(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning and Building Standards

Public Document Pack

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE MONDAY, 1ST MARCH, 2021

A MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE will be held on

MONDAY, 1ST MARCH, 2021 at 10 a.m. via Microsoft Teams. The meeting will be live streamed to the public and a link will be on the Council Website.

J. J. WILKINSON, Clerk to the Council,

22 February 2021

BUSINESS

1. Apologies for Absence.

2. Order of Business.

3. Declarations of Interest.

4. Minute. (Pages 3 - 10)

Minute of Meeting held on 1 February 2021 to be approved and signed by the Chairman. (Copy attached.) 5. Applications.

Consider the following application for planning permission:- (a) Land North East and North West of Farmhouse, Braidlie, Hawick - 18/01456/FUL (Pages 11 - 36) Variations of Conditions 1 and 14 of planning consent 13/00789/FUL for an extension to time to initiate development and to allow commencement prior to approval of an ATC Radar Mitigation Scheme. (Copy attached.)

(b) Land West Of Castleweary (Faw Side Community Wind Farm), Fawside, Hawick - 19/00756/S36 (Pages 37 - 76) Erection of 45 No wind turbines and associated access tracks, infrastructure including substation/control room buildings and compound, temporary construction compound, meteorological mast and temporary borrow pits. (Copy attached.)

(c) Land East of Knapdale, 54 Edinburgh Road, Peebles - 20/00753/FUL Erection of 22 dwellinghouses with new access road and associated work. (Copy attached.) (d) Land South of 10 Malestroit Court, Jedburgh - 20/01246/FUL (Pages 77 - 92) Erection of 2 No buildings comprising up to 10 No. units for industrial/commercial/storage uses and associated works. (Copy attached.) (e) Land South Of The Visitor Centre, Northfield Farm, St Abbs - 20/01282/FUL (Pages 93 - 104) Erection of 2 No glamping pod. (Copy attached.) 6. Appeals and Reviews. (Pages 105 - 110)

Consider report by Service Director Regulatory Services. (Copy attached.) 7. Any Other Items Previously Circulated.

8. Any Other Items which the Chairman Decides are Urgent.

NOTE Members are reminded that, if they have a pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in any item of business coming before the meeting, that interest should be declared prior to commencement of discussion on that item. Such declaration will be recorded in the Minute of the meeting.

Members are reminded that any decisions taken by the Planning and Building Standards Committee are quasi judicial in nature. Legislation , case law and the Councillors Code of Conduct require that Members :  Need to ensure a fair proper hearing  Must avoid any impression of bias in relation to the statutory decision making process  Must take no account of irrelevant matters  Must not prejudge an application,  Must not formulate a final view on an application until all available information is to hand and has been duly considered at the relevant meeting  Must avoid any occasion for suspicion and any appearance of improper conduct  Must not come with a pre prepared statement which already has a conclusion

Membership of Committee:- Councillors S. Mountford (Chair), N. Richards, A. Anderson, J. A. Fullarton, S. Hamilton, H. Laing, D. Moffat, C. Ramage and E. Small.

Please direct any enquiries to Fiona Henderson 01835 826502 [email protected] Agenda Item 4

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

MINUTE of Meeting of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held via Microsoft Teams on Monday, 1 February 2021 at 10.00 a.m.

Present:- Councillors S Mountford (Chairman), A. Anderson, S. Hamilton, H. Laing, D. Moffat, C. Ramage, N. Richards, E. Small. Apologies:- Councillor J. Fullarton. In Attendance:- Planning and Development Standards Manager, Lead Planning Officer (B. Fotheringham), Lead Roads Planning Officer, Solicitor (Fraser Rankine), Democratic Services Team Leader, Democratic Services Officer (F. Henderson).

1. MINUTE There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting held on 11 January 2021.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

MEMBER Councillor Richards left the meeting following consideration of Application 20/00789/S36 - Whitelaw Brae Wind Farm, Fruid, Tweedsmuir.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST Councillor Laing declared an interest in Application 20/01133/FUL – Land South East of 12 The Orchard, Reston in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct and left the meeting prior to the discussion.

2. APPLICATIONS There had been circulated copies of reports by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

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

3. UPDATED SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE: PLANNING BRIEF – FORMER BORDERS COLLEGE, GALASHIELS There had been circulated copies of a report by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer which sought approval of updated Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in the form of a Planning Brief for the Former Borders College site on Melrose Road, Galashiels. If approved, the Guidance would become a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The Planning Brief would replace a Planning Brief previously adopted in 2009 for the site which was out of date on a number of component parts. The updated SPG would ensure reference to up to date policies and site requirements to be addressed which would help provide relevant guidance to enable the satisfactory development of the site. Colliers requested that the original Planning Brief be updated as they were marketing the site and eager to encourage the redevelopment of the derelict site and provided an initial draft. It was proposed that the updated Supplementary Planning Guidance be subject to public consultation for a period of 6 weeks. Following consultation, it was intended that if substantive comments were received a report would be brought back to the Planning and Building Standards Committee to seek final agreement. Mr Johnston was present via Microsoft Teams and detailed the background to the site and highlighted the main changes

Page 3 to the brief. He thereafter answered Members questions and undertook to check the ownership of an area of trees to the south of the site. He also commented on the difficulties of bringing old buildings back into use and the difficulty of preserving them when they were not listed.

DECISION AGREED:-

(a) The document as updated Supplementary Planning Guidance in the form of a Planning Brief (Appendix A) to the report to be used as a basis for six week public consultation; and

(b) that authority be delegated to the Chief Planning and Housing Officer to approve the final document as Supplementary Planning Guidance if there were no substantive comments arising from the public consultation.

4. APPEALS AND REVIEWS There had been circulated copies of a briefing note by the Chief Planning Officer on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews.

DECISION NOTED that:-

(a) the Reporter had sustained appeals against refusal in respect of :-

(i) the erection of poultry building, upgrade of access junction, formation of access road, and associated works (Shed 5) at Hutton Hall Barns, Hutton– 20/00347/FUL; and

(ii) the erection of poultry building and associated works (Shed 6) at Hutton Hall Barns, Hutton – 20/00347/FUL

(b) there remained outstanding two appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when the report was prepared on 21 January 2021.

 Land North West of Willowdean  Land North East of Burnside, Lower House, Foulden Green, West Linton

(c) a review had been received in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse with integral garage on Land North East of Balcladach, Easter Ulston, Jedburgh – 20/00956/PPP;

(d) there remained one review previously reported on which a decision was still awaited when the report was prepared on 21 January 2021 2021 and related to the site at:

 Garden Ground of Clifton Cottage, High Street, Kirk Yetholm

(e) there remained 3 S36 PLI’s previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when the report was prepared on 21 January 2021 and related to sites at:

 Crystal Rigg Wind Farm, Cranshaws,  Duns

The meeting concluded at 11.25 a.m.

Page 4 APPENDIX I APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Nature of Development Location

20/00789/S36 Variation to operating life from 25-30 years Whitelaw Brae Wind Farm and clarification on drawing listed as Annex E Fruid on consent Tweedsmuir

Decision: That the Council indicate to the Scottish Government that it does not object to the application to extend their operating life of the wind farm to 30 years and refer to the original FEI Site Layout as Annex E of the S36 consent, subject to the imposition of the relevant conditions and informative notes of the original consent which remain necessary to adequately control this development, including an adjustment to Condition 15 to include Schedule 1A species.

Reference Nature of Development Location

20/01133/FUL Erection of rail station platforms, waiting Land South East of shelters, footbridge and lifts with associated 12 The Orchard access, car parking, servicing and landscaping Reston

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions

1. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

2. No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Once approved this document will form the operational parameters under which the development will be operated and managed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan must address the following:  Hours of operation  Noise mitigation/ equipment maintenance  Dust – mitigation and management  Lighting – prevention of nuisance  Complaints procedure/ communication of noisy works to receptors Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential properties.

3. Prior to the commencement of development, a Species Protection Plan (SPP) for badger and breeding birds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The SPP shall incorporate provision for a pre-development supplementary survey and a mitigation plan. No development shall be undertaken except in accordance with the approved SPP. Reason: To protect the ecological interest in accordance with Local Development Plan policies EP2 and EP3.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a hedge protection plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, hedge protection barriers

Page 5 shall be erected in accordance with the agreed hedge protection plan before development commences and no works or storage shall be carried out within the protected areas unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the existing hedge on The Orchard which contributes to the amenity of the surrounding area.

5. Within six weeks of the date of this consent, A Data Structure Report (DSR) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in strict accordance with the details set out within Sections 5.1 to 5.5 of the Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) produced by CFA Archaeology (dated 27 November 2020). All further measures detailed within Sections 5.1 to 5.5 of the WSI shall be carried out as required by the Planning Authority to a timescale first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: The site is within an area where archaeological evaluation was required to satisfy LDP policy EP8 (Archaeology). The reporting sought under this condition is required to formally confirm the results of the evaluation work carried out.

6. Within four months of the date of this consent, a proportionate Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The BEP shall include a timetable for delivery of enhancement measures. Thereafter, no development shall be undertaken except in accordance with the approved in writing BEP, the provisions of which shall be delivered in strict accordance with the agreed timetable for delivery. Reason: To protect the ecological interest in accordance with Local Development Plan policies EP2 and EP3.

7. Within four months of the date of this consent, details of the design of the proposed SUDS pond, any landscaping of the SUDS pond and any means of enclosure thereto shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The SUDS pond shall be designed to ensure pre-development run-off levels are maintained or reduced. Thereafter, the agreed scheme shall be delivered in full in accordance with a timetable first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: to control the design, functionality and appearance of the SUDS scheme in the interests of visual impact and flood risk.

8. Within four months of the date of this consent, a site plan and scheme of details showing final proposed site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This shall include levels and design information for the stairs/ footpaths to demonstrate they will be not be at risk of flooding. Thereafter the development shall be completed in strict accordance with the agreed details. Reason: to provide satisfactory control over the development hereby approved, and in the interests of reducing flood risk for the development.

9. Within four months of the date of this consent, details and, where requested, samples, of the external materials to be used in the footbridge and lift-shaft structures hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the agreed details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The materials require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

10. Within six months of the date of this consent, a revised scheme of details for hard and soft landscaping, boundary treatments and means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme of details shall include: a) A site plan showing details of proposed soft and hard landscaping and boundary planting/ fencing/ walling; b) A detailed design drawing for the layout at the north end of The Orchard, including details of the measures to close off the end of The Orchard to vehicular traffic;

Page 6 c) A detailed design drawing for the layout for the area from the south end of The Orchard to the underpass; d) Details of materials for hard surfaces; e) Details of boundary planting/ fencing/ walling design. f) Details of species numbers and plant sizes for planting; g) Commitment to replacement of the existing hedge where damaged or removed; h) A timetable for planting and replacement of planting over the first 3 years from the completion of the development; i) Details of on-going maintenance. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the agreed scheme of details and any boundary planting shall be carried out by the end of the first planting season following the commencement of operations, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

11. No works shall commence on the roundabout hereby approved until such time as Stages 1 and 2 of a Road Safety Audit have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in relation to the proposed roundabout on the B6438. All design amendments and remedial works identified through these stages of the audit shall thereafter be carried out within a timescale first agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the new access is formed to a satisfactory standard in regards to road safety.

12. Stage 3 of the Road Safety Audit required by Condition 11 shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for consideration within 1 month of completion of the construction works associated with the proposed roundabout on the B6438. All remedial works identified through this stage of the audit to be carried out within a timescale agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the new access is formed to a satisfactory standard in relation to road safety.

13. Stage 4 of the Road Safety Audit required by Condition 11 to be submitted one year after completion of the roundabout on the B6438. All design amendments and remedial works identified through this stages of the audit to be carried out within a timescale agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the new access is formed to a satisfactory standard in relation to road safety.

14. Prior to the closure of the existing vehicular access to The Orchard, the new access road and access to the B6438 shall be completed to a specification first agreed by the Planning Authority, including the new vehicular link to The Orchard. Thereafter, the existing access to The Orchard shall be closed to vehicular traffic within 5 days of the new access becoming operational. Reason: To ensure vehicular access to The Orchard is maintained at all times and to prevent a proliferation of accesses onto the B6438 in the interests of road safety.

15. Prior to the development hereby approved becoming operational, a revised lighting assessment and lighting plan (including the locations of all proposed lighting columns) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The lighting plan shall meet the Environmental Zone 02 standard, shall incorporate warm lighting and shall incorporate the latest good practice guidelines (as outlined: Guidance Note 8/18 (2018): Bats and artificial lighting in the UK) to protect bats. Thereafter, the development shall operate in strict accordance with the agreed lighting plan and the development shall use no additional external lighting without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect residential amenity, landscape quality, and the ecological interest in accordance with Local Development Plan policies PMD2, HD3, EP1, EP2 and EP3.

Page 7 16. Prior to the development hereby approved becoming operational, a revised noise impact assessment and noise plan (incorporating details of the siting and specification of public address system proposals and their hours of operation) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall operate in strict accordance with an agreed noise plan and the development shall use no additional external public address systems without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect residential amenity in accordance with Local Development Plan policies HD3.

17. Prior to the development hereby approved becoming operational, the car parking and access road shall be completed as per drawing 161778-BNU-DRG-ECV-000100 Rev B01.01, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development is served by adequate parking provision.

18. Prior to the development hereby approved becoming operational, a scheme of details for cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the agreed cycle parking facilities shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before the development becomes operational. Reason: To ensure adequate cycle parking facilities are provided in the interests of sustainable transport.

19. Prior to the development hereby approved becoming operational, a scheme for the monitoring and expansion of car parking within the approved development shall be submitted to and approved by the Council. The scheme shall include proposals to extend the car park once the usage reaches an agreed level. Thereafter, monitoring of car parking within the development shall be carried out and reported to the Planning Authority in accordance with the agreed scheme and the car park shall be extended when usage reaches an agreed level. Reason: To ensure the development is served by adequate parking at all times.

20. Throughout the construction period of the approved development, Core Path 97 shall remain open and unobstructed, unless where prior notification has been provided to the Planning Authority or Countryside and Access Team at least five days in advance and subject to any temporary rerouting that has received the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: to maintain access across Core Path 97 during construction as far as is practicable.

21. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent provisions amending or re- enacting that Order), no development shall be carried out within either (a) the triangular portion of land to the far west of the site as shown on Location Plan 161778-BNU-DRG- ECV-000005 REV P1 or (b) the area within the site to the north of the internal car park road labelled OPEN GROUND TO PLANTED WITH WILDFLOWER MIX on site plan drawing 161778-BNU-DRG-EAR-000101 REV B01.01, unless an application for planning permission in that regards is first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: to safeguard (a) vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to the neighbouring allocated Local Development Plan housing site AREST004 and (b) further opportunities for future car parking expansion within the site.

22. Prior to the development hereby approved becoming operational, a scheme of details for the provision of road signage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The road signage shall be implemented in full compliance with the approved scheme of details before the development is operational, and shall be retained in perpetuity thereafter. Reason: To ensure appropriate road signage is in place and in the interests of road safety.

Page 8 23. Within 4 months of the date of this consent, a revised site layout plan showing dedicated taxi parking arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter, no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the revised, and approved site plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. The approved taxi parking arrangements shall be retained in perpetuity thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: To ensure adequate provision is made for parking taxis and to encourage sustainable modes of transport.

Informatives

1. To note with reference to any further adjacent planning application, the brick railway building was identified as being of moderate bat roost potential but only a single dusk emergence survey was carried out. It is unclear why two surveys (one dusk and one dawn) were not carried in accordance with good practice guidance and the Council’s bat survey guidance at: https://www.scotborders.gov.uk/downloads/file/2960/bats_technical_advice_note A small, non-breeding soprano pipistrelle roost (2-3 bats) was found in the brick railway building. The survey report recommended three activity surveys should be carried out to fully assess the status of the roost and inform a licence from SNH (NatureScot).

2. The Roads Planning Service advise that Roads Construction Consent will be required for the potentially adoptable roads within the site; only contractors first approved by the Council may working within the public road boundary; Road Safety Audits to be carried out per GG 119 (formerly HD 19/15) of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

3. Members unanimously agreed that the proposed station development would benefit from on site public toilet and café/kiosk facilities. The applicant may wish to consider whether these facilities can be provided.

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5a

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 MARCH 2021

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 18/01456/FUL

OFFICER: Craig Miller WARD: Hawick and Hermitage PROPOSAL: Variations of Conditions 1 and 14 of planning consent 13/00789/FUL for an extension to time to initiate development and to allow commencement prior to approval of an ATC Radar Mitigation Scheme SITE: Land North East and North West of Farmhouse, Braidlie, Hawick APPLICANT: Duncan Taylor per Energiekontor AGENT: None

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is situated on grazed upland grassland just north of Hermitage Castle in Liddesdale. It is situated adjacent to Braidlie Burn, a small watercourse which runs southwards from Starcleuch Edge and Greatmoor Hill to the Hermitage Water. The core of the development would be north-west of Hermitage Hill, which itself forms the northerly backdrop to Hermitage Castle, a well-known heritage site owned and managed by Historic Environment Scotland.

The village of Hermitage, including its castle is situated a little over 2km to the south- east of the nearest turbine. Newcastleton lies just less than 10km to the south, whereas the outskirts of Hawick are around 13km to the north of the nearest turbine.

The site lies west of (and would be accessed from) the B6399 road that connects Newcastleton to Hawick; to the south is situated the valley road of the Hermitage Water, which connects Hermitage village to the A7 south of Mosspaul and which passes Hermitage Castle. The access is proposed from near Whitrope, a little north of the Whitrope Heritage Centre.

Broadly to the north, north-east and east forestry plantations occupy a large area of the landscape. To the west and south are more open moorland/fells akin to the site itself.

The authority boundary with Dumfries and Galloway is situated around 5km west of the nearest turbines, whereas the national boundary with England and the counties of Northumberland and Cumbria are within 11km and 13km respectively, to the south- east.

The site is not subject to any formal landscape designations. The nearest designated landscape is the Langholm Hills Regional Scenic Area, within Dumfries and Galloway, approximately 5km west and south-west of the turbine group.

Page 11 Within the Borders the nearest landscape designation is the Teviot Valleys Special Landscape Area, which is situated approximately 15km north-east of the nearest turbine.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application is submitted under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended to seek an extension of time in order to commence the development and to allow commencement before approval of an ATC Radar Mitigation Scheme. The extension sought is another three year period as per the standard commencement time period.

The development in question relates to that granted planning consent upon appeal on 9 June 2016, under application reference 13/00789/FUL. This constituted a wind farm comprising of 9 turbines and associated infrastructure for an initial period of 25 years. The development would have a maximum generating capacity of 22.5MW. 6 of the turbines would have a maximum blade tip height of 125m and a hub height of 80m (blade length = 45m), whereas the remainder T1, T2 and T4 would have a maximum tip height of 110m and a hub height of 65m. In addition to the turbines and their foundations, the following would be implemented:

 hardstanding area for crane (crane pads) per turbine  electrical transformer and related switchgear per turbine  trenches for electricity cables to be undergrounded  control building and compound  substation and compound  a lattice tower wind speed measuring mast  a temporary construction compound  2 borrow pits for the excavation of hardcore material to be used in track/pad construction  2 laydown areas for depositing of components during construction  an on-site batching plant for preparation of material excavated from borrow pits  a total of 8 watercourse crossings  upgraded access off the B6399 and an estimated 10.446km of site access track, the majority of which is new track

The locations of those above ground items were shown on the submitted Revised Site Layout plan ref. A2.1 within the 2014 Further Environmental Information to the Environmental Statement.

PLANNING HISTORY

Planning application 13/00789/FUL was refused by the Council on 29 June 2015 for the following reasons:

“1. The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1 and D4 of the Scottish Borders 2011 Local Plan, in that the development would unacceptably harm the Borders landscape due to:

(i) overridingly adverse impacts on landscape character arising from placement of turbines and infrastructure on a sensitive and distinct landscape with grandeur, historical, remoteness and wilderness qualities, which can be observed and experienced from a range of public paths and recreational access areas;

Page 12 (ii) the introduction of an array of large commercial turbines into a locality which is significantly remote from main settlements and road networks and where no logical reference can be made to any other similar man-made interventions (including noticeable electrical infrastructure) or settlement, which is characterised by simplistic landforms with which the development does not harmonise; thereby the development would appear as an incongruous and anachronistic new item; and (iii) the introduction of a medium-sized commercial wind farm in an area which is presently free from wind farm development and which provides a spatial separation between areas occupied by wind farms in Borders.

2. The development conflicts with Policy D4 of the Consolidated Scottish Borders 2011 Local Plan, in that by virtue of its adverse impact on:

(i) the ability of National Air Traffic Services to safely manage en-route non-military air traffic due to impacts on the Great Dun Fell radar serving Prestwick Airport; it would be incompatible with national objectives relating to protection of public safety at a UK level and the obligations set out in international treaties.”

The applicant appealed to the Scottish Government against this refusal and a Reporter granted planning permission by Decision Letter dated 9 June 2016, subject to 27 Conditions and three Informatives.

In 2018, an application was submitted under Section 42 of the Act to vary Condition 1 and seek a further three year commencement period (18/01251/FUL). The reasons why an extension was sought were given in submissions from the applicant, as follows:

“The aviation solution for Windy Edge is linked to and contingent on the rollout of ‘Project Marshall’, which is a large contract run by the MOD to replace its existing fleet of radars across the UK. Essentially the MOD’s old Watchman radars are to be replaced by new Thales radars. The radars at Spadeadam are some of the first in the UK to benefit from the upgrade, but are not yet fully commissioned. Both of the Spadeadam air traffic control radars (Berry Hill and Deadwater Fell) have coverage above Windy Edge.

The MOD wishes the aviation solution for Windy Edge to utilise the new Thales radars so that it is future-proofed, therefore agreement of a mitigation solution for Windy Edge has been delayed until such time as the radars are in place and fully operational. This process has taken longer than envisaged at the time the planning application was determined.

Once commissioned, the new Thales radars will require further configuring to mitigate Windy Edge. Specifically, the mitigation solution for Windy Edge will involve blanking coverage of the turbines from the Deadwater Fell radar and infilling with the Berry Hill radar. We believe this is an eminently viable radar mitigation solution, and one which would involve the following:

- The new radars being commissioned; - A feasibility study undertaken to trial the blank and infill; and - MOD accepting the findings and agreeing the technical solution.

You will see this is a process which would be challenging to conclude within our implementation time limit, in particular as it is linked to the rollout of a large MOD radar replacement programme across the whole of the UK.”

Page 13 The S42 application was presented to the Planning and Building Standards Committee in December 2018 and approved, thereby extending the original consent to 10 December 2021. Given the length of time that has passed since that application was considered by the Committee, this report summarises the issues again over time extension rather than referring back to the earlier report.

Current S42 Application

This subsequent S42 application was submitted soon after the above application and has taken longer to process as it has involved more complex issues and matters, including an initial request to vary two other Conditions, both now having been withdrawn and not featuring in the application now presented to Members. As they no longer relate to the application but feature prominently in the various consultation replies and third party representations. Members should have no regard to those original S42 requests nor to the comments pertaining to the requests.

Those withdrawn requests were as follows:

Variation of Condition 3 to increase the tip heights of six of the turbines from 125m tip height to 149.9m.

This element was withdrawn following implications from legal proceedings relating to a case in Wales which ultimately stated that a variation of condition that changed what was described as the development on the consent notice, was invalid and a new full planning application would be needed. As the tip heights were stated not only in Condition 3 of the original consent for Windy Edge, but also within the description of development on the consent, it was accepted that the decision in Wales related to very similar planning legislation in Scotland and equally applied. Consequently, the applicant was informed that the S42 request could not be considered or determined and subsequently withdrew that request from the application. The applicant then made a subsequent request for a “non-material variation” to remove the tip heights from the original consent description but the Council denied the request, considering that the purpose of “non-material variations” was not to amend or alter the description and, particularly, any material part of that description such as tip height.

Variation of Condition 4 to increase the micrositing allowance from 50m to 100m.

This element was withdrawn after discussion over wording of a revised Condition did not reach any agreement and outstanding concerns were not addressed. There were a number of concerns over the micrositing impacts, including from statutory consultees such as SEPA, SNH, Historic Environment Scotland and Community Councils, as well as from Council Officers. The applicant did not accept a revision to Condition 4 suggested by the Council which would have allowed up to 100m micrositing only if submitted to, and approved by, the Council under Condition 4.

The application must, therefore, be solely considered and determined on the remaining two requests to vary Conditions 1 and 14. As the requests for tip height increase and micrositing have been withdrawn, the changed locations of the turbines described in Table 3.1 of Volume 1 of the Supplementary Environmental Information are similarly no longer considered part of the request

Condition 1 – although already approved separately until 10 December 2021 under S42 application 18/01251/FUL, consent for a three year extension to the commencement of development period of the original consent is also sought with this S42 application. The applicant’s reasoning for this request had already been explained

Page 14 in detail in the Supporting Statement to 18/01251/FUL and equally pertains to the current application. There is no prohibition on submitting two applications with the same request, given that the current application also initially made three additional requests before being narrowed to just one additional request.

That additional request relates to Condition 14 which is a suspensive condition, worded to ensure that no development is commenced until an Air Traffic Control (ATC) Radar Mitigation Scheme is submitted to, and approved by, the Council. The Council would liaise with the MOD on the Scheme which should be aimed at mitigating the impacts of the turbines on the ATC Radar at RAF Spadeadam. The S42 application seeks to change the wording of this Condition to allow development to commence but not to allow any part of any turbine above ground until the Mitigation Scheme is submitted and approved. This would allow for access tracks, site preparation, foundations and concrete bases etc.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

 Supplementary Environmental Information Volume 1: Written Text  Supplementary Environmental Information Volume 2: Figures

The vast majority of the content of Volumes 1 and 2 relate to the two Conditions on micrositing and tip height that were initially proposed for variation and required further environmental information to demonstrate potential impacts. All such material should now be disregarded and the S42 application should be considered only on the basis of commencement time extension and changed timing of the ATC Radar Mitigation Scheme submission on the consented turbines, as granted within the appeal decision.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Whilst there were a number of consultations undertaken and responses received, many consultees were reacting to the request to change the two Conditions that have now been withdrawn. Members, if they wish to, can view the full details of the consultation replies on the Public Access file. All that is summarised below, however, are the responses from those consultees that commented specifically on Conditions 1 or 14, the only comments relevant to a decision on the S42 application as now presented.

Ministry of Defence – no concerns with variations of Condition 1 or Condition 14 and accepts the revised wording of the Conditions. Confirms that Thales radars now in place at Spadeadam.

Upper Liddesdale & Hermitage Community Council – objects to the revision to Condition 14 which would allow roads, ancillary buildings, concrete bases etc. to be carried out and stay in place for however long it takes to find an aviation solution for the Spadeadam Radar. Considers the suggested additional conditions relating to the restoration bond and decommissioning should no turbines ever be erected but maintains objection as environmental damage will have been done

Newcastleton and District Community Council – Objects to the revision to Condition 14 as it would allow all ground works to be carried out and remain in perpetuity if a radar mitigation solution is not found, increasing impacts on ecology and flood risk.

Page 15 Southdean Community Council – The request to vary Condition 1 is superfluous given that consent was already granted under 18/01251/FUL. Objects to the variation of Condition 14 as there would be a negative community impact over a potentially long period until a mitigation scheme is approved.

Hobkirk Community Council – Objects to variation of Condition 14. Concerned about agreeing to changes to conditions that arose after extensive planning process. Condition 1 extension of time commencement is reasonable and justified but believes Condition 14 is presumptuous without justification, putting pressure on Air Traffic Control to find a solution. Concerned that if there is no solution in reasonable timescale, development could remain in the ground and there is a risk of the developer abandoning the project.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Whilst there were seven representations received, many were reacting to the request to change the two Conditions that have now been withdrawn. Members, if they wish to, can view the full details of the representations on the Public Access file. All that is summarised below, however, is a summary of the main comments or objections from four respondents that commented specifically on Conditions 1 or 14, the only comments relevant to a decision on the S42 application as now presented.

 Section 42 applications are an unsatisfactory and inappropriate way to amend approved schemes rather than submission of full applications.  The Committee should re-examine the entire scheme against current Policies and guidance.  Queries the applicant‘s claims that the current scheme is uneconomic in seeking the variations.  Developer was aware of the conditions when purchasing the scheme  The developer has had enough time to start the development without further extension to the commencement time period  No justification to start the development before the MOD consent to a Radar Mitigation Scheme  No guarantee of agreement by the MOD in a reasonable timescale, resulting in construction impacts and damage to the environment on an open-ended basis.  Part commenced development may prejudice future planning decisions

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SESplan Strategic Development Plan June 2013:

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

Local Development Plan 2016:

PMD1: Sustainability PMD2: Quality Standards ED9: Renewable Energy Development HD3: Protection of Residential Amenity EP1: International Nature Conservation Sites and Protected Species EP2: National Nature Conservation Sites and Protected Species EP3: Local Biodiversity

Page 16 EP5: Special Landscape Areas EP7: Listed Buildings EP8: Archaeology EP9: Conservation Areas EP10: Gardens and Designed Landscapes EP13: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows EP15: Development Affecting the Water Environment IS2: Developer Contributions IS5: Protection of Access Routes IS8: Flooding IS9: Waste Water Treatment Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Adopted SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and other documents:

 Renewable Energy 2018  Biodiversity 2005  Local Landscape Designations 2012  Developer Contributions 2011  Visibility Mapping for Windfarm Development 2003  Ironside Farrar Study on Wind Energy Consultancy Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact 2016  Borders Landscape Assessment 1998 Ash Consulting Group

Scottish Government Policy and Guidance:

 The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009  The Scottish Renewable Action Plan 2009  2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland – Update 2015  National Planning Framework for Scotland (3) June 2014  Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) June 2014  Scottish Planning Policy and Electricity Generation Policy Statement 2013  Onshore Wind Turbines – Planning Advice 2014  COP21 UN 2015 (following Heathrow Runway decision)  Climate Change Plan 2018  Onshore Wind Policy Statement 2017  Scottish Energy Strategy 2017  Climate Change (Emissions Reductions Targets) (Scotland) Bill 2019  The Programme for Government 2019  UN Gap Report 2019  Committee on Climate Change (CCC) Report 2019 and annual report 2020  UK Net Zero Target 2019  Covid-19 Guidance including Chief Planner’s letter, CCC advice and Advisory Group on economic recovery

Scottish Government On-line Advice:

 Circular 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations  PAN 69 Flood Risk 2015  PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008  PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation  PAN 75 Planning for Transport

Page 17  PAN 81 Community Engagement Planning with People  PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise  PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology  PAN 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment  Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Onshore Renewable Energy Development 2016

Historic Environment Scotland Publications:

 Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement June 2016

SNH Publications:

 Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape Version 3 February 2017  Visual Representation of Wind Farms Version 2.2 February 2017  Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments 2012  Spatial Planning for Onshore Wind Turbines – Natural Heritage Considerations 2015

Other Publications:

ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

 Justification for time extension  Changes in Policy or other material considerations since consent was granted  Advice from the MOD on timing of development in relation to the ATC Radar Mitigation Scheme

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Existing consent

Whilst the Council had refused planning permission for this development for the reasons previously mentioned, the decision was successfully appealed to the Scottish Government and planning consent was issued on 9 June 2016. This is a significant material consideration and, despite some third party representations, should outweigh any ability of the Council to justify re-examination of the decision unless Policy or other material considerations have significantly changed. The consent was subject to a three year commencement period (Condition 1) and, subject to compliance with the other conditions, could have originally been commenced by 9 June 2019. As previously mentioned, a Section 42 consent was subsequently granted at Committee in December 2018 extending the consent to 10 December this year.

A Section 42 application for variation of condition does not alter the original consent which will remain in place. Should this variation of Condition 1 be granted again (by re- imposing it with a new date), then it will be necessary to re-attach all conditions as per the existing planning consent and there would effectively then be two extant versions of the consent, one expiring this year and the other lasting for another three years in terms of commencement ability.

