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 31 March 2014 at 10 a.m. ------
Present: - Councillors R Smith (Chairman), M. Ballantyne (from para 4), S. Bell, J. Brown, J. Fullarton, I. Gillespie, D. Moffat, B. White (from para 3). Apologies:- Councillor S. Mountford. In Attendance:- Service Director Regulatory Services, Development Standards Manager, Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager, Managing Solicitor – Commercial Services, Democratic Services Officers (F. Henderson and F. Walling).
ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. The Chairman advised that Item 6(a) of the agenda had been deferred. This was to have been a continuation of the consideration of application 13/01379/FUL, the erection of a poultry shed on Whim Poultry Farm, Lamancha. This application would now be determined at a meeting to be held on 14 April 2014 in the Council Headquarters at 2 pm.
DECISION NOTED.
MINUTE 2. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 3 March 2014.
DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.
MEMBER Councillor White joined the meeting during the presentation and discussion below.
PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE 3. The Service Director Regulatory Services was in attendance to present Members with an update on planning performance in the Scottish Borders. This was in the form of contextual and trend information for the Council, based on Scottish Government performance measures. Having peaked around 2007 the number of applications submitted to Scottish Borders Council had reduced to previous averages, with about 700 pending at any one time. Performance in all categories had gradually improved over the past six years. However with regard to decision making timescales the Council was below the Scottish average and it was noted that this was typical for a rural authority. The reasons were identified as the longer distances to travel to sites; high numbers of listed buildings, requiring a further statutory process; the Council’s development contributions policy; and a high number of legal agreements. Action would be prioritised to continue to improve the time taken to process applications. Other areas being addressed, in terms of performance, related to enforcement and the streamlining of legal agreements. A new Enforcement Charter and revised scheme for processing legal agreements had recently been approved by Committee. In relation to other performance measures, now used by the Scottish Government, the Council was among the top performing authorities in respect of the age of Development Plan, early collaboration with applicants and the production of regular and proportionate policy advice. Scottish Borders Council was also at the forefront of E- planning with nearly 30% of applications now being submitted on-line. Although not apparently scoring well in terms of sharing good practice it was noted that Scottish Borders Council had representatives on several national benchmarking, user, strategy and working 1 Item No. 4 groups. Members discussed the performance data presented and received answers to their questions. In response to a request, the Service Director agreed to provide a breakdown of the Council’s performance in relation to non-householder planning applications. He advised that the Scottish Borders had a higher proportion of non- householder applications and that there were two officers dedicated to business applications. Scottish Government had acknowledged the significant progress the Council had made in processing applications from this sector.
DECISION NOTED.
MEMBER Councillor Ballantyne joined the meeting before consideration of the applications.
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.
APPEALS AND REVIEWS 5. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews.
DECISION NOTED that:-
(a) there remained 3 appeals outstanding in respect of the following:-
x Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk x Allanshaws Farmhouse (Shawpark), Galashiels x Blythe Farm (Brunta Hill), Lauder
(b) the Local Review Body had overturned the Appointed Officer’s decision to refuse the following:-
(i) Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage on Plot 1, land south west of Blackhouse Farm Cottages, Reston – 11/01657/FUL
(ii) Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage on Plot 2, land south west of Blackhouse Farm Cottages, Reston – 11/01658/FUL
(iii) Erection of dwellinghouse and outbuilding/stables on Plot 2 (Site 2), land at Huntshaw Farm Steading, Huntshaw, Earlston – 13/00892/FUL
(iv) Removal of condition from planning consents B315/94 and 00/00458/FUL to allow residency to be outwith connection to business or agriculture at Kinegar House, Cockburnspath.
(c) there remained 1 review outstanding in respect of Deanfoot Road, West Linton -
2 Item No. 4 PRIVATE BUSINESS 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 3 March 2014.
The meeting concluded at 12.20 p.m.
3 Item No. 4 APPENDIX I
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Reference Nature of Development Location
13/01379/FUL Erection of poultry shed (amendment Whim Poultry Farm to previous consent 12/00465/FUL) Lamancha West Linton
Application deferred for determination at a meeting to be held on 14 April, 2014 at 2 pm.
13/00626/S36 Wind farm comprising 24 wind Land North East of Cathpair turbines, substation, control room Farmhouse, Girthgate, buildings and compound, access between Stow and Lauder – tracks, 2 No meteorological masts, Girthgate Wind Farm borrow pits and temporary constructions and site storage compound (Revised scheme involving deletion of 1 turbine, amendment to turbine layout and reduction in height of further 3 turbines)
Decision: That the Council indicate to Scottish Government that it objects to the application for a 24-turbine wind farm on the Girthgate site. The 2 reasons for the objections are as follows:
Reason for Objection 1: Impact on Landscape Character:
1. The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1 and D4 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 and Policy 10 of the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SESplan) 2013 in that, taking into consideration the following factors, it would unacceptably harm the Borders landscape:
(i) the prominence of the application site and the ability of the turbines to be seen as highly prominent and poorly contained new components of the landscape (ii) the unacceptable vertical scale of the turbines in relation to the scale of the receiving landscape and absence of good topographical containment (iii) the appearance of the development resulting from its massing, spread and layout design and its scale in relation to other wind energy developments with which it has cumulative landscape effects (iv) the coincident and sequential cumulative effects with other wind farms at Dun Law, Dun Law Extension, Toddleburn, Longpark and potentially at Rowantree and Shaw Park if consented; and (v) the adverse impacts caused in particular to the Lauder Common Landscape Character Area, which is highly sensitive to change due to its importance as a recreational/amenity landscape and its already high level of impact caused by consented developments,
Reason for Objection 2: Adverse Visual and Amenity Impacts:
2. The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1, D4, BE2, BE4, H2 and Inf2 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 and Policy 10 of the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SESplan) 2013 in that, taking into consideration the following factors, the development would give rise to unacceptable visual and amenity effects:
4 Item No. 4 (i) the unacceptably high level of visibility of the development due to lack of good topographical containment (ii) the adverse effects experienced by users of the Lauder Common, which is utilised as an important public recreation/amenity space and which includes several well used public paths (iii) the strong and unacceptable visual relationships of the development with the setting of Thirlestane Castle and its Designed Landscape and the conservation towns of Lauder and Stow and the potential for the development to be dominant in relation to those towns and the historic asset due to the high level of visibility from these receptors. (iv) the unacceptable level of visual impact caused by the dominance of the turbines in relation to a number of private residences within 2km of the development (v) the lack of certainty relating to the appropriateness of applying certain noise limitations in relation to properties having a financial interest in the development, when the nature of the financial interest is not clear, (vi) the adverse visual impacts relating to settings of scheduled monuments within a culturally rich landscape; and (vii) the coincident and sequential cumulative effects with other wind farms at Dun Law, Dun Law Extension, Toddleburn, Longpark and potentially at Rowantree and Shaw Park if consented, in particular due to the design of the Girthgate scheme which would introduce the tallest and most poorly contained of all the turbines stemming from Dun Law through to Longpark,
Advisory Notes:
1. Although not identifying Harm to Biodiversity as a reason to object to the proposal, it is advised, taking into consideration the following factors: (i) the lack of certainty arising from deficiencies in the material provided within the Environmental Statement in relation to ecology, ornithology and habitat; and (ii) the potential for harm to be caused to Annex 1 and Annex 2 (Birds Directive) protected species of bird, in particular by turbines T12, T11, T13 and T5 the development would have the potential to generate unacceptable levels of harm to biodiversity, and would currently conflict with Policies G1 and NE3 of the Scottish Borders 2011 Local Plan. Greater certainty relating to biodiversity and mitigation should be obtained prior to determination.
2. The Planning & Building Standards Committee draws Scottish Ministers attention to the content of the Proposed Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2013, which has recently concluded its representation period, as a statement of emerging policy on renewables in the Scottish Borders. In particular, Scottish Ministers should consider pages 55 – 65 therein that relate to Policy ED9 – Renewable Energy Development.
Members noted that in Figure ED9b – Wind Turbine Development Opportunities and Constraints (p 58) the site was located within an area where cumulative impacts limit development and that Figure ED9e - Inherent Landscape Capacity Very large (>100m) (p61) indicated that there was no capacity at the locus for this scale of development
The Committee in agreeing the recommendation to object to the proposed development asked that it be made clear to Ministers that they had very strong concerns about the cumulative impact of the development. They noted that Policy ED9 (p 62 -64) stated, in respect of cumulative landscape and visual impacts, that:
• Significant coincident cumulative landscape and visual impacts must be avoided where an existing wind farm development is present in an adjoining area and can be viewed together with the proposed development
• Significant sequential cumulative landscape and visual impacts over a wider area must be avoided where a number of windfarm developments can be viewed in succession on a journey leading to adverse impacts on routes such as roads and long distance footpaths
• Within the areas identified in the spatial strategy where existing development means that potential cumulative impacts are likely to occur there will be a presumption against development unless it can be
5 Item No. 4 demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that there would be no significant additional detrimental impacts. impacts
Members in coming to their determination were very clear that the proposed development failed to meet these necessary policy tests and was unacceptable.
13/00526/FUL Erection of dwellinghouse Garden Ground of The Mount, Coldingham.
Decision: Approved subject to a legal agreement addressing local schools and subject 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. 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 Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
3 No development shall commence until a sample of all materials to be used on all exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.
4 No development shall commence until a sample of the external finish of the dwarf wall and precise details of the surface paving and gravel surface finishes have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.
5. No development shall commence until a scheme of landscaping works, which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and shall include; i. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges within the site, in particular this should include provision of planting to the north eastern corner of the site to screen the parking area ii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density iii. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance for the new planted areas and also future management of the existing screen planting along the north eastern boundary of the site iv. location and design, including materials of any other walls, fences and gates Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.
6. Only the trees identified for removal on Drawing No P08 shall be removed from the site and all other trees shall be retained unless the written agreement is received from the Planning Authority for any further removal. Reason: The existing trees represent an important visual feature which the Planning Authority considers should be substantially maintained.
7. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the Construction Sequence specified within Chapter 4.00 Appendix of the Design Commentary and Drawing Numbers 12/382/100, 12/382/SK1 and 12/382/SK2. Any variation to this construction method informed by McKay and Partners Structural Engineers shall first be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved details. 6 Item No. 4 Reason: The site is in a sensitive location and it is essential that construction methods are known and approved, to ensure minimal environmental impact occurs.
8. No development shall commence until a schedule of implementing the upgrades to the sites access road illustrated on Drawing No P06 and precise details of the proposed surface treatments have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Thereafter the works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless any variation thereto is agreed in with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the access to the site is upgraded to the required adoptable standard in order to achieve safe access.
9. No development shall commence until the construction specification of the site’s new private access road, including gradients and details of the edge protection, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless any variation thereto is agreed in with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that safe access to the site is achieved.
10. The parking area shall be properly consolidated within the site before the occupation of the dwellinghouse and retained in perpetuity. Reason: To provide adequate parking.
11. No site clearance works, which includes tree felling and scrub clearance, shall be carried out during the breeding bird season (March-September) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Supplementary surveys will be required to be submitted for agreement with the Planning Authority with possible appropriate mitigation measures if site clearance works are to commence during the breeding bird season. Reason: To safeguard the ecological interests of the site.
Informative
With reference to Condition 9, the applicant may wish to liaise with the Council’s Building Standards Team and the Fire Service to ensure that the sites private access road meets the design requirements of these other specialists.
14/00189/MOD75 Modification on planning obligation Borders Nursing Home pursuant to planning permission Peelwalls 97/00143/FUl and 03/02278/FUL Eyemouth Scottish Borders TD14 5RL
Decision: The modification request be approved for the following reason:
Having regard to the exceptional circumstances of this site, the request to modify the existing legal agreement would enable the use of Listed Building Peelwalls House to be reinstated to a private dwelling securing management and preservation of the Listed Building and formal parkland with related historic accesses, which will meet cultural heritage policy objectives, acknowledging the separate ownership of the land holdings affected by the agreement.
It is therefore recommended that the requested modifications listed below are agreed: a) amendment of the Second Clause to remove the requirement to provide a new access route on the adjacent land and to the closure of the existing accesses serving Peelwalls and the Lodge Houses; and b) amendment of the Fourth Clause to remove the burden to restrict the use of Peelwalls House to be solely for care home purposes and for the provisions of care home and associated services and facilities to buildings elsewhere. 7 Item No. 4
14/00061/FUL Change of use from office to form Office, Millfield Gardens, licensed meeting rooms Canongate, Jedburgh
Decision: Approved subject to the following condition and informatives:
Condition:
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.
Informatives:
1. As the applicant intends to get a license to sell alcohol in the future, the Environmental Health Officer would advise that they contact a member of the licensing team closer to the time.
2. If food is to be prepared onsite, the applicant should contact the Council’s Environmental Health food team as soon as possible to discuss the layout of the premises and registration.
3. If any external alterations or signage is proposed, the applicant should contact the Planning Service to ascertain whether planning consent or advertisement consent is required for the proposed development.
8 Item No. 6(a)
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
28 APRIL 2014
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 14/00278/FUL OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Hawick and Denholm PROPOSAL: Erection of stable block and associated works including hard standing area SITE: Land South of Langheugh Buccleuch Road Hawick APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Murray AGENT: Stuart Patterson Building & Timber Frame Design
SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is situated on the south west boundary of Hawick, outwith the Development Boundary, as defined in the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011. It is a field that slopes steeply up to the south east. To the north west is Buccleuch Road (A7), to the south east is Longbaulk Road, there are residential properties to the north and east and fields to the south west.
There is a field gate on the northern boundary of the field. This is accessed from a private road and track, part of Buccleuch Road, with a junction onto the A7. There is a three storey property, Langheugh, divided into three flats on higher ground above this track to the north east of the site. Garages and a surfaced parking area for the three Langheugh properties are situated adjacent to the field gate.
The applicants live in a new property to the south of the site accessed from Longbaulk Road.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposal is to erect a stable block adjacent to the south western boundary of the field. This would be 3.6m by 10.8m with a 1.4m overhang and 3.2m in height. The building would be divided into three stables. The walls would be finished with horizontal timber tongue and groove cladding, the roof would be finished with black corrugated tin or steel profile cladding and the overhang would be clear or opaque polycarbonate sheeting.
Access would be from Buccleuch Road via the existing field gate. A new access road would be formed into the field with a hardstanding area for turning and parking. Surface water drainage from the stables would be to a new drystone soakaway. A 4m by 2m area is designated for a manure heap to the south east of the stable block. The stables would be for private use only.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(a)
PLANNING HISTORY
There is no planning history for this site.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Seven representations have been received. These are available for Members to view on the Public Access website. The following planning issues have been raised:
x Buccleuch Road would be used to access the stable block and is a private road; all 20 householders have to pay to maintain this road and it is in a poor state and this state will by worsened by increased traffic, including horse boxes, as a result of the proposal, increasing maintenance costs. The road is unsuitable for heavy traffic associated with this development.
x The access onto the A7 is unsafe.
x The safety of children and pets would be affected by the increase in traffic.
x Noise and smell nuisance and disturbance to residents.
x The privacy of neighbouring properties would be affected.
x The stables would be for commercial rather than private use; if the three stables were rented to separate parties this would considerably increase the traffic using the road.
x There are no passing places on the single track section of the road and this would lead to congestion, with vehicles having to reverse, inconveniencing residents.
x The proposed parking and turning area within the field is not large enough to accommodate three vehicles and would not be suitable for use in wet weather. Persons driving to the stables would park in front of the existing garages and on car parking spaces used by local residents.
x The maximum number of developments served by this private road has been reached.
x No tack or food storage is proposed and there is no water supply, increasing trips made to the stables.
x A check for badgers within the field should be carried out.
x The stables should be sited at the top of the field adjacent to the applicant’s house and accessed from Longbaulk Road, which is already surfaced.
x There is no electricity supply and a generator would be noisy, disturbing residents.
x The field does not have horses in it at the moment and is not entirely fenced. Fields to the south of this proposed development do have horses in and all are accessed from Longbaulk Road rather than Buccleuch Road.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(a)
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:
x The title deeds to the field shows a right of access from the end of Buccleuch Road and that farm vehicles can use this access, whether it is to the detriment of the road surface or not. The provision of three stables for private use should have no additional impact.
x The only additional use for this access is the delivery of hay, which is a minimal additional impact on what the farmer is entitled to.
x The junction with the A7 is unaffected by these proposals as a horse box or hay lorry can negotiate the junction.
x The consultation response of the Roads Department suggests there is no significant issue arising from the proposals regarding road safety.
x There will be no significant increase in road usage that would affect road safety.
x The land is currently used for agricultural purposes and there would be potential for noise and smell. The field has been used for horses and livestock in the past all of which would provide some form of disturbance to the adjacent property owners.
x The stables have been positioned to provide the most privacy from the nearest houses at the maximum distance available. The tree belt to the south east Langheugh provides screening from the stables and will protect privacy.
x Obtaining this land has offered an opportunity to provide stabling for the applicant’s horses, with the added security of being in view of their own house. The stables will be for private use only.
x With the stables under private occupation and the owners living at the top of the field, the stables will be accessed by foot.
x The proposed parking and turning area would be suitable for use in wet weather. This parking area would ensure the owners would not use or block any of the residents parking spaces.
x Hay storage would be located behind the stables, out of sight of the residents. There is a water supply available with a disconnected water trough already present within the field. Storage would be available in the applicant’s garage.
x The proposal would have a minimal effect on wildlife within the field. A badger survey was required for the housing development to the east of the site and concluded that there was no risk to badgers from new housing in this area, with ample acreage for foraging. The stable block will not impact on the current status.
x The field slopes steeply from the top section next to Longbaulk Road down to where the stables would be located. A soakaway has been formed for road
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(a)
drainage on the land in front of the applicant’s house and is unsuitable for any form of structural work. The only other place the stables might have been placed would be to the west of Westfield, which would have a greater impact on this house. The proposed siting of the stables has the least impact on any adjacent properties.
x There is no requirement for an electricity supply to the stables or a generator.
x It has been stated in a number of objections that the current road condition is not good, but as a private road, nothing has been done in recent years to improve its condition, even though new houses have been built in this area. Construction traffic would have had a major impact in the roads current condition.
x The applicant proposes the formation of access steps down through the field to provide better pedestrian access to the stables from their house.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
SESplan 2013
Policy 1B: The Spatial Strategy: Development Principles
Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011
Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G8: Development Outwith Development Boundaries Policy H2: Residential Amenity Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards Policy D1: Business, Tourism and Leisure development in the Countryside
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
None
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Roads Planning Service:
Having visited the site and looked into the objection comments relating to this application, I can understand the concerns relating to the state of the private road and the future maintenance issues. However the field is currently occupied with horses and I am of the opinion that constructing a stable block for these horses will not create a detrimental increase in traffic movements. Furthermore, the field is currently served via an access from Buccleuch Road. Provided the applicant has a right of access to enter the existing field from Buccleuch Road I will not object to this application.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(a)
Roads Planning Service Re-consultation:
I am still satisfied that the access road to the site has the capacity to cater for the level of traffic associated with the proposal and that there is an access gate serving the field accessed off Buccleuch Road. The existing road and track will require some repairs to existing potholes and this work should be carried out prior to any works commencing on the proposed development. With regards this work and the future maintenance of the access, the applicant should satisfy themselves that they have the relevant rights to allow access to the site for traffic associated with the proposal and for future maintenance of the road.
I have some concern regarding the turning/parking area and its ability to cater for the vehicles associated with the proposed use. However, if the stable is to be used only by the applicant, there should only be a single vehicle there at any one time and if the area is not big enough, there is suitable space available around it to enlarge the area. With regards the existing gate adjacent to the garages for Langheugh, I am concerned that vehicles may be left outside the gate and block access to this building, as such, if the proposal is approved I would recommend that, to prevent any neighbourly disputes arising from vehicles parking on this private land and blocking the private garage, the boundary fence and existing gate be relocated so as to be around the perimeter of the proposed access track and parking/turning area. This will ensure that vehicles fully utilise the new parking/turning area for that purpose. The applicant must satisfy themselves that any new track has suitable drainage to ensure that the track is always useable and that no surface water is allowed to flow over the adjacent embankment.
Environmental Health:
On the application from the applicant has indicated that there will be no water supply to the stables. If the development is to be serviced with water from a private water supply then additional information is required to ensure the water is wholesome and it will not affect the supply of water to other properties in the area. I note that the application is for private use only. I have also noted the location of the manure heap and the controls in place for this.
Access Officer: No response.
Statutory Consultees
None
Other Consultees
None.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
x Whether the siting and design of the stables are in keeping with the character of the area;
x Whether the proposal would harm residential amenities;
x Whether adequate access and parking can be achieved without a detrimental impact on road safety.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6(a)
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Planning Policy
The site is situated outwith the development boundary of Hawick. Policy G8 of the Local Plan requires that development should be contained within the Development Boundary and proposals for new development outwith the Development Boundary will normally be refused. Exceptional approvals may be granted. In this case, the proposal is for a small scale stable building of the type that is commonly seen on the edge of settlements and may not be able to be acceptably accommodated within the development boundary of a settlement. The proposal is of an appropriate scale in relation to the size of Hawick, would not prejudice the character or natural built up edge of the settlement and would not cause a significant adverse effect on the landscape setting of Hawick.
