Scottish Borders Council Planning and Building Standards Committee

Item No. 4

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

MINUTE of MEETING of the PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE held in the Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 3 November 2014 at 10.00 a.m. ------

Present: - Councillors R. Smith (Chairman), M. Ballantyne, S. Bell, J. Brown, D. Moffat, S. Mountford. Apologies:- Councillor J. Fullarton, I. Gillespie, B. White. In Attendance:- Development Standards Manager, Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager, Principal Roads Planning Officer, Solicitor (G Nelson), Democratic Services Team Leader, Democratic Services Officer (F Henderson).

MINUTE 1. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting held on 6 October 2014.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

MEMBER Councillor Bell left the meeting following consideration of Application 12/00902/FUL.

APPLICATIONS 2. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Service Director Regulatory Services on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

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

APPEALS AND REVIEWS 3. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Service Director Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews.

DECISION NOTED that:-

(a) Scottish Ministers had dismissed appeals in respect of the following:-

(i) Modification of planning obligation pursuant to planning permission 06/01404/FUL relating to land south of Meigle Row, Clovenfords; and

(ii) Pigeon loft trailer sited on land without planning permission at Stonecroft, Lamberton – 14/00056/UNDEV

(b) Scottish Ministers sustained an appeal in respect of Certificate of Lawful Existing Use as Class 5 at Border Coachcroft, Eastgate, Denholm, Hawick – 14/00546/CLEU

(c) A review request had been received in respect of the Erection of dwellinghouse and attached garage on Land North East of Garden House, Whitmuir, Selkirk – 14/00156/FUL; 1 Item No. 4

(d) the Local Review Body had upheld the Appointed Officers decision to refuse the following:-

(i) Erection of car port at 33 Summerfield, Earlston – 14/00429/FUL;

(ii) Extension to dwellinghouse at 17 Crumhaughhill Road, Hawck 14/00625/FUL;

(e) the Local Review Body overturned the Appointed Officers decision to refuse refuse a replacement window (retrospective) at 39 Eastgate, Peebles.

(f) there remained one review outstanding in respect of 80 and 80A High Street, Innerleithen.

URGENT BUSINESS 4. Under Section 50B(4)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Chairman was of the opinion that the items dealt with in the following paragraphs should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency, in view of the need to keep Members informed.

DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE 5. The Chairman drew attention to the briefing note circulated to Elected Members each month as part of the Members Bulletin. The briefing note was designed to keep members informed of the ongoing workload of the Development Management Service, and to indicate how the Service was performing in terms of speed of service delivery. The briefing note detailed the total number of planning applications received in each month with a comparison for the previous 5 years, The numbers of applications received and determined over the past month together with the number outstanding that were still to be processed, the speed with which applications determined during the past month had been processed, the performance figures for the financial year to date with comparisons with previous years and the performance figures for business applications.

6. It was highlighted that the number of applications received in August had risen back above 100 while the number of applications determined also increased to 113. The number of applications outstanding and waiting to be determined (at the time of preparing the report) had fallen to 647, the lowest figure since January. The performance for the month on householder applications dropped back to 83%. Performance on non-householder applications also fell to 58% while performance on all applications had fallen to 66%. Despite these falls the annual figures for the year to date remained ahead of last year’s figures at 92%, 61% and 71% respectively. It was further highlighted that a management plan had been introduced to maintain quality decision making while improving the speed of applications through the system. Members noted that the Scottish Government were proposing to tie increases in planning fees to performance and that there would be penalties for Council’s not achieving the required performance levels. The Council’s Planning Framework had been submitted to the Scottish Government and it was hoped that feedback would be received by the end of the year.

DECISION NOTED that an update on the ongoing workload of the Development Management Service, and how the Service was performing in terms of speed of service delivery would be presented to the Committee at regular intervals.

SITE VISITS 7. The Chairman explained that it was common practice that a site visit be automatically arranged for Wind Farm applications prior to being presented for consideration to the Planning and Building Standards Committee. This practise was time consuming for Officers and Councillors, however it was considered beneficial. Following discussion it was agreed that notification of the site visits should be at least one month prior to the Committee Meeting 2 Item No. 4

and site visits be managed so that they only lasted for either the whole morning or the afternoon.

DECISION AGREED as follows;-

(a) that site visits in respect of Wind Farm applications continue; and

(b) that site visits be arranged for either a morning or afternoon.

The meeting concluded at 12.45 p.m.

3 Item No. 4

APPENDIX I

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Nature of Development Location

14/00720/FUL Erection of dwellinghouse Garden Ground South of 19 Ettrick Road, Selkirk

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and informatives subject to the conclusion of a legal agreement in respect of development contributions toward the Borders Railway and education provision:

Conditions

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

2. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, the roof shall be constructed in natural slate. No development shall be commenced until precise details of all materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: The materials require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

3. A footway shall be provided along the frontage of the site which shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the said footway has been so provided. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development which makes adequate provision for the safe passage of pedestrians clear of the carriageway.

4. Any boundary gates must not open onto the public highway. Reason: To ensure safety for users of the public highway.

5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing on site, a scheme will be submitted by the Developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site. No construction work shall commence until the scheme has been submitted to, and approved, by the Council, and is thereafter implemented in accordance with the scheme so approved. The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with the advice of relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination and must include:- a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model including (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c, d, and, e of this condition. and thereafter b) Where required by the desk study, undertaking a detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of risk such contamination presents. c) Remedial Strategy (if required) to treat/remove contamination to ensure that the site is fit for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works, and proposed validation plan).

4 Item No. 4

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.

6. The boundary walls and fences shown on the approved plans and elevations are to be completed prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse hereby approved. The proposed wall on the north eastern side of the proposed driveway shall be no higher than 750mm for the first metre back from the proposed footway and the proposed wall along the site frontage shall be no higher than 750mm within one metre of the proposed driveway. Reason: To ensure provision of suitable boundary treatments on completion of the construction of the dwelling hereby approved and to ensure adequate visibility for/of vehicles emerging from the proposed driveway.

7. The areas shown on the approved plans for parking of vehicles shall be competed and surfaced to the specifications shown on the approved drawings prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse. Detailed engineering drawings for the proposed footway including vehicular crossing shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter, no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved and the areas shown for parking shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out to an acceptable standard, making suitable provision for parking of vehicles.

8. The windows shown highlighted in blue on the approved plan are to be installed with obscure glazing, the details of which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the windows are to be retained with obscured glazing. Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwelling to the east.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or any subsequent provisions amending or re-enacting that Order), no additional window or other opening shall be made in any elevation of the building unless an application for planning permission in that behalf is first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (or amendments or re-enactment or re-enactment thereof) no extension, enlargement; or other alteration of the dwelling shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Council, to whom a planning application must be made.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority considers that the development hereby permitted is the maximum that can be reasonably allowed without giving rise to potential impacts upon the amenities of adjoining properties, and for this reason would wish to control any future proposals or alterations or extensions.

11. Prior to the commencement of development, a landscaping plan for the site is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan is to make provision for the following: a. Within the proposed rear garden provision is to be made for planting details to soften any overlooking from the dining area window on the rear elevation of the dwelling relative to the neighbouring dwelling to the east; b. Details of all boundary treatments, including materials and dimensions; 5 Item No. 4

c. Full details of planting and species; d. Schedule for implementation

Thereafter, the landscaping scheme is to be completed to the agreed schedule for implementation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is suitably landscaped.

Informatives

1. Telephone cables are understood to traverse the application site. The applicant is advised to contact the relevant operator to ensure that necessary arrangements for diversion are put in place.

2. In submitting details of materials as required by Condition 2, the applicant is advised that the Planning Authority wishes to see use of materials whose colours are reflective of the adjoining housing in Ettrick Road. The form and colour of window surrounds and other feature detail should similarly be drawn from the surrounding context.

12/00902/FUL Erection of nine holiday lodges Land West of William Cree Memorial Church, Kirkburn

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and informatives:

3. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in strict accordance with details of the materials to be used on the external walls, roofs, doors and windows of the proposed building(s) which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting

4. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate): x existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance x existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored x location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates – including any plot boundary treatments. x soft and hard landscaping works, including thickening of the tree belts towards the B7062, around the internal access track entrance to the site, south of the Hub House and individual small groups of tree planting within the development. x existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations x other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, play equipment x A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance the structure planting to be carried out during the first planting season following development commencement. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

5. No chalet forming part of the development shall be occupied until the access junction has been completed in accordance with the approved plan (PL)15 and roads and parking areas shown on the approved plans have been completed to a specification and design firstly submitted to, and agreed in 6 Item No. 4

writing by, the Local Planning Authority and in accordance with any phasing plan agreed. The visibility splays at the junction to be maintained free from obstruction in perpetuity. Reason: To ensure that adequate access to the site for pedestrians and vehicles is provided and is at all times properly maintained.

6. No development is to commence until a report, by a suitably qualified person, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, demonstrating the provision of an adequate water supply to the development in terms of quality, quantity and the impacts of this proposed supply on surrounding supplies or properties. The provisions of the approved report shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the building(s)/dwellinghouse(s) hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately serviced with water without a detrimental effect on the water supplies of surrounding properties.

7. No development to be commenced until fully detailed design proposals for foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for the disposal of surface and foul water.

8. The occupation of all chalets, including the Hub House, 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 shall be kept and made available for inspection by an authorised officer of the Council at all reasonable times. Reason: A permanent residential site in this location would conflict with the established planning policy for this rural area.

9. 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.

10. No development to be commenced until further details are submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in relation to on-site lighting and any additional footpaths. Once approved, the development shall only take place in strict accordance with those details. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of adjoining residential properties and the wider rural area.

11. No development to be commenced until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority relating to all works proposed and access to facilitate the works. Once approved, the development then to proceed in accordance with the Statement. Reason: To safeguard natural heritage interests in the area.

12. The Hub House to provide ground floor accommodation only as shown on the approved plans. Any proposal to create an upper floor for habitable accommodation will require the submission of a new planning application. Reason: To ensure that the access, parking, drainage and water supply can accommodate any potential increase in accommodation.

Informatives 7 Item No. 4

1. Any further expansion of holiday accommodation would require a new planning application and this would need to be assessed against the various constraints identified during consideration of the current application, including visual and landscape impact, impact on archaeology, listed buildings, existing houses, infrastructure, road access etc.

2. This consent does not include any permissions for on-site advertisements, signage and any additional facilities which may require buildings such as bike storage, toilets and any other facilities. You should contact the Planning Authority to discuss such proposals which may still require the submission of an application for Advertisement Consent and planning permission.

3. The Planning & Building Standards Committee wished to make clear, in making their decision, that the proposed development was only acceptable as tourism accommodation in this location, and that the application site was not an appropriate location for permanent unrestricted residential development.

13/00552/FUL Extension to existing wind farm Land West of Kingledores, comprising installation of 6 No. wind Broughton, Biggar (Glenkerie turbines up to 100m high to tip, Extension Wind Farm) transformers, access tracks, anemometer mast, substation and control room, temporary construction compound and laydown area and associated ancillary works

Decision: Continued to enable further discussion between the planning officer and the applicant about the siting of the turbines nearest to Glenkirk and Glen Highton regarding means of reducing potential noise and visibility impacts.

A further Committee site visit to be arranged in advance of the next meeting of the Planning & Building Standards Committee.

NOTE Lady Pamela Strachan spoke on behalf of the objectors against the application. Mr Toby Taylor, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

14/00635/FUL Erection of two dwellinghouses and Site of former March Street alter/vary condition on original Mills, March Street, Peebles consent to provide two additional parking spaces

Decision: Approval subject to the following conditions and a Legal Agreement to secure an appropriate level of financial contribution to provide or enhance off-site play area provision and contribute to schools, traffic management and affordable housing in Peebles.

2. No development to be commenced until a revised plan is submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority detailing two additional parking spaces within the development. The spaces then to be completed in accordance with the approved plan before the first dwellinghouse is occupied. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

8 Item No. 4

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

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

The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with the advice of relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination and must include:-

x 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

x 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.

x 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).

x 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.

x 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.

x 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.

NOTE Mr Michael Campbell was registered to speak and was present at the meeting, but in the absence of any objectors withdrew his request and did not speak.

14/00875/FUL & Change of use from retail (Class 1) to 2-3 High Street, Peebles 14/00874/LBCNN restaurant (Class 3); Listed Building Consent for internal alterations

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions:

Planning Permission ref. 14/00875/FUL:

9 Item No. 4

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

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Authority, but subject to the requirements of Condition 3 below. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3 Notwithstanding the information contained within the application hereby approved, no development shall commence until the following details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority: (i) detailed elevation drawing of the rear elevation where the existing window is to be removed and replaced with a louvred panel to enable venting (ii) detailed drawings and/or description of how each communal area within and outwith the building/site shall be laid out and what each would be used for – this would necessarily include a suitably scaled and annotated plan (iii) detailed specification, including noise output information, in relation to any mechanical apparatus to be installed in or on the external walls of the building (iv) a scheme for mitigation in respect of noise or odour nuisance, in the event of a justified noise complaint being upheld; and (v) a scheme for ventilation and odour control

The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the information approved in response to this condition. Any ventilation and odour control measures implemented shall be maintained in accordance with the scheme submitted in response to criteria (iv). Reason: Submissions have not fully clarified the position in respect of each of these matters. It will be necessary to give further consideration to these items to ensure that the development is compatible with existing uses, in particular because the development would have the potential to harm residential amenity if not managed/mitigated appropriately.

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the existing “Veitch’s” signs to the High Street and Northgate elevations shall be retained and maintained in situ. Reason: The signs contribute to the historic and cultural significance of the building and town centre more widely.

Informatives:

1 This planning permission does not purport to grant consent under any other Regulations or legislation. It is incumbent upon the developer to ensure that any such separate consents are obtained timeously.

2 This planning permission does not purport to grant consent for any external alterations to the building, neither does it grant consent for the removal of any existing advertisements (such as the ornate ‘Veitch’s’ lettering on the two street-facing elevations), awnings or decorative items, or redecoration of the building. Further, separate applications for Listed Building Consent and/or Advertisement Consent would be necessary for any such changes to the building.

3 In order to discharge Condition 3(v), the applicant will need to provide information as specified in DEFRA Guide: Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems, January 2005 schedule B. If you have any questions in relation to this please contact an Environmental Health Officer.

4 Flue Height: 1. The discharge stack shall discharge the extracted air not less than 1 metre above the roof ridge, or at chimney height, of any building within 20 metres of the building housing the commercial kitchen.

10 Item No. 4

2. If 1 cannot be complied with (e.g. due to ownership or structural constraints), then the extracted air shall be discharged not less than 1 metre above the roof eaves or any skylight/dormer windows of the building housing the commercial kitchen. If this is the case, then additional odour control measures may be required. 3. If 1 or 2 cannot be complied with, then a high level of odour control will be required.

The stack should also be positioned as far as possible from the nearest residential accommodation, and a stack discharging into a semi-enclosed area, such as a courtyard or the area between back additions, should always try to be avoided.

5 The premises will need to be registered with the Council before commencing operations. In order to ensure that the layout of the premises complies with the registration requirements the applicant should contact an Environmental Health Officer as the earliest stage possible. This can be done be calling 0300 100 1800 or emailing [email protected]

Listed Building Consent ref. 14/00874/LBCNN:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the existing “Veitch’s” signs to the High Street and Northgate elevations shall be retained and maintained in situ. Reason: The signs contribute to the historic and cultural significance of the building and town centre more widely.

Informatives:

1 Attention is drawn to the separate, but related planning permission ref. 14/00875/FUL, and the conditions/Informative Notes contained therein. It is incumbent upon the developer to ensure that the requirements of any conditions of that permission are adhered to, and it is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that advice in the Informative Notes is followed.

2 The developer is advised that only the physical changes described in the drawings hereby approved may be undertaken by virtue of this Consent.

NOTE Mrs Valerie Brunton spoke on behalf of the objectors against the application.

11 Item No. 5(a)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

8 DECEMBER 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: 14/00763/FUL OFFICER: Lucy Hoad WARD: Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Installation of anaerobic digestion sustainable energy plant SITE: Ravelaw Farm Whitsome Duns Scottish Borders TD11 3NQ APPLICANT: Ivor Gaston AGENT: Bain Swan Architects

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located to the West of Whitsome along a minor C road which links between the B6437 and the B6460. The proposal lies to the North of Ravelaw Farm, 40m to the west of the Farm Bungalow, with the steading and the former farm worker cottages to the south. Open fields lie to the north, east and west. The farm cottages and new build housing sit approximately 100m to the south of the site.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is for an anaerobic digestion plant to generate electricity. The plant would be sited within an agricultural field to the north and east of the steading and adjacent to the existing sheds,

The plant comprises of 2 No digesters set underground (36.3m by13.1m) with solids feeder, separator and tower, and an underground liquid digestate store (32.3m by 18.4m), The digester tanks would be constructed of concrete (outer membrane cover green) and the store would be constructed of concrete panels, and have a protective screen enclosure atop 1.5m (box profile cladding/juniper green).

The proposal also includes a process building (7.0m x 4.9m), a 250eKW combined heat and power unit,(CHP), a gas holder 8.0 x 4.0m (concrete base, outer membrane Green RAL 6026), and new storage building 73m x 18.3m (box profile cladding Juniper Green) for hay and farmyard manure.

The anaerobic digester would use agricultural waste to produce electricity and heat energy. All feedstock would come from the farm, such as pig slurry, grass silage and farm manure. Pig slurry from the herd will be pumped to the digester and farm yard manure and silage will be fed into a feed-in hopper. The end product is then spread on the land as fertiliser. Gas from the digester tanks is fed to the CHP container.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(a)

Electricity produced by the CHP unit will be used on the farm or exported to the grid; heat will also be used on the farm.

PLANNING HISTORY

There is a history of development at and adjoining Ravelaw Farm including the erection of modern sheds, and conversions and new houses having been granted permission previously.

01/00991/FUL Erection of general purpose agricultural building 21.08.2001 05/00833/OUT Erection of dwellinghouse Plot 1 21.07.2005 05/00834/OUT Erection of dwellinghouse Plot 2 21.07.2005 05/00835/OUT Erection of dwellinghouse Plot 3 21.07.2005 05/00836/OUT Erection of dwellinghouse Plot 4 .21.07.2005 06/01148/REM Erection of dwellinghouse, carport, workshop 11.08.2006 06/02455/REM Erection of dwellinghouse 08.02.2007 07/01184/REM Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage 08.08.2007 09/00893/FUL Erection of dwellinghouse/detached double garage 20.11.2009 11/00453/FUL Erection of replacement agricultural building 06.06.2011 12/00549/FUL Erection of agricultural building 14.06.2012

Other applications 06/01979/OUT Erection of four dwellinghouses Refused 27.02.2007 07/00251/REM Erection dwellinghouse/ integral garage withdrawn 14.06.2007 14/00296/FUL Installation of anaerobic digestion sustainable energy plant Withdrawn 03.07.2014

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Nearby residents have expressed a range of concerns over the proposed development. Representations (objections) have been received from 17 Households. These are available for Members to view on the Public Access System. The following planning issues have been raised:

Layout and Design Density of the site Scale of buildings Proximity to residential properties Sited too close to residents dwellings Within 250m of properties Contrary to local plan/SEPA Poor design Height of structures

Landscape and visual impact Cumulative impact of continuous expansion Oppressive nature/scale of development Negative visual impact Proposal out of character with the area Inadequate boundary treatment/Inadequate screening Impact on trees/landscape

Health/safety Health and wellbeing Quality of life

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(a)

Emissions Fire safety/risk of explosion Proximity to residents Drying of woodchip plant/not mentioned in environmental statement

Amenity Detrimental to residential amenity Too close to residential property Noise from plant Noise from livestock Noise in rural area Noise management Loss of privacy Storage of farmyard manure Smells and odour management Prevailing wind is north west contrary to Environmental Health comment Impact on water supplies Fly issues Increase in vermin Overlooking Fundamental issues that cannot be alleviated by imposition of conditions Conditions are weak The authority has already rejected an application for a pigeon loft in respect of neighbour nuisance

Access and Traffic Increase in vehicular traffic Inadequate access Narrow roads Road safety

Environment Inadequate drainage Impact on wildlife Loss of agricultural land Detrimental to the environment

Economic Loss of prime agricultural land No economic benefit for residents Impact on local economy Impact on tourism/trade/local business

Other issues raised Lack of details and information gaps Over provision of facility in area Livestock numbers Applicant agreed to remove all piggery operations Pig operations should have ceased as per condition on earlier consents Approved shed was for cattle 11/00453/FUL Implied expansion Loss of view Impact on value of property/saleability of property

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(a)

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The application is accompanied by site location and layout plans, elevations and drawings, statements to include an environmental statement, odour management plan and manufacturer’s report. These are available for Members to view in full on the Public Access System.

The main points covered include:

Business Case

The applicants seek to reduce both their energy costs and carbon footprint by reducing their present imported energy costs and a reduction /elimination in the use of artificial fertilizers.

The installation of a small-scale Anaerobic Digester which will provide a sustainable waste to energy development. The AD process will operate on a continual 24hr/day, 365 days/year basis.

The applicant intends to employ a full time expert to manage and run the AD plant. Ten plus workers will be required to erect the AD plant with most sourced locally and most of the building materials sourced locally. This will benefit the community

Siting, scale and design

x The proposed AD plant is a small-scale modular unit x The layout is designed to maintain a connection with the existing steading complex x Sited to minimize the visual impact particularly from the adjacent housing group and Whitsome village x Evergreen Gas pre-cast concrete sectional tank modular system with associated Digestate Store, Gas Holder, Solids Feeder, Separator and Tower (North Wesst) x 250ekW Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit to generate electricity x The AD plant is 3.0m high from floor level to the underside of the roof units. x The plant is a partially-buried design with 2.0m of the AD plant below ground level. x The steel portal framed Feedstock Store building (North East) measures73.2m x 18.3m wide with a ridge height of 9.47m, clad in profile steel cladding Juniper Green

All feed materials are sourced/grown on the farm

x Farm Yard Manure (FYM) from the existing livestock buildings -annual total in the region of 4,000T. x The weekly muck-out of approx. 77T will be fed to the AD x No storage is required for FYM. x The proposal will not require any increase in livestock numbers at Ravelaw (currently 1800-2000 pigs). x Hybrid Rye grown on the farm approx. 2,000T annually harvested and ensiled in the new portal frame building. The Hybrid Rye will be fed to the AD at a rate of approx. 40T per week.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(a)

x Surplus straw from the farm approx. 1,000T annually fed to the AD plant at a rate of approx. 20T per week. x The AD plant will be fed once/day.

Traffic movement and supply

x The Farm Yard Manure is sourced directly from the livestock buildings x The Rye (80 hectares) is grown on the farm x The Rye and straw from the fields to the North and East of the steading will be harvested and transported to the plant via the existing off-road farm tracks. x No feedstock is transported by public road.

Water supply and discharge

x Water for the AD is required to maintain the operating temperature range of 37-42degC by circulation of hot water through an internal heat exchanger, this water is re-circulated. x The water supply will be sourced from a borehole on the farm with a daily requirement of 10m3 maximum. x There is no discharge of water from the AD x Any surplus water is re-circulated through the Digester

Safety

x The construction process of the plant ensures that the installation is fully watertight x The commissioning process is air tested to ensure no leaks with a commissioning certificate being issued only when no leakage is detected. x The operation of the AD plant is fully automated via control systems located within the on-site Process Building x Full training is provided relating to the operation of the plant x On-going service provided throughout its working life x In the event of a situation where the gas generated cannot be provided to the CHP there is a requirement to “flare off” the gas. x With the Evergreen Gas system there is no flame “flare off”. x As an alternative this is managed by the presence of a biogas hot water boiler which is specified to take up to 100% of the delivered biogas. x This biogas is the fuel for the boiler to generate hot water which is circulated through a fan cooled radiator system thus providing the “heat dump” until the CHP is brought back on-line.

Odour

Odour Management Scheme will be in place designed to minimise potential odours.

Noise

x The Combined Heat & Power (CHP) is a 250ekW 60Hz CENERGY Agenitor Series The CHP is supplied and installed in a sound attenuated container (decibel reading of 68dB at 1.0m). x Noise levels will be monitored as part of the system management documentation.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(a)

Construction works

x Works will be carried out in accordance with the HSE Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. x Traffic movement during construction would be 3 lorries per week for 10 – 12 weeks. x Preferred route of construction traffic is the minor access road from the North from its junction with the B6460 road near Blackadder West. x This route relatively straight and includes 4No passing places

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Landscape Architect: No objection subject to condition in respect of additional planting. I am satisfied that the proposed buildings are well screened by existing buildings and or well distant from potential sensitive residential receptors. The proposals are also of a scale with existing farm buildings.

Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions in respect of odour, air quality, noise control, inputs (waste and crops).

Odour: AD Plant will be fed at 9.00am daily and this should take 20 minutes. There is potential for odour issues when the proposed daily rate of 20 tonnes (manure, rye, straw) is loaded into the Solids Feeder. The straw and hybrid rye will be stored within a sealed enclosed building and covered with heavy plastic sheets to contain odour. Farmyard manure will be removed directly from the pig sheds on a daily basis. Mucking out will take place more frequently than at present and it is anticipated that this should reduce the build up of manure and subsequent odours. The applicant states he will refrain from mucking out if there is a north wind which is likely to disperse pig manure odours towards neighbouring residential properties. Prevailing wind is from the south west. Under these conditions potential for nuisance is negligible.

Air Quality: From the information and knowledge we have on these installations/systems it is unlikely that there will be an adverse impact on local air quality. The applicant is required to conduct a screening assessment with reference to Scottish Air Quality Objectives. The plant manufacturers have provided information which indicates that the digestate is stable, benign (with inoffensive mild odour), the sulphur produced will remain stable (without causing odour issues) and the biogas will not be released into the atmosphere.

Buffer zone: SPP recommends a 250m buffer zone may be appropriate for operations such as outdoor composting, anaerobic digestion, mixed waste processing, thermal treatment or landfill gas plant. Small scale digestion plants process in the region of 40,000 tonnes of waste products per annum. Based on the applicant’s figures the development will process 7,000 tonnes per annum. Based on the information provided in the Environmental Statement July 2014, the Evergreen Gas Ltd documentation August 2014 and the report from SEPA a buffer distance of 250 meters is not considered necessary to mitigate against potential air quality and odour issues.

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

Regulatory advice: SEPA have provided a statement that considers the proximity of sensitive receptors to AD plants in terms of bio aerosols and refers to national advice that odour emissions should be no worse than from the pig farm itself. Should permission be granted the applicant would need to apply to SEPA for an exemption under the Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Although the activity may be exempt from waste management licensing, it is still subject to statutory controls to prevent pollution or harm to human health and would be subject to a condition that nuisance will not be cause through noise or odours.

Noise. The CHP generator will produce a noise level of 65db(A) at 1 metre from the exhaust. Given distance to noise sensitive dwellings and barrier effect of the farm buildings there should be no adverse noise impact assuming regular plant maintenance is carried out.

Contaminated Land: No comment

Archaeologist: No objection. There are no known archaeological implications for the revised scheme.

Roads Planning: No objection. Main points raised: There is unlikely to be a significant increase in traffic movements on the public single track road serving the site. The farm yard manure which is to be fed into the digester is already contained within the farm steading, so it will not require to be transported to the farm. The hybrid rye and surplus straw which is to be fed into the digester is to be transported via off-road farm tracks. The indigestible material left over is to be used as fertiliser for the farm, which has the potential to reduce the amount of artificial fertiliser imported to the farm. Should any vehicle movements require to use the public road – the C99 benefits from having a number of constructed passing places between the B6460 (Blackadder West) and B6437 (Whitsome). There are a number of informal passing places such as field entrances.

Ecologist: No objection subject to conditions in respect of protected species. The development site is located on arable land approximately 130m from the Leet Water which contains grayling. There is the potential for impacts on protected species notably badger, particularly in regard to foraging and commuting across the site, and breeding birds. I recommend that a Badger Mitigation Plan be supplied by the developer and precautionary measures be implemented in regard to any potential impact on breeding birds.

Statutory Consultees

HSE No requirement for Hazardous Substance Consent It appears from the information that the quantities to be stored will not be above the Hazardous Substance Consent threshold of 10 tonnes for Extremely Flammable Gas. However the responsibility for Hazardous Substance Consent rests with the Hazardous Substance Authority, which in most cases is the Local Authority. From a Land Use Planning perspective, as the site is not within the vicinity of a Major Hazard Site or Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, then HSE would have no further comments to make regarding the application.

SEPA: No objection subject to informative in respect of regulatory advice.

Regulatory requirements

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(a)

The activity appears to be exempt from waste management licensing however, it is still subject to statutory controls to prevent environmental pollution and harm to human health. SEPA advise that the applicant contacts the Borders Operations team if any further guidance is required with respect to the waste management exemption.

Scottish Planning Policy, paragraph 191, states that planning authorities should consider the need for buffer zones between dwellings and suggests that 250m between sensitive receptors and operations such as anaerobic digestion.

Surface water drainage

Contaminated drainage from the concrete apron around the digester and digestate store will be collected in a tank and fed into the digester. The silage clamp will be SSAFO compliant. It appears that clean roof and yard water will be discharged to a surface water drain. It is assumed that no external clean surface water can enter the site. These arrangements are acceptable.’

Any water abstraction will require authorisation from SEPA under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR).

Community Council:

The CC have considered this application and all agree that if approved then any conditions applied must be clear and enforceable and reflect the methodology and safeguards outlined in the Environmental Statement and the replies of the statutory consultees. Due note has been taken of concerns expressed by residents at Ravelaw and possible adverse effects on Residential Amenity. These concerns are clearly articulated in individual comments submitted by those residents. Some community council members commented that the scale of this development seems quite large. Other members are in favour of the principles of Anaerobic Digesters and the overall environmental advantages presented and therefore do not object to this proposal, conditional upon the safeguards mentioned above.

Other Consultees

None

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

G1: Quality Standards for New Development H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Inf7: Waste Management Facilities D1: Business, Tourism and leisure Development in the Countryside D4: Renewable Energy Development

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy 2014 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Renewable Energy June 2007

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(a)

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether the proposal would harm the environment, visual amenities of the area or residential amenities of occupiers of nearby residential properties.

x Whether the proposal would affect water supplies to neighbouring properties.

x Access and the impact of the proposal on the local road network

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

Scottish Planning Policy supports the principle of renewable energy and, in specific relation to anaerobic digestion, encourages Councils to enable “investment opportunities in a range of technologies and industries to maximise the value of secondary resources and waste to the economy, including composting facilities, transfer stations, materials recycling facilities, anaerobic digestion…”

Policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 states that the Council will support large and community scale renewable energy development where it can be accommodated without unacceptable impacts on the environment. The siting and design of all renewable energy developments should take account of the social, economic and environmental context. Renewable energy developments will be approved provided that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural heritage, water environment, landscape, biodiversity, built environment, archaeology, recreation or tourism or that any adverse impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated. Waste to energy schemes involving farm waste will be assessed against policy Inf7: waste management facilities. This policy states that applications for waste management facilities including waste to energy schemes will be assessed against the principle of the development in terms of its location and the details of the application. In principle, the Council will support proposals for sustainable waste management facilities provided that certain criteria are met.

Policy D1 of the Local Plan states that business development in the countryside will be approved and rural diversification initiatives will be encouraged provided certain criteria are met; these will be addressed within this report.

Policy D1 requires that the development must respect the amenity and character of the surrounding area. The development should be appropriate to the rural character of the area and require a particular rural location and cannot be reasonable accommodated within the development boundary of a settlement. Policy G1 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. Policy Inf7 requires that the impact of the proposal on the environment, biodiversity, the landscape and archaeology are considered, minimised and managed.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Renewable Energy June 2007 states that combined heat and power (CHP) systems are not strictly speaking a form of renewable energy as they generally run on gas or diesel fuel. However, where the fuel source is renewable such as wood chip or anaerobic digestion, then it is considered to be a form of renewable energy. The main advantage of a CHP system

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(a) is that it is a more efficient way to generate heat and power. The cost-effectiveness of CHP schemes comes from the reuse of heat generated in the production of electricity.

Siting, Design and Visual Impact

Concerns have been raised by the community in relation to the nature and scale of the proposed development to include concerns over visual impact, landscape impact, and the size of the structures in relation to the existing complex and proximity to residential properties. However, these concerns must be considered in the context of existing site circumstances, acknowledging the farm operations that already exist and also that this is a relatively small scale proposal which is directly connected to those farm operations.

Given the nature of the development, the source of the feedstock (the material used to operate the digester), it is reasonable that the proposal requires a rural location adjacent to a farm steading. The development would be well related to the existing farm buildings at the steading, sited in the adjacent fields with the tanks and gas holder situated to the north and storage building positioned east of the existing store.

Consideration has been given to scale, mass and form, as well as design, materials and finishes. The buildings and plant to be installed would be of a size appropriate to agricultural uses. The layout relates well to the existing farm complex ensuring that the buildings are a logical extension of the steading. The proposal involves the partial underground installation of the digester plant to reduce visual impact. The store building is of a similar scale and height to the existing agricultural buildings. The buildings would be coloured green to ensure that their appearance would blend in with the rural environment.

Consideration has been given to topography and natural screening and landscaping capabilities. In long views into the site (1km) the farm is visible at a distance from properties to the north and north east, and from Whitsome Village to the south (1km). There is limited visibility from residential properties on the south side of the steading, largely as a result of the intervening farm buildings: The existing sheds provide an element of screening from these properties and additional landscape planting is proposed, south of the storage sheds, which will provide additional screening from this viewpoint, thus reducing the visual impact of the proposal. It is considered that the proposal would not be unduly prominent in the landscape and would not harm the visual amenities of the area or views into or out of the area.

The Landscape Architect has been consulted on the application and has raised no objections to the proposals subject to a condition in respect of proposed landscape planting. The Officer is content that the proposed buildings are well screened by existing buildings and well distant from potential sensitive residential receptors.

It is considered that the proposal would not be unduly prominent in the landscape and would not harm the visual amenities of the area or views into or out of the area.

Residential Amenities

Concerns have been raised by residents with regard to the potential impact on their amenity from noise nuisance, odours, vermin and flies. Residents consider the development to be oppressive in nature given the proximity to residential houses.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(a)

Policy D1 of the Local Plan requires that development has no significant adverse impact on nearby uses, particularly housing. Policy H2 states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted. Policy Inf7 states that it must be satisfactorily demonstrated that the impacts of the proposal are within acceptable levels and can be properly managed including the impact on local communities in terms of noise, odours and traffic generation.

Consideration has been given to the potential impact of the development on residential amenities to include noise disturbance, odours, loss of outlook or light. Again, this has to be considered in the context of an existing farm steading, and the buildings and operations that already exist there.

The proposed gas holder, anaerobic digester and digestate store would be sited furthest away from the existing houses to the south, beyond the existing storage and livestock buildings, with the nearest element being the proposed straw store.

Outlook and access to light

The nearest residential properties are the Farm Bungalow (40m west) and the traditional farm cottages and new build properties, approximately 100m or so to the south. The development will be partially screened from the bungalow by mature trees but whilst the occupant (who is a partner in the farm) will look out onto the proposed plant, the nearest elements of the proposals are mainly buried underground. The development would be mainly screened from residential properties to the south by the existing agricultural buildings. The proposal would therefore not affect the light or outlook of the occupants of these properties.

Noise and odour

The proposed Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generator equipment has been considered in relation a potential to generate noise nuisance. The Combined Heat & Power (CHP) plant (which generates power from burning the gases produced by the Digester) would be a 250ekW 60Hz CENERGY Agenitor Series, supplied and installed in a sound attenuated container. The applicant advises that noise levels are to be monitored as part of the system management documentation.

Environmental Health has reviewed the details submitted by the applicant. The CHP generator will produce a noise level of 65db(A) at 1 metre from the exhaust. Given the drop off in distance to the nearest noise sensitive dwellings, and the barrier effect of the farm buildings between the proposed generator location and nearest receptors, the Officer considers that there should be no adverse noise impact, assuming regular plant maintenance is carried out.

Given the officer’s assessment of low risk with respect to noise nuisance, and the use of a condition to control noise and it is considered that noise disturbance would not be an issue significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.

The applicant’s supporting statement advises that the resulting digestate from the anaerobic digestion process would be less odorous than raw slurry as the more odorous compounds in the slurry are broken down during the process within a contained unit. It concludes that negative impacts due to odours associated with animal slurries will therefore be reduced by the proposal. An odour management plan has been submitted as part of the application and reviewed by Environmental Health.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(a)

Slurry would be used from the existing livestock already present from the farm, with the applicant confirming that no further slurry would be imported. Any odour arising would therefore be no greater than at present but, as noted by Environmental Health, it is possible that, because clearance and collection would take place more frequently, it is possible that odour nuisance may actually reduce, as manure would not build up at the site.

Digestate (relatively benign and odour free) will be spread as fertiliser on arable land by a tanker designed for this operation from March to September.

Environmental Health has advised that the plant be operated in accordance with the Environmental Statement dated of July 2014 received by the department in August, and all plant must be rigorously maintained in accordance with manufacturers instructions. The applicant’s submitted odour management plan must be adhered to at all times to ensure there are no unacceptable impacts upon residential amenity. Given the mitigation proposed and the Officers assessment of low risk with respect to odour nuisance it is considered that odour would not be an issue significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.

It should be noted that should permission be granted, the applicant would need to apply to SEPA for an exemption under the Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Although the activity may be exempt from waste management licensing, it is still subject to statutory controls to prevent pollution or harm to human health and would be subject to a condition that nuisance will not be caused through noise or odours.

Buffer zone

The community have raised the issue of the plant being sited a minimum distance of 250m from sensitive properties. Scottish Planning Policy suggests, as a guide, a 250m buffer may be appropriate for operations such as outdoor composting, anaerobic digestion, mixed waste processing, thermal treatment or landfill gas plant. It does not explain, however, how that distance has been derived or whether it applies to all scales of development, or merely those of commercial scale. Investigation of the matter has failed to produce any conclusive justification for the stated distance. It is not, however, an embargo on development within this distance. The view has therefore been taken that, within this distance, more robust examination of a proposal is required to ensure that such proposals do not give rise to unacceptable risks or impacts to these particular sensitive receptors: It would not be reasonable to refuse permission simply because the proposal falls within 250m, without being able to identify any demonstrable and unacceptable harm in planning terms. Environmental Health has reviewed the details provided by the applicant to include the Environmental Statement, The Evergreen Gas Ltd documentation and the report from SEPA, and advises that a buffer distance of 250 metres is not considered necessary to mitigate against potential air quality and odour issues.

The Environmental Health Officer recommends that an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality shall be required, prior to development. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development with reference to Scottish Air Quality Objectives. Thereafter, the development should take place in accordance with the recommendations and findings of the report.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(a)

Traffic and Access

Nearby residents have raised road safety concerns with regard to access to the site and an increase in traffic movement on the narrow single road. Policy D1 requires that accessibility is taken into account in assessment of the proposals.

The development would utilise the existing access to the farm from the public road. The supporting statement advises that all feedstocks would be sourced from the farm and the digestate will be spread back to the farm land. The agent advises that the proposed feed stock is based on the current slurry production on the farm and it is proposed to supply all feedstock from within the farm. Based on this information the Roads Planning Service has no objections to the proposed development. It is recommended that it should be a condition of any planning permission for this development that no feedstocks are to be imported into the farm as this would have implications for the local road network that would have to be assessed.

Given the absence of any adverse comments from Roads Planning it is considered that road safety would not be an issue significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.

Storage of hazardous substances

General Issues

Concerns have been raised by the community in respect of safety to residential properties in the event of operational failure of the plant.

Policy G3 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 states that proposals for hazardous developments as defined under the relevant legislation will be subject to strict controls on siting to maintain appropriate separation from residential areas and areas frequented by the public, major transport routes, and areas of national heritage importance.

Developments will be refused, if guided by the advice of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and other consultees as appropriate:

1. the proposal would cause unacceptable levels of pollution or public nuisance or result in an unacceptable hazard to the public, or the environment, or 2. the proposal is located in close proximity to existing facilities or infrastructure that would result in the development causing unacceptable levels of pollution or nuisance or result in an unacceptable hazard to the public or the environment. . Health and Safety

The applicant has provided documentation that states that the operation of the AD plant is fully automated via control systems located within the on-site Process Building located as shown on the Layout Plan 5219 / 100. The installed AD plant and controls are specifically designed and tailored by the manufacturer to the requirements of each AD installation relative to the feedstocks to be used in running the AD. Full training is provided relating to the operation of the plant along with an on-going service provided throughout its working life to ensure safe and efficient operation.

In the event of a situation where the gas generated cannot be provided to the CHP there is a requirement to “flare off” the gas. With the Evergreen Gas system there is

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(a) no flame “flare off”. As an alternative this is managed by the presence of a biogas hot water boiler which is specified to take up to 100% of the delivered biogas. This biogas is the fuel for the boiler to generate hot water which is circulated through a fan cooled radiator system thus providing the “heat dump” until the CHP is brought back on-line.

The Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Act 1997 states that a planning authority is a Hazardous Substances Authority when quantities of hazardous substances are held. The Act states in Section 3 that Ministers shall designate what substances are Hazardous Substances and in what Quantities they may be held. Biogas which is 55 - 65 % methane is a hazardous substance. The controlled quantity is 10 tonnes, meaning that Hazardous Substance Consent would be required where that threshold is exceeded.

The agent has stated that his calculations indicated the tonnage was around 4 tonnes.

The HSE were consulted on the application and advised that from the information supplied by the agent the quantity appeared to be under the 10 tonnes and thus Hazardous Substance Consent would not be required, meaning that there is no further requirement for consent (or formal assessment) under this legislation.

SEPA have confirmed that statutory controls to prevent environmental pollution are in place to govern this nature of development and harm to human health would need to be assessed by them as part of their remit. Any other licences and statutory operating requirements for the plant would be required to be met, regardless of the grant of planning permission.

The Environmental Health Officer was consulted and did not raise any adverse comments in relation to the issue of safety. The applicant has confirmed that the plant will be operated in line with the manufacturers instructions. In carrying out activities related to gas production, holding, transfer and use it the applicant will have to abide by all required legal and statutory requirements.

Waste

The Environmental Statement advises that the proposed development includes all associated new concrete aprons and hardstandings required by the development along with collection and storage of silage effluent and surface run-off with the contents of both storage facilities being used as Feedstock for the Anaerobic Digester. Underground tanks are designed to provide a minimum of six months storage.

SEPA has no objection to the application subject to an informative in respect of regulatory advice.

Regulatory requirements

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(a)

Any water abstraction will require authorisation from SEPA under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR).

Water supply

Environmental Health have confirmed that Ravelaw resident’s properties are supplied by a mains water supply. The proposed AD plant is a dry sytem not requiring significant water usage. The applicant is installing a private borehole.

Prime Agricultural Land

This is a farm scale development. Given the footprint proposed it is not considered that there would be a significant impact on the resource.

Biodiversity

The development site is located on arable land approximately 130m from the Leet Water which contains grayling. The council’s ecologist has advised that there is the potential for impacts on protected species notably badger, particularly in regard to foraging and commuting across the site, and breeding birds. A Badger Mitigation Plan should be supplied by the developer and precautionary measures be implemented in regard to any potential impact on breeding birds. It is recommended that conditions be applied in respect of protected species.

CONCLUSION

The principle of the development is consistent with national and local aspirations for renewable energy development and reduction in waste, as well as rural diversification. Appropriate conditions will protect the environment, public health and safety.

It is considered that the proposal complies with policies G1, H2, Inf7, D1 and D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011. Potential environmental effects can be controlled to an acceptable level by planning conditions so that the proposal does not harm visual amenities of the area or residential amenities of occupiers of adjacent properties and contributes to the production of renewable energy.

RECOMMENDATION BY SERVICE DIRECTOR (REGULATORY SERVICES):

I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions and an informative:

2 No development shall commence until an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(a) strict accordance with the recommendations/findings of the report. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development with reference to Scottish Air Quality Objectives.

3 Only animal waste and crops produced on Ravelaw Farm can be used to feed the anaerobic digester plant. All feedstock to be sourced from existing farm production and no feedstocks to be imported to the farm from elsewhere unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to protect residential amenity.

4 The anaerobic digestion plant shall be operated in accordance with the Environmental Statement Bain Swan dated July 2014 (received August 2014) and all plant must be rigorously maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions The applicant’s submitted odour management plant must be adhered to at all times. Reason: to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties by appropriate management and control of potential odour nuisance.

5 Any noise emitted by plant and machinery used on the premises will not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 23.00 to 07.00 and NR30 at all other times when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling (windows open for ventilation). The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernable tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2. Reason: to protect the residential amenity of nearby properties.

6 A Badger Protection Plan is required to protect badger foraging and commuting across the site (including covering trenches and open pipes overnight/ providing a means of escape, safe storage of chemicals and oils, sensitive security lighting, timing of works, badger-proof fencing around settlement ponds). Prior to the commencement of works such a scheme will be submitted, in writing, to the Planning Authority for approval. Any works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

7 If signs of breeding birds are found development works should be halted or the commencement of development avoided and no further works to commence during the breeding bird season (March-September) without the express written permission of the Planning Authority. A breeding bird checking survey will be required and subsequent mitigation may be required.

8 No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of soft landscaping works, which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall include (as appropriate): i. indication of existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be removed, those to be retained and, in the case of damage, proposals for their restoration ii. location of new trees, shrubs, extended hedges grassed areas and ponds iii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density iv. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance.

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5(a)

Informative

1 SEPA advise that the applicant contacts the Borders Operations team if any further guidance is required with respect to the waste management exemption. Contact SEPA on 01896 754797.

Any water abstraction will require authorisation from SEPA under The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (CAR).

Details of regulatory requirements and good practice advice for the applicant can be found on the website at www.sepa.org.uk/planning.aspx

DRAWING NUMBERS

Site Location Plan 10 July 2014 Site Layout Plan 09 September 2014 Elevations 09 September 2014

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director (Regulatory Services)

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 Lucy Hoad Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5(a)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 5(c)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

3 NOVEMBER 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 13/00552/FUL OFFICER: John Hiscox WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Extension to existing wind farm comprising installation of 6 No. wind turbines up to 100m high to tip, transformers, access tracks, anemometer mast, substation and control room, temporary construction compound and laydown area and associated ancillary works SITE: Land West of Kingledores, Broughton, Biggar (Glenkerie Extension Wind Farm) APPLICANT: Glenkerie Extension Wind Farm Ltd AGENT: URS, Edinburgh

SITE DESCRIPTION:

The application site is situated on land that adjoins an existing, operational wind farm known as Glenkerie. Glenkerie consists of 11 wind turbines, associated tracks (including an access road to the A701), buildings and infrastructure.

The site is generally west of the existing wind farm and occupies land over about a 3km length running south-west to north-east. The ES describes the location as ‘on the north west facing slopes of the Holms Water Valley, below the peaks of Broomy Law, Glenlood Hill and Cocklie Rig Head’.

The A701 road is approximately 2.5km east of the nearest turbine, from which the existing wind farm and the proposed extension would gain vehicular access.

The village of Tweedsmuir is approximately 3.5km south-east of the site; Broughton is approximately 7km north north-east of the site. Glenholm Valley (Holms Water Valley) is adjacent to the site on the north-west side.

Landscape Character:

Both the existing and the proposed development are situated within landscape character type 4BG: Southern Uplands Type with Scattered Forest: Broadlaw Group and Upland Type.

The 1998 Borders Landscape Character Assessment includes the following descriptive text relating to the LCA:

x the topography is characterised by large dome and cone- shaped hills and ridges separated by deep, steep-sided valleys, many of which exhibit evidence of glacial erosion and local fluvioglacial deposits x the hills are predominantly smooth, but are creased by minor clefts and gullies and interrupted in places by scree and rock outcrops

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(c)

x land cover is predominantly heather moorland and coarse grassland x there are no large towns or villages in this landscape type and settlement consists mainly of widely spaced farmsteads along sheltered valleys x this is a dramatic large scale landscape, open and exposed on the hills and often strongly enclosed within valleys x views from high ground are distant and panoramic, often including adjoining landscape types x the highest summits have a grand and remote character which is rare elsewhere on the Border Hills

The following positive attributes of the LCA are further described:

x distinctive smooth rolling landform creates strong identity x assemblages of glacially-sculpted landforms in high attitude areas give additional local distinctiveness x degree of remoteness, 'wildland' quality, and grandeur of scale unique within region x presence of valley reservoirs and lochs increase visual appeal x significant areas of semi-natural vegetation communities x high scenic and environmental quality recognised by multiple designations x drystone dykes and sheep stells

Under ‘Negative Attributes’ the following are mentioned:

x relative absence of visual screening features x high visual sensitivity x relatively low diversity of landscape elements and features

It should be noted that this large LCA effectively contains the smaller BDR22 ‘Upland Valley with Pastoral Floor’, which includes a long stretch of the A701. To the west of Culter Fell, within South Lanarkshire and within a designated Special Landscape Area is the ‘Southern Uplands’ LCA (Clyde & Clyde Extension Wind Farms in this LCA).

Landscape Designations:

The site is situated within the Tweedsmuir Uplands Special Landscape Area, as described in the 2012 Local Landscape Designations SPG.

The Upper Tweed Valley National Scenic Area begins approximately 2.7km to the north-east of the development site.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

6 no. 100m high (to tip) turbines would be built along with associated tracks (approx 3.35km), crane pads, a borrow pit, transformer units at the base of each turbine, underground cabling within the site, a 70m high meteorological mast, a turbine laydown area, substation and control room. The turbines would be sited at the following heights above Ordnance Datum:

T1: 532m T2: 507m T3: 475m T4: 529m

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(c)

T5: 527m T6: 515m

The access track from the A701 would be utilised to provide the main access to the current extension proposed.

A lifespan of 25 years is proposed for the wind farm, notwithstanding the potential for this phase to outlive the existing development by a number of years. The existing wind farm commenced generation in February 2012, though if planning permission is granted for the current extension it is inevitable that construction would not take place straight away and therefore there would be the potential for there to be anywhere between 3.5-6 years where the Glenkerie turbines are decommissioned and the Glenkerie Extension turbines remain.

It must be noted that a new, separate connection to the electrical grid would be provided in addition to that which serves Glenkerie at present. However, this connection would be the subject of a separate application to Scottish Government via Section 37 of the Electricity Act of 1989.

NEIGHBOURING SITES/SCHEMES RELEVANT TO CONSIDERATION OF CURRENT PROPOSAL:

Operational Schemes:

Glenkerie Wind Farm is operational and adjacent to the south-east of the proposed extension. It produces up to 22MW of energy via 11 wind turbines, 5 of which have a tip height of 118m (generally on lower ground) and 6 of which have a tip height of 100m (on higher ground).

Essentially, the current proposal and the existing wind farm would become one development of 17 turbines.

Clyde Wind Farm is situated entirely within South Lanarkshire but is within 7.5km of the proposed development, occupying the west/south-west/south quadrant on the map (See, for example, Figure 2.1 of Volume II of the ES) out to approximately 20km. It consists of 152 turbines with a tip height of up to 125m.

Consented Schemes:

Clyde Extension has recently been consented by the Energy Consents and Deployment Unit on land between the operational Clyde scheme and the current site for Glenkerie Extension. It will consist of up to 54 turbines and the development would be within 3.6km of Glenkerie Extension. 10 of the turbines would have a tip height of up to 125.5m, whereas the remaining 44 would have a tip height of up to 142m.

A very small number of the turbines are within Borders, but the vast majority are within South Lanarkshire.

Schemes currently in Planning:

Earlshaugh Wind Farm site is situated approximately 10km south of the proposed site, and would consist of 24 turbines with a tip height of up to 125m. This scheme is a Section 36 because its potential output would exceed 50 Megawatts. It is currently

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(c)

with the ECDU with an objection from SBC. It is likely to be moving towards consideration by the DPEA at Public Local Inquiry (PLI).

The Cloich Forest Wind Farm site is situated approximately 20km to the north north- east of the application site, and is for 18 turbines with a tip height of 115m. This scheme has also received an objection from SBC and is moving towards a PLI. It is relevant to the current proposal mainly due to the potential for sequential landscape and visual impacts occurring along the A701 in particular.

Hag Law is a proposal for 8 turbines in a row adjacent to the Cloich Forest site, with a tip height of up to 100m. The current application is for a ‘major’ proposal under ref. 14/00738/FUL. It is a separate proposal to Cloich in terms of its siting and design, and the developer has no partnership with the Cloich developer. The site is a little more than 20km from the Glenkerie Extension but again has a significant sequential relationship with it.

Schemes at Pre-planning Stage:

A scheme known as Whitelaw Brae near Tweedsmuir, situated approximately 4.5- 5km south of Glenkerie Extension, has been through Scoping and is being prepared for submission via Section 36/ECDU. It currently proposes 16 turbines with a tip height of up to 132m. This scheme would be highly likely to have a coincident cumulative visual relationship with Glenkerie Extension.

PLANNING HISTORY:

07/02478/FUL - Construction of wind farm comprising eleven wind turbines, permanent 70m anemometer mast, crane hardstandings, new internal access tracks, upgraded existing tracks, underground cabling, control building and car parking area. Approved and implemented.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY:

In total, 23 letters of objection, 2 letters of comment and no letters of support have been received. It must be noted, however, that the 23 letters of objection represent 18 households/stated addresses. In the case of one household, one letter of objection to the original proposal has been followed by two separate letters of objection from the same household to the revised proposal.

A summary of the issues raised in objection (which are relevant to this application) to the development would be as follows:

x adverse impact on setting of Glenholm – degradation of visual qualities of this area – impacts on Special Landscape Area x proposed turbines same size as existing turbines but more elevated in landscape than existing array – promotes concerns relating to visual impacts and gives rise to potential increased mortality to birds x potential for infrastructure to harm environment, in relation to biodiversity/habitat x adverse landscape and visual impacts of existing wind farms already demonstrated, such as Clyde Wind Farm x adverse sequential landscape and visual impacts relating to the A701 tourist route to Scotland – impacts on attractiveness of area to visitors

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(c)

x increased visibility of wind farms in locality (cumulative visual impacts) including those associated with access tracks x undesirable cumulative effects adding to landscape and visual impacts and causing concern about potential effects on Culter Fell and Cardon Hill in particular x increased adverse visual impacts relating to residential amenity – Glenhighton & Glenkirk in particular cited x concerns about quality/nature of noise information provided and about potential overall noise effects on residents (Glenholm specifically mentioned) x height and siting of the turbines would lead to increase in visual impacts, in particular in relation to the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area – proposed turbines more prominent (existing turbines discretely sited) x visualisations within ES not depicting the true picture – likely to be higher visibility of turbines than portrayed/turbines appearing larger in reality x deterrent to users of the surrounding area for leisure purposes (walkers, runners), for tourists, businesses and farming x development having potential to diminish wilderness qualities of the Southern Uplands and to set precedent for other, similar developments coming forward x additional turbines moving NW of the running ridge cause a step change to the impact of development in relation to Glenholm x benefits of energy production (further 12MW) unlikely to outweigh adverse effects of scheme

A summary of the issues of relevance raised in the 2 letters of comment would be as follows:

x query as to whether consideration has been given to the effects on tourism and visitors numbers of turbine expansion x concern about the effects on an area discussed in literature by John Buchan

Members are asked to note that the introduction of a second power line to connect the proposed development to the national grid, or alteration to the existing power line, are not the subject of this application. These matters would be dealt with by way of a separate application to Scottish Government under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. Scottish Borders Council would be a formal consultee in respect of any such Section 37 application. However, Members may be advised that either one or the other of these options would be required to enable the wind farm extension to operate. Presently, the developer’s position is that no additional line would be required – the existing line would be adapted/upgraded.

Members are asked also to note that matters of ‘grants’ to the community, otherwise known as community funding, are not considered as part of the planning process and are not material planning considerations.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

Two phases of information have been submitted formally, these being the original ES and accompanying documents and a later Addendum submitted via the ‘Further Environmental Information’ (FEI) route which has been re-advertised and reconsulted upon.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(c)

The original submission in May 2013 consists of the following:

Non-Technical Summary Planning Statement Volume 1 – Main Report Volume 2 – Figures and Technical Appendices Volume 3 – Landscape and Visual Figures

The FEI submission in June 2014 is a single item comprising a range of issues relating to environmental management, and is entitled ‘Environmental Design Plan’. It is submitted primarily to address concerns raised jointly by consultees about the nature and potential effects of ground level works from both aesthetic and a biodiversity positions.

In addition, the developer has submitted the following items giving response to issues raised by consultees:

28.6.13:

Email submission with proposed amended noise conditions, in response to SBC Environmental Health Officer consultation reply.

5.9.13:

Letter from agent discussing cultural heritage issues and providing information relating to setting of monuments (Tripan’s Knowe and Glenkerie Burn Fort). Accompanied by wireframe drawing.

3.2.14:

Further letter from agent with additional wireframe drawing relating to Tripan’s Knowe.

10.9.14:

Letter from agent seeking to address comments made by SNH in updated consultation reply.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees:

Outdoor Access Officer:

Consultee not raising an objection. Giving advice relating to:

x presence of 2 no. customary/permissive paths on site x requirement to ensure adequate set-back distances of turbines from rights of way x relationship of new access tracks with rights of way (where they meet) x requirement for new access tracks and associated promotional information to be available for recreational users, post-construction

Environmental Health Officer:

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

Raises no objection, advising on required conditions relating to acceptable noise limitations and nature of noise permissible.

Ecology Officer:

11.12.13: Whilst not stating an objection, identifies serious concerns relating to the potential impacts on blanket bog habitat, which have been underestimated and not properly mitigated. Recommends conditions in all other regards.

Requires either a revised layout to minimise impact on habitat or compensatory measures for loss of habitat; either to be addressed prior to determination.

16.9.14: In relation to the FEI, notes changes made and welcomes some but questions others (relating to blanket bog habitat). Notes applicants’ 10.9.14 response to issues of habitat impact, which advise that impacts on blanket bog have been balanced against wider implications including visual impacts and engineered solutions.

Refers back to 2 options proposed in original consultation reply, which proposed mitigation by design or through compensation measures. Identifies remaining concerns about potential blanket bog habitat impacts. Requires mitigation to be agreed in principle prior to determination.

Identifies outstanding requirement to discuss measures for benefit of black grouse (developer has not contacted to date). Conditions re-stated as per original.

Flood Risk Officer:

No objection. Request is made for detailed drainage design/pollution mitigation to be submitted.

Landscape Architect:

No objection. Development considered primarily in relation to Local Plan Policy D4.

Highlights of this response would be as follows:

x site is within designated Special Landscape Area, therefore does not accord with Policy D4 Criterion 1 x site is within large scale upland setting, therefore accords with Policy D4 Criterion 2 x substantial surrounding landform exists which minimises external visibility of development to some extent, therefore accords fairly well with Criterion 3 x effects on high sensitivity receptors fairly limited, and effects on residences tolerable/acceptable, therefore Criterion 4 is largely satisfied x impacts on landscape character and wild land significant but not overriding, having regard to existing baseline (additional effects only); development acceptable in context of Criterion 5(i) x cumulative impacts with Glenkerie Extension, Clyde and Clyde Extension (coincident) and with Cloich (sequential) not significant enough to be overriding, therefore development accords with Criterion 5(iii)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(c)

Conclusion to this response reads:

“Glenkerie is a discrete site with good topographical containment that reduces impacts on surrounding receptors. This proposed extension would have impacts of a similar order and mostly concurrent so that both schemes would read together in the landscape as one development. As always, there are particular viewpoints where significant impacts can be anticipated but these seem to be very limited for this application.”

Archaeology Officer:

No objection. Raises no overriding concerns relating to heritage settings or underground/standing archaeology. Conditions are recommended for use if planning permission is granted which would help to protect/preserve the archaeological environment.

Confirms that heritage setting impacts relating to the Tripan’s Knowe monument are of moderate significance and that the appreciation and experience of the monument would be impacted by the development, but not in such a way that the impacts would be overriding.

Roads Planning Manager:

This consultee raises no objection, but recommends conditions if planning permission is granted, relating to:

x requirement for road condition surveys x requirement for Traffic Management Plan x management of public road network in terms of works required to accommodate abnormal loads x details of access widening/reinstatement (abnormal load transportation from A701)

Statutory Consultees

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA):

Requires conditions to be applied, otherwise response would constitute an objection. Main concerns of this consultee relate to:

x provision of a site specific EMP (Environmental Management Plan) via condition x provision of a Decommissioning and Restoration Plan for end of the development’s lifespan, via condition x peat management x impact on wetlands including peatlands

25.7.14: In response to FEI material, this consultee maintains it original position broadly, but identifies the following pertinent updated points:

x submitted peat management plan addresses some issues but not all – still some absent information requiring to be addressed via conditions x requirement to provide additional information relating to drainage management

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(c)

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH):

2.7.13: The original SNH response does not constitute an objection, but does describe a range of effects considered to be significant. A summary of the most pertinent matters covered would be as follows:

x development would increase landscape effects associated with the Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area (NSA) due to increased visibility and prominence of the wind farm, but none so adverse as to promote objection – moderately adverse effects on both landscape character and visual amenity in relation to the NSA x development would increase visibility of development as part of the Upper Tweedsmuir Special Landscape Area (SLA), in particular being potentially visible from the upper end of Holms Water Valley, in close proximity to the turbines; concerns but acknowledges that proposal generally accords with SNH advice about siting and design x no overriding concerns relating to visual effects of development on wild land designations – additional effects significant but acceptable x highlight particular concerns about the landscape and visual impacts associated with recreational use of Culter Fell (Viewpoint 16 in the ES), relating to turbines and ground level works - tracks and crane pads (overall approach agreeable but need mitigation in respect of tracks and crane pads, due to potential harmful visual effects) – requires further information relating to these potential effects, as they are not depicted or properly discussed within the ES x due to potential impacts on the River Tweed Special Area of Conservation (SAC), SBC is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation value; however, if the proposal is carried out strictly in accordance with the mitigation measures describes in the ES, the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the site x concerns relating to placement of turbines and infrastructure on blanket bog habitat (peatlands) – recommends revisions to scheme layout and/or relocation of development components – habitats permanently affected by development giving rise to reduced functionality as a carbon store, at odds with Scottish Government’s Biodiversity Strategy concern relating to the provision of another overhead power line in the Holms Water Valley (in addition to existing Glenkerie line and line bringing power to properties in the valley) x requires developer to consider submission of further information relating to concerns

7.8.14: Acknowledges that the FEI material was submitted in response to advice by SNH. Confirms that the FEI provides information regarding mitigation and management measures that would be put in place to address issues regarding visibility of access tracks, hardstandings, exposed rock faces and re-vegetation of bare ground. It also presents measures to reduce impacts on blanket bog habitat, including amendments to the design layout of aspects of the proposed development.

The following updated advice is of relevance to the application:

x identifies that impacts on blanket bog are likely to increase as a result of the revisions made to the layout (hardstanding areas)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(c)

x suggests that further re-consideration is given to placement of hardstandings x pleased to note that the substation proposed at Cocklie Rig Head has been deleted from the scheme (existing Glenkerie substation and control building to be extended instead) x pleased to note that amended design has relocated the construction compound and deleted the laydown area satisfactorily x pleased to note that the permanent met mast and associated track have been removed from the proposal x supports other proposals to reduce level of infrastructure proposed x supports generic proposals to minimise landscape and visual impacts of ground level items x gives advice relating to the nature of vegetating the constructed areas and drainage

Ministry of Defence:

6.6.13: Consultee objects to the application, on the grounds that development would interfere with Eskdalemuir Seismological Recording Station (turbine noise/vibration)

Advises on nature of required lighting to turbines if planning permission is granted.

23.6.14: Supplementary response following update of position relating to Eskdalemuir limitations: - the original objection was withdrawn, in the context of further investigation and conclusion by the Eskdalemuir Working Group.

Advises on requirement for condition covering notification of final proposals to MoD.

Historic Scotland:

12.6.13: Content with findings of ES in relation to impacts on nationally important assets other than for Tripan’s Knowe enclosure (scheduled monument). Reserves its view in relation to this asset until further information presented.

28.2.14: Supplementary response further to submission of information relating to Tripan’s Knowe scheduled monument. Confirms no objection in respect of impacts on this monument, nor does it identify any significant concerns.

16.7.14: No change to earlier position(s).

Upper Tweed Community Council:

18.6.13: Consultee raises an objection to the proposals on the following grounds:

x adverse and intrusive visual impact on Glenholm Valley x adverse visual impact from other locations, including many places in Upper Tweeddale National Scenic Area x uncertainty relating to accuracy of noise assessment in respect of nearby residences x concern relating to landscape and visual impacts of grid connection upon National Scenic Area (mentions requirement for undergrounding of cables)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(c)

Consultee also makes recommendations for condition requiring suitable bond for site restoration at decommissioning.

13.8.14: Overall position not altered, and raises specific concerns relating to nature of grid connection (landscape impacts).

Skirling Community Council:

Raises no objection to the proposal but asks that the new electrical line proposed for this phase is taken into account.

Manor, Stobo and Lyne Community Council:

Objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

x either inaccurate or incomplete ES with the consequence that visual and noise impacts of the development have not been properly assessed x likelihood that landscape and visual impacts would be major in relation to landscape assets x likelihood that noise output would not comply with noise limitations relating to unconnected parties x strong concerns relating to the potential impacts on the Upper Tweeddale NSA and the failure of the developer to successfully mitigate – impacts have not been minimised through design x landscape and visual assessment not fully reflective of the value and nature of the lower parts of the NSA, in particular routes utilised by walkers and cyclists (designated cycle route – B712 Dreva road) x assessment understates likely landscape and visual impacts – inaccuracy of data/presentation x no evidence within ES that benefits of development are of national importance (especially given proposed MW output from scheme) x noise assessment flawed as background noise includes Glenkerie turbines – not compliant with standard guidelines for noise assessment x data not properly/accurately assessed x noise likely to be significant problem at Glenkirk and other locations

RSPB:

26.7.13 – Raises no objection but identifies serious concerns relating to potential habitat impacts, in particular blanket bog. Further information and/or planning conditions requested in relation to peat management but initially proposed that the development layout is revised to ensure that effects on blanket bog are minimal (prior to determination).

Gives further advice about role of Ecological Clerk of works (ECoW) and requirements of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP).

Finally, advises in relation to birds and the need to ensure that the development is compatible with habitats, or mitigates to offset development effects.

20.8.14 – gives advice on a range of issues given coverage within the FEI material, and still has concerns relating to the impacts on blanket bog habitat. Mentions that infrastructure appears to have been moved into blanket bog or left in blanket bog when it could possibly be moved onto less sensitive ground.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(c)

Transport Scotland:

No objection, but recommends conditions relating to transportation/management of abnormal loads and nature of proposed signage/traffic control.

Edinburgh Airport:

No objection.

Scottish Water:

No objection. Gives advice for developer in case of development interacting with any public sewers or water mains.

Dumfries and Galloway Council:

No objection.

South Lanarkshire Council:

Identifies concerns relating to visual impacts of augmented development from some hill summits, especially Culter Fell which is an iconic landmark and a popular destination for hillwalkers. But confirms impacts are not significant enough to register a formal objection.

Scotways (Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society):

Unable to provide a response due to resource limitations.

Joint Radio Council:

No objection.

NERL:

Raises no safeguarding objection in relation to management of en route air traffic.

Scottish Badgers:

No comment.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SES Plan Strategic Development Plan 2013:

Policy 10 – Sustainable Energy Technologies

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011:

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4 – Flooding Policy G5 – Developer Contributions Policy BE2 – Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy NE3 – Local Biodiversity

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(c)

Policy NE5 – Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy EP1 – National Scenic Areas Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2 – Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Drainage Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development

Emerging Scottish Borders Local Development Plan:

Members are advised that the LDP is material to the consideration of the proposal but that at this stage the policies relating to renewable development should be given little weight. They have been subject to challenge through the Development Plan process and will be subject of an Inquiry by Scottish Ministers. Until the result of the Inquiry is published and the new LDP adopted by the Council the primary local policy document relevant to the application remains the adopted 2011 Local Plan.

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

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

x Renewable Energy (2007) x Wind Energy (2011) x Biodiversity (2005) x Local Landscape Designations (2012)

Scottish Government Policy and Guidance:

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (June 2014) National Planning Framework for Scotland (3) (June 2014)

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

Historic Scotland Publications:

Scottish Historic Environment Policy (2011)

SNH Publications:

Siting and designing windfarms in the landscape (2014) Assessing the cumulative impact of onshore wind energy developments

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: x land use planning policy principle x economic benefits attributable to the scheme x benefits arising in terms of renewable energy provision

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(c) x landscape and visual impacts including residential amenity visual impacts, arising from turbines and infrastructure x cumulative landscape and visual impacts with other wind energy developments x physical and setting impacts on cultural heritage assets x noise impacts x ecological, ornithological and habitat effects x impact on road safety and the road network x ice throw and shadow flicker x developer contributions

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Land Use Planning Policy Principle:

National, regional and local planning policy supports the principle of delivering renewable energy development via wind farms provided there are overriding environmental effects. Support should be given for well located and designed wind farms, in particular, if mitigation measures are in place to address environmental effects.

The new SPP 2014 confirms that consideration must be given to the suitability of a site in perpetuity rather than on a temporarily basis. This acknowledges the potential to re-power sites as they reach the end of their intended operational life.

The selected application site is adjacent to an operational wind farm, modest in terms of spread, turbine numbers and visual effects. In relation to its landscape and visual effects, the existing wind farm is considered to be a reasonable success. Despite its location in an area recognised for its landscape qualities, its placement in relation to the landscape that surrounds it has not given rise to issues of scale, prominence or dominance from many vantage points. It is visible as a prominent item briefly in passing on the A701 and features in the landscape from prominent locations in adjacent hills (for example, from Culter Fell) but in so doing is recognisable for its logical placement and arrangement. The scheme was revised to take account of concerns relating to visual effects, and includes use of two heights of turbine, to respond to the receiving environment (shorter turbines have been used on higher ground).

It is necessary to consider whether there is additional capacity adjacent to this existing wind farm site to accommodate additional turbines. There can be benefits in terms of minimising environmental effects if the development can make use of existing infrastructure and also limit the wider visual and landscape impacts of more sporadic forms of development.

This site is on upland farmland/moorland, is not within a National Scenic Area and has no other designations that would prevent the principle being considered. Designation of the wider area as a Special Landscape Area within the SBC Supplementary Guidance does not preclude consideration of the principle of wind energy development.

It should be noted that the site is situated within an area of Moderate Constraint (Higher) according to the SBC Wind Energy SPG adopted in 2010. Furthermore, the Holms Water Valley/Glenholm includes an Area of Significant Protection, and tracts of land between the site and the A701 are also shown to be of this status. The A701

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(c) has status as an Area of Significant Protection, which extends either side of the road to protect its visual environs.

Economic Benefits:

The renewable energy industry is important nationally, leads to employment and investment during construction and during the lifespan of the development.

This particular development does not offer such a high level of new activity that it stimulates a new range of economic benefits over and above those relating to the existing wind farm. However, it is likely that the level of employment activity in particular during construction would be important locally. This would have the potential to promote use of local facilities and services including accommodation, shopping and recreation. Following implementation of development, it would be likely that a relatively low level of employee activity would occur on a day-to-day basis. Activity would increase again at the decommissioning stage.

Whether the implementation of wind farms has negative impacts on local economies (or, indeed national economies) in terms tourism, is a matter still under scrutiny by various parties. Scottish Borders is visited because of its attractiveness and the recreational opportunities it offers. Whether the implementation of wind farms is harming, or has harmed Borders’ tourism economy is unproven. It would be true to state, however, that their implementation divides opinion – the presence of wind farms causes some to be deterred, some to be ambivalent and some to respond positively. At the present time, there is no creditable published information describing potential tourism effects as being significantly detrimental.

It is concluded that in terms of economic benefits, there would be some potential gain, but that this is not so significant as to be a major determining factor.

Benefits arising in terms of renewable energy provision:

The existing Glenkerie Wind Farm provides an output of 22MW to the national grid – 2MW per turbine. The proposed Glenkerie Extension would provide an output of up to 15MW to add to the existing 22MW, on the basis that each turbine would have the potential to generate 2.5MW. The total then would be 37MW.

This proposed additional generating capacity is a modest contribution to national targets. In a recent decision by the DPEA Reporter on the appeal at Barrel Law, near Roberton in Borders (a comparable scheme – 8 turbines generating up to 24MW – ref. PPA-140-2046), the significance of such contributions raised interesting dialogue. Paragraphs 37 and 38 (‘Benefits of the Proposal’) of the decision follow:

“37. Barrel Law would have an installed capacity of up to 24 megawatts. The Scottish Government target for renewable electricity generation is for renewables to generate the equivalent of 100 per cent of gross annual consumption by 2020, with an interim target of 50 per cent by 2015. The latest statistics published in June 2014 indicate that in 2013, around 46.6 per cent of Scotland’s electricity needs came from renewables. The 100 per cent target roughly equates to 16 gigawatts of installed capacity (all technologies, onshore and marine), of which the Barrel Law turbines could contribute 0.15%. This would be a small but useful contribution.

38. However, the recent statistics indicate that 6.8 gigawatts of capacity was operational in March 2014, with a further 6.5 gigawatts under construction or consented, giving a total of 13.3 gigawatts and leaving only an additional 2.7

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(c) gigawatts required by 2020 to meet the target. Against that, proposals for 7.2 gigawatts were in planning, more than two and a half times the amount needed to close the gap. I accept that some of these proposals will be at an early stage and might not be capable of completion by 2020, and that some will fail to win approval. However, others have been approved since March. I also accept that the target is not a cap, and that any additional capacity will help to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions. However, the rate of progress and the availability of alternatives suggest that the weight that should be given to Barrel Law’s contribution is not as great as it would have been with a larger shortfall against the target, or a lack of other schemes.”

Although the appeal decision primarily reflects one Reporter’s opinion, it brings into sharp focus the significance of the contributions that would be made by small wind farm proposals, such as Glenkerie Extension, when weighed against the potential environmental effects that may arise .

Landscape and visual impacts

The existence of the present operational Glenkerie windfarm is highly significant in terms of how the potential landscape and visual impacts are assessed. The baseline contains a scheme of 11 turbines and, although from certain vantage points the visibility of the wind farm is highly significant, generally its landscape and visual effects are limited and tolerable. The receiving environs are sensitive due to their attractiveness and relationship with the surrounding landscape, but the existing wind farm has not overwhelmed the landscape and uses topography well to enable some harmony, in a visual sense.

Further, although less significant, is the way in which the proposal relates to other operational, consented and proposed developments as listed earlier in this report. In particular, the proximity of the Clyde Wind Farm and its approved extension are of relevance. For example, the walked approach to Culter Fell from the north (at Coulter) involves various views of Clyde and the Clyde Extension areas. The experience of this locality in terms of wind farm presence includes the wider visual environment – relationships between wind farms exist and are noticeable. Glenkerie is a distinctive, small wind farm in a fairly well-contained location whereas Clyde is a very large wind farm, prominent and dominant of its receiving landscape(s). There is therefore a juxtapositional relationship between these types of development which has the potential to erode landscape character and distinctiveness jointly.

In addition, the A701 is sensitive to the landscape and visual effects of wind farms observed and experienced sequentially. None of the schemes at Hag Law, Earlshaugh, Cloich or Whitelaw Brae have been consented and yet if one or more receive consent, the experience for travellers along the sensitive A701 tourist route into Scotland will change and Glenkerie Extension (and the existing Glenkerie) will combine to cause joint effects.

The proposal gives rise to issues relating to the setting of heritage receptors and of residential receptors, several of which would encounter a significant level of visual change. It is likely that in most cases the additional visual effects of Glenkerie Extension would add to current visibility of the Glenkerie turbines; although in certain cases there may be a high level of change based very much on the visual impacts of the proposal, notwithstanding what is there now.

At pre-application stage the existing Glenkerie Wind Farm had` turbines on the high points between its current location and Glenholm valley. Turbines were proposed on Broomy Law, Glenlood Hill, Middle Head and Blakehope Head. In Figure 2.1 of the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5(c) original ES submitted under ref. 07/02478/FUL, it can be seen that Design A Layout, which included these highest turbines, was soon revised to draw them off the ridge and reduce landscape impacts. Design Layouts I, G and R all exclude these highest turbines and the highest turbines ended up being 105m tip height. All of the turbines proposed for the Extension have jumped onto, or over that high point and relate more to the Glenholm Valley.

This area is used for recreation by walkers, runners, cyclists, horseriders and others simply visiting. Access to this part of the Southern Uplands is excellent, is promoted and includes a range of established public paths in addition to areas which lend themselves to public access more broadly. The site has a visual interrelationship with the Upper Tweed National Scenic Area to the north-east, from which several of the photomontages submitted as part of the ES are taken and discussed in text. Well- known hilltop destinations have a visual link to the existing and proposed turbines. Culter Fell, Trahenna, Cardon Hill, Pykestone, Broad Law, Tinto Hill are examples of this.

The ES is supported by a range of montages and wirelines intended to represent potential visibility and associated impacts. There follows discussion relating to a number of these viewpoints where landscape and visual effects are most noteworthy:

Viewpoint 1 – B7016, West of Broughton:

This viewpoint is situated just under 8.5km to the north of the nearest turbines, and despite what is portrayed in the submitted montages, two of the existing turbines are easily seen ‘overtipping’ the horizon; the hubs of both are visible above the horizon. It displays landscape effects, rather than visual.

This is a useful viewpoint although the nature of the potential effects is unusual because it effectively frames a small hill upon which the presence of turbines would be highly noticeable, but only from a limited range of locations. The small hill would become characterised by turbines, which would sit on top of the dome; however, when the effect and scale of the development is related to the wider landform, the additional effects are not harmful as the entire development is shown to be well contained by topography. The development relates well to its receiving environs and would not be dominant.

Viewpoint 2 – Glencotho:

The effects from this viewpoint are a combination of visual and landscape. The viewpoint represents the environs of residences at Glencotho – not in terms of individual homes but in terms of the approach to Glencotho and to other houses/holdings beyond to the south-west (Glenkirk, Holms Waterhead). It gives also an understanding of the relationship of the valley with the existing and proposed development.

The existing Glenkerie turbines are highly visible on approach to this location – at least three of them. Existing turbines sit on the lower ridge to the left of Glencotho properties quite prominently.

The additional turbines would be 1.35km from the viewpoint location at their nearest, and would change the setting significantly. The montage and wireframe show how a further 3 turbines would be visible on the hill (Barrow Rig) behind the properties; the left-hand turbine (T6, the southernmost turbine) would appear on top of the hill with its entire rotor area and a substantial upper section of the support column visible. T5

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5(c) and T4 would also be highly noticeable although their visual effects are lesser as less of each turbine is visible above the skyline. Nonetheless, these effects are significant and not harmonious with the setting – turbines would ideally not be seen to sit on the peak of what appears as a small hill in this context. Whereas the existing Glenkerie turbines sit lower than Barrow Rig (and Benshaw Hill in the left of the picture) and are therefore contextualised in terms of scale relationships, the new turbines, in particular T6, compete with topography and jump out of the picture.

These effects are repeated in proximity to Glenkirk and Holms Waterhead, as demonstrated in the wireline drawings forming part of the FEI. But they also draw out potential issues relating to the setting of Glenholm, as it provides the characterful environs for these few dwellings. The valley is also valued for its recreational associations. The proposed development would cause interplay between the wind farm and recreation to increase. The intimacy of the valley would be impacted to some degree.

Viewpoint 3 – John Buchan Way (above Broughton):

From this viewpoint at around 11km, effects relate to landscape rather than visual concerns. Users of the John Buchan Way travelling south-west towards its conclusion at Broughton are indulged with a striking view down the Glen lying west of Trahenna towards the destination. Beyond, on the phase of hills in the back of the picture, the existing Glenkerie turbines are visible whereas the proposed extension would increase visibility.

The viewpoint is situated within the Upper Tweed National Scenic Area. The scenic experience is reflected in the montage and a site visit revealed there to be a channelled, picturesque view towards the intended site.

The scale of the landscape in the foreground is such that it dominates the view. The next phases further away add complexity and enhance the view. The turbines would increase prominence of development and would detract from the scenic quality of the view as they rise above the horizon and do not benefit from as good containment as the existing turbines.

However, despite the sensitivity of the location and the effects on the experience of its users, at this distance it is unlikely that the effects would be overwhelming. The turbines would relate well to the scale of the receiving landscape and would not be dominant although they would be quite visible on clear days.

Viewpoint 5 – Trahenna:

Trahenna is a well known and visited hilltop forming part of the Broughton Heights and with a strong association with the John Buchan Way. Its summit was visited on a site visit on a clear day in 2013. The effects from this location, at a little over 10km, are again more landscape than visual.

From this summit within the NSA, the southern panorama includes a number of other wind farms and will include others, in particular now that Clyde Extension has been consented. The skyline is, and will be occupied by a number of large commercial schemes including Middlemuir and Andershaw in the right hand of the picture and Clyde both left and right of the Glenkerie site.

However, what is noticeable in this montage is how the Glenkerie extension jumps in front of the horizon unlike any other scheme, including Earlshaugh. This may not be

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 5(c) a determining factor, given the distance of the viewpoint and the relatively limited contribution Glenkerie Extension makes to the cumulative picture, but nonetheless it is an unfortunate characteristic of the development, in particular because this is as observed from the NSA.

Viewpoint 7 – Road between Dreva and Alterstone:

This is another viewpoint at a range of approx. 10km and also within the NSA north- east of the site. It complements the two previous viewpoints and shows that the turbines are less topographically contained than the existing Glenkerie turbines. The potential effect is on the landscape character of the Southern Uplands here when viewed from this location. It is sensitive to change because of its NSA status in particular; the montage confirms the positivity of the view. However, at this distance, the sweeping of a few blades over the horizon is likely to be a negligible effect, only visible on the clearest of days.

Viewpoint 8 – Pykestone Hill:

This viewpoint is located on a substantial hill at a trig-point 737m above sea level. It gives excellent elevation and again is in the NSA. The effects are on landscape character, which is defined by the rise and fall of the series of hills on the horizon around 9km away.

The existing Glenkerie wind farm is clearly visible occupying a logical position utilising the hills as backdrop and scale reference, but not projecting above the skyline. The relationship of the existing development to its environs is reasonable, with the broad scale of the wider landscape having the visual capacity to soak up the greater part of the visual effect.

The visualisations clearly show how the proposal comes further away from the horizon, but also how it appears to leak down the slopes in the foreground of Glenkerie. This is a significant incremental impact on the landscape, which has the potential to erode landscape character as it occupies a wider area not so well contained by topography. It spills away from the existing development pattern more significantly than Glenkerie wind farm by appearing to jump forward into the next phase of landscape/hill-ridge.

However, the modest scale of the development is such that its broadening of effects can be accommodated due to the scale of the landscape and the absence of a dominating effect. It is evident from this view however, that further development would be unlikely to harmonise with the locus.

Viewpoint 9 – Kingledores Farm on A701:

The results of this very useful viewpoint, which gives the clearest view to the existing windfarm of all viewpoints at close quarters (2.7km) along the A701, are to demonstrate that the additional visual effects would be minimal. From here, but only for a very limited time in passing, Glenkerie is prominent and has a substantial effect on the locality. However, this would not noticeably change with the installation of Glenkerie Extension. The additional visual impacts would be minimal.

Viewpoint 10 – Broad Law:

Broad Law is the highest hill peak in Borders. The montages show how clearly the existing wind farm can be seen from this elevation and distance of 8km. Due in part

Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 5(c) to the elevation and in part to the nature of the view, a wide panorama of the landscape is visible from here. It is a promoted hilltop destination for walkers in particular (despite the presence of the transmission beacon on top).

Cumulative material in particular is of interest as it shows most clearly the range of operational and consented developments, especially Clyde and Clyde Extension.

To some extent it shows the similar effects as seen from Viewpoint 8 at Pykestone Hill. The existing Glenkerie development and the extension leak out by increment from the highest ground, although in this view Glenkerie Extension appear behind, and higher than Glenkerie.

A specific impact on landscape character occurs from this location. The two turbines at the southern end (T1 and T2) sit in front of the southern flanks of Culter Fell, which may be argued to challenge the hill’s primacy. It is considered to be an important, characterful and distinctive hill; its setting sensitive to change.

It must be considered whether the additional landscape impacts, in particular this effect on Culter Fell, are overriding. This kind of effect is significant and undesirable, but in itself may not be so harmful as to preclude support of the scheme. The significance of the relationship between Broad Law and Culter Fell is not known, and while there is intervisibility between them, as the turbines do not obliterate views to Culter Fell they do not challenge its primacy in the view and therefore may, on balance, not be overriding.

Viewpoint 16 – Culter Fell:

Culter Fell is a highly significant viewpoint, representing not only the hill itself, renowned as a walkers’ destination and described as an Iconic Viewpoint in publications by SBC, but also representing the wider line of ridges within which it resides. It is situated a little over 2.5km north-west of the proposed turbines, right on the border between Scottish Borders and South Lanarkshire. It is a distinctive high- point in the Southern Uplands and provides highly scenic views across Tweedsmuir and the ranges of hills beyond. It has been visited as part of the planning appraisal by officers of SBC and Scottish Natural Heritage.

From this viewpoint, the existing Glenkerie development is highly visible. However, its layout and spacing are agreeable. It relates well to the hills upon which it is built and has a good scale relationship with the landscape. None of the turbines come closer to Culter Fell than the ridge defined by Broomy Law and Glenlood Hill. No existing ground-level infrastructure (tracks, pads, cuttings) is visible from this point.

Although not accurately depicted in the montages, some of the turbines and ground level infrastructure for Glenkerie Extension jump over the ridge and come down the slopes of Coomb Hill, Glenlood and Broomy Law. At least 5 of the 6 turbines proposed has its base on the Culter Fell side of the ridge, meaning that whatever happens at ground level is likely to form part of the view. This has the potential to cause an overriding landscape impact.

Hence, the developer was asked to describe the likely effects and mitigation, which has been considered in the Further Environmental Information received in June 2014. Although not depicted in further montages, a range of mitigation including cut/fill strategies and seeding provides adequate confirmation that infrastructure facing towards this viewpoint can be constructed in such a way that landscape

Planning and Building Standards Committee 20 Item No. 5(c) impacts are mitigatable. The revised consultation response of SNH acknowledges this.

It is worth noting that the line of the tracks serving the turbines generally follows the contours of the slopes. This provides the opportunity to use the slope to contain the tracks as the route does not generally cut across the contours. The track line is excavated, the excess material re-used to put a ‘lip’ on the lower edge of the track and the track is constructed in the shallow gully made by excavating the pit.

This is not a perfect solution to the potential landscape impacts of track placement on the downslopes of the hills in the picture. It seems likely that whatever is done to mitigate, the tracks will be visible to some extent, especially when they are first constructed and vegetation has not had time to take effect and soften visual impacts. Where the track loops down from T2 to T3 in particular raises concern because the viewer standing at Culter Fell would potentially have a steeper viewing angle and therefore be able to look onto the tracks even if cut into the slope. It would have been helpful to have seen a revised montage showing the likely visibility of the tracks from this viewpoint.

Overall, however, with the right mitigation in place (the principles of which have successfully been established within the FEI) it is considered that the type of effects experienced from Culter Fell would be manageable and not overriding. Further detail would be required to give full confidence that the implemented scheme would address outstanding concerns and fully mitigate; it is considered that it would be reasonable and appropriate to deal with this outstanding detail by way of condition if planning permission is granted.

Visual Impacts Relating to Residential Amenity:

It should first be noted that neither the existing wind farm, nor the proposed extension would impact significantly on any residential settlement or village. It is considered that the visual impacts may affect either individual residences or small groups of dwellings in farmstead locations.

Residential amenity impacts have been given coverage within the FEI. A range of properties have been analysed. Comment in relation to each where the additional impact is significant would be as follows:

Glenkirk:

This individual residence is situated under 0.9km from the nearest turbine. It is situated on low lying land just north of Holms Water, to the north-east of the site. The view to the development is uphill, to Glenlood Hill over Barrow Rig. Residents would encounter a clear view of 4 of the turbines, those being 2, 4, 5 and 6 on the highest ground.

At this short distance and with the turbines in an elevated position, the visual impacts would be substantial and potentially adverse. For residents of Glenkirk, this high level of turbine visibility would be new, because none of the Glenkerie turbines are visible. The new visibility occurs because the turbines are coming over the next hill, whereas Glenkerie is screened by topography.

As reflected in the consultation reply of the SBC Landscape Architect, the potential impacts for Glenkirk are likely to be the most significant purely in terms of the relationship of the turbines to the receptor. The sensitivity of the property is high; the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 Item No. 5(c) effects would be substantial and adverse. Whether this, in the broader picture, is an overriding factor in making a recommendation, remains to be seen. It must be noted that the residents at Glenkirk House have not submitted a representation. However, this must not be taken as an indicator that the effects cannot be taken into account.

Glenhighton:

This residence is situated approximately 2.7km north of the nearest turbine back along the Holms Water valley. The wireline drawing shows how the support column of one turbine, the rotor areas of three turbines and the blades of two would be theoretically visible (total of five turbines visible). From most of the house and immediate grounds, the view up the valley to the turbines would be screened by trees at this time. It should be noted that Glenhighton is unusual in that it has a broad curtilage with adjoining fields, large planted areas and buildings being used together with the principle dwelling. From certain areas within this broader curtilage, including the main approach from the south-east along the drive, the turbines would come into view behind in the valley setting. The trees currently providing screening will at some point in the near future (and certainly within the lifetime of the development) need management, which will involve felling and thinning. These operations would reduce the screening effect and increase visibility of the development in relation to Glenhighton.

The owners/occupiers of Glenhighton have strongly objected to the proposal, in so doing citing potential impacts on Glenholm: the wider environs of Glenhighton within which they own land much closer to the development (for example, near to Glenkirk). The Glenholm/Holms Water Valley is an attractive place and therefore the potential landscape effects of the development are to be taken into consideration. In most circumstances, it would not be appropriate to consider how the turbines might impact visually on all land owned by a particular landowner. Focus should remain on the impacts to the dwelling and the environs used on a day-to-day basis as part of that residence; this tends to include the approach to the dwelling, but not land generally in agricultural use and distant from the dwelling.

Holms Waterhead:

This is the last dwelling reached when travelling north-west up Glenholm. It can only be reached by vehicles crossing fields and has no formal tracks to access it as they peter out around 500m away. It has a sense of remoteness with it as it stands at the end of the valley looking back down it along the Holms Water, and is seen as the last point of occupation before the valley rises into hills at its north-west end.

From the dwelling, no existing turbines are visible. Notwithstanding the large stand of Scots Pine that is situated on Glenlood Hill above the dwelling, and contrary to what is depicted in the wireline drawing within the FEI, theoretical visibility does not exist. The wireline drawing is therefore misleading as it suggests the dwelling already encounters a level of visibility whereas the effects of Glenkerie Extension would be entirely new. To see the nearest turbine the track heading south from the dwelling must be ascended by about 150 metres distanceon foot.

The dwelling is owned by the landowner party to the proposal. That does not mean that the potential future relationship between the dwelling and the turbines should not be considered. However, it may be influential to the recommendation.

The potential impacts at Patervan and Kingledores Farm do not change significantly, mainly because the existing Glenkerie Wind Farm is closer and more prominent.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 22 Item No. 5(c)

In relation to Glenkirk, Glencotho and Holms Waterhead, the development promotes a high new level of visibility at distances where the presence of the turbines is very noticeable. Residents of Glencotho would co-exist with turbines close to the setting, on the hill behind the hamlet. Residents at Glenkirk and Holms Waterhead would experience a very high level of change with turbines within 900m and set above them on the ridge where presently no turbines are seen. Other residential amenity impacts relating to the dwellings and their close environs (for example, Glenhighton) are unlikely to be overriding, taking into consideration distance, topography and vegetation present.

The potential impacts at Glenkirk, Glencotho and Holms Waterhead are highly significant in their own rights and would be adverse, potentially overbearing. This issue must be considered very carefully in the wider context of the application.

Visual Impacts Relating to Cultural Heritage:

The visual impacts relating to the setting of heritage assets is quite limited in this instance. Both heritage specialists agree that there are no overriding, or highly significant issues arising. The single scheduled monument of note is Tripan’s Knowe, situated north-west of the site. It is clear that any setting impacts would not be overriding, although of some significance.

The summary position in relation to this setting concern is that although 5 of the turbines would be highly visible at less than 700m, the monument has its close associations with the valley, not the hills. Therefore, although the visual impact would be substantial, it would not prejudice the ability to understand or experience the monument overwhelmingly.

Physical Impacts on Cultural Heritage:

As reflected in the consultation response of the SBC Archaeology Officer, the site has the potential to contain archaeology and it would therefore be necessary to establish an archaeological regime to be implemented via conditions. There are no matters of such importance that they would otherwise influence the recommendation.

Impacts on Residential Amenity Arising from Noise:

In this respect, the planning department takes its specialist advice from the Environmental Health Officer. On this occasion, it has been indicated that no significant noise issues have arisen. Conditions can be applied which would enable noise to be limited and monitored.

It is likely that the turbines would be audible from residential receptors in some weather conditions and depending on wind movement carrying the turbine noise. During a recent site visit to Holms Waterhead the noise from swishing blades of one of the nearest existing turbines was clearly audible. However, no concerns have been identified relating to the quality of the data submitted and therefore this is unlikely to influence the recommendation other than in respect of conditions.

Ecological, Ornithological and Habitat Effects:

Generally in this context, the extension to Glenkerie does not promote concerns that would preclude support being given to the development principle. In relation to

Planning and Building Standards Committee 23 Item No. 5(c) species of bird, animal and reptile interacting with the site, it is possible to mitigate via suitable conditions that would cover environmental and habitat management.

However, there remains uncertainty about the effects of development on habitat due to the placement and construction of turbines, tracks and hardstandings, primarily because the underlying ground is established bog/peat habitat which is sensitive to change. Several of the turbines, tracks and hardstandings are proposed within areas identified as bog habitat. This is reflected in the drawing ref. Figure B1 ‘Proposed Site Layout Overlaid onto Blanket Bog Habitat’, within the 2014 FEI.

According to this Figure, each turbine has either its base or its associated hardstanding within either degraded or intact bog:

x T1: Hardstanding partially on degraded bog x T2: Turbine and hardstanding within degraded bog x T3: Turbine and hardstanding on edge of degraded bog x T4: Turbine and hardstanding on edge of intact bog x T5: Turbine and hardstanding within intact bog x T6: Turbine on edge and hardstanding within intact bog

Prior to revision of the scheme, less of the infrastructure was on bog habitat. Hardstandings, in particular in the case of T1 and T4, have been relocated onto bog. This has raised some concern from specialists including SNH, who recommended revisions to the layout to minimise any impacts on bog in considering the original scheme. A substantial proportion of the tracks dissect both types of bog, more so intact than degraded.

Within the SPP adopted by Scottish Government in June 2014, the status of carbon rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat is elevated to Group 2. This is confirmed in Table 1, following Paragraph 166.These habitats now identify with Areas of Significant Protection. This resonates with the concerns of the SBC Ecology Officer, of the RSPB and SNH who, despite the mitigation measures proposed all remain anxious about the siting of development within the peat areas.

The developer has clearly weighed the significance of one set of environmental effects against another, and has followed a course of mitigation in terms of landscape and visual effects over those relating to habitat impacts.

Mitigation is proposed in relation to construction on peat/bog habitat, which is helpful insofar as it would enable reduction of impacts in the event of the development being built. It is not considered to address all concerns however, as reflected in the SBC Ecology Officer response. For example, habitat enhancement is not proposed on or off-site. This is likely to be a requirement of any wind farm consent, but in particular where habitat is more sensitive, as in this case.

It is noted that the site is not subject to any nature designations, and that the habitat is not nationally significant. Some uncertainty remains in relation to this issue, which influence the planning recommendation. However, it seems likely that suitable mitigation (whatever form that may take, including Micrositing if possible) is achievable which would offset impacts to a notable extent. It will be necessary for the planning authority also to weigh the benefits of improving landscape and visual effects over habitat effects, but in so doing to require good mitigation to bring balance to the scheme. Conditions should be able to address outstanding biodiversity concerns.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 24 Item No. 5(c)

Impact on Road Safety and the Road Network:

There are no overriding concerns relating to transportation. The extension would utilise existing infrastructure. The existing access would be widened then restored to its present form (this is similar to activity during implementation of the existing development).

Ice Throw and Shadow Flicker:

Although neither of these potential concerns are overriding, it would be appropriate to apply conditions in the event of planning permission being granted, to ensure that mitigation is in place.

Developer Contributions:

Having regard to the nature of the development and its predominantly occurring effects, i.e. those which are most significant to the recommendation of the application, it is considered that it would be appropriate to seek developer contributions in respect of the following matters, in the event of consent being granted:

x financial contribution towards the upkeep and maintenance of the public path network and areas of public access in particular where those paths/areas relate to important walking destinations and are most impacted by the development x off-site habitat enhancement, should that prove to be necessary to adequately compensate and mitigate if development goes ahead.

CONCLUSION:

The Glenkerie Extension proposal, like other windfarm proposals, gives rise to benefits and disbenefits in terms of the environmental impacts it would cause. It would make a small, but useful contribution to Scottish Government’s energy targets and would bring about a modicum of economic benefit, but on a strategic level the contribution is modest.

In terms of landscape and visual impacts, although from most vantage points the extension would not promote a significantly different effect on landscape character, it does give rise to some new effects and the resultant development would be more prominent (and less well contained by topography) than what now exists. Visual impacts relating to Glenkirk, Glencotho and Holms Waterhead are substantial and potentially overbearing, whereas the development does not poorly interact with any settlements of more than one or two dwellings.

Cumulative landscape and visual impacts are likely to be fairly insubstantial at this stage, especially having regard to the existence of Clyde Wind Farm and the approval of Clyde Extension. Sequential cumulative impacts are not made noticeably worse with the addition of the six turbines, having particular regard to users of the A701. The existing baseline provides for a modest extension to be delivered without changing the overall level of impact on landscape character.

Issues not fully, but partially resolved include mitigation in respect of landscape effects when the site is viewed from the west (in particular from Culter Fell) and in respect of habitat impacts. There are still significant concerns about impact on

Planning and Building Standards Committee 25 Item No. 5(c) bog/peat which specialist consultees indicate should be mitigated and/or resolved within the planning process.

Glenkerie Extension seems, on balance, to be a reasonable proposal, in relation to which adverse environmental impacts are fairly limited. One of the characteristics of the proposal is that it pushes out over existing topography into a new valley; this was a constraint when the original wind farm was designed/proposed, which helped inform the design of the existing wind farm. The existing baseline, which is more complex than it was when Glenkerie was under consideration must be taken into account. With the effects in place, it gives an opportunity to reconsider whether it is possible to augment, while at the same time not causing overwhelming new effects. In the broader picture, this proposal is successful in that respect. All specialist consultees discussing landscape and visual impacts agree that from a design, landscape and visual impact position the proposal is likely to be broadly acceptable.

The aforementioned residential amenity effects are highly concerning but are not considered to be overriding, having regard to all other aspects of the scheme. If the relationship of the development to Holms Waterhead and Glencotho (dwellings) is considered in the light of those dwellings being within the landowner’s ownership, in effect it reduces the significance of visual effects relating to those properties. Holms Waterhead is presently a retreat purely for use by the landowner for Glenkerie Extension; Glencotho is a tenanted residence owned by the same landowner. The effects on Glenhighton are tangible but unlikely to be overwhelming with the nearest turbine at 2.7km distance and with opportunities for trees always to provide some level of screening at and around the dwelling.

That leaves the effects on Glenkirk to be considered. The potential visual effects are substantial and adverse. Residents within Glenkirk would always be highly aware of the turbines moving on the horizon above if visibility (weather) were to allow, within 1km. The effects would be overbearing and would diminish the level of attractiveness of Glenkirk as a place to live. It must be noted that there are no objections submitted by the property owners.

The owners of Glenhighton also own much of the remaining land and a small traditional bothy at Glenkirk which it has been indicated would at some point be converted to a dwelling (although planning permission at this time is not ‘extant’). But again, this in itself is unlikely to give rise to a sustainable reason to refuse the development.

With these last issues relating to residential amenity impacts being the only potentially overriding issues relating to the project as a whole, on balance, it is considered that they would not be significant enough to outweigh the merits of the scheme. None of the future relationships between dwellings within the Glenholm Valley and the Glenkerie Extension are so untenable that relationship impacts would be overriding. All other effects would be acceptable, mitigatable or tolerable, not forgetting the requirement to view positively schemes such as this unless the level of environmental effects decrees otherwise. On this occasion, the balance favours support of the development principle, as long as outstanding matters are carefully handled via conditions.

Lastly, although the Glenholm Valley is acknowledged to be sensitive to visual change and, as a result of this development would be adversely impacted to some extent, the level of impact would be tolerable. Relatively few users and/or residents (for example, compared to the users and residents on or adjacent to the A701) would be subjected to these impacts.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 26 Item No. 5(c)

RECOMMENDATION BY SERVICE DIRECTOR (REGULATORY SERVICES):

I recommend the application is approved subject to a legal agreement addressing contribution towards (i) upkeep/enhancement of the public path network; and (ii) habitat management and enhancement, and the following conditions:

Commencement and Conformity:

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Planning Authority, which are contained within the Environmental Statement submitted with the application or as modified by the conditions set out in this notice or otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Clarification/Mitigation:

3. Notwithstanding the details shown within any submission received to date, either forming part of the original ES or the subsequent FEI, no part of the development or any enabling works shall commence until a site specific scheme relating to mitigation of ground level works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, which shall include the following: x detailed photomontaged material relating to Culter Fell Viewpoint No. 16, identifying the appearance of the wind farm including ground level infrastructure (tracks, hardstandings, cut/fill/slope works) x detailed cut/fill track and hardstanding construction proposals corresponding with a mapped Zone of Theoretical Visibility exclusively for ground level works x detailed site specific habitat management proposals relating in particular to disturbance of bog habitats, and including the ground level water environment downslope of the development x detailed site specific drainage management plan x refined restoration, planting and seeding (and related maintenance) in respect of ground level disturbance/management The planning permission shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the scheme approved in response to this condition. Reason: these detailed matters have not been fully resolved within the submitted ES/FEI and will require to be given further, more detailed consideration to ensure that development is environmentally compatible with the site and its environs.

Siting, Design and Appearance:

4. 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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 27 Item No. 5(c) turbine shall be utilised unless written approval has been obtained from the planning authority. Reason: for the avoidance of doubt, as a candidate turbine been included in the application.

5. The overall height of the wind turbines shall not exceed 100 metres 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 60m unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. 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.

6. Prior to the commencement of development, the confirmed windfarm 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 for its approval. The layout shall be provided on an adequately detailed plan which includes contours. The layout drawing shall take account of any micrositing requirements identified within the Environmental Statement and any re-siting requirements required in response to on- site findings. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the planning authority, the development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details included in the drawings approved in response to this condition. 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.

7. 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: this information has not yet been fully clarified in the Environmental Statement. It is important that this information is provided to enable the planning authority to fully understand the visual impact of the development proposal.

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

Safety:

9. 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.

Decommissioning:

10. This permission shall expire and the development hereby permitted shall be removed thereafter in accordance with this condition after a period of 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from any of the wind turbines to the electricity grid network (“First Export Date”). Written confirmation of the First Export

Planning and Building Standards Committee 28 Item No. 5(c)

Date shall be provided to the Planning Authority within 1 month of the First Export Date.

No later than 18 months prior to the end of the planning permission, or by such later date as may be agreed by the Planning Authority, a method statement for the decommissioning of the wind farm and the restoration of the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This method statement shall include the removal of the above-ground elements of the development, the treatment of ground surfaces, management and timing of the works, environmental management provisions and a traffic management plan to address any traffic issues during the decommissioning period. Decommissioning in accordance with the approved method statement shall be completed within 6 months of the end of the period of this planning permission or any alternative timescale agreed with the Planning Authority in writing and shall include the dismantling and removal from the site of all turbines, buildings and ancillary development. Reason: To ensure an indicative scheme is submitted by the wind farm operator and approved by the Planning Authority for the decommissioning of the wind farm at the end of its 25 year proposed lifespan.

Financial Provisions (Restoration)

11. No development shall commence until details of the financial provisions, including the amount of the financial provisions and the name/details of the financial provisions provider, to be put in place to cover the costs of decommissioning and site restoration shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Once approved, documentary evidence that the approved financial provisions are in place (including mechanisms for periodic review {every fifth year of operation} to ensure they are adequate to cover costs) shall be submitted to the planning authority. Thereafter, the approved financial provisions must be kept in place until they are required to complete site decommissioning and restoration in accordance with the DMS. Reason: To secure decommissioning and reinstatement in the event of unforeseen circumstances, to ensure that environmental impacts arising from the development are acceptably reversed.

Turbine Failure/Removal:

12. 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 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, 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 6 months of the removal of the turbine, or any such longer period agreed by the Planning Authority. 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:

13. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority, the turbines and anemometry mast shall be fitted with permanent infrared aviation lighting at a point in

Planning and Building Standards Committee 29 Item No. 5(c) time, and of a specification that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority, who will first consult with the Ministry of Defence. Reason: in the interests of aviation safety.

14. Prior to the erection of the first wind turbine, the developer shall provide written confirmation to the Local Planning Authority and the Ministry of Defence of the anticipated date of commencement of and completion of construction; the maximum height above ground level of construction equipment, the position of each wind turbine in latitude and longitude and the maximum height above ground level of each turbine and anemometry mast. 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.

Signage:

15. 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.

16. 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:

17. 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: x detailed design of the widening of the existing access/junction with the A701 for the abnormal deliveries followed by reinstatement to its current size and condition once the abnormal loads have been delivered x management of abnormal vehicle movements and other associated construction traffic movements (including trial runs following agreed road widening works); x date and time schedules for delivery of all components of the development involving abnormal loads; x 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; x all new signage identifying to road users the presence of the site, access and potential to encounter construction traffic; x wheel washing facilities at the site access. 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.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 30 Item No. 5(c)

Rights of Way:

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

Ecology & Ornithology:

19. Prior to the commencement of any works or development on the site, supplementary/checking surveys for protected species (including ‘Schedule 1’ birds, otter, badger, nests of all breeding birds) shall be carried out by a suitably qualified person or persons in a manner appropriate to the phasing of the development. The results of these surveys should be used to inform construction activities and any required mitigation proposals for protected species on the site, which shall be agreed with the Planning Authority and strictly adhered to in the course of development. Reason: To ensure that species protected by law are not harmed as a result of the development taking place.

20. Prior to the commencement of any works or development on the site a Species Mitigation and Management Plan (including an Ecological Mitigation Statement) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All on-site works and development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan. Reason: to ensure that reasonable protection is given to biodiversity on and utilising the site.

21. A Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) monitoring programme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to commencement of the development. The programme should include bat, badger, otter, breeding and wintering bird (especially black grouse/’Schedule 1’ birds) and habitat surveys and details of location/phasing of the monitoring. Reason: to ensure that the protected species are afforded due protection and to enable greater understanding of the impacts of development of this nature.

22. Prior to the commencement of any works or development on the site, a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan, including measures for blanket bogs, upland heath, montane heath, grassland, riparian habitats, flush and wetland habitat (including measures for Black Grouse and breeding waders) and enhancements, including conservation grazing levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Plan may appropriately form part of a Legal Obligation to be entered into by the planning authority, developer and other appropriate parties if it relates to off-site measures. The development shall be undertaken thereafter in accordance with the approved Plan submitted in response to this condition. Reason: this is required to offset the environmental impact of the development, and to enhance the site and its environs to benefit biodiversity.

Environmental Management:

23. At least two 2 months prior to the commencement of development (other than agreed enabling works) 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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 31 Item No. 5(c) 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): (i) 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; (ii) 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); (iii) 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; (iv) a focussed waste management strategy; (v) a strategy for the management of peat, in the form of a Peat Management Plan; (vi) a strategy for management of dust arising during construction of the tracks, hardstandings and foundations; (vii) details of measures proposed to contain all materials and fuels to be utilised during construction (viii) 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.

24. (a) 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 Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The Construction Method Statement shall comprise the following details: x all on-site construction, and construction of access tracks, including drainage, mitigation, post-construction restoration, and reinstatement work, as well as the timetables for such work; x details relating to a ‘tool box talk’ on archaeology to on-site contractors preparing the site infrastructure x any temporary diversions of rights of way and associated signage; x surface water drainage measures to comply with national guidance on pollution prevention, including surface water run off from internal access roads; x details of waste water management during construction; x the arrangement for the on-site storage of fuel oil and other chemicals; x the method, frequency and duration of ecological monitoring, particularly of watercourses, over the Construction Period of the wind farm development; x details of the phasing/timing of construction of all components of the development including dates for delivery of components x details of water supply; x details of measures to reduce soil erosion; x details of assessment and mitigation in respect of construction noise; x details relating to minimisation of environmental impact of road construction; x details of any watercourse engineering works and measures for the implementation of buffer zones around existing watercourses and features; x details of timescale for the restoration of the site, including the site compound and crane hardstanding areas; x details of contingency planning in the event of accidental release of materials which could cause harm to the environment.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 32 Item No. 5(c)

(b) 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, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

(c) 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 Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 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 23 of this permission, shall provide the (Ecological) Clerk of Works (required by Cond. 25 of this permission) with information with which to monitor construction and environmental management.

25. (a) Prior to the Commencement of Development (including the enabling works), the wind farm operator shall appoint an independent Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) under terms which have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the planning authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and shall include that the appointment shall be for the period of wind farm construction, including micro-siting and the finalisation of the wind farm layout, as well as subsequent post-construction restoration.

(b) 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 24 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 (and comply instructions given in the exercise of) the ECoW 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, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. 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.

26. Prior to commencement of development, details of the methods of re-vegetation and reinstatement of bare ground shall be approved by the planning authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. This will include details about the treatment of track edges, timing of the re-instatement works in relation to construction activity to maximise the success of the re-instatement, methods for storing and treating stripped turf that is to be re-used, details of the species mix of any seed

Planning and Building Standards Committee 33 Item No. 5(c)

mixes proposed for use, details of where and how geotextiles might be used to aid re-vegetation of slopes etc., and details of re-vegetation of drainage ditches and swales. Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on the landscape and biodiversity.

Archaeology:

27. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a Paleoenvironmental Survey. This will be formulated by a suitably qualified 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 the approved sampling of peat deposits prior to development. These will be analysed by a qualified paleoenvironmental specialist. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered below ground excavation should cease pending further consultation with the Planning Authority. The developer will ensure that any significant data be appropriately disseminated. Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, paleoenvironmental remains of anthroprogenic origin, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site.

28. 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: x 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. x Access shall be afforded to the nominated archaeologist to supervise, relevant development works, investigate and record features of interest, and recover finds and samples x 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 x 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. x 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. 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.

29. In the event that significant archaeological materials (deemed so by the Council 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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 34 Item No. 5(c)

accordance with a separate Post-Excavation Research Design (PERD) approved in writing by the Planning Authority. x The results of post-excavation research will be submitted to the Planning Authority and disseminated appropriately through publication and community engagement within one year of the final on-site archaeological investigations and reporting. x 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. Reason: Development of the site has resulted in the recovery of significant archaeological materials, and it is therefore desirable to conduct appropriate analyses to preserve and disseminate the full archaeological record of the site’s history.

30. 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. Reason: To allow sufficient time to prepare for the commencement of archaeological works.

Construction Hours:

31. Construction work shall only take place between the hours of 07:00 – 19:00 hours on Monday to Friday inclusive and 07:00 – 12:00 hours on Saturdays, with no construction work on a Sunday or local or national public holiday. Outwith these hours, works at the site shall be limited to concrete pours, turbine erection, emergency works and dust suppression, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Works outside these hours may be carried out in the event of an emergency, provided that the Planning Authority is notified by telephone and writing as soon as reasonably practicable (and in any event within 48 hours) following the emergency first being identified, such notification to include both details of the emergency and any works carried out and/or proposed to be carried out. Reason: In the interests of amenity to restrict noise impact and the protection of the local environment.

32. The delivery of any construction materials or equipment for the construction of the development shall be restricted to the hours of 07:00 – 19:00 on Monday to Friday inclusive, 07:00 to 12:00 on Saturdays with no such deliveries on a Sunday or local or national public holiday unless (a) previously approved in writing by the Planning Authority or (b) the delivery is necessary in the event of an emergency on the site. Reason: In the interests of minimising disturbance to local residents during the construction process.

Noise:

33. Noise levels from the combined effects of the wind turbines where the occupier of the property has no financial interest in the development shall not exceed an external free field level LA90, 10min level of the greater of 35dB(A) or 5dB(A), at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s, above the agreed prevailing background noise level during amenity hours, and 43dB(A) during night hours.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 35 Item No. 5(c)

For properties where the occupier has a financial interest in the development the noise levels should not exceed the greater of 45dB(A) or 5dB(A), at any 10 metre height wind speed up to 12m/s, above the agreed prevailing background noise level at all times.

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: in the interests of the amenity of occupiers of noise sensitive premises.

34. Prior to construction of the first turbines, the developer shall submit and have approved in writing by the planning authority a noise mitigation strategy that will enable any noise nuisance issues to be addressed in relation to the development. This shall include any measures necessary where cumulative noise from the development with other wind energy development proposals currently approved by the planning authority is occurring. During the operational period of the wind farm, the measures described in the strategy submitted and approved in response to this condition shall be strictly adhered to at all times. Reason: in the interests of the amenity of occupiers of noise sensitive premises.

Turbine Icing:

35. The mitigation proposals referred to in Paragraph 14.7.5 of the original ES, which relate to potential for ice shedding/ice throw, shall be fully adhered to throughout the lifespan of the development. Reason: in the interests of public safety.

Shadow Flicker:

36. Prior to commencement of development, a scheme for mitigation in respect of potential shadow flicker effects shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Throughout the lifespan of the development, mitigation in this respect shall at all times be undertaken in strict accordance with the scheme approved in response to this condition. Reason: to ensure that effects occurring during any instances of shadow flicker are mitigated/managed in such a way that they minimise harm to private amenity.

INFORMATIVE NOTES:

1 The diversion or closure of any public right of way is likely to need separate formal consent from Scottish Borders Council. Contact must be made with the Countryside and Heritage Manager.

2 This planning permission does not purport to grant consent under any other legislation or regulations operated by other bodies including the Water Authority, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Ministers (and their agencies) or any other departments of Scottish Borders Council.

3 The developer’s attention is drawn to the related legal obligation(s) forming part of this planning permission, which give(s) coverage to matters of (i) off- site habitat enhancement for various species; (ii) on and off-site enhancement of the path network.

LEGAL OBLIGATIONS – HEADS OF TERMS:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 36 Item No. 5(c)

It is suggested that the following matters would appropriately be handled via legal obligation(s):

x enhancement of the public path network, which may involve improved public access in relation to existing and new paths x off-site habitat improvement measures including planting works x Financial provisions for site restoration

DRAWING NUMBERS

x Figure B1 within June 2014 FEI ‘Proposed Site Layout Overlaid onto Blanket Bog Habitat’ x Figure PA2 within June 2014 FEI ‘Site Location Plan’ x Figure PA3 within June 2014 FEI ‘Proposed Site Layout’ x Figure PA5 within June 2014 FEI ‘Typical Turbine’ x Figure PA6 within June 2014 FEI ‘Indicative Turbine Foundation Layout’ x Figure PA7 within June 2014 FEI ‘Indicative Crane Hardstanding Layout’ x Figure PA11 within June 2014 FEI ‘Extension to Existing Substation Compound – Indicative Plan & Elevations’ x Figure PA13 within June 2014 FEI ‘Indicative Construction Compound Layout’ x Figure PA16 within June 2014 FEI ‘Indicative Storage Building Plan and Elevations’

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director (Regulatory Services)

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 John Hiscox Planning Officer (Major/Wind Energy Development)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 37 Item No. 5(c)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 38 Item No. 5(c)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

8 DECEMBER 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 14/00666/FUL OFFICER: Mr C Miller WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Erection of twenty dwellinghouses SITE: Land west of Horsbrugh Ford Cottages APPLICANT: Renwick Country Properties Ltd AGENT: Yeoman McAllister Architects

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site comprises of 0.8 HA of rough grazing land immediately south of the A72 and located between the Cardrona MacDonald Hotel to the west and the Horsbrugh Ford Cottages to the east. The southern boundary of the site is the private access road serving the hotel itself. The site has a general fall from north down to south but still lies above the hotel access road, the highest part of the site being in the north-west corner. A mature hedge separates the site from the A72 at present, there are young avenue trees along the southern boundary and a dry stone dyke along the eastern boundary.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application was initially submitted for 20 dwellinghouses and this has been amended during the processing of the application, albeit the numbers and general layout remain the same. The amendment has been subject to full neighbour and objector renotification and principal consultees have also been consulted. It is the amended version that is presented to Committee for decision.

The initial submission demonstrated 20 dwellinghouses in a loop road system accessed via a new access constructed across the southern end of the adjoining commercial site. Two terraced rows of three would front the site towards the A72, a terraced row of four would be positioned at the western end, a semi-detached pair at the eastern end and the remainder would be detached houses. Seven of the houses would face the hotel access road. Communal parking spaces would serve the terraced/semi-detached houses and the detached houses would have integral garages and private off-street spaces.

The initial submission showed schematic landscaping principally at the western end and along the A72 edge, with small clumps of trees sporadically elsewhere along the southern and eastern boundaries. The submission showed all 20 houses as full two storey designs with a mixture of hipped and gable ended roofs, rendered walls and occasional timber feature panels. No specific materials were detailed on the initial submission. The two terraced blocks facing the A72 would contain two lean-to porches and twin gable projections per block towards the A72.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(c)

The amended submission largely retains the same layout albeit straightening the terrace facing the A72 and increasing garden spaces to the rear. Further minor repositionings have also occurred with some of the detached houses and there have been changes to the visitor parking areas. The main changes, however, relate to the house designs where there has been an elimination of hipped roof designs, the use of chimneys, steeper 40q roof pitches, an increase in vertically proportioned windows, window bandings, pitched roof porches along the A72 frontage and changes in house type mixes.

The amended layout also demonstrates a link out of the site at the north-eastern corner for access to the bus stops and enhanced landscaping, including hedging, shrub and tree planting along the A72 boundary, native hedging along the hotel access drive boundary and woodland planting at the western corner of the site

PLANNING HISTORY

The site formed part of a much larger area at Cardrona granted in 2001 for a variety of updates to the original Master Plan, merging with the commercial site to the east and intended for a Garden Centre and Tourist Centre.

No other history on the application site but there are full planning permissions which have been commenced and remain valid on the adjoining site through which access to the application site is taken. Applications 04/02215/FUL and 05/00546/FUL granted consent for a garden centre, craft workshops and associated access and parking to the rear of the Horsbrugh Ford Cottages. This development was legitimately commenced before expiry by the formation of the access bellmouth and sub-base and will, thus, not time expire. An application to amend the access road and parking layout was approved in July this year subject to conditions seeking a more detailed, revised and augmented landscape scheme around the development and further information on the access road and parking construction.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION (all available on public access)

Design and Access Statement – this sets the context of the site, surrounding land uses, site history, character, access links and overview of the main planning constraints and influences. It details the development of the layout through pre- application consultations, the access connection with the adjoining commercial site, site opportunities and an explanation of the final design arrived at. It also details the drainage proposals for the site

Flood and Drainage Overview – identified that the site was not within a functional flood plain, that foul drainage would be connected to the existing pumping station for connection to the public network and that surface water would be connected to a separate system with pervious surfaces and local soakaways.

Supplementary Flood Report – this takes into account functional flood plain with climate change allowance, ensuring all house floor levels are at least 650mm above the projected flood risk levels, especially in the western part of the site.

Various emails, most notably 17 September 2014, responding to points raised during the application processing.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(c)

Roads Planning: Would have preferred access to the site from the hotel access road or at least a link to that road but understands that there are ownership reasons for the lack of connection. Given constraints, appreciate that a loop road has been created with a variation of parking spaces and influenced by Designing Streets, albeit swept path analysis was indicating refuse vehicles would swing into the communal parking bays. Also had concerns that the communal parking bays were too small, there was insufficient drainage detail, further details of an adoptable road system through the commercial site, resolution of potential vehicular conflicts and extension of the footway to the A72 bus stop.

Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: Financial contributions are required for Kingsland Primary and Peebles High Schools, the contributions potentially variable to reflect changes in the BCIS index.

Development Negotiator: Outlines the contributions required for Peebles High and Kingsland Primary Schools together with a commuted sum for appropriate off-site augmentation of play facilities. Initially commented that 25% (5 houses) on site affordable provision would be necessary.

Housing Strategy: Response awaited.

Flood Protection Officer: Initially commented that although none of the houses were at risk of flooding, part of the site was and there was a 2009 event of flooding reaching the hotel. Sought a Flood Risk Assessment. As a result of the submitted Flood Report, accepts the information on the basis there is no land raising within the defined 1:200 year flood risk part of the site.

Landscape Architect: The initial submission required further amendment including taking influence from the existing landscaping at Cardrona, lack of a detailed landscaping plan to respect the position in the Tweed Valley Special Landscape Area, hedging and trees along the hotel access road, detail of boundary treatments, reduction in fencing impact, improvement of tree planting to the northern boundary and the use and retention of stone walling. In response to the amended plans, maintained previous concerns even commenting that the amount of planting had been reduced and there was inadequate screening in important parts of the site. The planting schedule was also inadequate and hedge mixes were inappropriate.

Following the submission of an amended and dedicated landscaping plan, accepts the provisions shown on the drawing as a basis for a more detailed landscaping plan which would be subsequently submitted.

Forward Planning: Outlined the current Local Plan provision for the site as an infill opportunity within the settlement boundary and the allocation of the site for 25 houses in the Proposed Local Development Plan, subject to a number of requirements including the need for a Development Brief, the need for a mix of uses across the whole site and commercial site including one application, a Flood Risk Assessment, structure planting, mitigation on the River Tweed SAC, the need for public drainage before development and the retention of boundary stone walls. Points out the high quality of design and layout needed in the Tweed Valley SLA and expresses concerns at the initial submission not meeting some of the Local Plan requirements and, as a minimum, that additional landscaping within the commercial site should be undertaken and conditioned as part of the housing development. Any further linkage should be achieved through conditions and legal agreement.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(c)

The design and layout were also of concern in relation to the “Placemaking and Design “ SPG, advising against roof tiles, dry dash, large gable frontages onto the A72, the need for dual frontages on Plots 8 and 12, the townscape lack of fit of Plots 2 and 5 and the lack of influence and integration in the design of the architecture of the Horsbrugh Ford Cottages ie. Horseshoe dormers, wet dash, vertical windows, chimneys etc.

In response to the amended plans, identifies improvements over the original plans although notes that external finishes are still not submitted and that landscaping works within the commercial site can be dealt with by condition. Still considers both the housing and commercial sites be linked by planning condition or legal agreement. Reiterates concerns over gable ends on the terraced blocks, height relationships with Horsbrugh Ford Cottages, the need for dual frontages on Plots 8 and 12 and improvements in landscaping proposals between the housing development and the commercial site, including retention of the stone wall.

Environmental Health: No heating information is provided so any consent should be subject to an air quality condition with Informatives on combustion plants/flues and hours of construction work.

Archaeology Officer: As a result of previous development at Cardrona and the hotel, there is potential for prehistoric and Roman archaeology in the area, especially on the elevated sand and gravel terraces above the river. It is, therefore, necessary for the site to be evaluated by an archaeologist through planning condition before any development can take place. This evaluation should also extend to the commercial site to the east.

Statutory Consultees

Peebles and District Community Council: Identify the need for linked access with the commercial site adjoining and comment that the number of houses are excessive and constitute overdevelopment. Leave final comment to the local residents and Innerleithen and District Community Council.

Innerleithen and District Community Council: Various comments including street design based on “Woonerf” principles with vehicles and pedestrians sharing same space, telecommunication provision, reed bed concerns, redesignation of existing road to 20mph, over development, lack of two bed units and adequate landscaping. In response to amended plans, comments that no consideration given to safe streets, lack of broadband future proofing, 20mph road designation, lack of childrens’ play park and unclear connection with commercial site.

Scottish Water: Response awaited.

SEPA: Initially objected as there was insufficient information relating to flood risk at the site and requested a Flood Risk Assessment or other information. Maps suggested a medium likelihood of flooding. In response to the Flood Report then submitted, removed objection subject to Informatives to ensure no buildings, solid boundaries or ground raising within the area of the 1:200 year flood extent as identified. Still expect Council to undertake their own flood duties.

Other Consultees

None.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(c)

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

As a result of the submission of the initial application, objections were received from eleven households on the following grounds:

x An increase in traffic on the A72 and risks to crossing the road to the bus stop x Need for signage and speed restrictions on the A72 as a result. x Increased sewage and lack of clear proposals from developer. x Reports of a Roman Road in the application site, examination by professional archaeologists required. x Increase in flood risk.

Following the submission of amended plans and a new round of neighbour and objector consultation, ten additional objections were received on similar grounds, also noting no response to the Community Council concerns over density and increased traffic on the hotel access road.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SES Plan Strategic Development Plan 2013

Policy 1A The Spatial Strategy: Development Locations Policy 5 Housing Land Policy 7 Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land Supply Policy 8 Transportation

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4 Flooding Policy G5 Developer Contributions Policy G7 Infill Development Policy BE2 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy EP2 Areas of Great Landscape Value Policy NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf3 Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy Inf11 Developments That Generate Travel Demand

Appendix D – Supplementary Planning Guidance and Standards

Scottish Borders Proposed Local Development Plan 2013

MCARD006 “North of Horsbrugh Bridge”

Policy PMD2 Quality Standards Policy HD3 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy EP5 Special Landscape Areas Policy EP8 Archaeology Policy EP13 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy IS2 Developer Contributions

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(c)

Policy IS4 Transport Development and Infrastructure Policy IS6 Road Adoption Standards Policy IS7 Parking Provision and Standards Policy IS8 Flooding Policy IS9 Waste Water Treatment Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

“Local Landscape Designations” SPG “Affordable Housing” SPG “Placemaking and Design” SPG “Trees and Development” SPG “Development Contributions” SPG “Landscape and Development” SPG “Privacy and Sunlight Guide” SPG

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining issues with this application are whether the development is appropriate in terms of Development Plan Policies on infill development and the allocation within the Proposed Local Development Plan. If so, whether it would also comply with Policies relating to design and layout, landscape impact, road access, tree retention, flood risk, drainage issues, residential amenity and developer contributions. The relationship with the adjoining commercial site is also be considered.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning policy

The current Consolidated Local Plan contains the development site within the defined settlement boundary for Cardrona, a legacy of the 2001 Outline planning approval which provided a series of updates and expansions to the emerging Cardrona settlement. The Local Plan does not zone the site for housing but, with the history of approval and location adjoining a commenced and validated commercial development, the site must be seen as a valid infill opportunity under Policy G7, provided the relevant criteria under that Policy can be met.

The Proposed Local Development Plan goes further and allocates the site as part of the allocation MCARD006 “North of Horsbrugh Bridge” with a maximum indicative capacity of 25 units. The allocation is subject to a number of provisos, as follows:

x The provision of a Planning Brief for the site. x A mix of commercial, employment and housing uses controlled through a single holistic planning application. x The need for a Flood Risk Assessment. x Structure Planting required around the site. x Mitigation in relation to the Tweed SAC/SSSI. x Connection to the public sewer before occupation of development.

It should be noted that there has been no objection lodged to this allocation in the Local Development Plan.

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

Members will note the responses from the Forward Planning Section who are not opposed to the principle of the development and acknowledge various improvements in the proposals through the submission of amended plans, albeit still with some concerns and the need for linkage of the timing of the development with the adjoining commercial site.

The development proposes 20 houses which is lower than the indicative maximum capacity in the Local Development Plan. Although no Development Brief has been prepared for the site, there has been much pre-application discussion leading to refinements of the layout and design, a “Design and Access” Statement submitted and further refinement of the application during the processing of the application. It is considered that no additional benefits would be gained from seeking a Development Brief at this stage. All relevant site constraints and opportunities have been identified and addressed.

The remainder of this Report will demonstrate that the development complies with the other requirements laid down in the Local Development Plan allocation and it is, therefore, concluded that development of the application site accords with planning policy.

Landscape and visual impacts

The site is located in a sensitive and prominent position in the Tweed Valley, between the Horsbrugh Ford Cottages and the MacDonald Cardrona Hotel. Whilst there is some screening provided by roadside hedging, any development of the site will have an impact on the rural character of the area and it is essential that the development is of appropriate design, layout and with sympathetic landscape proposals to allow successful integration into this setting.

The sensitivity of the site has been increased through the designation of this part of the Tweed Valley as a Special Landscape Area. The relevant Management Recommendations seek careful development at settlement edges and a better integration of developments into their landscape. The integration of the hotel into its setting has not been wholly successful and any housing development in the foreground of the hotel should have particular attention paid to its landscaping.

The Proposed Local Development Plan seeks structure planting around the housing site and reflects the landscaping that has already been approved (but not yet implemented) around the commercial site adjoining. The initially submitted plan for the housing site did not convince over landscape treatment and the Landscape Architect had a series of concerns as set out in the consultation reply. The concerns over adequacy of boundary treatments and details were not overcome upon the submission of the amended plan.

However, a further sketch was then submitted and discussed with the Landscape Architect which provided a basis for agreement, to be followed up by submission of a more detailed plan in due course which can be controlled by condition. This plan demonstrates more substantial planting at the boundaries with a woodland mix at the western corner, a hedge/tree/shrub mix along the sensitive A72 boundary, retention of the dry stone wall along the eastern boundary and native hedging with occasional tree planting along the hotel access road. This should also allow for the retention of the young trees already planted along that boundary. Within the site, there will be individual trees and shrubbed areas at road corners and differentiated hard surfaces.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(c)

Subject to a more detailed plan being submitted to comply with an appropriate condition, it is concluded that the development can comply with Policies on infill development, landscape impact and the allocation in the Proposed Local Development Plan.

Design and Layout

The layout and design of the development should be influenced not only by the size and shape of the site but also by the various influences and constraints around its boundaries. Whilst it will be related to commercial developments such as the hotel and the garden centre/craft workshop development to the east, as it is a residential development, it should also relate successfully to the existing house styles at Horsbrugh Ford and the overall rural nature of the setting. In turn, this is also reflected in the various relevant Local Plan Policies governing development within settlements, albeit as in this case, the site is on the edge of the defined Cardrona settlement where the requirements of the “Tweed Valley” Special Landscape Area also require to be considered.

As mentioned above, there has been much discussion on the layout of the development at the pre-application stage and initial efforts were made to link the development to the hotel access road in the interests of “Designing Streets” and connectivity requirements. Due to ownership restrictions this was not possible and the narrow, tapering site had to take its sole vehicular access from the commercial site to the east. Rather than a development accessed off a meandering cul-de-sac, it was felt that connectivity could still be kept through the use of a loop road within the site, with pedestrian accesses to the A72 bus stops and to the hotel access road edge.

This loop road allowed for a terraced front elevation facing the A72 which was felt to be consistent with Horsbrugh Ford cottages, rather than featureless rear elevations and rear gardens with ancilliary outbuildings and potential clutter. The front elevations would inevitably be closer to the A72 than the existing houses because of the constraints of the site but their proximity will be staggered due to the set-back semi-detached unit forming Plots 19 and 20. Nevertheless, there will still be 11 metres between the site boundary and the front elevation of the nearest terraced blocks, with intervening landscaping and front gardens, the only break being for a pedestrian access to the bus stop at the north-eastern corner.

In terms of the remainder of the layout, there were initial concerns over the position of the terraced block at the western end of the site but this has now been set back slightly behind the main terraced blocks. There is still some concern over the blank nature of the gable end facing both the A72 and the hotel access road but additional fenestration can be sought by planning condition. There is also a question over whether the development should be phased to ensure the development of the terraced blocks nearest the A72 first. This would be visually more appropriate given that if not controlled, the houses facing the hotel access may be all that is constructed for years, presenting rear elevations and gardens to the A72. A planning condition will also cover this.

The terraced approach along the front and western end is consistent with the Horsbrugh Ford cottages and as the frontage development will be sought first, I have no concerns over a detached housing approach to the rear of the site along the hotel access road. House designs have been altered and eased so that there remains 18m between windows back to back within the development, the minimum being 17m between the houses on Plots 19/20 and Plots 2/3 – which is acceptable as an

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(c) individual occurrence. There are no residential amenity impacts on the nearest houses at Horsbrugh Ford, the closest distance being 19m corner to corner but with the houses being wholly offset from each other. There has been comment from the Community Councils and some objectors in relation to density and overdevelopment. However, the houses are sufficient distance from each other in terms of the “Privacy and Sunlight” SPG and, although there are some tight gable to gable distances with the detached houses, the overall development is punctuated by terraced and semi mixes and a looped roadway. The overall density is, therefore, not dominated by narrow gaps between gables and given that the number of houses on the site is five less than the maximum indicative capacity and that the main noticeable element will remain the terrace along the A72 frontage, I do not believe that the site is being overdeveloped through the amended layout proposed.

In terms of housing designs and taking into account the views of Forward Planning, the originally submitted plans exhibited elements and townscapes that were not considered acceptable in a newly designated SLA and on the rural fringe of a settlement where much effort was put into design. The following issues were identified:

x The appearance of the terrace from Plots 13-18 was pivotal to the overall public impression of the scheme and its success in integration into its setting. There did not seem to be full elevations of these house types as have been provided for the other house types. On pre-application drawings, there had been an unbroken terrace and is now designed as two blocks with a linking canopy. The detachment combined with unbroken ridge lines, hipped ends, square fenestration and low-key canopies instead of porches led to a design that was considered less sympathetic to its surroundings and less in keeping with the architecture in the vicinity. An improvement in interest to this row of houses was sought by the use of reduced height end projections, more sympathetic window proportions, gable ending, feature panelling in timber, more significant porch structures, chimneys/skews etc.

x The window proportions on all house types were too square for the semi-rural location and designated landscape. A more vertical emphasis was sought to the window openings with mullions to separate double windows and window banding

x The ridgeline and general townscape presented in the sections was considered disjointed and unsatisfactory in relation to Plots 1-7, House Type D+ being overly large and out of context with the surroundings, presenting more of a suburban style. This was, indeed, true of all the hipped roof designs. Plot 7 was dominated by the D+ type on Plot 6 and Plot 2 did not relate well to the designs either side. A more cohesive townscape was sought by reducing the ridge line disparities, hipped ends to each row and reconsideration of the use of House Type D+.

x No materials appeared to be specified. They are required as the application is a "full" application within a designated landscape. A wet render with timber features would be recommended for the walls and either natural slate roofing or a close fibre cement alternative.

Following consideration, the agent submitted amendments to the scheme which addressed most of these issues. All roofs were altered from a mixture of gable and hipping to all gable ended together with an increase in roof pitch on all to 40q. This

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(c) assisted the rather mixed townscape from the hotel access road by creating less disparities between house heights and roof patterns, also assisted by the substitution of a higher house type on the furthest east Plot 1. Chimneys have also been added to all house types which has improved roof punctuation and allowed a better relationship with the existing houses at Horsbrugh Ford. Fenestration has been greatly improved through increases in vertical emphases and the use of window banding. Four timber porches have also been proposed along the terraced frontage to the site. Although no external materials have yet been specified, the agent has accepted the recommendations made to him regarding wet render and slate or a close fibre cement alternative.

Overall, I consider that sufficient amendments to design have been carried out to result in a development that will integrate better with its surroundings than the initially submitted scheme would have done. There is no doubt that the increased roof pitches have lifted the heights of all houses across the scheme but, given the improved design and more vernacular appearance resulting from the increased roof pitches, I would recommend acceptance of the increased pitches. This is also in the context of an open river valley where the landscape is of larger scale and there are tall structures in the valley to which the housing development can successfully relate. The ridge heights may be slightly above those of the Horsbrugh Ford cottages but, in context, are considered to be acceptable. All neighbours and objectors were reconsulted on the amendments and no objections were received in relation to the design changes to the houses.

Conditions will need to be imposed closely controlling the external materials and in relation to the windows, it would result in more appropriate design if mid-rails were sought to relate better to the hotel fenestration and the more traditional windows within Horsbrugh Ford Cottages.

In summary, the design and layout will now result in an acceptable scheme which would be in compliance with the relevant Development Plan Policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance on housing developments within settlements and designated landscapes.

Access and parking

The site was allocated in the Proposed Local Development Plan without any specific requirement for access to be taken from the hotel access road. Whilst this was attempted by the agent and discussed at pre-application stage, it was clear that there was no ownership agreement and there were no road safety concerns through access only being taken from the adjoining commercial development site – which is in the same ownership as the housing site. The main issue suggested by Roads Planning was how to achieve a satisfactory layout in such circumstances, the concern being a long single access cul-de-sac with poor connectivity and against the “Designing Streets” SPG.

However, a looped road system was achieved within the development, accessed via a mutual access road leading through the adjoining commercial site and connecting with the public road to Cardrona, via the existing junction which has been partially formed. The roadway is narrowed wherever possible within the site and especially parallel with the hotel access road. The agent has clearly stated that they will provide the road system within the development and the link to the public road to an adoptable standard and in accordance with an application for Roads Construction Consent. Whilst details of this road link are lacking, they can be controlled by condition and, in any case, are also controlled by condition on the amended approval

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(c) for the parking and roadway within the commercial site itself. Any deficiencies can be covered by this condition and in the Legal Agreement.

Other issues had been raised within the development in relation to the inadequate parking bay dimensions, incorrect swept path analyses, surface treatments, drainage and extension of the footway to the A72 bus stop. The amended plans have resolved the geometric problems with the road layout and parking spaces although other requirements will still need to be controlled by condition in relation to hard surface treatment, surface water drainage and the footpath link outwith the site to the bus stop. The short footpath link to the site boundary with the hotel is still worth providing for connectivity purposes even though there is not yet any ownership agreement to lead the footpath from the site boundary onto the hotel access road.

Following amendments and subject to the conditions and Legal Agreement mentioned, the development will comply with all relevant Development Plan Policies on access and parking.

Flooding and drainage

The Development Plan requested a Flood Risk Assessment for the development of the site and this was not initially submitted with the application, the “Flood and Drainage Overview” stating that the site was not within the functional flood plain. However, both SEPA and the Council’s Flood Protection Officer commented on the 2009 flood event which nearly reached the adjoining hotel from the River Tweed and in the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment, lodged objection.

Following submission of a “Supplementary Flood Report” which assessed the 1 in 200 year flood level once climate change and freeboard were taken into account, the recommendation was accepted that all house finished floor levels would be at least 650mm above the highest identified risk level and that there should be no buildings or land raising within the risk area identified. This was made possible following a more detailed assessment of site levels. In reality, this area of flood risk is contained south of the southern loop road within the site. Conditions will be imposed to satisfy the responses from SEPA and the Flood Protection Officer.

In relation to foul and surface water drainage from the site, concerns have been raised by local residents over the impacts of the development on surface water run- off. The application was accompanied by a “Flood and Drainage Overview” which stated that foul drainage would be connected to an existing pumping station and thence to the public system. Surface water would be handled via a separate system, pervious surfaces and local soakaways.

There is no evidence to suggest that acceptable drainage could not be achieved for the development in accordance with the requirements of the Local Development Plan allocation. Appropriate conditions will be imposed to control these elements.

Archaeology

The Proposed Local Development Plan has allocated the site for development of up to 25 houses and there was no mention of there being any archaeological sensitivity that would have impacted on the development. However, all of the objectors make reference to archaeological interest within the site, namely a Roman Road. They recommend professional archaeological evaluation of the site and these comments are the same as the Council Archaeology Officer who states the sensitivity of the surrounding area for potential prehistoric and Roman activity. This is particularly the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(c) case on the elevated sand and gravel terraces above the river. The recommendation is to have the site and the adjoining commercial site evaluated by an archaeologist before any development can take place. Subject to an appropriate condition, it is considered that the application would still comply with relevant Development Plan Policies on protection of sensitive archaeological sites.

Other matters

Forward Planning have referred to the aims of the Proposed Local Development Plan in securing a mixed development for the overall allocation MCARD006. The Plan suggests that a holistic view of the overall development would have been best served by the submission of one planning application covering all elements of the site, However, they have also accepted that the separate housing application that has been submitted could be connected in appropriate ways to the development of the commercial site, detailed plans of which have previously been approved and commenced.

Their latest reply suggests that combined landscaping across both the housing and commercial sites would be the minimum required and that a Legal Agreement could regulate the achievement of this. Given that the commercial development already has detailed plans approved for a garden centre, nursery and craft workshop units and that the development is agreed to have been commenced through works to the main access bellmouth, I do not believe that any significant prohibition against the housing application can be applied to ensure both developments occur together,

However, the agent has stated the following:

“In the event of the housing site being developed first the applicant would be willing to undertake the following:

- Construct the new access road through the employment site (including the necessary surface water drainage for the road) - Undertake the landscaping on the access road through the employment site and site frontage (east side of the employment site, fronting arrival from A72) - Ensure that services (water, electricity and telecoms) for the new employment site can be provided from the new access road or in the road located immediately to the east (site frontage) - Promote the employment site as a development opportunity

The Applicant would not propose to install foul drainage or surface water drainage apparatus within the site until an occupier was confirmed as the design may change and this will need to be tailored to their use and building design. The Applicant is keen to secure a purchaser for this whole area and work with Scottish Borders Council on both the housing and employment uses to achieve same.”

In the circumstances, it is considered appropriate that these elements are included as clauses within a Legal Agreement. Additional landscaping details will still need to be submitted for the commercial site as, despite the agent’s comments, further information is still required by condition on the amended car parking and access road approval for the commercial site.

Comments have also been made by Environmental Health in relation to air quality, heating systems and construction working hours which can be attached as conditions and informatives. In connection with this and the comments raised by Forward Planning over potential impacts on the River Tweed SAC, a Construction Method

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(c)

Statement should also be submitted to ensure best practice is followed and reduce the potential for damaging run-off impacting on the SAC.

Developer Contributions

Consolidated Local Plan Policy G5 requires developer contributions to assist with the impacts on capacity of local infrastructure. For twenty dwellinghouses in this location, it was identified that five of the units would need to be provided as affordable units and that there also be contributions towards Kingsland Primary School, Peebles High School and play facilities at Cardrona. The agent has confirmed that six affordable units will actually be provided in relation to this development but on a site nearby at the Station Yard site near the village shop.

This is a site with commenced planning permission which is already providing four affordable housing units for another development presently being constructed nearby at Cardrona. Working with the Council and under the NHT model, it seems that a total of ten affordable houses will be provided. Whilst this will need to be programmed in the Legal Agreement to ensure that the 20 house development does not occur without the affordable units (possibly tied in with the phasing requirements), the provision of offset affordable housing at the Station Yard site is acceptable as the site is well located closer to the village, to existing and proposed facilities and a bus stop. The principle of offset affordable housing has already been accepted through the provision of four units on this site and I see no reason why the same principle cannot apply to the current application.

CONCLUSION

In summary and subject to conditions, informatives and a legal agreement, the development is appropriate in terms of Development Plan Policies on infill development and the allocation within the Proposed Local Development Plan. It would also comply with Policies relating to design and layout, landscape impact, road access, tree retention, flood risk, drainage issues, residential amenity and developer contributions. Its relationship with the adjoining commercial site can also be controlled by legal agreement.

RECOMMENDATION BY SERVICE DIRECTOR (REGULATORY SERVICES):

I recommend the application is approved subject to a legal agreement addressing the improvements and promotion of the adjoining commercial site and contributions towards education, affordable housing and play area provision, and the following conditions:

2. All roofs throughout the development to be clad with natural slate or a close fibre cement alternative and walls to be clad in wet coloured render. A sample of these and all other materials to be used on all exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted, including doors and windows, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(c)

Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

3. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in strict accordance with a programme of phasing which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme should provide for the completion of the dwellinghouses on Plots 13-18 before development on any other plots is commenced, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development of the estate proceeds in an orderly manner.

4. The development shall be served throughout by roads and pavements constructed to the Council’s adoptable standards, including the access road from the public road to the site. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

5. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate): x existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance x existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored – including the young trees along the southern boundary and the dry stone wall along the eastern boundary. x location and design, including materials, of walls (including retaining walls), fences and gates x soft and hard landscaping works x existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations x other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, play equipment x A programme for phasing of the works, completion and subsequent maintenance – including all open communal areas of landscaping. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

6. No dwellinghouse to be occupied until footpath links are completed, in accordance with details firstly submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, to the bus stop on the nearby eastbound carriageway of the A72 and to the southern boundary with the hotel access road. Reason: To ensure adequate public access from the site to transport links and other facilities.

7. No built development, land-raising or solid boundaries shall be carried out within the 1:200 year flood extent zone shown hatched in blue on drawing 4019-103A submitted with the Quattro “Supplementary Flood Report”. Reason: To safeguard the development against potential flood risk.

8. The house finished floor levels to be constructed as shown on approved plan reference (PL)020 Rev F and no house floor level to be below 152.75m AOD. Reason: To safeguard the development against potential flood risk.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(c)

9. No development to commence on Plots 8-12 until details of additional fenestration on the northern gable of Plot 12 and the southern gable of Plot 8 are submitted to, and agreed by, the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development to proceed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To safeguard the amenity and character of the surrounding area.

10. No development to commence until details of mid-rails to all windows are submitted to, and agreed by, the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development to proceed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To safeguard the amenity and character of the surrounding area.

11. Further details of the water supply and of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before any development is commenced and, once approved, to be implemented in accordance with an agreed programme. This should include full SUDs proposals. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

12. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured and implemented a programme of archaeological work and reporting in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) outlining an Archaeological Field Evaluation. The requirements of this are: x 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. x Access shall be afforded to the nominated archaeologist to evaluate the development site for the presence/absence, extent, character and likely age of archaeological remains. x 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 depending on the level of impact. x Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval in the form of a Data Structure Report (DSR) prior to development commencing. The results of the DSR will be used by the Council’s Archaeologist to make recommendations to the Planning Authority for further archaeological mitigation as required. x The developer will be expected to fund and implement all further archaeological work as required. 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.

13. No development shall commence until an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the recommendations/findings of the report. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development, with reference to the Scottish Air Quality Objectives. The applicants should demonstrate that the proposed flue height is adequate to allow proper dispersal of the products of combustion. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the neighbouring properties, to protect the quality of air in the locality and to protect human health and well being.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(c)

14. No development shall commence until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The method statement should detail issues relating to the control of noise and nuisance from the site during the construction phase and control of run-off and pollution from the site. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the neighbouring properties and designated natural heritage interests.

Informatives

1. Any combustion plant and associated flues should be maintained and serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. The combustion plant should only use fuel of a type and grade as specified by the manufacturer and which has been used for the basis of the air quality assessment.

2. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 allows the Council to set times during which work may be carried out and the methods used. The following are the recommended hours for noisy work Monday – Friday 0700 – 1900 Saturday 0900 – 1300 Sunday (Public Holidays) – no permitted work (except by prior notification to Scottish Borders Council.

Contractors will be expected to adhere to the noise control measures contained in British Standard 5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. For more information or to make a request to carry out works outside the above hours please contact an Environmental Health Officer.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Site layout S3964-(PL) 020 -Rev F Elevations S3964-(PL) 022 -Rev B Elevations S3964-(PL) 021 -Rev B Elevations S3964-(PL) 023 -Rev B Elevations S3964-(PL) 024 -Rev B Elevations S3964-(PL) 025 -Rev B Elevations S3964-(PL) 026 -Rev B Streetscapes S3964-(PL) 027 -Rev E Landscaping Sketch

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director (Regulatory Services)

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5(c)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5(d)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

8 DECEMBER 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 14/00136/FUL OFFICER: Mr C Miller WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising 13 dwellinghouses and 17 flats SITE: Land East of Glentress House, Innerleithen Road, Peebles APPLICANT: Trustees of the McMillan Pension Fund AGENT: APT Planning & Development

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is rectangular in shape and consists of the southern parts of the grounds of the Peebles Hydro Hotel, bordering the A72 Innerleithen Road and lying between existing houses facing the road. It is approximately 1.16HA in size. The roadside boundary is formed by a low wall, metal railings and a leylandii hedge, Whitestone and Kerfield Park lying immediately to the south of the A72. The site generally rises in level from the road before flattening out towards the former railway line, approximately half way up the site.

Existing modest houses exist to the east of the site at a lower level, together with a staff accommodation building for the Hydro Hotel and its eastern entrance. Immediately to the west lies a row of substantial detached stone dwellinghouses with the nearest being a Category B Listed Building with curtilage walls. Other grounds belonging to the Hotel lie to the west, to the rear of the existing houses and bordered by an access road which runs from the western entrance drive to the Hotel. To the rear of the site lies tennis courts and further grounds belonging to the Hydro Hotel, together with woodland belts, paths and links to other parts of the Hotel grounds. The Hotel itself lies further to the north on elevated land and is a Category B Listed Building.

Within the site towards the northern boundary, there are a pair of semi-detached two storey houses (Nos 1 and 2 Hydro Gardens) accessed from the eastern Hotel drive and a track. These houses are excluded from the application site. To the north of the houses lies a former railway line with a metal footbridge still in existence. Belts of existing trees, mostly Pine, lie immediately to the north and south of the former railway line.

The whole of the site lies within Peebles Conservation Area and has most recently been used as a pitch and putt course for the Hotel. There are a number of younger trees scattered loosely throughout the site along with more organised rows immediately south-east of Hydro Gardens. Some hedging also exists partly to the eastern and western boundaries.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(d)

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application was initially submitted for 13 dwellinghouses and 21 flatted apartments before being substituted with amended plans reducing the number of apartments by four.

The initial plans proposed a main vehicular access centrally off the A72 with four detached houses either side of the access along the frontage, five link detached houses to the rear western part of the site and 21 flats in two blocks to the rear eastern part. The main access would have avenue tree planting and serve three main communal access and parking areas serving the different parts of the development. A pedestrian path was also shown winding through into the former railway line to the north.

The houses along the frontage were set slightly forward of the flanking house to the west and in line with the flanking house front projection to the east. These were the largest houses proposed on the site and comprised of two different types, both significant two storey designs with hipped and flat topped slated roofs, reconstituted stone frontages, quoins, chimneys and timber windows split by mullions and with mid-rails.

The link-detached houses were originally proposed in a row of five, to the rear of four of the frontage houses and in line with the rear track serving the existing houses to the west. They were to be accessed via a rear parking court and driveway which also served the two existing houses to the rear of the site. They were 1¾ storey with linking garages, frontage dormer windows, slate roofs, astragalled timber windows, rendered walls and timber clad feature panels.

The flatted apartments were split into two main blocks, situated to the rear of the four easternmost frontage houses and accessed via a large communal parking area. Block One would accommodate nine flats over three storeys in an “L” configuration. The roofs were proposed in a mansard style with a higher pitched projection to the west. The third storey would consist of dormer windows of traditional style/ Roofs would be slated and walls largely rendered with some reconstituted stone featured projecting bays. Windows would be the same as proposed for the link detached houses. Blocks Two and Three would be of similar mansard design and joined together with a tall central entrance projection. These blocks would run due eastwards from Block One and would have similar finishes and features with the third storey largely in the roof space.

During the processing of the application and after discussion over areas of concern relating to the initially submitted plans, a series of revised plans were submitted which have subsequently been slightly revised further. The main resubmission in June was renotified to neighbours, objectors and consultees and subsequent revisions to the plans have been minor not requiring further rounds of notification. The latest plans which are submitted for the Committee to consider date from October but are, in essence, largely the same scheme that was resubmitted and renotified in June.

The main changes to the scheme are:

x A reduction in the number of flats from 21 to 17 by removal of a section of Block Two. x A subsequent movement of Block One eastwards away from the frontage of Hydro Gardens.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(d)

x An alteration to make the roofs on Blocks One and Two now simply hipped with no mansard steeper sides, accentuated bellcasts or sloping rooftops. x Major reduction in scale and height of the entrance features on Blocks One and Two. x Removal of upper storey bays from flats. x A movement northwards of the eight frontage houses to bring them in line with the frontages of the existing houses flanking them along the A72. x A movement of the east and westernmost frontage houses away from the site edges as a result of the introduction of a third house type (A2) with narrower width. x Realignment of the link detached houses towards the back of the site in line with Hydro Gardens with two turning onto a north-south axis. x Consequent realignment of the parking and turning areas in front of the link- detached houses. x Continuation of the footpath/cycle path north to link with the path within the grounds of the hotel. x Movement inwards of linked garages on House Types A and B. x Enhanced and detailed landscaping plan backed with tree survey and management plan. Provides for retention and maintenance of woodland belt along the railway line, avenue and other heavy standard tree planting, boundary hedging and fencing.

PLANNING HISTORY

None.

PROCESSING AGREEMENT

The application has been subject to a Processing Agreement, but has latterly become delayed due to the need for investigation and resolution of the waste water drainage issues and capacity at the Peebles Sewage Treatment Works. The Agreement has now been updated to reflect presentation of the application to the December meeting of the Planning and Building Standards Committee.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION (all available on Public Access)

Submission Letter – which claims that as the site is not protected and in the settlement boundary, the principle of development should be acceptable subject to respecting constraints such as the Hydro listed building and the Conservation Area. Outlines the pre-application discussions with local bodies and neighbours and believes that the development will provide a high quality environment and much needed family housing.

Planning and Design Statement – through a series of photomontages, photographs and drawings, concludes that the development will respect the various site constraints of the listed Hydro, the Conservation Area and the sensitive approach to Peebles from the east. Visibility to and from the Hydro will be very limited and impossible from some views. Will deliver family homes of appropriate style, size and scale, consistent with Local Development Plan Policies and with good access linkages.

Drainage, Flood Risk and Access Report – concludes that flood risk is not an issue, that overland flood routes will be checked and surface water drainage will be

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(d) managed and attenuated on site before discharge to the public sewer. Foul drainage will also be connected to the public sewer.

Transport and Access Appraisal Report – concludes the site is accessible by a range of transport modes and is within walking distance of the town centre and facilities. The development can also be accessible to surrounding pedestrian and cycle routes, including north to the Hydro. There is no road safety issue with access onto the A72.

Tree Protection and Management Plan – concentrates on the main tree belt along the northern edge of the site, specifies temporary tree protection measures and then management recommendations for the short and longer term. This involves removal of ten poor trees, crown lifting then gradual replacement as trees fall or require attention.

Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints – identifies the main tree belt along the northern edge of the site as well as scattered young trees throughout the site, an old row of apple trees and leylandii hedging along the roadside boundary. Categorises all trees and concludes the main woodland spine is in fair condition with reasonable life expectancy and should be protected.

Various other letters and emails in response to the Department’s expressed concerns over the development and in relation to developer contributions required for the development.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning: No objections to a site with excellent pedestrian and public transport links, the new street frontage slowing vehicles down. Various points to be addressed including visitor parking provision throughout the site, need for road construction consent, swept path analyses for roads off the central square, £1000 contribution per house for traffic management/bridge study, SUDs provision and linkage of the site with the path leading to the multi-use path at Janet’s Brae.

In response to amended plans, initially opposed the cul-de-sac arrangement serving the Type C houses and existing houses on the basis of the Designing Streets aims for linked networks.

Forward Planning Section: The site should be considered as an infill site under Policy G7 of the Local Plan as it is not identified greenspace in the SPG. Nevertheless, care is needed in relation to the Conservation Area location, setting of the listed hotel to the rear, management of the woodland, potential impacts on the River Tweed SAC and the likely connection to the second bridge crossing. All relevant sections of the Council should be consulted on these elements. Development should link with the multi-use path provided by the Council by linking with and improving the former railway line through to connect with the path at Janet’s Brae. Proposed Local Development Plan is also a material consideration.

In response to amended plans, recognises the design and layout improvements but notes that no provision was made for linkage to the aforementioned multi-use path.

Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: Kingsland Primary and Peebles High Schools require developer contributions to either improve or recoup

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(d)

expenditure, totalling £9,825 for each house and £1,474 for each flat. This can be varied on 1 April each year in line with the BCIS index.

Development Negotiator: Initially responded to submissions from the developer that sought to prove that on-site provision of affordable housing was neither viable nor desirable at the site. Following further discussion, applicant agreed to meet full developer contributions which included on-site affordable housing. A Section 75 Agreement instruction has been issued to seek –

x 25% on site affordable housing provision in line with the definitions contained within the Council’s appropriate SPG.

x Peebles Traffic Management/Bridge Study contributions at a rate of £1000 per house excluding any on-site affordable units.

x Play Area commuted sums at £500 per unit including any on-site affordable units.

x Education contributions would be required for all houses and flats, excluding any on-site affordable units. These would be at a total rate of £10444 per house and £1566 per flat covering both Kingsland Primary School and Peebles High School.

Housing Strategy: 25% affordable housing provision should be sought on site, through a delivery mechanism to be determined.

Environmental Health: Conditions should be imposed to ensure no development is commenced until an assessment on local air quality and a construction method statement are submitted. Informatives should also be imposed to ensure any lighting complies with national guidance and construction noise is minimised by adherence to specified days and times.

In response to amended plans, reiterates the same points.

Archaeology Officer: No known implications on either the original or amended plans.

Access Officer: Rights of responsible access should be available in line with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, Scottish Planning Policy and Local Plan Policy Inf 2. There are no rights of way through the site but recommend access is maintained through the housing site in the vicinity of the bridge over the disused railway, allowing access to the path network to the north-east.

Flood Protection Officer: Floor levels are over three metres above road level which itself is higher than the 1 in 200 year flood risk level, so risk to properties from river flooding is negligible. As the site is split level, all properties should have floor levels at least 300mm above ground levels. In relation to SUDs, require a 1 in 200 year plus climate change/storm event to be attenuated on site although request additional information on existing Greenfield run-off rate. Express concerns over connection of surface water to the public sewerage system and seek more information on overland flow routes and drainage at boundary markers.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(d)

In response to amended plans, now notes that the requirement for floor levels to be 300mm above ground levels has been addressed, all other previous comments still remaining valid.

Heritage and Design: Important considerations are the impacts of the scheme on the foreground setting of the listed Peebles Hydro and the relationship with this part of Peebles Conservation Area. Content with the principle of development but expresses some concerns in relation to front building line, lack of natural stone, overdevelopment of the rear terraced housing and reduction in scale and mass of the rear flats, by largely removal of upper floor accommodation.

Landscape Architect: No objections to the proposals which achieves a good balance of spaces to buildings with an appropriate grand and spacious entrance to the development. Various concerns to resolve including the need for a tree survey/management plan, a linking path from the development to the path that links with the multi-use path at Janet’s Brae, further information on retaining walls, new roadside hedging, boundary treatments to the Innerleithen Road frontage and surface treatments.

In response to amended plans, continued to reiterate previous requests for adjustment and further information, including the tree survey/management plan, path linkage to Janet’s Brae, roadside alternative hedging and retaining wall information.

Following submission of a detailed landscaping plan, satisfied that this addresses most of the comments previously made though still seeks confirmation that the linkage between the development and the path network north of the railway line will be facilitated by a gate. The Tree Management Plan should also take account of the second line of trees along the very northern edge of the site and propose some additional planting to strengthen this landscape feature.

Statutory Consultees

SEPA: No objections but would expect Council to consider flood risk in that the site lies next to an area of medium risk (1 in 200 year risk). No development should occur on any functional flood plain and there have been records of flooding from the River Tweed on surrounding land. Floor levels should respect any freeboard allowance and ground levels should slope away from the houses. Surface water drainage should be via SUDs directed into the water environment and not into the public sewerage system. Waste water should be agreed with Scottish Water to ensure capacity at the sewage treatment works and a connection is available.

In response to amended plans, raises no objection subject to the Council taking responsibility over flood prevention matters.

Scottish Water: Initial issues with the capacity of the Peebles WWTW and the need for the developer to agree mitigation with Scottish Water. Following further discussions, the major constraining issues are now being handled directly by Scottish Water though some more localised contributions may be need to be met by the developer as would be normal in such circumstances.

Peebles and District Community Council: Backs objections from the Civic Society and neighbouring proprietors, namely:

x Leads to excessive supply over demand compared to effective consents within LDP period.

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

x Overdevelopment contrary to Policy G7. x Fail to respect density of surroundings contrary to G7. x Frontage houses fail to respect building line. x Materials for frontage houses do not complement and enhance character of the area. x Reduced “cramming” would benefit impacts on neighbours and views to the Hydro from the other side of the valley. x Old railway track should be redeveloped as part of the Peebles-Innerleithen multi-use path.

Not opposed to windfall developments but cannot support such large developments at present without clearer understanding of future housing to be developed and the infrastructural impacts.

Also submitted responses to the pre-application consultation which makes further points about an alternative access from the western Hydro access, queries the strip of land west of the site and the need for affordable housing.

In response to amended plans, still consider the flats constitute overdevelopment and dominant massing on the site. Still remain concerned over the lack of connection between the development and the multi-use footpath and seek negotiations with relevant landowners to ensure linkage.

Other Consultees

Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland: Response awaited.

Peebles Civic Society: Objects to the application on following grounds:

x The use of the site has not been established and could conflict with the hotel and recreational space. x Impact on the listed setting and Conservation Area. x Premature in respect of the LDP allocation of houses for Peebles, concentrating more unplanned development in Peebles and not redistributing it as provided for in SESPlan. x The site is being severely overdeveloped as the houses and flats do not respect the density or character of the surroundings, especially the flats which cram 21 of 34 units into a quarter of the developable area. x The windows of the flats are close to footpaths, parking areas, fences and hedges. x The houses do not respect and are forward of the building line along Innerleithen Road, contrary to Policy G7. x Materials should be traditional and matching to the existing houses flanking the site, involving natural and matching stonework and no “reconstructed” stonework.

In response to amended plans and even with the reduction of four flats, repeats a number of the same objections as previously submitted. Whilst recognising that the eight frontage houses follow the building line and may now reflect surrounding character, the remainder of the development still does not, especially the flats. Block 1 remains bulky and dominant in relation to Block 2 which has been improved with hipped roofs. The flats still represent severe overdevelopment. The Type C houses are improved in layout with better road layout.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(d)

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

As a result of the neighbour notification procedures and local press advertisements, a total of seven objections and one general comment were received to the original submitted plans. These letters can be viewed in full on Public Access, the main grounds of objection including the following:

x The site is contrary to and not identified in the Local Plan. x Local infrastructure cannot handle the development. x Inappropriate and inconsistent density in relation to surroundings. x Proposed flats are especially high and prominent from the eastern approach and Whitestone Park. x Houses facing Innerleithen Road are in advance of the existing building line. x The westernmost proposed house is too close to a Grade B Listed Building. x Detrimental impacts on daylight and sunlight caused by Type C Housing. x Increased traffic problems on A72 and other roads. x The new access is unnecessary and is at a dangerous location compounded by vehicle speeds and potential of new bridge traffic. x Increased flood risk especially surface water onto the A72 and into Whitestone Park. x Will only attract commuter residents. x Lack of current housing demand. x Cause precedent for development of Hydro grounds. x Detrimental impacts on wildlife. x Support the objections of the Civic Society. x Detrimental impacts on residential amenity. x Electricity cable passes north to south through site.

As a result of the neighbour notification procedures and local press advertisements for the amended plans, a total of three further objections were received from previous objectors. As there was no retraction of objections, all letters received must be considered in assessing this application. The three further objections can be viewed in full on Public Access, the main grounds of additional objection including the following:

x Plans overly optimistic and large houses will not sell leading to future requests for higher density. x Changes have not made significant improvements. x The Type C houses and especially the southernmost one will create greater overlooking of garden and windows of adjoining house. x Natural and not reconstituted stone should be used on the frontage houses. x SUDs should not exacerbate existing drainage problems. x Flats will detrimentally impact view of Hydro when viewed from B7062 approach to Peebles.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SES Plan Strategic Development Plan 2013

Policy 5 Housing Land Policy 6 Housing Land Flexibility Policy 7 Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land Supply Policy 8 Transportation

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(d)

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1 Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4 Flooding Policy G5 Developer Contributions Policy G7 Infill Development Policy BE1 Listed Buildings Policy BE4 Conservation Areas Policy BE6 Protection of Open Space Policy NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy H2 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf1 Transport Safeguarding Policy Inf2 Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf3 Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf4 Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf5 Waste Water Treatment Standards Policy Inf6 Sustainable Urban Drainage Policy Inf11 Developments That Generate Travel Demand

Appendix D – Supplementary Planning Guidance and Standards

Scottish Borders Proposed Local Development Plan 2013

Policy PMD2 Quality Standards Policy PMD5 Infill Development Policy HD3 Protection of Residential Amenity Policy EP7 Listed Buildings Policy EP9 Conservation Areas Policy EP11 Protection of Greenspace Policy EP12 Green Networks Policy EP13 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy IS2 Developer Contributions Policy IS4 Transport Development and Infrastructure Policy IS5 Protection of Access Routes Policy IS6 Road Adoption Standards Policy IS7 Parking Provision and Standards Policy IS8 Flooding Policy IS9 Waste Water Treatment Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

“Affordable Housing” SPG “Green Space” SPG “Placemaking and Design” “Trees and Development” SPG “Development Contributions” SPG “Landscape and Development” SPG “Privacy and Sunlight” SPG

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining issues with this application are whether the development is appropriate in terms of Development Plan Policies on infill development and, if so, whether it would also comply with Policies relating to the Conservation Area, setting

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(d) of Listed Buildings, impacts on residential amenity, road access, transport linkages, tree retention, landscape, drainage issues and developer contributions.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning policy

The site is located within the grounds of the Peebles Hydro Hotel and was used as a pitch and put golf course until recently. Despite it being dedicated open space connected with the hotel, it is not formally protected as such in the Consolidated Local Plan nor the Proposed Local Development Plan. There is general open space protection afforded by Policy BE6, although the nature and use of the site does not sit within any of the categories of open space covered by the policy. The site does lie within Peebles Conservation Area and is governed by Policy BE4 relating to the protection and maintenance of the amenity of the Conservation Area. It also lies within the setting of the Category B Listed Peebles Hydro Hotel and Glentress House and is covered by Policy BE1 which requires developments to be respectful of the setting. Policy G1 also applies relating to quality standards for new development.

The requirements and constraints set down by these Policies relate to the overall Infill Local Plan Policy G7 which allows development within “white” unallocated land within settlements provided it complies with Policy BE6 on open spaces and then with a series of six other criteria which relate to the development pattern in the area, the amenity of the area, sympathetic density and design, services capacity and impacts on residential amenity. All these issues will be debated further in the following relevant sections in this report and it will be demonstrated that the development, as amended and with conditions, complies with the qualifying criteria in Policy G7.

There has been local concern expressed that the site and size of development could be considered too large for infill or “windfall” – the Scottish Government identifying such sites as those which “…become available for development unexpectedly during the life of the development plan and so are not identified individually in the plan”. There is no specific guidance in Scottish Planning Policy about the upper size limit of what should be considered a windfall site, except in formulating realistic housing supply targets in the Development Plan and taking into account the windfall contribution. Members will also note that the Forward Planning Section have addressed this point in their responses and there is no justification for opposing a 30 unit development on the basis that it is too significant to be considered “windfall”, provided all other Policies and criteria are met.

Policies BE1, BE4 and BE6 must all be considered in assessing whether the site can be developed in principle and, if so, in what manner. Policy BE6 (and the new EP11) protects both public and private open spaces although the categories that appear to be most relevant to the Policy are those with public access and specific functional roles. Whilst there should be recognition given to the role played by the open space in the landscape structure and townscape of the settlement, the loss of it seems to rely more heavily on the impacts on the use and users of that open space.

In the case of the site, it is sloping land with dedicated hotel use until recently, forming part of the grounds and with pitch and putt usage. Although the grounds are open and could conceivably be used by the public, the site drops down from the former railway line to the A72, but with no clear open access onto the road despite there being a gate, which remains permanently shut. Access can be gained from the east or west to the rear of the site but as the site lies south of these accesses down a

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(d) hill and with no open access onto the A72, it would be difficult to claim that a public role of the open space that would be pivotal or irreplaceable. There remains other open space within the grounds of the hotel to the north and west of the site and therefore the loss of this area of open space, in a functional capacity, is not inconsistent with the broad aims of Policy BE6. It must also be noted that Whitestone and Kerfield Park provide significant public open space and thoroughfares immediately to the south of the site on a much larger scale and which can be linked into this site, as referred to below.

In terms of the loss of open space to the visual characteristics of the approach to Peebles, the amenity of the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building, the existing characteristics and views of the site must be taken into account. Firstly, the site has been largely concealed behind an untidy conifer hedge for many years. Although the higher parts of the site can clearly be seen from Whitestone Park, there are woodland belts either side of the former railway line which form the northern boundary of the site and which provide foreground interruption to the overall view and appreciation of the Hydro Hotel. There is also a semi-detached two storey pair of houses known as “Hydro Gardens” immediately to the south of the railway line which form more interruption to the open space and the views to the Hydro.

Information has been submitted to demonstrate that uninterrupted vistas from Whitestone Park and from the A72 to the Hydro are not possible and that any development on the site would not necessarily result in the loss of open space characteristics which would be considered irreplaceable or intrinsic to the character of the setting of the Hydro Hotel. Sections have also been drawn to demonstrate that even the flatted blocks to the rear will be cut into the site and will have ridgelines largely at or below the ridgeline of the existing houses at Hydro Gardens. The trees are higher still and whilst, in the winter, views through the double row of trees would be possible, there is no reliance on the Hydro Hotel to have an uninterrupted area of ground south of the railway line and trees to maintain its character of the character of its setting.

From further afield, the Hydro Hotel is visible, especially from the back road leading from Kailzie and in the Cademuir Valley. However, it sits high up above the trees and has a dramatic, striking appearance. Any foreground development will rise no higher than Hydro Gardens and certainly well below the trees to the rear of Hydro Gardens. Subject to slate roofs and colouring that is appropriate to the site and surroundings, it is not considered that the development, as now proposed, will have a detrimental effect on the setting of the Hydro Hotel as a listed building. Similarly, the impacts of frontage traditionally designed houses on the listed Glentress House will not affect its prime setting or character, provided appropriate materials are used. This opinion is also shared by the Council’s Heritage Officer.

In terms of loss of open space to the character of the Conservation Area or the approach into Peebles, it is not considered that the impacts will be detrimental owing to the limited visibility of the existing open space from the A72 and the presence of building and woodland interruptions. Had there been a clear sweeping vista down from the Hydro Hotel into Whitestone and Kerfield Parks, then the impact and interruption would have been more significant. With appropriately designed detached houses along the frontage built with natural stone and slate roofs, the impacts of development on the current site would have a neutral – and arguably a positive – effect on the Conservation Area and approach to Peebles, with the open space being replaced with sympathetic development.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(d)

Furthermore, the scheme proposes the retention of the main stands of woodland to the rear of the site and will be maintaining a wide avenue south to north through the site, retaining a centre to the development of planted open space, aligned towards the Hydro Hotel and retaining a feeling of permeability through the site. The main avenue also leads to a small central square with further open space to the north and west of the square. The retention of the main woodland and incorporation of access paths through the site reduce the potential impacts of the development on the site and surrounding designations, in terms of removal of open space. Similarly, new hedging and estate-style metal fencing will occupy the front gardens leading down to the A72, being an appropriate and sympathetic boundary treatment for this part of the road and Conservation Area.

In summary, loss of the open space and infill development of the site with an appropriate development would be in compliance with current and proposed Development Plan Policies on infill development, open space, listed buildings, Conservation Areas and quality of development. There is no Forward Planning objection to the application in terms of compliance with the existing or new Development Plan and with national Planning Policy on windfall sites. It is concluded in Policy terms, that the development can be supported subject to details outlined below.

Design

The constraints previously identified have set the parameters for consideration of the various designs put forward for development of the site, all of which have involved three elements: Large detached houses across the site frontage with smaller link detached houses to the rear NW and flatted development to the NE. As mentioned in a number of the objections, there was concern over whether the rear developments constituted “backland” development out of character with the general pattern in the area.

Taking into account Policies G1 and G7, any new development would need to comply with the character and development pattern of the surrounding area, relating both to overall density and layout of houses. Policy BE4 on Conservation Areas also requires development to accord with scale, proportions, alignment, density, materials and boundary treatment.

In terms of the original submission of the application, there were a row of five link detached houses and two blocks of a total of 21 flats to the rear of the site, behind eight large detached villas along the frontage. Whilst there could be little doubt that such a frontage development was of appropriate form for Innerleithen Road in this part of Peebles, the rear development could be considered “backland” in relation to the houses bordering to the west of the site. However, the site itself already has a pair of semi-detached houses set well to the rear of the site which set a strong precedent. Furthermore, the old railway line and presence of the Hydro Hotel further to the rear of the site weaken any requirement to avoid backland development.

Indeed, the detached houses to the east of the site are, in themselves, somewhat isolated in being a single line of houses compared to the overall development pattern in Innerleithen Road in both directions and on both sides of the road. There are old and new developments to the rear of houses at The Bridges, the eastern approach drive to the Hydro Hotel and in the Kerfield Farm area. Accordingly, provided the development to the rear is appropriate and sympathetic to the frontage development, then the development of ground to the rear is not out of character with the surrounding urban pattern, including within the Conservation Area.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(d)

There were concerns of height, scale and proximity with both the rear flatted blocks and with the link detached houses, resulting in developments which were unnecessarily oppressive to existing and proposed houses, both those at Hydro Gardens and either side of the site on Innerleithen Road. Given the space to the north-western part of the site, the amended plans moved the link detached houses further to the rear, lining up better with Hydro Gardens and creating more open space and buffer separation with the frontage houses.

The building containing the flats was amended by making the following changes:

x A reduction in the number of flats from 21 to 17 by removal of a section of Block Two. x A subsequent movement of Block One eastwards away from the frontage of Hydro Gardens. x An alteration to make the roofs on Blocks One and Two now simply hipped with no mansard steeper sides, accentuated bellcasts or sloping rooftops. x Major reduction in scale and height of the entrance features on Blocks One and Two. x Removal of upper storey bays from flats.

The result of the amendments, combined with a significant amount of cut into the site, would lead to a built form with less visual bulk, height or linear spread. There would be less conflict with the Hydro Hotel in terms of scale, height and overall design, the impacts receding and the Hotel retaining its dominance over the general area. The slate roofs, render walls and traditional timber window forms are appropriate for the site and area, the bulk of the flats still punctuated by front projections. The link detached houses would utilise similar materials, the sense of place being assisted by the return of two units to the south, creating an open space/court to the front which is viewed as an improvement over the initially submitted design.

The design of the houses along the site frontage has been influenced by the traditional houses to the east, including listed buildings such as Glentress House, which adjoins the site. There was no concern over their proposed designs, being slate roofed with flat tops, chimneys, mullioned vertically proportioned timber windows, bay window features, reduced height wings and rear garages. Front and side stone treatments were proposed in reconstituted stone.

Initially, the row of houses were set too far forward on the site, on a building line starting nearer the road than that set by the main elevation of Glentress House to the west. Amended plans were submitted setting the building line further back and in a more generally recessed line between the two flanking houses. In terms of density and spacing between houses, it was also felt that the houses were too close to the flanking existing houses. This would impact on the setting of Glentress House (a listed building) to the west and dominate Braeriach to the east. Amended plans were submitted through the introduction of a third house type (A2) with narrower width along the frontage which allowed greater space to each side without making the gap between each new house any smaller.

Although the frontage houses will be set up on raised land, they need to retain some height and stature to relate well to the housing to the west. This is demonstrated in the Site Sections Sheet 1 which shows fill of 3m towards the western end and greatly reduced fill at the eastern end. However, the longitudinal section along the A72

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No. 5(d) demonstrates that all of the frontage houses will still have eaves and ridgelines below that of Glentress House to the west. There will inevitably be a large difference with the modest and low-lying Braeriach to the east. As there is a note on the drawings to suggest levels still need to be confirmed by Structural Engineers, it would be advisable to control final agreement by condition.

Given the importance of the frontage development to the appropriateness of the scheme, the amenity of the Conservation Area and the setting of surrounding listed buildings, a phasing condition would be important to ensure that this part of the development is completed first before either of the developments to the rear. Development to the rear would appear entirely inappropriate – and inconsistent with the surrounding pattern of development – if there were little or no development along the frontage. Similarly, the use of reconstituted stone in such a setting and en masse would not be appropriate and is rarely successful or realistic. A condition should be imposed to ensure that the house types along Innerleithen Road utilise natural stone throughout, instead of reconstituted stone. Slate roofs are already proposed and the remaining wall materials could be an appropriately coloured render as detailed on the drawings.

Windows need not be sash and case as the site is not within the Prime Frontage part of the Conservation Area although their general proportions, material and colour are important and can also be controlled by condition. The drawings already demonstrate traditional window arrangements with vertical proportions and mid rails to imitate sash.

Whilst the designs were not wholly inappropriate as originally submitted, the positions, layout and linear spread of the residential units required alteration to address the constraints and objections received. There remain objections from the Community Council, Civic Society and local residents, especially in relation to the flats, but as a result of the amendments and reductions in scale, it is considered that the overall design and layout of the buildings can now be considered to be in compliance with Development Plan Policies. Conditions will ensure appropriate timing and external materials.

Residential Amenity

Policies G1, G7 and H2 of the Consolidated Local Plan seek to ensure that new developments do not result in significant adverse effects on existing and proposed residential amenity. The layout has been amended and the houses designed to avoid overlooking and daylight shadowing between proposed properties, including generous distances between habitable room windows even when accounting for the higher level of the houses and flats to the rear. These distances all comply with those set down in the “Privacy and Sunlight” SPG, especially since the link detached “C” Type houses were moved further towards the rear of the site.

There were justifiable objections from the two houses flanking the frontage part of the site over proximity, overlooking and daylight impacts. There were also issues with impacts on Hydro Gardens caused by the original positions of the “C” Type houses and Block One of the flats. However, the problems to the rear of the site have been resolved through relocation of the flats and houses as previously described. To the front, the nearest house to Glentress House would now be 12m away and 15m to Braeriach. These increased distances and hipped roofs have resulted in a demonstration of adherence to daylighting angles when measured from the ground floor windows of the existing houses. However, additional windows on the east and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No. 5(d) west facing walls of the “B” Type houses on Plots 1 and 8 should be omitted by condition to ensure blank gables and no unacceptable overlooking problems.

The occupiers of Glentress House have also expressed concern over overlooking from the “C” Type Houses, both in the original alignment and especially in the amended designs. Although the revised alignment was not wholly what was suggested to the agent (in that the north/south return is two houses rather than one), the overlooking is much more oblique than was previously proposed. The previous layout would have resulted in overlooking from house frontages at an angle whereas the new layout presents blank gables and oblique overlooking from the nearest rear elevation which measures 21m from the corner of Glentress House at its nearest point. The nearest window to the rear on the upper floor would be a bathroom window with the closest habitable room window looking directly down the back lane. Furthermore, eight heavy standard trees are proposed to be planted down the boundary of Glentress House which will assist in reducing any oblique overlooking to rear garden ground. It is also not anticipated that the revised “C” Type houses will cause any issues of significant daylight reduction, given the 21m distance and the use of steeper 45q daylighting angles. The north-eastern location of the housing from Glentress House also means that there will be no significant sunlight impacts.

In conclusion, the layout and design revisions, subject to conditions and landscaping, would result in impacts on existing residential properties that would be considered to be in compliance with the relevant Development Plan Policies and Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Landscape

The application must be assessed against elements of Policies G1, G7, BE1, BE4 and NE4 that relate to impacts on the local landscape, trees on the site and adoption of a sympathetic and appropriate landscaping plan. It should also comply with the principles of SPGs on “Trees and Development” and “Landscape Development”. The submission was supported by a Tree Protection and Management Plan, a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Report, a full soft landscaping plan and boundary fencing details.

The Tree Protection and Management Plan concentrates on the main tree belt along the northern edge of the site, specifies temporary tree protection measures and management recommendations for the short and longer term. This involves removal of ten poor trees, crown lifting then gradual replacement as trees fall or require attention. The Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Report identifies the main tree belt along the northern edge of the site as well as scattered young trees throughout the site, an old row of apple trees and leylandii hedging along the roadside boundary. It categorises all trees and concludes the main woodland spine is in fair condition with reasonable life expectancy and should be protected.

The Landscape Architect is now content with the provisions and recommendations in these documents, though noting that the Management Plan makes no reference to the second line of woodland running along the northern boundary of the site adjoining the former railway line. Any consent should be subject to tree protection and management as defined in the submissions but with the addition of new assessment and proposals for the missing belt of woodland north of the railway. The retention of the woodland backdrop not only retains the natural landscape of the site but also provides an important soft backdrop to the development when viewed from the south, reducing the impacts of the development on the landscape and on the setting of the listed Hydro Hotel.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 15 Item No. 5(d)

The main landscaping proposals for the site have been greatly improved since initial submission and are now acceptable to the Landscape Architect. New heavy standard trees (38 in total) are being planted around the eastern, western and southern boundaries of the site together with another 45 trees in the central avenue and other parking courts and open spaces. This provides a grand open avenue view into the site towards the Hydro Hotel which is welcomed and will assist in softening and screening the flatted blocks from the main access point on the A72. Hedging is also proposed to numerous boundaries, especially the front boundaries of the houses on the A72 and along the front gardens of the houses and flats to the rear. Stone walling with metal railings above are proposed along the A72 boundary and divisional post and wire fences with hedges divide the garden boundaries along this frontage. Elsewhere within the site, there will be high stone walls in places and high close boarded fencing to the rear of the houses. Post and wire fencing will enclose the open woodland and railway line to the rear. One slight error appears to have been made between Plots 6 and 7 where some divisional high fencing breaks forward of the building line interrupting the open plan nature of the row – this can be rectified by a planning condition covering boundary treatments generally.

The details now shown in the Landscaping Plan and Boundary Treatments Plan are acceptable and will contribute towards an appropriate sense of place and landscape structure on the site, integrating well with the surroundings. A planning condition will still be necessary to obtain more details, especially of the walling, hard surfacing materials and to seek management and maintenance of the landscaping in perpetuity. Subject to this condition, it is considered that the application complies with the relevant Development Plan Policies on tree retention, landscape fit and landscape treatment.

Access

The planning application requires to comply with the relevant parts of Development Plan Policies G1 and G7 together with specific Policies Inf1, Inf2, Inf3, Inf4 and Inf11 on access, parking and travel demand. The application was supported by a Transport and Access Appraisal Report which concludes that the site is accessible by a range of transport modes and is within walking distance of the town centre and facilities. It also states that the development can be accessible to surrounding pedestrian and cycle routes and that there is no road safety issue with access onto the A72.

Although some objections have been lodged in relation to the adequacy of the A72 and surrounding roads to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this development and in relation to the precise access point itself (including the potential impacts of a second bridge crossing), there have consistently been no objections from Roads Planning in relation to the principle of the development with access directly from the A72. They do not consider the site will cause unacceptable access or traffic generation difficulties in that it is accessed from a 30mph straight section of an A Class Road, north of the river and with level, relatively short pedestrian access to the town centre and facilities.

The site is also on a bus route and the development gives rise to a requirement for a £30,000 contribution towards the Traffic Management/Bridge Study within the town which will assist in providing any mitigation necessary as a result of the increased traffic.

The access point itself will have acceptable sightlines and gradients, although further engineering details will need to be submitted on this point and the remainder of the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 16 Item No. 5(d) road/parking system through the site – which will require to be to adoptable standards.

Various amended plans were required to resolve the internal roads and parking system within the site, including swept path analyses in relation to movements from the central square towards the rear housing and flats and the provision of appropriate visitor parking. The scheme, as now proposed, resolves these matters and the layout can be considered to be in compliance with Development Plan Policies.

Many have raised the importance of connectivity between the development and the footpath/cycle path network recently established by the Council which heads towards Glentress and Innerleithen. This connectivity is encouraged by Policy Inf2 and it is considered important that the development makes provision for access through its central avenue. At present, the improved cycle path terminates at Janet’s Brae which is the eastern access drive to the Hydro Hotel, a short distance to the east of the development site. From there, walkers and cyclists either drop down to the A72 before heading into Whitestone Park or continue along the path that leads through the Hydro Hotel grounds, immediately outwith the application site to the north of the former railway line.

The application site provides the opportunity for linkage slightly nearer the town and with more direct access down its central avenue to the access point onto the path network in Whitestone Park. Although not initially proposed, the amended plans now provide a footpath link between the central avenue and the Hydro Hotel path beside the railway line. Further details in relation to design, construction, alignment, timing and maintenance will need to be sought by condition, although the path linkage could be timed to be completed with the first phase of the housing facing the Innerleithen Road. Users would then have to be carefully protected when subsequent phases of the development are under construction. If there is to be a gate proposed, then this should remain unlocked at all times.

Some responses have queried whether the section of path outwith the site, and linking it with Janet’s Brae, should also be improved. The path is within the ownership of the Peebles Hydro Hotel who have no objections to it being used but do not intend to upgrade or improve it. Nor do the developers who believe it is sufficient to connect their development to this section of path. The path is certainly flat and useable in its current condition, both for pedestrians and cyclists. It is questionable whether it is reasonable to ask either party to facilitate its upgrading given that it is already in generally good condition, already used and provides a link to the west drive to the hotel. Making the link is the important element and is more directly related to the development being proposed.

Policy Inf1 protects former railway routes from any development which could prejudice their re-use for recreational purposes. In this particular instance, there is an attractive metal pedestrian overbridge which has no height clearance above the former railway line to allow the line to be used for any recreational purpose, hence the use of the parallel path to the north of the former line. Whilst there would be little point in carrying out large excavations to achieve a path along the railway line in duplication of one that already exists, the proposed development will cause no blockage of the former line, given that trees are being retained and the gardens to the “C” Type houses do not impinge on the trackbed.

In summary, it is considered that all access related Development Plan Policies are complied with through the amended plans and subject to appropriate conditions.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 17 Item No. 5(d)

Flooding and drainage

The development must also be assessed in relation to flooding and water/drainage provision. Policy G4 relates to flooding, requiring developments to both be safe from flood risk but also not to create unmanageable flood risk elsewhere. It was established early in the processing of the application that the elevation of the site meant that it was safe from a 1 in 200 year flood risk from river sources, the nearest historical events reaching the A72 but no further. SEPA accepted the application proposals but the Council’s Flood Protection Officer required assurance on a number of matters including ensuring finished floor levels were at least 300mm above finished ground. This request has been achieved throughout the proposal although conditions will still need to cover issues relating to surface water treatment, including full SUDs proposals, storm attenuation on site, information on existing greenfield run- off rates and treatment of drainage at boundaries.

There is no suggestion there are any particular issues with the provision of a public water supply to service the development but there have been known issues of adequate future capacity at the Peebles Waste Water Treatment Works. Scottish Water have been investigating the matter and intend to have permanent improvements in place by 2017, having raised a Growth Capital Expenditure for the works. In the interim period, they are currently conducting studies of the network to identify suitable mitigation to enable developments to connect before 2017. Whilst there may be some contribution required from the developer of this application to connect (as is normal and as identified in Policy Inf5), Scottish Water have undertaken to resolve any major restraining issues themselves and therefore the connection issue is one to be resolved between these parties.

Developer Contributions

Policy G5 in the Consolidated Local Plan requires all developments to meet the relevant developer contributions that are required in a local area and as are set down in the relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance. Whilst the agent had initially intended to request that affordable housing was not appropriate for the site and could have rendered the development unviable, there is now agreement to meet all the contributions that are required for this development.

These contributions relate to the provision of seven on-site affordable housing units and financial contributions towards Peebles High School, Kingsland Primary School, off-site play provision and traffic management/bridge studies. Although some objections have questioned the capacity of local services to accommodate the development, it is Council Policy to seek recompense from those developments that could place strain on the local services rather than refusing proposals.

The play provision can be augmented and facilitated off site due to the proximity of the site to The Gytes, Whitestone and Kerfield Parks which provide ample opportunities for enhancement of play space, albeit there are no current dedicated areas of equipped children’s play space. The “Green Space” SPG would normally require equipped play space within 450m of the site for there to be no necessity to provide on-site equipment, but, given the close proximity of the expansive park and play space across the road from the development, it is not considered justifiable to seek on-site provision.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 18 Item No. 5(d)

Other Issues

Scottish Power have indicated the presence of an underground electricity cable which passes north to south through the site and this should be brought to the applicant’s attention through an Applicant Informative.

Some concern has also been expressed regarding the precedent of further development within the grounds of the Hydro Hotel but this would have to be addressed against prevailing Policies at that time, taking into account all the constraints identified in the processing of this application and including the impacts on, and preservation of, the setting of listed buildings and existing trees within the site.

Issues of appropriate housing mix for the local market and the demand for the houses are not determining factors in the case of an infill site which complies with Development Plan policies and which, in any case, presents a mix of accommodation types which respect the surrounding constraints of the site. It is correct that larger detached houses should occupy the site frontage to respect the nature of the existing houses to the west of the site.

Environmental Health officers seek conditions on any approval to control air quality and seek a Construction Method Statement. They also seek Applicant Informatives to advise on lighting within the site and to control construction noise.

CONCLUSION

Following the submission of amended plans and subject to appropriate conditions and a Legal Agreement, it is concluded that the development is appropriate in terms of Development Plan Policies on infill development, Conservation Areas, setting of Listed Buildings, impacts on residential amenity, road access, transport linkages, tree retention, landscape, drainage and developer contributions.

RECOMMENDATION BY SERVICE DIRECTOR (REGULATORY SERVICES):

I recommend the application is approved subject to a legal agreement addressing contribution towards affordable housing, schools, traffic management and play space, and the following conditions:

2. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in strict accordance with a programme of phasing which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the programme should provide for the completion of the dwellinghouses on Plots 1-8 before development on any other plots is commenced. Reason: To ensure that the development of the estate proceeds in an orderly manner.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 19 Item No. 5(d)

3. All roofs throughout the development to be clad with natural slate and the houses on Plots 1-8 to be clad with natural stone in the areas shown as reconstituted stone on the approved drawings. A sample of these and all other materials to be used on all exterior surfaces of the development hereby permitted, including doors and windows, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced. Reason: The materials to be used require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

4. The development shall be served throughout by roads and pavements constructed to the Council’s adoptable standards. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

5. All finished floor, ground and driveway/parking area levels to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and safeguard against surface water flood risk.

6. Before any part of the permitted development is commenced, the trees to be retained on the site shall be protected by a chestnut paling fence 1.5 metres high, placed at a minimum radius of one metre beyond the crown spread of each tree, and the fencing shall be removed only when the development has been completed. During the period of construction of the development: (a) No excavations, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut, or pipes or services laid in such a way as to cause damage or injury to the trees by interference with their root structure; (b) No fires shall be lit within the spread of the branches of the trees; (c) No materials or equipment shall be stored within the spread of the branches of the trees; (d) Any accidental damage to the trees shall be cleared back to undamaged wood and be treated with a preservative if appropriate; (e) Ground levels within the spread of the branches of the trees shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, or trenches excavated except in accordance with details shown on the approved plans. Reason: In the interests of preserving the health and vitality of existing trees on the development site, the loss of which would have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area.

7. No development to be commenced until a revised Tree Survey and Tree Protection and Management Plan are submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority, including survey and proposals for the trees within the site immediately north of the former railway line. Once approved, no trees within the application site identified for retention, shall be felled, lopped, lifted or disturbed in any way without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority and the trees shall be managed in perpetuity in accordance with the details approved. Reason: The existing trees represent an important visual feature which the Local Planning Authority considered should be substantially maintained.

8. No development shall take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate):

Planning and Building Standards Committee 20 Item No. 5(d)

I. existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance II. existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored III. location and design, including materials, of walls (including retaining walls), fences and gates IV. soft and hard landscaping works V. existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub- stations VI. other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, play equipment VII. A programme for phasing of the works, completion and subsequent maintenance – including all open communal areas of landscaping. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

9. Further details of the water supply and of both surface water and foul drainage to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before any development is commenced and, once approved, to be implemented in accordance with an agreed programme. This should include full SUDs proposals, storm attenuation, information on greenfield run-off rates and treatment of drainage at boundaries. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

10. No development shall commence until an assessment of the impact of the development on local air quality has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with the recommendations/findings of the report. The assessment should quantify the levels of pollutants likely to arise from the development, with reference to the Scottish Air Quality Objectives. The issues addressed should include pollution arising from the presence of additional road traffic and human occupancy, and the use of any proposed zero carbon/renewable technologies Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the neighbouring properties, to protect the quality of air in the locality and to protect human health and well being.

11. No development shall commence until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The method statement should detail issues relating to the control of noise and nuisance from the site during the construction phase. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the neighbouring properties and to protect human health and well being.

12. No development to be commenced until further details and a programme of completion are submitted to, approved by, the Planning Authority, demonstrating a footway and cyclepath between Innerleithen Road and the Peebles Hydro Hotel footpath, at the northern end of the former railway footbridge and as shown on Drawing 13039(PL)003-E. Once the details are approved, the path to be completed in accordance with the approved details and timing agreed and to be retained unobstructed for free public access in perpetuity. Reason: To ensure adequate public access to existing facilities and other footpath networks.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 21 Item No. 5(d)

13. