contours of the surrounding landscape should flow water away from the site, nevertheless management of surface water runoff should be considered and given the proximity to the loch it would be advisable for the applicant to adopt water resilient materials and construction methods appropriate to the development.

Landscape Architect:

Concur that revisions to site development on the low lying areas are the best locations for development. Advise that landscape issues will need to be address at the detailed application site, in particular; x Greater detail of proposed levels to illustrate the cut and fill to show that the number of chalets can be achieved within the site without unacceptable visual impact on the immediate area. x Demonstration of use of appropriate local materials with the existing boundary walls retained as far as possible x A detailed Tree Survey undertaken for the access route to the south of the site and its woodland edges x A detailed landscape scheme illustrating how all areas within the site will be treated, whether grassland or woodland planting, and the proposals should include an establishment and long term maintenance programme.

Roads Planning Officer:

No objection. Content that this revised submission addresses previous roads concerns. The inclusion of a new eastern site access which provides suitable visibility splays will reduce road traffic flows and conflicts previously subjected to the south. The location of the new and upgraded and passing places suitable is suitable. A detailed junction layout including its construction specification will be required; a condition requiring these details would be acceptable and the passing places and localised road widening should be constructed as per the specified standard.

Statutory Consultees:

Royal Burgh of Selkirk and District Community Council:

Object, citing the following grounds: x Fails to respect amenity and character of surrounding area x Adverse impact on neighbouring uses, especially housing x Adverse cumulative impact x Unconvinced proposal can be justified on economic and social or environmental justification

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

x Prejudice future of Whitmuir Local SSSI x Development would ruin ‘dark sky’ tourism in the area by addition of increased lighting x Layout fails to integrate with the site x Lack of landscaping x Development will be highly visible from surrounding area x Runoff areas could be easily damaged x Insufficient disposal of foul water x Existing well located in the area of proposed reed beds which is still used as a back up water supply will be polluted x Excessive construction operations (times and lorry usage) x Precise design matters i.e. material finishes should be sought at PPP stage x Existing road network can not safely accommodate additional traffic x Further land acquisition would be required to provide sufficient road improvements x Unrealistic green transport measure of walking, cycling or taxi use to the site x Detail traffic survey with environmental and impact assessment should be sought.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH):

No objection. Part of the woodland which bounds the site lies within the Whitmuirhall SSSI boundary, although this is not a notified feature of the SSSI. The proposed development does not pose any direct impacts on the SSSI, however its impact on natural heritage interest at the adjacent Whitmuirhall SSSI requires assessment. The SSSI is notified for its basis fen and hydromorphological mire features. The development should not adversely affect water levels and the high quality water with low site fertility of the SSSI by prevention of nutrient enrichment from septic tanks, fertilisers, surface water and silt discharges within the site. Although no objection is cited concerns regarding foul and surface water treatment, construction methods and boundary management require to be addressed by way of;

x detailed design of the surface and foul water treatment to following the Engineering Statement and associated drawings and meet SEPA requirements for CAR licensing and SBC standards x construction methods for the chalets, access road and foul and surface water drainage to be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to work commencing x the boundary protection alongside the SSSI to be agreed with SNH prior to works commencing

It is advised that the access through the Whitmuir Hall Lodge is acceptable in terms of the SSSI boundary.

Although the surveys did not identify the provision of any otters and the grassland habitat is unlikely for otter use, contractors should be aware of wildlife protection. The survey did identify the provision of five species of bats within the surrounding woodland, it is recommended that felling of trees is resisted and where required further remedial works suitable for bats including a secondary assessment and recommendations for methods of felling/works must be carried out prior to work commencing on the trees. A licence will be required from SNH for works affecting European protected species. Any lighting required for the development should be sensitively designed to minimise pollution and protect bat foraging activities.

Badger setts have been identified within the site and within 30m of the site boundary

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No.6(e) in the woodland. A further survey may be needed in order to provide a Badger Protection Plan, which should identify all impacts of the proposed development on badger use and mitigation. If adverse impacts can not be avoided compensatory measures should be provided. If setts are directly affected a licence from SNH might be required.

Overall SNH advise the proposal should proceed in accordance with the plans which have been submitted to date, while concerns have been raised, it is recommended that these can be addressed via appropriate conditions with works which might impact on protected species should be undertaken in respect of timing, scale and possible re-survey and licencing requirements.

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA):

Confirm that the applicant is already in discussions with SEPA in relation to their CAR application, which provides a scheme that, in principle, is capable of authorisation, rendering no objection of the proposed development in terms of foul drainage. Proposed surface water arrangements are acceptable. With regards to water quality advise that Scottish Water should be consulted, where appropriate, the Local Authority Roads Dept and Flood Prevention Officer. The applicant can obtain regulatory requirements and good practice advice via SEPA’s website.

Other Consultees

Visit Scotland:

Initially they responded citing that a development of this nature is a good opportunity for the area to develop a sustainable tourism product. The proposed development aims to build in the success of the existing business which would increase employment in the area. Members should note that a further comment received on the 23rd September 2011 informed the department to disregard all previous correspondence from VisitScotland relating to this application.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining issues are whether the proposal complies with the criteria of Structure Plan Policy E21 and Local Plan Policy D2 and represents an appropriate tourism development within the countryside. Consideration must also be given to other matters relating in particular to the ability to provide safe access and the developments impact on the adjacent Whitmuir Loch SSSI.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Policy Principle

Policies E21 of the Consolidated Structure Plan and D1 of the Consolidated Local Plan encourage the development of tourist facilities and accommodation within the region, provided several criteria are met. These include the need for a proposal to accord with the provisions of Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy (SBTA), provide no adverse impact the local economy or surrounding and neighbouring uses, minimisation of the impacts on the landscape and nature conservation, the ability to achieve satisfactory access and infrastructure as well positive visual impacts.

In respect of this current application, the proposal must be assessed against current development plan policies, but also against the background of approval for a similar

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No.6(e) volume of self catering chalets in “outline” under consent 90/01539/OUT. The granting of this consent is material to the consideration of the current application. However, it is accepted that the time period that has lapsed since this previous approval and the evolution of planning policies and also tourism trends, which are an important consideration for any tourist related development, necessitates that the development is robustly tested against the policies of the current development plan.

The overriding consideration in assessing the acceptability of a tourist development in the terms of development plan policies relate to its accordance with the SBTS and whether it delivers a viable product which will result in enhancing the local economy. In response to this application numerous objection comments questioned the need for the additional accommodation given the perception that the existing resort at Whitmuir Hall is underused. In order to fully scrutinise this need for the development, the department requested that an Economic Justification should be provided. However, this has not been lodged. Rather, the applicants have provided a Market Overview, and indicated that a determination should be made on the basis of the information provided.

Members are directed to the Market Overview which has been compiled by the Tourism Resource Company. Although VisitScotland intimated early within the application process that they did not wish to comment further on the proposed development, the study uses of figures and statistics published by VisitScotland . The validity of this information has been assessment and confirmed by Council Economic Development Officers as being reputable.

With this in mind, of particular note are the statements that strategically growing tourism is both a local and national aim. Both the SBTS and VisitScotland’s target markets for the region suggest that the experience provided by the Scottish Borders will attract older visitors, as well as large groups of families and friends who are holidaying together. There is a perceived demand for high standard non-serviced accommodation with good quality faculties to provide flexible accommodation for both short and longer period holidaying. Currently within the Scottish Borders the number of self catering units available is quoted as being roughly 350-400 as opposed to Dumfries and Galloway, which is accredited to be a worthy comparative as it is a similar region within Scotland, has an availability of 1,280 units. Therefore, it is considered that the modest availability of self catering supply within the Scottish Borders ,which is further supplemented by hotel closures, presently limits the regions ability to meet these local and national aims.

The Market Overview does not seek to refute objection comments that the existing facility is underused, however it does acknowledge that the existing facility does require modernisation and refurbishment. It is contended that high quality facilities provide greater opportunity for all year round accommodation. Indeed, data at point 3.2 of the report suggests that self catering facilities with a greater number of units and a good range of facilities achieve high occupancy levels. It is perceived that the development of the additional accommodation will in effect lead to the revitalisation of the existing accommodation and the development of the already consented leisure facility extension providing a well rounded resort with a mixture of accommodation which can support central facilities. It is considered that this development will provide a resort which responds to market demand and reflects the type of resort provided by well used market leaders, which is not readily available within the Borders but is desirable in this case. The submission does not specify in numerical terms the projected impacts that the development will have upon the local economy. However it would be fair to accredit that the development of a resort, which meets current

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No.6(e) market trends and tourism desires within the Borders, will positively enhance the economy from its construction through to the inward visitor income it will attract.

Overall, in terms of the principle regarding the proposal, it is judged that this development represents a sustainable form of development as it seeks to enhance the contribution of an existing tourist resort by increasing the quality and breadth of accommodation it provides. The accredited data suggests that there is a particular demand for the proposed high quality self catering accommodation within the Scottish Borders, with this type of accommodation providing a flexible duration of stay which can attract all year round market demand. The proposed development has been assessed by Council Economic Development Officers who offer support to this proposal therefore it is considered that the development crucially aligns with the objectives of the SBTS as required by determining planning policies and will further contribute to the region’s role in delivering growth within the tourist industry as required by national policy.

Landscape, Visual Impacts, Design and Layout

It must be noted that this is a planning permission in principle application therefore at this stage the submitted information can only be read as indicative. Initial concerns expressed by the department regarding the likely visual impact that the development would have within its environment led to a Landscape Appraisal being undertaken.

This appraisal is considered to have positively revised the layout of the proposed development by providing the following amendments;

x The re-siting of units away from the high point of the northern most area of the site which would be most susceptible from inward views and in ist place provide planting with potential for a feature; x The previous rather suburban layout has been replaced more sympathetic grouping of development in four distinct areas which will provide the ability for a more sensitive delivery of development in gradual clusters as opposed to requiring a mass of full site infrastructure to be in place first; x A distinct hierarchy of routes are suggested which will begin to create a better sense of place; x An internal planting framework has been illustrated to integrate the development within the site into its woodland surrounding and includes augmentation with existing panting; x Treatment of features through the site have evolved with amenity areas and tree lined central access; x The reinstatement of historical planting to Gala Rig outwith the site but on land within the control of the applicant is proposed to screen views from this area; x The verge and walling to the north east of the site are to be retained where possible with the area of stone removed to provide an entrance reused at the new opening.

Indicative sections have been provided through the site within Figure 3 of the Landscape Appraisal. However, justifiable concerns still surround the amount of cut and fill which will be required to achieve the proposed layout. On the basis that this is a PPP application, it is considered that this is a matter which will require due care at the detailed design stage when the actual design of the units are understood. Comfort can be taken from the sections providing indicative illustration that the units can likely be well contained by existing planting.

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

Given that this proposal is essentially seeking to attract people to a rural area it is not only in the interests of the Local Authority to ensure that the development respects the character of the area it is located within but in this case it is paramount for the applicant in order for their development to appear attractive to their target market. Although it would have been beneficial to take this proposal a stage further and understand the likely design of the units and possible questions that this may pose, this recourse can not be justified under the procedure of this PPP application where the central question relates to the acceptability of the principle of this development. In this case the positive evolution of the indicative layout design, which has been governed by an integral landscape structure both within and outwith the site has illustrated that in principle the provision of 28 units can be sensitively accommodated within the site in a manner which will not detract from the character, appearance and attraction of this rural countryside setting.

Should Member’s be minded to approve this application there is a need for robust planning conditions which will require precise further details to ensure that the unit design and any cut and fill requirements are fully investigated at a detailed design stage. A tree survey will be needed to ensure the design will not prejudice the mature trees in particular areas where the new access to the south is provided (N.B. this is also covered by a condition in the consent 08/00890/FUL) and where the plots bound the existing woodland enclosures which also represent the boundary of the site to the SSSI, in the case of Plot 2b.

It has been intimated that the development will likely take the form of a phased, plot by plot development. Therefore of significant importance will be the need to agree this delivery/phasing. It should be expected that this should be led by the landscape framework along with strategic infrastructure prior to any sequential phased plot development. This will provide comfort that the correct physical and more importantly visual infrastructure is in place first, avoiding a piecemeal development of the site. This will provide further safeguards that this rural area will not be eroded should all of the elements of the development not be provided at the same time.

Amenity and Impact on Neighbouring Uses

The principle of extending an existing tourist resort is both logical and consistent with Development Plan policies. The existence of the earlier approval also gives weight to the principle of the development being acceptable. In terms of neighbouring uses to the south and south east of the site there are a number of residential properties. However, in this case the distance and existing woodland belts surrounding the site provide sufficient separation and screening from neighbouring housing so that there is not considered to be any justifiable conflicts between this existing and the intensified tourism related use.

The revised layout which has broken up the development provides a form and scale of development is more appropriate within this rural area and for such reason illustrates that the volume of self catering units which are proposed can be provided in a manner which will respect the amenity and character of the surrounding area as required by criterion 4 of Policy D1.

Occupancy

The proposal wholly relates to holiday accommodation, similar to any tourist accommodation there is a general presumption to control the use of the accommodation to ensure that it is not used as a permanent residency. On the basis

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No.6(e) that the proposal is seeking to provide all year round tourist accommodation in accordance one of the key objective of the SBTS, it is not considered that a winter closure of the facilities would be appropriate. The applicants have suggested that they would accept a maximum period for the same people to occupy a unit for up to 6 continuous months within a 12 month period. Generally it would be expected that these periods should very rarely be applicable however the units are to provide flexible durations of stay with this optimum stay suggested by the Tourism Resource Company, which significantly Council Economic Development officers have not objected to. This timeframe would have sufficient controls to prevent full time residential use and given the need to maximise the use of the development should Members be minded to approve this proposal a condition to reflect these time periods for maximum occupancy is suggested.

Access and parking

In terms of access, the Roads Planning Officer has advised that the principle of a new opening along the north eastern boundary of the site addresses previous access concerns while reducing conflict with residential traffic to the south. Visually, piercing through this wall is regrettable as it is an intrinsic feature of the site; however the indicative plans reuse the removed stone within a new entrance which will provide a pleasing feature as the entrance into this development. A junction detail will be required for this access onto the public road including construction details, should Members be minded to approve this application this can be sought by condition. In addition, construction specifications for the acceptably positioned passing places and road widening will be required.

Objection comments have sited that the applicants do not benefit from title over the land to provide this new access, fundamentally this is a legal issue which falls outwith the determination of this planning application and is a matter for the applicants to ensure they have control over prior to undertaking any works. If they do not benefit from such control they can not proceed with the development

The indicative layouts have not provided any parking spaces. It would be expected that, pending information on the size of each unit, there may be a requirement for two car parking spaces. On viewing the ground available it appears the site should be able to accommodate these parking requirements. This will require being tested against the success of their integration within the site and will be a matter for assessment at the detailed application stage.

Natural Heritage

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) are the body concerned with protecting natural heritage sites, including the Whitmuirhall Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It is specified that the SSSI is notified for its basin fen and hydromorphological mire features. SNH have advised that this proposed development is outwith the designated site and that the proposed development is not considered to cause direct impacts upon it. However, the key issues that this development poses for the SSSI relate to the affects of the foul and surface water treatment methods and the construction methods and boundary / SSSI management methods to ensure that the development does not detract from its special qualifying features and the value of its setting.

SNH have advised that the detailed information in the form of the Engineering Report which accompanied this application and in particular drawing no S106427/A003/FD01, illustrates a satisfactory foul drainage treatment method which

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No.6(e) will not have any adverse implications upon the SSSI. Many objections suggest that the proposed development will result in the pollution of the SSSI. It is legitimate for the planning authority to assess the impact of the development upon the water environment, but clearly it must take account very closely of the advise of the key regulator SEPA.

Admittedly a more detailed assessment of the potential for pollution will be undertaken as part of SEPA’s decision to grant a Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) licence for the works. In terms of the planning assessment, it is important to note that SEPA have suggested that the scheme which has been detailed is in principle capable of authorisation.

Members will note that the revision of the layout of the development which has been referred to SNH has not superseded the proposed foul drainage scheme. On comparing the two plans, the changes to the indicative layout has not altered the septic tank/reed bed area. The change to the dispersion of plots within the site should still allow for the infrastructure to be delivered as satisfactorily previously detailed in drawing no S106427/A003/FD01. Fundamentally, it has been established by both SEPA and SNH that the principle to provide suitable drainage treatment methods exists and the precise detail of these works can be conditioned for conclusion at the detailed application stage.

The precise impact of the construction methods throughout the development can only be fully considered as part of a detailed application when the precise design of the development is understood. At places the indicative layout is in very close proximity to the boundary with the SSSI however it is important to bare in mind that this aspect of the indicative layout across the site has not been objected to by SNH. This positive response provides confidence that in principle the development is not consider to detract from wider setting and appreciation of the SSSI. This is on the basis that the conditions recommended by SNH are in place to require full assessment of the construction methods and proposed boundary protection ensuring that the full impacts can be scrutinised at the detailed design stage. This ensures the ability to impose further mitigations which will eliminate the risk of irreversible damage to the setting and appreciation of the SSSI.

Significant weight must be attached to the views of SNH’s and SEPA in these matters. The decision by these statutory consultees not to object to the proposed development subject to further conditions, as described above, coupled with the obligation upon the application to obtain a CAR licence is very significant in the determination of this application. Their stated position is that the principle of the proposed development does not adversely affect the integrity or qualifying features of the SSSI, and therefore the proposed development ultimately accords with Structure Plan Policy N3 Local Plan Policy NE2. There are not considered to be any overriding reasons to conclude otherwise at this PPP stage.

Ecology

The Council’s Ecology Officer has suggested the further surveys are required to assess the impact of the development upon bats. However SNH’s role as the licensing authority for European Protected Species (which bat are listed as being) and badgers have not requested this information before determination of the application. SNH have sited that there is potential for the felling of trees and lighting to disturb bats and the knowledge that badger setts exist within and around the development site. Although SNH have not specified the need for full surveys as a pre-requisite of a detailed application, if this is not specified as part of the Schedule

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No.6(e) of Conditions then the Authority will not be able to request this information. If Members are minded to approve this application it is therefore suggested, as intimated by the Council’s Ecologist that in the first instance further bat and badger surveys are required and pending the findings of theses surveys appropriate mitigation measures will be needed to be agreed with both the Local Authority and SNH who will be consulted. The applicant has already suggested that a need for further surveys would be welcomed. A need to agree the specification of any lighting can be incorporated into an appropriately worded condition.

In order to further protect the qualities of local biodiversity as required by Local Plan Policy NE3, further conditions relating to the appropriate clearance of the site to avoid the breeding bird season, suitable removal of the tyres on the site to avoid impact on herptiles and the need for a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan are recommended if Members are minded to approve this proposed development.

Archaeology

The Archaeology Officer has identified that there is evidence of a medieval village, tower and garage at Whitmuir with the possibility that evidence of these features could be located within the site and due to the proximity of the development to the loch there is further potential to discover unknown prehistoric archaeology. It is considered that there is reasonable evidence that the development of this site could unearth archaeological remains, therefore in order to comply with development plan policies relating to archaeology, it is recommended that a condition be imposed to require the developer to undertake an archaeological site evaluation prior to commencing development. The undertaking should take the form of trial trenches and will permit diligent recording and analysis of its results and any archaeological features which may be uncovered.

Flooding

Following the assessment of flood mapping data by the Council’s Flood Protection Officer it is not considered that the proposed development is at risk flooding or will pose any adverse implications to surrounding properties in terms of flooding and that the surrounding contours of the landscape will take flood water from the loch away from the site. An applicant informative should be used if Members are minded to approve the proposal to inform the applicant on deciding on the detailed design and finishes of their development water resilient materials and construction methods appropriate to the development should be incorporated as advised in PAN 69.

Land Contamination

The historical use of the site as a quarry poses questions of any existing land contamination. In accordance with the provisions of Local Plan Policy G2, it is not suspected that the reuse of this site will require any further investigation by way of a condition. However, an applicant informative note is suggested to alert the applicant that their development may encounter unexpected ground conditions and evidence of contamination. Should any adverse conditions be discovered the protection of public health will be regulated through the relevant Environmental Health legislation.

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

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposal complies with Council policies on tourism development in the countryside. The proposal would result in the extension of an existing tourist facility that would positively contribute to the local economy and Borders tourist industry. Provided that a high quality of layout, design, materials, landscaping, drainage proposals and construction methods are agreed at the detailed application stage, it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the environment or visual amenities of the area or have an adverse direct or indirect effect on the adjacent site of national natural heritage importance. The proposal would not harm the residential amenities of occupiers of properties in the surrounding area and adequate access can be provided.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES::

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

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

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

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

4. The means of water supply and of both surface water (including SUDS measures) and foul drainage to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority with the first detailed or approval of matters specified in conditions application for this development. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

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

5. 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 before the development is commenced. Details shall include; the phased construction of the units, construction of the surface water and foul drainage measures, construction of site access roads, construction of internal roads, implementation of internal and external planting framework and construction of site features/facilities. Reason: To ensure that the development proceeds in an acceptable manner.

6. The occupation of the chalets shall be restricted to genuine holidaymakers/tourists for individual periods not exceeding 6 months in total within any consecutive period of 12 months and not as permanent residential occupation. A register of holidaymakers shall be kept and made available for inspection by an authorised officer of the Council at all reasonable times. Reason: Permanent residential units in this location would be contrary to the Council housing in the countryside policies.

7. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining an Archaeological Evaluation. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to conduct a programme of evaluation prior to development. This will include the below ground excavation of evaluation trenches and the full recording of archaeological features and finds. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered the nominated archaeologist(s) will contact the Archaeology Officer for further consultation. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post-excavation analysis the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

8. The first planning application for the approval of reserved matters submitted subsequent to this planning permission, shall be accompanied by a both bat and badger surveys carried out by a suitably qualified person and submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, in liaison with Scottish Natural Heritage, with any mitigation measures to be provided in line with approved guidelines. Reason: To safeguard the ecological interests of the site.

9. No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement and a Environmental Management Plan which includes opportunities to enhance the biodiversity of the site has been submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority in liaison with Scottish Natural Heritage. Reason: To safeguard the ecological interests of the site.

10. Any site clearance to be undertaken outside of the breeding bird season (March –August). The tyres currently located within the site can only be removed by a suitably qualified ecologist. Reason: To safeguard the ecological interests of the site.

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

11. The first planning application for the approval of reserved matters submitted subsequent to the planning permission shall be accompanied by a Tree Survey. The survey shall include the impacts that the development will have on the sites existing woodland boundaries and along the route of the proposed new southern access to the site. The survey shall include detailed drawings showing which trees are to be retained on the site. The survey shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and none of the trees so shown shall be felled, thinned, lopped, topped, lifted or disturbed without the prior written consent of the Authority. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings, and to ensure that those existing tree(s) representing an important visual feature are retained and maintained.

12. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of soft and hard landscaping works for the site which includes off site planting provision to the north west of the site as intimated on Figure 2 of the Landscape Appraisal Report 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. other artefacts and structures such as furniture, play equipment and sculptures vi. 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. The first planning application for the approval of reserved matters submitted subsequent to this planning permission shall be accompanied by a detailed junction layout including its detailed of construction for the new access to the north east of the site on to the public road. Reason: To provide safe vehicular access.

14. The passing places and localised road widening illustrated on Drawing No S106427/A003/RD01 shall be constructed in accordance with the Councils Standard Drawing DC-1 and implemented prior to occupation of the first unit. Reason: To provide safe vehicular access.

15. Details of the external lighting for the chalet development to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. The development then to be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To prevent light pollution occurring from the development and safeguard ecological interests.

16. No walls, fences, hardstandings or ancillary buildings to be erected within the site without the prior approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

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

Informatives

1. With reference to Condition 1 requiring further agreement of the layout of the development the applicant is informed that this should be guided by the layout illustrated on Site Plan 152 rev B and Figure 2 of the Landscape Appraisal.

2. With respect of Condition 4 the applicant is advise that the detailed design of the surface and foul water treatment proposals should follow the Engineering Statement (March 2010, Scott Wilson) in particular drawing number S106427/A003/FD01 as recommended by SNH to preserve the integrity of the SSSI while there is an obligation that these details will require to meet SEPA’s CAR licensing requirements.

3. It is advised that the applicant adopts the use of water resilient materials and construction methods appropriate to the property as advised in PAN 69 due to its close proximity to Whitmuirhall Loch.

DRAWING NUMBERS

150 Location Plan 151 Site Plan 152 rev B Proposed Site Plan S106427-A0003/EL01 Topographical Survey S106427/A003/FD01 rev B Foul Drainage Plan S106427/A003/RD01 Public Road Improvement Works S106427/A003/SD01 rev B Surface Drainage Schematic

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Scott Shearer Assistant Planning Officer

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No 6 (f)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/01041/FUL OFFICER: Carlos Clarke WARD: Galashiels and District PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing bus station, erection of transport Interchange incorporating office accommodation, formation of vehicle apron area and new car park, highway modifications and extensive public realm works. SITE: Land To North And East And Incorporating Galashiels Bus Station, Stirling Street Galashiels APPLICANT: Scottish Borders Council AGENT: Hannah Perry, D5 Architects

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located within the town centre, comprising land situated between Douglas Bridge and the banks of the Gala Water to the south-west and Ladhope Vale to the north-east. The site is flanked by existing buildings comprising a range of uses to the north-west, and by the Abbotsford Hotel and Category B Listed Our Lady and St Andrew’s Church to the south-east.

Stirling Street traverses the site from north-west to south-east. To its south-westerly side is an existing public car park, flanked by a retail store and its car park to the north-west (currently B&M Bargains) and, to the south-east side, by Galashiels Bus Station and its bus park. The site bounds the banks of the Gala Water to its south- west, and includes a riverside walkway located between the bus station and the riverbank and leading from Stirling Street to Douglas Bridge.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks full planning permission to demolish the existing bus station and redevelop it and its associated bus parking area as a temporary public car park providing 47 spaces (reduced from 48 in the original submission). Stirling Street would be realigned. To its north side, the application proposes a three storey Transport Interchange (TI) building, which would be 15.3 metres high from ground floor level to its ridge (reduced from 16.7 metres in the original submission), approximately 48 metres in length and approximately 12 metres deep at its gables. On the ground floor would be bus waiting areas alongside six openings onto the bus park to its south, a café, reception, travel centre/tourist information centre and related facilities including toilets and plant accommodation. On the first floor would be office accommodation, principally associated with the operation of the bus station element. A small portion of the first floor, and the entire second floor, would be provided for ‘small and medium sized enterprise units’ unrelated to the transport operations.

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

The building would be accessed from its Ladhope Vale and Stirling Street frontages. Beyond the Ladhope Vale elevation would be the station platform to be designed and developed separately by Network Rail, which does not form part of this application.

The Stirling Street entrance would be angled towards a crossing point across the realigned street, leading in turn towards Douglas Bridge by way of a hard and soft landscaped area. A bus parking and manoeuvring area to the southerly side of the TI (referred to as a bus apron) would comprise 5 bus parking spaces and 2 coach parking spaces, accessed from Stirling Street. Four layover bays would be formed off Stirling Street itself further to the south east, close to the adjoining Our Lady and St Andrews Church. Alongside the Gala Water, the existing riverside path would be upgraded.

The building would be roofed in metal shingle cladding, in a silver grey colour, with the same material extending onto the upper part of walls on all four elevations. The lower part of the walls would be finished in natural stone, with metal cladding used for a canopy which wraps around the publicly accessible parts of the ground floor, and envelopes projecting glazed entrances to both main elevations of the building to the north-east and south-west. Windows would be framed in metal, and curtain walling used in selected areas.

External hard landscaped finishes would include natural stone slabs, stone or concrete paving units, resin-bound aggregate, along with upgrading of existing concrete paving on Stirling Street and the use of asphalt. The bus apron would be fenced (the design of which is considered further in the assessment section of this report).

PLANNING HISTORY

No relevant history

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

One representation has been received from the owners of the current bus station (First Scotland East Limited). The representation can be read in full on ‘Public Access’. The following is a summary of the main points:

x The Compulsory Purchase Order for the bus station site has been objected to and is still to be considered x The proposal will provide less facilities than now – only 7 bus stands, not 8. x There is no detail in relation to overnight bus parking. The current site allows for parking 17 buses overnight. The application includes 4 layover bays but these are not exclusive or secure x There is a lack of detail on how buses will return from the layover bays to the station, potentially leading to congestion x It is not clear how the controlled pedestrian crossing and access to/from the bus station will work safely in practice x There has been very little meaningful discussion with the current owners x There is little or no detail on how interim arrangements will work during construction, and no assessment of traffic implications during and after construction x No assessment of the application against the adopted Local Plan, including compliance with Policy G4. In the absence of a flood risk assessment, it fails to comply

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

x No assessment to show no unacceptable impacts on the town centre in accordance with Policy ED5 x With reference to Policy H3, the TI doesn’t cover the whole of the site. Unless it can be shown there is a shortage of employment or Class 4 land, there is no policy support for the Class 4 floorspace x There is nothing to show compliance with standards in Policy Inf3 and the road improvements would appear to cut across the relief road proposed on the settlement map x There is no policy support for a temporary car park, or even permanent parking, and any car parking would appear to be contrary to Policy Inf4 x Question whether the development complies with Policy Inf12 particularly given the reduction in bus stances x The road improvements haven’t been assessed against Policy Inf 10 part 2, no archaeological assessment has been undertaken and no assessment made of the impact on the Category B Listed Building x Though the application site is in part allocated for a TI the detailed design and layout and other uses do not comply and there is insufficient information and detail to give comfort that the development will not adversely affect the current owner’s ability to maintain and improve public transport provision now and in the future.

APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION

In support of the application, the applicants have submitted the following documents:

x Sustainability Statement x Ecological Appraisal x Transport Impacts Summary x Design and Access Statement and Design Statement for external works

Since the application was initially submitted, a “Statement on Flood Risk” has also been submitted, as has a detailed response to queries raised during the application process, “Response to Planning Submission Queries”.

The original submission was supported by 3D images, and the revised proposal has been supported by three further images.

Copies of all documents are available to view on “Public Access”.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

N2 International Sites N7 Protection of Nature Conservation Interest N8 River Tweed System N15 Regional and Local Archaeological Sites N16 Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording N17 Listed Buildings N20 Design E19 Town centre Enhancement C8 Access Network I4 Public Transport Provision

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

I15 Cycling I7 Walking I11 Parking Provision in New Development I14 Surface Water I15 Flood Risk Areas

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

G1 Quality Standards for New Development G2 Contaminated Land G4 Flooding G7 Infill Development BE1 Listed Buildings BE2 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments NE1 International Nature Conservation Sites NE3 Local Biodiversity NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows NE5 Development affecting the Water Environment NE6 River Engineering Works ED2 Employment Uses outwith Employment Land ED5 Town centres EP5 Air Quality H2 Protection of Residential Amenity H3 Land Use Allocations Inf2 Protection of Access Routes Inf3 Road Adoption Standards Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Inf5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Inf10 Transport Development Inf12 Public Infrastructure and Local Service Provision

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy New Design in Historic Settings (Historic Scotland) SPG Biodiversity SPG Trees and Development SPG Landscape and Development SPG Placemaking and Design SPG Guidance on Householder Development SPG Consultation Draft Stirling Street Redevelopment Urban Design Framework

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Archaeology Officer: Due to likely archaeological implications, sought an environmental statement on cultural heritage to inform a proper mitigation strategy and the design of the building. This has not been submitted and cannot support the proposal, given the high archaeological potential for the site.

Heritage and Design Officer: Though outside the Conservation Area, the impact on the wider setting of the B Listed Building, the nearby church, is a material consideration, the church having been designed to dominate the area as a focal

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

point. A key issue is that the site will be overlooked from surrounding areas of the town, in particular from the High Road.

Is content with the overall siting and general layout, and the plan footprint with the diagonal cut across the building is a positive response to channelling pedestrians towards the town centre and in enclosing bus stances. However, he has considerable concerns about the detailed design, in particular the elevation and roof treatment. Is unclear as to the rationale for the design approach. There appear to have been no options appraisal showing the alternative roof forms considered, and the twisted mansard roof proposed does not take account of its setting nor does the choice of diagonal metal shingles. The proposed colour of the roof varies within the application submission. There is no detail as to options considered for the elevational treatment of the building.

The visuals submitted with the application show the building in context, and the Ladhope Vale drawing particularly shows that it does not respect neighbouring buildings.

Has serious concerns about the external appearance of the building, and suggests an alternative arrangement of the roof for discussion, though notes this is only one possible option, and other options could include a sedum roof. Also suggests that the external treatment of the building could be based on a traditional ‘town centre’ model.

Does not support the proposal on the grounds of design.

Ecology Officer: Is content with the ecological appraisal. There is evidence of an otter resting place within 25m so suggests an informative note advising applicants of the need for a license. The existing building is considered to have negligible potential to support roosting bats. The riverbank retaining wall has low potential. Precautionary measures are recommended in the report. Invasive non-native species were recorded nearby. Precautionary measures should be adopted and it would be prudent to implement a local control programme to ensure future problems don’t arise. Breeding birds may use scrub and trees, and precautionary measures are recommended. Welcomes the recommendation to compensate for loss of woodland scrub with native species. There are opportunities to provide bat and bird boxes in trees and to incorporate swift boxes within the design of the building.

The recommendations in the ecological appraisal should inform planning conditions which include: adopting SEPA guidance to protect the Gala Water (part of River Tweed SAC); vegetation clearance kept outside bird breeding season; submission of a control plan for non-native species; and, habitat enhancements for bats and birds to offset biodiversity losses, included in a Habitat Enhancement Plan to be submitted before work starts.

Urban Design Officer: The overall layout of the site appears to work well. It provides clear and direct linkage between the site, Douglas Bridge and the town centre to the south and the rail halt to the north. The plan form of the building, with two ‘colliding’ forms, works well in responding to this pedestrian desire line. The creation of the civic space and the Gala Waterfront walkway, in accordance with the SPG, is welcomed. Raises a number of issues which include: x Energy efficiency elements of the building, lighting and extent of cycle provision x Surfacing of the eastern pathway and need for seamless treatment of Ladhope Vale

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

x Relationship with the railway station design – it is critical they are designed as a seamless whole x The building design doesn’t relate particularly well to the Galashiels context, and it is hard to see how the design has been informed by the wider townscape The mansard roof and dormer window references could be more simply handled, and the potential for a sedum (‘living roof’) is noted for consideration. The design causes some concern in the overall composition x The scale and massing of the building seems at odds with the street elevation onto Ladhope Vale. While it is a civic building that justifiably merits proportions of a grander scale, it does appear to dwarf the textile building and the church. An options appraisal in terms of approach to scale and massing would have been useful. Shares concerns regarding potential overshadowing of the platform x Queries the colour proposed for the roof, while the use of stone and extensive glazing to the ground floor is welcomed

Overall, has some significant concerns regarding the relationship of the building in the townscape, and recommends some refinement to achieving a simplified, more sensitive design.

Landscape Architect: Raises queries, including: x Concerns regarding the scale of the building and potential overshadowing of the station platform x The consistency of hard surface materials x Location of bin store x Number of cycle racks x Seeks assurance that tree planting won’t prejudice extension of riverside walkway to the west x Queries the style, durability and ease of replacement of any damaged section of the feature screen fence x Lack of footway across Stirling Street x Suggests a railing on the Gala Water will be needed for safety reasons Ultimately, supports the proposal and most comments could be remedied with minor changes, though overshadowing of the station platform is more fundamental.

Access Officer: No reply

Roads Planning Service: The TI is a vital piece of the Central Borders sustainable transport jigsaw, and the proposal is commended. The TI is in the ideal location, with easy access between it and the railway with the controlled at grade crossing. The logical location of the bus concourse is on the south side. With nearby taxi ranks, this will deliver a fully integrated transport system right in the heart of the town. Passenger drop-offs are understood to be being provided as a separate issue, and notes cycle racks accommodating 22 bikes are proposed. Strong pedestrian/cycle linkage is proposed including links towards Market Street, riverside walkway and the town centre. The realignment of Stirling Street has the benefit of improving the alignment of the road. Recommends that the proposed car park have an ‘in and out’ layout, and that pedestrian links from it be improved, even if losing one or two spaces.

The facilities and use of the TI building has involved through stakeholder group meetings and extensive discussion and agreement with key players including First Scotland East Limited, the Council’s Passenger Transport Service and the Community Council. Is content to support this part of the proposal as it stands, and is

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6 (f) content to accept that no dedicated staff car parking is proposed given the proposed riverside car park and sustainable transport gains. As the riverside area is developed, town centre parking will need to be looked at more holistically.

Notes the history of discussions with First during the development of the design involving consultation on stance provision, layover provision, their office provision within the new building and overnight parking. Consultation with the Council’s Passenger Transport Service has occurred throughout the project. 7 buses are provided for, with two of the stands long enough for coaches, with 4 bus layovers on Stirling Street. The design proposal allows for future growth in demand, with the potential for some or all of the layover bays to then be used as stands in the future. It is contended that First confirmed a requirement for overnight parking for 10 buses. The design proposal accommodates overnight parking for 10, while allowing one stand to remain operational for late night bus/coach services.

Fully supports the application, subject to the minor alterations to the car park and path link.

Environmental Health Service: Prior to approval being granted, the applicants should submit a construction method statement detailing controls for mitigating noise and dust impacts arising from construction and other activities undertaken on site.

Flood Prevention Officer: The detailed Galashiels study (JBA report) shows the site to be within the 1:200 flood risk level across the new car park and most of the public realm area. Has no objection to the area flooding, but agrees with SEPA that no land raising should occur and seeks topographical information to confirm this. Drainage from the road will tie into the existing and the car park and public realm area will retain the existing drainage set up. Wants information to demonstrate the capacity of the existing system can cope with the additional drainage. Surface water management of the TI and bus parking area will be addressed by infiltration facilities, and consideration should be given to the potential for these to overflow and the level of flood risk should be quantified and addressed. The drainage set up as a whole should not exceed existing run off or discharge and seeks calculations to confirm this.

Statutory Consultees

Galashiels & Langlee Community Council: Ask that the tourist information centre be staffed and not simply a space for marketing literature and leaflets. Hope also that the ticket selling aspect will be staffed rather than the use of automated ticket machines. Had some concern that the building looked too modern, but discussion with the project manager has addressed these concerns. Were reassured that no parking spaces would be lost, other than perhaps 2 or 3 at B&M Bargains. Welcome the cycle racks, showering facilities, and lengthy opening hours. The Gala Waterways Group asked that access to the riverside and path be ensured. The path should enhance the interchange area and be extended to the Park Street Bridge over the Gala Water.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Originally objected unless conditions were applied regarding flood risk and surface water. Generally support the redevelopment, but the development is outwith the protection offered by Galashiels' two flood protection schemes. Part of the site lies within an area of risk, and these areas are the proposed car park and open space. While supportive of these uses, ground levels must remain unaltered within the 1:200 year risk extent and no building take place. If a flood wall is proposed, this would require a flood risk assessment.

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

Following subsequent consideration of the applicant’s submitted statement on flood risk, and then a submission of level information showing very little change to ground levels within the site, withdrew their objection provided the proposals are required to comply with the submitted levels plans.

In terms of surface water, appreciate that the site is restricted. Notes the proposal includes surface water infiltration to the ground. Is satisfied that there is adequate space for a SUDs system within the site, though request a condition requiring full details of this. Note that the water quantity aspect of the scheme should be for Scottish Water, roads and floor prevention services.

Scottish Natural Heritage: The development is in close proximity to the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC), with potential for adverse impacts, and disturbance to otters which are a European Protected Species. The proposal could be progressed with mitigation, and object unless it is subject to those measures. In terms of the SAC, significant effects are likely and an ‘appropriate assessment’ is required. However, if amended so works are done in accordance with mitigation, significant effects can be avoided and an ‘appropriate assessment’ is not required. There should be no depositing of material in the riverbank, construction work should be carried out in accordance with strict environmental safeguards, and method statements should be produced detailing protection of the Gala Water. No storage of materials or equipment on land subject to flooding, and no intervention of the watercourse or its banks.

Expect SEPA to be content that wastewater and surface water discharge will not affect the integrity of the SAC. The Council should satisfy itself that the development will be in accordance with policy guidance and advice on flooding.

As the otter survey found evidence of otters, a license is required, as is a protection plan and a pre-start otter survey.

Scottish Water: No reply

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Whether the proposed development would comply with development plan policies and, if not, whether material considerations would justify a departure from those policies, particularly focusing on traffic and road safety matters; the scale, form, design and materials of the proposed development; flooding, and potential impacts on cultural heritage and ecology

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Principle

The Transport Interchange (TI) and bus parking apron lie largely within the site allocated for this purpose in the adopted Local Plan. The development complies with Policy H3 as a result. The proposed TI building extends out to the north-east beyond the allocation, but is within the town centre boundary and, though breaking into the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No 6 (f) area allocated for the inner relief road, the roadworks have already been carried out and the TI will be absorbed into the new layout.

The TI building includes rail and bus transport related uses on the ground and first floor. Enterprise units are proposed on the upper floors too, and while these are not ancillary to the TI, they do not undermine the allocation for the TI, but rather they would compliment it. Their inclusion is essential as a funding mechanism for the wider development, but as Policy ED5 supports a wide range of uses in the town centre and this includes Class 4 offices of the type proposed, there would not be any policy conflict. Other uses, such as Classes 5 and 6 would, however, not be supported.

Policy E19 of the approved Structure Plan also supports town centre enhancements, and this development reflects this policy. The southern part of the development includes a car park, improvements to the riverside walkway and landscaping, all designed to replace existing provision until this area is redeveloped in the future, and to encourage pedestrians to walk between the TI and town centre shops. This arrangement supports the retail function of the town centre. These uses do not prejudice the development of the TI on its allocated site and are appropriate to the town centre. Land allocated for commercial redevelopment to the west would be affected only in a minor sense, with Stirling Street realigned a little here, and a modest adjustment to parking within the B&M Bargains’ car park. There would be no prejudice to its capacity to be redeveloped in the future.

Flood risk

The southern part of the site comprising the car park and ‘public realm’ area is at risk of flooding. However, there is no objection to these areas being flooded, provided the development does not involve land raising which would increase the risk of flooding to other properties. Following submission of a flood risk statement, and information on topographical changes which suggest that the development will involve very little change to levels, SEPA have confirmed they are content. No walls are proposed within the development to act as flood barriers. The TI and access/egress routes are outside the flood risk area with the TI itself some 2m above the 1:200 risk level including climate change.

Ecology

The site is adjacent the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC). No works are proposed within the riverbank, albeit construction works nearby have the potential to have an adverse impact. The ecological appraisal submitted with the application recommends that pollution prevention guidance be followed, and the Council’s Ecology Officer suggests the same. SNH are content that an ‘appropriate assessment’ is not required if pollution prevention measures are followed. A construction method statement can incorporate good practice measures to protect the riverbank and river.

An otter resting site is within 25m and could be disturbed. It is not directly affected, however, a license will be required. The ecological appraisal accounts for this, and our ecology officer suggests an informative note be applied to any consent to advise of the licensing requirements. SNH also seek a protection plan and survey before work starts. Conditions can be applied to support any licensing requirements to minimise any risk.

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

No trees within the riverbank are proposed for removal, though thinning may be necessary and there will be loss of some planting within the site. Compensatory planting can be required, as recommended by our ecology officer, as part of a Habitat Enhancement Plan (HEP). The landscape plan suggests that tree coverage will be increased significantly above the existing and, provided the final specification includes species that provide suitable habitat, this will provide adequate mitigation.

There is low potential for the development to disturb bats. Precautionary measures are recommended, and bat boxes can be provided within trees as part of the HEP.

Breeding birds will not be adversely affected as long as tree thinning and removal and any vegetation/scrub clearance are undertaken outwith the bird breeding season. Bird boxes, including swift boxes, can be required as part of the HEP, the latter potentially incorporated within the building design, and the applicant’s agent has confirmed this is possible.

Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam were recorded in the riverbank and the development may fall within the buffers for these ‘invasive’ species. Following discussion with our ecology officer, it is considered that a method statement and control plan can be applied to address risk of spread.

Archaeology

Ideally, this development would have been supported, and designed around, the outcome of an archaeological appraisal of the site. That has not occurred. However, it must be recognised that the site is, firstly, not designated as having archaeological sensitivity and, secondly, that it is allocated for development. Following consultation with the Council’s Archaeology Officer, it is considered that a robust desk based assessment should be sought by condition, followed by evaluation by trenching prior to any development works. Depending on the evaluation, a full excavation may be needed to record the underlying archaeology. If significant archaeology is discovered, proper analysis and dissemination of results will be required. Conditions which secure these measures are considered reasonable mitigation for any potential impacts in this case.

Existing public services

Policy Inf12 of the Local Plan seeks to retain existing public services unless there is a locational need, viability issue or overriding benefit. This development would result in the removal of the bus station from its current site, but will replace it with a new facility which links to the Waverley Railway Line, providing a much improved, integrated transport facility for the public in a very centralised, highly accessible location. It is noted that the existing bus station owners are concerned on several points. They note that there will be less bus stands than now, question the availability of overnight parking for buses, query the lack of detail on how buses can return to the bus apron, query practicalities of the controlled pedestrian crossing, and the lack of detail on how interim arrangements will work while construction takes place.

These are all legitimate concerns. Ultimately, whether the proposed development meets the needs of an individual operator is a matter for resolution between the operator and the applicants and may require to be resolved through the CPO process currently being undertaken for the bus station. However, the above points are material as regards the delivery of a sustainable TI that minimises its effect on the existing public transport service, provides adequate replacement for it, as well as matters regarding traffic implications during and after construction. The Roads

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

Planning Service (RPS)’s consultation comments, however, are considered to adequately address the key concerns regarding bus stances and overnight provision of lay-bys. Detailed matters of crossing points will be for the RPS as part of the roads construction consent process.

In terms of the impacts of the development during construction, the development will affect paths, road links, and use of those for cycling, car parking and the existing bus station. It has the potential to cause significant issues in these regards while construction takes place. Timing of replacement parking and other transport facilities within the new development will require further assessment, to ensure the new uses are properly served by the new arrangements. The application includes no assessment or strategy in these regards. In consultation with the RPS, however, it is considered that these aspects will be covered adequately through separate tender and Roads Construction Consent processes and do not require to be duplicated by means of a planning condition.

Traffic and road/pedestrian safety issues

Issues raised with regard to construction impacts on the transport network, and with respect to the existing bus station and the acceptability of bus facilities to be provided within the proposed TI are considered above.

On other transport matters, the layout will improve existing pathways to Ladhope Vale, Stirling Street and the riverside walkway and will direct pedestrians from the TI to the town centre. Bike storage will be provided to cater for 22 bikes, increased during the course of the application. The existing taxi rank will be maintained close by.

A small number of parking spaces will be lost, though the new car park will provide a replacement facility with good access to the town centre which the RPS supports. The proposed car park has been amended so that it has an ‘in-out’ arrangement of two accesses, rather than the one access initially proposed, and its path links have been improved during the course of the application, though a slight further improvement will be sought by the RPS and is covered by condition.

Pedestrian access from the car park across Stirling Street is not considered essential, particularly since to provide it may encourage pedestrians to attempt to enter the TI via the bus parking apron. The car park is, in any case, temporary pending future redevelopment of this area around the TI. The realignment, and detailed specification of, Stirling Street and the car park will be subject to further scrutiny via the Roads Construction Consent process.

Overall, the development reflects a key objective of Policy Inf10 to promote more sustainable travel patterns, and will contribute to the vitality and vibrancy of the town centre, maximising its accessibility. Implications for the natural and built environment, ecology and cultural heritage, as required by this policy, are considered elsewhere in this report.

Services

Water supply and foul drainage will be by mains connections. Surface water drainage proposals include infiltration to ground within the TI site, including bus apron and footpaths; road drainage will connect to the existing; car park and landscaped areas’ drainage will use existing drainage with a new system to be put in place on the site of the existing bus station. SEPA are content that a detailed scheme based on SUDs

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No 6 (f) principles is achievable, though they need more detail, and the Council’s Flood Protection Officer seeks more information to demonstrate that run-off can be maintained at existing levels and that that the existing system has the capacity to cope. Ultimately, the drainage strategy establishes that the development layout can, in principle, support a Sustainable Urban Drainage scheme but more detail will be required to be considered, in consultation with SEPA and the Council’s Flood Protection Officer.

Layout and impact on existing features

The site has no buildings of architectural or historic value within it, nor any trees of any significance. Works to overhanging riverbank trees is not unacceptable if carried out to recognised British Standards. The bus station has a fine stone wall with railings fronting the current Stirling Street boundary and the applicant’s agent has suggested that there is the potential to consider including a feature of this type in place of the screen fencing proposed (this aspect is covered later in this assessment).

The TI is proposed in the most appropriate place, fronting Ladhope Vale and the platform. The bus apron is arranged, in visual terms, as well as can be expected on a site with public roads to both front and rear. The screening of the bus apron by fencing is considered later. The footprint of the building will sit comfortably on Ladhope Value in terms of its layout, and arrangement and orientation of the footprint (with an entrance area projecting at an angle to both front and rear).

The layout of external hard surfaced areas and landscaping, is clearly designed to promote pedestrian movement between the TI and the town centre. The projecting entrances are a very strong feature of the layout, and that to the rear of the building will create a strong visual connection to the town centre, designed to positively draw pedestrian movements in and out of the building.

The car park to the south maximises the amount of car parking spaces, but surrounding landscaping is used effectively to reduce its visual impact and this car park will be relatively temporary. The application also includes improvements to the riverside walkway. A bin store will potentially be exposed, although the applicant’s agent has suggested the location of this could be considered further, and a condition can be imposed to this effect; however, it is difficult to see where this can be placed without being exposed to public view from somewhere. Its acceptability may potentially come down to effective screen fencing.

In terms of topography, aside from a rise from the rear where some steps will be needed to reach the south-westerly entrance, the building will relate comfortably to surrounding levels and the proposed ground levels will be virtually identical to the existing.

Scale

The building is on three storeys but, at over 15m high, is of a scale comparable to a five storey residential building. It is significant in height, length and depth and will rather dwarf its immediate neighbours. Its proximity to Ladhope Vale will mean it will directly flank the public realm from which its scale will be particularly apparent. From Douglas Bridge, approaching from the Conservation Area, existing riverbank trees and proposed new trees will help soften views of the overall building. The building will also compare with the scale of the Category B Listed church to the south-east, although this is a rather more distant relationship.

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

The building has been reduced in size from its original submission, by approximately 1.3 metres in height, 0.8 metres in depth and 1.2 metres in length, albeit these are relatively minor reductions and the building will remain very significant in scale and bulk.

It will be set away from key views to and from the B Listed church and should not significantly affect its setting or that of other Listed Buildings within the town. Its civic status is a considerable mitigating factor and presents a very significant justification for why the building is of the scale it is and will have the visual presence it will have and, indeed, why it should become a focal point within the town centre as much as the nearby Listed church and other dominant buildings have.

From the north-west, Ladhope Vale is relatively varied and includes a 7 storey flatted building (although much of it is set down below the road), a five storey office building and a large, three storey building nearer to the site. From the east and south-east, its scale will be read more with its smaller immediate neighbours, including the Abbotsford Hotel, though, as already noted, the scale of the nearby Listed church, woodland backdrop and its civic use are all mitigating factors.

Of note too are aspirations, reflected in the Council’s draft planning guidance for the Stirling Street area, for higher density development of up to 4 storeys. In time, this development should be visually more comfortable with its surroundings in terms of scale. In the meantime, it will be a very significant presence within the town centre, especially onto Ladhope Vale, and there remain reservations regarding its scale in this existing context.

However, it is recognised that the applicants have reduced the building as far as is possible while maintaining it as an economically viable project. It is also recognised that this site is relatively small and constrained, that the TI must really be developed in this location between the town centre and the railway platform and its highly accessible location means that, for the development to be as sustainable as possible, it needs to maximise the potential of the site. Ultimately, these factors are considered overriding.

Form and design

The building’s scale has generated some difficulty with achieving a sympathetic envelope to the building. This has been overcome to a large degree, however, by the use of the punctuating entrance arrangement that helps break up the massing of the elevations, and the use of glazing and canopies. The roof shape can best be described as a ‘twisted mansard’, though it is not truly a mansard roof in the traditional sense.

The roof has been designed as the ‘fifth elevation’ given its potential to be visible from higher parts within the town. This has allowed plant to be hidden within the envelope of the building. The roof design has generated debate, however. The roof needs to span a relatively deep plan and long elevations the resulting elevational treatment has also generated concerns. While glazed elements are a key feature of the building, the upper levels are almost domestic in their arrangement of windows and dormers, and the extent of unrelieved walling is a noticeable feature on parts of the building, which large scale logos and signage (as proposed) cannot completely obscure.

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

In response, the applicant has considered alternative arrangements for the roof, including taking the glazed entrance portion up through the top of the roof, however, this will accentuate the height of the building. A sedum roof has been discounted for maintenance reasons and, perhaps, is not ideally suited to a town centre location in any case. A flat roof would not be attractive, and a traditional pitched roof would not work on a building of this scale. Indeed, a pitched roof is likely only to increase the height and scale of the building further.

The applicant’s agent maintains that the proposed twisted roof has responded to the brief for the development. It is also fair to say that the arrangement of upper floor windows is influenced by arrangements found within traditional town centre terraces and town houses. The roof design is, indeed, somewhat unique, and its novel appearance, arguably accentuated by the choice of surfacing material (see later) will help distinguish the building as a recognised feature, not just within Galashiels, but within the Borders. For this type of building, such an impact is desirable.

The gable profile created by the roof is rather blunt, especially where the higher of the sloping ridges is exposed to Ladhope Vale to the east. The proposal has, however, been adjusted to incorporate different window arrangements, including additional windows, which have helped break up the massing of the gable. The proposal also includes the application of the roofing material to the upper walls which, though not at all a traditional approach, will help, in this case, to break up the apparent scale of the elevations. Other improvements have been made to the upper floor windows. It is also reasonable to conclude that the extent of glazing on the ground floor will have more visual presence than the extent of unrelieved walling.

There remain some reservations regarding the form, massing and design of the building. These reservations have not been fully addressed by the modifications made to it. To some extent, these reservations have faded as the building design has become more familiar. If the building were developed as proposed, it is to be expected that, though it will have a very significant initial presence, it should also become more accepted as people become more familiar with it.

The design is, ultimately, quite different to any existing building in the town, and that is to its credit, given its proposed civic presence and nature of use. It will very likely generate mixed opinions and that, for a public building, can also be a beneficial outcome. Key features of the building, including its projecting, glazed entrances, are to be supported. These are the elements that the public may most likely be aware of, rather than the arrangement of upper floor windows or the shape of the roof. Overall, it is considered that the merits of the proposal outweigh these reservations.

Materials

Local materials are predominantly slate, stone and render. This proposal incorporates stone on the lower walls. Metal shingle cladding is proposed for the upper walls and roof. This will be a new material but, again, the use of the building does lend itself to a material which is recognisably different, albeit one which is sympathetic too. It is understood that consultation between the applicants and stakeholders led to a proposal for a gold coloured cladding, which would have been altogether more striking, to the extent that it may have been overpowering and further emphasised the scale of the building. It is considered that a silver finish will be the most sympathetic approach for this context and the applicant has agreed. A sample of this, and other materials to be used, which include metal cladding for the projecting entrances and canopy and curtain walling, can be sought by condition.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No 6 (f)

Relationship to railway platform

The platform is proposed to the north of the TI. It is, however, being developed separately by Network Rail and does not require Planning Permission, rather it requires ‘prior approval’ of its design and appearance. Discussions with Network Rail on this proposal are currently ongoing, and it is important to recognise the need to ensure that there is a strong visual connection between the platform and the TI building.

As regards the potential for the TI to overshadow the platform, the applicant’s agent recognises this, but also notes that the TI includes bus and rail waiting areas, and that its proximity to the platform, and its southerly location relative to it, are essential and unavoidable. The platform will be considerably longer than the building so there will be areas where it will not be in shade.

Lighting

Lighting is referred to in the application, including a strategy and reference in the Design Statement to possible reuse of historic lanterns held by the Council, or new 4m high columns, as well as the use of ground lighting and lighting in feature seating walls. For the purposes of this planning application, it is considered that lighting within the public path and road network is a matter for the RPS to separately consider, including the use of low energy lighting. There is no lighting proposed within the bus parking apron itself (it is to use overspill light from the street lighting). No details of lighting are, therefore, considered necessary for the purposes of this application.

Boundary treatments and landscaping

The landscape plan has been revised during the course of the application. The existing tarmac footpath on Ladhope Vale will be retained, and existing slabs made good on the eastern route onto Stirling Street (albeit some of this is currently tarmac) Stone or concrete paving units will be used around the building. Natural stone slabs will lead through the entrances of the building towards Douglas Bridge, flanked by contrasting stone or concrete paving units, as well as a resin-bound aggregate surface which will also be used for the riverside walkway. The arrangement is designed to encourage pedestrian footfall between the town centre and the TI and, subject to agreeing samples (which will ideally reflect materials used in recent improvements within the town centre), the arrangement is considered appropriate and, indeed, an enhancement on the existing situation.

The bus apron and car park surfacing specifications are not clear, though if tarmaced, along with the realigned Stirling Street, this would not be objectionable since these finishes will tie into the existing network.

The application includes a planting scheme, though this needs further detail. It has included a gap to the south-west to ensure the riverside walkway can be extended if required. It will also need to include species which dovetail with the Habitat Enhancement Plan.

Concrete benches are proposed, as are low height natural stone or cast stone feature seating walls. These will compliment the path network within the site and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No 6 (f) reflect recent town centre improvements. A condition will be needed to secure agreement of final specifications for the benches, though sufficient information has been provided of the seating walls.

In terms of boundary treatments, very few are proposed. No riverside wall or fence is proposed, though the applicant’s agent notes that this will be considered if required following consideration of safety matters as the design develops. The bus parking apron is proposed to be enclosed by a fence, just over 2m high, on a varied height stone plinth. This would be galvanised steel, of a regular but busy pattern. This would also be a distinctive feature of the development, and would provide screening of the bus apron without being a strong visual barrier. The applicant’s agent has noted that replacement panels will be ordered at the beginning and that it will be protected by a crash barrier. The potential for weathering steel to be used has, however, been recognised, and the agent also notes that alternative designs could be considered, including incorporating of the existing bus station wall/railing approach. A condition is imposed to allow for the potential for the design and materials of the fencing to be considered further, albeit having agreed the principle of the location and height of the fencing under the planning consent, if granted.

Energy efficiency

The application submission includes a statement on energy efficiency in which it is noted that the building will achieve a 30% reduction on 2007 Building Standards within its design, including optimising glazing, and orientation within the plot; auto lighting controls; energy efficient appliances and plant; considering low and zero carbon technologies such as biomass, combined heat and power, air and ground heat pumps, solar thermal and micro hydro. The statement notes that constraints on biomass, air source heat pumps and photovoltaic panels will probably rule these out.

The applicant’s agent has also since advised that a heat pump is proposed for space heating, combined heat and power for hot water and electric base load, with enhanced thermal performance leading to a circa 25-50% improvement on the Building Standards.

While these measures are clearly still to be finalised, they demonstrate that energy efficiency is a key element in the brief for the building. In terms of this application, however, it is not a key matter that needs to be satisfied, and is one which is more firmly considered during the Building Warrant application.

Contaminated Land

No issues have been raised by consultees during the consideration of this application

Mobility, safety and security

The TI is designed, according to the supporting information, to be fully accessible, with automatic doors and compliant access from all directions. Kerb edge heights at the bus boarding area will be designed to enable level access. The layout of the site reflects key desire lines, with the building accessible without steps. Though steps are needed to negotiate the change in level towards the rear entrance, an alternative route is available.

In terms of safety and security, there do not appear to be any particular concerns with the proposal and, indeed, particularly the improvements to the riverside walkway

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No 6 (f) will increase the openness of this part of the site. Lighting will be considered separately, as noted above. CCTV is proposed and is a matter for the applicants.

Neighbouring amenity

The TI is proposed on an allocated site, and the principle of the proposed use must be accepted. The site is within the town centre, and existing uses within the site and surrounding area include the bus station, retail and commercial uses. The proposed uses within the building do not generate concerns regarding amenity. During the construction phase it is recognised that the development will lead to noise and dust impacts. A condition has been requested by the Environmental Health Service in this regard and it is prudent to apply given the proximity of the development to existing uses.

In terms of privacy impacts, there would be some overlooking of the house to the north-west, though it has no facing windows, the TI’s main elevations are not angled towards it, and its gardens and main elevations are currently exposed to public roads at present. Planting alongside this building will help mitigate any impacts. Impacts from overlooking onto the Abbotsford Hotel to the east are not a concern given the use of this building, and the proposal raises no other concerns regarding privacy loss.

In terms of light, sunlight and outlook loss, the TI has the potential to adversely affect the house to the north-west and hotel to the south-east, though should not significantly adversely affect any other properties. The building will be set behind the main south-westerly elevation of the house, which also has no facing windows on its south-east elevation, so sunlight loss is not a concern. Some effect on daylight/outlook loss may result for the north-facing windows within the house, and sunlight loss to the garden, but neither of these impacts is considered significant, particularly when weighed against the desirability of developing the TI at this location. Again, planting alongside the house will help mitigate effects on outlook, though a proposed tree to the south-east of the front elevation of the house could be micro- sited a little just to reduce effects on its outlook.

The Abbotsford Hotel will not be significantly affected along its northerly, easterly or southerly elevations, though daylight and outlook loss may occur for its north- westerly facing conservatory. The conservatory will, however, maintain its south- westerly to north-westerly access to sunlight and daylight, and thus the effects on this commercial property are not considered to be likely significant.

CONCLUSION

Though, in the short term, there remain some reservations regarding the scale, form and design of this building, these concerns are considered to be outweighed by the merits of the proposal; in the longer term, with wider redevelopment proposed in the locality the scale of the building will become less significant. Overall, subject to compliance with the undernoted schedule of conditions, the proposed development is considered to comply with development plan policies and other material considerations have not undermined this compliance or justified a departure from development plan policies.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No 6 (f)

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES::

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

2 All works shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings approved under this consent, including the level changes specifically noted on drawing numbers C203 B, C206 and C204 C unless otherwise amended by this schedule of conditions or agreed with the Planning Authority. Where floor plans are inconsistent with the elevational drawings, the development shall be completed in accordance with the elevational drawings. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out as approved under this consent

3 No development shall commence until samples of all materials to be used on all exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted, including all roof, wall, projecting features/canopies finishes, external window and door finishes, all external hard surface finishes and finishes of concrete benches and seating walls have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The development shall proceed only in accordance with the approved materials/finishes. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

4 No development shall commence until a Habitat Enhancement Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority including a timescale for the implementation of the same. The development shall proceed only in accordance with the terms of the approved plan. Reason: To provide habitat mitigation and enhancement within the development

5 No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement, which demonstrates measures to protect the Gala Water (River Tweed Special Area of Conservation) has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Once approved, the development shall proceed only in accordance with the terms of the approved statement. Reason: To safeguard the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation

6 No development shall commence until an Invasive Species Method Statement and Control Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Once approved, the development shall proceed only in accordance with the terms of the approved plan. Reason: To minimise risk of spread of invasive species

7 No development shall commence until a survey for otters (of a scope to be first agreed with the Planning Authority) and a construction phase protection plan for otters, have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Once approved, the development shall proceed only in accordance with the terms of the approved protection plan. Reason: To minimise risk to otters during the construction phase

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No 6 (f)

8 No development shall commence until written evidence is provided on behalf of Scottish Water to confirm that mains water, foul and surface water drainage systems shall be made available to serve the development, and until full details of the finalised surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The surface water drainage scheme shall include evidence that the scheme will maintain existing run-off levels, that the existing drainage has capacity to cope with any additional proposed load, and infiltration measures have capacity to cope with the proposed load. Reason: To ensure the development can be adequately serviced and to ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water runoff in a manner which does not increase run-off to other properties or increase risk of surface water flooding

9 No development commence until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a Desk Based Assessment and Archaeological Evaluation. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to conduct a programme of evaluation prior to development. This will include the below ground excavation of evaluation trenches and the full recording of archaeological features and finds. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered the nominated archaeologist(s) will contact the Archaeology Officer for further consultation. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post-excavation analysis, the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site

10 No development shall commence until a method statement which details measures to be taken during the construction phase to minimise risk of dust and noise pollution for existing properties surrounding the site has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Once approved, the development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved statement. Reason: To minimise risk to neighbouring properties during the construction phase

11 No development shall commence until a revised plan of the car park to the south of the site which incorporates revisions to the path links within the south-western corner has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Once approved, the development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved revised plan. Reason: Further enhancement to pedestrian links from the car park is required

12 Notwithstanding references within the approved plans, no development shall commence on the following elements until further details/revised details as applicable have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority: concrete benches (detailed elevations); of the bin store (location and screening); and of the fencing to the bus apron (including gates) in terms of detailed design, material specification of fencing and its colour, and a sample of lower walling.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No 6 (f)

Once approved, the development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details. Reason: Further information, and potential revision in the case of the bus apron fencing and bin store location, is required to ensure these features are visually appropriate to the surrounding area

13 No development shall commence until further details of the soft landscaping scheme/planting on the approved plans have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority which include full species schedules and their location within the approved planting layout, timescale for implementation and maintenance measures for all landscaping/planting. The planting plan shall be adjusted from the layout on the approved plan so to ensure trees do not extend beyond the south-westerly elevation of the adjacent house to the north-west. Once approved, the development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: Further information of, and a minor adjustment to, the approved planting scheme is required to ensure the scheme is sympathetic to the surrounding area and compliments the development layout

14 The enterprise units approved under this consent shall be limited to uses falling within Class 4 of the Use Classes (Scotland) Order 1997. Reason: To ensure the consented uses are compatible with the town centre location and surrounding uses.

15 There shall be no vegetation clearance, including tree or scrub removal, within the application site during the bird breeding season March to August unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority following submission and approval of checking surveys and mitigation measures Reason: To minimise risk to bird habitats

Informatives

1 A European Protected Species Licence will be needed for disturbance of otter habitat 2 Precautionary measures to limit risk to bat habit outlined in the supporting Ecological Appraisal should be followed 3 The Habitat Enhancement Plan should coincide with the planting plan by means of provision of species capable of supporting bird habitat. The HEP should also include bat boxes and bird boxes (including swift boxes within the building) 4 Pruning of trees on the riverbank overhanging the site should be carried out in accordance with BS 3998

DRAWING NUMBERS

C202 C Other L801 Specifications AR 000 001A Location Plan AR 030 005A Floor Plans AR 030 003E Floor Plans AR 030 001G Floor Plans AR 030 002F Floor Plans AR 900 002B Site Plan L101 Specifications L001D Planning Layout L401 Specifications

Planning and Building Standards Committee 20 Item No 6 (f)

C200D Other C201C Other AR 900 001A Existing Layout AR 080 001 Existing Layout AR 050 011A Sections AR 050 012A Sections AR 040 014B Elevations AR 040 012C Elevations AR 040 013D Elevations AR 040 011D Elevations C206 Sections C205A Sections C204C Other C203B Other AR 040 015D Elevations L002A Sections

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Carlos Clarke Principal Planning Officer

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 22 Item No 6 (g)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/00833/FUL OFFICER: Barry Fotheringham WARD: Kelso and District PROPOSAL: Erection of 18 Dwellinghouses and Associated Works SITE: Garden Allotments South East of Lidl Store, Shedden Park Road, Kelso APPLICANT: Eildon Housing Association AGENT: Assist Design

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site measures 1.06 hectare site and is located within the Conservation Area of Kelso. It was previously used as allotments but is now vacant and overgrown. To the North West is the Lidl Supermarket separated from the site by a high wire fence, to the north and north east are the residential properties along Hermitage Lane and there are mature trees and hedges along this boundary. To the south east are Mayfield Riverside Walk and the River Tweed, which are separated from the site by a mature hedge and to the south west are residential properties in Abbotsford Grove and two properties that front onto the Riverside Walk.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 18 dwellinghouses and associated works to provide vehicular access, parking and turning as well as additional parking serving proposed future allotments.

Vehicular access to the site will be from a single point of entry/exit between Nos 8 and 9 Abbotsford Grove with a single pedestrian access through the existing gate in the south boundary wall of the former allotments site. Additional land either side of the proposed vehicular access has been acquired by the applicant for visibility splays.

It is proposed to erect 8 no semi-detached dwellings, 6 no terraced dwellings (arranged over 2 terraces) and 4 no flats arranged in a block of 4 (2 over 2). The semi-detached dwellings on Plots 1-8 will be located towards the north east boundary of the site and the two terraces on Plots 9-11 and 12-14 will be located to the rear of the dwellings in Abbotsford Grove. Plot 9-11 will run parallel to the proposed access road and Plots 12-14 will sit directly opposite plots 5 and 6 creating a courtyard type development with communal parking. The proposed block of flats would be located towards the south west of the site and situated perpendicular to the main access road. This would help enclose the residential element of the site, beyond which would be additional communal parking associated with the flats and the proposed allotments.

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

The proposed housing mix would include 4, 5 and 6 person dwellings as well as a block of 3 person ‘cottage’ style flats. The dwellings have been designed with a deep floor plan and shallow roof pitch to reflect the scale, mass and appearance of the existing buildings surrounding the site. The dwellings have been arranged in a series of pairs and terraces to create distinctive spaces within the street scene.

It is proposed to finish the proposed dwellings and flats using a traditional wet dash render (cream, white grey), natural sandstone and slate roofs, although it should be noted that the application drawings state cream render and slate roof tiles. The dwellings will also feature panels finished using coloured accoya cladding.

PLANNING HISTORY

05/01057/FUL – Erection of twenty three dwellinghouses. Application withdrawn.

06/01293/FUL – Planning permission was granted subject to conditions, informatives and legal agreement for the erection of 18 dwellinghouses on this land in August 2009. Consent has not been issued as the legal agreement remains outstanding.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

A total of 9 letters of representation were received in connection with this application. 8 individual letters of objection were received individual households.

1 letter offering general comments was also received.

The principal grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

x The proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on adjacent property and the character of Abbotsford Grove. x Environmental issues need to be emphasised and should weigh heavily on the Council’s mind when considering the application. x Potential impact of construction traffic/activity on the settlement/subsidence issues on properties in Abbotsford Grove,. x Contrary to Local Plan x Density of Site x Detrimental to the Environment x Detrimental to Residential Amenity x Flood risk x Inadequate access x Increased traffic x Effect on vehicular access to Abbotsford Grove from Shedden Park Road, which is already problematic due to cars parked near the entrance to Abbotsford Grove and outside Doreen Shepherd's shop. x The current pavement on Abbotsford Grove is far too narrow which often results in pedestrians walking on the road. Additional traffic will make this situation even more dangerous due to having to cross the entrance to the development. x Insufficient parking x Loss of view x Noise nuisance x Overlooking x Privacy of neighbouring properties affected x Road safety

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

x Trees/landscape affected x Value of property x The type, design and density of the residential units is inappropriate to the Conservation Area, given the character of the adjacent housing within Abbotsford Grove and Hermitage Lane. x There are listed building within close proximity which will be compromised as a result of the development. x The view from the bridge will be compromised by this development. x Emergency Services & Services – access for the emergency services particularly fire engines, and for the normal services for waste management is inadequate and dangerous to other users, again given the inadequate and narrow access from Abbotsford Grove.

The author of the letter of representation offering general comments in concerned about the potential increase in traffic and the poor entrance from Shedden Park to Abbotsford Grove. Traffic parked on Shedden Park Road obstructs driver’s vision when turning right into the street from Rose Lane/Shedden Park Road roundabout. Cars parked on both sides of Abbotsford Grove create a bottleneck and traffic using Abbotsford Grove can block the road. Construction traffic will have difficulty accessing the site. A more sensible access to the site would be through Lidl car park and should be a prerequisite for the development of this site.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A design statement was submitted by the applicant following a site meeting with the case officer and other Council officials. This statement supplements the original application drawings and the amended proposals.

The proposed dwellings have been designed to have deep plans and shallow roofs to relate to the existing buildings around the site, arranged in pairs and terraces to give a sense of similar scale. The proposed layout is arranged as a sequence of entrance, arrival, inner court and outer court before arriving at the allotments. The dwellings would be finished using wet dash render, natural sandstone and slate roofs.

The supporting statement is available for Members to view in full on Public Access.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2009

Policy N15 – Regional and Local Archaeological Sites Policy N16 – Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording Policy N18 – Development Affecting Conservation Areas Policy N20 – Design Policy H9 – Affordable and Special Needs Housing Policy C6 – Open Space Policy I11 – Parking Provision in New Development Policy I14 – Surface Water Policy I15 – Flood Risk Areas Policy I18 – Contaminated Land

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

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G2 – Contaminated Land Policy G4 – Flooding Policy G7 – Infill Development Policy BE4 – Conservation Areas Policy BE6 – Protection of Open Space Policy H1 – Affordable Housing Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf3 – Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4 – Parking Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Guidance Note – Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy Supplementary Planning Guidance Note – Placemaking and Design Supplementary Planning Guidance Note – Privacy and Sunlight Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance Note – Affordable Housing

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: Whilst the principle of housing at this location has already been established through the previous approval (06/01293/FUL), there are a number of technical issues with the current proposal and its revised layout. In order to progress this matter speedily, I would suggest a meeting with the applicant and/or their agent to discuss and resolve these issues. Until these matters have been satisfactorily addressed, I will withhold my support of this current application.

Flood Protection Officer: In terms of information that this Council has concerning flood risk, 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. Having reviewed the historical information associated with this site and also SEPA’s most recent response I have the following comments.

I agree with SEPA that a condition should be applied to any consent, stating that no alteration to ground levels below 32.0m Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) should occur, thus safeguarding the functional floodplain.

In addition to above a drawing which includes cross sections from the edge of the developed area through the allotment/flood plain area to the river should be submitted. The drawing and cross sections should include ground levels as appropriate as well as clarification that the finished floor levels are as previously stated, a minimum of 33.0mAOD. I would also require clarification of the drainage arrangement for the site and how the surface water run-off is to be managed. This should include the calculations for the existing Greenfield run-off rate and how this is to be maintained or improved via a SUD’s system.

Archaeologist: Previous applications did not have an archaeological consultation. However, since the prior application was lodge in 2006 it has come to light that this site could contain archaeology relating to the medieval Kelso Abbey and precinct.

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

There is the potential for encountering a medieval wall, or remnants of outworks, ditches etc that lay beyond the wall, within the development area. There is also a strong possibility for encountering medieval artefacts as these may have been incorporated in middens that lay immediately outside the Abbey Precinct. It is recommended that an archaeological evaluation (trial trenching) be conducted on 10% of the total development area and focussed on building footprints and the western half of the development area. This can be covered by condition.

Heritage and Design:

Original Submission: The “Placemaking + Design” SPG, sets out at Design Action Points: 5.4 and 5.5 issues to be considered in developing a design solution for a site like the application site. The absence of a Design Statement makes the assessment process more challenging.

I have reviewed the proposals against the three tiers of criteria as set out in the SPG:

x Wider Area x Local Area x Building Design

Wider Area

This includes the views in and out of the site as well as access and general form of the development. The SE boundary of the site will be visible over the Tweed and potentially the development may help to reduce the impact of the Lidl supermarket. A photomontage or site elevation would be helpful to review this; parking is shown nearer to the river than the last house block, if cars in this parking area were to be visible it would be unfortunate, a planting scheme to screen the cars would be beneficial.

The general tone and hue of the existing houses in this part of Kelso can be characterised by welsh slate roofs and “sandstone” coloured walls. Whilst I am not against the proposed teal/terracotta accoya cladding in small areas, this is clearly not based on a local reference; I would wish to see samples judge the impact of these materials / colour.

Local Area

One key issue is access to the site; the proposed access is via Abbotsford Grove and then using a new access between the buildings. Careful consideration and details are need to show how the access will be formed, potentially reusing gate piers as termination points to respect the local character.

The layout of the development is constrained by the single access point and the overall site area with its various boundary conditions, as well as the need to retain access to the allotments. The extent of flood risk also constrains the development to be kept within the “inland” part of the site.

The scheme as submitted seems unresolved with an “open space” at the river end, surely it would be better to ensure that there is a hedge or other planting in control of the development rather have to rely on the planting within the allotment area to soften the distant views. Details of all boundary treatments are required, including that to Lidl supermarket.

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

A single dead end access for both vehicles and pedestrians; this is not ideal and does not accord with the principles of “connectivity” but I appreciate that there may be some insuperable barriers to provide other access links, I understand from the site meeting that there may be scope to consider a pedestrian access from the riverside.

The scheme could be improved to create a sequence of linked spaces:

x Entrance zone x Outer courtyard x Inner courtyard, with the buildings forming a more enclosed space x Softer more informal parking area towards the river, this may depend on the final number of car parking spaces that need to be accommodated.

Building Design

The overall scale of the buildings in terms of height is acceptable, given that the surrounding buildings are a similar height. The deeper plan and shallower roof pitches means that the relationship between roof zone and walls remains broadly similar to the surrounding buildings.

Generally the surrounding buildings are relatively plain without much decoration and I am not sure why the detailed wall treatment involves at least four different materials – there is certainly no local tradition of these materials; a lack of a Design Statement makes it difficult to comment on this in a vacuum; in particular the use of different materials “split” across a gable seems uncomfortable. I consider that in principle these materials could be adopted, but the detailed handing of the various elements needs some careful thought. I am not against contemporary design. Whilst some of the gables have a traditional proportion, some do not – it would be better if generally these are steeper pitched.

I have some concerns about the proposals on the Conservation Area – but this may be able to be addressed with additional information. Kelso Conservation Area is a large area and within it there are a series of different character zones, my principal reservation is impact on the distant views into the site from the south.

Revised Submission: There were a number of concerns that I had with the original submission; I am pleased to say that I consider that the applicant has made considerable improvements to the scheme as part of the review and the design statement has also been revised, in particular:

Access / connectivity

The access to the site has been improved from Abbotsford Grove reusing the existing gate piers as a feature. The connectivity has also been improved by the creation of an informal path linking the development through the allotment area to an existing gate in the boundary wall giving access to the Tweed riverside path.

Site layout

The layout has been revised to create a progressive series of spaces; an entry court, a central courtyard area and the informal parking beyond. The courtyard in particular is now defined as an entity giving a sense of place to the development. The parking arrangements have been adjusted slightly; there is an opportunity to better define the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6 (g) boundaries between individual houses and the courtyard spaces – this can be dealt whit by a suitable condition.

A better boundary treatment has been provided at the LIDL boundary rather than relying on the existing chain link fence and to the south the parking for both the development and the allotments has been broken up and given a softer edge, incorporating the use of hedges.

Building Design / Materials

There have been some minor, but positive revisions, in particular adjusting pitch of the central gable to the block of flats (15-18) – this is the block will can be seen from the Hunter Bridge and forms the distant prospect of the site.

The materials / colours generally proposed are acceptable; although we should consider a standard condition about samples of external finishes to be approved.

Overall I consider that the scheme has been improved and I can support the revised proposals. The development will now in my view enhance the recently extended Conservation Area.

Development Negotiator: No response received.

Social Work (Housing): The Council previously assisted Eildon Housing Association to acquire this site in order that it may be developed to provide affordable housing. I understand that this planning application is made necessary to reflect changes in house type size mix, partly to positively respond to a Council Social Work Department request for some units to meet needs of some people with identified particular housing needs. The site has been identified and prioritised for inclusion within a number of Strategic Housing Investment Plans agreed by Council.

Education and Lifelong Learning: Education has no observations to make on this proposed development at this time and will not be seeking a developer contribution towards the provision of infrastructure for the schools in the catchment area.

Environmental Health: The above application appears to be proposing the redevelopment of land which was previously used as allotment land. Allotments often used cinder and ash to generate pathways and as a soil additive/ improver. This land use is potentially contaminative and it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose.

It is recommended that planning permission should be granted on condition that development is not be permitted to start until a site investigation and risk assessment has been carried out, submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority.

Any requirement arising from this assessment for a remediation strategy and verification plan would become a condition of the planning consent, again to be submitted and agreed upon by the Planning Authority prior to development commencing.

Statutory Consultees

Kelso and District Community Council: No objections.

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

SEPA: SEPA has no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds provided that, should the Planning Authority be minded to approve this application, a planning condition ensuring that there is no alteration to ground levels below 32.0m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) is attached to the consent. If this is not applied SEPA will object to this application.

We can confirm that we previously commented on a planning application, reference number 06/01293/FUL, at this site. We initially objected to the application due to a lack of information on flood risk, however, on receipt of further information subsequently removed our objection.

We have reviewed the information provided in this consultation and it is noted that part of the development site of this current application is part of the 1 in 200 year functional floodplain. We have established, through the previous application referred to in section 1.2 above, that at this site there would be no loss of flood plain storage above 32.0mAOD. Therefore to ensure that there is no increase in the risk of flooding to neighbouring areas from this application there should be no alteration to ground levels below 32.0mAOD.

We note that car parking is proposed within the functional floodplain. We have no objection to this, subject to compliance with the above condition, but recommend future occupants are made aware of the flood risk to this area.

Other Consultees

AHSS: No reply.

Kelso Amenity Society: The Amenity Society has reservations about these proposals. Housing design is very plain, lacking in imagination and there is no sense of place in the roads layout. The houses will be out of keeping with the surrounding stone villas and the backs of the north east facing houses should have draught excluding porches. Are the houses for sale or for rent? The allotments should be marked out before building commences. The proposed access to the site is located at the narrowest point in Abbotsford Grove where vehicles will have difficulty negotiating the turn and passing each other.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main planning issues with this application are whether the layout, density and design of the proposed development are appropriate and comply with Council policy and whether the development would have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In addition, whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenity of residents of neighbouring housing, whether a satisfactory access to the site can be achieved and whether the site is at risk of flooding.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

The site was considered through the Local Plan Inquiry process as the applicant sought the inclusion of the site as a housing allocation. The Reporter concluded that in principle the development of the site for infill housing would not be detrimental to visual or residential amenity as the site is situated between two housing areas along side a small supermarket and has clearly defined boundaries. The site is reasonably

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No 6 (g) centrally located within the town and could provide a beneficial and sustainable housing site with the opportunity to provide affordable housing to meet locally identified needs. Although the Reporter did not feel it was necessary to allocate this site for housing in the Local Plan he encouraged the Council to consider the merits of the earlier application and suggested a mixed form of infill housing development on part of the site incorporating the provision of open space and perhaps retaining some allotment plots on the low lying areas of the site nearest to the River Tweed which are most vulnerable to flooding.

Policy C6 of the Consolidated Structure Plan states the Council will seek to safeguard amenity open space in accordance with existing and future community needs. The Consolidated Local Plan states that there is considerable pressure to retain open space within Kelso. All open space will be protected by policy BE6 and allotments are classified as functional open space. BE6 states that open space will be protected from development with reference to the strategic, local or neighbourhood importance of the open space, the environmental, social or economic value of the open space, the role that the open space plays in defining the landscape and townscape structure and identity of the settlement and the function that the open space serves. Development that would result in the loss of open space will only be permitted if it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the loss of the open space is judged to have minimal environmental, social and economic impacts or the need for the development is judged to outweigh the need to retain the open space and where appropriate, comparable open space or enhancement of existing open space may be provided and/or paid for by the developer at an alternative location within or immediately adjacent to the settlement.

The Reporter at the Local Plan Inquiry concluded that the allotments were closed off with high hedges, walls and locked gates and that there is no public access. As the functional use of the site as allotments has ceased, its value is now as passive open space. The community and environmental value of the site has declined significantly with the lack of cultivation and maintenance. Although there is a desire to encourage the continuation of the use of the site as allotments the Reporter concluded that this is not the intention or wish of the previous landowner. Therefore the proposal for housing on this site would not be contrary to policy BE6. It is worth noting however that the current landowners (applicants) are keen to re-instate some of the former allotments and have clearly shown on their drawings an area for future allotment use as well as pedestrian link to the riverside walk.

The application seeks permission for the erection of 18 dwellings and approximately 30% of the site has been allocated for future allotment use. This mixed form of development for housing and open space/allotments complies with the Reporter’s conclusions. On this basis, the principle of the development proposed is considered acceptable on this site.

Policy G7 of the Local Plan allows development on non-allocated, infill sites provided that certain criteria can be met. The proposal should not conflict with the established land use of the area, and the Local Plan Inquiry Reporter’s findings are still significant in reaching this conclusion. The surrounding area is defined as an established residential area and the site is situated between two housing areas and so the erection of houses on part of this site and the retention of allotments and formation of open space on the remainder would complement the surrounding land uses. The site is well related to the town centre, being within walking distance, and public transport, when considered from a sustainability point of view.

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

Layout and Design

Policy N20 of the Structure Plan states that the Council will encourage a high quality of layout, design and materials in all new development and Policy G1 of the Local Plan states that all development should be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit in with Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings. Furthermore, Policy G7 requires that the proposal should respect the scale, form, design, materials and density of its surroundings. These three policies are the principal policy considerations by which the design and layout of the site should be considered.

The layout of the site has been modified following a site meeting with the applicant and their agents and it is considered that considerable improvements have been made as part of this review and the submission of a design statement helps with the understanding of the proposals.

The layout has been revised to create a progressive series of spaces through the site, terminating in an organic car park layout beyond which will be located allotments. On entering the site, the proposed terrace and a pair of semi-detached dwellings create an entrance court before the internal access turns through 90 degrees into a central courtyard area flanked by a series of semi-detached dwellings to the south east of the site and a terrace of 3 dwellings towards the north west of the site. This courtyard area has communal parking in front of the terrace and curtilage parking to the front of plots 5 and 6 opposite.

There is an opportunity, however, to further define the boundaries between the courtyard spaces and individual houses and to increase the size of the communal courtyard by pushing the parking bays associated with Plots 5 and 6 back in the plots so they are arranged nose to tail instead of side by side. This effect can be further enhanced by pushing the parking bays on plots 4 and 7 further back to open up this central space. The result would be an improved courtyard space which would be less dominated by car parking. Should Members be minded to support this application, a suitably worded planning condition would ensure that a revised site layout plan taking into account these comments is submitted for approval prior to the commencement of development.

The proposal is for a mix of semi-detached dwellings, terraced properties and low rise flats. The surrounding areas are generally characterised by large detached properties set within extensive grounds in Hermitage Lane, along the south western side of Abbotsford Grove and along Mayfield Riverside Walk. However, there are also terraced properties along the north eastern side of Abbotsford Grove and along Shedden Park Road and Rose Lane. The terraced properties in Abbotsford Grove have their principal gardens to their fronts, with the houses being set quite far back in their plots, with the effect that the terrace is quite close, in relative terms, to the common boundary with the application site. In addition, there are infill developments with a higher density at Shedden Park Court and Abbotsford Court. It is considered that a development of this scale and density would not be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and would not constitute an over-development of the site.

The surrounding area is characterised by a range of house styles and materials, which is common on the edge of a town centre. The site itself has well defined boundaries with mature trees, high hedges and walls along its boundaries. It is reasonably self-contained and screened by existing houses and the supermarket.

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

The proposed dwellings have been amended slightly to reflect the traditional style of the properties in Abbotsford Grove. These minor, yet positive, revisions retain the deep footprint and shallow pitched roof of the original layout but adjustments to the pitch of the projecting gable features for example give the individual buildings better proportions similar to the immediately adjacent dwellings. Whilst the proposed windows would be timber casement units with astragals they have been modified to give a greater vertical emphasis, particularly on the projecting gable features of the flats and the central pair of semi-detached dwellings on Plots 3-6 to better reflect the traditional windows nearby. The dwellings would have traditional gabled elevations, wet dash render, brick base course, accoya cladding and slate grey roof tiles, all of which are characteristic of housing proposed by this developer in other locations. Whilst this approach is not entirely reflective of the existing housing immediately to the south-west, it is not considered inappropriate, given the wider site context.

The parking arrangements/layout towards the south of the site has been adjusted following negotiation. The revised plans show an organic layout with “softer” planted edge and the parking bays broken up into smaller “manageable” blocks. This will reduce the appearance of this area being car dominated and will provided a softer edge to the development when progressing through the site towards the allotments. It will also help to break up this edge of the development when viewed from the Hunter Bridge.

It is considered that the design approach is acceptable for this particular site. The precise colour of the render and accoya cladding will need to be agreed with the developer through an appropriately worded planning condition to ensure that the development recedes into the surroundings and is not unduly prominent when viewed from Hunters Bridge.

Access and Parking

In terms of National Policy – Designing Streets, there is very little that can be achieved in terms of connectivity and permeability given the constraints of the site. The well-contained site defined by high stone walls, fencing and hedges lends itself to a cul-de-sac type development but the proposed informal nature of the design, along with the proposed changes in surface materials helps to create a layout which naturally calms traffic and creates a place which is will be distinctive, safe and pleasant.

Policy G7 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 requires that an adequate access can be achieved for all infill developments. Policy Inf4 states that proposals should provide for car and cycle parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.

The Council’s Roads Planning Service re-iterates the views expressed above with regards to the proposed parking arrangements for plots 4-7. If these parking bays were set back and provided at the side of the houses to allow for nose to tail parking, Court Two could be extended to provide a wider courtyard space which would reduce the appearance of the street being car dominated. Curtilage parking bays must be formed to current specifications and where possible include a 600mm hard standing area around the extent of the bay. It would be possible to secure this through condition. In addition, close attention would have to be paid to boundary treatments along this side of the courtyard but again this can be controlled by planning condition.

In terms of parking standards and numbers required by this development, the proposed layout offers adequate curtilage and communal parking.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No 6 (g)

Given the total number of dwellings being served off this proposed new access, the road and parking areas will ultimately be adopted by the Council and will be part of the public road network. A turning area towards the south east of the site will be required but it would appear that the current layout does not offer a suitable turning facility for larger vehicles such as refuse vehicles. Parking bays 23-25 should be removed to allow for adequate turning of large vehicles. This can be shown on an amended site layout plan required by condition and discussed earlier in this report.

Concern has been raised by local residents regarding the ability of Abbotsford Grove and its junction with Shedden Park Road to cater for the increase in traffic that this development will generate. The Roads Planning Service has no objections to the proposed site access from Abbotsford Grove, which will be significantly improved by the introduction of visibility splays, but has advised that improvements to the public road between the site and Shedden Park Road, and in particular the junction with Shedden Park Road, should be agreed with the applicant. This primarily relates to potential congestion issues at the junction of Abbotsford Grove and Shedden Park Road. A suitably worded condition should be attached in a manner consistent with the previous permission. Potential works may include, but are not limited to additional lining at the junction.

Provided the above mentioned points are incorporated into planning conditions and a revised layout drawing, the Council’s Roads Planning Service does not object to this development.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

Policy N18 of the Structure Plan states that the Council will support development affecting Conservation Areas that is of a quality and design that will preserve and enhance the special character and appearance of these areas. Also, Policy BE4 of the Local Plan states that development within of adjacent to the Conservation Area that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on its character and appearance will be refused.

The application site is located within the Conservation Area of Kelso as identified in the Consolidated Local Plan and the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area has to be considered.

The site is within an established residential area but is well contained and is screened by existing houses, walls and mature trees and by the adjacent supermarket. The proposal seeks to retain the existing mature trees and hedges on the north east and south east boundaries and to supplement these with additional planting within the site. It is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as the site is so well screened and contained the proposed planting would enhance the setting of the development. The site is visible from Hunters Bridge, although the section of the site adjacent to the river will remain undeveloped as open space and allotments with the built development adjacent to existing buildings and this would reduce the prominence of the development. In addition, the development would help to screen the supermarket, which is considered to have limited architectural merit, from that direction.

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

Residential Amenity

Policy H2 of the Local Plan states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas will not be permitted. Policy G7 also requires that any infill development does not result in any significant loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy to adjoining properties as a result of overlooking and overshadowing.

The site is situated to the rear of the existing properties in Hermitage Lane. There is an existing stone wall along the entire length of this boundary as well mature trees and hedging on both sides of the wall. The back-to-back distance between the existing houses in Hermitage Lane and the proposed dwellings would be between 25 and 28m, which would comply with the Council’s standards.

The houses on Abbotsford Grove that back onto the site have very short rear gardens. The proposed layout shows the dwellings positioned within close proximity to the rear boundaries of these properties, particularly the terrace on plots 9-11 and the flats on Plots 15-18, and this has resulted in concerns regarding loss of residential amenity from objectors. The scheme has been amended slightly so that the proposed dwellings, in particular Plots 12-14 are positioned a minimum of 18m from the rear elevations of the existing houses on Abbotsford Grove. Whilst it is accepted there will be an element of over looking, this will be within accepted tolerances and in accordance with adopted supplementary planning guidance. The side elevations of the proposed terraced houses on plots 9-11 would be located approximately 12m from the rear elevations of Nos 9-11 Abbotsford Grove but there are no windows from principal rooms on this elevation. The same would apply to the south west elevation of the block of 4 flats which would also be located within the 18m distance for direct window to window overlooking. It is considered that this would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenity of existing properties as a result of overlooking. A condition can be attached to prevent any openings being created in this elevation.

Flooding

The Council’s Flood Officer confirms that “second generation flood mapping” prepared by SEPA indicates that part of the site (the area identified for allotments) is at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years.

SEPA originally objected to the 2006 application on the grounds that as there may be a high flood risk associated with the proposed development. However, following the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment, the initial proposal was amended to take into account the comments of SEPA and the Council’s Flood Protection Officer. The dwellings were repositioned outwith the functional flood plain, and the road levels and finish floor levels recommended by SEPA were incorporated into the layout.

This has been reflected in the current layout with the proposed dwellings occupying land outwith the functional floodplain only. SEPA confirm that they have no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds provided a suitably worded planning condition is added to any grant of consent there is no alteration to ground levels below 32.0m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

SEPA established, through the previous application, that there would be no loss of flood plain storage above 32.0mAOD on this particular site. Therefore to ensure that there is no increase in the risk of flooding to neighbouring areas from this application

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No 6 (g) there should be no alteration to ground levels below 32.0mAOD. SEPA confirm that they have no objection to the car parking proposed within the functional floodplain,

In addition to SEPA’s comments the Council’s Flood Protection Officer requested additional drawings from the applicant confirming that the finished floor levels of the dwellings would be a minimum of 33.0mAOD and also clarification of the proposed drainage arrangements for the site and how the surface water run off would be managed. This information was made available to the Flood Officer but at the time of writing this report no comments have been received in response to the submission.

It is worth noting that the additional drawings show proposed finished floor levels on plots 7 & 8 and 15-18 as 32.8mAOD. This is below the level required by the Council’s Flood Protection Officer but a suitably worded planning condition would ensure that all new dwellings have a minimum finished floor level of 33.0mAOD should Members be minded to approve the application.

Foul drainage will be taken to the existing public sewer and surface water drainage is proposed to discharge in the River Tweed via a hydrobrake manhole to restrict flow rates.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

Policy BE2 of the Local Plan and Policy N15 of the Structure aim to give archaeological or historical sites strong protection from any potentially damaging development. Development which will adversely affect an archaeological site of regional or local significant will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the benefits of the proposal will clearly outweigh the archaeological value of the site.

Since the 2006 application, it has come to light that this site could contain archaeology relating to the medieval Kelso Abbey and precinct. The Council’s Archaeologist therefore recommends that an archaeological evaluation (trial trenching) is conducted on 10% of the total development area and focused on building footprints. This can be covered by a suitably worded planning condition.

Development Contributions

As the proposed development is 100% affordable housing there is no requirement for additional development contributions.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the layout, design and materials of the proposed dwellinghouses are appropriate for this site and, given the well-contained nature of the site, it is considered that the proposal would not be out of keeping with the character of the area nor have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal has been amended to create a series of courtyard spaces through the development and minor adjustments have been made to the proposed buildings so that the proportions reflect the traditional dwellings nearby. The dwellings have been positioned outwith the functional floodplain of the River Tweed and the Council’s Roads Planning Service has no objections to the proposal in terms of access, parking standards and the capacity of Abbotsford Grove to cope with the additional traffic generated by this development.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No 6 (g)

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

2. With the exception of the amended site layout drawing reference 840-L(21)01, the development hereby approved shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the amended plans dated 3 October 2012. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

3. No development shall commence until an amended site layout drawing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved plan. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

4. 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.

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No 6 (g)

7. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of the allotments has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme so submitted shall include:- i. the layout and details of the fencing and gates for the allotments. ii. Proposals for the provision/phasing of the allotments in relation to the construction of the houses on the site. iii. Proposals for the long term inspection, maintenance and management of the allotments. iv. Proposals for the provision of a pedestrian footpath link between the development hereby approved and the riverside walk. Reason: To ensure that proper provision is made for the provision and long term retention, management and maintenance of the allotments.

8. No trees or hedges within or on the boundaries of the application site shall be felled, removed, lopped, damaged or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: The existing trees and hedges represent an important visual feature which the Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained.

9. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the hedges to be retained on the site shall be protected by a barrier erected in accordance with British Standard 5837:2012 and the barrier shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development the existing soil levels around the boles of the hedges so retained shall not be altered. Reason: In the interests of preserving the hedges which contribute to the visual amenity of the area.

10. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the trees to be retained on the site shall be protected by a barrier erected in accordance with British Standard 5837:2012 and the barrier shall only be removed 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.

11. No development shall commence until a scheme of improvements and a timescale for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for the junction of the Abbotsford Grove and Shedden Park Road. The improvements shall include, but are not limited to, additional lining at the public road junction. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No 6 (g)

12. The access road, footpaths and private, communal resident’s, visitor and general purpose 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.

13. The right of way along the south eastern boundary of the site (Riverside Walk) to be kept open and free from obstruction or encroachment during the construction of the dwellinghouses and thereafter. Reason: To ensure the right of way remains open and free from obstruction.

14. All buildings hereby approved shall have a minimum finished ground floor level of 33.0mAOD. Reason: In the interests of flood protection and safeguarding the dwellings hereby approved.

15. Ground levels within the application site below 32.0m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) shall not be altered. Reason: in the interests of flood protection and safeguarding the capacity of the functional floodplain.

16. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining an Archaeological Evaluation. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to conduct a programme of evaluation prior to development. This will include the below ground excavation of evaluation trenches and the full recording of archaeological features and finds. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered the nominated archaeologist(s) will contact the Archaeology Officer for further consultation. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post-excavation analysis, the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

17. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent provisions amending or re-enacting that Order), no additional window or other opening shall be made in the southern (side) elevation of the house shown on Plot 9 on the approved drawing unless an application for planning permission in that behalf is first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No 6 (g)

Informatives

1. In respect of condition 12, Road Construction Consent will be required for the new road and details of the drainage, road construction and minor geometrical amendments shall be agreed via that process. The extent of the public service strips shall also be agreed through the Construction Consent.

2. In respect of condition 3, the amended site plan shall adjust the parking arrangements and boundary treatments for plots 4-7 so that the parking is ‘nose to tail’ along the side of the dwellings. The purpose of this is to create a larger, more usable and defined communal courtyard space.

3. In respect of Condition 3 a 600mm margin shall be provided around the extent of the ‘nose to tail’ parking bays.

4. In respect of Condition 3, parking bays 23-25 shall be removed to allow for adequate turning of large vehicles

5. In respect of Condition 16, archaeological evaluation (trial trenching) shall be conducted on 10% of the total development area and focussed on building footprints and the western half of the development area.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Reference No Plan Type L(00)01 Location Plan 840-L(21)01 Rev D03 Site Layout 840-L(21)02 Rev D02 Layout Context 840-L(21)02 Rev D02 6P3B House 840-L(21)03 Rev D02 5P3B House 840-L(21)04 Rev D02 3P2B Cottage Flats 840-L(21)05 Rev D02 4P and 5P Terrace 840-L(21)06 Rev D02 Principle Elevations Design Statement Design Statement Diagram J2617-002 Rev A Drainage Layout J2617-003 Rev A Earthworks Layout

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Barry Fotheringham Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No 6 (g)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No 6 (h)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/00903/FUL OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Hawick and Denholm PROPOSAL: Part change of use from factory to form gymnasium/fitness hall with associated facilities SITE: Lochcarron 76 Princes Street Hawick APPLICANT: Energie Scotland AGENT: Stuart Paterson Building & Timber Frame Design

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is the former Lochcarron knitwear factory situated on the north west side of Princes Street in Hawick. The principal floorspace of the buildings present on the site is essentially accommodated in two key buildings, with the larger, more formal, building facing Princes Street and further manufacturing floorspace having been provided in a large single storey building to the rear. These are, in turn, connected by a linear range of single storey buildings.

These buildings comprise of a three storey factory building with a stone and render frontage adjacent to Princes Street. The site slopes up to the rear (north west) resulting in a change of ground levels between the front and rear of the building. The factory building to the rear is single storey and there are a number of rendered single storey outbuildings to this side. There is a vehicular access to the site from Princes Street along the south west side of the building and there is an area of car parking to the rear. The building has been vacant for some time.

The site is situated within a predominantly residential area. There is a row of two- and-a-half storey terraced houses adjacent to the site on Princes Street, two houses on the opposite side of Princes Street, houses to the north west and north east in Mayfield Park and residential properties to the south west. The former Balmoral Bar, now vacant, is situated on the opposite corner of the access to the site.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is to convert the building into a gymnasium and fitness hall. The lower ground floor was originally used as offices and would be converted into rooms for specialist classes, an office and toilets. The first floor, which was used for offices, a stockroom and canteen, would be used for a supervised soft play area, specialist classes, toilets, an office and equipment store. The upper floor, which was previously used for manufacturing, storage, offices and laundry, would be converted into a gymnasium and fitness hall, an area for dance/aerobics classes and a youth gymnasium. There would also be a reception area accessed from the rear car park, changing rooms, a canteen and a general purpose hall.

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

The main entrance into the proposed gymnasium and associated uses would from the car park at the rear of the buildings. The front door in the front elevation would be converted to a fire exit. Existing doors in the side elevation to the access road would be used as fire exits. The timber panels in the side elevation to the proposed gymnasium would be blocked up and rendered; the fire exit door would be retained.

The development would utilise the existing access from Princes Street and 22 car parking spaces are proposed.

PLANNING HISTORY

91/00763/FUL: Replacement of existing boiler and flue. Approved 8th October 1991. 94/00870/FUL: Extension to car park and factory. Approved 9th September 1994.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

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

x Residents will be affected by noise levels unless the building is going to be fully soundproofed with air conditioning therefore eliminating the need to open windows.

x There is potential noise nuisance from the music played in the gymnasium. The factory currently has crittal windows and there is no intention by the applicant to change these; these are ineffective both noise levels and heat loss.

x The proposed design of the gymnasium is not environmentally efficient and does not support any green energy programme. Even if the windows were changed these are likely to remain open for ventilation allowing noise to escape from the property. There is no intention to insulate the property which will also result in noise escaping. When Lochcarron was operating as a factory neighbours were disturbed every night with the noise of the boiler/generator.

x When the property was functioning as a factory the headlights of the cars entering and exiting the car park were clearly visible in neighbouring properties despite the tall trees in the garden. Car doors banging on a regular basis in the parking area will also be a nuisance due to the elevated position of the houses and noise travelling.

x Although there is a limited amount of parking behind the building, it is highly likely that users of the facility will park on the main road, which is used for residents to park.

x Loss of privacy and overlooking to neighbouring properties.

x There is already an adequate amount of fitness centres in the town for the size of the population. The youth programme would be an advantage for the town’s youth but this may be a ploy to gain planning permission and the cost to join would be too high for most local families.

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

x Over-provision and displacement would be caused if planning permission is granted for this facility in an already crowded industry in Hawick. There is already an over-provision of fitness facilities in Hawick, with the Think Fitness Centre in O’Connell Street, Teviot Leisure Centre and Sam Deans Fitness Studio in Commercial Road. Only one such facility is sustainable. Other gym provision in the town include Hawick RFC and Hawick YMRFC in Mansfield Road, Burnfoot Weightlifting Club in Fairhurst Drive, Lothian Borders Police and Hawick Fire Station on Wilton Hill, Hawick High School and Hawick Cycling Club in Teviot Crescent. Another facility would make things financially difficult for existing organisations, including churches and community centres that rent out their facilities.

x The proposal would result in the loss of employment at other facilities in the town due to the financial implications as a result of the displacement caused by this proposal. Other businesses could cease trading and there is no guarantee that the proposed facility would be a success.

x The estimate of staff numbers of six or seven is optimistic and designed to gain public approval. Youth facilities require extra supervision and specialist staffing. There is already a massive provision for youths in Hawick.

x The proposed parking is inadequate resulting in people parking in the surrounding residential area, annoying neighbours. The traffic flow is estimated as 30 – 50 per day but a club of this size would generate more.

x The access to the car park should have provision for pedestrians and so only one car could utilise the access at one time causing cars to reverse if two cars were to meet in the lane. The steepness of the access would make it unusable during a cold winter. Traffic flow would be increased during peak periods and traffic could tailback both ways along Princes Street and down Wilton Path.

x Teviot Leisure Centre had to be supported by the community to remain open. It is the most cost effective fitness resource in the town and open to people from all backgrounds and incomes and therefore should be fully supported to continue providing a very valuable resource to ensure that people in Hawick and surrounding areas remain active and well. The Council has a moral responsibility to ensure that this highly valued community resource remains functioning. The need for an additional gymnasium that is profit-led is questionable when classes are not full at Teviot Leisure Centre.

x When the building was used as a knitwear factory they operated a shift system which led to limited noise at specific times of day. All gyms play loud music and the proposed opening hours of 6:30am to 10:00pm is a concern.

x The land should be tidied up and maintained.

x The Borders Sport and Leisure Trust are supportive of competition if it stimulates choice and opportunity for the community but Hawick is currently well catered for in terms of fitness opportunities. Hawick will struggle to sustain additional fitness businesses and this would have potential economic implications for existing businesses.

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

x When the mill was operating parking for residents was problematic as the car park at the rear of the building was too small.

x There was no disruption when the mill was operating 24 hours a day.

x The Think Fitness premises in O’Connell Street Hawick are located close to plentiful free on and off-street parking.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A Design Statement has been submitted by the agent and is available for Members to view in full on the Public Access System:

x The former Lochcarron knitwear factory has been vacant and advertised for sale or let since the factory closed in 2009. The overall size is 2,050 square metres over four floor levels and so there has been little interest from potential buyers. The rear section is currently rented to another knitwear mill for temporary storage of stock but the lease would not be renewed if this application is successful.

x The applicant has identified the building as ideal for conversion and with minor alteration hopes to open a franchise of their gym and fitness business. The project will be phased with the first phase being confined to the uppermost floors forming a gymnasium and fitness hall, dance/aerobics hall, specialised youth gymnasium and general purpose hall. The main alterations are to secure the structure and provide the necessary facilities.

x The proposal includes illuminated signage to the front of the building.

x The application is for a change of use of the whole building to a commercial multi-purpose fitness studio; this will allow the applicant to extend the lower floors without requiring planning permission, once the business is established.

x The proposed opening hours are 6.30am to 10.00pm which would cause less disruption to neighbours than when it was a factory operating 24 hours a day. Initial staff levels are estimated to be 6 or 7.

x There are two other gymnasiums in Hawick and the applicant is hoping to hit the middle ground between the two whilst establishing specialist areas such as the youth gymnasium as there is no other facility of this type in the Borders.

x The car park to the rear will provide parking for members with additional ground to extend the car park if required.

x The proposal would result in the occupation of one of the largest vacant buildings in the town in a prominent position.

A letter of support has been received from the applicant advising that the noise levels emitted from the music system will not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR30 as a volume limiter can be installed to the equipment.

A letter of support has been submitted by the agent:

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

x A bat and bird survey has been submitted that suggests that the works will not affect any bat roosts or nesting birds in or around the building.

x There are no local facilities of this exact nature to carry out a traffic count and due to the restricted space available it is not possible to fully comply with SPP17 with regards parking spaces. The business plan has a projected membership of 1,479 by year three with a 10% average daily attendance resulting in 150 users per day. Spread over the 15 hours per day opening time this would be a maximum of 10 vehicles per hour assuming every member uses their own car.

x There is a large public car park 350m away in Victoria Road. Cycle parking has been added to the site plan.

x Due to the narrow nature of the access road to the car park right of way road signage has been indicated on the site plan. There is space at the top of the access road for vehicles to stop and give way to cars coming up the hill so priority is given to vehicles coming off the public roads.

x The parking proposed is better than for other similar facilities in the Borders.

x There will be no plant or machinery within the site and a volume limiter will be applied to the audio systems, which will not exceed noise rating curve NR30. The opening hours will now be restricted to 7.00am until 10.00pm to exclude the more restrictive NR20 requirements. The only possible noise would be from extract fans or air conditioning units which would be positioned away from any adjacent building, on the car park side of the building to prevent any noise nuisance.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N20: Design Policy C4: Sports Facilities Policy I11: Parking Provision in New Development

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G7: Infill Development Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

None

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

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Ecology Officer:

From the information provided the proposed development and type of structure proposed for alteration conforms to the type of development requiring a bat survey and breeding bird survey. From the photographs submitted the building appears to have a complex roof structure, and includes timber farmed panelling, although the roof material is cement cladding. The location is urban, although there is good connectivity to the surrounding countryside through mature broad-leaved trees, garden trees and the river valley of the River Teviot (180m to east). The local habitat is of low-moderate quality for bats.

Re-consultation: I am satisfied with the findings of the Bat and Bird Survey carried out by Stone’s Wildlife Management on19th September 2012. There was no evidence of bats or their roosts in the existing structures. No evidence of breeding birds was found. An informative should advise that standard procedures for working with bats are adopted. If breeding birds are discovered following commencement of works, the developer should stop work immediately and contact Scottish Natural Heritage.

Roads Planning Service:

Whilst I have no objections to the principle of this application, there are some matters which will have to be resolved to my satisfaction prior to support being given. The main issues are:

1. Traffic generation – I am of the opinion that the 30-50 vehicles a day estimated within the application form is an underestimate. I have some concern that the parking will not be sufficient and as such, I will require more details of the anticipated vehicle generation which should be backed up by evidence of how the figures were obtained e.g. traffic count at similar venture, TRICCS or otherwise. 2. There are no provisions for cyclists proposed within the scheme.

Re-consultation: Further to my previous response, there have been additional submissions on behalf of the applicant. In these, they quote figures for membership from similar projects both within Hawick and elsewhere. These figures would indicate that the parking available would be sufficient for the proposed development. They also correctly state that there is additional public parking available within an acceptable walking distance of the premises. They also state parking figures for a similar scheme in Galashiels which provided less parking than is proposed here and I am unaware of any complaints regarding parking issues at that site. Taking this information into consideration, I am prepared to support the application but will require the provision of cycle stands. There should be a minimum of 6 cycle stands provided.

Archaeology Officer:

There are no archaeological implications for this proposal.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6 (h)

Environmental Health:

The applicant should submit an assessment of the impact of the noise on nearby residential premises. The assessment should detail mitigation measures that require to be taken to prevent noise annoyance. Notwithstanding the above, the undernoted condition should be attached to any Consent that is issued for the proposal.

“Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2. Any singing, playing of musical instruments or amplified music or speech played on the premises should be inaudible in any noise sensitive dwelling. “

The application appears to involve the change of use of property within an area which is already developed. There appears to be a possible historic use of the site as a knitwear factory. This land use is potentially contaminative and may have resulted in land contamination which could affect the welfare of users, the value of the property and the liabilities the owner/ occupier may have.

The land is not currently identified as contaminated land and the Council is not aware of any information which indicates the level of risk the potential contamination presents. The requirement for a full site assessment and potential remediation may not be practical or proportionate given the nature of the application and it is recommended that the applicant is advised of potential land contamination issues by way of an Informative Note.

Re-consultation: I note that the Applicant's Engineer has given a Warranty that the sound system will be limited so as to comply with the recommended noise limits. I also note that any plant and equipment will be positioned so as to minimise noise disturbance. It may however be worth clarifying how impact noise from the movement of patrons or the operation of gym equipment will be mitigated.

Statutory Consultees

Hawick Community Council: Supports this conversion on the basis that the town has been identified as in need of regeneration and consider this option will secure employment and is a greater asset than the currently empty building.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether this is an appropriate use for this part of Hawick.

x The impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of occupants of residential properties in the surrounding area.

x Access, parking and road safety issues.

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

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

Policy C4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001 - 2018 states that the Council will encourage new recreation and sports facilities and ensuring accessibility is important.

The proposal would provide a fitness facility in Hawick and bring a vacant building back into use. It would also generate employment opportunities. A number of representations have been received objecting to the proposal as it would result in an over provision of such facilities in Hawick that would detrimentally impact on existing facilities and employment. Competition, however, is not a planning issue.

Policy G7 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 states that the re-use of buildings will be approved provided certain criteria are met. One criterion is that the proposal should not conflict with the established land use of the area.

This part of Hawick is predominantly residential, with the exception of the application site, which was used as a knitwear factory, and the former Balmoral Bar public house and restaurant to the south east, which is also vacant.

The established use of the building as a factory has the potential to generate a certain level of noise and traffic. This established use has to be taken into account in assessing this application.

Design and Impact on Visual Amenities

Policy N20 of the Structure Plan states that the Council will encourage a high quality of layout, design and materials in all new developments. Policy G1 of the Local Plan requires all development to be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit in with Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings. The policy contains a number of standards that would apply to all development. Policy G7 of the Local Plan requires that the development respects the scale, form, design, materials and density of its surroundings; the individual and cumulative effects of the development should not lead to overdevelopment or town cramming; the proposal should not detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

The alterations to the building would be minor in nature. The proposal would utilise existing windows, existing doors would become fire exits and three windows in the upper floor to the proposed changing rooms would be blocked up. The existing openings in the south west elevation to the car park would be blocked up and rendered. These proposals would be in keeping with the character of the building. The proposal would bring a vacant building back into active use and its renovation and re-use would enhance the site and its surroundings visually.

Residential Amenities

Policy G7 of the Local Plan states that the development should not result in any significant loss of daylight, sunshine or privacy to adjoining properties as a result of overshadowing or overlooking. Policy H2 states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted.

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

The physical alterations to the building would not harm the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of light and privacy.

Objections have been received regarding potential noise nuisance from the proposed use in terms of music, extract ventilation systems and air conditioning units and also about overlooking and loss of privacy from existing windows. The site is surrounded by residential properties on all sides.

The factory would have generated a certain level of noise when it was in operation and the building could still be used for industrial purposes, which should be taken into account. There are a number of windows on the boundary with the houses on Princes Street, on the boundary with the access road adjacent to the Balmoral Bar, which has a flat above and there are houses to the south west, and adjacent to the boundary with the footpath to the north east which separates the site from another residential property in Mayfield Park.

Environmental Health have considered the impact of the proposed uses on neighbouring residents, particularly in terms of any noise impact. They have advised that noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). Any singing, playing of musical instruments or amplified music or speech played on the premises should be inaudible in any noise sensitive dwelling. Noise from the movement of patrons or the operation of gym equipment should be taken into account and mitigation measures considered. The noise levels eminating from the property can be controlled by a planning condition.

The agent has confirmed that there will be no plant or machinery on site and a volume limiter will be applied to audio system, which will not exceed the Noise Rating curve NR30. No details, however, have been submitted of extract fans or air conditioning units but these aspects can be controlled by a planning condition.

The properties in Mayfield Park to the north west are on a higher ground level to the building, which is single storey to the rear. No.23 Mayfield Park is to the north east separated by the footpath and has a low level window in the gable end facing the factory building and there are some trees and shrubs on this boundary that provide a degree of screening. The Balmoral Bar has a number of windows at first and second floor levels in the side elevation; planning permission has recently been granted for a hot food take way at ground floor level with manager’s accommodation above and there is an existing flat on the second floor. The property is separated from the factory by the access road.

The proposal is to utilise existing windows and so it is considered that there is no worsening of the previous situation in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring properties than when the building was used for manufacturing. However, there are windows on the boundary of the gardens of the properties in Princes Street and it is considered that these could either be blocked up or fixed shut, double glazed and obscure glazed to reduce noise levels and protect privacy.

On balance, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable, in part owing to the established planning use of the building; in addition, aside from the re-introduction of commercial or industrial uses, there are limited opportunities for the re-use of the building, which would otherwise remain empty to the detriment of the appearance of the locality generally. It is important that appropriate safeguards are put in place to

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

ensure that adjoining residents are not adversely affected, particularly by noise. To that end, appropriate conditions, as recommended by Environmental Health, will ensure that the proposal does not have a significant detrimental impact on those residents. Controls on operating times will also assist in this regard.

Access, Parking and Road Safety

Policy G7 of the Local Plan requires that adequate access and servicing can be achieved. Policy I11 of the Structure Plan and Inf4 of the Local Plan require that car parking should be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.

The Roads Planning Service initially expressed concerns that the parking would not be sufficient and requested information on anticipated traffic generation. In addition, no provision for cyclists had been made within the scheme.

The agent has submitted information of anticipate traffic generation. The business plan has a projected membership of 1,479 by year three with a 10% average daily attendance resulting in 150 users per day. Spread over 15 hours per day, opening time this would be a maximum of 10 vehicles per hour assuming every member arrives by car. Twenty-two parking spaces are proposed and cycle racks to accommodate six cycles have been added to the site plan.

The Roads Planning Service has been re-consulted on the application and advises that supporting information submitted be the agent quotes figures for membership of similar facilities both within Hawick and elsewhere. These figures would indicate that the parking available would be sufficient for the proposed development. The agent correctly states that there is additional public parking available within an acceptable walking distance of the premises. The agent also quotes parking figures for a similar scheme in Galashiels, which provided less parking than is proposed here and the Roads Planning Service is unaware of any complaints regarding parking issues at that site. The Roads Planning Service therefore has no objections to the proposal subject to the provision of six cycle stands.

There would have been a certain level of noise and light from headlights from cars using the car park when the factory was in use.

Natural Heritage

The Council’s Ecology Officer has consulted on the Bird and Bat Survey and notes that there was no evidence of bats or their roosts in the existing structures. No evidence of breeding birds was found. His advice on what to do if bats or breeding birds are discovered can be added as an informative note.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development, subject to the imposition of planning conditions, and taking into account the previous use of the property, is considered acceptable and in compliance with policies N20 and I11 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001 - 2018 and policies G1, G7, H2 and Inf4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011. It is not considered that the proposal would negatively impact upon the residential amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties or the visual amenities of the area.

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

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

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

3. Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2. Any singing, playing of musical instruments, amplified music or speech played on the premises or noise from equipment should be inaudible in any noise sensitive dwelling. Reason: In order to control the noise emanating from the site.

4. Details of the location, size, appearance and noise levels of any external extract fans or air conditioning units and any noise mitigation measures to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to control the noise emanating from the site.

5. The existing windows in the north east and south east elevations on the boundary with the residential properties in Princes Street to be either blocked up or fixed shut, double glazed and obscure glazed in accordance with a scheme of details that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The approved scheme then to be completed before the use hereby approved commences. Reason: To safeguard residential amenities.

6. The use hereby approved shall operate between 7.00am and 10.00pm only unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard neighbouring properties from unacceptable noise intrusion.

7. Details of the position, size, colour, materials and method of illumination of any signage to be displayed on the building to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any advertisement being displayed. Thereafter the works are to be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No 6 (h)

Reason: In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1994.

8. Six cycle stands to be provided within the site before the use becomes operational. Reason: To ensure that a comprehensive range of on-site parking facilities are made available to users of the development.

9. The proposed car parking to be provided and marked out on site in accordance with Drawing Number 12-382-PL-1001 before the use hereby approved becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

10. The signage indicating rights of way for traffic using the access road, as shown on Drawing Number 12-382-PL-1001, to be erected before the use hereby approved becomes operational. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Informatives

1. The consultation response from the Council’s Ecology Officer is attached for the information of the applicant.

2. Environmental Health advises that the application involves the change of use of a knitwear factory. This land use is potentially contaminative and may have resulted in land contamination which could affect the welfare of users, the value of the property, and the liabilities the owner/ occupier may have. The land is not currently identified as contaminated land and the Council is not aware of any information which indicates the level of risk the potential contamination presents. The historic use of the site as a knitwear factory is recorded within a Council database. This database is used to prioritise land for inspection within the Council’s Contaminated Land duties. Should the applicant wish to discuss these duties their enquiry should be directed to Environmental Health.

3. In respect of condition 7, the signage may require Advertisement Consent.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Site Layout and Location Plan 12-382-PL-1001 Rev A Existing Upper Floor Layout 12-382-PL-2001 Existing Lower Floor Layouts 12-382-PL-2002 Proposed Upper Floor Plan 12-382-PL-3001 Rev A Proposed Lower Floor Layouts 12-382-PL-3002

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services The original version of this report has been signed by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the signed copy has been retained by the Council. Author(s) Name Designation Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer

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

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/01210/PPP OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Hawick and Denholm PROPOSAL: Erection of two dwellinghouses SITE: Land North West of Town O Rule Farmhouse Bonchester Bridge APPLICANT: Mr J Reddihough AGENT: Robert J Hales Limited

SITE DESCRIPTION

Town O Rule Farm is situated to the north of Bonchester Bridge accessed by a minor public road off the B6357 Bonchester Bride to Jedburgh road. It comprises of a two storey rendered farmhouse and a number of traditional stone and slate and more modern corrugated metal farm buildings.

The site is situated to the north west of the main steading complex. There are three corrugated metal sheds on the site and an access onto the public road. There are fields to the north and east and more agricultural buildings to the west. There is a stone wall on the western boundary with the road and access track.

The site is within the Teviot Valleys Special Landscape Area.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is to demolish the existing agricultural buildings on the site and to erect two detached dwellinghouses.

The indicative drawing submitted with the application shows the house on plot 2 closest to the steading would be one-and-a-half storey and the house on plot 3 to the north would be two storey. The existing access onto the public road to the south serving the steading would be utilised and there would be a communal courtyard for car parking. There would be post and rail fences of the boundaries between the plots and a hedge would be planted on the road boundary.

A full planning application (12/01209/FUL) has been submitted for the change of use and alterations to form a dwellinghouse of a steading building to the east of this site (plot 1).

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

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no planning history for this site, although there is a pending application (12/01209/FUL) which seeks permission for the conversion of the traditional building immediately adjacent to application site to which this report relates. This other application has been referred to in representations.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

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

x Additional traffic generated by two additional houses on a narrow, single track road with no passing places that is used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders would put further stress on the road and decrease safety for other road users. The proposal would increase the risk of accidents as the road is unsuitable for additional traffic generated by these three plots.

x The drainage on the road is not good and it floods and becomes icy and dangerous in winter. It is not gritted in winter and can get blocked by snow.

x The houses are not being built for agricultural occupation for the farm and the proposal is more appropriate for an urban area rather than an agricultural community.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The following information has been submitted by the agent and is available for Members to view in full on the Public Access System:

Design Statement:

x The proposed buildings are to occupy a similar footprint to the existing corrugated metal clad timber frame structures that currently occupy the site.

x There are a number of entrances into Town O Rule, the main entrance to the original farm is at the bend in the road, alongside this is another entrance which leads to more recent timber frame structures clad in profiled metal sheeting. There is a separate entrance to the original farmhouse.

x The original buildings are arranged around a courtyard and are unconnected rectilinear single and double storey buildings of coursed and un-coursed random rubble stone with slate roofs. The farmhouse is rendered.

x Later timber framed additions are attached to these earlier structures, with some being detached and built outwith the original development to the west. These later structures are open at the front with corrugated profile sheeting or timber cladding.

x The original farm buildings no longer fulfil their functions and are surplus to requirements. Some of the buildings are becoming dilapidated.

x The site is an unkempt field in which single storey open fronted timber frame sheds with corrugated metal sheeting are located. A track leads down the

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

site to the north corner of the field. The boundary to this field consists of a post and wire fence and a short section of dry stone walling along the road boundary.

x The farm buildings on the site are accessed separately from the rest of the Town O Rule development by an informal access from the public road.

x The proposal is to demolish the buildings on the site. The site would be accessed from the existing access to the steading to the south east of the site to reduce the number of accessed onto the public road and to create a connection between the two developments.

x The plots have been sited to be orientated towards the views available and sun path, to reflect the existing L shaped footprint whilst reflecting the sense of courtyard within the farm.

x The plots reflect the rectilinear blocks of the Town O Rule development but also creates a connection between this development and the proposed conversion on plot 1.

x The plots are set back from the road to create a buffer between the plots and road whilst creating an area of garden ground.

x The proposed dwellinghouses will have pitched roofs with gables to reflect the original buildings. They may have timber cladding with a vertical emphasis to reflect later additions or be rendered to match the farmhouse.

x The courtyard is to be hard surfaced to reflect the idea of a working farm with no fence structures. Boundaries outwith the courtyard will be defined by post and wire or post and rail fences. The stone boundary wall will be built up and continued and there will be timber gates at the entrance. A hedge will be planted along the road boundary with plot 2.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N16: Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation and Recording Policy N20: Design Policy H7: Housing in the Countryside: Building Groups Policy I11: Parking Provision in New Development Policy I14: Surface Water Policy I18: Contaminated Land

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G2: Contaminated Land Policy BE2: Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy G5: Developer Contributions Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf5: Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6: Policy Sustainable Urban Drainage

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

Policy D2: Policy Housing in the Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Guidance: New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Local Landscape Designations August 2012

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: The development is located within the catchment area for Hobkirk Primary School and Hawick High School. Education has no observations to make on this proposed development at this time and will not be seeking a developer contribution towards the provision of infrastructure for the schools in the catchment area.

Environmental Health: There is an indication within the application that the site has had agricultural use and so the potential for contamination needs to be considered.

Archaeology Officer: Development at Town O Rule will have archaeological implications. As the place name implies, the settlement originated as a medieval town and was the principal town of the area. The town was burnt by the English in 1543, but remained as a smaller agricultural settlement until the present. Our HER also records that a tower stood somewhere near the current farmhouse, though the exact location is unknown. I can support this application in principle, however given the moderate to high potential for encountering buried medieval archaeology during development mitigation is needed. The site will require evaluation prior to development. The evaluation may reveal that archaeology does exist and further mitigation work to record the remains could be necessary. This work should be done once the current farm buildings have been demolished, but before any further development (including creation of services, drainage, landscaping etc) takes place. An evaluation can be achieved through a condition.

Ecology Officer: The existing structures (corrugated metal clad timber frame structures) may support breeding birds but are unlikely to support roosting bats. Mitigation to avoid impacts on breeding birds including barn swallow will be required.

Roads Planning Service: When considered alongside application 12/01209/FUL, I am of the opinion that whilst I have no objections to the principle of the development, the road serving the site shall require some upgrading in order to cater for the additional traffic. I would require the following works to be carried out should these proposals be approved:

1. At least one passing opportunity per dwelling be provided on the road between the site and the B6357. This can either be in the form of a passing place or localised widening. The exact locations of these should be agreed with the Council prior to works commencing on the site and the works thereafter carried out to an agreed timescale. 2. The junction of the road serving the site (D63/3), the road to Billerwell (D62/3) and the B6357 must be amended to my satisfaction. This will involve the introduction of kerbing and a more defined junction area. I

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

would recommend that a legal agreement be drawn up requiring a contribution per dwelling towards the costs of these works. 3. Parking for at a rate of a minimum of two vehicles per dwelling be provided and retained within the curtilage of each property and retained in perpetuity thereafter. 4. The access on to the D63/3 public road from the site must incorporate a service lay-by to accommodate service vehicles. A typical layout for a service lay-by is shown in our detail DC6. 5. The initial 6m of the access must be constructed to our specification. All work within the existing road and verge must be carried out by a Council approved contractor.

Statutory Consultees

Hobkirk Community Council: Any development in this area would inevitably have the effect of increasing traffic on the minor road which runs between the A6088 and the B6357. This is currently a quiet road with pedestrian and equestrian use linking to the Loaning bridle path. There are currently no passing places on the single track road. The road is also liable to flooding and icing (it is not a gritted route) west of Town O Rule. There is no justification for an additional two houses and the proposal would lead to an unacceptable expansion of the area with the consequent increase in traffic without any discernible economic benefits. It is also believed to be outside the preferred development locations of the Scottish Borders Council Development Plan.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether the proposal complies with the Council’s housing in the countryside policies;

x Whether the proposal would affect the visual amenities of the area;

x Whether the proposal would adversely affect residential amenities;

x Whether adequate access and parking can be achieved.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

The proposal has to be assessed against the Council’s housing in the countryside policies.

Policy H7 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001 - 2018 states that proposals for new housing in the countryside outwith settlements and associated with building groups will be supported where they fit the character of the adjacent building group and the surrounding area, avoid overdevelopment and meet sustainable construction requirements.

Policy D2 (A) of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 requires that the site is well related to an existing building group of at least three houses or buildings capable of conversion to residential use. Any consents for new build

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

granted under the building group part of the policy should not exceed two houses or a 30% increase in addition to the group during the Local Plan period. No further development above this threshold will be permitted. Calculations on building group size are based on the existing number of housing units within the group at the start of the Local Plan period. This will include those units under construction or nearing completion at that point. The cumulative impact of the new development on the character of the building group, landscape and amenity of the surrounding area will be taken into account in determining applications.

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 particularly where there exists a definable natural boundary between the building group and the field 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. The scale and siting of new development should reflect and respect the character and amenity of the existing building group.

It is accepted that there is a building group at Town O Rule comprising of the farmhouse, Town O Rule House to the south east of the farmhouse and the three Town O Rule Cottages to the south east. Planning permission for additional housing in this building group has been granted in the past; permission was granted for Town O Rule House in 2005 as it was considered then that there was a building group in this location and the site for the proposed house was midway between the cottages and farmhouse.

It is considered that the site is well related to the existing building group, being part of the existing steading, and within the area defined by the sense of place. There are no significant boundaries between the existing houses and the site. The proposed two houses would be within a reasonable distance of the farmhouse. The proposal would represent an appropriate addition to the building group.

Policy D2 states that any consent for new build granted under this part of the policy should not exceed two dwellings or a 30% increase in addition to the group during the Local Plan period; no further development above this threshold will be permitted. The Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 was adopted on 10th February 2011.

There have been no other approvals for dwellinghouses within or adjacent to this building group in the current Local Plan period, so there would be no conflict with this aspect of the policy.

Design

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6 (i)

As this is a Planning Permission in Principle application no details of the design have been submitted. The indicative site plan shows an L shaped layout designed to form a courtyard to reflect that of the steading when taking into account the proposed conversion. The proposed houses would be one-and-a-half and two storey, again reflecting the existing steading. The Design Statement advises that the proposed dwellinghouses will have pitched roofs with gables to reflect the original buildings and may have timber cladding with a vertical emphasis to reflect later additions to the steading or rendered to match the farmhouse.

The exact siting, design and materials would be dealt with at the approval of matters specified in conditions application stage but any development on this site should respect the character of the existing building group. The form, layout and use of materials suggested by the submitted drawing and accompanying Design and Access Statement would appear to be an appropriate basis for the development of a detailed scheme, and an informative note to encourage this approach is recommended.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

The site is within the Special Landscape Area, as designated in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Local Landscape Designations August 2012.

The proposal would involve the removal of redundant agricultural buildings on the site, which have no architectural merit, and their demolition would improve the appearance of the site. The plots are well related to the existing traditional farm buildings to the north east. These would act as a backdrop and a screen. It is considered that the development would not be unduly prominent in the landscape. It is considered that with appropriate scale, design and materials the proposal would not harm the special characteristics of the Special Landscape Area.

Residential Amenities

Policy H2 of the Local Plan states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted.

The existing farmhouse is 30m from the steading building and so the residential amenities of occupiers of this property would not be affected by this proposal.

It is considered that provided that the steading buildings adjacent to the site are no longer used for agricultural purposes an adequate residential environment can be achieved for the future occupants of the new dwellinghouses. This relates particularly to the keeping of livestock in these buildings. In order to require the cessation of agricultural uses in perpetuity, it is considered prudent to make this a requirement of the proposed legal agreement. This approach is particularly important in the event that the plots are separated from, and therefore no longer under the control of, the remainder of the farm

Access and Parking

Policy I11 of the Structure Plan and Inf4 of the Local Plan require that car parking should be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.

The indicative site plan shows courtyard parking but there is adequate space within the site to provide two on-site paring spaces for each dwelling.

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

A number of representations have been received regarding the ability of the existing public road to cater for additional traffic generated by this proposal, as the public road is a single track road with no passing places.

The Roads Planning Service advises that they have no objections to the principle of the development but the road serving the site will require some upgrading in order to cater for the additional traffic. This would include one passing place per house on the public road between the site and the B6357. The junction of the road serving the site (D63/3), the road to Billerwell (D62/3) and the B6357 is required to be upgraded; this would involve the introduction of kerbing and a more defined junction area. A legal agreement would be required to secure a financial contribution per dwelling towards the costs of these works.

Contaminated Land

Policy I18 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001 - 2018 and policy G2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 refer to developments proposed on contaminated sites and the need for site investigations to identify any risks to public health, safety or the environment and remedial proposals.

Environmental Health has advised that the application site has been in agricultural use. This land use is potentially contaminative and it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose. A condition is proposed to ensure that the site is investigated for any potential contamination and appropriate mitigation measures carried out.

Archaeology

Policy N16 of the Structure Plan and policy BE2 of the Local Plan state that where there is evidence of archaeological remains the Council may require and archaeological evaluation to provide clarification of the potential impact of a development.

The Council’s Archaeologist advises that the proposal will have archaeological implications; the settlement originated as a medieval town and was the principal town of the area and has remained as a smaller agricultural settlement until the present.

Given the moderate to high potential for encountering buried medieval archaeology during development mitigation is needed. The site will require evaluation prior to development. The evaluation may reveal that archaeology does exist, and further mitigation work to record the remains could be necessary. This work should be done once the current farm buildings have been demolished but before any further development takes place. An evaluation can be achieved through a planning condition.

Developer Contributions

Policies G5 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 states that where a site is acceptable but cannot proceed due to deficiencies in infrastructure or due to environmental impacts the Council will require developers to make contributions towards the cost of addressing such deficiencies.

No contribution is required towards education facilities but a contribution towards affordable housing is required owing to the cumulative effect of this application with the application to convert the steading building into a dwellinghouse. A financial

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No 6 (i) contribution is also required to upgrade the local road network. These contributions would be secured through a legal agreement.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposal complies with policy D2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 as the site is well related to an existing building group. Appropriate siting and design will ensure that the proposal would not affect the residential amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties or the visual amenities of the Special Landscape Area. Upgrading of the local road network will be required to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is approved subject to a legal agreement addressing contribution towards affordable housing, the cessation of agricultural uses from the adjoining farm buildings and the upgrading of the local road network and the following conditions:

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

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

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision.

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

5. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining an Archaeological Evaluation. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to conduct a programme of evaluation prior to development. This will include the below ground excavation of evaluation trenches and the full recording of archaeological features and finds. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered the nominated archaeologist(s) will contact the Archaeology Officer for further consultation. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post-excavation analysis the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing on site, a scheme will be submitted by the Developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site. No construction work shall commence until the scheme has been submitted to, and approved, by the Council, and is thereafter implemented in accordance with the scheme so approved.

The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with the advice of relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination and must include:-

a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model including (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c, d, and, e of this condition.

and thereafter

b) Where required by the desk study, undertaking a detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of risk such contamination presents.

c) 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).

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

d) Submission of a Validation Report (should remedial action be required) by the developer which will validate and verify the completion of works to a satisfaction of the Council.

e) Submission, if necessary, of monitoring statements at periods to be agreed with the Council for such time period as is considered appropriate by the Council.

Reason: To ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and, ecological systems arising from any identified land contamination have been adequately addressed.

7. The roofing materials to be natural. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

8. No development shall be commenced until precise details of the boundary treatment around the site and between the plots and the proposed gates 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 boundary treatments require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

9. The means of water supply and of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. The development then to be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

10. 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. v. the significant strengthening of the tree belt along the north east boundary of the site.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No 6 (i)

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

11. Five swallow nest sites (ledges or nest cups) to be provided on the proposed buildings before the dwellinghouses are occupied. The locations must be guided by a suitably qualified person and to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works. Reason: To protect breeding birds within the site.

12. No works shall commence during the breeding bird season (March- September) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. If works are to commence during the breeding bird season checking surveys of buildings affected by the development and mitigation proposals for birds to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the development commencing. The mitigation measures then to be carried out as part of the development. Reason: To protect breeding birds within the site.

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

14. One passing opportunity per dwellinghouse be provided on the road between the site and the B6357, either be in the form of a passing place or localised widening, before the dwellinghouses are occupied in accordance with a scheme of works that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

15. The access on to the D63/3 public road from the site to incorporate a service lay-by to accommodate service vehicles as per detail DC6 (attached) before the dwellinghouses are occupied. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

16. The initial 6m of the access must be constructed to the following specification: 40mm of 14mm size close graded bituminous surface course to BS 4987 laid on 60mm of 20mm size dense binder course (basecourse) to the same BS laid on 350mm of 100mm broken stone bottoming blinded with sub-base, type 1 before the dwellinghouses are occupied. All work within the existing road and verge must be carried out by a Council approved contractor. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

Informative

1. The application(s) for approval of matters specified in conditions will be expected to propose a development with a high standard of design and materials appropriate to the rural setting of the site and its immediate context. The detailed scheme is therefore expected to follow the form and footprint indicated on the approved drawings and suggested within the supporting Design and Access Statement.

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

DRAWING NUMBERS

Location Plan 1111/12/04 Site Plan as Proposed 1111/12/06

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No 6 (j)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/01268/FUL OFFICER: Mr Andrew Evans WARD: Selkirkshire PROPOSAL: Installation of playground equipment, landscaping and ancillary works. SITE: Pringle Park, Scott Crescent, Selkirk APPLICANT: Selkirk Play Park Project AGENT: Director Of Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council

CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

This application requires to be determined by the Planning and Building Standards Committee because the site is currently in the ownership of the Selkirk Common Good Fund and because Scottish Borders Council is acting as agent on this planning application.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The sloping site is part of a mature public park, is generally rectangular in shape, and measures approximately 60m x 140m at its largest dimensions. The equipped site occupies the central part of the existing park. The higher land is at the south-west, falling away to the north-east. The highest part of the park is around 30m above the lowest part.

Along the north-western boundary of the site is located existing 20th century housing at Scott Crecent and Shawpark Crescent. The dwellings at Shawpark Crescent back on to the site, whilst those on Scott Crescent, front on to the site, but are separated from it by the road, which runs parallel to the site boundary.

Along the south-western boundary of the site, and at the upper part of the slope, is the remainder of the parkland, with a minor road, Dovecot Park, and Selkirk High School beyond.

Opposite the south-eastern boundary of the site is a series of terraced playing fields. At the north-eastern boundary of the site is located mature woodland, surrounding the dwelling “Shawpark”, and the Dean Burn.

The park has a footpath running around its perimeter. A series of mature lime trees are located around the boundaries of the park. In the centre of the park is located some dated play equipment, comprising 2 sets of swings, a see-saw, a slide and a “springy horse”.

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

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Full planning permission is sought for the installation of new playground equipment. The equipment would be located in zones as follows:

x A zip wire would be located at the south-western end of the site.

x The eastern “circle” - A cluster of equipment featuring a channel slide set into an embankment, swings and monkey bars. This area would be surfaced with play bark.

x The central “circle” would feature a “tractor tyre” swing, rotating disc roundabout and a large climbing structure. The plans show this area surfaced with play bark. A boulder play area would be located on the edge of this zone.

x The western “circle” would be a separate zone for toddlers and younger children including timber animals, a platformed play-hut, see-saw, toddler swings, a small slide and a tunnel. This area would be surfaced with play sand. This area would also feature boulder play areas. This area would feature timber log edging to create a sense of enclosure. Hiding in the long grass adjacent to this area would be a “flock” of three wooden sheep.

Around the outside of the above zones, new footpaths would be formed, linking the zones and the existing footpaths on either side of the park. Skateboard ramps and seating would be located alongside the new paths. A shelter would be provided in the north western corner of the site.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has no planning history.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

The application was publicised by means of the direct notification of 19 neighbouring properties. Further non-statutory publicity has been afforded to the proposals by means of a window display in the shop front of The Selkirk Regeneration Company at no. 1 Tower Street in the town.

One representation was received to the application, highlighting that it is an excellent idea to make more use of the park but listing the following concerns:

1. Will the path down the side of the park be repaired and the "hedge" be removed to stop people going through it on the road and a safety barrier be put in its place? 2. Will the trees be topped to stop branches blowing over the park in high winds? 3. Will the park be drained as it gets very wet in rainy weather? 4. Will lights be put in the park to stop vandalism?

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

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The agent confirms in the submitted application forms and plans the following points:

x Play areas will not be fenced, as research suggests that fencing does not stop the problems of animal fouling or broken glass. After a 10 year trial of play areas without fencing, Stirling Council no longer uses fencing unless another hazard exists, such as a dangerous road.

x Without fencing there is no sense of where a play space starts and ends, making it more inviting to explore. Children can move easily from one area to another.

x Signage and other measures will remind dog owners to pick up dog waste and dispose of it in the bins provided.

x There may be a need to adjust/reduce the number of pieces of play equipment or to reposition paths, play area “circles” slightly, without making significant change to the overall layout.

x Selkirk Play Park Project will be given a deed of dedication by the Common Good Fund Working Group, starting from the project start date. It will cover 10 years from the project completion.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N20: Design Policy C1: Access to Services and Facilities Policy C7: Play Areas Policy I11: Parking Provision in New Development

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards Policy NE4: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy 2010

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Designing Out Crime in the Scottish Borders Trees and Development

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

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: No objections to this proposal.

Environmental Health: No comments.

Statutory Consultees

Selkirk & District Community Council: Comments awaited.

Other Consultees

None.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining issues with this application are whether the proposals comply with planning policies on play areas, design, impact on residential amenity and impacts on trees.

Specific regard should be given to: x Policy considerations, principally whether the principle of the proposed development complies with Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Borders Council Planning Policies; x The details of the proposed development; x The consultation replies received and any correspondence received as a result of neighbour notification and advertisement.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Policy Principle

The application seeks permission for the provision of enhanced play equipment within Pringle Park, set within enhanced landscaped areas. The site is located within the Selkirk Development Boundary set out in the Adopted Scottish Borders Local Plan.

Policy G1 of the Local Plan applies, and sets out the various quality standards that the development should meet. Criterion 1 requires that the development is compatible and respects the character of the surrounding area, neighbouring uses and neighbouring built form.

Policy C7 of the Structure Plan (Play Areas) sets out that the Council will aim to ensure the availability of facilities for children’s play that are safe, accessible and appropriate to the needs of children and young people. The proposals are considered to be in complete compliance with this policy.

Policy H2 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure the protection of residential amenity. The existing park borders on to a residential area. The works comprise

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 6 (j) intensification of the use of the park by provision of enhanced play equipment, however the park is a suitable location for such development, and the amenity of neighbouring dwellings would arguably be enhanced by having such facilities nearby. Most houses are separated from the site by the carriageway of Scott Crescent, and are separated by the existing trees and hedgerow planting. The proposed equipped area acknowledges the relationship with the nearest house in Scott Crescent (no. 51a), and whilst the increased amount of equipment will have the potential to result in an increased use of the park, this is not considered to result in an unacceptable impact, given the presence of the existing park and the fact that the house’s private garden is located on the far side of the house in question. This, in combination with existing trees and hedges along the boundary, will mitigate against any possible impacts. No objections were received from any residents.

Design

The submitted details are acceptable in terms of the appearance of the equipment and the general design and layout of the altered park. They indicate high quality equipment of predominantly of timber construction, which would complement the setting of the parking. Conditions will ensure that control is retained over the proposed details, as there is potential for the scheme to be altered as it progresses through funding processes. The conditions proposed are intended to be flexible enough to permit some variations in the equipment to be installed and layout of the park. Planning conditions will ensure use of acceptable materials.

Planting

The application sets out proposals to enhance the landscaping and planting within the park. Planning conditions will ensure that a full landscaping scheme is submitted, and that the planting is provided and maintained.

Impacts on Trees

Local Plan Policy NE4 on Trees Woodlands and Hedgerows seeks to ensure that existing planting is incorporated into new development. The proposed drainage scheme may require amendment, as it could be potentially harmful to existing tree roots. This can however be dealt with by imposition of a planning condition. Subject to such a condition, the proposals are considered to comply with policy NE4 of the Local Plan.

Access and Parking

Policy I11 of the Structure Plan and Inf4 of the Local Plan require that car parking should be provided in accordance with Council adopted standards. In the case of this application, on street parking exists adjacent to the park. It would not be appropriate to provide additional parking to serve enhanced play equipment; indeed it would be desirable to encourage waking and cycling to the park. The Roads Planning Officer has indicated that there are no road safety objections to the proposals.

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

CONCLUSION

It is considered that, subject to the compliance with the schedule of conditions, the proposed siting, height, design and intended use of the enhanced play park would accord with development plan policies relating to design/development quality, protection of residential amenity and impacts on trees. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES::

I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions and informative note:

Conditions:

2. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the play equipment, zip wire, shelter building, seating, benches, bins and ramps, including colour finish, materials and details on foundations are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development, and in the interests of visual amenity.

3. Prior to commencement of development, a sample of the proposed stone walling is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development, and in the interests of visual amenity.

i. indication of any 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 maintain effective control over the development and to ensure the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6 (j)

5. 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 completion of the development, 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.

6. No trees within the application 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 Planning Authority considers should be substantially maintained.

7. Notwithstanding the submitted drainage plan which is not approved by this consent, prior to the commencement of development, a revised scheme for drainage is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The revised scheme is to make provision for a minimum off set distance of 15m between the drainage route and the existing lime trees on the site. Reason: The submitted drainage plan would be contrary to adopted guidance on root protection.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. Depending upon the content of signage, and whom it is erected by, consent to display advertisements may be required. It is advisable to check with the Development Management Service for the area prior to erecting any signage.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Drawing Reference Location Plan 12.014 001 Proposed Layout Plan B3/1156 002 Proposed Layout Plan B3/1156 003 Layout Indicative Play Equipment Specifications Extracts Proposed Section B3/1156 003 Section Proposed Drainage Layout B3/1156 004

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Andrew Evans Planning Officer

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

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/01280/FUL OFFICER: Andrew Evans WARD: Kelso and District PROPOSAL: Erection of industrial unit, associated parking and erection of internal fence and gates. SITE: Plots 5, 6 and part of 7, Pinnaclehill Industrial Estate, Kelso APPLICANT: Ancroft Tractors AGENT: Edwin Thompson & Co (Galashiels)

CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

This application requires to be determined by the Planning and Building Standards Committee because the site is currently in the ownership of Scottish Borders Council.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located within a larger area of serviced employment land, part of the recent expansion of the Pinnaclehill Industrial Estate following the development of the Sainsbury’s store to the north. The application site is located to the north-west of the expansion site.

Site services, street lighting, drainage, landscaping and the construction of an access road have been completed on the expansion site, which now provides serviced employment land.

The application site is allocated within the Scottish Borders Local Plan as Employment Land (part of larger allocation zEL206 Pinnaclehill extension), and subject to policy ED1 of the local plan. The site is located within the Kelso Development Boundary set out in the same plan.

The combined planning application site comprises 0.48 hectares of land and is made up of 2½ of the plots originally indicated in the outline planning permission that exists for the site.

The site is bounded by a mature landscape belt to the north-west, which separates the new estate from the older, existing Industrial Estate to the north. To the south- west it is bounded by the recently planted landscape belt around the new employment land, with the B6352 Kelso to Yetholm road beyond. The southern- eastern boundary of the site backs on to the new Paul Burton Wines premises at Plot 1. The north-eastern edge of the site is with the internal estate distributor road and with neighbouring employment land sites (vacant plots 2, 4 and the remainder of 7).

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

The only occupied site on the expansion estate is at plot 1, where Paul Burton Wines are now located in a modern industrial building, which features grey coloured profile sheet walls, and a buff coloured block work basecourse.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a new industrial workshop building for Ancroft Tractors, which currently has premises in Spylaw Road in Kelso. The company deals in repair, maintenance and sales of new and used tractors, combine harvesters, farm machinery and forklifts and the proposal would essentially enable the relocation of the business from the current premises in Spylaw Road.

The proposed unit would be used as a workshop for the repair and maintenance of tractors and similar equipment. The proposed building would have a footprint of 30.5m x 15.25m. It would measure 6.2m to its eaves, with a ridge height of 8.4m. The building would incorporate a Solar PV Array on its elevation facing the Kelso- Yetholm road. The building would be constructed in “Sepia Brown” coloured profile sheeting (RAL colour 8014), with “Traffic Red” (RAL Colour 3020) coloured guttering and ridge, verge and eaves flashings. The proposed window and door surrounds would also be in Traffic Red finish.

The northern section of the application site would include a hardcore finished yard. Car Parking would be provided in an area between the proposed building and the neighbouring plots 1 & 2. Chain link fencing is proposed in the application, with vertical timber boarded gates to the entrance.

PLANNING HISTORY

Outline planning permission 06/00541/OUT was granted for the extension of Pinnaclehill Industrial Estate for Use Classes 4, 5 and 6, including the formation of new access. Full planning permission 08/01928/FUL was granted for the construction of the infrastructure for the extension to industrial estate and for the erection of Unit 1.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

This application was publicised by means of the direct notification of two neighbouring premises. No objections or representations have been received to this application.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

None.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N20 Design Policy E12 Employment Land Supply Policy I1 Transportation and Development Policy I11 Parking Provision in New Development Policy I12 Provision of Water and Sewerage Services Policy I14 Surface Water Policy I19 Renewable Energy

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

Policy I21 Small Scale Renewable Energy Technologies

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development Policy ED1 Protection of Employment Land Policy H3 Land Use Allocations Policy Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy D4 Renewable Energy Development

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy 2010

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Placemaking and Design (January 2010) Supplementary Planning Guidance: Designing Out Crime in the Scottish Borders (August 2007)

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: Comments awaited.

Economic Development:

In summary, supports the development in principle. Require that fencing around the site is constructed and erected in accordance with requirements. The submitted site layout plan refers to existing chain link security fencing on boundaries where there is no security fencing and suggests erecting new security fencing on a boundary which already has a timber screen fence erected to the Council’s specification. Prior discussions with the applicant and their agents clarified the Council’s need to have storage yard areas to be screened through the erection of timber screen fencing to standard detail, from views within the estate.

The planned storage areas above the main sales area and offices and rest room do not indicate means of access to this area.

In relation to Section Z-Z which indicates the planned land form suggest that the site is platformed further such that a more extensive useable area of site is formed by banking at 1:2 from the site edge.

Environmental Health: Offer comments in relation to Noise and Health & Safety. In summary:

x Recommend planning conditions in relation to noise that should be attached to any Consent that may be granted.

x Advise that the Health and Safety Executive will be the enforcement authority for the premises in terms of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and that the Work at Height Regulations 2005 will apply to the use of the proposed

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

storage area above the offices and rest room with regard to fencing and access. These matters will be relayed in an applicant informative attached to the decision notice on the application.

Statutory Consultees

Kelso Community Council: No objection.

Sprouston Community Council: Reply awaited.

Other Consultees

None.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining issues with this application are whether the proposals comply with planning policies on economic development and development of employment land. Specific regard should be given to:

x Policy considerations, principally whether the principle of the proposed development complies with Scottish Planning Policy and Scottish Borders Council Planning Policies; x The details of the proposed development; x The consultation replies received and any correspondence received as a result of neighbour notification and advertisement.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Background

Ancroft Tractors were established in 1979 with a Renault tractor franchise south of Berwick-upon-Tweed. In 1988 Ancroft took over the long established business of Elders, who were based in Berwick, Kelso and St. Boswells, and obtained the Massey Ferguson franchise.

The company have existing premises on the Spylaw Road Industrial Estate in Kelso, which are an adapted former sawmill building. It is unsuitable for current requirements and planning permission has been obtained, but not yet implemented, for an alternative use as a Vet’s practice.

Ancroft Tractors now wishes to expand and provide a facility suitable for modern needs to undertake agricultural engineering, maintenance and sales. They currently employ 5 staff and hope to employ additional staff once they construct new premises.

Policy Principle

The application is seeks permission for the erection of a new building, parking and fencing together with the construction of yard areas and landscaping. Some sales would take place on the premises.

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

The application site is allocated within the Adopted Scottish Borders Local Plan for employment use. Employment Land Safeguarding Policy ED1 of the plan would apply. This requires that in the case of non-strategic employment sites such as Pinnaclehill, the estate will be retained for industrial development in classes 4, 5 and 6 of the Use Classes (Scotland) Order. Ancillary sales activity can be compatible in an area subject to policy ED1. The policy acknowledges that vehicle sale uses can co-exist on industrial estates.

In this instance, the applicants have applied for the erection of an “industrial unit”. The large area and access road associated with the site, the edge of town location, and situation outside the Kelso by-pass, away from residential property, represent an appropriate location for the movement of large agricultural vehicles and machinery.

The proposed development is considered to comply with the requirements of Policy ED1.

Design

The proposed development would involve construction of a large industrial building, of a style consistent with similar development on employment sites in Kelso and elsewhere. There is no other built form in the immediate site context that would suggest that an alternative approach would be required in this case. In many ways, it is the wider structure planting associated with the site that will define the successful development of this new employment site and its integration into its wider setting. The appearance of the building is therefore considered to be appropriate given the context of the site and surrounding land being allocated for employment use.

Materials

A standard planning condition can ensure the use of acceptable materials. As noted in the section of this report on “Proposed Development”, the application proposes a brown coloured building. This is considered acceptable in principle.

Boundary Treatments

Fencing is one issue to which Members should give consideration. It is understood that the proposed fencing details in the planning application do not match with discussions that have taken place with the Economic Development Service. The Economic Development Service highlighted in the ongoing land sale discussions a requirement to have the standard Council screen fence to be erected on areas facing the public side of the plot.

This is the second unit being considered on this expansion site. The first unit constructed, Paul Burton Wines, has a boundary fence in the council specification timber boarding and painted steel frame. It is not considered that the proposed chain

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No 6 (k) link fencing set out in the application would be appropriate for all of the boundaries along which it is proposed.

It is considered particularly important that the public facing elevations of the site have higher quality boundary treatments. The boundary between the northern side of the estate distributor road, and the proposed hardcore yard is particularly visible within the estate. Other boundaries, such as those with landscaping belts, or future internal plot to plot boundaries are of lesser prominence and would be acceptably finished in chain link fence.

It is proposed that this matter be suitably addressed via the imposition of a planning condition and applicant informative requiring the submission and agreement of a revised boundary scheme.

Solar Panels

The proposed development includes the provision of an array of solar panels on the south-western roof slope of the building (Facing the adjacent B class road to Yetholm). Such small scale micro-renewable schemes are supported by policies I21 of the Structure Plan and D4 of the Local Plan.

Access and Parking

Policies I1 and I4 of the Structure Plan guides development to locations that are well served by a variety of means of transport, especially public transport. Policy Inf2 of the Local Plan seeks to uphold access rights by protecting existing access routes. Policy I11 of the Structure Plan and Inf4 of the Local Plan require that car parking should be provided in accordance with Council adopted standards. Policy G7 requires that adequate access and servicing can be achieved.

In this case the comments of the Roads Planning Service are awaited, but it is not anticipated that there shall be any significant road safety issues arising.

Services

Public water and drainage connections are proposed, and a condition can ensure that suitable arrangements are in place.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable. The site lies with an area allocated for employment development, and it is considered that the proposals comply with the relevant policies of the adopted Local Plan. A series of Planning Conditions and Applicant Informatives will provide necessary safeguards in respect of the detail of the proposal.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6 (k)

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions and informative notes:

Conditions:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, or any order revoking or re- enacting that order: a) Prior to the commencement of development, revised details of the boundary fencing of the site are to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. b) Other than the fencing agreed under part a) of this condition, no gate, fall fence or other means of enclosure is to be erected unless subject to an approved application for planning permission made to the Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development and in the interests of visual amenity.

3. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the external materials, including colour, to be used in the construction of the storage building are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development, and in the interests of visual amenity.

4. 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 Local Planning Authority, and shall include: i. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and any grassed areas ii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density iii. 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.

5. 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.

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

6. Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within any noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity.

7. The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2. Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity.

8. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme outlining the foul and surface water drainage arrangements for the proposed site, including the building, yards and car parking is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details, and the drainage scheme to be implemented prior to the bringing into use of the premises hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the provision of suitable drainage arrangements within the site.

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 also indicate the existing and proposed levels throughout the application site. Reason: To maintain effective control over the development and to ensure the development makes the most efficient use of land.

Informatives

It should be noted that:

1. With regards to condition 2, part a), it is expected that the proposed boundary fencing to all public facing elevations should be in accordance with the Scottish Borders Council standard timber screen fence detail for employment and industrial estates.

2. The HSE will be the enforcement authority for the premises in terms of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 will apply to the use of the proposed storage area above the offices and rest room with regard to fencing and access.

3. Attention is drawn to the enclosed consultation reply from the Council Economic Development Section.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Drawing Reference Location plan A239-003 Site layout plan A239-001 Plans & elevations A239-002

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

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Andrew Evans Planning Officer (Business Applications – East)

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

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/01291/FUL OFFICER: Deborah Chalmers WARD: Jebdurgh and District PROPOSAL: Installation of roof mounted photovoltaic and solar thermal panel array SITE: Laidlaw Memorial Pool, Oxnam Road, Jedburgh APPLICANT: Mr L Wyse AGENT: Mr L Wyse

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Laidlaw Memorial Swimming Pool is situated on the corner of Oxnam Road and the A68 within the Jedburgh Conservation Area. The Jed Water is to the north, the Old Parish Church is to the south and there is a residential property, Riverview to the east. The swimming pool has a stone frontage and is constructed of brick and rendered blockwork.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Planning permission is sought for the installation of roof mounted photovoltaic and solar thermal panels on the south east elevation of the Laidlaw Memorial Pool, Oxnam Road, Jedburgh.

The dimensions of both types of proposed panel are 1650mm in length, 991mm in width and 40mm in height. The panels are proposed to be located on the south east elevation of the swimming pool on an existing pitched roof. The proposal includes the installation of 45 panels over 3 rows and includes both photovoltaic and solar thermal panels. No detailed plans have been submitted showing the exact location of the panels or the number of panels in each row.

The application is referred to the Planning and Building Standards Committee for determination as the Council owns the building.

PLANNING HISTORY

11/01362/FUL: Alterations and extension to form meeting area (revision to planning permission 10/01535/FUL). Approved 14th November 2011.

10/01535/FUL: Extension to form meeting area. Approved 13th December 2010.

09/00818/FUL: Erection of biomass heating and storage building. Approve 29th July 2009.

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

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

No representations have been submitted to date and the advertisement in the Southern Reporter expired on the 22nd November 2012.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant has not submitted any information in support of the application.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N18: Development Affecting Conservation Areas Policy N20: Design Policy I21: Small Scale Renewable Energy Technologies

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy BE4: Conservation Areas Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy D4: Renewable Energy Development

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

x Supplementary Planning Guidance – Renewable Energy (June 2007) x Historic Scotland Micro-Renewable Guidance Note (December 2010)

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: Awaiting a reply.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key considerations of this proposal are whether the proposed development will:

x Result in any adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. x Respect the existing building and surrounding landscape. x Result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of existing residential areas.

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

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Principle

The proposal to install a total of 45 photovoltaic and solar thermal panels on the Laidlaw Memorial Pool in Jedburgh has to be assessed against the Council’s policies, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011.

The Laidlaw Memorial Pool is located within the Jedburgh Conservation Area. Structure Plan Policy I21: Small Scale Renewable Energy Technologies, states that proposals for small scale renewable energy generation will be encouraged where they have no significant adverse impact on the natural and built environment or amenity of an area. Policy D4: Renewable Energy Development, as contained with the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, states that all development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted. The Council encourages the use of renewable technologies within developments, however all proposals must be assessed against the policies outlined above.

Impact on the Conservation Area

One of the main issues with this application is the impact that the photovoltaic and thermal solar panels would have upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Structure Plan Policy N18: Development Affecting Conservation Areas, states that development proposals should seek to retain existing features which are considered integral to the character of the Conservation Area. Policy BE4: Conservation Areas, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, states that the development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on its character and appearance will be refused. All new development must be located and designed to preserve or enhance the special architectural or historic character of the Conservation Area.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Renewable Energy (June 2007) states that PV panels are likely to be less visible on valley roofs, double pitched roofs, roofs contained within parapets, low pitched roofs not easily seen from the street, flat roofs and plat formed roofs. Wherever possible solar panels should be flush with the roof and mounted at the same angle as the roof to minimise contrast. Historic Scotland’s ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment’ guidance in relation to Micro Renewable states that solar micro-renewable developments should be installed on inconspicuous areas of a roof. The guidance advises that principal elevations should always be avoided, and consideration given to the appearance of the development in views of the building from higher vantage points.

The proposed solar panels would be located on the south east elevation of the existing building. The proposal would involve covering the majority of this roof slope in photovoltaic and thermal solar panels. Although the building is within the Conservation Area, the roof pitch is low and the proposal is not located on the principal elevation. The panels would be largely invisible from the A68 frontage of the building, and whilst they would be distantly visible from Oxnam Road, to the rear, this would across the width of the building which is already affected by other forms of plant and equipment. Visually, therefore, the array of panels would not be prominent in the street scene or when viewed from the north or west of the site. Overall, given the location of the panels on the south east elevation of the building, it is not

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No 6 (l) considered that the proposal would detract from the appearance or character of the Conservation Area in compliance with Policy BE4.

Design

The second issue is whether the proposal would respect the existing building and the surrounding landscape. Structure Plan Policy N20: Design, states that the Council will encourage a high quality of layout, design and materials in all new development. Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, requires all new development to be in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit with the Scottish Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings. Furthermore, it aims to ensure that development does not negatively impact upon the existing buildings, or surrounding landscape and visual amenity of the area. The policy states that the scale, massing, height and density of development should be appropriate for its surroundings.

The design of the photovoltaic and thermal solar panels is typical for a development of its type. The existing building comprises of the original building with a pitched roof and a larger flat roofed extension to the south east, covering the swimming pool area. It is not considered that the proposed panels would negatively impact upon the existing building, given the location of the proposal and the existing additions to the original building. Furthermore, the proposal is to be located on the south east elevation on a low pitched roof and it is not considered that it would result in any impacts upon the visual amenity of the area. Overall, the design and location of the proposed development, is considered to be acceptable and in compliance with Policy G1 and H2.

As outlined above, the precise location and specifications of the panels have not been submitted to date. Therefore, in order to ensure a satisfactory layout is installed a condition is proposed requesting the precise location and details of the proposal to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Service.

Residential Amenities

The third issue to be addressed is whether the proposed development would result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of existing residential areas. Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, states that all development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted. Given the nature of the proposed development and location on the south east elevation, it is not considered that the proposal would affect the residential amenities of the area, in compliance with Policy H2. The closest property to the proposed extension is Riverview, to the east. This property is approximately 30m from the swimming pool building and the proposed panels would be largely screened from this property by intervening vegetation and the existing building. Therefore the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of occupants of nearby properties.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is for the installation of roof mounted photovoltaic and solar thermal panel array to the existing swimming pool in Jedburgh. It is not considered that the proposal would not have any adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The design and siting of the proposal would not negativey impact upon the existing building, or surrounding landscape and visual amenity of the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 6 (l) area. Furthermore, the proposal would not affect the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Overall the proposed development complies with the policies outlined within the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001 – 2018 and Consolidated Local Plan 2011.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

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

2. Within twelve months of the end of the useful life of the solar array panel hereby approved, all solar panels and ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition, or other such condition as may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The anticipated design life of the solar array has a limited life expectancy.

3. No development shall commence until the location and precise details of the proposed photovoltaic and thermal solar panels have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes to its setting.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Location Plan Schematic Drawings

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Deborah Chalmers Planning Officer

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6 (m)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10 DECEMBER 2012

APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE OF A PLANNING OBLIGATION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/01390/MOD75 OFFICER: Andrew Evans WARD: Selkirkshire PROPOSAL: Discharge of planning obligations SITE: Land at Braidwood, By Midlem APPLICANT: Mr James J Black AGENT: Mr Nigel Hall, Haddon and Turnbull WS

SITE DESCRIPTION

Braidwood Clays is located to the north west of the village of Midlem, and to the east of the B6453 road. It is a clay shooting complex. The property is accessed by a private access track, which leads past a detached dwellinghouse (Known as Braidwood) to a car park for visitors, and club house accommodation providing a retail / display area, reception, seating area, kitchen and male and female toilets. High voltage power lines cross the site, running from the access, broadly parallel with the access track leading to the centre of the site in a north westerly direction.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Outline planning permission (92/01202/OUT) was granted for the erection of a dwellinghouse at Braidwood in July 1992. A Section 50 agreement was originally entered into in 1993, with a further agreement entered into in 1994. The effects of these agreements are set out later in this report.

The application seeks to modify these Section 50 Agreements in connection with the planning permission for the erection of the dwellinghouse on the site.

PLANNING HISTORY

The site has the following planning history:

09/00722/FUL - Extension to temporary consent 06/01165/FUL for construction of second phase noise bund to north east side of shooting ground – Pending consideration.

06/01165/FUL - Extension to temporary consent 04/00527/FUL for construction of second phase noise bund to north east side of shooting ground – Approved with conditions 06.07.2006.

05/02291/FUL - Erection of clubhouse - Approved with conditions and informatives 04.04.2006.

04/00527/FUL - Construction of second phase noise bund to north east side of shooting ground - Approved with conditions and informatives 20.07.2004.

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

01/00824/FUL - Construction of second phase noise bund to NE side of shooting ground - Approved subject to conditions 19.11.2001.

99/00670/SBC - Formation of noise reduction bunds at clay shooting range – Withdrawn 11.06.2001.

97/05617/FUL - Formation of noise reduction bunds and landscaping works - Approved subject to Conditions & Informatives 06.06.1997

95/01201/FUL - Permanent use for clay pigeon shooting and retention of existing building - Approved with conditions 11.12.1995.

94/01315/FUL - Siting of club house facilities for shooting ground - Approved with conditions 22.11.1994.

93/01269/FUL - Continued use as clay target shooting ground - Approved subject to conditions –12.10.1993.

92/01204/FUL - Clay pigeon shooting - Approved subject to conditions – 11.05.1992.

92/01202/OUT - Erection of dwellinghouse - Approved subject to conditions - 09.06.1993.

Effect of Current Legal Agreements

The main clauses of the legal agreements are as follows:

The main provisions of the 1993 Agreement are that:

(a) no further residential development shall at any time be carried out upon the subjects (Clause 4),

(b) the said dwellinghouse shall only be occupied by a person employed or last employed in agriculture as defined in section 275 of the 1972 Act, or their dependants, widow or widower (Clause 5),

(c) the dwellinghouse shall not be disponed, conveyed or otherwise disposed of independently of the larger subjects to which the agreement relates (Clause 6).

The main provisions of the 1994 Agreement are that:

(d) The planning authority agreed to waive clause 6 of the 1993 agreement to permit the disposal of some of the land subject to the original agreement separately from the dwellinghouse,

(e) In all other respects the terms and conditions of the section 50 agreement are binding and enforceable on the Proprietors and their successors in title.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

No representations have been received.

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

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A supporting statement has been submitted by the agent for Mr Black, the current owner of the business. It confirms the following:

x The applicant Mr Black has now disposed of part of the land affected by this agreement (Shown on accompanying plan which is available in Public Access).

x By way of background, the land affected by the agreement originally formed part Prieston Farm which was originally farmed by Mr Black and his brothers. The family partnership split up and as a result of which this land was hived off with the farmhouse retained with the other parts of the farm. As part of this Mr Black obtained planning permission for the new house which is now Braidwood and he farmed it as a separate unit.

x Farm diversification then led to the development of Braidwood Sporting Clays. The Clay business grew significantly, becoming the principal occupation of Mr Black, a consequence of which was that the bulk of the farmland was let to the occupants of Prieston firstly Robert Carr and Miriam Greenwood who are mentioned in the 1994 minute and then the current owner, Sir Michael Strang Steel. The let ground has now been returned to Prieston Farm.

A further email was submitted by Mr Black’s agent, confirming the following:

1. We are looking for a modification of the agreement, not a discharge. 2. No change is sought in respect of Clause 4. 3. We are seeking to lift the restriction in clause 5 limiting the use of the dwellinghouse to occupation only by some one employed or last employed in agriculture as defined by Section 275 of the '72 Act or by any dependent of such person residing with him or her or by a widow or widower of such a person.The bulk of the farmland having been sold off, the house is occupied by the owners of the Braidwood clay pigeon business, ie a non agricultural business, as set out in the application. 4. Clause 6 required all the subjects affected by the agreement to be kept together.We seek modification to remove the land sold off from that burden.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy H8: Housing in the Countryside: Isolated Housing

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy D1: Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Planning Circular 1/2010: Planning Agreements.

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

Supplementary Planning Guidance: New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Legal Services: Reply Awaited.

Statutory Consultees

None

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether the removal of the occupancy conditions attached to the dwellinghouse at Braidwood complies with the Council’s Housing in the Countryside; and Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside policies; x What the impacts of the sale of the land subject to the legal agreement would be.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Scope of Application

This application now seeks to modify the Section 50 Agreements to lift the restriction in clause 5, which limits the occupation of the dwellinghouse to someone employed or last employed in agriculture as defined by Section 275 of the 1972 Act or by any dependent of such person residing with him or her or by a widow or widower of such a person. The bulk of the farmland having been sold off, the house is occupied by the owners of the Braidwood clay pigeon business, a non agricultural business.

The application further seeks to amend Clause 6 which required all the subjects affected by the agreement to be kept together. The applicant seeks modification of the agreement to remove the land sold off from that burden.

The applicants intend that the Braidwood Sporting Clays Business and the existing dwellinghouse known as “Braidwood” be sold off to new owners.

Planning Policy

Planning Circular 1/2010 sets out Scottish Government policy on the use of planning agreements. It confirms that once concluded a planning agreement forms a legal contract between the planning authority and the developer, along with any other signatory (e.g. landowner). As such it may be modified only by mutual agreement.

The proposal to remove the occupancy condition from the dwellinghouse at Braidwood has to assessed against the Council’s housing in the countryside policies.

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

A new house in this location now would be assessed against policy H8 of the Structure Plan (Housing in the Countryside: Isolated Housing) and policy D2 (E) (Housing in the Countryside – Economic Requirement) of the Local Plan. Policy H8 states that proposals for new housing in the countryside outwith settlements and unrelated to building groups will not be supported unless the location is essential for the needs of an agricultural business or other business use that requires a specific rural location.

Policy D2 (E): Economic Requirement of the Local Plan allows housing in such locations where the development is a direct operational requirement of a business which is itself appropriate to the Countryside, and it is for a worker predominantly employed in the enterprise and the presence of that worker on-site is essential to the efficient operation of the enterprise. Such development could include businesses that would cause disturbance or loss of amenity if located within an existing settlement.

Assessment of request

When the planning application (92/01202/OUT) for the house on this site was considered it was accepted that an existing agricultural business was operating from the land, as evidenced content and terms of the subsequent legal agreement.

The house was built and the then farmer’s business interests developed and diversified over the years, to the extent that the Clay Pigeon operation has now replaced farming activities. This evolution of activities has consequences for the appropriateness of the occupancy restriction, given the now limited justification for a house related to farming.

It is now intended to modify the legal agreements to allow the land and house to be sold. The justification for a dwellinghouse on this site in connection with the existing shooting business is a strong one. It is accepted that the business has operated successfully and viably for several years. For firearms safety and security reasons it is accepted that an on-site 24 hour presence is desirable, and that this is best achieved via the existing dwellinghouse on the site continuing to be occupied in connection with the clay shooting business.

The Council has previously agreed to disposal of land, evidenced by the later of the legal agreements. The current proposals to sell off land subject to the agreement are acceptable in principle. The land required for the clay shooting business, and the dwelling, would still be subject to an amended legal agreement in future. The dwelling would be tied to sufficient land for the clay shooting business to remain viable, and maintain the justification for an on site dwelling.

Developer Contributions

Policy G5 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 states that where a site is acceptable but cannot proceed due to deficiencies in infrastructure or due to environmental impacts the Council will require developers to make contributions towards the cost of addressing such deficiencies.

No developer contributions towards education facilities or affordable housing are required as this is an existing house.

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

CONCLUSION

It is accepted that the circumstances surrounding this case have changed significantly since the dwellinghouse was approved in 1992 to a point where the occupancy condition is no longer appropriate in its original form and should be amended to relate to occupation connected the shooting business on the site.

The clause of the legal agreement relating to the sale of land should also be updated to reflect changes in ownership.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

In respect of 12/01390/MOD75 I recommend that the application for the discharge of planning obligations is approved and the Section 50 (Section 75 of the 1997 Act) Agreement be amended to restrict occupation of the house approved under planning permission 92/01202/OUT to an individual connected the shooting business at the site and to amend the clause relating to the sale of land to reflect changes in ownership.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Site Plan received 9th November 2012.

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Andrew Evans Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 6 (m)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 ITEM 7

PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS

Briefing Note by Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

10th December 2012

1 PURPOSE

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

2 APPEALS RECEIVED

2.1 Planning Applications

Nil

2.2 Enforcements

Nil

3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

3.1.1 Reference: 12/00600/FUL Proposal: Part change of use from office and alterations to form sandwich bar (Class 1) and formation of access ramp Site: 22 Buccleuch Street, Hawick Appellant: Aitken & Turnbull Architects Ltd

Reasons for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to Policies H2, G7 and G1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan in that the proposed use of the building as a sandwich bar would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the surrounding area and would create a major road safety problem in the locality.

Grounds of Appeal: Planning Permission was refused based on the grounds that the proposals do not comply with Policies H2, G1 & G7, however, within the Planning Officer’s Report for Approval the proposals were deemed compliant with these policies. During the entirety of the consultation period there were no consultee objections based on these policies, further more the Principal Officer (Heritage & Design) stated in the consultation response: Planning & Building Standards Committee 10th December 2012 1 “It was considered that the proposal would not negatively impact upon the character or the appearance of the Listed Building or Conservation Area, on residential amenities or the visual amenities of the area”.

It is clear from the information provided during both the pre-application and application periods that in terms of Planning Policy the proposals were deemed fully compliant. The basis of this appeal is simple - the Planning Authority has acted in an unreasonable and unjust manner refusing this application. We consider that there were no valid grounds for refusal as it is clear that every effort was made with these proposals to be compliant with policy, considering the existing building make up and location.

It is considered that the refusal was not on the grounds of policy but based on the weight of public objection which had little regard to Planning matters or policies and was from a minority of local residents. Planning Officers consulted during this application concluded that the proposals were not contrary to policy and none of the consultees raised any valid issues.

We would respectfully request that this decision be over-turned and Planning Consent granted based on the grounds that the proposed development, subject to the imposition of planning conditions, is considered acceptable and in compliance with policies G1, G4, G7, H2, BE1, BE4, ED5, AND Inf4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan adopted 2011. It is not considered that the proposal would not negatively impact upon the character or the appearance of the Listed Building or Conservation Area, on residential amenities or the visual amenities of the area, and could in fact provide a sustainable, healthy and attractive building use to the area.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

Reporter’s Decision: Sustained

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Richard Dent, granted planning permissions with 7 conditions and 3 advisory notes and concluding that overall, no material considerations lead him to conclude that planning permission for a sandwich bar under Class 1 should not be granted.

3.1.2 Reference: 12/00615/MOD75 Proposal: Modification of planning obligation - 97/00502/OUT and 01/00951/REM Site: Alton Loch, Alton, Hawick Appellant: James Grant and Margaret Murray Rooney

Reasons for Refusal: Members declined to accept the request to modify the existing Section 75 Agreement at the property on the grounds that the provisions of the Council’s Housing in the Countryside Policies indicate that is not a location where planning permission would normally be given for a single dwellinghouse. The Committee did not accept that a sufficiently strong case had been presented to set aside the planning policy objections and they were not prepared allow separation of the house from the rest of the land holding. Members contended that, whilst it was claimed the existing business was currently unviable, the retention of the landholding in one unit allowed the potential for a business to be developed by a new owner at a later date.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 10th December 2012 2 Grounds of Appeal: The original dwellinghouse consent was rightly subject to occupancy conditions and treatment of the whole landholding as a single legal entity on the basis of the established rural (fishery) business at the time of the application (some 14 years ago). However, the decline of the water quality within the loch, compounded by the negligible financial sustainability of the enterprise, has made the loch unviable for fishing and therefore there no longer exist the prospect of a business for the house to be tied to. Separating the decision on the planning condition and the legal agreement makes no practical sense and does not serve the public interest or any wider planning good as without the occupancy restriction, the property can be occupied as a solely private residence without any associated fishery business.

In actuality, all the split-decision does is to place a burden on both the existing owner who wishes to sell the property (and cannot split the subjects into viable sellable parcels in the on-going difficult economic conditions) and also any prospective purchaser who would have to take on the liability of the loch and associated maintenance obligations.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Richard Dent, dismissed the appeal and refused to modify the original planning obligation comprising Clause (b) of the agreement and the variation of the obligation comprising Clause (c) of the agreement.

3.2 Enforcements

Nil

4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING

4.1 There remained 2 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 27th November 2012.

x Blackburn, Grantshouse, Duns x Penmanshiel, Grantshouse

5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED

6 REVIEWS DETERMINED

6.1 Reference: 12/00476/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind turbine 24.8m high to tip Site: Land North West of Cottage Farm, West Linton Appellant: Mr Michael King

Reasons for Refusal: The proposals do not comply with Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan policies I20 and Consolidated Local Plan policies D4 and Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy and Local Landscape Designations as the turbine will be located in a sensitive landscape area, is close to the A702 without any intervening screening when viewed from the north and has a poor visual relationship with the existing farm buildings. It will also have a significant adverse visual impact Planning & Building Standards Committee 10th December 2012 3 on the views into the proposed Special Landscape Area of the Pentland Hills and on the sensitive tourist route along the A702, in both northbound and southbound directions.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer upheld.

7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING

7.1 There remained 0 reviews previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 27th November 2012.

Approved by

Brian Frater Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

Signature …………………………………..

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

Background Papers: None. Previous Minute Reference: None.

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

Planning & Building Standards Committee 10th December 2012 4