The application should only be assessed against three main matters:

Page 18  The justification for the time extension  Changes of Policy or other material significance since consent was granted  The timing of commencement of development in relation to the ATC Radar Mitigation Scheme

Justification for the time extension

In the Supporting Statement accompanying 18/01251/FUL, the applicant states that the original site owner was Windy Edge Wind Farm Limited who obtained the planning consent upon appeal in June 2016. There is no detailed information on when the applicant acquired the site except that it was recent to the September 2018 date of the Supporting Statement. It would, therefore, be reasonable to assume that the new site owner initially had less than a year to commence development once all suspensive conditions had been addressed and discharged.

The Supporting Statement and additional justification explain that the greatest concerns relate to Conditions 14 and 15, relating to the need for radar mitigation schemes to be agreed. The applicant states that these can be complex and can involve “extensive contractual agreements”. Both Conditions are suspensive and involve mitigation schemes that would need to be verified as acceptable to the Council from both the MOD and NATS. Whilst Condition 15 would allow some site preparation work before such a scheme was submitted and approved, Condition 14 would not allow any site commencement until a scheme was approved.

The applicant explains in more detail the difficulties and time constraint issues with regard to compliance with this Condition as follows:

- The new radars being commissioned; - A feasibility study undertaken to trial the blank and infill; and - MOD accepting the findings and agreeing the technical solution.

Page 19 For this reason alone, the applicant seeks to vary Condition 1 through this Section 42 application by obtaining a repeat Condition that effectively restarts the clock from the date of any consent. Given the circumstances involved with site acquisition, the limited time left on the existing consent and the fact that commencement of development has been dependant on the programme of a third party, the MOD, it is considered that the request continues to be justified and reasonable, allowing the potential of further renewable energy to be delivered on a site that has received consent, albeit via appeal. Although the radars have now been replaced at Spadeadam, a mitigation scheme still has to be designed based upon the new radars. It is also fact that of the 25 other original Conditions to be addressed, 9 are suspensive requiring the submission of information for approval before development can be commenced. Some of these require additional ecological survey work. This adds weight to the justification for granting a new three year consent period for the development, as do the subsequent difficulties caused by Covid-19 and various delays in the processing of the current application, partly caused by legal proceedings elsewhere. It was not envisaged by either the applicant or the Council that the parallel time extension request submitted within a month of 18/01251/FUL would take more than two further years to reach a Committee.

Although a number of third parties feel that the developer has had enough time to commence since the original Reporter’s Decision Letter in June 2016, the above reasons explain why it is considered that a second time extension is justified – in particular, having awaited the replacement of the radars at Spadeadam, suitable mitigation now requires to be designed accordingly. Whilst it is accepted that, should Condition 14 also be varied, this would allow ground based development to be carried out, turbine erection and operation of the wind farm would still be entirely dependent on a suitable mitigation scheme being designed and approved. Awaiting third party agreement is never an ideal position when it comes to implementing a planning consent but it remains a justification for extension to the commencement of development time period.

In summary, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient justification to seek a further three year time period. As with all section 42 applications and should the Committee agree to the request, then all original conditions and Informatives would need to be re-imposed precisely as stated in the appeal Decision Letter. It would also be advisable to attach an additional Applicant Informative to clarify that the development relates precisely to all drawings and submissions granted consent under application reference 13/00789/FUL.

Material changes since Decision

If the justification for the time extension is to be accepted again, it is also necessary to consider whether there have been any further changes in Policy or any other material considerations that would be of significance in terms of the acceptability of the development, since the Reporter’s consideration and determination in May/June 2016.

Policy

National

Scottish Government policy supports renewable energy, including wind farms, provided that there are no unacceptable and significantly adverse environmental impacts. Since the Reporter decision in June 2016, further Policy updates and statements have been released by the Government which do not indicate any change

Page 20 in position that would require re-examination of the decision to consent the application.

The Scottish Planning Policy Spatial Framework still positions the site within Group 3 which suggests the remainder of all areas have potential for wind farm development “...where wind farms are likely to be acceptable, subject to detailed consideration against identified policy criteria.” Government Policy documents have recently been supported by the statements in the Onshore Wind Policy Statement 2017, the Ministerial Foreword confirming clear support for wind energy, promoting the economic benefits it offers, helping to substantively decarbonise electricity supplies, heat and transport systems, boosting the economy, and meeting local and national demand. Similarly, the Scottish Energy Strategy is also a material consideration, setting out ambitious new energy targets of 50% of the energy for Scotland’s heat, transport and electricity consumption to be from renewable sources by 2030 and an increase of 30% in the productivity of energy use across the Scottish economy. More recent guidance and statements by the Scottish Government, following the impact of Covid-19, simply reinforce the importance of renewable energy.

Whilst there remains contention from opposing parties to the position with regard to continued need for wind energy and the progress towards targets, Government guidance and Reporters’ appeal decisions continue to stress that targets are not caps and weight should continue to be attached to the contribution of every scheme towards targets. Any question over the viability of this scheme remains a matter for the developer and is not a justification to deny a further commencement time extension. There is, therefore, no change to Government Policy that would justify any re- examination of the decision to consent the development or to extend its commencement period.

Local Development Plan

Although the Council considered the initial Windy Edge application under the Development Plan in force at the time, the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, the Reporter used the newly adopted Local Development Plan Policy ED9 in his reasoning and decision on the appeal. He also considered SESplan policies based upon the 2013 version. The Proposed Strategic Development Plan 2017 reaffirmed the importance of the LDP-led approach to securing renewable energy opportunities in the Borders, even though the 2013 Plan remains in force. There is, therefore, not considered to be any change to Local Development Plan Policy that would justify any re-examination of the decision to consent the development or to extend its commencement period.

Supplementary Guidance

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy 2011 was updated and superseded by the “Renewable Energy” Supplementary Guidance which was approved by the Council and, subsequently, the Scottish Government. This contains a new Spatial Framework which demonstrates that the site lies within an “area with potential for wind farm development” and also within the area identified with the “Highest Capacity” for wind turbines. Encouragement for a wind farm in this location is, therefore, not changed by the SG within the Spatial Framework although, clearly, there is more detailed Guidance now available to support LDP Policy ED9 and the Guidance now forms part of the adopted LDP.

As part of the preparation of the Guidance, the Ironside Farrar “Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact Study was updated. The 2013 version was considered by the Reporter in the appeal decision where he noted that it did not preclude a commercial

Page 21 scale wind farm in the general location of the site. The 2016 update clarifies that the general location has low capacity (5-10) for additional turbine development above 120m tip height in addition to the consented Windy Edge group, provided there is good separation. It is clear, therefore, that the Landscape Capacity Study does not change the nature of the guidance in the location of the site and, indeed, provides a clearer indication that further turbines could be acceptable in landscape capacity terms. There is, therefore, not considered to be any change to Supplementary Guidance that would justify any re-examination of the decision to consent the development or to extend its commencement period.

Cumulative Impacts

The Reporter considered the issue of cumulative impacts from developments proposed in the vicinity at the time of the decision but felt that schemes such as those proposed at Wauchope and Newcastleton Forest were still at an early stage of development and not at application stage. He saw no cumulative reason to oppose the initial consent at Windy Edge. Whilst additional schemes have come forward at scoping stage at Cliffhope and Fawside, only the latter has now reached the stage of S36 application and could not be used to justify refusal of time extension, given no decision on that application has yet been taken. In any case, if there were cumulative issues with Fawside, it would be Fawside itself that would either have to resolve those issues or a decision on that proposal influenced by any cumulative issues. As Members will note in the Fawside Committee Report, there are no such cumulative issues identified with Windy Edge.

Of those schemes that have come forward to application stage since the appeal decision notice, Birneyknowe was refused following appeal and Public Local Inquiry. Of greatest relevance, however, is the consent, following appeal, for 12 turbines at Pines Burn 9.2km to the north-east of Windy Edge. Seven of these turbines would be 149.9m to blade tip and five at 130m. Whilst a current S42 application is being considered to vary commencement time and micrositing allowance (the tip height request here was withdrawn), those variations, if granted, would not justify any refusal of Windy Edge over cumulative concerns. Indeed, in determining the application at Pines Burn, neither the Council nor the Reporter used cumulative impacts with other wind farms to justify the decision. The Reporter was most concerned only with the relationship of Pines Burn with Birneyknowe and not with Windy Edge where, he felt, intervening landform would considerably reduce cumulative effects. It is considered, therefore, that there are no new cumulative reasons that would justify any re- examination of the decision to consent the development or to extend its commencement period.

Cultural Heritage Impacts

The Reporter accepted the impacts of the amended layout and design on the Scheduled Monuments of Hermitage Castle and Chapel. It was also noted that neither the Council nor Historic Environment Scotland (HES) objected on such grounds. Although since the appeal decision, the castle and environs were re-scheduled in March 2017 to include the ‘White Dyke’ (which rises to the north of the castle to just below the summit of Hermitage Hill), the Reporter still acknowledged the importance of the Dyke and considered it “as if protected” in the appeal decision. Furthermore, the Council Archaeologist believes that, had it been Scheduled initially, it would not have been significantly impacted by the consented wind farm.

Page 22 After consultation on the current S42 application, HES only raised comment and concern over the tip height and micrositing requests which have subsequently been withdrawn from the proposal.

Ecology

The original appeal decision considered ecological matters and, particularly, impacts on the Langholm-Newcastleton Special Protection Area for its population of hen harriers. It is noted that, whilst ornithology can clearly change over time, the Reporter felt that the assessment in 2014 took into account potential changes to future hen harrier populations. Given the nature of the conditions which still require further surveys and species protection plans, there is no reason to consider a commencement time extension would cause significant ecological issues. This is the view of the Council Ecology Officer.

Ministry of Defence/Aviation

The original scheme was initially considered then subsequently accepted in relation to potential for adverse impacts on NATS radar and both the Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station and the Deadwater Fell ATC Radar at RAF Spadeadam. The issue of the ATC Radar has been referred to earlier in this report and is one of the main reasons that the applicant is seeking a time extension, in order to allow the mitigation condition to be addressed and complied with. There is also the issue of compliance with the MOD noise budget for impacts on the Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station. It is possible that, should this consent be allowed to time lapse without time extension, then the project may lose its position within the budget and be replaced by other schemes.

The current S42 application also seeks to vary the “suspensive” element of Condition 14 relating to the ATC Radar at RAF Spadeadam to enable all development to be commenced except for turbine erection. The current wording of Condition 14 states:

“No development shall commence unless and until an Air Traffic Control Radar Mitigation Scheme to address the impact of the wind turbine upon air safety has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.”

The applicant wishes to change the wording as follows:

“No part of any turbine shall be erected above ground until an Air Traffic Control Radar Mitigation Scheme to address the impact of the wind turbine upon air safety has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.”

As this Condition relates entirely to defence aviation interests, the views of the MOD should carry the utmost weight. Whilst they had objections to the original tip height increase request (for Eskdalemuir ENB reasons), there was no objection to variation of Condition 14 to enable all development to commence except for turbine erection, and before any radar mitigation scheme was approved. Such wording has been used on other wind farm approvals recently, particularly on those where there has been some dialogue between the developer and the MOD over mitigation strategies. It is also the wording used in Condition 15 of the consent in relation to the agreement of a radar mitigation scheme in liaison with NATS (referring to a different, civilian air traffic radar). It is, therefore, considered that given the acceptance of the MOD, the revised wording of the Condition is acceptable.

Page 23 There is objection and concern expressed by Community Councils and members of the public relating to the potential for ground-based development to be carried out and then for the wind turbines not to be erected for some time until an ATC Radar Mitigation Scheme is agreed, if at all. There is concern that the Council would not have the control to insist that the development be removed and the ground reinstated should no mitigation be possible. Whilst these concerns are entirely understood, it is not envisaged that the MOD would have raised no objection, had they believed a solution would not be possible. There has clearly been dialogue between them and the applicant and the MOD know the details of the proposed development.

However, it is accepted that the terms of the decommissioning, restoration and aftercare in Conditions 8 and 9 are entirely based upon timescales triggered only after the Final Commissioning Date i.e. the date of the last turbine to be exporting electricity to the network. The restoration of the site could not be requested or enforced under Condition 9 if no turbines had ever been erected due to any unforeseen failure to reach agreement under Condition 14. Condition 10 does request the delivery and agreement of a bond covering restoration and aftercare of the site, in the event of default by the company. The wording of Condition 10, however, does refer to the “decommissioning, restoration and aftercare obligations contained in Condition 9” which, of course, includes a timescale only triggered after the turbines are erected and there is a “Final Commissioning Date”. If the timescale within those Conditions were able to also reflect a period of time after development commencement and not erection of the last turbine, then this concern could be addressed.

For these reasons, I believe there is justification to ensure there is no loophole in the conditions enabling development to remain in perpetuity, in the event that turbines are not erected on the site within a 25 year timescale. With a S42 application, the Council cannot vary a Condition if that Condition has not been applied for to be varied. So whilst it would not be possible to amend Conditions 8-10 to secure restoration in the event that turbines are not erected, new Conditions could be added to do just that. Additional Conditions 9a and 10a are therefore recommended below.

The applicant is aware of these suggested Conditions and accepts them. However, the Upper Liddesdale and Hermitage Community Council maintain their objections. Despite the suggested additional conditions, they believe environmental damage will have been done for a 25 year period yet with potentially no wind energy being produced as a result. Whilst these fears are understood, it would potentially be the same position with any wind farm where there is a mixture of pre-commencement conditions, both pre-commencement of all development and pre-commencement of actual turbine erection. As such conditions have been considered acceptable by Reporters on appeal decisions, the safeguard suggested in Conditions 9a and 10a is considered to be an acceptable response to these concerns, ensuring restoration/decommissioning is triggered, nomatter what type of development occurs over a 25 year period.

Subject to these additional Conditions, it is considered that the variation of Condition 14 is, therefore, justified and acceptable.

CONCLUSION

There is a valid consent for a wind farm at Windy Edge, allowing commencement up to December this year. Given the nature and requirements of some suspensive conditions, however, the applicant has demonstrated justification for a renewal of the three year commencement period for the development. Furthermore, there has been no significant policy or other material changes that would determine that the original

Page 24 appeal decision should be re-examined and reversed. Similarly, there are no objections from the MOD to enabling development to be commenced prior to agreement of a Radar Mitigation Scheme, provided no turbines are erected until that agreement. A restoration safeguard is also recommended through additional Conditions in the event that turbines are not subsequently erected.

RECOMMENDATION BY CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER:

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

CONDITIONS

Time limit

1. The development shall be begun no later than 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To specify the time period within which development should start.

Siting, Design and Appearance

2. Prior to commencement of the development, the developer shall submit details of the proposed make and model of turbine that will be utilised. Clarification of proposed external colour, rotational direction, noise output and rotational speeds shall be included in the specification provided in response to this condition. No other model of turbine shall be utilised. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt to enable detailed consideration of any variation from the turbines assessed as part of this application.

3. The overall height of the wind turbines shall not exceed 110 metres for Turbines 1, 2 and 4, and 125 metres for Turbines 3, 5,6,7,8 and 9, to the tip of the blade when the blade is in the vertical position, when measured from natural ground conditions immediately adjacent to the turbine base. The overall height of the hub/nacelle shall not exceed 65 metres for Turbines 1, 2, and 4; and 80 metres for Turbines 3, 5,6,7,8 and 9. The wind turbine blades on all the turbines hereby permitted shall rotate in the same direction. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the turbines portrayed within the application, in the interests of visual amenity.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, the confirmed 9 turbine wind farm layout including the locations of all turbines, buildings, borrow pits, hardstandings and temporary and permanent access tracks, plus the location of all on-site cabling trenches shall be submitted to the planning authority. The layout shall be provided on an adequately detailed drawing which includes contours, and shall take account of the 50m micrositing allowance identified within the Environmental Statement where such allowance is known to be required prior to the commencement of development. Supporting commentary shall be provided with the drawing explaining the rationale behind the micrositing and demonstrating that it has taken account of consultee advice relating to impact on the peat environment and groundwater resource. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details included in the drawings submitted in response to this condition. Any further micrositing required during construction within the agreed 50m allowance, adhering to the requirements of condition 24, will be submitted to the planning authority for their information on an amended layout drawing.

Page 25 Reason: To enable the planning authority to understand precisely where each component of the site will be sited in relation to other elements of the site (including its boundaries), and to allow for minor changes to be made to overcome potential difficulties arising in respect of archaeology, ecology, hydrology.

5. Notwithstanding the details shown in the submitted Environmental Statement, details of external materials relating to construction of the access tracks, crane hardstandings, the control building and any other on site apparatus/equipment shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the details approved in response to this condition. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

6. All cables between the turbines and the substation shall be laid underground. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

Safety:

7. All turbines and components shall be installed to meet the safety standards set by British Standard BS EN 61400-1: 2005 ‘Wind turbine generator systems: Safety requirements’ or International Electro-technical Commission IEC 16400. Reason: In the interests of health and safety of all users of the site and its environs.

Site Decommissioning, Restoration and Aftercare:

8. This consent expires 25 years from the date on which the last wind turbine generator forming part of the development is commissioned and exporting electricity to the national grid (Final Commissioning Date). Confirmation of the Final Commissioning Date must be given in writing to the Planning Authority within 28 working days of that event. Reason: To define the duration of the consent.

9. No later than 12 months before the decommissioning of the site or expiry of the consent associated with this permission (whichever is the earlier) a decommissioning, restoration and aftercare scheme shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its written approval which shall provide for the removal of the wind turbines, and associated development above and on the ground (including tracks and hardstanding), and the foundations of the wind turbines to a depth of 1.2 metres below ground level. The scheme shall include proposals for the management and the timing of the works and for the restoration of the site. The scheme shall be implemented as approved within 3 years of the expiry of the consent. Reason: To ensure that all wind turbines and associated development are removed from site at the expiry of the consent.

9a In the event that no turbines have been erected within 25 years of the commencement of development, a decommissioning, restoration and aftercare scheme shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its written approval within six months of the expiry of the aforementioned date. This scheme shall provide for the removal of any associated development above and on the ground (including tracks and hardstanding), and any foundations of wind turbines/cranes to a depth of 1.2 metres below ground level. The scheme shall include proposals for the management and the timing of the works and for the restoration of the site. The scheme shall be implemented as approved within 3 years of the expiry of aforementioned period.

Page 26 Reason: To ensure that all associated development is removed from site at the expiry of the specified period.

Financial Guarantee:

10. There shall be no commencement of development unless the Company has delivered a bond or other form of financial guarantee in terms acceptable to the Planning Authority which secures the cost of performance of all decommissioning, restoration and aftercare obligations contained in Condition 9 to the Planning Authority. The financial guarantee shall thereafter be maintained in favour of the Planning Authority until the date of completion of all restoration and aftercare obligations. The value of the financial guarantee shall be determined by a suitably qualified independent professional as being sufficient to meet the costs of all decommissioning, restoration and aftercare obligations contained in Condition 9. The value of the financial guarantee shall be reviewed by a suitably qualified independent professional no less than every five years and increased or decreased to take account of any variation in costs of compliance with restoration and aftercare obligations and best practice prevailing at the time of each review. Reason: To ensure that there are sufficient funds to secure performance of the decommissioning; restoration and aftercare conditions attached to this planning permission in the event of default by the Company.

10a.The bond or other form of financial guarantee required in Condition 10 shall also include clauses securing the cost of performance of all decommissioning, restoration and aftercare obligations, should no wind turbines be erected on the site within the period specified in Condition 9a following commencement of development. Reason: To ensure that there are sufficient funds to secure performance of the decommissioning; restoration and aftercare conditions attached to this planning permission in the event of default by the Company.

Turbine Failure/Removal:

11. In the event of any wind turbine failing to produce electricity supplied to the local grid for a continuous period of 12 months, not due to it being under repair or replacement then it will be deemed to have ceased to be required, and the wind turbine foundation to a depth of 1.2m below ground level, the wind turbine and its ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the site restored to a condition to be agreed by the Planning Authority. The restoration of the land shall be completed within 12 months of the removal of the turbine. Reason: To safeguard against the landscape and visual environmental impacts associated with the retention of any turbines that are deemed no longer to be operationally required.

Air Traffic Safety:

12. The turbines shall be fitted with MOD-accredited 25 candela omni-directional aviation lighting OR infra – red warning lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point on the turbines. The turbines will be erected with this lighting installed and the lighting will remain operational throughout the duration of this consent. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.

13. Prior to the erection of the first wind turbine, the developer shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority and the Ministry of Defence of the

Page 27 anticipated date of commencement of and completion of construction; the maximum height above ground level of construction equipment and the anemometry mast; the position of each wind turbine in latitude and longitude; and the hub height and rotor diameter of each turbine (in metres). The developer shall give the Planning Authority and the Ministry of Defence notice as soon as reasonably practicable if any changes are made to the information required by this condition. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.

MoD Air Traffic Control radar:

14. No part of any turbine shall be erected above ground until an Air Traffic Control Radar Mitigation Scheme to address the impact of the wind turbine upon air safety has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

The Air Traffic Control Radar Mitigation Scheme is a scheme designed to mitigate the impact of the development upon the operation of the Air Traffic Control Radar at Spadeadam (“the Radar”) and the air traffic control operations of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) which is reliant upon the Radar. The Air Traffic Control Radar Mitigation Scheme shall set out the appropriate measures to be implemented to mitigate the impact of the development on the Radar and shall be in place for the operational life of the development provided the Radar remains in operation.

No turbines shall become operational unless and until all those measures required by the approved Air Traffic Control Radar Mitigation Scheme to be implemented prior to the operation of the turbines have been implemented and the Planning Authority has confirmed this in writing. The development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with the approved Air Traffic Control Radar Mitigation Scheme. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.

NATS Radar

15. No part of any Turbine shall be erected above ground until a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme agreed with the Operator has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Scottish Borders Council in order to avoid the impact of the development on the Primary Radar of the Operator located at Great Dun Fell and associated air traffic management operations. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.

16. No blades shall be fitted to any Turbine unless and until the approved Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with such approved Scheme. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.

For the purpose of conditions 15 and 16 above: "Operator" means NATS (En Route) plc, incorporated under the Companies Act (4129273) whose registered office is 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants PO15 7FL or such other organisation licensed from time to time under sections 5 and 6 of the Transport Act 2000 to provide air traffic services to the relevant managed area (within the meaning of section 40 of that Act).

"Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme" or "Scheme" means a detailed scheme agreed with the Operator which sets out the measures to be taken to avoid at all

Page 28 times the impact of the development on the Great Dun Fell primary radar and air traffic management operations of the Operator.”

Signage:

17. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984, no symbols, signs, logos or other lettering (other than those required for health and safety reasons) shall be displayed on the turbines, other buildings or structures within the site without the written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not unduly prejudice public amenity.

18. No signage, other than that required for health and safety and for traffic management, shall be erected within the application site without the written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not unduly prejudice public amenity.

Road Safety & Traffic Management:

19. No construction traffic shall access the site until a Traffic Management and Road Safety Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which includes detailed information relating to the following matters:

a) detailed design of any widening or other alteration to the road network and proposals for reinstatement once the loads have been delivered; b) management of abnormal vehicle movements and other associated construction traffic movements (including trial runs following agreed road widening works); c) date and time schedules for delivery of all components of the development involving abnormal loads; d) road condition survey, detailed proposals of finalised road widening/surfacing/improvements to accommodate abnormal loads and a method of ensuring that any damages to the road due to construction and/or abnormal loads associated with the development are repaired in an agreed manner and to an agreed timetable; e) all new signage identifying to road users the presence of the site, access and potential to encounter construction traffic; and f) wheel washing facilities at the site access. g) details of the delivery times for construction materials or equipment taking into account impact on residential amenities

The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the details approved in response to this Condition. Reason: To ensure that the development is compatible with road user amenity, road safety and traffic management objectives, and also to provide adequate restoration to offset the environmental impact of the measures proposed.

Rights of Way:

20. There shall be no obstruction, diversion or closure (caused by implementation of the development) of any Right of Way/public access path within or adjacent to the application site and its proposed accesses before, during or after development unless such actions have been formally agreed in writing by the planning authority.

Page 29 Reason: To protect the amenity and safety of users of the public path network.

Ecology and Ornithology:

21. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the protection of species and habitat enhancement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall include:

a) Supplementary/checking surveys for protected species (including schedule 1 birds, otter, badger, bats, water vole, red squirrel and nests of all breeding birds) shall be carried out by a suitably qualified person or persons to inform construction activities and any required mitigation b) Species mitigation and management plan c) A Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) monitoring programme for schedule 1 raptors and breeding birds survey (black grouse and wader) at 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 year intervals d) A landscape Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan, including measures appropriate for hen harrier

Upon approval the scheme shall for the protection of species and habitat enhancement shall be implemented unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority Reason: To make sure protected and other species are not harmed during construction and the site is enhanced for the benefit of biodiversity.

Environmental Management:

22. At least 2 months prior to the commencement of development (other than agreed enabling works in terms of Condition 23) a full site specific environmental management plan (EMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority (in consultation with SEPA and other agencies such as SNH as appropriate) and all work shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the plan approved in response to this condition. The plan shall include the following components (this list is not exhaustive): a) a study of the site and its environs to establish precisely how local water sources and supplies relate to and/or would be affected by the implementation of the development, plus mitigation in relation to this matter; b) a drainage management strategy, demonstrating how all surface and waste water arising during and after development will be managed and prevented from polluting any watercourses or sources (based on SUDS principles – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems); c) a plan for the management of flood risk, in particular in relation to parts of the site close to watercourses and proposed crossings of the watercourse; d) a focussed waste management strategy; e) a strategy for the management of peat, in the form of a Peat Management Plan; f) a strategy for management of dust arising during construction of the tracks, hardstandings and foundations; g) details of measures proposed to contain all materials and fuels to be utilised during construction; and h) details of borrow pit excavation and reinstatement (including the profile); including proposals for how any groundwater will be dealt with, if encountered. Reason: To control pollution of air, land and water.

Page 30 23. Prior to Commencement of Development, the wind farm operator shall prepare a Construction Method Statement (to include a Risk Assessment) for the approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH and SEPA. The Construction Method Statement shall comprise the following details:

a) all on-site construction, and construction of access tracks, including drainage; mitigation, post-construction restoration, and reinstatement work, as well as the timetables for such work; b) details relating to a ‘tool box talk’ on archaeology to on-site contractors preparing the site infrastructure; c) any temporary diversions of rights of way and associated signage; d) surface water drainage measures to comply with national guidance on pollution prevention, including surface water run-off from internal access roads; e) details of waste water management during construction; f) the arrangement for the on-site storage of fuel oil and other chemicals; g) the method, frequency and duration of ecological monitoring, particularly of watercourses, over the Construction Period of the wind farm development; h) details of the phasing/timing of construction of all components of the development including dates for delivery of components; i) details of water supply; j) details of measures to reduce soil erosion; k) details of assessment and mitigation in respect of construction noise, including measures adopted during evenings, night time, early mornings, weekends and public holidays l) details relating to minimisation of environmental impact of road construction; m) details of any watercourse engineering works and measures for the implementation of buffer zones around existing watercourses and features; n) details of timescale for the restoration of the site, including the site compound and crane hard-standing areas; and o) details of contingency planning in the event of accidental release of materials which could cause harm to the environment. Subject to the following paragraph, no work shall begin on the development, apart from the enabling works, until the Construction Method Statement has been approved. Once approved, the works specified in the Construction Method Statement shall be carried out as approved.

The enabling works shall not be carried out until details of them (including any necessary measures for public road improvements outwith the site, traffic management, works to be implemented at the entrance to the site to prevent dust and mud entering the public highway, or any related programme of monitoring the condition of public roads) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH and SEPA. All of the enabling works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: It is essential to ensure that all construction works are carried out in a controlled manner which minimises environmental damage; the CMS will provide a useable document identifying guidelines and conditions for construction, but which also gives recourse to mitigating action in the event of construction deviating from the CMS. The document, with the Environmental Management Plan required by Condition 22 of this permission, shall provide the (Ecological) Clerk of Works (required by Condition 24 of this permission) with information with which to monitor construction and environmental management.

24. Prior to the Commencement of Development and for the period of the enabling works, the wind farm operator shall appoint an independent Ecological Clerk of

Page 31 Works (ECoW) under terms which have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with SNH and SEPA, and shall include that the appointment shall be for the period of wind farm construction, including micro-siting and the finalisation of the wind farm layout, as well as subsequent post-construction restoration.

The ECoW’s terms of appointment are to impose a duty to monitor compliance with all the ecological and hydrological aspects of the Construction Method Statement, including post-construction restoration, which have been approved under the terms of Condition 23 above. The ECoW’s terms of appointment are to require the ECoW to report promptly to the wind farm operator’s nominated Construction Project Manager any non-compliance with the hydrological or ecological aspects of the Construction Method Statement. The wind farm operator shall confer on the ECoW (and comply with instructions given in the exercise of) the power to stop any construction or restoration activity on-site which in his or her view (acting reasonably) could lead to significant effects on the environment, and shall without delay, report the stoppage, with reasons, to the wind farm operator’s nominated Construction Project Manager and to the Planning Authority, SNH and SEPA. Reason: The presence of an ECoW at the site is essential to enable unforeseen or unplanned occurrences relating to the environment on and in relation to the site, in particular when it relates to impact on biodiversity and/or the water environment, to be mitigated.

Archaeology:

25. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) outlining a Watching Brief which must be implemented during relevant development works. The requirements of this are: a) The WSI shall be formulated and implemented by a contracted archaeological organisation working to the standards of the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) approval of which shall be in writing by the Planning Authority; b) Access shall be afforded to the nominated archaeologist to supervise relevant development works, investigate and record features of interest, and recover finds and samples; c) If significant finds, features or deposits are discovered all works shall cease and the nominated archaeologist(s) will contact the Council’s Archaeology Officer immediately for consultation which may result in further developer funded archaeological mitigation; d) If significant archaeology is identified by the contracted archaeologists and in agreement with the Planning Authority, a further scheme of mitigation subject to an amended WSI shall be implemented; e) Results shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval in the form of a Data Structure Report (DSR) within one month following completion of all on-site archaeological works. f) In the event that significant archaeological materials (deemed so by the Planning Authority in consultation with the developer’s archaeological contractor) are recovered either during the course of archaeological investigation or development, the developer will ensure that these undergo post-excavation research by a contracted archaeologist in accordance with a separate Post-Excavation Research Design (PERD) approved in writing by the Planning Authority. g) The results of post-excavation research will be submitted to the Planning Authority and disseminated appropriately through publication and community

Page 32 engagement within one year of the final on-site archaeological investigations and reporting; and h) The applicant’s archaeological contractor shall ensure that the full archive of materials and records be submitted to Treasure Trove within one year of the completion of post-excavation research and archived appropriately according to national guidelines The developer shall give a minimum of two weeks’ notice of the commencement of the approved archaeological works in writing to the nominated archaeological contractor and to the Planning Authority. No works shall commence until the two week notice period has expired.

No development shall take place until fencing has been erected, in a manner to be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, about the identified area of archaeological interest and no work shall take place inside the fencing without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains. This condition affords a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site, secure appropriate analysis, allow sufficient time to commence archaeological works and safeguard any sites of archaeological interest.

Noise:

26. Noise levels from the combined effects of the wind turbines forming this development at any noise sensitive premises (in existence at the time of permission) where the occupier of the property has no financial interest in the development shall not exceed an external free field LA90, 10min level of 35dB (A), at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12 m/s. For properties where the occupier has a financial interest in the development, the above levels should not exceed 45dB (A). Any tonal elements in the noise spectra shall be assessed using the joint Nordic Method and the tone level shall not exceed 2dB above the ‘masking Threshold for Tones in Noise’. Reason: To give protection to residents/occupiers of noise sensitive properties in proximity to the development, in the interests of private amenity.

27. In the event of a complaint, which in the view of the Planning Authority is justified, being received by the Planning Authority following implementation of the development and the wind farm becoming operational, within 21 days of being notified of the complaint by the Planning Authority the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, undertake a professional assessment of the nature of the alleged noise disturbance. The selected consultants used in the analysis shall first have been approved by the planning authority. Thereafter, in the case of each complaint where a noise nuisance is proved to be occurring, mitigation shall be carried out of a nature and within a timeframe to be agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To give protection to residents/occupiers of noise sensitive properties in proximity to the development, in the interests of private amenity.

Informatives

Relevant scheme: All conditions above relate to the details of the development and supporting information that was granted planning consent following appeal on 9 June 2016, under application reference 13/00789/FUL.

Notice of the start of development: The person carrying out the development must give advance notice in writing to the planning authority of the date when it is intended

Page 33 to start. Failure to do so is a breach of planning control. It could result in the planning authority taking enforcement action (See sections 27A and 123(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended)).

Notice of the completion of the development: As soon as possible after it is finished, the person who completed the development must write to the planning authority to confirm the position (See section 27B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended)).

Display of notice: A notice must be displayed on or near the site while work is being carried out. The planning authority can provide more information about the form of that notice and where to display it (See section 27C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Act (as amended) and Schedule 7 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations

DRAWING NUMBERS

Location Plan – Consented Turbine Positions

Approved by Name Designation Signature Ian Aikman Chief Planning Officer

The original version of this report has been signed by the Service Director (Regulatory Services) and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Craig Miller Principal Planning Officer

Page 34 Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5b

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 MARCH 2021

APPLICATION FOR CONSENT UNDER S36 ELECTRICITY ACT 1989

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 19/00756/S36

OFFICER: Mr Scott Shearer WARD: Hawick And Hermitage PROPOSAL: Erection of 45 No wind turbines and associated access tracks, infrastructure including substation/control room buildings and compound, temporary construction compound, meteorological mast and temporary borrow pits SITE: Land West Of Castleweary (Faw Side Community Wind Farm) Fawside Hawick APPLICANT: Community Windpower Ltd AGENT: N/A

1.0 CONSULTATION TIMESCALE

1.1 Approval has been granted by the ECU for SBC to issue their response to the proposed development by 3rd March 2021.

2.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

2.1 To advise the Scottish Government of the response from Scottish Borders Council on an application which has been submitted under section 36 of The Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) to construct 45 wind turbines and associated infrastructure at the proposed Faw Side Community Wind Farm. The proposed development is hereinafter referred to as Faw Side.

3.0 PROCEDURE

3.1 Scottish Borders Council (SBC) is a consultee as a ‘relevant planning authority’.

3.2 The views of SBC will be provided to the Energy Consents Unit at Scottish Government (ECU), the body responsible for processing onshore Section 36 planning applications. In this instance, the Faw Side proposal is required to be determined via Section 36 of the Electricity Act 2017 because the extended total capacity of the windfarm would be in excess of 50MW. The ECU advertises the application and carries out consultation with other interested bodies. There is, therefore, no need for Scottish Borders Council to undertake a tandem process although consultation has taken place with relevant specialists within the Council.

3.3 It should be noted that if permission is granted, the Council (rather than the ECU) would become a relevant enforcement authority responsible for monitoring compliance with the terms of an approval and any conditions imposed thereon.

Page 37 3.4 The application site extends across Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council administrative areas. The ECU has sought the views of D&G Council as part of their process of consideration.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site straddles the border of the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway occupying an extensive area of rolling hill landform within the Southern Uplands. The site lies directly to the south west of Teviothead and some 17.8km south west of Hawick. Langholm lies 6.7km to the south of the site. The A7 runs down the eastern side of the site with minor roads linked to an unclassified road at Teviothead running through and around the site. There are no rights of way or core paths within the site.

4.2 The topography of the site is undulating with hills separated by steep sided valleys. The land is predominately used for grazing with large areas of commercial forestry extending down the western flank of the site and on Merrypath Rig.

4.3 Tributaries to the River Teviot flow through the site. These water courses form part of the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which has been designated from protection under the habitats regulations.

4.4 A small number of residential properties are located are through the site (within SB) and around the edges of the site, those within the site include Giddeonscleugh, Merrylaw and Lymiescleugh.

5.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

5.1 The applicant is seeking consent to build and operate a new wind farm. The main components of the proposed development are;  45 wind turbines (T’s) and their foundations  Crane hardstand areas  On site access tracks  Substation/control room buildings and compound  Underground electrical and fibre optic cabling  A 125m metrological mast  An energy storage facility and grid connections

5.2 During the construction phase the development borrow pits and temporary construction compounds will be required.

5.3 Each of the turbines with be three bladed and consist of the following specification;  40 turbines with a 200m tip height, comprising 125m hub and 150m blade diameter  5 turbines with a 179.5m tip height, comprising 104.5m hub and 150m blade diameter

5.4 Of the 45T’s, 13 are located within the Scottish Borders. Their turbine numbers are T1-11 and T18 and T19. All other turbines are located in Dumfries and Galloway. The site access will be taken from the A7 within the Scottish Borders.

Page 38 5.5 The applicant is seeking consent for an operational period of 40 years. At the end of this period, unless ‘re-powered’ or unless a new planning permission is granted that would extend the wind farm’s life, it would be decommissioned and the site restored in agreement with a decommissioning method statement.

6.0 PLANNING HISTORY

6.1 Within SBC local authority area, other than application 20/01476/FUL which seeks permission for the erection of an 80m high metrological mast, there is no other planning history relevant to this proposed development.

7.0 APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

7.1 The Section 36 planning application is supported by a full ES, which comprises the following documents  Volume Ia EIA Report  Volume Ib EIA Report  Volume II LVIA Figures  Volume IIIa - IIIc LVIA Visualisations  Non-Technical Summary  Planning Statement  PAC Report

7.2 Additional Information (AI) was submitted to SBC on 20th June 2020. This included information relating;  Ornithology  Bats  Cultural Heritage  Peat Management and Peat Slide Risk  Aviation and night-time lighting  Landscape and Visual updates  Outline CEMP and HMP

8.0 REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

8.1 Third party representations are submitted to the ECU and it is for that authority to take these in to consideration when assessing the proposed developments on behalf of the Scottish Ministers.

8.2 At the time of writing it is understood that 340 objections and 176 comments of support have been submitted to the ECU in response to this development

9.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

9.1 Local Development Plan 2016 (LDP):

Policy Policy Name Reference PMD1 Sustainability PMD2 Quality Standards ED9 Renewable Energy Development HD3 Protection of Residential Amenity

Page 39 EP1 International Nature Conservation Sites and Protected Species EP2 National Nature Conservations Sites and Protected Species EP3 Local Biodiversity EP8 Archaeology EP13 Trees Woodlands and Hedgerows EP15 Development Affecting the Water Environment IS2 Developer Contributions IS5 Protection of Access Routes IS8 Flooding IS9 Waste Water Treatment Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage

9.2 SESplan Strategic Development Plan June 2013:

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

10.0 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

10.1 Adopted SBC Supplementary Guidance (SG) and other documents:

 Renewable Energy (2018)  Visibility Mapping for Windfarm Development (2003)  Biodiversity (2005)  Developer Contributions (2010)  Ironside Farrar Study (2016) on Wind Energy Consultancy Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact  Borders Landscape Assessment 1998 Ash Consulting Group

10.2 Scottish Government Policy and Guidance:

 Letter from Chief Planning Officer entitled ‘Energy Targets and Scottish Planning Policy’ (11 November 2015)  The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009  The Scottish Renewable Action Plan 2009  2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in Scotland – Update 2015  National Planning Framework for Scotland (3) June 2014  Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) June 2014  Scottish Planning Policy and Electricity Generation Policy Statement 2013  Onshore Wind Turbines – Planning Advice 2014  COP21 UN 2015 (following Heathrow Runway decision)  Climate Change Plan 2018  Onshore Wind Policy Statement 2017  Scottish Energy Strategy 2017  Climate Change (Emissions Reductions Targets) (Scotland) Bill 2019  The Programme for Government 2019  UN Gap Report 2019  Committee on Climate Change (CCC) Report 2019 and annual report 2020  UK Net Zero Target 2019

Page 40  Covid-19 Guidance including Chief Planner’s letter, CCC advice and Advisory Group on economic recovery

10.3 Scottish Government On-line Renewables Advice:

 Circular 3/2011 Environmental Impact Assessment (S) Regulations 2011  PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2008  PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation  PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise  PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology  PAN 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment  PAN 69 Flood Risk 2015  PAN 75 Planning for Transport  PAN 81 Community Engagement Planning with People  Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Onshore Renewable Energy Development 2016

10.4 Historic Scotland Publications:

 Scottish Historic Environment Policy (2011)

10.5 SNH Publications:

10.6 Other Publications:  ETSU-R-97 - The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms  CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines 2016

10.7 Schedule 9 to the Electricity Act 1989

10.8 Scottish Natural Heritage background paper on – Aviation Lighting Visits

11.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

11.1 The following consultation responses have been received by specialist officers at Scottish Borders Council. A summary of the consultation responses received to each is provided below.

11.2 Access Officer: No objection. There are no rights of way of core paths within the site. Opportunities exist to improve public access by designing and promoting suitable circular new path routes within the site for all users. Interpretation boards should be installed at places of public interest. Provision of parking at the main entrance would be beneficial for users of the route.

11.3 Archaeology Officer: 1st Response 28.10.2019. Object. Recommend that;  There is evidence of direct impacts beyond those listed in the EIA. Further assessment is required which should utilise LiDAR information of the site.

Page 41  Archaeological potential has only been assessed up to 350m OD, there is archaeological potential on areas of flat ground above this elevation potentially at Pikethaw Cairn and Merrypath Rig.  There will be setting impacts to Eweslees Scheduled Monument. Disagree with the ascription of the monument as a watchtower and would rather see this as a prehistoric barrow. This changes its setting, and the impacts are objectionable.  There are potentially major setting impacts to a newly identified hilltop cairn on Pikethaw Hill. Further Environmental Information is required to fully explore the site and impacts.

11.4 2nd Response 05.02.2021. Object, recommending that the application is opposed on failure to provide sufficient information with following key points noted;  The applicants have not considered all the information given to them with regard to the historic environment; the LiDAR information has not been assessed for additions to the HER coverage for archaeological sites impacted by the development.  Direct impacts of associated infrastructure (i.e. access roads, borrow pits etc) has not been fully assessed  Impacts upon the setting of archaeological monuments, in particular Ewes Doors and Pikethaw monuments – which remain significantly adverse.

11.5 Flood Risk and Coastal Management 1st Response 29.07.2019: SEPA mapping identifies that the site is at risk of flooding from a 1 in 200 year event. Due to minimal flood risk no major objection is raised. Recommend that;  Hard surface, SUDS and other drainages provide attenuation to existing greenfield runoff rates  Watercourse crossing do not reduce the flow of conveyance of any watercourse  Details of silt traps and any other functions are agreed to minimise sediment entering the watercourse.

11.6 2nd Response 2.07.2020 No objection. Satisfied with the additional information provided for the single watercourse crossing and 50m watercourse buffer. Detailed comments provided in 1st response remain relevant.

11.7 Ecology Officer 1st response 10.10.2019: Requested further information to assess impacts the ornithological interest, notably hen harrier (qualifying interest of Langholm-Newcastleton moors SPA), ii) details of an Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan and iii) an Outline Habitat Management Plan iv) details on the proposals for Compensatory Replanting.

11.8 2nd Response 25.09.2020 No objection is raised. The following pertinent points noted;  Further ornithological studies suggest that the development may have a significant effect on some Schedule 1 and 1A raptors during its lifetime. It would be reasonable to require a condition for monitoring and mitigation of raptor impacts as part of wider ecological monitoring.  The outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is largely satisfactory. A detailed CEMP should clearly identify the relevant components of the CEMP that are in mitigation to safeguard the River Tweed SAC/SSSI.

Page 42  Proposed micrositing allowance of 100m is concerning as significantly exceeds standard 50m. Further control may be required by planning condition to ensure construction works following micrositing are adequately covered by a CEMP  The blanket bog measures within the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) are insufficient. This is an irreplaceable habitat and further compensation is required for the loss of 40.79ha of blanket bog.  A number of planning conditions are required to provide appropriate mitigation for the impact of the development on ecological assets, these include; o appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works o a CEMP o a Species Protection Plan (SPP) o A HMP o A programme for ecological monitoring which includes Schedule 1 and 1A raptors o Compensatory woodland planting scheme o Decommissioning restoration and aftercare strategy

11.9 Environmental Health: No objection. The predicted noise generated by the proposed development is below the noise limits at the identified noise sensitive locations. Conditions are recommended to set maximum noise levels to protect the amenity of residential properties and ensure that the candidate turbine (and its final location) will comply with the specified noise limits.

11.10 Noise generated from construction operations is recommended to be controlled via an informative notes specifying the hours for undertaking noisy work and relevant legislation and practice measures which construction operations should adhere to.

11.11 A condition is recommended to ensure that the development does not adversely affect any private water supplies in the vicinity of the site.

11.12 Forward Planning: Recommend that further information is required. An overview is provided of relevant national and local planning policy and guidance on renewable energy is provided along with other relevant material considerations. Key points are;  The proposal is for a community windfarm no confirmation is provided confirming that this development benefits from community ownership identified in a letter from the Chief Planner as a material consideration.  Policy ED9 – Renewable Energy Development is the most relevant LDP 2016 policy for this application.  The Council has produced SG on Renewable Energy which along with the related Ironside (IF) Farrar Landscape Capacity study 2016 have been cleared by the Scottish Ministers and form part of the Development Plan.  IF Study recognises that there is low capacity for a minimal number turbines over 120m in height at this site.  The 120m limited is the upper limit of the study which this development significantly exceeds.  Recognise that as subsidies have diminished that turbines will become higher to make them more efficient. Economic benefits of larger turbines must be carefully balanced against landscape and visual impacts.  The turbines will be required to be lit. Proposal will introduce artificial lighting into a dark rural area and it is absolutely vital this matter is fully

Page 43 scrutinised. Without absolute certainty as to what the visual impacts of the lighting will be it would be wrong to determine this proposal without this being clarified.  The Council remains proactive in supporting wind turbines in appropriate locations and is aware of the economic benefits these larger turbines can provide, the considerable height of these turbines, along with any lighting, and their impacts on the landscape and a number of receptors must be scrutinised extremely carefully. A poor decision on this proposal would have detrimental impacts on the landscape and environment on this part of the Scottish Borders.

11.13 Landscape Architect: 1st response 4.10.2020. Objected and requested further information, to address undernoted concerns;  Size of turbines diminish the grandeur of hills  Introduction of a large windfarm into an area previously free of windfarm development, when seen from viewpoints in SB and from A7, especially VPs 3, 10, 12, 19 and 20 and to a lesser, but unmeasured extent, VPs 23 and 24.  Detract from the distinctive setting of a number of cone shape hills which appear distinctive in rolling southern uplands  Significant extent of ancillary infrastructure (access roads, borrow pits etc) will materially alter the character of the rural landscape.  Introduction of aviation turbine lighting may be visible from near and far and will impact the rural landscape, sense of remoteness and appreciation of the night sky.

11.14 2nd Response 22.12.2020. Maintain objection. The additional information has not addressed landscape and visual concerns that the proposal is out of scale with the receiving landscape and will have an unacceptable impact on landscape character and the detriment impacts of aviation lighting remains unresolved.

11.15 Roads Planning Service (RPS): No objection. A larger part of the access to the site is provided by the A7 Trunk Road, suitability of this rests with Traffic Scotland. There is no definitive route for the abnormal loads. The agreement of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is recommended to ensure that the preferred access route has the capacity to accommodate traffic movements and/or any upgrades to the public road network to facilitate the access are suitably agreed and any damage to the route is rectified.

12.0 OTHER IMPORTANT CONSULTATION RESPONSES (SUBMITTED TO SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT):

12.1 As members are aware, the Council is a consultee in the Section 36 application process and does not undertake any outside consultation itself. Nevertheless, some of the responses received by the ECU have been made known to the Department and Members may be interested in the more significant responses which are detailed below.

12.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – Object. Development would have a detrimental impact on the integrity of the setting of Eweslees Watch Tower (SM12750) which represents an issue of national interest. Impacts could be mitigated by deletion of turbines 6 and 7.

Page 44 12.3 Ministry of Defence (MoD) – Object on grounds that the development would have a significant and detrimental impact on; 1. the operation and capability of the Eskdalemuir Seismic Recording Station 2. the effective operation of threat radar at sites that support the RAF Spadeadam Electronic Warfare Tactics Facility

12.4 NatureScot (SNH) – Additional information was provided which enabled on the value of the blanket bog habitat which enabled SNH to remove their objection on the developments impact on this resource. An HMP is required to mitigate loss of peat and peatland habitat.

12.5 Detailed landscape and visual impact advice was provided on 18.05.2020. SNH have not objected on landscape and visual grounds however following concerns relevant to SBC were;  Significant adverse landscape effect on a number of LCTs.  Adverse effects occur from A7 where very larger turbines form a dominant feature which affect the appreciation of rugged and open back drop of hills.  Views from Upper Teviot Valley would be significant affected.  Lighting of all turbines will also extend significant adverse effects into dusk and night-time because of the low light levels prevalent in the area.  Wind farm is poorly designed with very large turbines on pronounced scenic ‘edge’ hills  Too many turbines causes a congested appearance in end-on views from the north

12.6 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) – Do not object provided conditions endorsed by SEPA are attached to any consent to control Micrositing, peat management, forestry management and a CEMP.

12.7 Transport Scotland: Access details provided within AI confirm that the access provided sufficient visibility and traffic entering the site will not impede road traffic. Extent of tarmac apron may need to be extended however this can be addressed at detailed design. Transportation of 75m long blades through known pinch points in Hawick (i.e. B6399/ A7 junction) could be problematic. Acknowledge that use Blade Lift Adapter vehicles are proposed to navigate these pinch points however further information is required to demonstrate that the technology can technically work and does not represent risk to the safe and efficient operation of the trunk road network.

12.8 No objection to the proposed development in terms of environmental impact on the trunk road network is raised however conditions covering the following matters are recommended; abnormal road traffic management plan, signage, construction stage traffic management plan, means of access to trunk road, provision and maintenance of visibility splays, wheel washing.

13.0 KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

13.1 Bearing in mind that SBC is a consultee rather than the determining authority, the following are the key issues to be reported in the following Assessment:  land use planning policy principle  economic benefits attributable to the scheme  benefits arising in terms of renewable energy provision  landscape and visual impacts including turbine lighting  residential amenity visual impacts, arising from turbines and infrastructure

Page 45  cumulative landscape and visual impacts with other wind energy developments  physical and setting impacts on cultural heritage assets  noise impacts  ecological, ornithological and habitat effects  impact on road safety and the road network  impacts on the public path network and public access on accessible land

14.0 ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

14.1 Scottish Government policy, regional strategic policy and local planning policy and guidance all support renewable energy, including wind farms, provided that there are no unacceptable and significantly adverse environmental impacts.

14.2 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) sets out a Spatial Framework for determining appropriate sites for wind farms. The SPP states three classifications. Group 1 where wind farms are not acceptable in principle i.e. within National Scenic Areas and National Parks. Group 2 which reflects areas of significant protection including national and international environmental designations, nationally important environmental interests and community separation to settlements of less than 2km. Group 3 recognises areas which are removed from the sensitivities identified in group 1 and 2 and are most likely to be acceptable for wind farm development, subject to detailed consideration.

14.3 The site does not fall within Group 1. There are residential properties within 2km of the site however these properties do not form part of a settlement which is identified in the Local Development Plan 2016 (LDP). These properties do not benefit from the 2km community separation in SPPs Spatial Framework. The application site does contain the River Tweed SSSI which is an international environmental designation and areas of carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitats which are nationally important mapped environmental interest. The site therefore falls within Group 2 which suggest that “...in these areas wind farms may be appropriate in some circumstances. Further consideration will be required to demonstrate that any significant effects on the qualities of these areas can be substantially overcome by siting, design or other mitigation.”

14.4 SESplan policy 10 requires Local Development Plans to set a framework for the encouragement of renewable energy proposals that aims to contribute towards achieving national electricity and heat targets and taking into account economic, environmental and transport considerations.

14.5 Similarly, the Scottish Energy Strategy is also a material consideration, setting out ambitious new energy targets of 50% of the energy for Scotland’s heat, transport and electricity consumption to be from renewable sources by 2030 and an increase of 30% in the productivity of energy use across the Scottish economy. The Climate Change Bill has also been approved by the Scottish Government aiming to cut emissions by 75% by 2030.

14.6 Nevertheless, all Policies and Guidance still require development to be assessed on a case by case basis and only development in the right places will be supported. Para 163 of SPP confirms the spatial framework is

Page 46 complemented by a more detailed and exacting development management process where the merits of an individual proposal will be carefully considered against the full range of environmental, community and cumulative impacts. The location of the proposal within an area with some potential for wind farm development does not in itself mean that the proposal will be acceptable.

14.7 All planning and related applications must principally be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal has to, be assessed against a number of LDP policies. Policy ED9 is the principal Policy dealing with renewable energy development and supports commercial wind farms where they can be accommodated without unacceptable significant adverse impacts or effects, giving due regard to relevant environmental, community and cumulative impact considerations. Proposals will be approved provided that there are no significant effects that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Where mitigation is not possible, the development will only be approved if the Council is satisfied that the wider economic, environmental and other benefits outweigh the potential damage arising from it. The policy contains a number of criteria by which to assess the proposal.

14.8 Policy ED9 also embodies the Council’s Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance (SG) 2018 which has been approved by the Scottish Government. This contains the Spatial Framework which demonstrates that the site lies within an “area with potential for wind farm development”. However, informed by the more specific locational Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact Study produced by Ironside Farrar in 2016 and included within the SG, the site does lie within an area of underlying landscape capacity that could accommodate turbines with a tip height of over 120m, when taking into account the constraints identified in the Study. The precise impacts of the proposal must, of course, be assessed in detail against the relevant LDP policies to establish whether the proposal is acceptable.

Design Iteration

14.9 Section 3 of the EIA explains the evolution of the proposed development. The pre-scoping exercise in 2017 detailed the development of 62 turbines with a 160m tip height. Following detailed site investigation and subsequent changes within the Onshore Wind sector the number of turbines was reduced to 49 but their tip height was increased to 200m. A revised 29 turbine layout (layout C) was provided after scoping responses from stakeholders. The final layout removed 4 turbines to address landscape and visual impacts and other environmental impacts. The final proposals detail a 45 turbine scheme with 40 turbines at 200m and 5 at 179.9m to address impacts on visual receptors.

14.10 The submitted AI has not amended the design or layout of the proposals.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

14.11 Policy ED9 requires consideration of the landscape and visual impacts, including the effects on wild land and cumulative impact. Account must be taken of the Renewable Energy SG and the Ironside Farrar Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact Study. The latter was updated in 2016 to:  take cognisance of turbine approvals since 2013 to build a clearer picture of landscape capacity

Page 47  adopt new turbine typologies with the upper scale of turbines heights extended from 100m+ to 120m+ to reflect industry changes where there is a greater demand for larger turbines

14.12 Assessment of the landscape and visual impacts should also take into account the relevant guidance from SNH.

Landscape Character

14.13 The site within Scottish Borders lies within Landscape Character Type (LCT) 93 Southern Uplands with Scattered Forest : Cauldcleuch Head Group and within LCT 96 Southern Uplands with Forest: Craik as defined in the recently published in National Landscape Character Assessment Map (SNH). These LCT’s are “Upland Types” which are characterised by their large scale, rolling landform where both have higher dome or cone-shaped summits. In the Cauldcleuch Head Group LCT hill peaks range between 300 – 600m. In the Craik LCT these summits are lower between 200 – 500m with its forest cover dominating views from other LCTs including the Cauldcleuch head LCT. The character of these areas are influenced by a sense of enclosure, tranquillity and quietness.

14.14 Upland types are generally perceived to be more suitable for wind farm development due to the grandeur of their scale, however the scale of turbines proposed is larger than any other which has been previously been consented in the Scottish Borders and may pose significant impacts on the key characteristics of the host LCTs. This is recognised in the LVIA which notes at sections 6.7.88 and 6.7.144 that where there is visibility of the development up to 8.5km away, that the development is likely to have significant effects on the character of the site. These impacts will require careful assessment.

14.15 The site is not one of the nationally designated areas of Wild Land. The Cauldcleuch Head Group is noted to display remote qualities with Craik LCT displaying quietness and tranquillity. The introduction of thirteen 200m high turbines across these LCTs, as part of a 45 T development that straddles the border with Dumfries and Galloway, will impact on these landscape characteristics by introducing large scale infrastructure which is of an industrial nature.

14.16 The site is distant from Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) within the Borders with the Teviot Valleys SLA lying some 20km from the development. At this distance, the proposal may not have a detrimental impact on the setting of the SLA during hours of day light, however the introduction of turbine lighting will increase visibility of the development during hours of darkness from this distance and from parts of the SLA. These impacts will be examined within the turbine lighting section of this report.

Landscape Capacity

14.17 The Ironside Farrar Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact (IF) Study, updated in 2016 is referred to within policy ED9 and the 2016 version is a material consideration in respect of this application. The IF Study uses the Borders Landscape Assessment to assess the capacity of each landscape type for differing turbine typologies. It is also incorporated within the Renewable Energy SG, which also advises other guidance to be considered. LDP Policy, SG and relevant guidance notes must all be used to assess the landscape

Page 48 impact and visual effects of the development. The Council Landscape Officer’s consultation replies are included in full on the Public Access website and use the Policy and guidance in assessing the landscape impact of the proposal.

14.18 The purpose of the IF Study is “….to determine the landscape capacity of (the) Scottish Borders to accommodate wind energy development and to determine the levels of cumulative development that would be acceptable across the local authority area.”

14.19 The IF Study identifies that within the Scottish Borders the site extends across the following two Landscape Character Areas (LCA);  Southern Uplands with Scattered Forest – Cauldcleuch Head Group (LCA No 4iii). This includes the eastern part of the site. 8 Turbines are located in this area (Turbine No’s 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 18 and 19).  Southern Uplands with Forest Covered – Craik LCA No 5(i). This includes the western edge of the development. 5 Turbines are located in this area (Turbine No’s 2, 5, 9, 10 and 11).

14.20 The Landscape Analysis for the LCA observes that both areas consist of extensive rolling hill landforms with steep sided valleys. There is more commercial forestry within Craik LCA 5(i). Both areas have low internal visibility however 4(iii) has extensive visibility from neighbouring LCAs with the edges of 5(i) visible from surrounding hill areas.

14.21 The IF Study recommends that larger turbines, i.e. turbines over 120m have the potential to be accommodated within elevated upland areas of these LCAs which take advantage of topographical containment. Within 4(iii) steep landform gradient may reduce capacity and in 5(i) turbines may be able to be screened by trees.

14.22 This analysis is further interpreted in Figure 6.1e which identifies shaded areas to represent the underlying landscape capacity for this LCA on a sliding scale from high to no capacity. The shaded area is meant to “…show an indicative level of capacity and the extent within and across different landscape character areas. These areas should not be interpreted as a hard boundary and reference should be made to the detailed capacity assessment and locational guidance given in Table 6.1”.

14.23 There is a shaded area which extends across the two LCAs. This area is based on the advice within Table 6.1 which seeks to keep turbines within the elevated upland parts of the LCAs. The application site is located within this area, however this area is only perceived to have a low capacity for turbines over 120m. The eastern part of the site is close to the edge of the shaded area where a valley landform has no capacity for turbines over 120m.

14.24 Figure 3.2 of the IF Study illustrates the topography across the Scottish Borders. Figure 2.1 Site Layout of the ES suggest that the 13 turbines within the Scottish Borders occupy the following approximate AOD levels;  T1 - 290AOD  T2 - 370AOD  T3 - 320AOD  T4 - 325AOD  T5 - 415AOD  T6 - 370AOD

Page 49  T7 - 440AOD  T8 - 460AOD  T9 - 480AOD  T10 - 430AOD  T11 - 460AOD  T18 - 490AOD  T19 - 530AOD

14.25 Within the 2nd consultation response our Landscape Architect does identify that T1, 3, 4 and 6 are located within lower parts of 4(iii) and that T2 and 5 occupy lower elevations in 5(i). This is corroborated by their AOD levels noted above. While the IF Study does recognise that there is capacity for turbines over 120m in these parts of the LCAs, the location of some of the turbines appear to extend out with the more elevated parts of the LCAs which were perceived to be the most appropriate location for tall turbines in the spatial study. Furthermore, although the IF Study identifies a capacity for turbines over 120m, this is only a low capacity and this proposal is seeking consent for a number of turbines with a 200m tip height. The scale of the proposed turbines is beyond the upper limits of the IF study, primarily because there was no precedent for such large turbines at the time the report was produced when the tallest turbines being proposed in the Scottish Borders were generally restricted to 145m.

14.26 The location of some 200m high towards the outer edges of an area perceived only to have low capacity for 120+ turbines does not wholly comply with the Development Capacity recommendation in Table 6.1 of the IF Study for the affected host LCAs. This failure is a factor of material significance in assessing the landscape acceptability of a wind farm on the application site.

Theoretical Visibility

14.27 The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) illustrates the potential visibility of the turbines to hub height and blade tip height within 20 and 45km zones and the extent of landform containments (refer to Figures 6.9a – 6.9d). There are also a series of ZTVs showing cumulative impacts (Figures 6.15b – 6.15x) and of lighting (Figures 6.9e and 6.9f).

14.28 Examination of Figure 6.8c demonstrates that within the Scottish Borders there are views of the development from elevated locations around the site to the north. Intermittent visibility extends from Teviothead in a north easterly direction along the A7 towards Hawick. Visibility extends around the northern edges of Hawick and towards Ancrum on higher ground on the northern side of the River Teviot. A swathe of visibility also extends from Craik to Borthwickshiels and picks up parts of Roberton. There are intermittent views of the development from hills to the east of the site. To the west there are limited receptors of the development within the Scottish Borders. From the South there are long areas of visibility of the development from the A7 on approach to the Scottish Borders.

14.29 The Council’s Landscape Architect acknowledges that there is a good degree of landform containment of the development from the Scottish Borders including inhabited areas and parts of roads along valley floors to the north and north east. The theoretical visibility suggests that the development benefits from a reasonable level of containment from parts of the Scottish Borders, nevertheless there remains visibility from key receptors and the extent of these landscape and visual impacts are discussed below.

Page 50 Landscape Impact

14.30 The acceptability of landscape impacts depends on the level of change of the existing character ‘pre-development’ weighed against the ‘post-development’ impacts of the proposals. The proposal will introduce a very large commercial windfarm in to an area which was previously free from windfarm development, posing potentially very significant consequences for the receiving landscape. The landscape impact of the development is discussed in the assessment of selected viewpoints below and all are within the Scottish Borders;

Viewpoint 10 – Hizzy Cairn

14.31 This Viewpoint (VP) is from the side of the Lymiescleugh Burn looking towards the elevated Southern Uplands and is approx. 3.8km away from the nearest turbine. The turbines appear very prominent, spreading across the southern skyline. Within the centre of the array the turbines appear congested with the grouping towards the west. This gives rise to stacking with multiple blade overlaps which could appear untidy against the simple rolling skyline. Towards the east T20 appears as an outlier. From this VP is it evident that T1, T3, T4 and T6 occupy lower AOD levels as they noticeably step down from the elevated upland platform towards the incised valley. Their excessive scale appears significantly out of keeping with the smaller scale valley which they intrude. Further west, T2 and T5 are also seen to have a disproportionate impact on the smaller valley landscape they are positioned towards. The siting of each of these 200m high turbines out with more elevated parts of the Southern Uplands conflicts with guidance within the IF Study and results in causing adverse landscape effects within the Scottish Borders. The scale and positioning of the turbines is judged to significantly dominate the landscape which has a harmful effect on its simple character and sense of remoteness.

Viewpoint 11 – Right of Way East of Teviothead

14.32 It is conceded that this path does not appear to be used frequently, however the Landscape Architect observed that it is characteristic of views from the neighbouring Pastoral Upland Fringe: Upper Teviot LCA. The turbines are visible within the upland landscape. The scale of the turbines are considered to potentially diminish the grandeur of the hills in this view.

Viewpoint 19 – Penchrist Pen

14.33 This is an elevated panoramic viewpoint overlooking the Southern Uplands. Up to 35 turbines are visible from this location. Within the central foreground of the array is Skelfhill Pen. The base line image for the photomontage has been taken when the land has been snow covered which reduces the prominence of the hill. Fortunately the landform can be better interpreted by the wireline in Figure 6.35b where Skelfhill Pen appears as a distinctive cone shaped hill. The turbines appear to crowd around the hill and their vertical scale affords some tips to extend above Skelfhill Pen. The scale and siting of the turbines undermines the prominence of Skelfhill Pen in the skyline as a distinctive cone shaped hill which contributes to the character of the host landscape.

Page 51 Viewpoint 20 – Greatmoor Hill

14.34 From this hill summit, the extent of the largescale simple landform of the upland landscape is evident. At this 11km distance the windfarm does appear dominant with a number of the 36 visible turbines all seen from their hubs. The tip heights extend above the skyline and hill summits diminishing their grandeur.

Viewpoint 24 – Rubers Law

14.35 No photomontage information was provided in the original LVIA. Figure 2a in the FEI provided the required photography. It is accepted that this is a distant VP which is 25km away from the nearest turbine therefore the development forms a small portion of the view. Nevertheless the location of the turbines on the skyline does increase their prominence and the Landscape Architect identifies that the turbines’ detrimental relationship with Skelfhill Pen may be evident.

14.36 In summary, the receiving landscapes may have the potential to accept a wind energy development of very large turbines (120m+) and this is reinforced by the guidance of the IF Study. Notwithstanding this, the excessive scale of the proposed turbines means that they often appear dominant within the host LCA’s. From VP10 it is clear that T’s1 – 6 which are located within the Scottish Borders step down from the elevated upland part of the LCA where the IF Study appraises that there would be low capacity for wind turbines over 120m. These turbines do not benefit from the topographical containment of the upland area and their scale results in the development appearing to dominate the landscape, particularly the valley above which they are positioned. The excessive scale of the development is considered to have a detrimental impact on the underlying qualities of grandeur and tranquillity within the uplands. The proposals also diminish the drama of Skelfhill Pen – a distinctive cone shaped hill – which contributes to the character of the landscape.

14.37 The AI provided no details to respond to the concerns originally raised by the Landscape Architect. The scale of the proposed development is considered to give rise to unacceptable and adverse impacts on landscape character when it is visible from the north and east which is contrary to LDP Policy ED9, the Renewable Energy SG and Ironside Farrar Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact Study.

Visual Impacts – Roads and Paths

14.38 The submitted ZTV plans confirm the extent of theoretical visibility from the impacted road and path networks within the surrounding environment. Viewpoints which affect movements associated with the Scottish Borders are discussed below;

Viewpoint 10 – Hizzy Cairn

14.39 This viewpoint has been used to assess landscape impacts however it is also relevant to note the impacts for users of this route. This is a minor road to Commonbrae which provides access for residents with the roadside cairn in memory to motorcyclist Steven Hislop attracting visitors to this route as a destination. The Landscape Architect agrees with the ES that this VP has a medium – high sensitivity for visual receptors. Users of this route will be

Page 52 subjected to the disproportionate prominence of the proposed development within the landscape as noted in the Landscape Impact section above. The road and its setting has a quaint rural charm and benefits from a sense of enclosure. Visibility of 28 turbines up to 200m in scale significantly intrudes on the rural character of this route. This detrimental impact will be experienced regularly by local residents and also the visitors who are attracted to use the route and stop at the Hizzy Cairn.

Viewpoint 12 – Minor Road to Hermitage at Carewood Rig

14.40 This VP is within Dumfries and Galloway, however it is close to the local authority boundary with the Scottish Borders, approx. 1.5km to the east. While this route is a minor road it is signed with brown tourist signs at both ends to Hermitage Castle and also from Hermitage as the Reiver Trail, and takes in panoramic views travelling from Hermitage and the Hermitage Water valley to the A7. This route has a high scenic quality. The viewer is looking westward into hills and valleys at the most northerly extent of Dumfries and Galloway. The upper parts of T19 together with a blade clip of T18 are the only turbines in the Scottish Borders which are visible, however the number and extent of turbines seen from this location has a dramatic negative visual impact on this view with westbound road users subjected to a view where turbines dominate the skyline having just left the Scottish Borders.

Viewpoints 2, 3, 4 and FEI Viewpoint 1 – A7

14.41 The A7 is an important trunk road which connects the Scottish Borders with North West England and Edinburgh and as the Borders Historic Route, is recognised as a major tourist route through the Scottish Borders. It passes east of the development within a deeply incised narrow valley between Teviothead and Langholm which does result in there being parts of no visibility of the development, however there are also areas of visibility. It is worth noting that the A7 also forms part of the Borders Historic Route.

14.42 VP2 is located in Dumfries and Galloway, just south of the local authority boundary. Blade tip of T6 would be the only turbine in the Scottish Borders that would be party visible. Some other blades of turbines within Dumfries and Galloway would be visible however these views are not considered in this report.

14.43 VP3 is located beside Ewes Hall in Dumfries and Galloway. The VP is provided off the trunk road, however the ES notes that a similar view is gained from the Trunk Road. Members should be aware that the view is across Dumfries and Galloway and no turbines within the Scottish Borders are visible. The Landscape Architect observes that the scale of some turbines is similar to the size of the hills above the valley floor they are positioned on. This catches the eye of the receptor and would be representative of views of the wind farm where it is visible along this section of the trunk road.

14.44 VP4 is further south on the A7. This VP shows the extent of the development which would be visible where it ranges across the skyline on this part of the trunk road. Again the host landscape is Dumfries and Galloway and only a blade of 1 turbine in the Scottish Borders is visible.

14.45 The LVIA did not originally provide a VP from the A7 within the Scottish Borders, but this was remedied in the AI with an additional VP (FEI 1), to the

Page 53 south of Teviothead. T3 and T2 and to a lesser extent T5 do appear to step down in to the valley. This does not appear as dramatic as from VP10 because at FEI VP 1 it is seen within a larger valley landscape where the hills at either side help to conceal the development. The Landscape Architect does consider the impacts from this VP and considers “the photomontage does demonstrate the magnitude of change to this valley, how visible the turbines will be and that the turbines will dominate the valley and the hills they are located on, as well as being out of scale with the other vertical features within the landscape, including trees and the pylons that are already a visible feature in the valley landscape.”

14.46 From analysis of the affected routes, it would appear that other than VP10, the selected viewpoints may not necessarily reveal significantly adverse impacts on views from the Scottish Borders or of Scottish Borders landscapes. Nevertheless, the development does appear to be visible from routes which connect to the Scottish Borders with receptors travelling to and from the region subjected to such impacts. In particular these impacts are experienced from the A7 which is a primary route into and out of the Scottish Borders which experiences high traffic volumes. This road is also a promoted tourist route therefore receptors using the road for this purpose will be more sensitive to the landscape. The development is considered to appear prominent from parts of the A7. This view is shared by SNH in their landscape and visual impact advice dated 18th May 2020 to the ECU who considered the impact of the proposal on the trunk road and recommended; “…very large turbines are sited on top of eye-catching ridgelines and pronounced peaks increasing their visual impact and incongruity.”

14.47 While views of the development from the A7 may indeed be intermittent they do result in a cumulative sequential visual impact along the well-used A7 which will have an adverse visual effect for the experience of residents, commuters and tourists travelling to and from the Scottish Borders. It is therefore concluded that the development will have unacceptable and significant adverse visual impacts from roads which is contrary to LDP Policy ED9, the Renewable Energy SG and the Landscape Capacity Study.

Visual Impacts – Residential Amenity

14.48 SPP advocates the identification in Local Development Plans of an area not exceeding 2km around settlements (that have settlement boundaries within Local Development Plans) as a community separation for consideration of visual impacts. This separation distance was not specifically referred to individual properties but it is regularly used as a threshold by Reporters in decisions and it is generally recognised that most overbearing and unacceptable impacts on residential amenity would tend to occur within that distance rather than between 2 and 5km distance. The Council’s Renewable Energy SG also clarifies that individual properties within 2km should be considered. There is also a growing opinion that with heights of turbines now greatly in excess of heights commonplace at the time of SPP 2014, the 2km study area should often be extended to 2.5-3km.

14.49 Visual impacts on residential amenity, whether from settlements or individual properties, tend to use a type of methodology that has become known as the “Lavender Test”. The “Test” is an assessment approach that has been taken in a number of appeal cases to assess impacts, even though it is not universally applied nor is there any agreement or Scottish Government guidance

Page 54 recommending its usage. The “Lavender Test” not only refers to the impact on houses but also their gardens. It sets quite a severe threshold of whether a wind farm would be so overbearing and dominant on a property that it would make it an unattractive place to live. Much would contribute to that assessment including proximity, elevation, main outlook from windows, interruption by screening or buildings, location of garden ground, approach roads and tracks etc. These matters are considered and advised in the Renewable Energy SG.

14.50 Whilst all matters must be considered in the overall assessment, the greatest weight simply has to be given to direct and unavoidable impacts from inside dwellinghouses and, in particular, main habitable room windows. There is also evidence that decisions are taken on the number and proportion of properties within an area that may experience such impacts. The fewer the properties impacted, the less weight that would hold in the overall planning balance.

14.51 The ES identifies that there are 5 residential properties within 2km of the development which are located within the Scottish Borders. These properties and their distance to the nearest turbine are noted below; 1. Gideonscleuch – 0.79km 2. Merrylaw – 1.02km 3. Riverside Lodge – 1.32km 4. Commonbrae – 1.35km 5. Blackcleugh – 1.94

14.52 Gideonscleuch and Merrylaw are both determined to experience a high magnitude of change and significant visual effects as a result of the development, however both of these properties are financially involved therefore the detrimental impact they would experience is discounted.

14.53 Riverside Lodge and Commonbare are located next to each other to the north of the development. There is theoretical visibility of up to 22 turbines to blade tip from these dwellings. The main outlooks from Commonbrae is towards the east and west meaning that the property is angled away from the development. There is a small window on the gable of the house which does face towards the development but this is not perceived to be the dwellings main outlook and it is likely that intervening vegetation would screen the development from this opening. Riverside Lodge is angled more towards the development however this bungalow does occupy a lower ground level than its neighbour which will enable roadside vegetation to screen the development from potential views from principle rooms. There is potential that gardens of both properties will be affected, however the presence of vegetation is again, likely to help screen views of the turbines.

14.54 Blackcleugh is located within a valley to the north of the development. Similar to Commonbrae its main outlook is towards the east allowing the property to be angled away from the wind farm. The long access road to the property and the properties garden are open and likely to suffer high visibility of the proposed wind turbines. This is an unfortunate impact, however it is not an impact on habitable rooms. The Lavender Test seeks to avoid development impacting on the main views of a garden. The orientation of the dwelling and presence of the river directly to the west of the property suggest that this is the main view of the garden. While you would be aware of the development to the south when looking towards the river within the garden, importantly this westward view from the curtilage space would not be significantly affected by the development. Where there are views from the garden and also from the access road, these

Page 55 views would be interrupted by landform and planting belts which will help to soften the impact of the turbines.

14.55 Overall, only the amenity of a low number of properties are affected within the Scottish Borders. Adverse impacts are limited to residential accesses and some garden ground spaces. While each of these effects are not to be overlooked the impact of the development on residential receptors within the Scottish Borders are not judged to be significantly adverse to object on residential amenity grounds.

Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts

14.56 Policy ED9 requires all cumulative landscape and visual impacts to be considered and recognises that in some areas the cumulative impact of existing and consented development may limit the capacity for further development. The Renewable Energy SG contains advice on cumulative impact as does the IF Study. Both the Policy and the Guidance advise that there will be a presumption against development where cumulative impacts are expected to be significant, adverse and unacceptable.

14.57 Within the Scottish Borders, the cumulative impacts of the proposed development judged to be restricted to;  Langhope Rig 20km to north  Barrel Law 17km to N  Pines Burn 17km to NE  Windy Edge 10km to E

14.58 The development is located away from other wind farms within the Scottish Borders. It is not observed to cause any cumulative impacts to any of the wind farms located to the N or NE of the site.

14.59 VP20 to the east of the development is close to Windy Edge. With only 1 or 2 blade tips visible at Windy Edge, Faw Side does not pose any detrimental cumulative impacts in association with Windy Edge. When viewing south west from VP20, there are already an array of windfarms within Dumfries and Galloway. Faw Side will be positioned in front of these wind farms which increases the perception of windfarms from this direction. The windfarms in Dumfries and Galloway are in excess of 22km away which leaves clear space between the proposal and these sites. The addition of Faw Side is judged to result in a medium magnitude of change and a resultant significant cumulative effect from this VP. Despite this concern, the proposal is not considered to pose any significantly detrimental cumulative impacts which result in a high magnitude of change. The cumulative impacts of the development are judged to be acceptable against Policy ED9 and associated guidance.

Visual Impact – Associated Infrastructure

14.60 The development involves the construction of close to 40km of new tracks across the whole development. Elsewhere within the Scottish Borders part of the site, the following associated works and infrastructure are proposed;  5 borrow pits  2 construction and storage compounds  1 substation and control room  1 substation and control room construction compound

Page 56 14.61 Some of these associated pieces of infrastructure will only be required during the construction phase. Concerns have been raised by the Council’s Landscape Architect about the physical and visual impact of the access tracks. The value of the rough grassland/moorland affected by the development is judged by the Landscape Architect to represent medium-high landscape and visual values. Within the second consultation response following further details in the AI regarding the impact of the works it was observed by the Landscape Architect that the works were“…not insignificant and will alter the character of the area they traverse both physically and visually.”

14.62 These impacts will be noticeable from VP10 where they would begin to appear as scars across the valley. The tracks would be viewed in association with a very large commercial wind farm. Their presence would add to the development impacts on the rural landscape.

14.63 If considered in isolation, the visual and physical impacts of the tracks would unlikely tip the planning balance against this development. Nevertheless when considered in association with the significantly adverse and unacceptable landscape and visual impacts of the turbines they do exacerbate those impacts on the character of the rural landscape.

Aviation Lighting

14.64 All of the proposed turbines are over 150m tall. Under Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations it is a legal requirement for all structures over 150m to be fitted with a visible red aviation warning light. The light is required to be a 2000candela (cd), omni directional light which has to be fitted as close as practicable to the top of a fixed structure. For wind turbines the lights are fitted to its nacelle (hub). Additionally, 3no. low-intensity 32cd steady lights are required to be fitted around their towers. Members will be aware that lights are often fitted to wind turbines to aid the navigation of Ministry of Defence aircraft the difference being that the MOD lighting requirements are for the use of infrared lighting which is not noticeable to the naked eye.

14.65 The aviation lights fitted to this development will be required to meet the same regulatory requirements as those which were proposed to be fitted to the turbines at Crystal Rig IV (application ref; 18/00768/S36). On considering the impacts of aviation lighting for that development. Members will recall they agreed with the recommendation of Officers that lighting would detract from the visual amenity of the rural environment and the night time character of the Lammermuir Hills SLA. The Council have appeared at a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) to defend the decision to oppose Crystal Rig IV due to the visual and landscape impacts caused by aviation lighting and a decision is awaited from the Scottish Ministers. Since the Council’s decision to oppose Crystal Rig IV, there have been no wind turbines consented within the Scottish Borders with aviation lights. Furthermore it is understood that there are currently no wind turbines within Dumfries and Galloway which are fitted with visible aviation lighting.

14.66 Included in the original LVIA, the applicants provided night time visualisations from three VPs, turbine lighting ZTVs and a written assessment. None of the VPs have been taken from locations within the Scottish Borders, however the information provided does help to assess the effects of the proposed lighting.

Page 57 14.67 The EIAR at paragraph 6.9.11 proposes that aviation lighting would include ‘dimming’ mitigation which is permitted by CAA Policy to allow the intensity of the lights to be reduced to 10% of their capable illumination. Sensors would be fitted to turbines to measure atmospheric conditions and when conditions enable visibility around the site in excess of 5km (i.e. in the absence of low cloud cover, rain, mist, haze or fog) the intensity of the light would be reduced from 2000cd to 200cd. The photomontages seek to illustrate the difference between the intensity of 2000 and 200 cd lights.

14.68 Paragraphs 6.9.14 – 6.9.14 explain that CAA Policy does also not require aviation lighting to be visible at angles below -1 degree because aviation lighting is not required to project downwards to lower elevations. The EIAR informs that consideration is being given to the potential for ‘shielding’ mitigation to prevent light penetrating to lower elevations by means of mitigation either built into the internal light casing or an external devise to restrict the spread of the light beam. This would remove lights being visible from areas coloured; blue, green, orange and yellow on the Lighting Intensity ZTV, Figure 6.9f.

14.69 Paragraph 6.9.20 suggested that an aviation lighting detecting system may be used to limit when turbine lights were switched on to times when air traffic approached the development. It is understood that this has been discounted as they are not approved in UK airspace.

14.70 The consideration of the effects of lighting remains a complex matter to assess. In the absence of wind turbines with CAA lighting in the Scottish Borders, Members are reminded of other infrastructure which are fitted with civil aviation warning lights which include;  the Selkirk and Ashkirk transmitters  cranes at the St James Centre redevelopment in Edinburgh  the Queensferry crossing  offshore wind turbine at Methil in Fife

14.71 The lights on each of these pieces of infrastructure may operate at a different intensity than the lighting proposed at Faw Side. Some of these lights may also be angled differently than those fitted to a wind turbine where they face towards the viewer and increase the intensity. Nevertheless, some of these lights have been observed to be visible across long distances up to 30 – 40km and potentially more depending on light conditions.

14.72 The proposed mitigation suggests that aviation lighting would only be visible at elevations of -1 degree and above. These areas are coloured lilac and purple on the Figure 6.9f. It is understood that the highest intensity of the lighting will only be visible from areas coloured purple on Figure 6.9f during periods of poor visibility. Figure 6.9f suggests that there would only be potential for 2000cd visibility from Dollar Law to Meggethead in Tweeddale which are areas where there would appear to be limited receptors. There would remain visibility of the lighting in the areas coloured lilac on Figure 6.9f which would affects large areas to the north and north east within the Scottish Borders.

14.73 Members are directed to document SNH – Aviation Lighting Visits on Public Access. These images were captured by SNH staff of turbines with aviation lighting in Scotland, with the document provided by East Lothian Council as part of the appeal documentation for the Crystal Rig IV PLI. Image 3 shows

Page 58 Middleton Wind Farm which is located to the south west of Glasgow. Lights were required at this wind farm due to its proximity to Glasgow Airport. The image is taken from Kelvingrove Park viewing across the city towards the wind farm at a rage of approx. 15k. Both 2000 and 200cd lights are installed at this wind farm and these are identified in the image. It is clear that the 2000cd is brighter, however the 200cd light is still noticeable within a lit urban environment.

14.74 Image 4 shows a wind farm on the Hill of Glaschyle in Moray. The MOD requested that this particular development was lit with visible red aviation lights. The installed lights only operated at a 64cd intensity. A planning application to seek to replace the visible red aviation lights with infrared lights was approved following public concerns about the visual impact of the installed aviation lighting.

14.75 The Councils SG on Renewable Energy quotes paragraph 2.13 of SNH’s Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape 2017 which states that the effects of aviation lighting is; “likely to be more significant in areas with less artificial lighting, including remoter rural locations, Wild Land Areas and dark sky sites where the absence of artificial lighting contributes to the feeling of remoteness or the direct appreciation of the night sky. Lit turbines may lessen the contrast between developed and undeveloped areas, e.g. when viewed from nearby settlements. Whilst it may be possible to mitigate these effects, they should still be considered in the assessment. Effects at dawn and dusk should also be considered where these could be significant”

14.76 SNH’s Landscape Character Assessment’s notes that some of the key characteristics for the host landscapes are their degree of remoteness and sense of quietness and tranquillity. During hours of darkness, it is accepted that the visual perception of landscape features such as the large rolling landform or striking cone shaped summits will diminish. The limited habitation in these areas means that light pollution is minimised. Despite the environment being dark, they are considered to retain their remote and tranquil qualities. The key landscape characteristics of the site confirm that the development is located within an environment which is sensitive to proposals which seek to introduce aviation lighting and where the impact of the introduction of aviation lighting may be significant.

14.77 The proposed mitigation does limit both where lights are seen from and depending on atmospheric conditions how visible they will be. Despite these reductions, the purpose of the aviation lighting is to be seen and draw attention to the turbines. The benefits of the proposed mitigation are acknowledged however this remains a developing sector and no compelling evidence has been provided which demonstrates the proposed mitigation being put in to practice successfully elsewhere. A cautious approach remains necessary when considering the suitability of the mitigation.

14.78 Figure 6.9f suggests that mitigation will mean that the proposed lighting is not necessarily visible from densely populated parts of the Scottish Borders, certainly not within 20km of the site (areas coloured purple and lilac on Figure 6.9f). Rural parts of the Scottish Borders to the north within the Ettrick Valley are suggested to have visibility of the development at a range of approx. 17km. There is theoretical visibility towards the north of Hawick at 22km on the A7 and at greater distances towards the central Borders towards the west of

Page 59 Jedburgh which includes parts of the Teviot Valleys SLA and parts of the A68 adjacent to Ancrum.

14.79 During hours of daylight the impact of the development from these areas are likely to be limited. SNH guidance on Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape notes that offshore wind turbines are clearly visible at 20miles or more. The images of Middleton wind farm confirms that a 200cd light is visible at 15km within in lit environment. This intensity of light would likely appear more noticeable than is shown in this image within a dark rural environment which is the environment which receptors of this development would be looking towards. Lighting at Glaschyle demonstrates that even lighting of a lower intensity at 64cd can appear bright in an environment with low levels of artificial lighting with the accompanying written text informing that these lights were visible at greater distances of c18km.

14.80 This information suggests that the lilac coloured areas on the ZTV which have visibility of the development from the locations noted above are at ranges where they will be able to view the aviation lighting at Faw Side. From the affected locations the ZTV information does not determine precisely how may lights will be visible from each of these routes and which lit turbines will be seen. The precise arrangement of the lights in the sky is not known. Nevertheless the colouring of the number of turbines visible from these locations on Figure 6.9e, suggests that a number of lit turbines will be seen from these locations which may include up to 27 lit turbines (NB the colour contrast on this ZTV has not aided this assessment) with locations within the Ettrick Valley having some potential visibility of up to 45 lit turbines. From the affected routes receptors will likely see a cluster of red coloured lights which will appear incongruous with the otherwise dark rural environment when travelling on affected roads within the Scottish Borders. This has a character changing impact. The installed lighting will not only be visible during hours of darkness but also in periods of low light (similar to the levels shown on the photomontages), at dawn and dusk and potentially periods of fog and mist which will draw extra attention to the development.

14.81 In the event that the proposed mitigation is not successful a far greater area of the Scottish Borders (coloured blue, green, orange and yellow on Figure 6.9f) would be subjected to lighting impacts. These locations would include northern parts of Hawick, the long stretches of the A7, Teviothead and residential receptors close to the site. Such widespread impacts would significantly increase the number of people within southern parts of the Scottish Borders who would be subjected to potentially prominent red coloured aviation lighting within part of the sky which is generally dark.

14.82 Within the AI, the applicants have advised that they are seeking to progress an Aeronautical Study with the CAA to establish if the number of turbines require to be lit can be reduced in consultation with various air space users. Members are advised that the findings of an Aeronautical Study at Crystal Rig IV enabled the number of lit turbines to be reduced from 7 to 4 turbines with all 32cd lights from the towers removed as well.

14.83 The applicant’s perusal of a reduced lighting scheme is welcomed however it would be important to consider which turbines are still required to be lit, where they may be visible from and what the lighting of the array would look like within the surrounding environment. These findings would represent material considerations for this proposal which should be assessed as part of the

Page 60 environmental impacts of this wind farm. An Aeronautical Study and any relevant supporting information has not yet been submitted as part of this development for the consideration of SBC.

14.84 From the information provided, it is considered that the Southern Uplands is a dark rural environment with low levels of artificial lighting. The introduction of aviation lighting would;  extend the visual effects of this wind farm into hours of darkness;  the presence of red lighting would urbanise the rural landscape during hours of darkness and detract from the sense of remoteness and tranquillity of the host environment;  result in the development being visible from more locations than it is during the day; and  draw greater attention to the development and increase the prominence of the windfarm at dawn and dusk and periods of low visibility.

14.85 Provided the proposed mitigation is successful, the visual impacts of aviation lighting may not affect many populated areas. However it will affect many people when they are travelling around southern and central parts of the Scottish Borders during hours of darkness and at dawn and dusk when the attention would be drawn to a number of elevated red lights within an otherwise area of low background lighting. The red coloured lighting will appear urban in character and would detract from the character of the dark rural environment including the night time character of the host environment and some potential views from the Teviot Valley SLA. The proposed mitigation appears to be unproven and untested. The impact of turbines lighting are judged to be significant and approving this development based on the evidence provided would be a risk which could significantly harm the visual amenity of the Scottish Borders.

Turbine Micro-siting

14.86 The original submission requested a micro-siting allowance of 200m and SEPA did object to this request. The AI has proposed to reduce the micro-siting tolerance down to 100m with a commitment that this will be managed onsite by an Ecological Clerk of Works.

14.87 The principle of allowing flexibility provided by micro-siting is acceptable to allow for further investigation into ground conditions and other environmental effects which include visual effects. In an updated response SEPA recommended that their preference remains for a 50m micro-siting allowance with a condition to provide a 50m buffer to watercourses, and prohibit micrositing where there are known areas of deep peat, GWDTEs and private water supplies. It is accepted that that a 50m distance provides much greater environmental control, and from a visual perspective, the ability to move so many 200m high turbines up to 100m could significantly alter the appearance of the development. Should Members be minded to support this development, it is recommended that Micrositing be limited to 50m. This condition should account for SEPAs recommendations and ensure that no Micrositing takes place closer to non-financially involved residential properties. Also if Micrositing involves increases in ground level height above AOD, wireframes should be provided to illustrate that each turbine’s revised position can be tolerated in the landscape without increased adverse visual impacts.

Page 61 Economic and Socio-Economic Benefits

14.88 Wind energy developments can make an important contribution to the UK economy. Net economic impact is a material planning consideration and local and community socio-economic benefits include employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities.

14.89 SPP states that where a proposal is acceptable in land use planning terms, and consent is being granted, local authorities may wish to engage in negotiations to secure community benefit. The Scottish Government’s Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Onshore Renewable Energy Developments advises that where local benefits are proposed through a shared ownership opportunity and there is an intention to secure a partner organisation, this may be taken into account in determining a planning application. While this proposal is for a community windfarm, no evidence has been presented which confirms any community ownership of the development.

14.90 The ES outlines the socio-economic benefits of the development and these include:  Over 200 staff supported in the construction and supply industry during the construction phase  Operation of the development would create 6 jobs.  Annual economic investment worth £22.4milliom which includes approximately £3.93 million split between SBC and D&GC per annum would be contributed through business rates  Community benefits and funding for community projects will be provided during the operation of the development.

14.91 It is accepted that jobs would be created during construction and should the developer use local firms and businesses there is potential for employees to use local facilities and services, such as accommodation and shops. Following the construction phase the development would sustain a low number of jobs although this would increase during decommissioning.

14.92 The ES examines the impact of the wind farm on tourism and recreation. This is of particular relevance given the visibility of the wind farm from the A7 which is a promoted tourist route. Tourism is a well-established and valuable contributor to the Borders economy based on the scenery and the natural and cultural environment.

14.93 Policy ED9 and the approved Renewable Energy SG seek an impact statement on tourism and recreation to be submitted with any application for renewable energy development. The ES considers the findings of a study by BiGGAR Economics in 2017 into the impact of the development of on shore windfarms on the Scottish Tourism. The research found that as the number of turbines increased in the period 2009 – 2015 in the Scottish Borders, sustainable tourism employment also increased during the same period. The ES asserts that this demonstrates that both the wind and tourism industries can co-exist. Whether a wind farm development would deter visitors from the area is difficult to quantify. Mitigation in the form of a suitable wind farm design and layout is recommended to ensure that the development would not have a detrimental impact on tourism and recreation. It would appear difficult to oppose this development on grounds that its design and layout would have a direct impact on the Scottish Borders tourist industry. Nevertheless, the proposals have been

Page 62 found to pose negative impacts on the experience of users of the A7 trunk road which is a promoted tourist route. These particular impacts were assessed above.

14.94 The socio-economic benefits of the proposed wind farm development can be taken into account as a material consideration in assessing the application, although the potential for Community Benefit cannot.

14.95 The potential for such benefits in the consideration of energy proposals must be balanced against any potential adverse environmental impacts that are likely to occur. In this case, it is considered that there are unacceptable significant adverse impacts on landscape and visual amenity, turbine lighting and cultural heritage that outweigh the claimed socio-economic benefits within the overall planning balance.

Renewable Energy Benefits

14.96 The Planning Statement which accompanies the ES sets the national background to renewable energy progress and targets. NPF3 is clear that the planning system must facilitate the transition to a low carbon economy and facilitate the development of technologies that will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. SPP provides energy targets including deriving 30% of overall energy demand from renewable sources by 2020, 11% of heat demand from renewable sources by 2020, and the equivalent of 100% of electricity demand from renewable sources by 2020 (para 154 of SPP). There is no cap on these targets and it is recognised that the production of onshore wind energy is vital in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

14.97 The Scottish Energy Strategy: The Future of Energy in Scotland Dec 2017 includes two further targets by 2030 as follows:  The equivalent of 50% of the energy for Scotland’s heat, transport and electricity consumption to be supplied from renewable resources  An increase by 30% in the productivity of energy use across the Scottish economy

14.98 Para 12.11 of the applicants Planning Statement predicts that the development; “…would typically generate 315MW of clean electricity and could power the equivalent of 328,400 homes a year”. This would result in a displacement of approx. 571,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

14.99 ED9 does state that there should be consideration in any proposed renewable energy development of both greenhouse emissions and the scale of contribution to renewable energy targets. This is a large development which would make a sizeable contribution to meeting renewable energy targets set by the Scottish Government. Nevertheless the developments contribution to national energy targets must be balanced against other impacts including the planning balance test outlined in Government advice such as SPP, ensuring that the right development is in the right place. This development would certainly make a positive contributions towards renewable energy targets and effect of greenhouse emissions however given the degree of significant and unacceptable adverse effects on the environment, the development’s contribution to these targets is not considered sufficient to outweigh those effects.

Page 63 Residential Amenity

14.100 Policy ED9 requires the impacts on communities and individual dwellings (including visual impact, residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker) to be considered. Policy HD3 states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted. Members will note that visual impacts have been considered earlier in the report.

Noise

14.101 A noise assessment has been provided which has been assessed by an acoustic consultant on behalf of SBC. Cumulative noise impacts arising from other wind farms within 10km of the site have also been assessed. The consultant is satisfied that the noise report has been completed in accordance with current best practice methods. The predicted noise levels, including cumulative noise have been modelled and are judged to be correct. There are five affected noise sensitive properties within the Scottish Borders. Only two are financially involved, not five as suggested in the response of Environmental Health. The financially involved properties are Giddeonscleugh and Merrylaw. Financially involved properties are afforded higher noise limits with the consultant mistakenly attributing a higher noise limit to; Riverside Lodge, Cannonbrae and Blackcleuch. Despite this error, the noise consultant was satisfied that the predicted operational noise from the development was indeed below relevant noise limits at all noise sensitive locations which were correctly identified within the Section 11 of the ES.

14.102 It is recommended that there are no noise-related reasons to consider that the scheme could not be in compliance with LDP Policies and Supplementary Guidance. If Members were minded to support this application, planning conditions could be recommended to the ECU to set appropriate noise levels. In event of any noise complaints, the Council as ‘relevant enforcement authority’ could seek suitable investigation and resolution of any noise nuisance caused by the development.

Shadow Flicker

14.103 Policy ED9 and the Renewable Energy SG require assessment of residential amenity to include the impacts caused by shadow flicker. This assessment is provided in Section 14 and illustrated in Figure 14.1. Figure 14.1 show the identified study are edged in blue. In total 12 properties were identified within the study area. In terms of established maximum shadow flicker effects that are considered to be acceptable, there are no statutory UK figures although best practice suggests a worst case scenario of 30 hours per year or 30 minutes on the most affected day.

14.104 The results demonstrate that there is no significant shadow flicker effect. The greatest impact on a property in the Scottish Borders would be expected at Giddeonscleugh (House 3) where in the worst case scenario, the property would be exposed to 26 hours of shadow flicker per annum. This is below the established maximum expected shadow flicker affects which in the case of this development would be experienced at a financially involved property. The worst affected non-financially involved property in the Scottish Borders is Riverside Lodge (House 2) which is predicted to experience just over 2 hours of shadow flicker per year.

Page 64 14.105 The development is not found to cause excessive levels of shadow flicker which would pose significantly adverse impacts of the residential amenity of the affected properties. The proposals are not contrary to this element of Policy ED9 and the SG.

Traffic Management, Road Safety and Access

14.106 Policy ED9 of the LDP requires impacts of the construction of wind farms on public and trunk roads to be considered, the approved Renewable Energy SG also requiring full consideration of the impacts including the structural and physical ability of the network to accommodate the traffic and impacts on local communities.

14.107 Access to the development is provided to the north of the site from land within the SB. A new access will be formed directly onto the A7 trunk road with large parts of the access route to the site provided by the trunk road network. Originally the applicants provided 3 potential points of access however within the Figure 2.1a of the AI, the preferred point of access has been confirmed, but appears to be slightly different from the 3 options originally proposed. The new site access only impacts on a trunk road. Members will be aware that trunk road impacts are matters for Transport Scotland to return observations to the ECU on. Ultimately these matters are not the responsibility of SBC however, following the submission of additional information, TS have not raised any significant concerns over the impact of the new access on the safety of the trunk road.

14.108 No other new accesses are proposed concluding that the means of site access do no impact on the surrounding local road network with the RPS raising no objection to the principle of the development of a wind farm in this location.

14.109 The ES states that construction traffic which includes abnormal loads are likely to approach from the north, utilising the following roads within the Scottish Borders A68, A698 and then the A7 (see Fig 12.1 Proposed Access Route). The longest single component requiring transportation over this suggested route would be the 75m long turbine blades, the tower sections and nacelles are shorter but can be wider. Again, impacts of abnormal loads on the trunk road network (A7 and A68) will primarily be a matter for TS. However there are clear impacts on the local road network (A698) and also local roads which adjoin the identified trunk roads, particularly the section of the A7 which passes through Hawick which is a known pinch point. To navigate the urbanised area, the applicants are proposed to use Blade Lift Adapter vehicles. Both TS and the Councils RPS agree that further information is required to ensure that the delivery route is suitable. This matter can however be addressed via a planning condition which seeks to agree a Traffic Management Plan which would require a detailed survey of the proposed route and agreement of works required to facilitate the successful movement of abnormal loads with the developers required to remedy any damage caused by their traffic movements.

14.110 The proposed development does not impact on any core paths or rights of way within the Scottish Borders. The proposal does not therefore impact on any recognised public access routes.

Page 65 Cultural Heritage

14.111 The application has to be assessed against Policy ED9 in respect of impacts on the historic environment and principally Policies EP7 and EP8 which seek to protect the appearance, fabric or setting of Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments or other national, regional or local assets. Development proposals that adversely affect such assets would only be permitted if it is demonstrated that the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the heritage value of the asset and there are no reasonable alternative means of meeting the development need. The supporting text of Policy EP8 establishes the aim of the policy is to give Scheduled Ancient Monuments and any other archaeological or historic asset or landscapes strong protection from any potentially damaging development.

14.112 The Council’s Renewable Energy SG contains advice on assessing the impacts of wind energy developments on the historic environment, both direct and indirect impacts. It augments the aforementioned Policies and also provides information on how setting of historic structures and places are assessed, including the use of guidance from Historic Environment Scotland – Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting.

14.113 In response to the original archaeological assessment within the ES, the Councils archaeologist advised that further information was required to fully assess the direct impacts of the development works on buried archaeology and indirect impacts on the setting of archaeological assets within the surrounding environment. The AI provided an updated chapter on Cultural Heritage and accompanying wirelines to respond to these concerns. The impact of the development on both direct and indirect archaeological impacts are considered below.

Direct Impacts

14.114 The Councils Archaeologist reviewed the original archaeological assessment against SBCs Historic Environment Records (HER), historic maps, aerial photos and LiDAR survey information and concluded that a number of possible archaeological features had been missed. Insufficient site surveys were undertaken with a two day walk over of a site of this size unlikely to provide sufficient detailed assessment and it was suggested that a re-survey of all designed infrastructure would be required.

14.115 The archaeological assessment was ‘cut off’ at 350m OD and did not investigate archaeological potential above this level. Our Archaeologist recognised that; “While this might be seen as a ‘rule of thumb’ it cannot be used as a basis for determining mitigation”. However there are potential interests above this level, which include; Pikethaw Cairn (564m OD) and nearby Whisp Cairn (594m OD). The potential for buried archaeology is heightened around known monuments and further assessment to complete this picture was sought. Lastly due to the underestimation of known assets which would be impacted by this development the proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIA were insufficient. It was observed by our archaeologist that; “The EIA states that there will be no monuments within 1km of a turbine in the Scottish Borders. This is clearly incorrect. A number of assets such as the drove roads are within metres of turbines, and will certainly be crossed by infrastructure as the EIA states.” A new assessment of impacts was requested to better inform a mitigation strategy.

Page 66 14.116 The AI provided a further assessment of the impact of the development on known heritage within the Inner Study Area. This assessment used LiDAR and SBC HER records and revealed a further 13 new heritage assets which were omitted from the original assessment. 12 of the 13 features have been identified as being common features which are of low importance. The other asset being Pikethaw Hill Cairn which is of high importance however the development is not observed to cause any direct impacts on this asset. Having reviewed the AI, an updated response has been provided by our archaeologist which recommends that; “whilst LiDAR information was made available to the applicant’s team, this appears not to have been further and fully assessed for what additional archaeological sites are present and would be impacted by the development of the site and its associated infrastructure, such as power lines.” Concerns remain that the potential direct impacts of the development have not been fully investigated to provide a complete picture of the likely impacts of the development.

Indirect Impacts

14.117 Paragraph 1.7 of EP8 states that “Setting is considered to be important to the way in which historic structures or places are understood, appreciated and experienced”.

14.118 The proposed development has been identified to impact on the setting of Eweslees, watch tower 1980m NW, which is a Scheduled Monument (SM) of high importance (ref SM12750). The site is partly within the Scottish Borders although the majority of the SM is within Dumfries and Galloway and to the east of T7 as identified on Figure 9.4. The monument has been classified as a Roman watch tower. HES has objected to the proposal due to the development having a detrimental impact on the integrity of the SM12750 which represents an issue of national interest. These impacts were recommended to be mitigated by deletion of T6 and T7.

14.119 The SM was visited by SBCs archaeologist as part of the original assessment of this application. The valley location and setting of the monument were thoroughly examined by the Council’s archaeologist and there is no evidence to suggest a Roman road, camp fort or any other watchtowers/signal station for the tower to monitor. It is accepted that there is a monument in this location, however the site was judged to appear to resemble a Bronze Age feature. The Archaeologist observes that; “both in terms of landscape, morphology and association with other features I feel the monument is best classified as a prehistoric funerary monument, perhaps a round barrow or enclosed cremation cemetery, until excavation can prove one way or the other.” The Council’s archaeologist has a different interpretation of SM12750 than HES, however it is advised that; “This does not change its significance in national terms.” As a funerary monument its setting is recommended to be more intimate and restricted to the valley. T6 and T7 have not been removed and at the time of writing a further response to the AI from HES has not been provided. These turbines would have a negative impact on the setting of a funerary monument in this location, illustrated by the wirelines from this monument in Figure 14. However it was observed by SBC archaeologist that this impact is moderate instead of major adverse as assessed by HES. Against the tests of Policy EP8, the archaeology officer’s judgement that the development would have a moderate impact on the setting of SM12850 concludes that it is not objectionable against policy provision.

Page 67 14.120 Pikethaw Hill Cairn lies directly to the north east of T19 and is partly within the Scottish Borders. The original ES did not identify this feature as a potential archaeological asset however following a site visit by the Council’s archaeologist and assessment is was recognised as a cairn of Neolithic or Bronze Age date. Currently this is an undesignated asset, however it is recommended that; “…the cairn is of national significance and is therefore Schedulable per HES’s 2019 Historic Environment Policy Statement and the related document Designation Policy and Selection Guidance. Our intent is to recommend the site for Scheduling to HES and Scottish Ministers.” Because the cairn falls within a live application, this process cannot commence until the application is determined. It was judged that the proposal could have a potentially major significant impact on the setting of this hilltop cairn.

14.121 Within the AI the applicants provided an assessment on the impact of the development on Pikethaw Hill Cairn which has been accompanied by submitted wirelines (dated 10 Aug 2020) providing a 360 degree panorama on outward views from the cairn. Owing to SBCs assessment the applicants attributed the cairn to be of high importance. The AI observes that its setting are views from and to the NE towards a cairn on Wisp Hill and across Eweslees valley and to the SW down to Meikledale Burn. The AI concedes that T18, T19 and T23 will be prominent in views to the SW, but that views to the NE are not obstructed by turbines. At 9.6.16 of the AI it is recommended that; “It will remain possible to appreciate and understand the contribution made by to the cairn’s cultural significance, but some key views will feature turbines at fairly close proximity. It is considered that operational impacts upon Pikethaw Cairn will be low in magnitude, resulting in an adverse operational effect of minor significance.”

14.122 The ‘Wireline West’, demonstrates the proximity and clear visibility of T19 which appears to encroach on the cairn. The updated assessment of the archaeologist advises that T19 remains too prominent and voices concerns about the impact of T8 which is positioned behind T19 when viewing W. The development may not impact on the cairns possible links to the NE, its setting down towards Meikledale Burn is noted in the AI. SBC’s Archaeology Officer assesses that the positioning of T19 and T8 both of which are located within the Scottish Borders appears to visually prominent. The scale and positioning of these turbines is considered to detract from the relationship of the cairn with Meikledale Burn which resulting in having a harmful impact on the setting of this a potentially nationally significant hilltop cairn.

14.123 In conclusion it remains the opinion of SBCs Archaeology Officer that insufficient information has been provided to provide clear clarification of the potential direct physical impact of the development and specifically its associated infrastructure on sites of potentially national, regional or local significance within the site. The Council are not able to consider if the likely direct impacts on the development are acceptable or can be appropriately mitigated in accordance with an approved strategy of works noted in paragraph 1.4 in Policy EP8. Furthermore, the impact of T19 and T8 is recommended to have a significantly adverse impact on the setting of Pikethaw cairn, a site of national importance. This explicitly conflicts with item (A) of Policy EP8. The development has not sought to mitigate its impact on the cairn and the identified turbines are not judged to offer economic or social benefits which outweigh their impact and the need for wind energy harnessed by this development is met elsewhere in this site.

Page 68 Other Cultural Heritage Impacts

14.124 The development does not detrimentally affect the setting of any listed buildings or Conservation Areas which are located within the Scottish Borders.

Natural Heritage

Ecology, Habitats, Protected Species and Ornithology

14.126 The proposal has to be assessed against policies EP1, EP2 and EP3, which seek to protect international and national nature conservation sites, protected species and habitats from development. Policy ED9 requires consideration of the impacts on natural heritage, hydrology and the water environment, augmented by the Renewable Energy SG.

14.127 Giddens Cleuch and Wrangeway burns run through the site within the Scottish Borders. These watercourses are tributaries to the River Teviot which connects to the River Tweed SAC/SSSI. The presence of these international designations within the site is part of the reason why the site falls under Group 2 of the spatial framework for wind farm development laid down by SPP. SNH confirm that the River Tweed SAC is “notified for ‘Rivers with floating vegetation often dominated by water-crowfoot’, salmon, river lamprey, sea lamprey, brook lamprey and otter, all of which are sensitive to changes to water quality.”

14.128 This development could impact on its water quality and must demonstrate that it would not have an adverse impact on the qualifying interest of the SAC/SSSI to ensure that it can take place in a sensitive manner. Under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended, an appropriate assessment is required to be carried out by the competent authority to determine the suitability of the development impacts. As this development is a Section 36 application, this assessment falls to be carried out by the Scottish Ministers. It is SNH’s opinion that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC, provided it is undertaken in accordance with a detailed site specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Construction Method Statements (CMS) to be agreed with the Planning Authority and SEPA prior to work commencing. These matters are the responsibility of the ECU.

14.129 The development will result in the loss of up to 189.26ha of habitats across the whole development site. Habitats in the Scottish Borders are a mixture of coniferous plantations, wet modified bog, acid grass land, marshy grass land and blanket bog. An outline Habitat Management Plan (HMP) was provided as part of the AI, however it is the opinion of SBC’s Ecologist that the blanket bog measures are insufficient. A detailed HMP is still requested to set out proportionate compensation for the lost habitats and measures for enhancement where necessary which includes blanket bog.

14.130 In terms of protected species, a range of species may be impacted by this development. These species include; bats, badgers, otters, red squirrel, pine marten, reptiles, salmon and lamprey. The ES detailed mitigation to address the impacts of the development on each of these species, where relevant. Further bat surveys were also provided, however these surveys did not find any further interests in the Scottish Borders. The Ecologist is content that a Species Protection Plan (SPP) can seeking to ensure that appropriate mitigation is

Page 69 agreed before development commences to safeguard protected species. The mitigation should be overseen by an Ecological Clerk of Works.

14.131 Turning to ornithology, there is potential connectivity with Langholm- Newcastleton Hills Special Protection Area (SPA) which is noted for its provision of hen harrier. The SBC Ecologist observed that the original ES was incomplete as insufficient ornithology survey information was provided. The AI provided the further required data. SNH have observed that the predicted collision risk is sufficiently low that the proposal will not affect the integrity of the SPA. The location of the development is predicted to impact on the South of Scotland Golden Eagle re-introduction project which are Schedule 1A raptors. SBCs Ecologist advises that this project is at an early stage but there remains a possibility the territories could become established in the local area during the lifetime of the development therefore post-construction monitoring of these raptors is recommended on a precautionary basis. The development would also impact on goshawks which are a Schedule 1 species. SBC Ecologist is concerned about the potential loss of goshawk that the development may cause at a regional level. Nevertheless these impacts are similar to those which were predicted at Pines Burn wind farm which was consented at appeal subject to a condition for goshawk monitoring and mitigation. It is recommended that similar mitigation would be necessary at Faw Side.

14.132 In conclusion, the Council’s Ecologist has identified that the development has the potential to impact on the River Tweed SAC, a range of habitats, protected species and raptors. These impacts are however judged to be adequately mitigated through the suite of conditions recommended by the Ecologist which include; the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works, a CEMP, a SPP, HMP, a programme for ecological monitoring which includes Schedule 1 and 1A raptors, a compensatory woodland planting scheme and a decommissioning restoration and aftercare strategy. These conditions have been accepted by the applicants.

14.133 Subject to the aforementioned conditions, there are not judged to be any ecological reasons why the proposed development would otherwise be considered not to be in compliance with relevant LDP policy provision on Ecology.

Hydrology

14.134 In terms of flood risk, the Councils Flood Risk and Coastal Management Officer (FRO) did identify that while the site was located within an area which may be at risk of flooding from a 1 in 200 year flood event, due to the minimal flood risk at the site no significant flood risk concerns were raised. Members should be aware that SEPA originally objected on grounds of flood risk, however this was removed following confirmation that all turbines are at least 50m away from watercourses and that no Micrositing will take place which moves turbines closer than 50m to a watercourse.

14.135 The development includes one water course crossing which is to be a Bottomless Box Culvert. In principle this specification is deemed to be suitable by the Councils FRO and provided its soffit is set at a suitable level it will ensure that the flow of the watercourse is not restricted or reduced. Surface water will be generated from the development. To mitigate this surface water discharge causing any flooding elsewhere it was recommended that all hard surfaces

Page 70 (including SUDS drainage) should be attenuated to existing greenfield runoff rates. Additionally, all silt traps and any other functions proposed to prevent sediment entering the water course should be agreed. Each of the aforementioned matters are detailed design points which could be adequately addressed by planning conditions if Members were minded to support this development and ensure that the development complies with LDP Policy provision covering flooding.

14.136 In terms of private water supplies, the development may potentially impact on groundwater springs which serve Merrylaw and Lymiecleuch. A private water supplies risk assessment has been carried out as part of the EIA which concludes that the risk to the supplies is low. A planning condition can be used to ensure that water supplies are not affected by the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development and that the mitigation recommended in Table 10.5 of the Private Water Supply Risk Assessment is implemented.

Carbon Rich Soils, Deep Peat and Priority Peatland Habitat

14.137 The site includes areas of Class 1 carbon rich soil, deep peat and peatland habitat as identified on Figures 10.5 in the ES. These areas include parts of the site which is located within the Scottish Borders. Policy ED9 and the Renewable Energy SG require consideration of the impact of the development on carbon rich soils.

14.138 Carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat are recognised as being nationally important environmental interest which provide significant national carbon store. The location of the development in these areas is part of the reason why the site falls under Group 2 under the spatial framework for wind farm development laid down by SPP.

14.139 SNH and SEPA provide specialist advice on the impact of the development on these sensitivities. SNH originally objected to the ECU on grounds that further information was required to demonstrate how the siting and design of the wind farm has minimised the impacts on carbon rich solid, deep peat and priority peatland habitat. Additional Information revealed that a number of turbines were located in areas of deep peat and bog habitats. Some further information was provided to SNH and they also conducted a site visit which revealed that whilst the bog habitat is of value it does not meet the National Interests to trigger an objection. The value of peat on the site was identified to require an improved form of mitigation which can be mitigated by a planning condition. Similarly SEPA require the development to mitigate its impacts on peat via a peat management plan as a condition of any consent.

14.140 SBC Officers do not have any further observations on the impact of the development on carbon rich soils, deep peat and peatland habitat. The comments received from SNH and SEPA on these matters are for the ECU to consider.

Aviation Defence and Seismological Recording

14.141 Policy ED9 of the LDP requires that proposals will be assessed against “...aviation and defence interests and seismological recording”. This is supported by the Renewable Energy SG advising that schemes will be

Page 71 supported unless there is significantly detrimental effects on such aviation interests.

14.142 The proposed development is located approximately 12.8km from the seismological recording station at Eskdalemuir and falls within its statutory safeguarded area which is recognised within Scottish Governments Wind Policy Statement Dec 2017. Scientific research has established that wind turbines of the proposed design generate noise emissions which cause vibrations which effect the operation of the array. The application site also lies close to sites used by the RAF Spadeadam Electronic Warfare Tactics Facility which is a specialist aircraft tactical training facility.

14.143 The consideration of aviation defence interests and seismological recording are matters which the MoD provide specialist advice on. Unlike Planning Applications, the MoD return their observations to the ECU as part of the Section 36 process and not to Planning Authorities. In a further response dated 28th August 2020, the MoD maintained previous objections and advised the ECU that the development would;

1. have a significant and detrimental impact on the operation and capability of the Eskdalemuir Seismic Recording Station; and 2. have a significant and detrimental impact upon the effective operation of threat radar at sites that support the RAF Spadeadam Electronic Warfare Tactics Facility.

14.144 SBC are a separate consultee for this proposed development and we do not have the remit to provide any specialist advice on these matters. The concerns raised by the MoD are recognised and suggest that the proposal would not align with policy provision covering aviation defence and seismological recording. Members are however advised that these concerns are for the ECU and fall out with the scope of SBC’s consideration for a Section 36 application.

15.0 CONCLUSION

15.1 Scottish Borders Council remains positive towards the principle of wind energy development, as reflected in its policies and guidance. As required by policy considerations, the benefits of energy production, and the disbenefits of environmental impact must be weighed carefully against one another. This is made clear in the 2014 SPP and reflected within the primary LDP Policy consideration for this development, Policy ED9. This application has been carefully considered against current Policies and Guidance, including new Government publications, the Council’s approved “Renewable Energy” SG and the Ironside Farrar Landscape Capacity Guidance and requirements of Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act.

15.2 Several key issues stand out in this report. The development of a new large commercial wind farm at Faw Side would result in a significant displacement in carbon dioxide and make a large contribution towards the Scottish Government targets from renewable energy production. The development would provide inward investment into the Scottish Borders and create jobs. However, these benefits have to be finely balanced against the environmental impacts of the development.

15.3 The height of the proposed turbines would be the tallest wind turbines within the Scottish Borders and some of the tallest onshore turbines anywhere in

Page 72 Scotland. The development is located within part of the Southern Uplands which has been largely untouched by wind energy development. The large scale upland landscape setting has been identified to have a low capacity for wind energy development for wind turbines of 120m+. The turbines which are located within the Scottish Borders have a 200m tip height, this being well beyond the upper limit of turbine typologies within the Ironside Farrar Landscape and Capacity Guidance. Such tall turbines fail to benefit from the topographical containment provided by the Cauldcleuch Head and Craik LCA with some turbines intruding on lower elevations of the upland area. The excessive scale of the proposals means that the turbines appear dominant within the Southern Uplands and have a detrimental impact on the underlying qualities of grandeur and tranquillity of the host LCAs. The proposals also diminish the drama of Skelfhill Pen which is a distinctive cone shaped hill, which contributes to the character of the landscape when viewed from hill summits to the east.

15.4 The excessive scale and layout of the proposed turbines and their access tracks will result in an unacceptable, significant and adverse visual impact which will harm the rural character of the minor road to Commonbrae, used regularly by local residents and tourists using the road to visit Hizzy Cairn. The development will also affect users of the A7 and while these views may be intermittent, they will still have an unacceptable and significant adverse visual effect for the experience of residents, commuters and tourists travelling to and from the Scottish Borders, including sequential cumulative impacts.

15.5 The scale of the turbines require the installation of aviation lighting. Turbine lighting has the potential to affect the experience of a number of people travelling on roads and paths within southern and central parts of the Scottish Borders when a cluster of industrial red lights would appear in elevated positions which would detract from the visual amenities of the otherwise dark rural setting including its sense of remoteness and tranquillity. The proposal does include mitigation which can be applied to the turbine lighting, however insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the impact of turbine lighting can be reduced to a tolerable level.

15.6 In terms of archaeology, the extent of direct impacts as a result of the development are not considered to have been fully assessed and turbines 19 and 8 are considered to have a significantly adverse impact on the setting of Pikethaw cairn which is judged to be a site of potential national importance.

15.7 Other aspects of the development could be mitigated and controlled through conditions and various reports and mitigation strategies required. This will include cultural heritage, ecology, noise, road and traffic impacts.

15.8 The merits of the application have been considered against relevant provisions of the development plan. The degree of demonstrable harm caused by significant and unacceptable adverse effects on the environment, including the introduction of aviation lighting conclude that while the socio-economic impacts and renewable energy contribution of this scheme are recognised to be positive they are not considered sufficient to outweigh the adverse environmental impacts of the development.

15.9 The application will be assessed by the ECU against the requirements of Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989. This states that any developer must:

Page 73 1. have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and 2. do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.

The ECU, and any subsequent Reporter, must consider the desirability of those matters in 1, and the extent to which the applicant has complied with mitigation in 2. For the reasons mentioned in para 15.8, it is not considered that Schedule 9 has been complied with as there are significant and unacceptable environmental effects, unable to be adequately addressed through the mitigation proposed.

16.0 RECOMMENDATION BY CHIEF PLANNING AND HOUSING OFFICER:

16.1 That the Council indicate to the Energy Consents Unit that it objects to the proposed development for the following reasons;

16.2 Reason for Objection 1: Impact on Landscape Character

The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy ED9 the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance and the Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact Study, in that the scale, form, layout and location of the development would represent a significant and unacceptable adverse change to the existing landscape character of the area, particularly impacting on the scale, appreciation and character of the Cauldcleuch Head and Craik Landscape Character Areas.

16.3 Reason for Objection 2: Visual Impact

The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy ED9 the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance and the Landscape Capacity and Cumulative Impact Study, in that the excessive scale and layout of the proposed development will result in significant and unacceptable adverse visual impacts to sensitive receptors using the minor road to Commonbrae and travelling to and from the Scottish Borders on the A7.

16.4 Reason for Objection 3: Aviation Lighting

The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan Policy ED9 and the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance in that the visual impact of red aviation lights on the wind turbines, will create significant and unacceptable adverse visual effects, incongruous and visible over considerable distance. This will introduce urban characteristics into a dark rural environment largely unaffected by artificial light experienced by receptors travelling on public roads and paths within the area and would also detract from the sense of remoteness and tranquillity of the Cauldcleuch Head and Craik Landscape Character Areas.

Page 74 16.5 Reason for Objection 4: Archaeology Impacts

The proposed development would be contrary to Local Development Plan Policies ED9, EP8 and the Renewable Energy Supplementary Guidance in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the direct physical impacts of the development would not be significant and unacceptable on sites of `national, regional and local archaeological significance within the site. Furthermore, the size and location of turbines 8 and 19 would have an unacceptable and significantly adverse impact on the setting of Pikethaw Cairn, without adequate mitigation or demonstration that the benefits of the scheme outweigh such impact.

16.6 Should the development be considered for approval, then conditions and a Legal Agreement have been identified covering a range of different aspects including, Micrositing, noise limits, roads matters, flooding, ecology, site restoration and decommissioning.

17.0 Drawing Numbers

Figure 2.1 Site Layout Figure 2.3a Typical Turbine Specification 200m to Tip Figure 2.3b Typical Turbine Specification 179.5m to Tip Figure 2.4 Typical Foundation & Crane Design Figure 2.5 Typical Self Supporting Metrological Mast Figure 2.6 Proposed Access Route Figure 2.7a Typical Access Track and Culvert Design Figure 2.7b Typical Access Track and Culvert Design Figure 2.8a Proposed Borrow Pit Locations Figure 2.8c Typical Borrow Pit Restoration Profile Figure 2.9 Typical Temporary Construction Compound Layout Figure 2.10 Typical Energy Storage Facility and Compound

Approved by Name Designation Signature Ian Aikman Chief Planning and Housing Officer

The original version of this report has been signed by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Scott Shearer Peripatetic Planning Officer

Page 75 Page 76 Agenda Item 5c

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 MARCH 2021

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 20/00753/FUL

OFFICER: Mr C Miller WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Erection of 22 dwellinghouses with new access road and associated work SITE: Land East of Knapdale, 54 Edinburgh Road, Peebles APPLICANT: S Carmichael Properties Ltd AGENT: THE Architecture and Planning

PLANNING PROCESSING AGREEMENT

A Planning Processing Agreement existed for extension to decision up until 1 February 2021.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located at the north-eastern edge of Peebles, lying to the east and above the housing lining Edinburgh Road. It consists of 5.8 hectares of rough open grassland, formerly used as grazing, rising steeply from the back of the Edinburgh Road houses to the boundaries of the Venlaw Castle (former hotel now flats) access road and the boundaries of houses within the Venlaw Castle building group as well as sporadic houses and a farm to the north and north-east of the site. The rising ground continues up to form Venlaw Hill. The drop from east to west through the centre of the site is approximately 36m at its greatest.

The site boundary is demarcated largely by post and wire fencing with woodland belts out with all but the Edinburgh Road garden boundaries. There are also some mature trees towards the centre of the site which increase towards the south and south-east boundary. A burn runs within and along the northern boundary of the site adjoining the Venlaw Castle access road.

The site does not lie within the Peebles Conservation Area but is within both the Tweed Valley Special Landscape Area and the Venlaw Castle Designed Landscape. There are unscheduled archaeological features to the southern and western parts of the site in the form of cultivation terraces. Two statutorily listed buildings adjoin the site to the south-east (Venlaw Castle –B) and to the north-west (Venlaw N Lodge – C). The site lies wholly out with the settlement boundary of Peebles as defined in the Local Development Plan.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application is submitted for full planning permission to erect 22 detached dwellinghouses on the westernmost part of the site adjoining the rear of the existing Edinburgh Road houses. The houses themselves will be of contemporary design

Page 77 aligned along the eastern side of a proposed access road leading in from a revised junction with the Edinburgh Road at the location of the existing Venlaw Castle junction. The 22 houses are identical in design, three storey and aligned at 90 degrees to the access road. They will be zinc clad on dual-pitched roofs and the majority of the walls with reconstituted stone ground floor cladding and a mixture of timber and stone elsewhere in the design as feature panels, especially on the principal gable elevations facing the access road. Windows and door materials are not specified but are dark coloured to match the cladding.

The existing access point onto the Edinburgh Road from Venlaw Castle will be reconfigured to be a secondary access off the new primary one which leads from Edinburgh Road at an angle across the Cross Burn and into the site, resulting in a number of trees needing to be felled. Visibility splays and footpath crossing points will be provided at the junction with a separate pedestrian access ramp and steps adjoining in the position of the existing field access, bordered by a low stone wall. The access road then runs south serving the new development, to the rear of the existing Edinburgh Road housing. Three visitor parking pays and a turning head at the southern end are provided.

The development is accompanied by a significant amount of landscaping and earthworks. Given the slope on the site from west to east, sections show that the houses are two storey to the rear gardens but three storey to the front. The rear gardens are then terraced in steps with a retaining wall towards the rear of the houses, the gardens being staggered in lawn and shrub sections, terminating to the rear in an area of proposed wild meadow, separated from the remainder of the field by a post and wire fence and swale. Each garden will have three ornamental trees and divided by hedging.

The remainder of the landscaping consists of a woodland belt proposed between the new access road and the rear of the Edinburgh Road houses, four specimen trees towards the southern end of the site and areas of other semi-mature tree planting along the access road and at the separate pedestrian access into the site.

The application is classed as a ‘Major’ development under the Hierarchy of Developments (Scotland) Regulations 2009. The applicants publicised and held a public event in October 2019 as well as consultation with Peebles and District Community Council, Peebles Civic Society and the Ward Councillors.

The outcome of the public consultation exercise has been reported in a Pre-Application Consultation Report submitted with the application. The requirements of the Development Management Procedure (Scotland) Regulations 2013 have now been satisfied.

In addition to the PAC Report, submitted plans and drawings, there are also statements and reports in support of the application. Their findings are taken into account in the relevant sections of the report below. The supporting submissions were as follows:

 Planning Statement  Design and Access Statement  Flood Risk Assessment  Landscape Visual Appraisal  Road Safety Review  Transport Statement  Tree Report

Page 78  Ecological Assessment

PLANNING HISTORY

A previous application for residential development on the site was submitted in 2008 (08/00436/OUT) and ultimately withdrawn after the site was not included in the Scottish Borders Local Plan approved amendments. It was then subsequently considered and discounted during the Local Development Plan process, including rejection by the LDP Examination Reporter. It was then promoted by the land owner again as part of the Supplementary Guidance (SG) on Housing but discounted at the first stage by the Department, thus not being included in the SG as a preferred or alternative site.

A further application for planning permission in principle for residential development was submitted for the field, including the site, in 2017 (17/00015/PPP). This was refused by the Council in October 2017 for the following reasons:

1. The application is contrary to Policy PMD4 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016 in that the site lies out with the defined settlement boundary of Peebles and insufficient reasons have been given as to why an exceptional approval would be justified in this case.

2. The application is contrary to Policies PMD2, PMD4, EP5 and EP10 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016 in that the development would create significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, within a Designed Landscape and Special Landscape Area on a prominent and sensitive edge of the town settlement boundary

3. The application is contrary to Policies PMD2 and IS6 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016 in that it has not been demonstrated that the development could be accessed without significant detriment to road safety on the A703 and at the junction with the proposed access road.

The refusal was then appealed unsuccessfully to the Scottish Government, the Reporter turning down the appeal in May 2018. He felt that it had not been established that the housing land shortfall in the Scottish Borders was unable to be met by the Housing SG and he did not agree with the applicant’s contention that the sites chosen to meet that shortfall were constrained or ineffective. He dismissed the appeal on the grounds that there had been no exception justified to Policy PMD4. He saw no need to consider the other reasons for refusal relating to landscape and road safety impacts, given the failure of the proposal to meet the fundamental test under PMD4.

Since that decision, further approaches have been made to include the site within the replacement Local Development Plan but these have been rejected and the site is not included within the Plan. The Plan has recently been on deposit for a period of representation and the applicant has objected to the non-inclusion of the site.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service – Objects on grounds of road safety in that there is a proliferation of junctions and accesses at this location on Edinburgh Road, leading to driver confusion and interference of turning traffic to each side of the road. Without a full rationalisation of junctions and owner agreement, traffic associated with the development will exacerbate the situation. Further concerns with the layout are that it

Page 79 is not consistent with Designing Streets with a linear unconnected layout and lack of traffic calming. Also concerned that the Road Safety review was based on inadequate survey in length or timing and refers to traffic count information from 2014. Recognises the number of proposed units is reduced from the previous application but still cannot support application.

Forward Planning: Objects to the application on the grounds it is contrary to Policy PMD4 being out with the defined settlement boundary of Peebles and not meeting any of the exception criteria. States that there is no housing shortfall as the Housing Land Audit shows a 13 year effective housing land supply and an 8 year supply in the Northern Housing Market Area. Although SESPlan 2 was rejected, a Housing Land Position Statement has been accepted by a Reporter. Also comments that this site was rejected during the LDP process and in the form of a planning application, subsequently discounted by the Reporter in both instances, for reasons of landscape and visual impact outweighing any benefits of housing land supply.

In considering the applicant’s housing land supply findings in the Planning Statement, continue to oppose the application, stating:

 The Council’s methodology for monitoring the 5 year housing land supply has been approved by a Government Reporter.  The 2019 Housing Land Audit concludes there is an effective 5 year land supply.  The effective land supply is for the whole of the Borders.  The applicant challenges the programming for a number of sites in the HLA but a planning application is not the correct vehicle for this.  Disagree with a number of the applicant’s site removals in Peebles and wider afield.  No evidence that no current developer interest means removal from the HLA.  Comments on SPP  Await guidance from the Scottish Government on using the new housing land supply calculation in PAN 1/2020.

Landscape Architect: Objects to the development on landscape and visual grounds, concluding that the site contributes to a highly visible parkland setting and development would be wholly contrary to the findings of the SBC “Development and Landscape Capacity Study” 2008 which judged there to be no development opportunities in this north-eastern part of Peebles. The strip of tree planting will not mitigate the landscape impact sufficiently and will accentuate the linear nature of development. The site should be retained as parkland as an integral part of the character and setting of Peebles.

In response to the LVA, considers this proves how dominant the development will be from within and out with Peebles, exacerbated by the chosen built form. Considers that the local designed landscape is underestimated in its importance of town setting and that high levels of visibility, combined with the designed landscape, determine that development is not justifiable in landscape terms. The housing design also creates a hard and high line of roofs and gable elevations that dominate in a sensitive location, above much smaller houses and rising above the ineffective tree planting.

Ecology Officer: Site has potential for bats and noted that 20 trees will be felled. Further information is necessary in the form of a revised updated Ecological Impact Assessment which should include a survey of trees for bats. This must be resolved before any decision on the application as conditions cannot be imposed to set out

Page 80 survey requirements. May be run-off impacts on the Tweed SAC so a Construction Environment Management Plan is necessary. Biodiversity enhancement opportunities.

Subsequently accepts the submitted Ecological Assessment which finds low value habitats, mitigation to avoid impacts on the Tweed SAC and bat surveys on the trees to be felled, finding no evidence of bats or roosts. Recommends conditions covering species protection plans (for bats, badger, red squirrel, breeding birds and reptiles), a Construction Environmental Management Plan, Biodiversity Enhancement Plan and a bat-friendly lighting scheme.

Archaeology Officer: Acknowledges the site is narrower than that previously applied for, but site does extend (by six houses) into an area of cultivation terraces to the south. Conditions would be required to ensure excavation and recording of this area as well as across the remainder of the site to the north of the area of incursion. Interpretation of findings should also be a condition.

Access Officer: No claimed rights of way within the site although under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 allows a right of responsible access. Should consent be granted, connection to the wider path network in Venlaw would be sought.

Education and Lifelong Learning: Contributions sought for Peebles High School and Kingsland Primary School of £1,152 and £8,178 per house, totalling £205,260. Contributions can be phased and may vary in line with the BCIS index.

Housing Strategy: The number of houses triggers the requirement under the Council’s Affordable Housing Policy to provide on-site affordable units. Eildon HA have been alerted to potentially collaborate with the developer on provision.

Statutory Consultees

Scottish Natural Heritage: Response awaited.

Scottish Water: No objections. There is water capacity subject to a formal application and further investigation. Cannot confirm there is waste water capacity until a formal application is submitted. No surface water connections allowed into combined sewer system.

SEPA: No objections, the Flood Risk Assessment shows that the development is out with the flood plain of the Cross Burn. SUDs drainage will be needed for surface water and foul drainage should be to the public sewer. Any culvert crossing may need a CAR licence and provides further advice on construction site licensing, waste management, contaminated land and air quality.

Peebles and District Community Council: Object for the following reasons:

 Out with the LDP settlement boundary of Peebles without valid justification for exception  Design and scale of development inappropriate for location and out of context  Detrimental to landscape and visual amenity including loss of significant trees  Detrimental to residential amenity  Road safety and access problems on Edinburgh Road at, and in vicinity of, the junction. Traffic has increased over the years. The Road Safety Review submitted is not an Audit and is inadequate  High biodiversity value of site

Page 81 Peebles Civic Society: Object for the following reasons:

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Objections have been received to the application from 134 properties and households. These can be viewed in full on the Public Access website and the main grounds of objection include the following:

Policy

 Contrary to the LDP and not within the Housing SG, the LDP making adequate housing land provision alongside plenty of windfall sites  Contrary to the SBC Corporate Plan 2018  Loss of agricultural land  Reduction in public access and loss of parkland and green space

Access

 Road safety impacts resulting from a substantial increase in traffic onto a busy, narrow road with speed limit breaches  Access junction is unsafe with conflict with multiple accesses in close proximity, including the junction to North Lodge  Detrimental impacts on pedestrian safety  Obstructions to emergency vehicle access  Junction will be difficult for larger agricultural and forestry vehicles  Traffic Survey is flawed as it avoided rush hours, was an inappropriate time of year and underestimated traffic flows from other uses such as the caravan site and garage

Landscape and visual impact

 Adverse visual impact from loss of floral beds  Detrimental visual impacts from viewpoints around the town  Adverse impact on natural beauty and the landscape, being within the SLA and Venlaw Castle Designed Landscape  SNH have previously objected to development on landscape impact grounds

Siting and design

 Overdevelopment with houses being too close together  Designs are identical and out of character with their surroundings

Residential amenity

 Loss of privacy and overlooking to windows and gardens

Page 82  Three storey height of houses will increase overlooking and dominance  Increased noise pollution  Increased light pollution  New tree planting will cause issues for houses fronting Edinburgh Road

Natural and cultural heritage

 Loss of important trees, the Sycamores being potentially ancient trees considered for the Woodland Trust inventory  Adverse impacts on wildlife  Adverse impact on archaeology, especially the cultivation terraces and fort

Local services

 Housing will be taken by commuters and will not be affordable to local people  Strain on local services such as schools, healthcare, social and residential care, leisure and waste water treatment  Detrimental impacts on drainage with surface water and run-off flood risk, SUDS being unable to cope and impacting on existing drains

Other matters

 Adverse impact on tourism  Approval could set precedent for further development in the field  Application is a repeat and should not be considered again  The negative public reaction during pre-application consultation not reflected in the PAC report

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016

Policy PMD1 Sustainability Policy PMD2 Quality Standards Policy PMD4 Development out with Development Boundaries Policy HD2 Housing in the Countryside Policy HD3 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy EP3 Local Biodiversity Policy EP4 National Scenic Areas Policy EP5 Special Landscape Areas Policy EP7 Listed Buildings Policy EP8 Archaeology Policy EP10 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy EP13 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy EP15 Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy IS2 Developer Contributions Policy IS6 Road Adoption Standards Policy IS7 Parking Provisions and Standards Policy IS8 Flooding Policy IS9 Waste Water Treatment Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

SESplan Strategic Development Plan 2013

Page 83 SSG: Housing Land SBC SG: Housing 2017 Scottish Planning Policy National Planning Framework PAN 1/2020 “Assessing the extent of the 5 year supply of effective housing land”

Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance

Affordable Housing Biodiversity Trees and Development Privacy and Sunlight Placemaking and Design Development Contributions Landscape and Development Local Landscape Designations New Housing in the Borders Countryside

SBC/SNH “Development and Landscape Capacity Study”

KEY PLANNING ISSUES

The main determining issues with this application are compliance with Local Development Plan Policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance on development out with settlement boundaries, impacts on landscape, residential amenity, road safety, archaeology, ecology and the water environment.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION

Planning Policy

The application site lies wholly out with the settlement boundary for Peebles as defined within the LDP. Policy PMD4 “Development out with development Boundaries” is, therefore, the most relevant Policy to be applied to the site which states that any development should be contained within that defined boundary and that any development out with will normally be refused.

Before assessing the application against PMD4, it is important to consider the planning history and material factors that have contributed to repeated rejection of the site as either a suitable site for housing allocation or as a natural addition to the settlement boundary in this location. Whilst it is understood that the assessment of the planning application is not an assessment of previous Council or Reporter decisions in rejecting the inclusion of the site within the Peebles settlement boundary, they are, nevertheless, significant material planning decisions to be taken into account and, in particular, the reasons for the non-inclusion of the site. It would obviously be correct to analyse those reasons for non-inclusion against this current planning application and in the light of any revised or new information submitted and against the context of consultation responses and representations received.

The Forward Planning consultation response sets out the history of the submission and consideration of the site through recent years of the Local Plan and LDP process. It was initially withdrawn as a planning application in 2008 and then rejected by the Reporter who held an Examination into the Local Plan Amendment, stating “...irrespective of the strategic housing target, ….the site is not suitable for housing and the local plan amendment should not allocate the land for that purpose”.

Page 84 Following further attempts to seek inclusion of the site within the “Call for Sites” procedures leading up to the LDP, the site was not included within the settlement boundary at any of these stages – principally for landscape, access, archaeology and topographical reasons. The SBC/SNH Report “Development and Landscape Capacity Study” identified the site as constrained.

The Reporter who held the Examination into the LDP, considered that solutions to archaeological and access constraints may be possible but that there was no ability to overcome the issue of landscape fit within (at the time) a newly designated Special Landscape Area. He concluded that “…I agree with the council that the existing settlement is well contained at this point by rising topography to the east. I found that to be a very attractive feature of this important vehicular entrance to the town. Development of the site is likely to lead to the appearance of urban sprawl ascending the higher land to the east. I conclude overall that the potential benefits of increasing the land supply by allocation of this site are outweighed by the likely significant adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of this sensitive settlement edge location”.

Following rejection of the site within the adopted LDP, it was submitted again as part of the “Housing” SG process whereby the Council were required to find sites for over 900 additional houses throughout the Scottish Borders. The site was excluded from the SG.

Residential development on the site was also subsequently refused planning permission on appeal in 2018 (17/00015/PPP). In concluding rejection, the Reporter concentrated on Policy PMD4 and the claimed housing land supply shortfall. He stated:

“Accordingly, without evidence to the contrary, I find that the adopted supplementary guidance ensures that an effective land supply is available. In turn policy 7 of SESplan is not engaged. Development out with the settlement boundary of Peebles is therefore not justified under LDP policy PMD4 criterion c). …

Policy PMD4 is a fundamental policy with regard to the spatial strategy of the LDP. A proposal which fails to gain support from that policy would be at odds with the LDP spatial strategy. Therefore, without explicit policy support from within SESplan, I find that the development plan does not favour this proposal. …

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (2014) is identified by the council and is a material consideration for planning applications. SPP expects planning authorities to allocate a range of effective (or expected to be effective within a plan period) sites to meet the housing land requirement. A minimum of 5 years effective land supply should be provided at all times. I find that the requirements of SPP have been met by the council in adopting the housing supplementary guidance in 2017. …

In addition, I have not found evidence in the representations or other submissions which would be of greater importance than the spatial strategy of the LDP.

I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and in particular a fundamental LDP policy PMD4. I also conclude that there are no material considerations which would still justify granting planning permission. I have considered all the other matters raised, but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions”.

Page 85 The site has also been considered again during the current Proposed Local Development Plan process as it was submitted by the applicant. The site was not included and an objection has now been lodged by the applicant to its non-inclusion.

This history demonstrates that the site continues to be rejected at all stages in the LDP and planning permission processes and Members should be aware of this. What is important in assessing this planning application is to both be fully aware of the LDP position and planning history with regard to the site but also ensure that all material issues are assessed as they now stand, including the submission of any additional or enhanced information and whether there have been any Policy or other changes that would have a bearing on the determination of the application. This takes into account the submissions made in the Planning Statement by the agent in relation to PMD4 and housing land supply.

Policy PMD4 will normally reject applications outside the defined development boundary unless one or more qualifying criteria can be met. Only then, would secondary criteria then also need to be met. The main qualifying criteria are discussed as follows:

A job generating development with economic justification

No information has been submitted in support of the application to demonstrate any compliance with this criterion nor is it particularly advanced by the applicant or agent. There is clearly a landowner willing to deliver housing on the site but whilst a new housing development will deliver construction employment opportunities and, thereafter, will feed into the local economy through additional population, it is not, in itself, a job-generating development meant in the context of this criterion.

An affordable housing development

The agent has not stated that this will be an affordable housing development. Whilst, if approved, there would need to be a 25% unit provision on site which is accepted by the agent, this criterion refers to a wholly affordable housing proposal which is not the case with this application.

A housing shortfall identified by the Council in the Housing Land Audit in provision of an effective five year land supply

This is the main criterion that the agent considers is met by the proposal, considering that the site could provide an important contribution to the local housing land supply. The Planning Statement contends that the site is in compliance with Scottish Planning Policy, providing quality housing and contributing to the maintenance of a 5 year supply of effective housing land. It examines the Council’s latest Housing Land Audit and concentrates on PAN 2/2010 and the definition of what is classed as “effective” housing land supply, applying seven criteria including ownership, infrastructure and physical constraints.

The agent also examines the position following the abandonment of SESPlan 2 and the Council continuing to pursue strategic growth in Peebles and surrounding area. It is argued that renewed efforts are required to provide sufficient housing land to achieve the national targets, including identifying previously considered proposals and also removing sites that have repeatedly failed to deliver housing. They also discuss the role of windfall sites in the overall housing land supply position and the guidance from Homes for Scotland in relation to housing land audits.

The agent then proceeds to evaluate the housing land supply in the Scottish Borders, using a series of assumptions and criteria about effectiveness. Many sites are

Page 86 removed because of age or small scale. The agent concludes that although the Council’s 2019 Housing Land Audit identified an effective land supply of 3,679 units equalling 11 years supply, this overestimates the contribution of small sites and also includes many older or constrained sites where the agent considers development is unrealistic. Appendix 3 in the Report makes allowances for such instances and results in only 1,694 units and five year supply. Appendix 4 then narrows down to only those areas in SESPlan that deliver strategic growth, the units then dropping to 1,242 units or four year’s housing land supply. The agent, thus, contends that the site is needed to help bring the total back up to five year’s supply and that justification is provided to meet the relevant qualifying criterion in Policy PMD4.

The agent’s submissions on housing land supply have been considered and the views of the Forward Planning Team, who prepare the Housing Land Audit, are on Public Access. Members are asked to study their reply and note their views. They continue to oppose the application, stating the following:

 Appendix 2 in the LDP outlines the Council’s methodology for monitoring the 5 year housing land supply and this was accepted by a Government Reporter after the LDP Examination.  The 2019 Housing Land Audit concludes there is an effective 5 year land supply across a wide range of locations.  The effective land supply is for the whole of the Borders. To restrict analysis to just Strategic Growth Area sites ignores the rural nature of the Borders and the contribution made by rural developments in terms of housing take-up.  The applicant challenges the programming for a number of sites in the HLA but a planning application is not the correct vehicle for this. The HLA itself can be challenged and is consulted on with the development industry. It is finalised only after such consultation.  Although a planning application is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge the applicant’s site removals from the HLA, the Forward Planning Section disagree with a number of these sites in Peebles and wider afield (discussed below).  There is no evidence to support the applicant’s contention that no current developer interest means removal from the HLA. They should be removed if unlikely to ever be developed and such a process has been undertaken for the new LDP, after contacting landowners.  Comments on SPP paragraphs modified to support sustainable development. Accepts the application complies with a number of the sustainability principles but that other contraventions outweigh the advantages, especially in relation to the provisions of the LDP and amenity considerations. This is also in the context of sustainability where the Council have identified a housing land shortfall.  PAN 1/2020 amended the calculation for assessing the extent of the five year housing land supply. Forward Planning have sought guidance from the Scottish Government on using the calculation, but have not done so at this stage as guidance is still awaited.

Some of the sites that have been removed from the effective housing land supply by the agent, are considered unjustified and are removed to suit the shortfall case being argued, rather than following the correct guidance for HLA inclusion or exclusion. In particular:

Local

Rosetta Road (TP138) – PPP granted at Committee, consent still to be issued awaiting conclusion of legal agreement. Although site now bought by new owner,

Page 87 PPP application not withdrawn. The new site in the proposed LDP at Land south of Chapelhill Farm (APEEB056) would help towards contribution costs of new bridge

March Street Mills (TP147) – site recently rejected upon appeal but only on grounds of inadequate allotment replacement. Owner still pursuing housing development and met with Council to fully address appeal reason for refusal. Intent to re-apply.

George Place (TP91) – previously received outline consent in 2004, new application needs to address flooding grounds but mitigation is considered possible and pre-app discussions have been held in recent past.

Kirklands (T177) – PPP minded to grant but legal agreements not concluded. Recent developer interest in the form of new pre-app contact, indicates site is moving forward.

Kingsmeadows (TP139) – The agent states no progress since 2015, yet a renewal application was agreed in June 2020 (subject to legal agreement) a month before the application at Venlaw was submitted with its supporting papers.

Other

School Brae, West Linton (TWL50) – The agent says “No developer no interest”. Whilst it is appreciated the agent wrote that upon application submission in July 2020, it should be noted the site is well underway and properties are on the ground. This indicates how quick the agent has been to write off sites and exclude them, without justification.

West Allan Bank, Lauder (ALA48) – No site constraints. Railway blueprint confirms need to identify economic opportunities in Borders rail corridor. Site easy travel distance to Stow station, many constraints in finding land in Stow

Easter Langlee, Galashiels (EGL84) – This site remains the major developing site within the Scottish Borders. No evidence has been submitted to confirm this site is not effective.

Kelso High School (RKE195) – Contrary evidence that this site is effective. Planning and Listed Building Consent granted, legal agreement presently being worked on to allow release of consent, discussions ongoing between applicant and Council.

Newtown St Boswells (ENT25) – Remains a site of strategic importance. Pre-app for mixed use site in village a catalyst and confirms developer interest in the village, indicated by 19/00210/PPP actively being pursued for Auction Mart site.

Kerrs Land, Selkirk (ESE118) – Full planning permission granted for site in 2019, subject to issuance of legal agreement which is still being concluded.

Heather Mill, Selkirk (ESE134) – Site only included to housing land supply via SG on Housing 2018. Too early to start seeking its removal

Lowood, Tweedbank (EGL220) - Site only added to housing land supply as recent as 2018 via SG on Housing. Agreed there are some infrastructure issues to be addressed, but the site remains a very attractive dev opportunity, in close proximity to Tweedbank Station, its allocations follow the Railway Blueprint objectives in the heart of the central housing market area

In dismissing the previous appeal, the Reporter favoured the Council’s HLA, backed by the Housing SG, as a demonstration that there was a five year effective housing land supply. He stated:

Page 88 “A minimum of 5 years effective land supply should be provided at all times. I find that the requirements of SPP have been met by the council in adopting the housing supplementary guidance in 2017….In addition, I have not found evidence in the representations or other submissions which would be of greater importance than the spatial strategy of the LDP.

Consideration of the agent’s submissions has been given above and in the responses from Forward Planning. It is considered that the agent has been quick to exclude sites from the Housing Land Supply but, as stated by Forward Planning, any challenge to the Housing Land Audit should be done directly during preparation of it upon consultation, not within a planning application. The Council stands by the HLA2019 and maintains there is an effective five year housing land supply in line with all current guidance and the SPP. The agent’s removal of sites is unsubstantiated in many cases, incorrect in some and does not provide a robust baseline for establishing there is a housing land shortfall. Consequently, the relevant exception clause in Policy PMD4 is not complied with and the development is contrary to the Local Development Plan.

Significant community benefits outweighing the need to protect the development boundary

There has been insufficient evidence advanced within the application to suggest that this criterion would be met. Whilst it is stated there is a willing landowner and that more housing will meet with national and local needs, the visual, landscape and access impacts together with the need to contribute to meeting the impacts on local infrastructure and services, determine that there are no significant net community benefits arising from the development which would outweigh the need to protect the development boundary.

Only one of the four qualifying criteria would need to be met under this Policy to then consider it as an exceptional approval out with the settlement boundary, against which secondary criteria would then need to be applied and met. As none of the qualifying criteria are met, the secondary criteria cannot be applied or considered regarding the proposal. Nevertheless, of those criteria that relate to logical settlement extensions, character of the built-up edge and adverse effects on the landscape setting of the settlement, it would be unlikely that the proposed site would meet one or more of these secondary criteria. Similarly, of the three matters that would be taken account of in deciding whether to grant an exceptional approval, the settlement profile for Peebles identifies the strong landscape framework of the town and singles out how it nestles into Venlaw Hill and on the flatter land towards the Eddleston Water. There is, therefore, further reason within one of the additional matters to be taken account of under Policy PMD4, not to grant an exceptional approval for development in this instance.

Landscape

The site is covered by two local landscape designations, namely Venlaw Castle Designed Landscape and the Tweed Valley Special Landscape Area, covered by respective LDP Policies EP10 and EP5. The Council Landscape Architect describes the landscape features and characteristics of the two designations in the context of the SBC/SNH “Development and Landscape Capacity Study”(2007) which looked at 11 settlements, including Peebles, for landscape character around settlements and what housing development/expansion may be appropriate in terms of landscape fit. The Study identified that the west facing slopes of the Eddleston Water (including the site) have a high sensitivity to new housing development and settlement boundary expansion. This was due to the steep slopes providing a robust settlement edge and

Page 89 a well-defined sense of containment for the town, these slopes being visible from a number of different locations. The Study concluded that there was no opportunity for settlement expansion in this part of Peebles, including the application site. This is probably the main factor in why the site has not been included in the Local Plan Amendment, Local Development Plan, Housing SG or replacement Local Development Plan.

The applicant and agent have addressed landscape impact by submitting a Landscape Visual Appraisal (LVA) and this is available to view in full on the Public Access web site. The Design and Access Statement also includes some photographs and photomontages of the development from selected viewpoints.

The submissions assess the local landscape of the site and its setting in landscape terms, the available views to the site and the way in which the site is perceived in its landscape context, and the effects of development in landscape terms, on the character and composition of the landscape. The Design and Access Statement states that the development is kept below the 190m contour to match with most development in Peebles. It recognises that the site is prominent due to the steep incline and open valley nature but that the position and single line of development will utilise screening from existing development to some extent, sitting within a built environment context. It is contended that further landscape mitigation to the front and rear of the site will improve the setting and reduce landscape impacts further.

The Appraisal provides a Zone of Theoretical Visibility and uses 24 separate viewpoints of the site, all within 3km of the site, the majority being within 1km of the site and some contained within the western lower lying housing areas, west of the Eddleston Water. More elevated viewpoints to the west are also utilised including Peebles Golf Course, Rosetta Holiday Park and rights of way in the vicinity. There is also an area of visibility predicted south of the river to the south-west of Peebles and viewpoints are utilised at the Manor Sware and south of Edderston Road. Selected viewpoints are investigated in more detail and photomontages are produced with the development transposed onto them. There are also some with new planting and building colours shown to further demonstrate claimed receding landscape impact.

The Appraisal generally identifies that from those higher level viewpoints, the development is more prominent above the line of existing development, albeit at greater distance. However, with existing built context at Venlaw High Road, Venlaw Quarry Road and Venlaw Castle, combined with the intended design cutting into the slopes and new planting, the overall landscape impacts will not be significantly adverse.

The Appraisal concludes by stating:

“A thorough, structured investigation has been conducted to assess the visual impact of the proposed development, as described in this document. Through desktop analysis, fieldwork and visualisation, the overall visual impact of the scheme has been assessed. There will be localised visual impacts from the proposals on the A703 (notably as discussed in relation to viewpoints 02 and 03). The wider views assessed (including viewpoints 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 24) demonstrate that whilst the proposed development is visible, the impact on views and landscape character is overall assessed to be minor/not significant. Viewpoints 11 and 12 are notable as demonstrating more significant impact. In these cases the proposed development is assessed to result in a change to landscape character, this is minimised through the proposed mitigation measures. Overall, the visual impact of the scheme is wide ranging but minimal from most viewpoints, however there are localised areas where

Page 90 the impact is more significant, as outlined above. It is our assessment that the scale and character of the proposed development has through the design process addressed visual and landscape impacts as far as possible. Development has been limited and focused along the bottom edge of the site, thereby significantly reducing and minimising the landscape and visual impact that would result from more extensive development of the site.”

The findings generally recognise the prominence, elevation and visibility of the site from large parts of Peebles to the west and south-west. The strategy is based upon the development restricting itself to the lowest part of the site, thereby addressing visual and landscape impacts “as far as possible”.

Members will note that the Council’s Landscape Architect has a different view of the landscape impact of the proposals and the findings of the LVA, both responses being available in full on the Public Access system. The Landscape Architect reiterates the background of the SNH/SBC Landscape Capacity Study in 2007 which identified that Peebles has developed on the valley floor and is contained by slopes rising to prominent summits, especially to the north-east where Policy parkland contributes greatly to the setting and amenity of the town. Despite limiting the development to the lower part of the field, it is considered that the submissions do not address concerns over the town developing up steeper slopes, changing the character of what is mostly a valley-based settlement.

The Landscape Architect identifies the following key characteristics of this part of Peebles from the 2007 Study

 Evenly graded slopes rise up from the A703 and enclose the town along its north east edge.  The area is diverse in character, with grazed land, organically shaped shelterbelts and parkland trees, interspersed with a scattering of large buildings.  The settlement edge is emphasised by the steep slopes and in places reinforced by woodland.  The slopes themselves are most prominent in views from the opposite side of the valley, including the golf course, but are also evident on arrival along the A703

The Study identified that the west facing slopes of Peebles had high sensitivity to any new development on the settlement edge and that there were, consequently, no options for settlement expansion in the north-eastern part of Peebles. The Landscape Architect feels the proposed development would have a significant and negative impact on the landscape and would be contrary to the findings of the Capacity Study. The Landscape Architect does not consider that the restriction to the western part of the site nor the line of new woodland planting “…will help to achieve anything like a landscape fit”. It is considered that the site is not an appropriate site for any housing development and the parkland should be maintained as an integral part of the character and setting of Peebles. It is also that the role of the designed Venlaw Castle landscape has been underestimated in defining the town setting and rural edge. There are other locations around the town that could be developed and development on such a prominent slope should be avoided. The recent replacement Local Development Plan, for example, has identified a new site for housing development to the north of Rosetta Road at Chapelhill, following the Western Rural Growth Area Study.

The submitted mitigation proposals are unlikely to reduce the impacts of the development and infrastructure sufficiently, given the slope and presentation of views

Page 91 to the western and south-western parts of the town and its surrounds. Earthworks are significant to attempt to achieve a landscape fit, yet the resultant development will appear an inappropriate fit into the landscape with substantial retaining walls and terraced gardens. As explained elsewhere in this report, the design, density and layout of the housing also serves to accentuate its elevation, mass and prominence on the hillside above the Edinburgh Road housing and valley floor. Whilst colour choices and landscaping can reduce impacts to some extent, the photomontages simply emphasise that those impacts will remain significant and adverse, especially from those viewpoints at a higher level. Any potential benefits of choosing the lowest contour lines within the parkland have been reduced by the height, mass and density of the chosen layout and designs. The landscape impacts are also exacerbated by the loss of mature trees to form the access and mature specimen trees within the site. These are also the views of the Council Landscape Architect. The main findings of the Landscape and Visual Appraisal are, therefore, not accepted.

Resistance to development on landscape grounds is entirely in line with previous decisions following the SNH/SBC Landscape Capacity Study and, indeed, the LDP Examination Reporter who saw sufficient concern in encouraging urban sprawl up the slope that this was the main reason why the site was excluded from allocation. All that has changed in the interim is that there has been a requirement for the Council to identify more housing land (in the SG and replacement LDP) and that the applicant has submitted their own Landscape and Housing Land Appraisals. There is insufficient justification to outweigh the landscape and settlement boundary concerns in this location in order to fulfil a housing demand which is being adequately met elsewhere.

The landscape impact has been considered and expressed through the previous planning history iterations of proposed development on this site, backed up by the findings of the SNH/SBC Landscape Capacity Study and by previous reporter decisions. There are also concerns expressed by many of the objectors and also strongly by the Community Council and Civic Society. Whilst the applicant’s landscape submissions are noted and have been considered fully, there is no reason not to accept the advice of the Council Landscape Architect and reflect previous expressed concerns that the development of this site should be opposed on grounds of significant landscape and adverse visual impacts, within designated landscape on a sensitive edge of the town settlement boundary and against LDP Policies PMD2, PMD4, EP5 and EP10.

Layout and Design

If the site had been considered as a justified exception to Policy PMD4, then as the application is submitted in full, the layout and design of the houses must also be considered against LDP Policy PMD2 and the “Placemaking and Design” SPG in particular. They require any development to both have a sense of place but also to be appropriate and compatible to its surroundings, respecting form and the highest quality of surrounding materials and architecture.

The Design and Access and Planning Statements contend that the layout and design respond to the levels, landscape and the site context. They state that the context is varied and modern and that the linear single-sided nature of the development, cut into the hillside, integrates and aligns behind the linear pattern of development along the Edinburgh Road. The varied materials of zinc, timber and reconstituted stone, especially to the front west facing gables, are argued to integrate with the area and reduce impacts to public view. The contemporary design is considered appropriate to the modern architecture and mixed surroundings by the agent, responding to the

Page 92 rising site topography by being split level and with stepped terraced gardens to the rear.

The design and layout approach is not considered appropriate in this setting. The landscape impacts of the height and linear design have already been discussed in the previous section. The site is a steeply rising parkland field within a designated landscape, heavily visible to much of Peebles, especially to the west and south-west. Had the field been considered acceptable for development as a justified exception under Policy PMD4, then a dense tall “townhouse” row of identical designs with minimal gaps between each unit would not be considered appropriate on a rural edge location, adjoining mixed post-war housing of predominantly single and storey-and-a- half slate roof houses.

The transition with the parkland and countryside edge to the town should not be defined so abruptly with such dominant and tall designs, the height, minimal spaces between houses and gable end designs all providing an unnecessarily hard, jagged and inappropriate transition between town and country. Their relationship with the houses adjoining is similarly incongruous, both in form, uniformity and dominant use of zinc. Their height, gable end alignment and detached nature with minimal spacing are much more appropriate in a more urban or brownfield setting further towards the town. Their actual design is, however not unattractive and there should be opportunities for such contemporary design, but the location and context has to be appropriate. The site is not an appropriate context for such design and it is concluded that the design and layout are contrary to Policy PMD2 and the “Placemaking and Design” SPG.

Residential Amenity

A number of residents, especially those along the eastern edge of the Edinburgh Road, have expressed objections about overlooking and the dominant impacts of the design and location of the houses, combined with the overshadowing from the woodland proposed. Obviously, whilst their main outlooks will be onto the Edinburgh Road, the busy nature of that road will lead to a heightened expectation of privacy and amenity from their rear windows and gardens. Residential amenity is assessed by applying LDP Policy HD3 together with the associated “Privacy and Sunlight” SPG. Policy PMD2 also requires development appropriate to its surroundings in scale, form and density.

The current application proposes 22 detached three storey houses close to the rear boundary of the Edinburgh Road houses. The applicant’s reasons for doing this have been based upon mitigating landscape impact from more distant views towards the site and not upon mitigating the impacts on existing residential amenity. Their solution is to create a woodland belt to the rear of the existing houses to prevent impact and overlooking.

This matter was explored on the previous application when the Committee Report stated the following:

“Although the height differences between the new and existing houses, windows and gardens would be significant, it is likely that Policy and buffer distances within the SPG would be contravened had any development been proposed immediately to the rear of the existing houses in the north-west part of the site. If that had been the case, acceptable daylight, sunlight and privacy distances may have been difficult to achieve in line with Council guidance. However, given the additional information submitted during the processing of the application which indicates that the applicant would accept

Page 93 a “no development” buffer to the rear of the Edinburgh Road houses, the residual effects are of change in outlook, some dominance of visual impact (for the first part of the development where the access road enters the field), loss of informal recreational use of the land and an increase in noise and light pollution, during construction and then in use of the houses. None of these residual effects suggest that a suitably low- density, low-rise, distanced and landscaped development would lead to such adverse impacts that refusal would be justified on residential amenity grounds, even allowing for the elevation of the ground.”

It should be noted that this development does exactly what the previous application offered not to do – propose development within the previously suggested “no development buffer” to the rear of the Edinburgh Road houses. Consequently, the impacts of the height, proximity of the houses and the intervening woodland planting will have significant overbearing impacts on the houses and gardens fronting Edinburgh Road. The new houses themselves will have main outlooks looking towards the existing houses and gardens, due to their design and proximity to each other precluding any habitable room windows on the side elevations between new houses. Those areas of glass and windows present gables up to 10.6 m from the proposed ground levels. Indeed, according to the latest cross section from the agent, even the road and ground floor levels are at or above the ridgelines of the houses in Edinburgh Road, especially towards the southern end, meaning the impacts of another 10.6m above that will be considerable. The section suggests there will be between 36 and 46m separation between existing and proposed houses and the agent suggests this is sufficient when also considering the intervening planting. He also suggests it is in compliance with the “Privacy and Sunlight” SPG.

There is no issue with the submission of details relating to daylight and sunlight in terms of the impacts caused by the new houses. The submitted information with shadowcast and winter/summer sun paths does not indicate any particular reason to oppose the application based upon impacts on light. There may be some shading to parts of gardens but this is likely to be much more significant as a result of the woodland planting, which is an element that would not require planning permission in its own right. The concerns are much more in relation to dominance and overlooking impacts on amenity and enjoyment of residential properties and rear gardens. Whilst the “Privacy and Sunlight” SPG does state that 18m is required as a minimum distance window to window to preserve sufficient privacy, the minimum figure increases by 2m for every one metre difference in window level. As the second floor windows in the proposed houses could be viewed out at a level of approximately seven metres above proposed ground level, that level is up to two metres above ridge heights of the existing houses and, conservatively, therefore at least 12m above the level of the highest existing windows in the Edinburgh Road houses.

The minimum distance would then need to be increased by 24m to a minimum of 40m. Whilst the applicant has stated the separation distances vary from 36-46m, it is considered that the separation distances are either less than, or so close to, the minimum that, when combined with the large height difference between houses and the mass of development with minimal gaps between proposed houses, it would create an unacceptable overbearing effect on the rear of the existing houses and gardens, creating uncomfortable, oppressive and overlooked rear gardens and windows. The woodland planting, whilst resolving overlooking in time, would simply serve to emphasise the overbearing and oppressive nature of the development. It is concluded that the proximity, height and gable end design of the houses proposed would have a significant and adverse effect on the residential amenity of the houses and gardens in Edinburgh Road, exacerbated by the proximity, height and type of intervening planting

Page 94 proposed. For these reasons, the development is considered to be contrary to Policies HD3, PMD2 and the “Privacy and Sunlight” SPG.

Access

If the development site had been considered to be acceptable under LDP Policy PMD4 as a justified exception to that Policy, then Policies PMD2 and IS6 require safe access to and within developments, capable of being developed to the Council’s adoptable standards and in accordance with the guidance in “Designing Streets”. PMD4 also requires consideration of the service and infrastructure capacity of the settlement, in assessing whether to grant exceptional approvals or not. PMD2, in particular, has an “Accessibility” section of five criteria to be met, including integration into existing street layouts and no adverse impacts on road safety, both at the site entrance and on approaches to it.

The major issues with access are in relation to road safety at the intended access point and, to a lesser extent, the challenges of securing a “Designing Streets” layout on such a sloping and restricted rectilinear site. The proposals involve a new widened vehicular access point from the A703 at the existing Venlaw Castle junction with improved radii and pedestrian crossing facilities. Visibility splays are also shown in both directions of 2.4m by 43m. The Venlaw Castle road will become a minor road leading off the new road at a new internal junction. The road serving the housing development will cross the burn over a culvert and then broadly follows the path of the 177m contour, rising along its length with a turning head at the southern end. The road will be 6m width with footways. Vehicle parking will be between the houses and there will be a separate pedestrian route at the north of the site using both a 1:14/15 ramp and steps. The Transport Statement explains why a loop road system is not possible and drawings demonstrate that the turning head and road alignment would be accessible to fire tenders and refuse vehicles.

The application was also supported by a Road Safety Review, undertaken on a day in October 2019 between 1330 and 1500 hours. The Review noted average traffic flow on Edinburgh Road to be 6940 vehicles (from traffic survey information in 2014). The Review concluded that the new junction sightlines would be of required standard, no new junctions were being created and the existing road and junctions were not complicated to interpret or negotiate by drivers. Visibility of all junctions was good, speeds seemed low and there was safe pedestrian provision appropriate for the low level of activity.

The Roads Planning Service (RPS) does not accept the application for reasons of road safety due to the increased traffic generation on an “A” class road where various junctions proliferate, serving houses, a commercial garage and filling station (with nose-in parking), caravan site and working farm. They also point out the amount of on- street parking in the vicinity and the overlapping of visibility splays. There is conflict with stacking traffic and confusion over indications to turn into junctions, exacerbated with the application traffic generation, albeit it is recognised that the development is reduced in scale from that previously refused. Many objections have been received from third parties on this matter as well as the adequacy of the submitted transport review and statement. RPS are of a similar opinion and feel that the Road Safety review was based on inadequate survey and outdated traffic flow information.

RPS have previously stated that the only way they would drop objections would be if there was co-operation between junction and business/housing owners to completely rationalise junction arrangements in this location. There is nothing submitted from the applicant or agent to suggest this is a realistic prospect. Whilst the LDP Examination

Page 95 Reporter felt “…a technical solution could be arrived at which would facilitate some development on the site”, he also recognised that there were difficult conditions for drivers and pedestrians arising from the number of access points and that addition of significant development could give rise to further complications. The most he offered was that a technical solution may be possible to facilitate “some” development.

There is no evidence before us to believe that such a technical solution would be achievable. On the basis of the current position and information available, including land ownership restrictions, it is considered that the development could not be accessed without significant road safety issues, contrary to the relevant parts of LDP Policies PMD2 and IS6.

RPS also have significant concerns over compliance of the development with “Designing Streets” guidance. The previous application was submitted as a PPP and covered a much wider part of the site up to the Venlaw Castle drive. Whilst there were concerns expressed previously, it was considered that non-compliance could not be concluded and that only upon the detailed submission, could there be any full assessment of compliance. The current application is a full submission utilising a limited strip of ground along the western edge of the site. RPS have identified a number of issues with this layout which are contrary to “Designing Streets”, including the long uninterrupted linear layout, lack of traffic calming, lack of internal/external connectivity and prioritisation of movement over place.

The agent submitted a Transport Consultant’s response to the objections from RPS. That response disagrees and summarises the findings of the Road Safety review, stating that the development will only create up to 15 additional two-way vehicle movements in the peak period and that other movements out of nearby junctions are low. The response also disputes the criticisms over the development’s compliance with “Designing Streets”. RPS have assessed this response but maintain their objections for the aforementioned reasons.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the development is reduced in scale compared to that considered previously, the problems over increasing traffic generation to this part of the Edinburgh Road still exist to the detriment of road safety and there are no solutions proposed to overcome them. It is not considered that the development contribution of £1000 per unit towards the bridge and traffic management in the town would be sufficient to overcome these problems. The development also does not satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with “Designing Streets” guidance. For these reasons, the application is contrary to Policies PMD2 and IS6 of the Local Development Plan.

Cultural Heritage

Local Development Plan Policy EP8 refers to development that could adversely affect archaeological assets. It states that any development creating an adverse effect on assets or their setting will be balanced against the benefits of the proposal and consideration of any mitigation strategies. Unlike the previous application which stopped the developable area of the site north of cultivation terraces, this current proposal extends the development into the cultivation terraces by approximately six houses from the southern end.

The Council Archaeologist identifies the terraces as being of prehistoric or medieval origin and believes that, if preservation isn’t possible, investigation is necessary as per LDP Policy EP8, and notes that not all lengths of terracing will be lost. Suitable conditions could address the investigation requirements, as well as trial trenching and

Page 96 investigation of the remainder of the site to the north of the terraces, covering potential archaeology. Suitable conditions should also provide for interpretation of findings.

Although there are also objections expressed by residents on archaeological impacts, the Council Archaeologist considers the impacts can be addressed by a suitable condition, thus this would not be a material factor in the determination of the application.

Local Development Plan Policy EP7 requires new development to safeguard and respect the setting of statutorily listed buildings, two bordering the site to the south- east and north-west. Given the scale, orientation and roadside position of the C-listed Venlaw North Lodge to the north-west of the site, it is not considered that the suggested development would impact significantly on any setting, albeit there would be an increase in junction standard, road priority and width. The greater impact could have been on the setting of Castle Venlaw which is B-listed to the south-east of the site. However, the preservation of the cultivation terraces and a developable area being restricted lower down to the west of the site allows appreciation and sufficient preservation of buffer space and setting of the building to remain. Impacts on the associated Designed Landscape are considered elsewhere in this report.

Drainage

LDP Policies IS8 and IS9 are the most relevant in consideration of the impacts of development of this site on the water environment. Whilst there have been third party concerns expressed over drainage capacity within Peebles, there has been no suggestion from Scottish Water that this would be an insurmountable issue, albeit they cannot confirm sufficient capacity until an application is made to them to connect.

Of more relevance to the proposals is the potential impact of the sloping site on properties at the lower level along Edinburgh Road and the Cross Burn to the northern boundary of the site, in terms of surface water run-off and potential flood risk. The drainage proposals indicate a double swale and perforated pipes to the rear of the houses at the top and bottom of the new slope behind the terraced gardens, and a further swale and pipe between the new road and the back of the houses fronting Edinburgh Road. Surface water will be led from these pipes and from the houses and hard surfaces, to the Cross Burn. Foul drainage will connect directly to the existing sewer on the Edinburgh Road.

A number of local residents have raised potential issues with such a SUDs system being unable to cope with surface water and causing flooding and impacting on existing drains. However, SEPA have not objected to the drainage solutions nor to the findings and mitigation contained within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. They accept that the site will not flood from the Cross Burn, even at 1 in 200 year events and existing/proposed culverts can cope even in the event of blockages. SEPA accept the development subject to conditions relating to SUDs, prevention of construction pollution and run-off, foul connection to the public sewer, licences for construction and engineering activities etc.

Whilst the drainage of the site would not be without issues, connected with the steep slopes, surrounding houses, scale of earth excavation and impacts from the Cross Burn, there is no evidence to suggest that they would be issues that could not be overcome with careful and appropriate design, controlled by conditions. It is not, therefore, considered that drainage and flood risk are material issues in the

Page 97 determination of the application and that LDP Policies IS8 and 9 could be addressed satisfactorily if the application was to be approved.

Other issues

Although all other issues have been considered, none are raised that would outweigh the consideration of the application as set out above. These include perceived impacts on tourism, water supply, local services and ecology. With regard to the latter, much concern was expressed over impacts as a result of the felling of trees and also the biodiversity of the site. However, following submission of an Ecological Assessment and bat survey, the Council Ecology Officer accepts the findings and considers protected species can be safeguarded by appropriate conditions.

The criticisms of the PAC report reflection on local expression of views is a matter of interpretation and should carry little weight, compared to the weight attached to the representations received on the planning application.

Developer Contributions

Local Development Plan Policy IS2 requires new residential developments to contribute towards certain infrastructure and affordable housing stock, as currently identified. This development, if approved, would require on-site affordable housing provision at a rate of 25% of the total number of units, given that the total housing numbers would be above the 17 house on-site threshold. The agent had initially wished to provide a commuted sum towards contributions but then confirmed that five affordable units would be provided on site with the residue as commuted payment.

There has been no amendment to the application to reflect any different design of affordable units and it has to be assumed that the current design is proposed. Whilst a three storey detached townhouse with four bedrooms and two public rooms appears an unlikely scale of property to meet the Council’s definition of affordable housing, this would need to be investigated and addressed in more detail in any subsequent legal agreement. However implausible, it may be that different forms of rental or shared ownership could allow the designs to be considered as affordable. However, if it does not subsequently prove possible to meet the definition of affordable housing with the submitted design, then the Policy and Guidance Note allow for the developer to allocate an area of land in place of five of the houses, to submit a new application for a new design of five affordable units. The application cannot, therefore, be considered contrary to Policy IS2 and the Guidance Note as the agent has confirmed agreement to on-site provision.

There would also be financial contributions required towards Peebles High School, Kingsland Primary School and Peebles Bridge/Traffic Management in the town. Although local concerns are raised about other infrastructure capacity issues such as health provision, there is no identified requirement for other contributions. If Members are minded to approve the planning application, consent can only be issued upon conclusion and registration of an appropriate Legal Agreement to secure the aforementioned contributions.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the application site lies out with the defined settlement boundary of Peebles and insufficient reasons have been given as to why an exceptional approval would be justified. Development would also create significant adverse landscape and visual impacts on a designated, prominent and sensitive rural edge of the town

Page 98 settlement boundary, will cause adverse impacts on residential amenity and is of inappropriate massing, layout and design for the location. It has also not been demonstrated that the development could be accessed safely on the A703 and at the junction with the proposed access road nor that the development would comply with “Designing Streets”.

RECOMMENDATION BY CHIEF PLANNING AND HOUSING OFFICER:

I recommend the application is refused for the following reasons:

3. The application is contrary to Policies PMD2 and the “Placemaking and Design” SPG in that the development is of a layout and design inappropriate to, and out of context with, the location and surroundings of the site.

4. The application is contrary to Policies PMD2, HD3 and the “Privacy and Sunlight” SPG in that the development would create significant adverse impacts on residential amenity to the houses fronting Edinburgh Road and their rear gardens, creating an overbearing presence caused by excessive height, mass, proximity, overlooking and design of landscape screening.

5. The application is contrary to Policies PMD2 and IS6 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016 in that it has not been demonstrated that the development could be accessed without significant detriment to road safety on the A703 and at the junction with the proposed access road. Furthermore, the proposed layout fails to demonstrate compliance with “Designing Streets” national guidance.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Location Plan ZZ-DR-A-90001 Existing Plan ZZ-DR-A-90002 Elevations ZZ-DR-A-0010-01 Floor Plans ZZ-DR-A-00001 Sections ZZ-DR-A-002001 Existing Topography Plan ZZ-DR-A-9000 Levels Layout PO6PRD-WHL-XX-XX-SK-C-90-9200 Landscape Masterplan 1821-PO1 Landscape Sections 12.06.20 Tree Works 12.06.20 Entrance Visibility Splays PRD-WHL-XX-XX-SK-C-90-9101 Vehicle tracking PO1PRD-WHL-XX-XX-SK-C-90-9500 Vehicle Tracking Refuse PO1PRD-WHL-XX-XX-SK-C-90-9501 Drainage Assessment and Arrangement PO1PRD-WHL-XX-XX-SK-C-9400

Page 99 Approved by Name Designation Signature Ian Aikman Chief Planning and Housing Officer

The original version of this report has been signed by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Craig Miller Principal Planning Officer

Page 100 Page 101 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5d

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 MARCH 2021

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE: 20/01246/FUL

OFFICER: Euan Calvert WARD: Jedburgh And District PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 No buildings comprising up to 10 No. units for industrial/commercial/storage uses and associated works SITE: Land South of 10 Malestroit Court, Jedburgh APPLICANT: Mr David Palmer AGENT: Hodgson And White Ltd

PLANNING PROCESSING AGREEMENT:

A Planning Processing Agreement is in place until the date of this meeting.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is the site of the former Bongate Woollen Mill located on the east bank of the Jedwater. There is no sign of the former mill lade which flowed through this site but the mill lade and sluice gate are still visible in the riverbank adjacent to the weir, located immediately south of the site. The mill lade is presumed to have been infilled and the site is now generally flat and appears as bare land. The Mill was demolished around 2010. There remains an electric substation east of centre of the site enclosed by steel security fencing.

The stone from the mill building has been crushed and remains in piles on-site. The site is south of Malestroit Court, which is a residential cul-de-sac. There is a public path which connects this cul-de-sac to the riverside walk. This is the northern boundary of this site where a 1.8m high close boarded fence forms the boundary. The riverside walk (Borders Abbeys Way, Core path 1) encloses the west boundary and this boundary is treated, in part, to a 1.8m feather edged fence. J Laidlaw and Sons Joiners workshop is the immediate neighbour to the south and this building is also enclosed by the riverside path. The industrial site to the east was formerly also part of the Woollen Mill but is now a separate planning unit belonging to J Laidlaw and Sons. A significantly sized historic stone wall which has been repaired and extended in block and brick separates the sites. This neighbouring site functions as workshops and yard space for the construction company. Access to all three units is by a single adopted road approached from Old Bongate.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Two steel portal framed buildings are proposed to create 11 No. individual industrial units. This has been amended to 10 no. units throughout the course of the application.

The application submitted proposes a terrace of units (referred to in the report as the “Main Building”) to be situated along the northern boundary (Units 5-11) measuring 36m x 10m in footprint. It was to be 5.5m to eaves and 7m to ridge. A smaller

Page 103 secondary building is proposed to be sited in the south west corner (Unit 1-4) measuring 20m x 7.5m in footprint also with a dual pitched roof. 2no allocated parking bays were to be forward of each Unit and a turning head would be created in the courtyard capable of accommodating a dust cart or fire appliance.

The buildings would appear in anthracite grey coloured insulated steel profile cladding both to the walls and the roofs. Each Unit would receive a full height roller shutter door and a pedestrian door in the principal elevation. Inside each unit there would be a single w/c. Although not shown on the plans, the buildings would feature mezzanine storage above ground floor. Communal bin storage has been identified in the courtyard. Boundary treatments were to be steel palisade security fencing.

Throughout the course of this application the applicant has made changes to the size and location of buildings in response to concerns raised by both the Planning Authority and Objectors to the application.

The latest site layout, floor plans and elevations vary as follows;

 One Unit has been removed from the Main Building and it would now measure 30.9m in length and be micro-sited south and east from the original location.  The Main Building is now proposed to be reduced in height to now measure 5m to eaves and 6.3m to ridge.  Parking arrangements have been altered in response to an objection from the Road Planning Officer. Seven dedicated parking bays are now shown to be allocated to the side of the second building thereby being independent to the industrial units.  Fence/ boundary details have been varied.

The revised proposals those which members are asked to consider.

PLANNING HISTORY

 06/01465/DEN: Demolition of mill building, No objection August 2006.  07/00380/OUT: Residential development, Withdrawn December 2010.  20/00175/FUL: Erection of 2 No buildings comprising up to 11 No. units for industrial/commercial/storage uses and associated works, Withdrawn May 2020.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Five objections were received in response to the latest re consultation exercise.

These can be viewed in full on the Public Access website and raise the following issues:

 Height of building and adverse visual impact;  Loss of light;  Loss of view;  Noise nuisance;  Privacy;  Value of property;  Buildings too close to homes.  The Council should consider the alternative layout as suggested in Mr McDonald’s objection, which would have a have a much less impact on amenity;

Page 104  Overshadowing and ambiguity in analysis presented.  Adverse impact neighbours proposed sun room.  Amended fence proposals and gates are unnecessary for multiple occupancy buildings.  Details of surface water are unclear.  Extension of the current flood wall along the boundary of this site to provide protection to Malestroit Court residential properties is in abeyance until a decision on this development is concluded.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

 Design and Planning Statement  Flood Risk Assessment, Gray Environmental Limited, May 2020  Flood Risk Assessment, JBA, September 2020

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Council Local Development Plan 2016

Local Development Plan 2016

PMD1: Sustainability PMD2: Quality Standards PMD3: Land Use Allocations PMD5: Infill Development ED5: Regeneration HD3: Protection of Residential Amenity EP3: Local Biodiversity EP8: Archaeology IS5: Protection of access routes IS7: Parking Provisions and Standards IS8: Flooding IS9: Waste Water Treatment Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage IS13: Contaminated Land

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Guidance:

Placemaking and Design 2010 Householder Development (Privacy and Sunlight) 2006 Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 2001 Waste Management 2015

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: Objection. The units are unable to operate independent of Parking and servicing owing to proposed parking layout. Parking must be off-to the side of the entrances and parking ratio should be 1 space per 70 square meters of site area.

Page 105 Re-consultation: Remove objection. Support parking/ turning/ vehicle tracking layout as amended. Condition required to secure parking prior to site first becoming operational.

Outdoor Access Officer: No objection subject to condition to ensure signage and boundary treatments are appropriate for allowing public access along Core Path 1 during and after development.

Archaeology Officer: No response to current application. Response to 20/00175/FUL; No objection subject to condition requiring Developer Funded Evaluation. There is a high to very high potential for encountering the remains of the complex as foundations, floors and demolition spreads of material in the groundworks for this application. Recommend a WSI be prepared for evaluation trenching or further investigatory intrusive groundworks prior to determining this application.

Flood Protection Officer: No objection subject to conditions. The FRA shows ‘with Slab’ option - where the buildings are allowed to flood - would have the least negative impact on the site and neighbouring properties, especially compared to the ‘impermeable building’ scenario where the proposed buildings would not be allowed to flood. The modelled water decreases and increases of 10-20mm for the ‘with slab’ option are negligible. The ‘with slab’ option is the preferred option and a condition should be added to ensure that no property level protection measures will be used to prevent the buildings from flooding. This is to ensure the buildings will be allowed to flood. FFL for the larger building should be 70.93mAOD and for the smaller building 71.19mAOD and these levels should be confirmed on drawings.

SUDS. A condition is required to ensure that the details of proposed SUDS design are submitted once the detailed ground investigations are completed, as advised in the FRA. Require water resilient materials to be used and non-return valves on drainage pipes.

Contaminated Land Officer: No objection subject to a condition requiring a site investigation and risk assessment. The site previously operated as a mill and skin works. This land use is potentially contaminative and it is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the land is suitable for the use they propose.

Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions concerning potential noise. Plant noise has the potential to adversely impact residential amenity. No external proposals are shown. A condition is recommended requiring any lighting proposals to be designed and submitted prior to development including a layout plan; details of proposed equipment design; proposed hours of operation; light levels; and column heights.

Forward Planning: No objection. LDP confirms general support for commercial or retail development from the site. Site has historically operated for business/ industrial use, it is noted that there are existing residential properties within Malestroit Court which adjoin the site to the north. Steps must therefore be taken to control uses within the workshops to ensure they will have no adverse impact on the amenity of these residencies.

Economic Development: No objection. Development of business space is welcomed as it supports, sustains and helps growth in the local economy and jobs. This is a residential area therefore consideration must be given to appropriate; use classes; treatment of the boundary with neighbouring housing (screening); height of the premises (loss of heat for the business, loss of light for housing); vehicle movements

Page 106 within the site and on access roads; noise management; and proposed hours of operation

Statutory Consultees

SEPA: Objection. Require confirmation of finished floor levels with respect to the proposed slab levels. Lack of information in relation to flood risk. The Assessment recommends a ‘With Slab’ scenario which reflects the preferred development option for the site with the foundation slab of the former Old Bongate Mill reinstated below each of the proposed buildings.

Re-consultation: Remove objection. Flood levels on the proposed site are increased by approximately 10mm under the ‘With Slab’ scenario from the 1: 30 year design event. Review of the modelling results confirms there is no increase as a result of the development beyond the extent of the proposed site and we note that some reduction in flood levels is found at Malestroit Court (ID 10 -15) with this scenario. Finished Floor levels are given as, 70.93mAOD and 71.19mAOD respectively, flooding the proposed buildings to a depth of 1.21m at the 1: 200 year AP design event.

As a result, SEPA recommend that flood resistant and resilient materials are incorporated into the design of the building to mitigate flood risk to the site. The applicant should sign up to receive flood warnings for ‘Jedburgh to Jedfoot Bridge’ from Floodline.

Community Council: No response.

Re-consultation: No response.

Other Consultees

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

 Whether development is compatible with the character, amenity and established land use of the area.  Siting, Scale and design of buildings.  Impact on residential amenities.  Impacts on flooding.  Access and parking.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

The site is within the development boundary for Jedburgh and is identified as a Redevelopment opportunity (RJEDB002) under Policy PMD3: Land Use Allocations of the Local Development Plan (LDP). The following site requirements are listed in the LDP:

 A Flood Risk Assessment is require to inform development, mitigation and resilience measures.  Suitable access to the site will be determined by proposed use.  Screening may be required along northern boundary to protect residential amenity.  Mitigation may be required to protect River Tweed SAC.

Page 107  Excavations may require Archaeological monitoring.

Policy PMD3 applies to all the allocated land use proposals shown on proposals maps for settlements identified in the LDP. The aim of the policy is to ensure that sites allocated in the Plan are developed for their intended use and that any alternative use is subject to appropriate justification. The plan identifies a number of redevelopment opportunities which have the potential to be developed for a number of uses and sets out a series of site requirements (as set out above) for the successful development of the site. Policy PMD3 states that sites proposed for redevelopment may be developed for a variety of uses, including employment as is the case here, subject to other local plan policies, including PMD5: Infill Development.

Policy PMD5 states that proposals will be approved in all cases where the set criteria are satisfied. These criteria will be assessed below and later within this report.

The first criterion is that the proposal should not conflict with the established land use of the area. There is a neighbouring residential estate to the north of this site (Malestroit Court) however it is considered that this surrounding land use is predominantly industrial in character. This site is a portion of the former Woollen Mill and other surrounding neighbours remain in industrial use. The proposal to erect 10 No. units for light industrial use (Class 4) is considered to be in-keeping with this surrounding land use. The applicant intends to retain ownership and lease Units to small self-employed trades. It is anticipated that the predominant use will be for manufacturing or storage for local businesses. Members will read that both Forward Planning and Economic Development have offered support to redevelopment of this brownfield site. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the aims of both PMD3 and PMD5 of the LDP.

The applicant’s Design Statement notes that residential development of this site was previously proposed under application 07/00380/OUT. However, Members will read below that the Flood Risk Assessment accompanying this application identifies significant future risk of flooding on this site. Flood waters may reach over 1m in depth in future. Whilst it is acknowledged that future residential use of this site would attract significant amenity benefits to existing neighbouring properties in Malestroit Court, there is little prospect of such use ever being approved under current local or national planning policy relating to flooding. Policy requires avoidance of flood plains to be the first means of protecting residents from harmful flooding events. It is considered that the proposed employment use is therefore a suitable neighbour to the adjoining residential estate.

It is recommended that a condition be applied to restrict the use of the proposed units to Class 4 (Business) of the Use Classes Order to protect the neighbours from potential harmful noise, operating hours, smell, fumes and vibration. It is noted that Class 5 uses such as car repairs or heavy industrial processes or manufacturing would be prohibited on amenity grounds. Similarly, Class 6, storage and distribution, would not be permitted to ensure that hours of work or operation did not conflict with Malestroit Court residential amenity.

Siting, Layout and Design

Policy PMD2 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. Both policy PMD5 and PMD2 identify that the proposal should not detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

Page 108 Visual Amenity

Policy PMD5 requires that the development respects the scale, form, design, materials and density of its surroundings; the individual and cumulative effects of the development should not lead to over-development or town cramming;

Through the assessment and processing of the application changes were requested to ensure a better relationship with the residential neighbours to the north of the site. As a consequence, Unit 5 has been removed from the proposed layout in order to reduce the overall length of the Main Building thereby improving the relationship with No10 Malestroit Court. The Main Building has been reduced in height to 6.3m to ridge and 5m to eaves in response to concerns regarding visual impact to the residential estate. Objectors cite undue prominence of the proposed building and consider the building to be too close and too large in scale and form thereby appearing monolithic and damaging the outlook of the cul-de-sac.

Members will note from the third party representations that an alternative site layout was suggested whereby the Main Building and the smaller second building would have swapped positions. The applicant has responded stating that a power line passing through the site would render this impossible to achieve.

However, Members should be aware that the site previously featured a mill building in this location, on the same orientation as the proposed ‘Main Building’, and photos are on file to demonstrate this relationship. Residents of the cul-de-sac have enjoyed increased levels of visual amenity since demolition of the mill building but historically this residential estate had addressed the back of a large scale industrial building. There are both privacy and amenity benefits in reintroducing this arrangement, thereby clearly separating the residential and industrial uses.

The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the current application identifies that these buildings, given their location close to the Jed Water should be designed to flood. As a consequence the height of the buildings is a deliberate and necessary design detail which allows dry storage at mezzanine level.

It is concluded that reintroducing a building of this scale, in this location, will not significantly adversely affect visual amenity. The dark grey colour of the walls and roof will not be unduly prominent or incongruous with the neighbouring sites. It is now considered that amendments achieved throughout the application process (a reduction in height; a reduction in length; and finally a change in position of the building) should be supported. The changes are sufficient to make the scheme acceptable and in accordance with policy. The building will not appear overtly tall, in fact, the building will relate to the height of the ridges of these adjacent dwellinghouses.

This is an allocated Redevelopment site in the LDP. The LDP identifies that screening may be required on this northern boundary. The revised site plan and location plan do not show details of proposed landscaping, instead, a drawing note advises that soft landscaping in ‘”to be agreed”. Should Members be minded to support the Officer recommendation and approve this application, it is recommended that a condition is used to secure landscape planting of trees and hedging along the northern boundary to soften this residential boundary. The movement in the building ensures that this landscape treatment can be achieved on the cul-de-sac side of any new fence. Boundary fencing and gates have been proposed to enclose the site. Details have been amended to change from steel palisade security fence to a timber design

Page 109 consistent with an SBC ‘standard fence detail’ found in employment site throughout he Borders. It is recommended that a condition is used to secure exact details and locations. In the event of the flood wall being erected (see below) the exact specification of boundary treatment may need to be varied.

Impact on Residential Amenity

The potential impacts of development on loss of light and overshadowing have been considered. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Guidance on Householder Developments July 2006 contains guidance on privacy, overlooking and access to light that can be applied when considering planning applications for new developments to ensure that proposals do not adversely affect the residential amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties.

The Agent and one objector have both submitted their own sunlight and shadow cast analysis for the Main Building. Owing to the intervening distances involved it is considered that there is not a significant loss of light to habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. Neither is there demonstrated to be a significant adverse impact from overshadowing. In mid-December there is negligible change in overshadowing between the proposal and a bare site. In this regard, the shadow cast by existing 1.8m high privacy fencing must be acknowledged. In mid-winter (when the sun is low in the sky) the analysis demonstrates little perceivable difference arising from this scheme. Add to this the fact that, since this analysis was undertaken, the applicant has both moved and shortened the footprint of the building. The Main Building has been shifted east by 3m and south by 1.5m in response to concerns from neighbouring residents.

Policy PMD5 requires that development does not result in significant loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy to adjoining properties as a result of overshadowing or overlooking. It is now considered that the scale and footprint are acceptable.

Policy HD3 states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted. The Environmental Health Officer has identified that a noise condition should be applied to the permission to ensure that there are no harmful impacts on residential neighbours in the future. A condition is also requested to manage future external lighting. Both conditions are considered reasonable in this instance.

No significant adverse impacts are identified therefore it is considered the proposal complies with the advice contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and meets the principal aims of Policies PMD2 and HD3 in relation to the protection of residential amenity.

Policy PMD5 also requires that adequate access and servicing can be achieved and this is discussed below.

Access and Parking

Policy IS7 requires that car parking should be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards. Swept path analysis has now been provided for emergency services and refuse vehicles. Throughout the course of this application significant changes have been made to the site layout to ensure that allocated parking is located off-to-the-side and not forward of the entrances of these Units. The Roads Planning Service has now confirmed no objection to the latest amendments. A condition will be used to ensure that the parking and turning is available prior to first operation of the site. A condition can also be used to confirm proposed details of the

Page 110 construction and finish of the road and parking area. The site is not being adopted therefore surfacing and street lighting will not be required to Council adopted standards but the make-up must be in accordance with the SUDS scheme to account for surface water drainage.

Water and Drainage

Policy IS9 requires waste water associated with new development to be directly connected to the public sewerage system. The proposed development would connect to the public water supply and drainage network.

There remains further design details to be provided in relation to surface water treatment (SUDS). Modern development must have separate surface and foul water systems. A surface water scheme is therefore required to be submitted to the Planning Authority by condition to satisfy this element. This SUDS scheme will be required to be considered by the Flood Protection Officer to ensure it is in compliance with the FRA for this site. These details, once agreed, would be implemented as part of the future building warrant process.

Ecology

It was confirmed by NatureScotland in a previous consultation relating to application 20/00175/FUL, that no ecological impacts are identified arising from this proposal to the River Tweed SAC. There are no buildings or natural vegetation on site which would harbour ecology therefore is considered that the proposals will not affect species or habitats of local, national or international significance in accordance with Policy EP1, 2 and 3.

Archaeology

Members will note from the papers that there are archaeological implications for this site and that the Council’s Archaeologist requires an evaluation of the site. It is considered appropriate that any evaluation trenching or further investigatory intrusive groundworks be secured by condition rather than in advance of determination. A condition will require a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) to be prepared and implemented for archaeological groundworks. The demolition of the former mill building (06/01465/DEN) had required a photographic record to be taken and submitted but no such record is on file. This presents an opportunity to reconcile matters. Site evaluation informed by a WSI will ensure compliance with Policy EP8.

Flooding

SEPA and the Flood Protection Officer have now considered the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and both confirm support for the proposals. The plans have been amended to demonstrate Finished Floor levels of 70.93mAOD and 71.19mAOD, which is a requirement of the FRA. A condition will be applied to ensure that the buildings are constructed in strict accordance with this. Floor levels must be set in accordance with the ‘With Slab’ scenario, as modelled in the FRA, to mitigate flooding.

Members will note that the FRA does not require the presence of a flood protection wall, as shown on the supporting drawings. This flood wall would only protect against a 1:30 year flood event. The buildings are however required to be designed to flood thereby not displacing water. In the event of the 1:200 year storm the FRA notes that the buildings will flood to a depth of 1.21m. The Flood Protection Officer requires a

Page 111 condition to ensure property level protection measures will not be used to prevent these buildings from flooding.

Members should be aware that the flood defence wall shown on the accompanying drawings does not form part of this application. The Council’s Flood Protection Officer is fully aware of this wall and has been in discussion with neighbouring property owners. The wall (and fence above) have been partially constructed, enclosing the rear gardens of 8, 9 and 10 Malestroit Court. It was proposed to continue this flood defence wall along the western boundary of the application site but construction has been halted until final details of this application have been agreed.

The FRA identities positive impacts to Malestroit Court in terms of flooding if this scheme is implemented. The flood wall is not critical to approval of this scheme however Members should be aware that approval of this application could act as a catalyst for completion of the wall which would protect residents of Malestroit Court from the 1:30yr flood event of the Jed Water.

It is recommended that this application be approved with a planning condition requiring details of boundary treatments (which may include a flood defence wall) to be submitted and approved and a timescale for construction prior to any development commencing on site.

Public access

The Outdoor Access Officer notes the presence of the Borders Abbeys Way adjacent to the site. The route is a Core Path and any works temporarily affecting public access will require to be agreed in advance by condition. Policy IS5 is met.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposals are considered acceptable and in accordance with Policy PMD3 concerning development of allocated land. Subject to compliance with the schedule of conditions, the development will accord with the relevant provisions of the Local Development Plan 2016, specifically flooding and protection of residential amenity, and there are no material considerations that would justify a departure from these provisions.

RECOMMENDATIONS BY CHIEF PLANNING AND HOUSING OFFICER:

I recommend the application is approved subject the following conditions:

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

2. The Units hereby approved shall only be used for Class 4 (Office, research and development or light industry) of the Schedule of The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the use remains compatible within the site.

Page 112 3. The Finished Floor levels of the buildings hereby approved shall be 70.93mAOD for the building located in the former Bongate Mill footprint (towards the north of the site) and 71.19mAOD for the smaller building towards the south, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority and in consultation with SEPA. The Floor levels must be set in accordance with the ‘With Slab’ build scenario, as modelled in the JBA Consulting Flood Risk Assessment (September 2020) Reason: To comply with the Flood Risk Assessment and to mitigate flooding.

4. No development shall commence until full details of the materials to be used in the construction of the road, footpaths, courtyard and parking area hereby approved, have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter development to be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting and to ensure appropriate SUDS design.

5. No development shall commence until full details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls, roofs and doors of the buildings hereby approved, have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter development to be undertaken in strict accordance with the details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

6. Notwithstanding drawing reference number 003A, Site Plan – Fence Proposals, no development shall commence until a full scheme of details showing proposed boundary treatments (which may include proposals for a flood wall) has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter these boundary treatments and wall details shall to be implemented prior to the buildings being occupied. Reason: To ensure development is in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment in the interests of flooding and in the interests of protecting visual amenity of the surroundings.

7. No development shall commence on above ground works until an exterior lighting plan has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The lighting plan shall be designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Professionals and the Bat Conservation Trust, Aug 2018. Thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the approved plan. All lights shall be suitably shuttered/shielded and directed to prevent unwanted light flood prior to occupation of the development hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity and character of the Jed Water riverside.

8. No development shall commence until a scheme of soft landscaping has first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The landscaping shall include precise details of hedging and specimen tree planting, including a programme for future maintenance, along the northern boundary of the site. Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented concurrently with development, or the first planting season thereafter, and shall be maintained and replaced as may be necessary for a period of two years from the date of completion of the planting.

Page 113 Reason: To ensure an appropriate landscaped boundary treatment with the adjoining residential cul-de-sac is formed.

9. No development shall commence unless in accordance with a fully detailed design proposal for foul and surface water drainage (including SUDS), demonstrating that there will be no negative impact to surface water flooding, public health, the environment or the quality of watercourses or ground water, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter development to be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: The Planning Authority requires consideration of full details of surface water (SUDS) and foul water connections in the interest of protection of flooding.

10. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining an Archaeological Evaluation. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to conduct a programme of evaluation prior to development. This will include the below ground excavation of evaluation trenches and the full recording of archaeological features and finds. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered the nominated archaeologist(s) will contact the Archaeology Officer for further consultation. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post-excavation analysis, the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority. Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

11. Public access to Core Path 1, (Borders Abbeys Way) (riverside walk) shall not be obstructed during construction of the buildings or services for those buildings hereby approved. Any proposals for temporary closure or diversion of the path must first be submitted to the Planning Authority for prior written approval. Thereafter any temporary closures or diversions only to be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: To maintain public access along Core Path 1.

12. No property flood level protection measures are permitted in the design and use of these buildings. Reason: The Flood Risk Assessment requires buildings to be designed to be flooded thereby minimising harmful impacts from flooding on neighbouring properties and downstream impacts.

13. Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing on site, a scheme shall be submitted by the Developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site. No construction work shall commence until the scheme has been submitted to, and approved, by the Council, and is thereafter implemented in accordance with the scheme so approved. The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with the advice of relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should

Page 114 contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination and must include:-

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

and thereafter

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

c) Remedial Strategy (if required) to treat/remove contamination to ensure that the site is fit for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works, and proposed validation plan).

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

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

Written confirmation from the Council, that the scheme has been implemented completed and (if appropriate), monitoring measures are satisfactorily in place, shall be required by the Developer before any development hereby approved commences. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Council. Reason: To ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and, ecological systems arising from any identified land contamination have been adequately addressed.

14. Any noise emitted by plant or machinery used on the premises shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within all noise sensitive properties (windows can be open for ventilation). The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2 Reason: To protect the residential amenity of nearby properties.

15. All plant and machinery shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions so as to stay in compliance with the aforementioned noise limits. Reason: To protect the residential amenity of nearby properties.

16. Prior to the development becoming operational, the parking and turning areas shown on the approved site plan to be formed in accordance with the details agreed in Condition 4, and retained thereafter in perpetuity. Reason: To ensure the development is served by adequate parking and turning at all times.

Page 115 Informatives

1. The applicant must adopt water resilient materials and finishes as advised in the submitted FRA section 4.2.

2. In respect of the condition requiring consideration of the future SUDS Design, any future proposals must demonstrate non-return valves for the drainage pipes, as set out in the FRA.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Ref Plan Type

001E Site Layout + Location Plans 002D Plans and Elevations 003A Site Plan – Fencing Details

Approved by Name Designation Signature Ian Aikman Chief Planning and Housing Officer

The original version of this report has been signed by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Euan Calvert Assistant Planning Officer

Page 116 Page 117 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5e

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1 MARCH 2021

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 20/01282/FUL

OFFICER: Mr Paul Duncan WARD: East Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 No glamping pods SITE: Land South Of The Visitor Centre Northfield Farm, St Abbs APPLICANT: Mrs A Seed and Cllr C Hamilton AGENT: Alisdair Hamilton

PLANNING PROCESSING AGREEMENT (PPA): A PPA is in place which seeks determination at the Planning and Building Standards Committee on 1 March 2021.

BACKGROUND

This application is brought before the Planning and Building Standards Committee as an applicant is an Elected Member. There have been no objections to the application.

SITE DESCRIPTION

Northfield Farm sits around 350m west of the Berwickshire fishing village of St Abbs. It comprises a mix of traditional slate-roofed and more modern metal roofed farm buildings and a pantile-roofed former blacksmith’s. The latter is prominent from the main road to St Abbs (the B6438) and was previously converted to a coffee shop (owned by the applicants), art gallery, stores and a National Trust for Scotland (NTS) visitor centre with public toilets.

The proposed site forms part of a larger triangular parcel of open land that is bound by hedging and the B6438 to the south, and by the long row of single-storey former blacksmith’s buildings to the north. This area is currently used by the applicant’s coffee shop and is partly occupied by picnic tables. A small caravan site is located further to the east, beyond a recently upgraded vehicular access.

Land to the west comprises a large visitor car park operated by the NTS which is separated from the proposed site by mature trees. A footpath connects the car park to the visitor centre and proposed site. An unclassified public road is located further west of the NTS car park and serves the St Abbs Head National Nature Reserve.

On the south side of the B6438 lies open arable farmland which affords panoramic views across the surrounding coastal landscape, contributing to the setting of St Abbs and its C listed St Abbs Church.

Page 119 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Permission is sought for the erection of two ‘glamping’ pods. The pods would have a standard design for this type of development with familiar curved timber clad roof/ walls. They would each measure 5m by 3m in footprint with a maximum height of 2.6m. The pods would arrive pre-assembled.

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no recent planning application history at the proposed site. It has been used by the coffee shop since 1987, including a period occupied by play equipment.

A number of applications were submitted previously for new build or farm conversion housing at Northfield Farm. All have either lapsed or were withdrawn.

In 2019, planning permission (reference 19/00238/FUL) was granted for infrastructure works to the east of the coffee shop, in association with a 5 berth caravan site.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

At the time of writing no third party representations have been received.

Any comments received will be made available in full on Public Access.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

 Supporting Statement/ Business Case  Glamping Pod Design Statement  Elevation Drawings

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Council Local Development Plan 2016

PMD1: Sustainability PMD2: Quality Standards for New Development ED7: Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside ED8: Caravan and Camping Sites ED10: Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land and Carbon Rich Soils HD3: Protection of Residential Amenity EP1: International Conservation Sites and Protected Species EP2: National Nature Conservation Sites and Protected Species EP3: Local Biodiversity EP5: Special Landscape Areas EP7: Listed Buildings EP8: Archaeology EP9: Conservation Areas EP13: Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows EP14: Coastline IS5: Protection of Access Routes IS7: Parking Provision and Standards IS9: Waste Water Treatments Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage IS13: Contaminated Land

Page 120 OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Guidance 2005 Landscape and Development Supplementary Planning Guidance 2008 Placemaking and Design Supplementary Planning Guidance 2010 Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Guidance 2008 Waste Management Supplementary Planning Guidance 2015 Scottish Planning Policy 2014 Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy 2013-2020 Scottish Borders Tourism Action Plan

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Access Officer: No response received at the time of writing.

Contaminated Land: No objection. There appears to be a possible historic use of land as a blacksmiths within the vicinity of this application. It is understood the pods will be sited upon an existing base. The requirement for a full site assessment and potential remediation may not be practical or proportionate given the nature of the application and it is recommended that the applicant is advised of potential land contamination issues by way of an Informative Note.

Economic Development: No response received at the time of writing.

Environmental Health (final response): No objection, subject to a suitably worded condition to secure provision of toilets for the development at all times whilst the glamping pods are in use. The utilisation of a public water supply via the coffee shop’s mains water supply and an existing connecting pipe to the pods area is agreeable. The development will require a license which will seek to ensure welfare/ sanitary provisions are met, including provision of showers, the applicant should check this.

Roads Planning Service: No objection. The exiting access is capable of accommodating the small increase in traffic associated with this proposal and ample parking is available on site.

Statutory Consultees

Community Council: No response received at the time of writing.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key determining issues are:

 whether the proposed development would amount to an appropriate tourism related development for a countryside location in accordance with the Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy and Action Plan;  whether the proposed development would benefit from safe vehicular access and egress without adversely impacting road safety; and  whether the proposed development would safeguard the landscape quality of the Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area.

Page 121 ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning policy

The application site is located a short distance from St Abbs. As the site is not located within a designated settlement, the proposed development meets the description of a rural tourism development to be assessed against Local Development Plan policy ED7 (Business, Tourism and Leisure Development in the Countryside). Furthermore, the glamping pods could technically meet the definition of a caravan under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, so the provisions of LDP policy ED8 (Caravan and Camping Sites) are also relevant.

The siting requirements of Policy ED8 are generally more restrictive than Policy ED7. Policy ED8 favours developments within or immediately out with settlements that can support local shops and services over countryside locations.

The proposed site is within walking distance of St Abbs and benefits from safe pedestrian access via segregated footpath to the outskirts of the village. St Abbs is host to various services including a newsagent and café. The development is likely to support these local businesses. The proximity and accessibility of the proposed site to St Abbs is considered to satisfy the stricter siting objectives of Policy ED8.

Unlike Policy ED8, Policy ED7 does not seek to secure regeneration benefits. The policy instead places a greater emphasis on supporting employment generating development that accords with the Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy and Action Plan.

A Supporting Statement/ Business Case was provided with the application. This details how the development would help diversify the existing coffee shop business, providing a further income stream. The glamping pods and coffee shop are likely to be mutually beneficial, as the coffee shop would be a useful amenity for users of the proposed development. The coffee shop is employment generating.

The Statement also sets out the applicant’s market research. Coffee shop customers were encouraged to complete a questionnaire. The results indicate that most visitors were drawn from around the UK, primarily to visit local attractions and enjoy the local scenery. Local attractions include St Abbs harbour, Coldingham Bay, the nature reserve at St Abbs Head and the Berwickshire Coastal Path which connects them. All would be easily accessible from the proposed development. The survey found visitors use a range of accommodation types including small and large caravan and camping sites and holiday lets, most staying for between 1-7 days.

It is considered that the application adequately demonstrates accordance with the Scottish Borders Tourism Strategy, primarily by meeting known demand for tourism accommodation in this area.

Policy ED7 lists further criteria for consideration. Tourism developments should be compatible with neighbouring uses. The NTS visitor centre would be located in close proximity to the development but is largely unmanned. The proposed development is unlikely to disturb this facility. The proximity of the visitor centre, coffee shop and art gallery will reduce the privacy afforded to guests. The applicants have previously planted hedging to the roadside and along the boundary with the NTS visitor centre which will mature over time and will provide enclosure for the development. In addition, trellising would be erected between the two pods. This should improve privacy sufficiently, and a condition can secure control over these points.

Page 122 A further criterion for consideration is whether, where a new building is proposed, an existing building or brownfield site is available locally. The proposed site hosts an existing hard surface and meets the definition of a brownfield site. It is not within an area designated as Prime Quality Agricultural Land, so there is also no conflict with related Policy ED10.

In summary, it is concluded that the proposed development meets the policy principle requirements of policies ED7 and ED8, and ED10 in more general terms.

Vehicular Access, Road Safety and Parking

Policy PMD2 requires developments to have no adverse impact on road safety and adequate vehicular access. Policy IS7 requires car parking to meet the Council's standards.

The Roads Planning Service (RPS) have no objection to this proposal. An upgraded vehicular access was provided to the east of the proposed site in the last two years. The Service consider the existing access arrangements to be acceptable for a development of this scale. The public road continues to St Abbs, where it ends. The local road network is considered capable of accommodating the small increase in traffic that would be associated with this development. The coffee shop benefits from an existing private car park located off the newly upgraded vehicular access and the RPS have confirmed their satisfaction with the level of parking available at this location.

Landscape and Visual Impact

The proposed site is located within the Berwickshire Coast Special Landscape Area (SLA). Policy EP5 (Special Landscape Areas) of the Local Development Plan seeks to safeguard the landscape quality of Special Landscape Areas. Policies PMD1 (Sustainability) and PMD2 (Quality Standards) set out more general provisions for the assessment of landscape and visual impacts.

The proposed pods would be small in scale. The timber clad, curved roof/ walls of glamping pods produce a simple, clean appearance. This type of development normally relates well to an undulating landscape and is less visually intrusive compared to static caravans for example. The proposed site benefits from recently planted hedging to the roadside which would help screen the development and provide some privacy. A condition is recommended to ensure the hedging is maintained until the hedge becomes well established and retained thereafter. Mature trees on the car park side of the site would screen views from the west. Views from the east would be more open. However, the timber cladding would recede visually against the backdrop of the mature trees without any significant detrimental landscape or visual impact arising.

The proposed development satisfies LDP policies PMD1, PMD2 and EP5 as regards landscape and visual impacts.

Trees

Policy EP13 of the Local Development Plan seeks to protect trees from development.

As noted, a copse of mature trees separates the proposed site, the NTS visitor centre and the coffee shop from the nearby NTS public car park. The trees hold amenity value. They help screen the car park from sensitive views and would provide enclosure and setting to the proposed development.

Page 123 No trees require to be felled to accommodate the proposed development. The pods would be sited on the existing hard surface and the development would be ‘no dig’, avoiding direct disturbance to the tree roots. A planning condition is recommended to secure control over the manner of construction.

Siting heavy loads within the tree RPAs can be harmful to trees. It is not clear whether the pods would be located within this area. Heavy play equipment was sited in this area historically without any apparent adverse effects. The precise siting of the pods can be discussed further to minimise any low risk of harm arising. This can be achieved by condition, which would also be used to secure a more accurate site plan.

Cultural Heritage

Impact on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas

LDP Policy EP7 seeks to preserve protect and enhance the setting of Listed Buildings. Policy EP9 requires that developments within or adjacent to a Conservation Area are designed to preserve their special architectural or historic character.

There are no listed buildings at Northfield Farm and it is well out with St Abbs Conservation Area. The setting of the C listed St Abbs Church includes the expansive open landscape to its west, but this modestly scaled development would not give rise to any setting impacts. Similarly, the development is too small scale and distant from St Abbs Conservation Area to impact on its setting. The proposed development complies with Policies EP7 and EP9.

Impact on Archaeology

Policy EP8 (Archaeology) aims to protect Scheduled Monuments and any other archaeological assets from potentially damaging forms of developments.

The nearest Scheduled Monuments are located roughly half a mile to the north (Mire Loch Fort) and south-west (Priory Cottage settlement) of the proposed site. They would not be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development.

The agent for the application has confirmed in writing that there would be no below ground works required to facilitate this development. Accordingly, there is no risk of disturbing any archaeological remains should any be present below the ground. The proposals therefore satisfy Policy EP8.

Residential Amenity

The nearest dwellinghouses to the site are Millrace, around 100m to the north, and 1- 7 Northfield Farm Cottages, around 200m to the north. These dwellings are separated from the proposed site by mature trees and buildings. Several are thought to be used for self-catering holiday accommodation. Further dwellinghouses are located further to the north of these properties, and to the east of the proposed site at St Abbs at a distance of around 400m or more.

Given the distances involved, there are no significant residential amenity concerns arising from this development. Whilst impacts such as noise nuisance can extend across wide areas, there is no reason to believe this should be a significant issue for this development, and the intervening buildings and trees would be expected to impede the travel of noise. Should significant issues arise, this would be a matter for Environmental Health to consider pursuance of under their statutory nuisance powers.

Page 124 Ecology

Ecological assets are protected by Policies EP1-EP3 of the Local Development Plan covering a range of sites and species from international to local interest.

The application site is not located within any locally, nationally or internationally protected ecological sites. Elsewhere, the Berwickshire Coast is thrice designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The scale and nature of this development would not give rise to any risk of impacting these designated sites. Nor would the development impact the St Abbs Head National Nature Reserve (NNR).

In terms of protected species, the construction process associated with this development would be low impact. The pods would be sited on an existing hard surface. Given the nature and modest scale of the proposed development there is unlikely to be any impact upon protected species arising from construction process. Operationally, the development would also be expected to be low impact.

Flooding

Policy IS8 of the Local Development Plan seeks to prevent developments at significant risk of flooding or which would materially increase the probability of flooding elsewhere. The nearest watercourse is the Starney Burn which passes Northfield Farm around 170m to the north-west. The site is not located within or near any area identified by SEPA’s national flood risk map as being at risk of flooding. The site slopes down gently towards the owners’ land to the east. There are no known flood risk concerns and accordingly the proposed development is considered to satisfy Policy IS8.

Occupancy

The development would be used to provide holiday accommodation. Members will be aware that it is common practice to control occupancy of holiday accommodation by planning condition and will be familiar with the different approaches that can be taken to achieve this.

In this instance, the nature of the proposed accommodation is such that lengthy periods of occupancy are unlikely to arise; there is little risk of the accommodation being used for permanent accommodation, for example. Furthermore, it is noted that the applicants intend to focus on the short term accommodation market.

It is considered that a condition that limits the occupancy of the proposed accommodation to individual periods not exceeding four weeks in total within any consecutive period of 13 weeks would be appropriate here. This would not impose any significant operational constraint and would provide further planning control over the development for the Planning Authority in the unlikely event this was required.

Access Rights

The proposed site is well placed to access a network of public paths and walks. These include: the Right of Way to the west of the site which follows the single track private road from the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) car park to St Abbs Head; the Berwickshire Coastal Path which follows the coast and passes through St Abbs to the east; and a formal path (Reference SABB/PP/4) between the two which passes between the proposed site and the NTS visitor centre and extends through the field from Northfield Farm towards St Abbs.

Page 125 LDP policy IS5 (Protection of Access Routes) states that development that would have an adverse impact on a public access route will not be permitted unless a suitable diversion or appropriate alternative route is provided by the developer.

The proposed site is located within close proximity of the path SABB/PP/4 which follows the footpath in front of the NTS visitor centre. A hedge has been planted which separates the proposed site from the footpath. The proposed development would not obstruct or directly impact the footpath.

Contaminated Land

Policy IS13 aims to allow development of land with known or suspected contamination in a manner that ensures redevelopment does not give cause for unacceptable risks to human health or the wider environment.

The application has been reviewed by the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer whose assessment has identified the possible historic presence of a blacksmiths in the vicinity of the proposed site. There are potential contaminated implications arising from this. However, on account of a range of factors including the existing use of the site and the scale of the development, formal mitigation is not considered necessary and Policy IS13 is met. An informative note is listed at the end of this report to advise the developer of the Contaminated Land Officer’s findings.

Servicing

Policy IS9 seeks to ensure that developments adequately deal with foul water and surface water.

The applicants are understood to be in discussions with the National Trust for Scotland to buy the public toilets. The toilets would then be made available for guests. In the event the purchase could not be completed, the applicants would convert an existing store room within the coffee shop premises into a wet room. This space is separate from the coffee shop’s day to day operations and toilet facilities would be provided exclusively for guests. Environmental Health are satisfied by these arrangements, provided suitable control is secured by a suitably worded planning condition.

There is ample open land around the site to ensure surface water runoff drains freely to ground in a sustainable fashion.

The proposed development would be served by the public water mains, using an existing connection via the coffee shop. Environmental Health are satisfied with this. A condition is recommended to ensure the supply is operational prior to occupation.

Waste and recycling would be managed by the coffee shop.

CONCLUSION

Subject to compliance with the schedule of conditions, the development will accord with the relevant provisions of the Local Development Plan 2016 and there are no material considerations that would justify a departure from these provisions.

Page 126 RECOMMENDATION BY CHIEF PLANNING AND HOUSING OFFICER:

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

Conditions

2. Prior to the commencement of a development, a revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the revised site plan shall incorporate revised siting of the approved glamping pods away from the root protection areas of neighbouring mature trees. Thereafter the development shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the approved site plan. Reason: to secure adequate control over the development hereby approved and to minimise any risk of harming neighbouring mature trees.

3. No development shall commence until details of toilet facility provision have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development hereby approved shall only be occupied whilst the agreed in writing toilet facility is functional and available for the use of guests. Reason: To ensure that the development affords adequate provision of toilet facilities, in the interests of public health.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a Scheme for Privacy and Boundary Planting shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: further details of the recently existing boundary hedging; details of privacy trellising and/ or hedging between the two pods; a timetable for delivery and details of maintenance. Thereafter the agreed Scheme for Privacy and Boundary Planting shall be delivered in strict accordance with the agreed details and so maintained and retained thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: to secure adequate privacy for guests and ensure the existing boundary hedging is retained and maintained, to help screen the development.

5. Prior to the commencement of development, precise details of timber cladding and any other external materials/ colours of the glamping pods hereby approved shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. Thereafter the development shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: to secure control over the approved materials in the interests of landscape and visual amenity.

6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out without any below ground excavations, and no adjacent trees shall be felled, lopped or harmed during the course of construction, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: to secure control over the manner of construction and ensure no harm to any potential archaeological resource or to neighbouring mature trees.

7. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the development shall be connected to the public mains water supply, unless otherwise agreed in

Page 127 writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall only be occupied whilst an approved water supply is functional and made available for the use of guests. Reason: To ensure the development is adequately serviced.

8. The occupation of the development hereby approved shall be restricted to genuine holidaymakers for individual periods not exceeding 4 weeks in total within any consecutive period of 13 weeks. A register of holidaymakers occupying the accommodation shall be kept and made available for inspection by an authorised officer of the Council at all reasonable times. Reason: to ensure the development is not used as a permanent residency.

Informatives

1. The former use of the site is potentially contaminative and may have resulted in land contamination. The land is not currently identified as contaminated land and the Council is not aware of any information which indicates the level of risk the potential contamination presents. The historic use of the site is recorded within a Council database. This database is used to prioritise land for inspection within the Council’s Contaminated Land duties. Should the applicant wish to discuss these duties their enquiry should be directed to Environmental Health.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Description Reference Received Date Location Plan P2BUK/524295/710259 02.02.21 Site Plan 02.02.21 Elevations GLAMPING POD PLANS 26.10.21

Approved by Name Designation Signature Ian Aikman Chief Planning and Housing Officer

The original version of this report has been signed by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer and the signed copy has been retained by the Council.

Author(s) Name Designation Paul Duncan Assistant Planning Officer

Page 128 Page 129 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS

Briefing Note by Chief Planning & Housing Officer

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

1st March 2021

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

2.3 Works to Trees

Nil

3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

3.1.1 Reference: 20/00378/PPP Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Land North East of Burnside, Lower Green, West Linton Appellant: Messrs Gregor and Campbell Forsyth

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of a small site, giving rise to a cramped form of development, out of character with the surrounding Conservation Area and resulting in unacceptable impacts upon neighbouring residential properties, contrary to Policies PMD2, PMD5, EP9 and HD3 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016. 2. The submitted application has not adequately demonstrated that safe access and satisfactory off-street parking provision can be achieved and therefore it is considered that Page 131 Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st March 2021 1 vehicle movements associated with the development would give rise to road safety concerns, including interference with the free passage of vehicles and pedestrians using Back Road, contrary to Policy PMD2 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016. 3. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development can achieve an appropriate level of scale, massing, design and appearance that would be necessary to preserve and enhance the character of the West Linton Conservation Area at this location and therefore the application is contrary to the requirements of Policies EP9 and PMD2 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan 2016.

Reason for Appeal: The application is a planning application in principle and should be assessed in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Planning Circular No. 3 2013. Regulation 10 states there is no requirement for plans, drawings or a design statement. The planning officer stated throughout his report that the drawings submitted were of an indicative building rather than a formal proposal and concluded that the final design would have to be the subject of further applications. The Committee has been influenced beyond the assessment of this regulation by regarding these indicative drawings voluntarily submitted as a detailed proposal and applying detailed planning policies to justify its decision.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

Reporter’s Decision: Sustained

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Trevor A Croft, concluded that the proposed development accords overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that, subject to the completion of a section 75 obligation, there are no material considerations which would still justify refusing to grant planning permission.

3.2 Enforcements

Nil

3.3 Works to Trees

Nil

4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING

4.1 There remained One appeal previously reported on which a decision was still awaited when this report was prepared on 18th February 2021. This relates to a site at:

 Land North West of Willowdean  House, Foulden

5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED

5.1 Reference: 20/00923/PPP Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Land North West of Whinneybrae, Skirling Page 132 Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st March 2021 2 Appellant: R E Wood And Sons

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary to policy HD2 of the Local Development Plan 2016 and the adopted supplementary planning guidance on New Housing in the Borders Countryside, in that the site is outwith any recognised settlement or building group and the need for the house has not been adequately substantiated. Accordingly, the proposed development would represent a sporadic and unjustified form of development in the countryside which would set an undesirable precedent for similar unjustified proposals.

5.2 Reference: 20/01236/FUL Proposal: Replacement windows Site: Angling Club, 5 Sandbed, Hawick Appellant: Hawick Angling Club

Reason for Refusal: The proposal fails to comply with Policies PMD2 and EP9 of the Scottish Borders Council Local Development Plan 2016, and with the advice contained within the Supplementary Guidance: Shop Fronts and Shop Signs 2011, in that its appearance has a significantly adverse and unacceptable visual impact on the character of the building, and is highly detrimental to the character and appearance of Hawick's Conservation Area.

6 REVIEWS DETERMINED

6.1 Reference: 20/00453/FUL Proposal: Demolition of garage and erection of dwellinghouse Site: Garden Ground of Clifton Cottage, High Street, Kirk Yetholm Appellant: Mr & Mrs D & C Morrison

Reasons for Refusal: 1. A dwellinghouse on this site would not comply with policy PMD5 of the Local Development Plan 2016 as it would would detract from and harm the character and amenity of the surrounding area. 2. The proposals would not comply with Policy EP9 of the Local Development Plan 2016 in that there would be significantly harmful adverse impacts to Yetholm Conservation Area.

Method of Review: Review of Papers, Further Written Submissions & a Hearing

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld

7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING

7.1 There remained One review previously reported on which a decision was still awaited when this report was prepared on 18th February 2021. This relates to a site at:

 Land North East of Balcladach,  Easter Ulston, Jedburgh

8 SECTION 36 PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRIES RECEIVED Page 133 Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st March 2021 3 Nil

9 SECTION 36 PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRIES DETERMINED

9.1 Reference: 16/00141/S36 Proposal: Variation of condition 2 to extend operational life of wind farm by additional 5 years Site: Fallago Rig 1, Longformacus Appellant: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd

Reasons for Objection: It would be inappropriate to extend the permission for the existing turbines on the basis of the decision to object to application 16/00145/S36 for the additional 12 turbines.

Reporter’s Decision: Sustained

Summary of Decision: Scottish Ministers, varied the consent by changing the wording to allow the application to operate for a period of 30 year.

9.2 Reference: 16/00145/S36 Proposal: Erection of 12 additional turbines Site: Fallago Rig 2, Longformacus Appellant: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd

Reasons for Objection: The proposed development would be contrary to Policy ED9 of the Scottish Borders Local Development Plan in that: a) it would result in unacceptable cumulative visual impacts b) it would be detrimental to the landscape character of the area, resulting in the proposed turbines extending out with the natural confines of the landscape bowl the existing windfarm sits within c) the acceptability of noise impacts on residential receptors were not proven d) the wider economic benefits of the development were not proven, and e) there would be unacceptable adverse impacts on recreational receptors on the Southern Upland Way.

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed

Summary of Decision: Scottish Ministers agreed with the Reporter that the proposed development would provide benefits in relation to helping meet renewable energy targets; associated saving of carbon dioxide emissions; and contributing to the economy through the construction, operation and maintenance of the wind farm. However, the Scottish Ministers consider the proposed development would give rise to significant adverse landscape and visual impacts. Therefore, the Scottish Ministers agree with the Reporter’s findings, reasoning and conclusions and refused the application.

10 SECTION 36 PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRIES OUTSTANDING

10.1 There remained One S36 PLI previously reported on which a decision was still awaited when this report was prepared on 18th February 2021. This relates to a site at:

 Crystal Rigg Wind Farm,  Cranshaws, Duns Page 134 Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st March 2021 4 Approved by

Ian Aikman Chief Planning & Housing Officer

Signature ……………………………………

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Wemyss Administrative Assistant (Regulatory) 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 Place, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Tel. No. 01835 825431 Fax No. 01835 825071 Email: [email protected]

Page 135 Planning & Building Standards Committee 1st March 2021 5 This page is intentionally left blank