Policy D1 allows leisure development in the countryside provided that certain criteria are met. In this case the development would be for a use appropriate to the rural character of the area. It is considered that this edge of town/countryside location is appropriate for this development and it would be acceptable to site stables outwith the Development Boundary of Hawick.
Design
Policy 1B of the SESplan states that Development Plans should have regard to the need to improve the quality of life in local communities by conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment to create more healthy and attractive places to live. Development Plans should have regard to the need for high quality design, energy efficiency and the use of sustainable building materials.
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.
The proposed stable building would be small in scale, accommodating three stables. It would have timber walls and a black corrugated roof. The design and materials are similar to other stables in the Borders and considered to be acceptable.
Landscape and Visual Impacts
Policy D1 requires that the development respects the amenity and character of the surrounding area.
There are mature trees along the boundary with the A7 to the north west and between the site and residential properties to the north east providing a high degree of screening. The stables would be located at the bottom of the field and would not be in a prominent location. Longbaulk Road is some distance away at the top of the field providing views down onto the proposed building, which is 10.8m by 5m (including the overhang) so small in scale. Given the size of the building and its location it is considered that the proposal would be in keeping with the rural character of the area, would not harm the visual amenities of the area or be prominent in the landscape.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(a)
Residential Amenity
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. Policy D1 requires that the development must have no significant adverse impact on nearby uses, particularly housing.
The closest property to the stable building would be Langheugh, which is divided into three flats. This property would be 95m from the proposed building. The stables would be located adjacent to the field boundary furthest from this property and there are mature trees on the boundary of Langheugh which would provide a degree of screening. The properties in Whitehaugh View to the north east would be approximately 135m from the stable building on higher ground. Westview on Longbaulk Road to the east would be 120m from the building, again on higher ground.
Stables do not normally generate significant levels of noise and only three stables are proposed, so this would not be an intensive use. Clearly, horses can be kept at the site without the requirement for planning permission. Although there is no electricity supply to the site, neither is a generator is proposed, for security reasons.
It is considered that the proposal would not harm the residential amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties.
Access and Parking
Policy Inf4 of the Local Plan states that proposals should provide for car parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.
The field in which the stables would be erected is accessed from the A7 by a section of Buccleuch Road. This is a private road maintained by residents and this becomes a track at the western end. A number of representations have been received objecting to the proposal on the grounds that this is a private road in a poor state of repair, maintained by residents and inadequate to cater for the increase in traffic generated by this development, especially if the stables are to be in commercial use. In addition, concerns have been expressed regarding the safety of the junction onto the A7, the lack of passing places along the private road that would result in congestion and the potential for vehicles visiting the proposed stables to park in front of the existing garages or on spaces used by residents.
The Roads Planning Service has no objections to the proposal on access or road safety grounds. Their advice will form an informative, should planning permission be granted for the stables.
The applicants advise that the stables would be for their own personal use and not for any commercial or business use and this can be controlled by a planning condition. Taking this into account, it is considered that the proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic using the private road. A condition would also ensure that the parking and turning area is completed before construction works commence on the stables to provide sufficient parking for the development.
Whether the applicants have a right of access along this private road or are required to contribute to its maintenance is a private legal matter and cannot be considered as part of this planning application.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(a)
Servicing
The water supply for the stables would be from an existing Scottish Water supply. Hay would be stored to the rear of the buildings with the applicant’s garage also used for storage; steps would be cut into the hillside for pedestrian access to the stables.
Siting
Comments have been made in representations about whether the proposal would be better sited at the southern side of the field in which it is located. Members will know that it is a requirement to consider whether the submission made is acceptable on its own merits and not whether there are other, more suitable, sites. That said, the site is very steeply sloping for much of its southern half with the larger level area toward the northern boundary. For practical reasons and as a means of reducing its wider impacts, therefore, the choice of site is understandable.
CONCLUSION
The proposal complies with policies G1, H2, Inf4 and D1 as the proposed stable building would be appropriate for this rural location on the edge of Hawick. The siting, scale, design and materials are acceptable and the proposal would not harm the visual amenities of the area or the residential amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties. In addition, adequate access, parking and turning can be achieved and the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on road safety.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:
I recommend the application is approved subject the following 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. This stable block shall be for the private use of the applicants and for no other person or for any commercial or business use. Reason: This permission is granted in view of the personal circumstances of the applicant.
3. The access from the private road into the field, parking and turning area shall be completed in accordance with Drawing Number 14-452-1001 hereby approved before construction work on the stable block commences. Reason: To ensure adequate accessed into the site and provision for vehicles to park.
Informatives:
The Roads Planning Service advises that the existing road and track will require some repairs to existing potholes and this work should be carried out prior to any works commencing on the proposed development. It is recommend that, to prevent any neighbourly disputes arising from vehicles parking on this private land and blocking the private garage, the boundary fence and existing gate be relocated so as to be around the perimeter of the proposed access track and parking/turning area. This will ensure that vehicles fully utilise the new parking/turning area for that
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(a) purpose. The applicant must satisfy themselves that any new track has suitable drainage to ensure that the track is always useable and that no surface water is allowed to flow over the adjacent embankment.
Stable Waste
During the use of the stable block, it is likely that refuse/waste materials (i.e. manure/soiled hay) will be produced on the site as a consequence. Therefore, it must be ensured that all such waste materials are not stored on-site or disposed of in any manner (for example, burning) which would give rise to Statutory Nuisance conditions developing at neighbouring properties to the site.
Riding Establishment
The Riding Establishments Act 1964 defines a Riding Establishment as “the carrying on of a business of keeping horses to let them out on hire for riding, or for use in providing instruction in riding for payment, or both, “ and requires such businesses to be licensed by the Local Authority.
If the applicant intends the stables to operate as a riding establishment in the future, the premises will need to be licensed. Current conditions of licence are discussed alongside health and safety issues applicable to the trade, within the CIEH publication Health and safety guidance for inspections of horse riding establishments and livery yards. A free copy may be downloaded from: www.cieh.org/policy/inspections_horse_livery.html. Hardcopies may be purchased from CIEH Tel. 020 7827 5821.
Further information about the required standards is available from SBC’s Regulatory Services, Environmental Health Team.
Riding Establishment application forms are available from SBC’s Licensing Team.
DRAWING NUMBERS
14-452-1001 Proposed Site Layout 14-452-2001 Proposed Layout and Elevations
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 9 Item No. 6(a)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(b)
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
28 APRIL 2014
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00259/PPP Barry Fotheringham OFFICER: WARD: Kelso and District PROPOSAL: Residential Development SITE: Land to North and East of Hendersyde North Lodge, Kelso APPLICANT: David Wilson Homes AGENT: EMA Architecture and Design Limited
SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site is an area of agricultural land to the north east of Kelso, north of Hendersyde North Lodge. It is a relatively flat site defined by a stone wall on the east side of the B6461 Kelso to Ednam public road and mature policy woodland to the south. The north and east boundaries of the site are defined by a stone wall and post and wire fence.
Hendersyde North Lodge is located in the south west corner of the site and the grounds of Hendersyde Park estate lie to the south and east. The north drive of the estate forms part of the south boundary of the application site.
Beyond the west boundary of the site lie Kelso Racecourse and Golf Course.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This application seeks planning permission in principle for residential development of 120 homes in line with the indicative capacity of the site stipulated in the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. Indicative Master Plans for this site show a hierarchy of streets and home zones in line with Scottish Planning Policy Designing Streets.
PLANNING HISTORY
12/00956/PAN – Proposal of Application Notice for Residential development and associated works. Received 30 July 2012. Closed 8 August 2012.
12/01449/SCR – Request for Screening Opinion for Residential Development. Received 22 November 2012. Closed 18 December 2012. Environmental Impact Assessment not required.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
No third party representations have been submitted in connection with this application.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6(b)
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Whilst the application was submitted on the basis of planning permission in principle, it is supported by an indicative master plan layout and accompanying indicative elevations and street scenes. The application was also supported by following documents:
x Design and Access Statement x Planning Statement x Transport Assessment x Drainage and SUDS Statement x Archaeology Assessment x Ecology Assessment x Housing Land Supply Assessment x Landscape and Visual Appraisal x Engineering Strategy x Preliminary Site Investigation
As the proposed development is defined as a ‘Major Development’ under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 the application is also supported by a Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report.
All the above mentioned documents are available for Members to view in PublicAccess.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
SESplan Strategic Development Plan 2013
Policy 5 – Housing Land Policy 6 – Housing Land Flexibility Policy 7 – Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land Supply
Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011
Principle 1 – Sustainability Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy G8 – Development Outwith Development Boundaries Policy BE2 – Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy BE3 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy BE12 – Further Housing Land Safeguarding Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy EP3 – Countryside around Towns Policy EP5 – Air Quality Policy H1 – Affordable Housing Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy H3 – Land Use Allocations Policy Inf11 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf3 – Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4 – Parking Provisions and Standards
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6(b)
Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy Inf9 – Development within Exclusion Zones Policy Inf10 – Developments that Generate Travel Demand Policy R1 – Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Proposed Local Development Plan 2013
Policy PMD1 – Sustainability Policy PMD2 – Quality Standards Policy PMD3 – Land Use Allocations Policy ED10 – Protection of Agricultural Land and Carbon Rich Soils Policy HD1 – Affordable and Special Needs Housing Policy HD3 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy EP3 – Local Biodiversity Policy EP8 – Archaeology Policy EP10 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy EP13 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy EP16 – Air Quality Policy IS2 – Developer Contributions Policy IS5 – Protection of Access Routes Policy IS6 – Road Adoption Standards Policy IS7 – Parking Provision and Standards Policy IS9 – Waste Water Treatment Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy IS12 – Development within Exclusion Zones
Supplementary Planning Guidance
SBC SPG – Affordable Housing SBC SPG – Placemaking and Design SBC SPG – Trees and Development SBC SPG – Biodiversity SBC SPG – Development Contributions SBC SPG – Landscape and Development
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Roads Planning: During the local plan process and subsequent discussions, it has been accepted that a high standard single point of access, possibly incorporating a right turn lane, from the B6461 would be acceptable for serving this site. Should a detailed planning submission materialise, the site layout should embrace the principles of current policy ‘Designing Streets’, by providing a well connected layout which is designed to provide natural traffic calming. The street layout will have to be future proofed in terms of road hierarchy. Road and footpath connections to the adjacent private road to the south of the site, and residential street network beyond, need to be explored in order to achieve full integration, allow dispersion of traffic and to afford the opportunity of a secondary vehicular access into the development.
The Transport Assessment which accompanies this application has not highlighted any significant issues in terms of junction capacity at any of the major junctions in the locale. Some potential off-site works to improve public transport provision have been identified and should be explored further at detailed planning stage. As mentioned
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6(b) previously, this application is for outline consent, therefore it is feasible, should consent be granted, that it may be some time before a detailed planning application is submitted, as such the Transport Assessment may need to be updated depending on the length of time which has passed and if any significant changes have happened in the area which would have a bearing on the assessment.
In summary, there are no objections in principle to this proposal. More specific comments on the detailed design of the access and the internal layout will be provided should a detailed planning application ever be lodged. The Transport Assessment may need refreshed depending on the intervening time period between outline and detailed planning submissions.
Education & Lifelong Learning: No response
Development Negotiator: No response
Housing: As a matter of principle, Eildon Housing Association (EHA) is interested in on-site delivery of affordable housing (AH) at this location. However EHA may not be able to deliver AH on this site due to concerns and unknowns regarding programming and grant availability.
This site is not identified or prioritised for inclusion in the current Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) 2012/15. However, it is anticipated that it will be brought forward in due course by EHA for potential consideration in the next SHIP 2013/18. Whilst Registered Social Landlord (RSL) on-site delivery is the preferred AH option, other on-site delivery options should also be considered, e.g. shared equity, discounted sales, thereby potentially avoiding reliance on one delivery option.
Urban Design: The allocation of this site for development is currently under review within the Local Development Plan (LDP) process, subject to finalisation of the LDP which is itself subject to the finalisation of the Strategic Development Plan (SDP). On this basis the principle of housing development on this site is not yet established.
In the context of the above policy status, this consultation response on the PPP application can only comment on matters of Placemaking and Design relating to the proposed design principles contained therein and is made without prejudice to the wider LDP process.
The outline proposal is for housing development of linked and terraced units. The placemaking principles applied to the indicative masterplan broadly reflect some elements of good practice as promoted by Scottish Borders Council in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, ‘Placemaking & Design’ in terms of urban design. It is recommended that the following is considered in reviewing any proposals; x Landscape framework: given the designed landscape adjacent, the use of soft landscape to anchor the site into its surroundings should be fully considered, particularly the sensitive design of the ‘wayleave’ in the south of the site. x Frontage treatment: relationship of housing to B6461 and the boundary walling in this area, including retention and realignment of walling to accommodate site access. x Parking provision: It is not clear what method of parking provision is proposed. The perimeter block dimensions suggest that no courtyard parking is provided,
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6(b)
thus only on-street is proposed. Even at the outline stage this is a key consideration in understanding site capacity. x Street hierarchy: Upon considering the PPP application, the street hierarchy should relate more strongly to the structure of the site – it seems the layout is overly driven by the longer term speculative layout rather than the form and nature of the PPP site itself. x Urban design: the use of perimeter blocks and active frontage addressing the key site features such as the boundary wall, landscape of Hendersyde Park and street frontage are all positive features.
On review of the above points, Urban Design would advise that the design approach and principles expressed in the indicative layout are broadly reflective of SBC’s Placemaking & Design Policy. However, until such time that the principle of the use is established through the LDP process it seems premature to make a recommendation.
Ecology: There are unlikely to be significant ecological impacts, but precautionary measures are required to mitigate impacts on breeding birds which may use grassland and scrub habitats, and impacts on badger which occur within the general area of the site and may forage or commute across the site.
There are opportunities to enhance the site by creating habitats that contribute to the local habitat network including the Forest Habitat Network (species complimentary to the existing policy woodland), creation of native-thorn hedgerows, grassland margins and wildflower areas. A Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) pond can enhance the site for bats and breeding birds. x A Badger Protection Plan is required to protect badger foraging and commuting across the site (covering trenches and open pipes overnight/ providing a means of escape, safe storage of chemicals and oils). Prior to the commencement of works such a scheme 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. x Site clearance to be carried out outside of the breeding season. No vegetation or scrub clearance shall be carried out during the breeding bird season (March- August) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Checking surveys and appropriate mitigation for breeding birds will be required if works are proposed during the breeding bird season. x Prior to the commencement of works a Landscape and Habitat Enhancement Plan including measures for native woodland and scrub, hedgerows and grassland enhancement 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.
Archaeology: As highlighted in the accompanying Desk Based Assessment provided by GUARD, there is a moderate archaeological sensitivity within the development area. This is heightened by the presence of known archaeology in the area including in particular the site of a medieval hospital to the north of the current proposed development area. The hospital site is known both from documentary and cartographic sources. Exploratory archaeological investigations in 2009 and 2010 ahead of development for the new Kelso cemetery revealed features and artefacts that could be consistent with a medieval and post-medieval occupation, though the
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6(b) findings were not conclusive. It is suggested that the site of the hospital and later farmstead was further to the north and west than the location of the previous investigations. This places the location within the proposed area of future extension for this development and closer than the present application site.
In addition, artefacts and other known sites in the area indicate the potential existence of further unknown archaeological resources in the development site.
Given the archaeological potential of the area, I recommend that a FUL application is supported by an archaeological geophysical survey of the total development area. The results should be used to suggest further targeted evaluation as a condition of the subsequent FUL application, or design changes to avoid significant archaeology if necessary. This staged approach is consistent with SPP, PAN 2(2011) and Structure Plan Policy N16.
If the Council is minded to approve this application, it is recommended that a developer funded geophysical survey condition is added.
Landscape: The site enjoys the benefit of a mature woodland setting along its south western and south eastern boundaries. This woodland can provide screening and setting for new development and also potential links for informal recreation, dog walking etc. for the future residents. There is an adjoining area to the north east, within the blue line boundary, that is identified for a further phase of development with a proposed new woodland belt to the north east of that. This latter tree belt would, in the longer term become the new settlement boundary.
On the basis that this is a PPP application, there is no landscape related reason to oppose the application other than perhaps a concern that, if approved, Kelso would effectively spill over an existing well formed settlement edge into more open country. In the longer term, however, this would be replaced.
It would be necessary to retain the existing tree belts and the ‘Indicative Masterplan’ drawing 10030 (11) 001 does provide adequate space between retained woodland and new housing showing how this could be achieved.
Local Plans: In relation to the applicant’s supporting documentation regarding the assessment of Housing Land Supply, the Council undertake an annual Housing Land Audit and the approach used by the Council to undertake the audit is in accordance with PAN 2/2010. The audit identifies effective sites in two categories – effective and potentially effective sites, both of which meet the criteria set out in PAN 2/2010. PAN 2/2010 states under the marketability criteria that the test to identify if a site is effective is whether ‘the site, or a relevant part of it, can be developed in the period under consideration’. The Council therefore considers a site to be effective if there is a reasonable prospect that it could be developed within the 5 year period. Where possible developer input has been incorporated into the programming of sites within the audit to ensure accuracy. The audit has then been consulted with key stakeholders.
In accordance with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), the finalised Housing Land Audit 2012, states there is a five year effective supply maintained in all housing market areas in the Borders when actual demand is used as the key measure. In the Central Housing Market Area, which Kelso falls within, there is 6.9 years of effective land supply, exceeding the 5 years required by SPP. Therefore there is no identified housing land shortfall and no need to bring forward additional land for development in the immediate short term.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6(b)
Within the Consolidated Local Plan a significantly larger part of this site is identified as an area for potential longer term development for the period beyond 2018. These longer term sites were indicative only and subject to further detailed assessment and review.
Following further assessment the western part of the site was identified as a preferred housing site (AKELS022) within the Main Issues Report (MIR). The site area is 5.4ha with an indicative site capacity of 120 units and it is this site that this application relates to. The site has been identified as one that could contribute to the housing land requirement identified in the Strategic Development Plan (SDP) for the Central Borders Strategic Development Area (SDA) for the period 2019-2024. However this has not yet been determined. The SDP is currently at Examination and the Local Development Plan (LDP) will not proceed until its findings are known, possibly in April 2013.
Overall it would appear the Masterplan submitted is in accordance of the site requirements set out within the Main Issues Report. However we are currently in the process of finalising the Proposed Local Development Plan and await the outcome of the SDP Examination in order to ensure its requirements feed into the LDP. There is a statutory procedure to be followed and the option of including this site in the LDP must be weighed up against other sites that have been promoted within this particular area. It is not considered that this submission gives sufficient reason or justification to allow approval of this application in advance of the completion of the LDP process and consequently it is considered this application is premature and cannot be supported.
Access: No response.
Statutory Consultees
Kelso Community Council: No objections.
Scotia Gas: There is a low/medium/intermediate pressure gas main in the proximity of this site. No mechanical excavations are to take place above or within 0.5m of the low pressure system, 2m of the medium pressure system and 3m of the intermediate pressure system. The position of the mains should be confirmed using hand dug trial holes.
Safe digging practices, in accordance with HSE publication HSG47 "Avoiding Danger from Underground Services", must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used.
Scottish Water: Scottish Water does not object to this planning application, however, planning approval does not guarantee a connection to their infrastructure.
Roberton Water Treatment Works may have capacity to service this proposed development. The water network that serves the proposed development may be able to supply the new demand. Kelso Waste Water Treatment Works may have capacity to service this proposed development. The waste water network that serves the proposed development may be able to accommodate the new demand.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6(b)
If this development requires the existing network to be upgraded, to enable connection, the developer will generally meet these costs in advance. Scottish Water can make a contribution to these costs through Reasonable Cost funding rules.
A totally separate drainage system will be required with the surface water discharging to a suitable outlet. Scottish Water requires a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) as detailed in Sewers for Scotland 2 if the system is to be considered for adoption.
SEPA: SEPA does not object to this application provided the following conditions detailed in their response are added to any grant of consent:
x A drainage strategy must be submitted for any subsequent planning permission associated with the site. The strategy should demonstrate that a sewer connection for this proposal is feasible, and x The applicant to provide a surface water drainage strategy for any subsequent planning application associated with the site. The strategy should demonstrate the space requirements and layout of the proposed SUDS features as well as the treatment volumes.
Surface water drainage from the construction phase should also be dealt with by SUDS. Such drainage should be in accordance with C648 and C649, both published by CIRIA.
In accordance with this SPP and PAN 63, space should be designated within the planning application site layout to allow for the separation and collection of waste, consistent with the type of development proposed.
SUDS should be given consideration early in the planning process when proposals are at their most fluid and modifications to layout can be easily made with less expense to the developer. Best practice methods should be followed and comments should be sought from Scottish Water where the SUDS proposals would be adopted by them.
Historic Scotland: Historic Scotland (HS) is satisfied that this development will not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the Hendersyde Park designed landscape and do not object to this application.
HS welcome the proposals to introduce a large swathe of green space and woodland along the southern side of the development site. This is consistent with their comments and recommendations on the Local Development Plan Main Issues Report in 2012. It is noted that native or semi-mature species are proposed but it is advised that species are selected with reference to the existing mix of trees along the adjacent North Drive and other wooded areas of Hendersyde Park.
It is recommended that any breaches in the wall which bounds the north boundary of the site are kept to a minimum. Where the walls are to be removed for visibility splays, it is recommended that these are realigned rather than removed completely.
Health and Safety Executive: When applying the PADHI (Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations) methodology used by HSE, the decision matrix advises ‘Do Not Advise Against’ development.
Other Consultees
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6(b)
Kelso Amenity Society: Members had no objections in principle but would prefer to see much more information before making further comment. The Amenity Society is concerned that the indicative layouts do not adequately cater for open space or gardens.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The principal planning considerations with this application are whether the proposals are premature in terms of the Proposed Local Development Plan and whether they comply with land use policies within the Consolidated Local Plan.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Housing Land Supply
The applicants Housing Land Audit Supply Assessment aims to assess deliverability and effectiveness of the existing housing land supply for the Central Borders Housing Market Area (HMA). The applicant sets out the policy framework to assess whether the application site at Hendersyde should be released for development. The applicant concludes that the approval of 120 homes at Hendersyde is in accordance with Development Plan Policy as, in their opinion; the Council’s approved development strategy has failed to maintain a 5 year effective land supply in the Central HMA. The applicants argue that this shortfall should be addressed with new sites being brought forward from that identified for longer term future development within the Local Plan and in advance of the Proposed LDP.
However, the Council’s Housing Land Audit, which has been carried out in accordance with Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2010 and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), identifies 6.9 years of effective housing land supply within the Central Housing Market Area, exceeding the 5 years required by Scottish Planning Policy. There is no identified housing land shortfall within the Central HMA and therefore no need to bring forward additional land for development in the immediate short term. The applicant’s supporting information fails to identify a shortfall in effective land supply and is therefore premature in terms of bringing this site forward in advance of the Proposed LDP.
However, during the application process, it is worth noting that the South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan 2013 (SESplan) was approved. Policy 7 of SESplan aims to maintain an effective housing land supply across the SESplan-wide Housing Market Area by allocating additional sites in the Local Development Plan or granting planning permission on unallocated sites. Members will be aware that the application site is identified as a preferred housing site (AKELS022) within the Proposed LDP. The site area is 5.4ha with an indicative site capacity of 120 units and has been identified as one that could contribute to the housing land requirement identified in SESplan for the period 2019-2024.
There is a statutory procedure to be followed and the option of including this site in the Proposed LDP must be weighed up against other sites that have been promoted within this particular area. It is not considered that this submission gives sufficient reason or justification to allow approval of this application in advance of the completion of the Proposed LDP process and consequently it was considered the application was premature at the time it was submitted.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6(b)
Planning Policy
Policy H3 – Land Use Allocations of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 is particularly relevant in this case as it applies to all the allocated land use proposals identified within each settlement profile and illustrated on proposals maps. The aim of this policy is to ensure that sites allocated in the local plan are developed for their intended use and that justification is provided for an alternative use. This is important because the housing sites are needed to meet the Strategic Development Plan Housing Land Requirements identified above.
Within the Consolidated Local Plan, the settlement profile and settlement map for Kelso identifies a larger area of land than is covered by the application site as an area for potential longer term development of housing for the period beyond 2018. This longer term site was indicative only and subject to further detailed assessment and review as part of the Proposed LDP process.
Members will be aware that there are existing housing land allocations within Kelso (Wallacenick, Broomlands East, North and West, Queens House, Rosebank) some of which have been developed or are currently under construction. It is imperative that these sites are developed in advance of non-allocated sites unless there is an identified housing land shortage.
Whilst identified for longer term housing in the Local Plan, the application site is not identified as a short or medium term housing allocation and a housing land shortage has not been identified in this housing market area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy H3 of the Local Plan. At the time the application was submitted it was felt that the proposals did not give sufficient reason or justification to allow approval in advance of the completion of the Proposed LDP process and consequently it was considered that this application was premature and could not be supported.
However, the Proposed LDP has made significant progress since the application was received and now identifies land for housing at Hendersyde within a revised settlement boundary. Land Use Allocation AKELS022 (Hendersyde) has been agreed by Council and has been through the public consultation process. Whilst this allocation has not yet been formally adopted by the Council, it has not attracted objections or representations through the public consultation process. This is now the settled position of the Council and Members should be aware that Proposed LDP Policy PMD3 – Land Use Allocations is now a material consideration in their determination of this application.
The proposed residential development shown on the site plan accompanying this permission in principle application is now consistent with the Proposed LDP settlement profile map and land use allocations and the current submission would be consistent with Policy PND3.
Members should be aware that whilst this allocation has not been challenged, approval of this application does come with an element of risk. The proposed LDP has been agreed but the land use allocations have not been formally adopted by the Council.
Development Boundary
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6(b)
Policy G8 of the Consolidated Local Plan aims to ensure that most development is located within defined development boundaries as shown on settlement profile maps. Any development outwith this boundary would have to comply with rigorous exceptions criteria. It is considered that development outwith the Development Boundary should not be seen as an alternative to allocated sites where these are available and therefore, should only be an ‘exceptional’ occurrence. Development should be contained within the Development Boundary and proposals for new development outwith this boundary and not on allocated sites identified on the local plan proposals maps will normally be refused.
Notwithstanding the fact that the application site is identified for longer term housing in the Consolidated Local Plan, the application site would be located outwith the development boundary and would be contrary to Policy G8. The applicant aims to justify the development of this site as an ‘exceptional’ occurrence due to an identified housing land shortfall. However, it has been demonstrated above that the Council’s Housing Land Audit identifies 6.9 years of effective housing land supply within the Central Housing Market Area, exceeding the 5 years required by Scottish Planning Policy. The development of this site for housing cannot therefore be considered an exceptional occurrence.
However, circumstances have changed and Members will be aware that the development boundary for Kelso has been amended through the Proposed LDP process and has been extended to accommodate the application site. Whilst this change in development boundary has not been formally adopted, it has not attracted objections or representations through the public consultation process. This is the settled position of the Council and should be taken into account by Members when considering this application.
Landscape
It is accepted that the development of this site with housing will have an impact on the character and appearance of the settlement and the surrounding landscape. However, the application site enjoys the benefit of a mature woodland setting along its south western and south eastern boundaries which will help integrate the development into the landscape and provide screening and setting for new development.
The Council’s Landscape Architect confirms that there is no landscape related reason to oppose the application at this stage as it seeks planning permission in principle only. However, it should be noted that, if approved, the settlement would effectively spill over an existing well formed settlement edge into more open country. In the longer term, however, this would be replaced by robust structure planting along the North West and north east boundaries of the longer term housing allocation (SKELS002) identified in the Proposed LDP.
It would be necessary to retain the existing tree belts in the development of this site and the ‘Indicative Masterplan’ submitted with this application does provide adequate space between retained woodland and new housing showing. This is required, not just for the protection of the existing trees but to ensure that development is outwith buffer zones of an existing high pressure gas main.
It is important however to ensure that the proposed development integrates well into the landscape and relates to existing features and existing development. The site requirements for this allocation include a Planning Brief in the form of Supplementary Planning Guidance and master planning for future development phases to the north
Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6(b) east of the site. Structure planting is also required to provide setting for the development and reinforce the settlement edge along with the retention of existing stone walls. These matters can be controlled by condition should the application be approved.
Gardens and Designed Landscapes
The proposed development site is located immediately to the north and east of the Hendersyde Park designed landscape, which is included in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. The North Lodge and its associated wooded driveway are located on the southern side of the application site.
Policy BE3 of the Consolidated Local Plan aims to protect the character of gardens and designed landscapes from development that would damage their special character. Consultation was carried out with Historic Scotland and it is contended that the proposed development of this site will not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the designed landscape.
It is acknowledged that the site has been allocated for housing in the Proposed LDP and HS has reiterated their position in this regard. It is recommended that a green buffer between the housing and the boundary of Hendersyde Park is introduced to mitigate the impact on the design landscape. The green buffer along the south of the site, whilst added principally to accommodated pipeline buffers, is welcomed but HS advise that the mix of species in the proposed woodland should reflect the existing mix of trees along the north drive. Also, it is recommended that the existing stone boundary wall to the site is retained and the number of openings kept to a minimum.
It is considered that the development of this site will not have a significant adverse impact on the adjacent design landscape provided the proposed landscaping and green buffer shown on the indicative masterplan complements the existing mature trees within the park and allows the development to blend in with the neighbouring policy woodlands. Any subsequent reserved matters application that may be submitted must be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan. This is covered in standard planning conditions proposed later in this report.
Layout
As this application seeks planning permission in principle only at this stage, detailed proposals for the layout of the site, including proposed dwellings etc have not been submitted. Members will be aware however that indicative layouts and street elevations have been submitted in support of this application along with a design and access statement. The concept design framework for this site is based on best practice outlined in Government policy Designing Streets as well as SBC supplementary planning guidance on Placemaking and Design.
The Council’s Roads Planning Service confirms that during the local plan process it was accepted that a high standard single point of access, possibly incorporating a right turn lane from the B6461 would be acceptable for serving this site. Any forthcoming detailed application however should incorporate a layout which embraces the principles of Designing Streets and SPG Placemaking and Design by providing a well connected layout which is designed to provide natural traffic calming. This view is also shared by the Council’s Urban Designer. The layout should be future proofed in terms of roads hierarchy and connectivity to adjacent residential developments needs to be explored to achieve full integration, allow dispersion of
Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6(b) traffic and to afford the opportunity of a secondary vehicular access into the development.
The Transport Assessment that has been submitted to accompany this application has not highlighted any significant issues. However, an updated Transport Assessment may be required as part of a detailed planning application for this site. This would account for any significant changes in the area that would have a bearing on the assessment. This can be covered by condition.
Access
According to the records held by Regulatory Services, there are rights of way (KELS/111P/3 and KELS/PP1/4) which pass the west and south boundaries of the application site. These public access routes should not be obstructed during the course of development.
Policy Inf2 of the Local Plan and IS5 of the Proposed LDP encourage walking and cycling as modes of transport and aim to protect all existing access routes. Development that would have an adverse impact upon access routes available to the public will not be permitted. The proposed development of this site is unlikely to have a along term impact on the rights of way, particularly after construction but it is essential that the paths are maintained and kept free from obstruction. It is suggested that a planning condition is added to any grant of consent to ensure that the paths are not obstructed during the course of development.
Cultural heritage and archaeology
Policy BE2 of the Consolidated Local Plan and Policy EP8 of the Proposed LDP aim to give scheduled ancient monuments and any other archaeological or historic asset, strong protection from potentially damaging development.
It is acknowledged that the accompanying desk based analysis provided by Guard highlights moderate archaeological sensitivity within the development area. This is heightened by the presence of known archaeology in the area.
Given the archaeological potential of the area, it is recommended that that any subsequent detail application for this site is supported by an archaeological geophysical survey of the total development area. The results should be used to suggest further targeted evaluation as a condition of the subsequent detailed application, or design changes to avoid significant archaeology if necessary. This matter can be covered by condition.
Natural heritage
The ecological assessment prepared by Nigel Rudd Ecology concludes that the development site is of limited nature conservation value given its current status as an agricultural field. The findings are generally acceptable although the assessment is constrained for assessing Phase 1 habitats and signs of protected species.
It is agreed that there are unlikely to be significant ecological impacts as a result of the proposed development but precautionary measures should be implemented to ensure that there are no impacts on breeding birds and impacts on badger which occur within the existing grassland area. There are further opportunities to maintain and enhance the local habitat network through protection and enhancement of hedgerows, grassland margins, wildflower areas and SUDS pond.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 6(b)
It would therefore be appropriate to ensure that ecological impacts are mitigated against and protected species are offered appropriate levels of protection and habitat enhancement. These matters can be controlled by condition.
Prime Quality Agricultural Land
Policy R1 of the Local Plan and Policy ED10 of the Proposed LDP aim to protect prime quality agricultural land for productive farming use. It is clear that the development of this site will result in the permanent loss of this valuable resource but the allocation of this site for housing serving the town has been rigorously tested through the LDP process. It is the settled position of the Council that the application site is allocated for development in the Proposed LDP and the loss of this agricultural land to housing has been accepted. It has therefore been identified that there is a strategic and overriding need to unitise this land to assist in delivering the Council’s development strategy.
Infrastructure
Members will note from the consultation responses received from Scottish Water and SEPA that no objections have been raised to this application. However, approval of this application will not guarantee the applicant or developer connection to Scottish Water’s infrastructure. It is noted that the existing water treatment works and water network may have capacity to serve this development. It is also noted that the waste water treatment works and waste water network, may be able to accommodate the anticipated demand.
It is noted that SEPA has no objections in principle to this development provided conditions are added to any grant of planning permission requiring a drainage strategy and surface water drainage strategy to be submitted as part of any detailed application. The surface water drainage strategy should demonstrate how a SUDS system in accordance with current guidelines can be accommodated on the site.
As the application seeks permission in principle only at this stage, precise details of water supply and of surface and foul water drainage can be controlled by suitably worded planning condition.
Developer Contributions
Members will be aware that development contributions towards addressing deficiencies in service provision are required in accordance with Policy G5 of the Local Plan and Policy IS2 of the Proposed LDP. In this particular case, the single largest factor will be development contributions towards Education & Lifelong Learning. This will be calculated using current indexed figures and will be secured through an appropriate legal agreement in accordance with development plan policy.
Affordable Housing
Members will be aware that there is a requirement for 25% affordable housing on all housing development sites of 2 or more dwellings in the Central Housing Market Area. Consultation with the Council’s Housing Strategy Team confirms that Eildon Housing Association would be interested in on-site delivery of affordable housing on this site. However due to concerns and unknowns regarding programming and grant availability, EHA might not be resourced to deliver all the affordable housing emerging from this proposal.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6(b)
On-site RSL delivery is the Council’s preferred AH option, however other on-site delivery options would be acceptable and should also be considered. The delivery options of AH for this site will be secured through an appropriately worded legal agreement to ensure full compliance with established affordable housing policy.
Health and Safety
Scotia Gas confirms that there is a low/medium/intermediate pressure gas main in the proximity of this site. This is reflected in the indicative layout for the site which indicates an exclusion zone around the low pressure main which runs along the south of the site. The indicative layout also takes account of an existing overhead power line and includes a 3m wayleave around this apparatus.
The Health and Safety Executive no longer provide planning advice on individual applications but instead offer standing advice based on sensitivity levels of the proposed development and the proximity of the development to the apparatus exclusion zones. When applying the PADHI (Planning Advice for Developments near Hazardous Installations) methodology used by HSE, the decision matrix advises ‘Do Not Advise Against’ development. The proposed development therefore complies with Policy Inf9 of the Local Plan and Policy IS12 of the Proposed LDP.
Safe digging practices, in accordance with HSE publication HSG47 "Avoiding Danger from Underground Services", must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used. This can be covered by informative.
Air Quality
The Council’s Environmental Health Section have indicated the need for an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development, with reference to the National Air Quality Objectives.
The purpose of Policy EP5 – Air Quality of the Local Plan is to protect air quality and in doing so complement other policies to protect land and water. This in turn will help to fulfil the Council’s environmental commitments and its contribution to addressing climate change. A suitably worded planning condition could be added to any grant of consent requiring an assessment to be carried out and a report to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority prior to the commencement of development.
The Council’s EH team also request that an assessment of the noise on local receptors is submitted along with a construction Method Statement. This can also be controlled by condition.
CONCLUSIONS
At the time this application was submitted it was clear that the proposed development would be contrary to prevailing development plan policies within the Consolidated Local Plan. The application site was located outwith the development boundary of the settlement on land which was not allocated for development in the short or medium term and could not be supported as an exception to established policy. Furthermore, a housing land shortfall had not been identified that would allow this land to be brought forward in advance of the Proposed LDP.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6(b)
However, during the processing of the application, the Proposed LDP process has taken significant steps towards adoption. The allocation of this land for housing has been agreed by Members and has been through the public consultation process. It has not attracted objections or representations and the allocation of this land for housing is now the settled position of the Council.
Members should be aware that determining this application in advance of Examination and Adoption does come with an element of risk but it is considered that this risk is minimal. It would be appropriate to determine this application now.
The proposed development is therefore consistent with Proposed LDP policy. The application seeks planning permission in principle for housing on land that has been allocated for this specific use. It is contended that, subject to planning conditions and legal agreement, the application can be supported in advance of the Proposed LDP adoption.
RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:
I recommend the application is approved subject to a legal agreement addressing affordable housing and contributions towards deficiencies an education infrastructure and the following conditions and informative:
1. No development shall commence until the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. Application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision shall be made to the Planning Authority before whichever is the latest of the following: (a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or (b) the expiration of six months from the date on which an earlier application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision notice was refused or dismissed following an appeal. Only one application may be submitted under paragraph (b) of this condition, where such an application is made later than three years after the date of this consent. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
3. No development shall commence until all matters specified in conditions have, where required, been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall only take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6(b)
Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
5. The subsequent application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by: i. a site layout plan at a scale of 1:500 showing the position of all buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas (distinguishing, where appropriate, between private and public spaces), walls and fences and landscaping; ii. plans and elevations of each house and garage type showing their dimensions and type and colour of external materials; iii. plans and elevations of the school showing the dimensions and type and colour of external materials; vi. a landscaping plan at a scale of 1:200 showing the location, species and ground spread of existing and proposed trees, shrubs and hedges; v. details of the phasing of development; vi. details of existing and finished ground levels, and finished floor levels, in relation to a fixed datum, preferably ordnance datum. vii. an updated transport statement vii. a water impact assessment Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development.
6. No development shall commence until a scheme for sustainable drainage (SUDS) surface water treatment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall be developed in accordance with the technical guidance contained in The SUDS Manual (C697) and should incorporate source control. Reason: to ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water runoff.
7. No development shall be commenced until such a time as it has been demonstrated that all matters relating to foul and surface water drainage have been addressed via a drainage strategy, which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority as part of any detailed submission, pursuant to this planning permission in principle. The strategy should demonstrate that a sewer connection for this proposal is feasible and should demonstrate the space requirements and layout of the proposed SUDS features as well as the treatment volumes. Reason: The Planning Authority is aware that there may be drainage capacity issues within the settlement that have not been fully addressed in the planning permission in principle application, which establishes only the land-use principle of the area of land identified in the submitted drawing(s).
8. No development shall be commenced until precise details of water supply have been submitted to and approved in writing, in consultation with Scottish Water, by the planning authority. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure an adequate supply of water is available to serve the site and to ensure that existing users are not compromised.
9. No development shall commence until a Badger Protection Plan is submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. The Plan shall protect badger foraging and commuting across the site (covering trenches and
Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 6(b)
open pipes overnight/ providing a means of escape, safe storage of chemicals and oils). Reason: In order to protect badgers and the natural heritage interests of the site.
10. Site clearance shall be carried out outside of the breeding season. No vegetation or scrub clearance shall be carried out during the breeding bird season (March- August) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Checking surveys and appropriate mitigation for breeding birds will be required if works are proposed during the breeding bird season. Reason: In order to protect breeding birds and the natural heritage interests of the site.
11. No development shall commence until a Landscape and Habitat Enhancement Plan including measures for native woodland and scrub, hedgerows and grassland enhancement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to protect the natural heritage interests of the site and to improve the landscape and habitats.
12. No development shall take place until an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development, with reference to the National Air Quality Objectives. The issues addressed should include pollution arising from the presence of additional road traffic and human occupancy, and the use of any proposed zero carbon technologies. Reason: In order to protect air quality, the effects this will have on land and water and commit to addressing climate change.
13. No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved statement. The Construction Method Statement shall detail controls for mitigating noise and dust impacts arising from construction and other activities that are undertaken on site. Reason: To ensure that the development of the site proceeds in an effective and orderly manner and to ensure the residential amenity of nearby dwellings is not compromised.
14. The rights of way (shown on the plan accompanying this decision) must be maintained open and free from obstruction in the course of development and in perpetuity and shall not form part of the curtilage of the property. No additional stiles, gates steps or barriers to access may be erected that would deter or hinder future pedestrian use. Reason: To protect general rights of responsible access.
15. 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 Geophysical Survey. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeological organisation working to the geophysical survey standards of the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) and approved in writing to 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) access to all fields where the survey is
Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 6(b)
to be undertaken. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Geophysical Survey Report. If potential archaeology is discovered, further survey or below ground excavation may be necessary to determine the nature of the find. This will be achieved in consultation between the nominated archaeologist(s) and the Archaeology Officer. In the event that excavation is necessary, 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.
Informatives
1. In relation to Condition No 6 above, further guidance on the design of SUDS systems and appropriate levels of treatment can be found in CIRIA’s C697 manual entitled The SUDS Manual. Advice can also be found in the SEPA Guidance Note Planning advice on sustainable drainage systems (SUDS). Regulatory requirements for surface water and SUDS can be found within the SUDS section of SEPA’s website.
2. In relation to Condition No 8 above, the applicant should consult with Scottish Water to ensure a connection to the public sewer is available and whether restrictions at the local sewage treatment works will constrain the development.
3. Safe digging practices, in accordance with HSE publication HSG47 "Avoiding Danger from Underground Services", must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used. It is your responsibility to ensure that this information is provided to all persons (either direct labour or contractors) working for you on or near gas apparatus. In addition please follow the advice given on the gas safety card. Up to date plans of the pipes owned by Scottish Gas Networks are available directly from Scottish Gas Networks, 95 Kilbirnie Street, Glasgow G5 8JD or by telephone on 0141 418 4093.
DRAWING NUMBERS
Plan Reference No Plan Type 100030(OS)001 Site Location Plan 100300(11)001 Indicative Masterplan 10030(11)002 Indicative Masterplan
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services
Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 6(b)
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 20 Item No. 6(b)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 Item No. 6 (c)
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
28 APRIL 2014
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE
ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00427/PPP
OFFICER: Barry Fotheringham WARD: Kelso and District PROPOSAL: Mixed Use Development including Housing, Site for School, Community Facilities and associated Landscaping, Roads and Footpaths SITE: Land North of Queens House, Angraflat Road, Kelso APPLICANT: Lord Ralph Kerr, The Ferniehurst Trust and Roxburghe Estates AGENT: Clarendon Planning and Development Limited
SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site is an area of agricultural land located to the north west of the town of Kelso, immediately north of the A6089 Angraflat Road/Golf Course Road. It is located to the south west of Kelso Racecourse immediately adjacent to the racecourse parking area.
The application site extends to approximately 18 hectares (45 acres) and comprises of 4 linear fields defined by mature hedgerow. The boundaries of the site are also defined by mature hedgerow. To the south west of the site is Queens House nursing home and a small residential development (currently under construction) comprising of 25 dwellings.
Beyond the mature hedgerow boundary to the north is a minor public road linking the A6089 Kelso to Gordon Road and the B6461 Kelso to Ednam Road. The application site has a southerly aspect with land falling slightly from the north towards Angraflat Road. A landscape ridge runs east to west beyond the north boundary of the site.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This application seeks planning permission in principle for a mixed use development comprising of housing, high school, community facilities, roads, landscaping and footpaths.
PLANNING HISTORY
12/01199/PAN - Proposed mixed use development comprising housing, residential care facilities, site for school, reconfiguration of racecourse car park, general community facilities and associated footpaths, roads and landscaping. Received 24 September 2012
Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 6 (c)
13/00753/PAN - Erection of high school and associated facilities. Received 20 June 2013
13/01080/PAN - Residential development with associated roads, footpaths and landscaping. Received 19 September 2013.
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
One letter of objection has been received in connection with this application. Whilst the objector agrees with the principle of erecting a new high school on the land adjoining the racecourse, serious concerns are expressed regarding the impact the proposed development will have on the town’s sewage services. It is suggested that the existing Kelso treatment plant is well beyond its original intended capacity and cannot cope with current demands. If further housing is proposed, this problem needs to be addressed.
APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Whilst the application has been submitted on the basis of planning permission in principle, it was supported by an indicative layout and accompanying indicative elevations and street scenes. The application was also supported by following documents:
x Design and Access Statement, including addendum x Transport Appraisal x Access Appraisal x Archaeology Assessment x Ecology Assessment x Housing Land Supply Assessment x Landscape and Visual Assessment x Indicative Layout and Street Scenes
As the proposed development is defined as a ‘Major Development’ under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 the application is also supported by a Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:
SESplan Strategic Development Plan 2013
Policy 5 – Housing Land Policy 6 – Housing Land Flexibility Policy 7 – Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land Supply
Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011
Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy G8 – Development Outwith Development Boundaries Policy BE2 – Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy BE3 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy BE12 – Further Housing Land Safeguarding Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity
Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 6 (c)
Policy NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy EP3 – Countryside around Towns Policy EP5 – Air Quality Policy H1 – Affordable Housing Policy H2- Protection of Residential Amenity Policy H3 – Land Use Allocations Policy Inf11 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf3 – Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4 – Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy Inf10 – Developments that Generate Travel Demand Policy R1 – Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land
OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Proposed Local Development Plan 2013
Policy PMD1 – Sustainability Policy PMD2 – Quality Standards Policy PMD3 – Land Use Allocations Policy ED10 – Protection of Agricultural Land and Carbon Rich Soils Policy HD1 – Affordable and Special Needs Housing Policy HD3 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy EP3 – Local Biodiversity Policy EP8 – Archaeology Policy EP10 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy EP13 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy EP16 – Air Quality Policy IS2 – Developer Contributions Policy IS5 – Protection of Access Routes Policy IS6 – Road Adoption Standards Policy IS7 – Parking Provision and Standards Policy IS9 – Waste Water Treatment Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage
Supplementary Planning Guidance
SBC SPG – Affordable Housing SBC SPG – Placemaking and Design SBC SPG – Trees and Development SBC SPG – Biodiversity SBC SPG – Development Contributions SBC SPG – Landscape and Development
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
Scottish Borders Council Consultees
Roads Planning Service: This proposal forms part of a larger site which is identified as an area for potential longer term development for the period beyond 2018 within the Consolidated Local Plan. However, the allocation of this site for development is currently under review within the Local Development Plan process, subject to finalisation of the LDP which is itself subject to the finalisation of the SDP (Strategic Development Plan). On this basis the principle of housing development on this site is not yet established.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 6 (c)
In relation to the roads aspect of the proposal, I would comment as follows:
During the local plan process and subsequent discussions, it has been accepted that a number of access options are available to serve this development site. The option shown here is for a four leg roundabout serving the proposed housing element, along with potential new high school site. Whilst this is acceptable, I would not rule out other options, such as T junctions to serve the proposed housing and upgrading the existing minor road to the north to serve the potential new high school and the racecourse. An element of direct access for housing onto Angraflat Road should also be considered. Which ever option is chosen, the main aim is to change the character of Angraflat Road, which at present acts as a relief road for Kelso town centre. By creating more of a ‘street’ feel along this road, it will help influence driver behaviour in this area.
This application is for outline consent; therefore I will not focus on the internal layout of either the housing element or the school site, which at this stage is indicative only. Should a detailed planning submission ever materialise for the proposed housing, I would expect to see a layout which embraces the principles of current policy ‘Designing Streets’, by providing a well connected layout which is designed to provide natural traffic calming. The street layout will have to be future proofed in terms of road hierarchy. Road and footpath connections to the neighbouring development site to the west, and the adjacent residential street network, need to be explored in order to achieve full integration, allow dispersion of traffic and to afford the opportunity of a range of vehicular/pedestrian accesses into the development. The layout must not prejudice links into the remainder of the longer term development site to the north-west.
The Transport Appraisal that has been submitted to accompany this application has not highlighted any significant issues. However, a full Transport Assessment (TA) will be required as part of a detailed planning application for the housing and also for the school site. Any issues identified through the TA including off-site works required, will need to be satisfactorily addressed. Pedestrian crossing provision for Angraflat Road will form an important part of the TA in order to integrate developments on each side of the road as best as possible.
In summary, I have no objections in principle to this proposal. More specific comments on the detailed design of the access and the internal layout will be provided should a detailed planning application ever be lodged, individually or as a whole for the various elements of the proposal. Discussions are welcomed at an early stage of the detailed design in order to achieve a satisfactory access arrangement and internal layout.
Education and Lifelong Learning: No response
Development Negotiator: No response
Housing: As a matter of principle, Eildon Housing Association (EHA) is interested in on-site delivery of affordable housing at this location. However EHA may not be able to deliver AH on this site due to concerns and unknowns regarding programming and grant availability.
This site is not identified or prioritised for inclusion in the current Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) 2012/15. However I would anticipate that it will be brought forward in due course by EHA for potential consideration for inclusion in the next SHIP 2013/18. Whilst RSL on-site delivery is the preferred AH option, other on-site
Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 6 (c)
delivery options should also be considered, e.g. shared equity, discounted sales, thereby potentially avoiding reliance on one delivery option.
Urban Design: No response
Landscape: The application site is allocated for longer terms housing in the Local Plan and is suitable for development. I am broadly in agreement with statements indicating its suitability in the applicant’s design statement. There is no reason to oppose the principal of development and I am happy to support the application.
However, it is important that the overall masterplan works at all stages in the development process. It is recommended that an overall design vision for the full land allocation (SKELS001) should be produced to show how subsequent phases can progress. In addition, the relationship between the proposal and the existing housing on the south side of Angraflat Road does not appear to have been thought through correctly. At page 23 (Design Analysis) of the design statement, it is stated that new built form should ‘face the street’. Although this may be desirable in some respects, it misses opportunities to create visual connections with the south side. It is also slightly false in the sense that direct access will not be taken from Angraflat Road but from the rear (i.e. north) side. The indicative site layout suggests avenue tree planting on both sides of Angraflat Road but without giving any detail. These aspects and the overall design treatment of both sides of Angraflat Road need further consideration.
On the basis that this is an application in principal and the submitted design layout is only indicative, I am happy to support the application.
Forward Planning: In relation to the applicant’s supporting documentation regarding the assessment of Housing Land Supply, the Council undertake an annual Housing Land Audit and the approach used by the Council to undertake the audit is in accordance with PAN 2/2010. The audit identifies effective sites in two categories – effective and potentially effective sites, both of which meet the criteria set out in PAN 2/2010. PAN 2/2010 states under the marketability criteria that the test to identify if a site is effective is whether ‘the site, or a relevant part of it, can be developed in the period under consideration’. The Council therefore considers a site to be effective if there is a reasonable prospect that it could be developed within the 5 year period. Where possible developer input has been incorporated into the programming of sites within the audit to ensure accuracy. The audit has then been consulted with key stakeholders. In accord with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), the finalised Housing Land Audit 2012, states there is a five year effective supply maintained in all housing market areas in the Borders when actual demand is used as the key measure. In the Central Housing Market Area, which Kelso falls within, there is 6.9 years of effective land supply, exceeding the 5 years required by SPP. Therefore there is no identified housing land shortfall and no need to bring forward additional land for development in the immediate short term.
Within the Consolidated Local Plan a larger part of this site than covered by this application is identified as an area for potential longer term development for the period beyond 2018. These longer term sites were indicative only and subject to further detailed assessment and review. Following further assessment as part of the Local Development Plan process, a smaller area of the site was identified as an alternative housing site (AKELS021) within the Main Issues Report (MIR). The site area is 4.1ha with an indicative site capacity of 100 units; this application covers this site and also land to the north-east. The site has been identified as one that could contribute to the housing land requirement identified in the Strategic Development
Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 6 (c)
Plan (SDP) for the Central Borders Strategic Development Area (SDA) for the period 2019-2024. If development of a new school had been submitted as a separate individual application the principle could have supported by policy G8 - development outwith development boundaries. However as this has been submitted as a single mixed use application incorporating both a new school and residential development it cannot be supported. We are currently in the process of finalising the Proposed Local Development Plan. There is a statutory procedure to be followed and the option of including this site in the LDP must be weighed up against other sites that have been promoted within this particular area. It is not considered that this submission gives sufficient reason or justification to allow approval of this application in advance of the completion of the LDP process and consequently it is considered this application is premature and cannot be supported.
Rights of Way: According to records held in the Regulatory Services there is a Core Path, also the Borders Abbeys Way, immediately adjacent to this application site. The route forms part of the Core Path network adopted in December 2009 and also forms part of the "Borders Abbey's Way" network.
This Core Path should not be obstructed during the course of development and should be brought up to standard to be an adoptable walkway post development. The following planning condition should be attached to any planning consent that may be granted:
The path Core Path 1 must be maintained open and free from obstruction in the course of development and in perpetuity and shall not form part of the curtilage of the property. No additional stiles, gates steps or barriers to access may be erected that would deter or hinder future pedestrian use. Reason: To protect general rights of responsible access.
Environmental Health: The applicants should be required to submit an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development, with reference to the National Air Quality Objectives. The issues addressed should include pollution arising from the presence of additional road traffic and human occupancy, and the use of any proposed zero carbon/renewable technologies.
Prior to any Approval being granted for this development, the Applicants should be required to submit a Construction Method Statement. This should detail controls for mitigating noise and dust impacts arising from construction and other activities that are undertaken on site.
Statutory Consultees
Kelso Community Council: The Community Council is of the opinion that until details of the proposed new high school development and its interaction with the proposed housing development, community facilities and racecourse are known then it must decline support for this application. The CC has concerns about the proposed layout and dangers which may arise on race days and the need for the retention of land adjacent to the high school for its potential to expand.
Floors, Makerstoun, Nenthorn and Smailholm Community Council: No response.
Ednam, Stichill and Berrymoss Community Council: No response.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 6 (c)
Scottish Water: No response.
SEPA: SEPA ask that the following condition is added to any grant of planning permission. If this condition is not added then the representation should be considered an objection.
Prior to the commencement of any works, a scheme for sustainable drainage (SUDS) surface water treatment shall be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA, and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall be developed in accordance with the technical guidance contained in The SUDS Manual (C697) and should incorporate source control. Reason: to ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water runoff.
SEPA has not considered the water quantity aspect of this scheme. Comments from Scottish Water, where appropriate, the Local Authority Roads Department and the Local Authority Flood Prevention Unit should be sought on the SUDS strategy in terms of water quantity/flooding and adoption issues.
The applicant should consult with Scottish Water to ensure a connection to the public sewer is available and whether restrictions at the local sewage treatment works will constrain the development.
Other Consultees
Kelso Amenity Society: Kelso AS was pleased to see a variety of housing styles as well as the proposed landscaping. There are concerns that some of the terraced housing within the development may be plain in appearance and the choice of colours and textures will be crucial.
One member is concerned that there are no plans to upgrade the minor access road to the north.
The AS also wonders what opinions the applicants have of the new Forbes Plastics building on the southern horizon of Kelso.
Fields in Trust Scotland: No response.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
The key planning issues with this application are whether the proposed mixed use development can be supported under adopted local plan policy or whether they can be supported under emerging proposed local development plan policy.
ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:
Housing Land Supply
The applicants Housing Land Audit Supply Assessment aims to assess and investigate the deliverability and effectiveness of the existing housing land supply for the Central Borders Housing Market Area (HMA). The applicant aims to identify if a minimum 5 year effective land supply is being met. According to the report, there is an effective land supply shortfall within the Central Borders HMA. The applicants argue that this shortfall should be addressed with new sites being brought forward
Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 6 (c) from that identified for longer term future development within the Local Plan and in advance of the Proposed LDP.
However, the Council’s Housing Land Audit, which has been carried out in accordance with Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2010 and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), identifies 6.9 years of effective housing land supply within the Central Housing Market Area, exceeding the 5 years required by Scottish Planning Policy. There is no identified housing land shortfall within the Central HMA and therefore no need to bring forward additional land for development in the immediate short term. The applicant’s supporting information fails to identify a shortfall in effective land supply and is therefore premature in terms of bringing this site forward in advance of the Proposed LDP.
During the application process, it is worth noting that the South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan 2013 (SESplan) was approved. Policy 7 of SESplan aims to maintain an effective housing land supply across the SESplan-wide Housing Market Area by allocating additional sites in the Local Development Plan or granting planning permission on unallocated sites. Supplementary Guidance is required to provide housing land allocations for each local authority but this could take up to 12 months to complete. In support of the application, the agent submitted an addendum to the Planning Statement following the approval of SESplan. This concludes that there continues to be a shortfall in housing land supply in the Central Borders HMA and that the proposed development meets the terms of Policy 7.
However, it is maintained that Scottish Borders Council has a five year effective supply when compared with completions and that there is no identified shortfall. The Proposed LDP will augment this supply into the future.
Planning Policy
Policy H3 – Land Use Allocations of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 is particularly relevant in this case as it applies to all the allocated land use proposals identified within each settlement profile and illustrated on proposals maps. The aim of this policy is to ensure that sites allocated in the local plan are developed for their intended use and that justification is provided for an alternative use. This is important because the housing sites are needed to meet the Strategic Development Plan Housing Land Requirements identified above.
Within the Consolidated Local Plan, the settlement profile and settlement map for Kelso identifies a larger area of land than is covered by the application site as an area for potential longer term development of housing for the period beyond 2018. This longer term site was indicative only and subject to further detailed assessment and review as part of the Proposed LDP process.
Members will be aware that there are existing housing land allocations within Kelso (Wallacenick, Broomlands East, North and West, Queens House, Rosebank) some of which have been developed or are currently under construction. It is imperative that these sites are developed in advance of non-allocated sites unless there is an identified housing land shortage.
Whilst identified for longer term housing in the Local Plan, the application site is not identified as a short or medium term housing allocation and a housing land shortage has not been identified in this housing market area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy H3 of the Local Plan. At the time the application was submitted it was felt that the proposals did not give sufficient reason
Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 6 (c) or justification to allow approval in advance of the completion of the Proposed LDP process and consequently it was considered that this application was premature and could not be supported.
However, the Proposed LDP has made significant progress since the application was received and now identifies land for a new high school as well as housing within a revised settlement boundary. Land Use Allocations AKELSO21 (Nethershot) and DKELSO01 (New High School Site) have been agreed by Council and have been through the public consultation process. Whilst these allocations have not yet been formally adopted by the Council, they have not attracted objections or representations through the public consultation process. This is now the settled position of the Council and Members should be aware that Proposed LDP Policy PMD3 – Land Use Allocations is now a material consideration in their determination of this application.
The proposed new high school site and residential development shown on the site plan accompanying this application are now consistent with the Proposed LDP settlement profile map and land use allocations and the current submission would be consistent with Policy PND3.
Members should be aware that whilst these allocations have not been challenged, approval of this application does come with a small element of risk in that the proposed LDP has been agreed but the land use allocations have not been formally adopted by the Council.
Development Boundary
Policy G8 of the Consolidated Local Plan aims to ensure that most development is located within defined development boundaries as shown on settlement profile maps. Any development outwith this boundary would have to comply with rigorous exceptions criteria. It is considered that development outwith the Development Boundary should not be seen as an alternative to allocated sites where these are available and therefore, should only be an ‘exceptional’ occurrence. Development should be contained within the Development Boundary and proposals for new development outwith this boundary and not on allocated sites identified on the local plan proposals maps will normally be refused.
The proposed development seeks consent for a mixed use development including residential, school and community facilities. The proposed new high school and community facilities may be justified as an exception as it would offer significant community benefits that would outweigh the need to protect the development boundary. It is considered that the site would represent a logical extension of the built up area – this is confirmed by the allocation of this land in the local plan as longer term housing expansion – and would be of a scale appropriate to the size of the settlement.
As the proposed school is likely to meet the other exceptions tests including the cumulative effects of other developments outwith the settlement boundary and the infrastructure and service capacity of the settlement, the proposed erection of a school with community facilities, could be supported in principle. However, as the application was been submitted on the basis of a single mixed use development incorporating residential development, it could not have been supported within the terms of Policy G8.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 6 (c)
However, circumstances have changed and Members will be aware that the development boundary has been amended through the Proposed LDP process and has been extended to accommodate the majority of the application site. Whilst this change in development boundary has not been formally adopted, it has not attracted objections or representations through the public consultation process. This is the settled position of the Council.
Members will note that the original application site boundary extends beyond the settlement boundary as identified on the Proposed LDP settlement profile for Kelso. Following discussions with the applicant’s agent, an amended site plan, in line with the revised settlement boundary was submitted on 18 March 2014. The application site is therefore contained wholly within the amended settlement boundary and would not be contrary to Proposed LDP Policy PMD4 – Development outwith Development Boundaries.
It is considered that the proposed mixed use development would be acceptable in principle and would be in accordance with Policy PND4 of the Proposed LDP 2013.
Landscape
The proposed development of this site will clearly have an impact on the landscape setting of this part of Kelso. The site is currently greenfield land defined by mature hedgerow field boundaries and the erection of a high school and residential development will have an effect on the character and appearance of this edge of the settlement. However, the allocation of this site for housing and a school within an amended settlement boundary has been tested through the Proposed LDP process and the principle of development has been accepted by the Council.
It is important however to ensure that the proposed development integrates well into the landscape and relates to existing features and existing development, particularly the housing on the south side of Angraflat Road. To make efficient use of the allocated land, to ensure future development of the site and neighbouring longer term allocations are not compromised and to ensure visual connections with the settlement, it is essential that the masterplan and design approach works at all levels. Further consideration of these matters can be handled during the detailed application stage.
Layout
As this application seeks planning permission in principle only at this stage, detailed proposals for the layout of the site, including proposed dwellings etc have not been submitted. Members will be aware however that indicative layouts and street elevations have been submitted in support of this application. The concept design framework for this site is based on best practice outlined in Government policy Designing Streets as well as SBC supplementary planning guidance on Placemaking and Design. Indicative options and layouts based on best practice were also considered during the pre-application discussions and the PAC.
The Council’s Roads Planning Service confirms that a number of access options are available to serve this development site. The option shown on the supporting indicative layouts for a four leg roundabout serving the proposed housing element, along with potential new high school site, is acceptable. However, alternative options, such as T-junctions should not be discounted at this stage.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 6 (c)
Any forthcoming detailed application should incorporate a layout which embraces the principles of Designing Streets and SPG Placemaking and Design by providing a well connected layout which is designed to provide natural traffic calming. The layout should also be future proofed in terms of roads hierarchy and connectivity to adjacent residential developments needs to be explored. The layout must not prejudice links into the remainder of the longer term development site to the north-west.
The Transport Appraisal that has been submitted to accompany this application has not highlighted any significant issues. However, a full Transport Assessment will be required as part of a detailed planning application for the housing and also for the school site. This can be covered by condition.
Access
According to the records held by Regulatory Services, there is a right of way and core path which passes the south east corner of the application site. This Core Path should not be obstructed during the course of development and should be brought up to standard to be an adoptable walkway post development.
Policy Inf2 of the Local Plan and IS5 of the Proposed LDP encourage walking and cycling as modes of transport and aim to protect all existing access routes. Development that would have an adverse impact upon access route available to the public will not be permitted. The proposed development of this site is unlikely to have a along term impact on the right of way/core path, particularly after construction but it is essential that the path is maintained and kept free from obstruction. It is suggested that a planning condition is added to any grant of consent to ensure that the path is not obstructed during the course of development and brought up to an adoptable standard development.
Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
Policy BE2 of the Consolidated Local Plan and Policy EP8 of the Proposed LDP aim to give scheduled ancient monuments and any other archaeological or historic asset, strong protection from potentially damaging development. Although the Council’s Archaeologist was not consulted on this application, the applicant’s supporting desk based study (carried out by Headland Archaeology Ltd) identifies low potential for prehistoric remains and low to moderate potential for part of the site to contain remains of medieval date. The site is characterised as arable land with no recorded settlement but it is recommended that a phase of trial trenching is carried out on the south west corner of the surveyed site close to the burgh and cultivation terraces. It should be noted that the area of land surveyed by Headland Archaeology was significantly larger than the planning application site and included land to the north and west of Queen’s House Nursing Home. The recommendation within the accompanying report to trial trench the land adjacent to the cultivation terraces is outwith the planning application site boundary and it would not be appropriate to add a condition in this respect.
Natural Heritage
The development of this site for mixed use including a new high school and housing will result in the loss of arable farmland as well some mature hedgerows which in turn will affect existing habitats.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 6 (c)
The ecological assessment prepared by Nigel Rudd Ecology concludes that the development site is of limited nature conservation value given its current status as an agricultural field. The findings are generally acceptable although measures should be implemented to ensure that there are no impacts on breeding birds within the fields or in areas proposed for removing hedges. There are further opportunities to maintain and enhance the local habitat network through protection and enhancement of boundary and wetland features, including creation of a SUDS pond.
The site requirements detailed in the settlement profile for Kelso in the Proposed LDP advise that red-listed bird species are present on the site and further assessment of nature conservation is required. The Ecology report acknowledges that red list birds are present on the site, four of which are common farmland species, and four of which are common in urban habitats.
There are unlikely to be significant ecological impacts, but precautionary measures are required to mitigate impacts on breeding birds which may use grassland and scrub habitats, and impacts on badger which may occur within the general area of the site and may forage or commute across the site.
There are opportunities to enhance the site by creating habitats that contribute to the local habitat network including the Forest Habitat Network (species complimentary to the existing policy woodland), creation of native-thorn hedgerows, grassland margins and wildflower areas. A SUDS pond can enhance the site for bats and breeding birds.
It would therefore be appropriate to ensure that ecological impacts are mitigated and protected species offered appropriate levels of protection and habitat enhancement. These matters can be controlled by condition.
Prime Quality Agricultural Land
Policy R1 of the Local Plan and Policy ED10 of the Proposed LDP aim to protect prime quality agricultural land for productive farming use. It is clear that the development of this site will result in the permanent loss of this valuable resource but the allocation of this site for housing and for a new high school serving the town has been rigorously tested through the LDP process. It is the settled position of the Council that the application site is allocated for development in the Proposed LDP and the loss of this land to housing is accepted.
Members should be aware that the purpose of Policy R1 and proposed Policy ED10 is to prevent the loss of prime quality agricultural land which is not covered by land allocations in the development plan. The loss of this land, now that it is allocated for development, will allow for the implementation of the development strategy and to maintain an effective housing land supply in the central borders housing market area. It has therefore been identified that there is a strategic and overriding need to unitise this land to assist in delivering the Council’s development strategy.
Infrastructure
Members will be aware that serious concerns are expressed by the sole Objector to this application on the grounds that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the town’s sewage services. It is suggested that the existing Kelso treatment plant is well beyond its original intended capacity and cannot cope with current demands. If further housing is proposed, this problem needs to be addressed.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 6 (c)
Unfortunately, Scottish Water did not respond to the consultation request but it should be noted that they did not object to the current planning application for residential development on land at Hendersyde North Lodge (13/00259/PPP) which is also currently under consideration.
The Roberton Water Treatment Works and Kelso Waste Water Treatment Works may have capacity to serve this development but if the existing network needs upgrading to enable connection, the developer will need to meet this demand in advance. A separate drainage system will be required for surface water discharging to a suitable outlet. This should be a SUDS system in accordance with current guidelines if it is to be considered for adoption.
It is noted that SEPA has no objections to this development provided a condition requiring a scheme for sustainable drainage (SUDS) surface water treatment to be submitted as part of any detailed application.
As the application seeks permission in principle only at this stage, precise details of water supply and of surface and foul water drainage can be controlled by suitably worded planning condition.
Developer Contributions
Members will be aware that development contributions towards addressing deficiencies in service provision are required in accordance with Policy G5 of the Local Plan and Policy IS2 of the Proposed LDP. In this particular case, the single largest factor will be development contributions towards Education & Lifelong Learning. This will be calculated using current indexed figures and will be secured through an appropriate legal agreement in accordance with development plan policy.
Affordable Housing
Members will be aware that there is a requirement for 25% affordable housing on all housing development sites of 2 or more dwellings in the Central Housing Market Area. Consultation with the Council’s Housing Strategy Team confirms that Eildon Housing Association would be interested in on-site delivery of affordable housing on this site. However due to concerns and unknowns regarding programming and grant availability, EHA might not be resourced to deliver all the affordable housing emerging from this proposal.
On-site RSL delivery is the Council’s preferred AH option, however other on-site delivery options would be acceptable and should also be considered. The delivery options of AH for this site will be secured through an appropriately worded legal agreement.
Air Quality
The Council’s Environmental Health Section has indicated the need for an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development, with reference to the National Air Quality Objectives. The issues addressed should include pollution arising from the presence of additional road traffic and human occupancy, and the use of any proposed zero carbon technologies.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 6 (c)
The purpose of Policy EP5 – Air Quality of the Local Plan is to protect air quality and in doing so complement other policies to protect land and water. This in turn will help to fulfil the Council’s environmental commitments and its contribution to addressing climate change. A suitably worded planning condition could be added to any grant of consent requiring an assessment to be carried out and a report to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority prior to the commencement of development.
The Council’s EH Team also request that an assessment of the noise on local receptors is submitted along with a construction Method Statement. These matters can be controlled by condition.
CONCLUSIONS
At the time the application was submitted it was clear that the proposed development would be contrary to prevailing development plan policies within the Consolidated Local Plan. The application site was located outwith the development boundary of the settlement on land which was not allocated for development in the short or medium term and could not be supported as an exception to established policy. Furthermore, a housing land shortfall has not been identified that would allow this land to be brought forward in advance of the Proposed LDP.
However, during the processing of the application the Proposed LDP process has taken significant steps towards adoption. The application site has been through the public consultation process and has not attracted objections or representations. The allocation of this land for mixed use development including a new high school and housing is accepted by Members and this is now the settled position of the Council.
Members should be aware that determining this application in advance of Examination and Adoption does come with an element of risk but it is considered that this risk is minimal. It would be appropriate to determine this application now.
The proposed development, following submission of an amended site plan, is consistent with Proposed LDP policy. The application seeks planning permission in principle for mixed use development including high school and residential on land that has been allocated for these particular uses. It is contended that, subject to planning conditions and legal agreement, the application can be supported in advance of the LDP adoption.
RECOMMENDATION BY DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY SERVICES:
I recommend the application is approved subject to a legal agreement addressing contribution towards deficiencies in Education infrastructure as well as the provision of affordable housing, and the following conditions and informatives:
1. No development shall commence until the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. Application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision shall be made to the Planning Authority before whichever is the latest of the following:
Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 6 (c)
(a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or (b) the expiration of six months from the date on which an earlier application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision notice was refused or dismissed following an appeal. Only one application may be submitted under paragraph (b) of this condition, where such an application is made later than three years after the date of this consent. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
3. No development shall commence until all matters specified in conditions have, where required, been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall only take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.
5. The subsequent application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by: i. a site layout plan at a scale of 1:500 showing the position of all buildings, roads, footpaths, parking areas (distinguishing, where appropriate, between private and public spaces), walls and fences and landscaping; ii. plans and elevations of each house and garage type showing their dimensions and type and colour of external materials; iii. plans and elevations of the school showing the dimensions and type and colour of external materials; vi. a landscaping plan at a scale of 1:200 showing the location, species and ground spread of existing and proposed trees, shrubs and hedges; v. details of the phasing of development; vi. details of existing and finished ground levels, and finished floor levels, in relation to a fixed datum, preferably ordnance datum. vii. a transport statement vii. a water impact assessment Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development.
6. No development shall commence until a scheme for sustainable drainage (SUDS) surface water treatment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with SEPA. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall be developed in accordance with the technical guidance contained in The SUDS Manual (C697) and should incorporate source control. Reason: to ensure adequate protection of the water environment from surface water runoff.
7. No development shall be commenced until such a time as it has been demonstrated that all matters relating to foul and surface water drainage have
Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 6 (c)
been addressed via a drainage management plan, which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority as part of any detailed submission, pursuant to this planning permission in principle. Reason: The Planning Authority is aware that there may be drainage capacity issues within the settlement that have not been fully addressed in the planning permission in principle application, which establishes only the land-use principle of the area of land identified in the submitted drawing(s).
8. No development shall be commenced until precise details of water supply have been submitted to and approved in writing, in consultation with Scottish Water, by the planning authority. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure an adequate supply of water is available to serve the site and to ensure that existing users are not compromised.
9. No development shall commence until a Badger Protection Plan is submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. The Plan shall protect badger foraging and commuting across the site (covering trenches and open pipes overnight/ providing a means of escape, safe storage of chemicals and oils). Reason: In order to protect badgers and the natural heritage interests of the site.
10. Site clearance shall be carried out outside of the breeding season. No vegetation or scrub clearance shall be carried out during the breeding bird season (March- August) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. Checking surveys and appropriate mitigation for breeding birds will be required if works are proposed during the breeding bird season. Reason: In order to protect breeding birds and the natural heritage interests of the site.
11. No development shall commence until a Landscape and Habitat Enhancement Plan including measures for native woodland and scrub, hedgerows and grassland enhancement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to protect the natural heritage interests of the site and to improve the landscape and habitats.
12. No development shall take place until an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development, with reference to the National Air Quality Objectives. The issues addressed should include pollution arising from the presence of additional road traffic and human occupancy, and the use of any proposed zero carbon technologies. Reason: In order to protect air quality, the effects this will have on land and water and commit to addressing climate change.
13. No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved statement. The Construction Method Statement shall detail controls for mitigating noise and dust impacts arising from construction and other activities that are undertaken on site.
Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 6 (c)
Reason: To ensure that the development of the site proceeds in an effective and orderly manner and to ensure the residential amenity of nearby dwellings is not compromised.
14. The path Core Path 1 (shown on the plan accompanying this decision) must be maintained open and free from obstruction in the course of development and in perpetuity and shall not form part of the curtilage of the property. No additional stiles, gates steps or barriers to access may be erected that would deter or hinder future pedestrian use. Reason: To protect general rights of responsible access.
Informatives
1. In relation to Condition No 6 above, further guidance on the design of SUDS systems and appropriate levels of treatment can be found in CIRIA’s C697 manual entitled The SUDS Manual. Advice can also be found in the SEPA Guidance Note Planning advice on sustainable drainage systems (SUDS). Regulatory requirements for surface water and SUDS can be found within the SUDS section of SEPA’s website.
2. In relation to Condition No 8 above , the applicant should consult with Scottish Water to ensure a connection to the public sewer is available and whether restrictions at the local sewage treatment works will constrain the development.
DRAWING NUMBERS
Plan Reference No Plan Type Site location Plan Rev A
Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director 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 17 Item No. 6 (c)
Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 ITEM NO. 7
PLANNING REFORM AND GOVERNANCE OF THE PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW
Report by Service Director Regulatory Services
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
28 APRIL 2014
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to review the Planning and Building Standards Committee and Public Speaking arrangements approved in September and October 2013 and introduced on 1 November 2013, and to consider whether those arrangements should now be made permanent.
1.2 This report has been prepared in accordance with the decision of Council on 25 September 2013 (Amended on 31 October 2013) that the revised Planning and Building Standards Committee arrangements approved on that date should be reviewed after a period of six months and that a further report be brought initially to the Planning and Building Standards Committee and thereafter to Council on the expiry of that period.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee recommends to Council that it approves the continuation of the arrangements agreed in September and October 2013 on a permanent basis.
Planning & Building Standards Committee – 28 April 2014 1 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 In September 2013 Council considered and approved a report recommending changes to the constitution and operating arrangements of the Planning and Building Standards Committee. These changes were designed to ensure that the Council’s governance arrangements remain fit for purpose and that the Committee and its members remain able to meet the significant challenges faced by the Council in determining planning applications. The changes approved in September were subsequently amended in October 2013 in so far as they related to political proportionality.
3.2 The new arrangements acknowledged the complex nature of many planning decisions, the increasingly critical analysis of the Council’s decision making processes and the need to ensure that Members are adequately equipped and have adequate capacity to manage a growing work load. All of this was set against the background of pressure to ensure a continued improvement in planning performance measured against the new Planning Performance Framework and Scottish Ministers commitment to driving further modernisation of the planning system in Scotland. 3.3 The key changes approved in September and October 2013 and introduced with effect from 1 November 2013 were: x Reduction in size of Planning and Building Standards Committee from 13 Members to 9 Members. x Increase in size of Local Review Body from 5 Members drawn from a pool of 13, to a fixed membership of 9 Members. x The introduction of a scheme allowing public speaking at Planning and Building Standards Committee meetings in accordance with an agreed protocol. 4 REVIEW OF ARRANGEMENTS 4.1 As part of the review of the new arrangements short questionnaires were sent to relevant parties to establish how effective they felt the new arrangements had been. Committee Members were asked for their views on both the constitution of the Committee and public speaking arrangements. Other Members, applicants, agents, supporters and objectors who had spoken at Committee were invited to provide their views on the public speaking arrangements. 4.2 Requests to speak were received in respect of 8 individual cases between November 2013 and March 2014. On these cases there were 4 presentations from Members, 9 presentations from objectors and 9 presentations from supporters (including applicants and their agents).
4.3 The main findings from returns to the questionnaire are summarised below.
Planning & Building Standards Committee – 28 April 2014 2 4.4 Committee Members Survey x All respondents consider the reduction in size of Committee has had a positive impact on the quality of debate. x All respondents consider this has had either a positive or neutral impact on the quality of decisions. x All respondents find the new commitment to attending two planning meetings per month manageable. x All respondents find this commitment has had a positive impact on their understanding of planning issues. x The majority of respondents consider this commitment has also had a positive impact on their ability to participate in other Council matters but one respondent considers it has had a negative impact. x All respondents consider the length of time provided for public speaking is about right and, x All respondents consider the overall impact of the new public speaking arrangements on the decision making process has been positive.
4.5 Opportunities Suggested for Improvement Members did not identify any opportunities for improvement to public speaking arrangements. One Member did express a preference for more Committee site visits and for more Member/Officer discussion to improve understanding of the rationale for decisions.
4.6 Public Speaking Survey x The majority of respondents found the arrangements, including information and advice provided by the Council prior to the meeting good or acceptable. x The majority of respondents found the arrangements at the Committee meeting itself good or acceptable. x The majority of respondents found the time provided for speaking at Committee about right. One respondent considered that insufficient time was provided. x Opinion was split between those who considered that their contribution was given due consideration by the Committee and those who either disagreed or didn’t know. x The majority of respondents considered the overall experience of speaking at Committee had been positive, one respondent gave a neutral response and one provided a negative response. x Identical responses were received to the question asking whether the Committee process was fair and transparent.
Planning & Building Standards Committee – 28 April 2014 3 4.7 Comments on Process Non Committee Member concerns relate to the process which requires them to leave the Committee Chamber after making a verbal presentation. One member of the public expressed concern about the impartiality of presentations made and also considered the time allowed for public speaking was inadequate when compared with the time afforded to the planning officer. 4.8 Opportunities Suggested for Improvement x The acoustics in the Chamber make it difficult for people who are hard of hearing to hear what is being said and to follow the debate. An improved microphone system would be helpful. x The layout in the Chamber left speakers feeling isolated and exposed. A less intimidating layout would be worth considering. x People who have spoken should be entitled to remain in the Chamber and listen to the debate. There may also be benefit in allowing the speaker to remain at the table following his/her presentation to answer questions from Members. 4.9 Other Issues In addition to the above matters, officers are conscious of concerns regarding the volume and quality of paperwork being presented to the Local Review Body. Appendix 1 to this report details actions that are currently being implemented together with future options to address those concerns. 5 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 The revised Committee arrangements, including the arrangements for public speaking, appear to be working satisfactorily in most respects and are in general supported by the majority of Members and public speakers.
5.2 Changes to the physical layout of the Chamber may help in creating a less intimidating environment for speakers and should be investigated as should opportunities for improving the acoustics in the Chamber.
5.2 The issue of non Committee Members remaining in the Chamber to listen to the debate after making a presentation is governed by the Standards Commission Code of Conduct. Paragraph 7.15 of the Councillors Code of Conduct states that “If as part of the decision making process you (a Member) wish to make representations on behalf of constituents or other parties you may do so providing: (iii) after making those representations you then retire from the meeting room.” Permitting Members to remain in the Chamber in these circumstances could not therefore be implemented without breaching the code of conduct. 5.4 Proposals and opportunities to streamline paperwork and information presented to Committee and Local Review Body meetings are set out in Appendix 1.
Planning & Building Standards Committee – 28 April 2014 4 6 IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Financial There are no cost implications arising from the recommendations contained in this report.
6.2 Risk and Mitigations Ensuring that the Council’s decision making arrangements remain robust and that Members continue to have the skills and knowledge required to determine planning matters is expected to reduce the potential for successful appeals and legal challenges with a consequent reduction in the financial and reputational risk to the Council.
6.3 Equalities There are no equalities issues associated with this paper other than the identified opportunity to improve acoustics in the Council Chamber which would improve the accessibility and transparency of the decision making process.
6.4 Acting Sustainably There are no economic, social or environmental effects associated with this paper.
6.5 Carbon Management
There are no carbon management issues associated with this paper.
6.6 Rural Proofing
The recommendations contained in this report will have no implications for Rural Proofing.
6.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation
The recommendations would require recent interim changes to the Scheme of Administration to be made permanent.
7 CONSULTATION 7.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Audit and Risk, Service Director Strategic Policy and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and their comments have been incorporated into the report.
Approved by
Service Director Regulatory Services Signature …………………………………
Planning & Building Standards Committee – 28 April 2014 5 Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Brian Frater Service Director Regulatory Services Ext5067 Ian Aikman Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager. Ext 6510
Background Papers: No Previous Minute Reference: Scottish Borders Council 31 October 2013.
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 Jacqueline Whitelaw, Environment and Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA, Tel 01835 825431, Fax 01835 825071, email [email protected].
Planning & Building Standards Committee – 28 April 2014 6 Appendix 1
INTRODUCTION
A study has been undertaken by officers within planning, legal and democratic services, who have responsibility for administering the Local Review Body, to examine the options for improving the operation of the LRB and the quality of documentation presented to members. The key identified issues and possible options for improvement are set out below
1. Quality of Plans
x It has been agreed by officers that an initial pre-screening meeting will be set up as required, dependent on the nature of the application/plans submitted. This will, in the first instance, examine the plans that are submitted and make arrangements for them to be copied in colour at a suitable paper size. This will either be done in house or if necessary, due the number and size of plans, additional copies will be requested from the applicant.
2. Plans at the Meetings
x Originally submitted plans will also be display on boards at the Local Review Body meeting for Members to peruse.
3. Nature of Reports of Handling:
x The Development Services Manager has produced a guidance note setting ouit best practice for report writing. This has been discussed with officers at Team Briefings. Training opportunities have also been identified from external sources on report writing.
x There will be greater scrutiny of reports by Principal Officers and the Development Standards Manager to ensure that the necessary standard of report writing is achieved. This should:
o Help avoid duplicate information, such as consultation replies o Avoid cut and paste culture, o Present information in concise, ideally bullet pointed format o Refer to all matters raised but identify key issues to be addressed, o Use DPEA reporters decision letters as a template for dealing with the issues o Avoid repeating policy context, and o Use Plain English - avoid “Planning Speak”
4. Electronic Document Management
x IT have been asked to investigate the possibility of using the document management system in IDOX to hold a separate repository for the review papers that Members can access via their laptops. x IT have also been asked for an update on the alternatively option of providing tablets for Members and usability of systems at the Chamber.
Planning & Building Standards Committee – 28 April 2014 7 The advantages of this approach wouyld be:
o Easy access to documentation and plans in advance of the meeting o Reduction in copying of papers o Reduction in time in preparing papers o Reduced costs for copying papers
Disadvantages that might arise include:
o Plans are not easily readable on laptops and tablets o Potential costs of new equipment o Usability of internet connection in the Chamber, on site visits or alternative venues o Specific documents/pages may be difficult and time-consuming for Members to identify and locate for reference from the IDOX list of documents, during debate at LRB meetings. Currently the complete set of papers for each Review are sequentially numbered by hand and are presented in logical order. This would be particularly difficult where there are multiple lengthy Notice of Review documents.
The potential use of laptops or tablets would be subject to testing and usability in the Council Chamber and would be subject to further discussion with Planning and Building Standards Committee/Local Review Body Members.
5. Volume of Papers to be Considered and Duplication of Documentation
In addition to the steps set out above further proposals to address the volume of paperwork may include checking that duplicate or multiple copies of documents have not been submitted by different parties whilst ensuring that the statutory provisions are still met.
The screening that would be required would place an additional burden on all officers responsible for the LRB and the time and resources required to do this work have still to be quantified.
Conclusions
Items 1-3 above are already being implemented and should immediately improve the operation of the LRB. Item 4 will be dependent on usability and availability of required equipment. Any proposal to implement an electronic system will be discussed further with Members prior to any implementation. The legal and resource implications of implementing item 5 require further consideration but every effort will be made to pursue this action.
Planning & Building Standards Committee – 28 April 2014 8 ITEM 8
SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE HARBOUR ROAD, EYEMOUTH DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Report by Service Director Regulatory Services
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
28 April 2014
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report proposes that the Committee approves the Supplementary Guidance (SG) entitled “Harbour Road, Eyemouth Development Framework”.
1.2 The purpose of the SG is to guide future redevelopment of the area between Harbour Road, Church Street and Manse Road (i.e. the harbourside). This area is located within the development boundary of Eyemouth and it has been identified as a key regeneration site in the Proposed Local Development Plan.
1.3 The aim of the SG is to redevelop the harbourside to create a place which can help to achieve sustainable economic growth in Eyemouth, be welcoming and pleasant for visitors and residents alike, and restore the identity that the harbourside area of Eyemouth used to have.
1.4 The SG contains:
x An analysis of the context of Eyemouth and the harbourside area; x Analysis of the relevant planning policy; x Consideration of the built environment and the current operations at the harbourside; x Urban design principles that could be applied to redevelopment; x Consideration of potential usages; x An example of a redevelopment scenario that could result; and x Summary of existing consultation.
Planning & Building Standards – 28 April 2014 1 1.5 The SG proposes a mix of uses which would contain a coherent scheme of development including usages such as housing, retail, small-scale food provision, offices, and other types of commercial buildings or attractions. Urban design principles are used to show how this scheme could be achieved while still providing a welcoming and pleasant place and restoring the identity of the harbourside. Elements discussed include pedestrian and vehicular movement, new buildings, and the creation of an active frontage on Harbour Road which exploits the waterfront location.
1.6 It is important to note that the SG is one step in the long-term future redevelopment of the harbourside in Eyemouth. There are a number of other factors that will also influence whether redevelopment will occur. However, it is appropriate at this time to produce the SG to help guide any future planning application(s).
1.7 A new Local Development Plan is in the process of being approved; as a result the Harbour Road Development Framework will initially be Supplementary Planning Guidance in determination of planning applications as a part of the Consolidated Local Plan. Once the Local Development Plan is approved the Harbour Road Development Framework will be Supplementary Guidance as a part of the Local Development Plan.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 I recommend that the Planning and Building Standards Committee:
(a) Approves the use of the Development Framework as Supplementary Planning Guidance in the determination of planning applications pending the approval of the Local Development Plan.
(b) Delegates the approval of the Harbourside, Eyemouth Development Framework as Supplementary Guidance as a part of the Local Development Plan, once the Local Development Plan has been adopted; and
Planning & Building Standards – 28 April 2014 2 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The harbourside area in Eyemouth is located within the town centre boundary and due to its waterfront location it is critical to the economy of Eyemouth. In recent years, there has been work done looking at the potential for the harbourside to be improved.
3.2 The main occupiers at present are seafood processing companies, who are vital employers in Eyemouth. However, it has become apparent that these operations may benefit from more modern premises elsewhere in Eyemouth for reasons of efficiency and expansion. It is also apparent that there are issues surrounding the urban environment of the harbourside; it is not fulfilling its potential as a key part of the town centre as it is congested, does not provide an attractive environment for visitors or residents, and is not reflective of the past identity of the harbour.
3.3 At the end of 2012 Bain, Swan Architects were commissioned to produce a study looking at the harbourside block. This study was completed and is Appendix 1 of Appendix A. The study analysed the fabric of the block in terms of its townscape character and looked at broad land use and urban design principles. In addition, public consultation was done and a degree of support for the work was expressed. The SG therefore seeks to consolidate and build on this study by presenting a development framework which will act as a material consideration in the determination of any planning application.
3.4 The SG is only one step towards a long term redevelopment of the harbourside block and there are other important factors that will play an important part in the realisation of any redevelopment of the harbourside. These factors include land ownership and assembly, applications for European funding, and economic issues. The nature of these factors is that they take a long time to achieve and that as a result the SG must be seen as a long term vision for the harbourside.
3.5 It is hoped that a combined action can be established behind a common goal of regeneration of the harbourside area and that buy-in will bring benefits to all concerned but most critically to the residents of Eyemouth. The SG is therefore one step towards this goal.
Outcome from Consultation 3.6 The SG has been subject to public consultation for a 12 week period. Four representations were received and these have been summarised and a response provided at Appendix B. Only two responses have required a change to the Development Framework from the Draft that was approved for consultation.
Planning & Building Standards – 28 April 2014 3 3.7 The two responses (from SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk team) provided updated information on the flood risk within the harbourside area. SEPA highlighted a need to gather more information on the flood events of 1948 and 2013; stated that they would be unlikely to support a change of use to dwellings at risk of flooding; and recommended continued dialogue with themselves and the Council in the preparation of any planning application.
3.8 A response from the Flood Risk team was received which highlighted the new 3rd generation SEPA Indicative Flood Hazard Maps; stated that the Council had commissioned consultants to undertake a Wave Overtopping and Flood Study for Eyemouth, which resulted in flood envelopes being produced relating to different return periods for Wave Overtopping and the Eye Water; stated that sewer flooding was currently being investigated; provided information related to the August 1948 flood and the Storm Surge of 5 and 6 December 2013.
3.9 The Flood Risk response concludes the area is at flood risk from various sources, but to what extent is difficult to determine with the information currently available. Further, any redevelopment will need to be resilient to flooding with any residential premises located on the first flood or with finished floor levels above the 1:200 year plus climate change flood level, where for existing buildings this is not possible further resilience to flooding will need to be investigated.
3.10 The Flood Risk response proposes additional/revised wording to paragraph 5.2 of the Development Framework to better reflect the flood risk position and this wording has been incorporated.
3.11 It is also the case that the 3rd generation flood maps from SEPA update the information regarding flooding on Figure 1 ‘Constraints’ which was included within the draft Development Framework and, wording has been added at paragraph 5.1 which provides a link to the SEPA flood risk maps on-line, and stating that if further information is required that the Council’s Flood Risk team can provide this.
Eyemouth Town Framework Development 3.12 In 2013-2014 there has been work amongst multiple stakeholders to develop a draft Eyemouth Town Framework. This process has been designed to facilitate making Eyemouth a better place to live, work and visit through a checklist of a shared set of goals that allow the various organisations concerned- businesses, organisations and individuals- to pull in the same direction, yet not be constrained by how to deliver the shared goals. The draft Eyemouth Town Framework also aims to align all of the respective plans and proposals presented by various stakeholders and act as a reference point to guide those who want to develop proposals in the town as to the goals of these respective documents.
Planning & Building Standards – 28 April 2014 4 3.13 The Harbour Road SG is an integral ‘cog’ in the overall draft Eyemouth Town Framework as it currently stands. The SG helps to potentially facilitate actions that would help tackle some of the ‘strengths’ and ‘opportunities’ identified for Eyemouth. It is also central to the ‘Key issues’ which, if resolved, will make the biggest difference to Eyemouth, these include diversifying the economy, Harbour Road, harbour flooding and visitor accommodation.
4 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Financial There are no costs attached to any of the recommendations contained in this report.
4.2 Risk and Mitigations Risk of not providing guidance (a) The lack of guidance would cause uncertainty to prospective developers and the public and be a barrier to effective decision making by the Council. This could result in ad hoc and inconsistent decision making with the policies in the Local Plan, and Local Development Plan, when approved, not being fully taken into account.
(b) Failure to produce the SG would reflect badly on the Council’s commitment to improving design of new development through a place making approach.
(c) There may also be resource impacts in the Development Management section potentially resulting in delays processing the application.
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 SG seeks to promote sustainable economic growth through the creation of a mixed use scheme at the harbourside. In promoting this it is thought there would be economic benefits through diversification of the economy, a more attractive and pleasant urban environment, and greater potential for tourist attractions and infrastructure.
Planning & Building Standards – 28 April 2014 5 (b) Social Cohesion The SG promotes social cohesion through advocating sustainable economic growth, a more pleasant environment for residents and visitors alike and the building of mixed tenure housing at the harbourside.
(c) Protection of the environment In accordance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 a screening assessment of the SG has been undertaken in order to identify whether there will be potentially significant environmental effects. The screening exercise was undertaken using the criteria specified in Schedule 2 of the Act and no significant environmental issues were found.
4.5 Carbon Management The SG will have indirect effects on carbon management. It is thought that redevelopment of a brownfield site lessens the impact on greenfield land and by doing this less carbon emissions are released due to disturbance of soil. In addition, it is considered that a shared surface traffic management scheme, as proposed in the SG, should help to alleviate congestion on Harbour Road and that this has a knock on effect of improving air quality and reducing harmful emissions.
4.6 Rural Proofing It is anticipated there will be a neutral impact on the rural environment from the SG.
4.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation There are no changes to be made.
5 CONSULTATION 5.1 Consultation on this report has been undertaken with the Chief Financial Officer, the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Legal Officer, the Service Director Strategy and Policy, the Chief Officer Audit and Risk, the Chief Officer HR, and the Clerk to the Council and any comments received have been incorporated into the final report.
Approved by
Service Director Regulatory Services Signature ……………………………….
Planning & Building Standards – 28 April 2014 6 Author(s)
Name Designation and Contact Number Philip Graham Planning Officer (01835) 825508
Background Papers: N/A
Previous Minute Reference: N/A
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 Jacqueline Whitelaw, Environment and Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA, Tel 01835 825253, Fax 01835 825071, email [email protected].
Planning & Building Standards – 28 April 2014 7 Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Guidance on
Harbour Road, Eyemouth Development Framework April 2014
Contents
1. Introduction p2
2. Structure of the development framework p3
3. Site context and description p4‐5
4. Policy context p6‐8
5. Constraints at the harbourside area p8‐11
6. Urban design principles p12‐20 ⇒ Consideration of usages p19‐20
7. Existing stakeholder opinion p20‐21
8. Conclusions p22 9. Next Steps p22
Key Contacts p23
Appendices
Appendix 1: Eyemouth Harbourside Study (Bain Swan Architects 2012)
Appendix 2: Consolidated Local Plan Policies
Front cover image courtesy of Lawson Wood (www.lawsonwood.com)
1. Introduction
1.1 This Development Framework is designed to guide future redevelopment of the area between Harbour Road, Church Street and Manse Road (the harbourside). The site is contained within the development boundary of Eyemouth.
1.2 The current industrial uses in the harbourside for the fish processing industry are vitally important to the economy of Eyemouth but they are limited by the lack of space in the area which hampers their ability to operate efficiently and to expand. The businesses are now less reliant on the harbour catch and it is therefore thought they could operate more efficiently elsewhere in Eyemouth.
1.3 As a result there is opportunity to explore the possibility of redeveloping the space that they leave behind. It is thought an overall aim would be to create a place which can help achieve sustainable economic growth in Eyemouth, be welcoming and pleasant for visitors and residents alike, and restore the sense of identity that the harbourside area of Eyemouth used to have.
1.4 The Development Framework therefore seeks to explore the options for redevelopment of the site by analysing the context and constraints of the harbourside area, the urban design principles and usages that could help form a coherent proposal to achieve the overall aim.
1.5 It is important to note that there are a number of other factors such as funding applications, land ownership and assembly, and economic factors, which will be integral to the success of any regeneration proposal. The nature of these factors is that they can take a long time to achieve and as a result this Development Framework is a long term vision.
1.6 However, it is hoped that a combined action can be established behind a common goal of regeneration of the harbourside area and that buy‐in will bring benefits to all concerned but most critically to the residents of Eyemouth. The Development Framework is therefore one step towards this common goal.
1.7 The Development Framework is to be Supplementary Guidance as a part of the Local Development Plan (LDP), once the LDP has been adopted. Until this time it will be used as Supplementary Planning Guidance in the determination of planning applications as a part of the existing Local Plan.
2
2. Structure of the Development Framework
2.1 The structure of the Development Framework is as follows:
• A short analysis of the features of Eyemouth and the harbourside area
• A summary of the relevant policy direction from strategic national and south‐east Scotland documents, as well as the Consolidated Local Plan and Proposed Local Development Plan
• Consideration of the harbourside, in terms of the built/physical environment and the current operations
• Urban design principles that can be applied to the site
• Consideration of potential usages
• An example of a redevelopment scenario that could result
• Summary of existing consultation carried out
• Conclusions and Next Steps
3
3. Site Context and Description
Eyemouth
3.1 Eyemouth is a town of 3479 people (2001 Census) located in the eastern Borders. The town is intrinsically linked to the coast, which provides a scenic backdrop and is designated as a Special Landscape Area. Eyemouth is also located adjacent to the A1 and as a result the town has excellent transport links which help economic output, through being able to efficiently transport goods. However, this also allows significant leakage of consumer spend to Berwick and Edinburgh.
3.2 The central core of the town is designated as an outstanding Conservation Area and the harbour and coastal setting are essential to this, as they have dictated how the settlement has grown; however there are other elements such as traditional architecture which also contribute to Eyemouth’s character.
3.3 The wider context of Eyemouth town centre and the Gunsgreenhill area are also important considerations in considering regeneration of the harbourside area. Figure 1 shows the wider context: to the north east is Gunsgreen House, a distinguished A‐listed building which is a excellent example of the success investment in Eyemouth can bring; to the immediate south are two car parks, one is associated directly with Gunsgreen House but the other has potential to be better utilised to assist with movement in Eyemouth; directly to the west, there is a jetty which links Gunsgreenhill to the harbourside (and the rest of the town centre), again this has potential to be better used.
3.4 To the north of the harbourside area (past the current EISCA building) the frontage on to the water continues and there are opportunities for redevelopment evident (for example the Whale Hotel). In addition there are links from the road into the town centre. The main shopping frontage curves round Church Street and Market Place but there are more dispersed retail units “hidden” away in Chapel Street, Queen Street and St Ella’s Place. All of these areas are a walk away from the harbourside but they may also be served by the car park currently on the southern part of the harbourside site. All of this area is located within the town centre boundary of Eyemouth.
Harbourside Area
3.5 The harbourside is about 1.4ha in area and is also shown on Figure 1. It is bounded by Harbour Road, Church Street and Manse Road, but critically also extends to the waterfront. The area is not designated within the Consolidated Local Plan for any particular purpose but it is within the settlement boundary and the town centre boundary. In the Proposed Local Development Plan, the harbourside area is identified as a key regeneration opportunity
3.6 Harbour Road is a street that provides variety when it is walked along, with the water, the views to Gunsgreen House, and the working harbour providing interest. The street is critical to the relationship between the water and the harbourside.
3.7 The harbourside area also has a considerable history which is shown in its Conservation Area status. To add to this there are also a number of listed buildings, and these help show the previous character of the area that existed before the development of the industrial premises, in total there are 6 Listed Buildings on the site (one A‐listed and 5 B‐listed) and a further 5 Listed Buildings immediately adjacent (3 B‐listed and 2 C‐listed).
4 The beach and amusements arcade are located at the northern end of the town centre. In addition there is a The restored Gunsgreen House is a crucial ± relatively large Coop foodstore. As a element of the Harbour and is also an result this area is busy and the car important tourist attraction. The park is well used. The area is southernmost car park, below the jetty walkable from the harbourside. entrance, could have a role to play in any regeneration proposal.
The core retail area curves away from the top left hand corner of the Harbourside area, ending at the war memorial garden and the car park opposite it. The irregular street pattern north of the Harbourside area is also part of the town centre, and the various tightly knit wynds contain shops and offices.
The Gunsgreenhill area, over the water from the Harbourside, is important because it contains areas critical to the strategic develpment of Eyemouth. There are Business and Industrial, Housing, and Mixed Use allocations located in this area.
Figure 1 Local Context To the south is the A1107 which gives access to other parts of Eyemouth, Harbourside boundary including Acredale Industrial Estate and Gunsgreenhill, as well as the A1 Trunk Road. This map has been prepared by Forward Planning, E&I. For further details contact: [email protected] 01835 825508 Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 © Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Meters Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023423.
4. Policy Context
Scottish Planning Policy
4.1 The Scottish Government produced Scottish Planning Policy (2010) (SPP) and the document sets out the national planning policy context in a number of areas including, sustainable development, economic development and town centres.
4.2 The SPP supports sustainable development and states that decisions on location of new development should promote regeneration and the re‐use of previously developed land. On economic development it is stated that the planning system should support economic development by promoting development in sustainable locations particularly in terms of accessibility; promoting regeneration and the full and appropriate use of land, buildings and infrastructure; and supporting development which will provide new employment opportunities and enhance local competitiveness.
4.3 On town centres the SPP asserts that a diverse mix of uses and attributes, including a high level of accessibility, should be provided. The contribution of these uses to the qualities of the character and identity which create a sense of place and further the well‐being of communities should be taken into account. In addition SPP mentions that planning authorities should be responsive to the needs of town centre uses, identifying suitable and viable sites in terms of size, location and availability and that there should be assessment of how centres can accommodate development and relevant opportunities.
SESplan
4.4 SESplan is the Strategic Development Plan for south‐east Scotland, including the Borders, and it provides the strategic direction for regional land use policy for the period to 2032. The SESplan identifies a number of Strategic Development Areas (SDA), one of which is the Eastern Borders SDA, which includes Eyemouth. SESplan states that Eyemouth is the focus of the SDA in terms of jobs and service provision as there is spare infrastructure capacity. In addition, regeneration opportunities are also mentioned, as well as the fact that there are challenges to diversify the economy of the town.
4.5 SESplan also identifies a requirement for local authorities to support and promote town centres and to provide measures to protect town centres including setting out criteria to be addressed when assessing development proposals. Eyemouth is not specifically identified as a regional or strategic town centre but it can be classed as one of the town centres to be identified by Local Development Plans.
6
4. Policy Context
Consolidated Local Plan (2011)
4.6 A number of Local Plan policies are considered relevant, where these are considered to be of primary importance they are summarised below and listed in full in Appendix 2. In addition, Appendix 2 contains a matrix where other relevant Local Plan policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance documents are summarised.
G7 Infill Development
4.7 The purpose of the policy is to be generally supportive of infill development within the development boundary, thus allowing contributions to housing land supply and the re‐use of derelict buildings. The nature of infill development means that it is often unplanned and as a result policy criteria are listed to ensure there is careful assessment of proposed development.
4.8 The criteria state that proposed infill development should be in line with Local Plan policies on provision of open space, local biodiversity and traffic generation. In addition, in all cases, there should be no conflict with established land use; the character and amenity of the surrounding area; and the urban fabric of the surrounding area (scale, form, materials etc). In addition the level of development proposed should be sustained by the local infrastructure and should respect amenity of residents.
ED5 Town Centres
4.9 The policy aims to encourage an appropriate mix of town centre uses that maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. Outwith the ground floor level of prime retail frontages, a wide range of uses appropriate to a town centre will be supported. Proposals for shopping development and other appropriate development will generally be approved providing that the character, vitality, viability and mixed use nature of the town centre will be preserved. Such development could include food and drink uses (Class 3), offices (Class 2 & 4), leisure etc.
Proposed Local Development Plan (2013)
4.10 The Council has been preparing a new Local Development Plan which will detail the land use policies for the entire Scottish Borders area for the period 2014‐2018. The Proposed LDP has been approved by the Council and there is an emerging policy context which can be discussed, it is still subject to change due to the processes that have to be completed before formal adoption of the Proposed LDP. Formal adoption will likely take place in 2015 and the LDP will therefore influence the policy context of the Development Framework.
4.11 The LDP puts forward a number of key outcomes, one of which is number 4 ‘The Protection and enhancement of town centres’. In the Borders town centres are still important for shopping, tourism and other related facilities, but there has been a decline in footfall and this brings problems such as vacant retail units. The Council undertook a retail capacity study in 2011 and one of the findings was that Eyemouth had additional retail capacity.
7
4. Policy Context
4.12 The Proposed LDP also promotes opportunities for regeneration, mainly targeted at town centres, under a new Policy ED5: Regeneration. One of the places identified is the Eyemouth harbourside area. Development of the new Policy ED5 has resulted in a number of criteria which will guide future regeneration proposals at the harbourside area, these include:
a. where relevant, it does not conflict with the established land use of the area; and b. it does not detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding area; and c. the individual and cumulative effects of the development can be sustained by the social and economic infrastructure and it does not lead to over‐development or ‘town and village cramming’; and d. It respects the scale, form, design, materials and density in context of its surroundings; and e. adequate access and servicing can be achieved, particularly taking account of water and drainage and schools capacity; and f. it does not result in any significant loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy to adjoining properties as a result of overshadowing or overlooking.
5. Constraints at the harbourside area
Physical/Built Environment Constraints
5.1 The harbourside area is located where there are a number of possible constraints and these are shown on Figure 2. For flood risk maps please visit http://www.sepa.org.uk/flooding/flood_maps.aspx or make contact with the Council’s Flood Risk and Coastal Management Team (contact details are provided at p23 of the document)
Flood Risk
5.2 The new SEPA Indicative Flood Hazard Maps show the Harbourside area to be at risk of flooding from both fluvial and coastal sources with flooding extending into the yard areas behind the Harbour Road properties in the Harbourside area. In addition there is evidence of flooding from sewers on Church Street, Meeks Yard and Harbour Road. An Eyemouth Wave Overtopping and Flood Study has been carried out by the Council in 2012‐ 2013 which saw the development of more accurate flooding mapping for the area, this showed a greater extent of flooding in the Harbourside Area from Coastal and Fluval sources but not combined.
5.3 Currently the Council deploys flood barriers at the Harbour slipway to help mitigate both fluvial and coastal flooding but this is not suitable for larger scale flood events and will need to be addressed in the long term.
5.4 Local Plan policy G4 states that certain uses will generally not be acceptable on land where the flood risk is greater than 0.5% annual flooding probability or 1 in 200 year flood risk. These include: development comprising essential civil infrastructure including schools, emergency services and telecommunications.
5.5 It is also stated in policy G4 that developers would require to put forward a competent flood risk assessment and/ or drainage assessment in support of any application; and also a report on the measures that are proposed to prevent and minimise the flood risk.
8 Church Street, Burgh Chambers ± Church Street, Former Eyemouth Parish Church
9 Church Street
11 Church Street, Chester House
13 Church Street
Church Street, Evangelical Union Congregational Church
28, 29, 30 Harbour Road
28, 29, 30 Old Harbour Road
28, 29, 30 Harbour Road
31 - 33 Harbour Road
34 Harbour Road
36 Church Street
Figure 2 Constraints
Harbourside boundary
Potential contaminated land
Conservation Area
! Listed Buildings
Archaeology Contours Type 5m This map has been prepared by Forward Planning, E&I. For further details contact: [email protected] Harbour Road, Eyemouth Boat Building Co and Marine Radio 01835 825508 Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. 012.5 255075100 © Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Meters Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023423.
5. Constraints at the harbourside area
Conservation Area
5.6 The harbourside area is integral to the Eyemouth Conservation Area: the designation protects many of the distinctive townscape characteristics that are only found within a Scottish coastal town such as Eyemouth; the traditional layout of Harbour Road, with the three and a half storey buildings, is seen as important to this. However, the harbour itself is essential to the character of the place, as it represents the coastal heritage of the town.
5.7 Proposed regeneration of the harbourside area brings significant potential to enhance the Conservation Area by being sympathetic to the areas coastal heritage. One obvious measure would be the restoration of the frontage of Harbour Road so that it better represents the former relationship with the waterfront. The consideration of the Listed Buildings will also be important to bring out the coastal heritage, particularly the old east‐west urban grain that was associated with merchant houses on Church Street and their burgage plots extending behind. Some variety on this theme, taking into account other considerations, could bring a successful proposal for the area. In addition consideration of the building features that are evident in Eyemouth properties in any proposal would help to create a distinctive place but also be sympathetic to the heritage of Eyemouth.
Listed Buildings
5.8 There are 6 Listed Buildings on the site, 1 A‐Listed Building and 5 B‐Listed Buildings. Local Plan policy essentially protects Listed Buildings from works that would spoil their character, while also supporting development proposals that protect, maintain and enhance active use and conservation of the buildings.
5.9 It is considered that as part of any redevelopment of the site the character of the harbourside area would consider the Listed Buildings and their settings as integral to any proposal. This is because the Listed Buildings reflect the history of the harbourside area and they provide architectural detail which provides variety and interest in the area. The sum of their contribution to the character is that they enhance the sense of identity and place that the harbourside area has and this should be exploited in any redevelopment.
Archaeology
5.10 Council records show that there is the possibility of archaeological interest on the site. As a result the Council’s Archaeologist should be advised of any regeneration proposals at an early stage so that opinion can be given on any investigation work that may be required.
Contaminated Land
5.11 Contamination is suspected at two locations in the harbourside area. Under Local Plan policy G2 Contaminated Land, it is stated that the developer will be required to carry out any necessary site assessments to identify whether there is any actual or possible significant risk to human health or safety, or to the environment. In addition they will also need to consult with relevant agencies in particular SEPA and SNH, and take remedial action to ensure the site is made suitable for any new use.
10
5. Constraints at the harbourside area
Current usage constraints
5.12 The current industrial uses at the harbourside provide a significant constraint on the usage of the harbourside area for other purposes and for their efficient operation. The main issues are that:
• heavy goods vehicles currently require to load and unload on Harbour Road. There is a road safety issue as a result because pedestrians cannot safely walk through the area. In addition the vehicles cause congestion which compounds the road safety issue, and detracts from the environment in the area;
• there is a lack of floor space and this results in operations spilling out onto Harbour Road. Again this leads to the issues discussed above, however it also hampers other businesses in the area, which become hemmed in; and
• the use of the space available at Harbour Road is not efficient. In some instances the current industrial uses are operating in areas which are no longer fit for the purpose of their operations. In addition to this there is a significant amount of ‘internal’ space within the yards that is not used, or is used inefficiently. From an urban design perspective the combination of these factors prevents the area from being ‘successful’, as the area is not safe or pleasant, which adversely affects the sense of welcome; movement is difficult; and the area is not adaptable to different types of uses or tenure.
5.13 The harbour is obviously a traditional usage for the area and it will be essential in any regeneration proposal to ensure usage of the water and continuation of some harbour operations because they are integral to the sense of place; provide distinctiveness to the area; and encourage social interaction which provides vitality.
5.14 An effective balance in any redevelopment proposal would be the achievement of a more ’successful’ Harbour Road, which is easier for pedestrians to move around; is more adaptable in terms of the tenures and usages that are present; and which creates an active frontage maintaining the identity associated with the harbour functions and the distinctiveness and vitality this brings.
Interviews with existing businesses
5.15 The Eyemouth Harbourside Study (Appendix 1, p7‐11) conducts interviews with the respective business owners at the harbourside with the aim of assessing their perspective on the operation of their respective businesses.
5.16 It appears that the fish processing companies would benefit from relocation to Gunsgreenhill (an area allocated for employment land to the south‐east) from the harbourside area, as this would allow for greater efficiency and greater possibility for expansion. In addition benefits may come from locating similar business types, in better facilities, in the same area.
5.17 There would be significant work to be achieved between the various affected parties to achieve the relocation necessary for redevelopment of the harbourside area to occur. Including the possibility of businesses applying for European Union Regional Funding grants. However the interviews do show that there is openness towards relocation as it would improve business operations.
5.18 The interviews also show that there are successful examples of diverse businesses in the harbourside area, despite the constraints that have been discussed, and this shows the potential that could be exploited in a regeneration proposal.
11
6. Urban Design Principles
6.1 The aim of a regeneration proposal would be to create a place which can help develop sustainable economic growth, be welcoming and pleasant for visitors and residents alike, and restore the sense of identity that the harbourside area of Eyemouth used to have. Figure 3, below, is taken from the Eyemouth Harbourside Study and shows the area as it is today.
Figure 3: Aerial shot of the harbourside area (courtesy of Lawson Wood: www.lawsonwood.com)
6.2 The dominance of the industrial units is clear but the older buildings including the listed buildings, can be seen on Church Street (towards the top of the photo) and at Harbour Road (at the water). There is an east‐west orientation of the buildings which is reflective of the historical development of the area. In addition, the dominance of the car park to the left of the photo is shown, as is the poor quality of building to the right‐hand bottom corner of the photo. These areas present poor gateways to the site as they are not welcoming and are not reflective of the identity of the site. Finally the lack of an active frontage on Harbour Road is shown, with lorries evident, breaking up the movement through the site and not utilising the potential for a safe and pleasant place.
6.3 The Harbourside Study also utilises a useful drawing which shows the harbourside area stripped of the industrial units (shown at Figure 4). It is considered this drawing can be used as a basis to consider the urban design principles that could be employed on site to achieve the aim for regeneration of the site.
12
6. Urban Design Principles
Auld Kirk & Kirk Square
Manse Road
Library Chester House, A-Listed
19C houses Oblo Bistro on Church Street
BHA Flats
EISCA World of Boats – old 1960’s FMA offices fish market with Chandlery
19C range of buildings SBC car park d oa R ur bo ar Dilapidated H 19C Granary
Figure 4: Harbourside area with no industrial units (as modified from Harbourside Study p5)
6.4 The Harbourside Study states that the removal of the industrial units and the car park would amount to 6940m2. The authors also state that the more modern buildings, such as the buildings on Manse Road, at the corner opposite the EISCA World of Boats, have been retained.
A Policy Statement for Scotland‐ designing places
6.5 This advice document is produced by the Scottish Government and it states the 6 key themes which are seen as central to achieving what is described as a ‘successful’ place. These 6 themes are:
⇒ Sense of identity
⇒ Create safe and pleasant places
⇒ Create easier movement
⇒ Create a sense of welcome
⇒ Opportunities to make a place adaptable
⇒ Opportunities for making good use of resources
13
6. Urban Design Principles
A Policy Statement for Scotland– designing streets
6.6 The designing streets document works around the same 6 key themes that are stated to contribute to a successful place. However the document provides more detailed advice on undertaking the design process for a given area, in particular a hierarchy is set out which prioritises which aspects of the design process should be looked at as the process progresses, this is described further below:
1 Street Structure 2 Street Layout 3 Street Detail
⇒ Pedestrians and cyclists ⇒ Achieving appropriate traffic speed ⇒ Drainage ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ Connections to wider networks Junction types and arrangements Utilities ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ Connections within a place Streets for people Planting ⇒ Block structure ⇒ Integrating parking ⇒ Materials ⇒ Walkable neighbourhoods ⇒ Emergency and service vehicles ⇒ Reducing clutter ⇒ Public transport ⇒ Context and character ⇒ Orientation
6.7 Evidently not all of these aspects apply to every site, however for the ones that do apply the document provides useful guidance as to urban design principles that can be introduced to help create a better street. It is also the case that some of these topics interrelate, for example discussion on ‘street structure’ issues must also consider ‘street layout’ issues.
6.8 In addition to these documents the Council’s own ‘Placemaking and Design SPG’ which focuses on achieving good design in the Borders has also been used. This document is particularly useful when considering the local context and the scale of redevelopment that is to be considered here.
6.9 In looking at these documents it has been possible to pull out key urban design principles that should be applied to the harbourside area, the culmination of this process is that an update to the drawing at Figure 4 is shown (Figure 5) which shows these principles ‘on the ground’.
14
6. Urban Design Principles
Critical elements of the design of streets at the harbourside area
Context and character
6.10 The most critical element of the harbourside area is the relationship of any buildings at the harbour to the water. It is this relationship that the area has developed around and which now requires re‐thinking to meet the aim of regeneration of the site. One aspect of the relationship to enhance is the experience residents and visitors have when they visit the area, this could be achieved by ensuring views out to the water and across the harbour. An active frontage on Harbour Road facing the waterfront is critical to the regeneration of the harbourside, therefore consideration must be taken of the relocation of existing features as well as the traffic movement that occurs on the road, to encourage an active frontage, which has a successful relationship with the waterfront i.e. through the encouragement of leisure craft.
6.11 In addition buildings that would fill the cleared space would have to consider appearance to the context of the older buildings existing on site, and elsewhere in the Conservation Area. For example buildings that were either two storey or two and a half storey, with pitched slate or pantile roofs, and symmetrical fenestration, with use of rybats would reflect what is already evident in Eyemouth. The orientation of buildings would also be important, respect of the original grain of the site (east‐west) is likely to be successful and it may be that gable‐ended buildings are also considered, where this is the case window features to help provide an active frontage should be considered. Building materials would also need to be examined carefully, for example sandstone or dressed stonework. Appropriate new or redeveloped buildings, that follow the traditional urban grain would help enhance the relationship of the harbourside to the water
Permeability
6.12 A part of the key aim of redevelopment is to make the area more welcoming, safe and adaptable for visitors and residents alike. Critical to achieving this is prioritising the needs of pedestrians. It is considered that the town centre of Eyemouth is already largely ‘walkable’ as the area is relatively flat, and there are narrow streets or wynds which are dominated by pedestrian use, for example at Queen Street and St Ella’s Court.
6.13 In addition it is considered critical to achieve good permeability throughout any cleared site. In doing this the connections within the harbourside area must be considered but also the connections to the rest of the town, particularly the rest of the town centre and the Gunsgreenhill area. Part of the distinctiveness of Eyemouth is the use of pends and wynds for pedestrian access, and there are existing examples within the harbourside area where pends are used. It is considered that there is potential for minor access through these but also for more major access through the ‘gateway’ developments at the southern and north‐eastern ends of the area. Another consideration is the use of ‘hidden’ street lines and wynds, both of which are evident elsewhere in Eyemouth, it may be that routes through the site could employ this measure with a more conventional route running south‐north i.e. from the former car park to Manse Road.
Accessibility
6.14 Although pedestrians should take priority it is realistic, and within the aims of the redevelopment, to look at car access. It will be necessary for cars to access parking spaces, and for service deliveries and emergency vehicles to be able to reach the harbourside area.
15
6. Urban Design Principles
6.15 Without adding any other considerations, Harbour Road is around 17m from the building edges to the water, although in places this distance is slightly more or less. Designing Streets advises that a desirable size for perpendicular parking spaces is 2.5m wide and 5m long; a two‐way carriageway would be around 5m in width, which would allow two service vehicles to pass each other. As a result it is judged that when these measurements are considered and buffer distances are also added then the width required could be 11m, leaving 6 meters for other uses.
6.16 A balance must be struck between the vehicular access needs and urban design principles mentioned under ‘Context and character’, and ‘Permeability’. A shared surface approach to the harbourside area, and Harbour Road in particular, would help achieve this. The priority of vehicular traffic could be lessened with greater consideration given to the needs of pedestrians, and on improving the overall environment of the harbourside area . Key to achieving this would be to reduce vehicle speeds on Harbour Road through measures such as– reducing the carriageway width in places; a mix of road surfaces or alternative surface to asphalt; a mixture of perpendicular or parallel parking spaces; use of physical features; and the use of T junctions (to access the interior of the harbourside area). By introducing these measures there would also be a related improvement in the urban environment, through greater variety in the streetscape and improvements to the urban fabric, which have a complimentary function in speed reduction.
6.17 Within the interior of the harbourside area there is potential to have a continuation of the shared surface idea throughout any layout that is decided. This would be in line with areas of the town centre, to the north of the harbourside, where varying sight lines and staggering junctions are already evident.
6.18 Under ‘Block Structure’ it is stated that it would be desirable to remove the Council car park. However it would not be within the aims of the regeneration to leave a parking deficit and so it is hoped that introducing parking throughout the redeveloped harbourside area would help to meet the residual shortfall. In addition to this car‐parking at Gunsgreenhill, near the jetty, could also be used, perhaps as a alternative to pay and display, or as a overflow site. Relocation of some businesses and subsequent site clearing will leave space that can be used for parking, this could be for visitors, for example interspersed along Harbour Road, and/or for residents, in courtyards or on street within any development in the harbourside interior. It is important to note that the parking provided would need to be integral to the shared surface approach, due to its use in altering the streetscape which helps to reduce vehicle speeds.
Block Structure
6.19 The other critical element of the ‘street structure’ is the block structure, essentially what buildings should be where and why. The aims of redevelopment are to help achieve sustainable economic growth and make the area more welcoming for visitors and residents. It is therefore considered that at the ‘gateway’ areas of the southern part of the site, nearest Victoria Road, and the south‐eastern corner, nearest the rest of the town centre, could be developed to incorporate ‘flagship’ buildings or attractions. It may be that the necessity of this is that these parts of the urban block differ from the traditional parts of Eyemouth town centre, however any departure will still need to be consider the Conservation Area.
6.20 For other parts of the block structure, it is considered that a continuation of the frontage at Harbour Road would be advantageous. One reason for this is that it is more in line with the traditional character of the area. Another reason is that it will help achieve an active frontage, with the potential for businesses to be located in new buildings. The combination of an extended frontage and the shared surface approach discussed under ‘Accessibility’ would allow for greater variety in the street scene and would increase footfall and interaction.
16
6. Urban Design Principles
6.21 There is also the issue of the space behind the frontages of Harbour Road, considering the likely development of greater permeability, it is thought continuation of the building lines associated with the existing 19th century buildings may be appropriate. One reason for this is that it would be in keeping with the historic east‐west grain of the site, however there are other benefits which include the fact that straight lines are stated to maximise connections and there is a good degree of overlook of the public space between buildings. On the other hand more irregular or curved building lines would add variety to the site, this would also be in line with other parts of the Eyemouth town centre.
Open Space/planting
6.22 Consideration could be made for further open space within the site; Eyemouth has examples of green space built into the urban fabric, for example at the enclosed garden, on Manse Road, and along the High Street, at the old Burial Ground and behind the War Memorial. It may be that further provision on the site could be appropriate, perhaps to open up the east frontage of Chester House. In addition tree planting can help to provide a more welcoming sense of place but also to reduce traffic speed and frame parking areas as part of the shared surface scheme.
6.23 The drawing at Figure 5 therefore shows the critical urban design principles at the harbourside area, which are judged to be:
• consideration of the relationship between the harbourside and the water, as well as the surrounding town centre and Gunsgreenhill;
• consideration of an active frontage on Harbour Road;
• extension of building lines and consideration of new buildings to fill future cleared space;
• consideration of ‘flagship’ buildings at gateway points of the site;
• increasing permeability through the site, and a shared surface scheme incorporating parking; and
• possible introduction of greenspace.
17
6. Urban Design Principles
for
for
to is
more to
storage frontage.
made building
the views be
There pontoons
extend provide
of active installed
of
museum the
to
frontage harbourside
Market
stimulate
and could to craft.
the to
the been more
Fish of
a
active
removal
number
further. the
A have leisure potential these activity variety from for
the
of
Potential part allows Consideration relocation allow extend
the
the
any space.
former
office,
are
in this
with centre
social
the
arts restore
gateway
to and to
at
House feature and town
proposals.
increase the
café considered associated
could critical
of
is be for buildings
accessible
and outs would
sympathetic Gunsgreen ‐ rest
Road
allow
The and highly should regeneration build lines
stars) Flagship
desirable,
would
Harbour
water; uses. be
yellow
building
on
the
the
footfall.
scheme
would by
with
and interior,
residential frontage
plots
surface the
(shown and
active
An areas relationship interaction shared Within retail burgage
and
access
points. improve shared
out
A
allow
access build would
also it
needs.
for
main but
the
allowing
speeds
pedestrian
importantly
show
Road, with
traffic Most
arrows
safely
by
car
reduce in a Harbour
black
services.
of work
spaces variety into help
for The shown
a
deficit
spaces
southern of
and
These should the tackled
would area,
scheme.
be
Figure 5: Urban Design features. the
parking environment lines.
spaces
access
Principles incorporated of provision
scheme surface could
removed
fabric be unattractive
is
purple overall
types parking
the
park If spaces through of throughout the could shared Vehicular to surface the 18 urban
6. Urban Design Principles
Consideration of uses for the Harbourside Area
6.24 With the retention of certain buildings and the incorporation of new buildings the potential uses must be considered for the redevelopment of the site. Again the aim for an area that promotes sustainable economic development, that is welcoming and adaptable for visitors and residents alike, and that restores the former identity of the Harbourside area, should be central to discussion.
6.25 As the site is within the town centre boundary a number of uses could be allowed such as‐ retail development (Class 1), food and drink (Class 3), offices (Class 2 and 4), commercial leisure and entertainment, residential (particularly flats above ground floor retail level), health care, education and tourism.
6.26 A solution would be to implement an appropriate mixed use scheme that combined complimentary uses to help achieve the redevelopment aim. The bullet points below pick out a number of usage principles that could help guide the development of an appropriate mixed use scheme:
• at the ‘gateway’ parts of the site there could be more freedom in terms of the density and scale of the buildings, they could be designed to attract footfall from people entering Eyemouth but also from the rest of the town centre. As a result some form of commercial leisure, entertainment or tourism development would be appropriate. However other uses such as education, health or residential could also be appropriate, as these buildings also encourage social interaction as people are leaving and entering regularly;
• an active frontage at Harbour Road is seen as important to the success of the regeneration of the site. As a result it is considered that, alongside the existing businesses like the Chandlery, further ground floor retail would be appropriate, but that also food and retail and leisure and entertainment would be appropriate. Essentially the idea behind this would be to increase the footfall to the area, ensure that it was busy throughout the day, and was an area where social interaction occurred. A key business like a seafood restaurant could anchor the frontage at Harbour Road;
• the Harbourside Study mentions that the increase in leisure vessels would be of particular benefit to the harbour area and Eyemouth as a whole. Indeed it is now the case that additional pontoons have been installed. As a result some sort of local‐level food retail could be appropriate in this area. It is considered this could be located on Harbour Road or potentially within the area, so as to draw people in to shop. Car parking would have to be carefully considered with regards this type of provision;
• in the interior of the site, it may be appropriate to designate more ‘local’ uses. Housing would be a main consideration, there is already Berwickshire Housing Association flats on Church Street and there would be potential for further affordable housing of some form of tenure through the site. There would be potential for residential only buildings, particularly near any areas of open space, but also for residential use to be located above ground floor units. The use of residential in the interior of the site would also provide a high degree of ‘overlooking’ which would increase the security of the site, particularly for parking areas and any businesses/offices; and
• also within the interior, consideration of ground floor uses would be important to a mixed use scheme. Diverse ground floor units bring a greater interest to the streetscape and would be appropriate for the town centre nature of the site, Eyemouth High Street is a good example of this. Encouragement of retail units, food and drink, tourism (including small scale accommodation) could all be encouraged as they would increase the footfall and bring interest to the streetscape. It is also considered that office provision may be appropriate, particularly for businesses associated with the harbour. This kind of mix of uses can be seen elsewhere in Eyemouth town centre, for example at Queen Street and St Ella’s Place.
19
6. Urban Design Principles
6.27 In conclusion any redevelopment proposal should take advantage of the harbourside and town centre location and put forward a mixed use scheme that helps meet the aim of sustainable economic development, restores the identity of the harbourside and provides an attractive, adaptable place for residents and visitors. To achieve this a range of uses could be appropriate, and those mentioned previously are not exhaustive. It is considered that to achieve the urban design principles, and create a successful place, certain uses in certain locations, as described, will help to achieve the overall aim.
7. Existing stakeholder opinion
7.1 The Harbourside Study puts forward a ‘vision’ sketch (Figure 6 p22), which is the architect’s imagined complete regeneration of the harbourside area based on urban design principles that they explore throughout their study. Subsequent to this they took the ‘vision’ sketch to a consultation event organised for the local community and stakeholders to offer their opinion.
7.2 It is considered that these opinions are valuable to this Development Framework because community buy in to the regeneration aim is critical. The findings from the Harbourside Study’s consultation are summarised in bullet point form below:
• there is significant support for the principle of focussing on the harbourside block and harbour as a means of attracting visitors and reinventing the place;
• consultees recognised that the current operations in Harbour Road hindered the diversification of the harbour towards leisure uses and the future development of the town itself;
• consultees welcomed the idea of restoring the town’s relationship with the harbour; a sense of nostalgia was evident amongst the older generation who remembered the open quayside, and the younger generation saw the potential for the town and for visitor trade; and
• there was a desire for any work to be authentically ‘Eyemouth’ such as the development of Gunsgreen House and the Eyemouth Seafood Festival. The ‘unique selling point’ of the harbour should be exploited including its working nature but also achieving synergy with the Harbour Trust’s development plans; and
• there should be action on the current parking situation.
7.3 It is important to note that this Development Framework is at a ‘higher level’ to the Harbourside Study and the ‘vision’ sketch in particular, because the same level of detail is not put forward. However it is important to note that the principle of attracting visitors and reinventing the harbourside block is supported; that consideration is made of the current commercial operations; and that the relationship of the harbour to the harbourside area being restored is seen as critical to the success of future regeneration.
20
7. Existing stakeholder opinion
Figure 6: ‘Vision Sketch’
21
8. Conclusions 8.1 The current seafood processing businesses at the harbourside area are critical to the economy of Eyemouth however there is an argument that they are now not in the most appropriate location for their operations. A win‐win scenario would be relocation of these businesses to surrounds where they could operate better and to allow the regeneration of the harbourside area to create a place which can ensure sustainable economic growth, be welcoming and pleasant for visitors and residents, and restore the sense of identity that the harbourside area of Eyemouth used to have.
8.2 A number of urban design principles have been highlighted to show that regeneration of the harbourside area, through a coherent mixed use scheme, could result in a place where people are able to visit, live, pass through and interact in. This could be achieved through creation of an active frontage on Harbour Road; development of ‘flagship’ buildings at the southern and north‐eastern sides of the area; more ‘local’ interior uses including a mix of housing, retail, food and drink, and office uses; and the creation of a pleasant environment for movement through a shared surface scheme.
8.3 Investigation of constraints on the site will be necessary, particularly potential flood risk, and adherence to the Conservation Area designation. However an innovative, coherent proposal should be able to tackle these factors and also deliver high quality design.
8.4 The Development Framework is only one dynamic in the synergy that is needed to regenerate the harbourside area; there are funding, land ownership and assembly, and other economic factors that need to be looked at. It is therefore the case that action will be in the long term. However, the Development Framework is a constructive step forward and offers prospective developers a clear, yet flexible, platform from which to develop a future regeneration proposal. 9. Next Steps 9.1 The consultation period will run for 12 weeks and following this date the document will either be approved as Supplementary Planning Guidance or it will go back to Council for approval to material changes that have been carried out. Material changes would result from the public consultation and the Council would look to incorporate changes that arise from constructive comment
9.2 Once the document is approved it will be able to be used to help guide any funding applications or to act as a material consideration in the determination on any planning applications in the area.
9.3 There is potential for the document to be reviewed in line with the future development of the Local Development Plan, and therefore if the situation ‘on the ground’ changes the document could be revisited.
22
Key Contacts
Built and Natural Heritage
• Andy Millar, Built and Natural Heritage Manager Tel: 01835 825062 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Mark Douglas, Principal Officer Built Heritage & Biodiversity Tel: 01835 826514 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Carol Cooke, Urban Designer Tel: 01835 825060 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Dr Christopher Bowles, Archaeologist Tel: 01835 826662 E‐Mail: [email protected]
Corporate Resources • Neil Hastie, Estates Manager Tel: 01835 825167 E‐mail: [email protected]
Economic Development
• Bryan McGrath, Head of Economic Development Tel: 01835 826525 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Samantha Smith, Economic Development Manager Tel: 01835 826539 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Alister McDonald, Principal Officer (Employment Infrastructure) Tel: 01835 824000 ext 5412 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Hugh Williams, European Fisheries Fund Facilitator Tel: 01835 826773 E‐mail: [email protected]
Environment & Infrastructure
• David Green, Flood Protection Programme Manager Tel: 01835 825180 E‐mail: [email protected]
• John Hayward, Applications Manager Tel: 01835 825068 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Martin Wanless, Forward Planning Manager Tel: 01835825063 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Philip Graham, Planning Officer (Forward Planning) Tel: 01835825508 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Lucy Hoad, Assistant Planning Officer (Development Management) Tel: 01835 825060 E‐mail: [email protected]
• Gareth Stewart, Contaminated Land Officer (Environmental Health) Tel: 01896 661384 E‐mail: [email protected]
23
Alternative Format/Language
You can get this document on tape, in large print, and various other formats by contacting us at the address below. In addition, contact the address below for information on language translations, additional copies, or to arrange for an officer to meet with you to explain any areas of the publication that you would like clarified.
其他格式／外文譯本 這份資料冊另備有錄音帶、大字體版本以及多種其他格式。你可以透過以下地 址與我們聯絡，索取不同版本。此外，你也可以聯絡以下地址索取本資料的中 文和其他外文譯本或索取更多拷貝。亦可要求我們做出安排，由我們的工作人 員當面為你解釋你對這份出版物中的不明確之處。
[Alternatywny format/język] Aby uzyskać kopię niniejszego dokumentu w formacie audio, dużą czcionką, oraz innych formatach prosimy o kontakt na poniższy adres. Uzykać tam można również informacje o tłumaczeniach na języki obce, otrzymaniu dodatkowych kopii oraz zaaranżowaniu spotkania z urzędnikiem, który wyjaśni wątpliwości i zapytania związane z treścią niniejszej publikacji.
Parágrafo de formato/língua alternativos Pode obter este documento em cassete audio, impressão aumentada e vários outros formatos contactando a morada indicada em baixo. Pode ainda contactar a morada indicada em baixo para obter informações so- bre traduções noutras línguas, cópias adicionais ou para solicitar uma reunião com um funcionário para lhe explicar quaisquer áreas desta publicação que deseje ver esclarecidas.
Параграф об альтернативном формате/языковой версии Чтобы получить данный документ в записи на пленке, в крупношрифтовой распечатке и в других различных форматах, вы можете обратиться к нам по приведенному ниже адресу. Кроме того, по данному адресу можно обращаться за информацией о переводе на различные языки, получении дополнительных копий а также с тем, чтобы организовать встречу с сотрудником, который сможет редставить объяснения по тем разделам публикации, которые вам хотелось бы прояснить.
Contact: Forward Planning Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA. Telephone: 0300 100 1800. E-mail: [email protected]
24 Appendix 2: Relevant Consolidated Local Plan Policies
Primary Policies for consideration
G7 Infill Development
Within Development Boundaries, as shown on Proposals Maps, development on non‐allocated, infill or windfall, sites, including the re‐use of buildings, will be approved if:
1. in the case of a gap site, it can be justified under Policies BE6 (Protection of Open Space), Policy NE3 (Local Biodiversity) and Policy Inf11 (Developments that Generate Travel Demand); 2. in the case of employment land the proposed new use can be justified under Policy ED1 to prevent the loss of employment land with prospects of future use; 3. in the case of garden ground or backland sites, it can be justified under Policy H2 to safeguard the amenity of residential areas;
In all cases, the following criteria will apply to proposed infill development:
i. where relevant, it does not conflict with the established land use of the area; and ii. it does not detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding area; and iii. the individual and cumulative effects of the development can be sustained by the social and economic infrastructure and it does not lead to over‐development or ‘town and village cramming’; and iv. it respects the scale, form, design, materials and density of its surroundings; and v. adequate access and servicing can be achieved, particularly taking account of water and drainage and schools capacity; and vi. it does not result in any significant loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy to adjoining properties as a result of overshadowing or overlooking.
ED5 Town Centres Outwith the ground floor level of defined Prime Retail Frontages, the Council will support a wide range of uses appropriate to a town centre. Proposals for shopping development and other appropriate town centre development will generally be approved within defined town centres of the larger settlements provided that the character, vitality, viability and mixed use nature of the town centre will be maintained and enhanced. Appropriate development other than Class 1 shop uses could include:
1. food and drink uses (Class 3 of the Use Classes Order) 2. offices (Classes 2 and 4 of the Use Classes Order) 3. commercial leisure and entertainment (including cinemas and theatres) 4. residential, particularly flats above ground floor retail level 5. health care 6. education 7. tourism‐related uses.
Any proposed developments which would create an unacceptable adverse impact on the town centre will be refused.
Other relevant policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance
Policy Description G1 Quality Standards for New Ensures all new developments are of a high quality and Development respect the environment in which it is contained G4 Flooding Aims to direct development to areas free from significant flood risk G5 Developer Contributions Aims to ensure that the burden of additional infrastructure and/or services that are related to the development is absorbed by the landowner and developer as opposed to the Council or other public service providers BE1 Listed Buildings Protects Listed Buildings from works that could spoil their character. BE2 Archaeological Sites & Ancient Aim is to give strong protection to archaeological sites from Monuments any damaging development BE4 Conservation Areas Aim is to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. NE5 Development Affecting the Water Aimed to ensure development does not adversely Environment compromise the water environment or deteriorate the ecological or landscape status NE6 River Engineering Works Aim is to provide watercourses with adequate protection against inappropriate or insensitive river engineering works EP4 Coastline Aimed at ensuring that the coastline, in particular the ‘undeveloped coast’ outwith the Eyemouth settlement boundary is protected from inappropriate development H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Aim of the policy is to protect the amenity of both existing established housing areas and proposed new housing developments Inf2 Protection of Access Routes Aim is to protect all existing access routes in accordance with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 & the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 Inf3 Road Adoption Standards Aim is to ensure that new road, footpath & cycleway infrastructure is constructed to the Council’s adopted standards Inf4 Parking Standards Designed to ensure that development proposals incorporate adequate provision for car and cycle parking Supplementary Planning Guidance Summary Affordable Housing Provides more guidance on the Council’s Affordable Housing policy Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy Sets the context for addressing land contamination issues in the Borders Designing Out Crime in the Scottish Guidance sets out how opportunities for crime & antisocial Borders behaviour may be reduced through the planning process Developer Contributions SPG Provides guidance to landowners, developers & other organisations involved in the planning process as to when and where developer contributions will be required Placemaking and Design Intended as a point of reference and basis for planning, design and communication of new development proposals. Privacy & Sunlight Guide Outlines the general principles that apply where sunlight, daylight and privacy may be affected from planning applications
Appendix B: Consultation Responses on Harbour Road, Eyemouth Development Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance
Respondent Summary of Response Council Response Flood Risk & The Flood Risk team sent a revised response as a part of the 12 week The Development Framework should update the wording Coastal consultation period. This response updated the flood risk position at the on flood risk to incorporate the suggested wording within Management harbourside, with additional information provided on the new SEPA indicative the Flood Risk team response. The new SEPA data Team (SBC) flood risk maps; an overtopping and flood risk study undertaken by cannot be used by the Council and the existing data is consultants on behalf of the Council; the 1948 flood and the 2013 December now not the most up to date. As a result a link to the new storm surge; the investigation into drainage/sewerage currently being flood risk maps has been added to the text and Figure 1 undertaken by the Council in response to surface water flooding; and ‘Constraints’ has been revised to exclude flood risk. proposed amendments to the wording at paragraph 5.2 of the Development Framework which deals with flooding. Ms Hilary States that when walking along Harbour Road would like to experience a The Development Framework and the associated Graham working harbour as it is today. Believes that if this is removed to a different background study both mention that the continuation of location then Eyemouth will lose a tourist attraction that it cannot replace due some form of traditional harbour working would be to other competing areas. important because of the attraction this brings to visitors and the contribution it makes to the identity of Harbour Believes attempts to emulate Tobermory would be misplaced because that Road, and to an active frontage. However, there is an town has lost its character and any sense of rooted community economic argument which is that the fish processing companies would be more successful if they were to States that if the fisherman need new facilities then so be it but if it is simply relocate and that in turn the potential of the harbourside an exercise to tidy the harbourside then it is a mistake. Believe that visitors could be better realised with development of a coherent should be able to see Eyemouth for what it is, friendly, unpretentious and mixed use scheme. hard-working It is certainly not the case that Tobermory should be ‘emulated’ but the background study is right to point out that the place expresses authenticity and is recognisable. The development framework and background study are both clear that the identity of both Eyemouth and the harbour side location, not Tobermory, should be expressed in redevelopment. The purpose of the Development Framework is not to be prescriptive but instead to guide redevelopment by exploring urban design principles, constraints, local context and existing community opinion, to present what could be achieved in the longer term future. Mr Craig States that he is the owner of the A-listed Chester House and that he The development framework states that if the Maltman believes that without parking provision for future owners of the property that Harbourside buildings were to be cleared and a mixed there would be concern for the future well being of the historic and important use scheme was proposed then accessibility for both property. States that he would like his points considered in future plans. parking and walking would be important. In addition it is also mentioned that the eastern frontage of Chester House could be opened up, perhaps with greenspace, to allow people to better enjoy the building. However, the precise details of increased parking provision or the opening up of the building would be decided through design of a future masterplan or planning application; it would be hoped that the community would be actively involved in the development of such a scheme SEPA Consider that further information is required to fully address flood risk issues The Council’s Flood Risk & Coastal Management Team in the area. In summary their comments relate to were involved in the preparation of the document, however the 2013 flood event occurred after the - a recommendation to contact the Flood Officer in SBC to gather document had gone to Committee. The Flood Risk team further information on the historic flooding in the area in 1948 & 2013 sent a revised response as a part of the 12 week - State that they would be unlikely to support a change of use to consultation period. This response updated the flood risk dwellings at risk of flooding & would recommend consideration is position at the harbourside, with additional information given to egress/access from buildings provided on the new SEPA indicative flood risk maps; an - Recommend that any applicant contact the Flood Prevention overtopping and flood risk study undertaken by Authority for further advice consultants on behalf of the Council; the 1948 flood and - Would welcome further consultation during the planning process once the 2013 December storm surge; the investigation into a draft site plan has been produced and an FRA published to inform drainage/sewerage currently being undertaken by the design layout Council in response to surface water flooding; and proposed amendments to the wording at paragraph 5.2 of the Development Framework which deals with flooding.
Any future masterplan/application will need to demonstrate that proposed usages will not be at risk of flooding and the need for a FRA has been included within the Development Framework within the discussion of flood risk. SNH State that their focus should be on designated sites. The Berwickshire and Comments on the protection of the SAC designated site North Northumberland Coast SAC is 0.5km from the site; the Local noted. Development Plan HRA concludes that for redevelopment sites at Eyemouth a likely significant effect (LSE) is unlikely. State that they believe the HRA is relevant to this current consultation as similar principles apply.
Advice is that subject to policies EP1, EP14 and EP15 of the Proposed Plan and detail of the settlement profile, LSE that may arise at this site could be avoided. Should proposed uses change SNH would be happy to update this advice
The Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area (SLA) extends into the Comments on the visual relationship between the site harbour area. SNH state that the management recommendations for the SLA and the other side of the harbour noted, as well as the intend to protect the wild nature of the marine edge and that this should potential to restore the relationship with the water and influence what may be done at Harbour Road, including the relationship of the wider environment the site to the less developed east side of the harbour at Gunsgreen. State that to maintain this visual relationship, they support the intention that redevelopment here will promote ‘active frontages’ which restore the relationship with the water and the wider environment
ITEM 9
PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS
Briefing Note by Head of Planning & Regulatory Services
PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE
28th April 2014
1 PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this briefing note is to give details of Appeals and Local Reviews which have been received and determined during the last month.
2 APPEALS RECEIVED
2.1 Planning Applications
Nil
2.2 Enforcements
Nil
3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED
3.1 Planning Applications
3.1.1 Nil
3.2 Enforcements
Nil
4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING
4.1 There remained 3 appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 18th April 2014. This relates to sites at:
x Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk x Blythe Farm (Brunta Hill), Lauder x Allanshaws Farmhouse x (Shawpark), Galashiels
Planning & Building Standards Committee 28th April 2014 1 5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED
5.1 Reference: 12/01333/FUL Proposal: Erection of 2 No Wind Turbines 45m High to Tip, Access Track, Substation and Electrical Kiosks Site: Land South West of Whiterig Farm, Eyemouth Appellant: Tellus Energy Ltd
Reason for Refusal: It is considered that the proposal would be contrary to policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011, the Council’s SPG Renewable Energy (2007), Wind Energy (2011), and SPG Landscape and Visual Guidance on Single and Small Groups of Wind Turbines in Berwickshire (2013), in that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the open rolling landscape to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area, in particular when viewed from key sensitive receptors to include the A1, Habchester Fort, and residential properties in the surrounding area in particular the Moorpark group.
5.2 Reference: 13/01179/PPP Proposal: Erection of Dwellinghouse and Associated Access Site: Land North of Ninewells South Lodge, Chirnside Appellant: Mr & Mrs Taylor
Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposal for a dwellinghouse at this location is contrary to Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside, as contained within the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008, as the site is not located within or adjacent to an existing building group of three or more houses and there is no economic or agricultural justification for a dwellinghouse in this location or overriding benefits to the local community that would justify approval. 2. The proposal is contrary to Policy Inf4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that the access does not meet the Council’s roads standards in respect of visibility to the detriment of road safety.
5.3 Reference: 13/01382/FUL Proposal: Installation of roller shutter door Site: 2 Elm Court, Cavalry Park, Peebles Appellant: Mr Paul Sewell
Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would be contrary to Adopted Local Plan Policy G1 in that it would directly facilitate loading/unloading from a location that would have a detrimental impact upon the use of parking spaces at the site and upon the level and effective operation of parking provision within the surrounding area, namely through delivery vehicles either occupying or otherwise compromising the use of the parking spaces to the immediate east of Unit 2 and consequent displacement of parked vehicles.
5.4 Reference: 14/00026/PPP Proposal: Erection of Farmhouse and Detached Garage Site: Land South of Mossfennan House, Broughton Appellant: Mr and Mrs Sandy Welsh
Reason for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to Scottish Borders Local Plan Policy D2 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance on New Housing in the Borders Countryside in that the proposed site lies outwith any Planning & Building Standards Committee 28th April 2014 2 recognised building group and the economic and operational requirement for a new house has not been adequately demonstrated due to the presence of suitable alternative residential accommodation on the farm holding.
5.5 Reference: 14/00049/FUL Proposal: Change of Use from Class 1 (Travel Agent) to Class 2 (Estate Agent) Site: 43 The Square, Kelso Appellant: Mr James Hewit
Reason for Refusal: The proposed use would be contrary to Policy ED4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that it would result in the loss of a Class 1 retail unit and introduce a non-retail use into the Prime Retail Frontage at this location. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed change of use to Class 2 office would safeguard the vitality and vibrancy of Kelso town centre. Material considerations, including the vacancy of the unit and the current economic climate, have been accounted for but do not outweigh the conflict with Policy ED4.
6 REVIEWS DETERMINED
6.1 Reference: 13/00823/FUL Proposal: Erection of replacement blacksmith's workshop and associated dwellinghouse Site: Land North West and West of Greenlaw, Deanfoot Road, West Linton Appellant: Sandy Perfect Trading Ltd
Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy D2 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is an operational requirement for a dwelling house to ensure the efficient operation of the business and that there is no alternative accommodation or housing site available close by, in a building group or within the settlement boundary. 2. The proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policy D1 - Business, Tourism and Leisure Developments in the Countryside in that the applicants have failed to demonstrate the need for a replacement workshop at this location as no information has been provided on any potential brownfield or other sites within the settlement boundary nor that the existing building is incapable of re-use.
Method of Review: Review of Papers, Site Visit & Hearing
Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld
7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING
7.1 There remained no reviews previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 18th April 2014.
Approved by
Brian Frater Head of Planning & Regulatory Services
Planning & Building Standards Committee 28th April 2014 3 Signature ……………………………………
Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Wemyss Administrative Assistant 01835 824000 Ext 5409
Background Papers: None. Previous Minute Reference: None.
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Tel. No. 01835 825431 Fax No. 01835 825071 Email: [email protected]
Planning & Building Standards Committee 28th April 2014 4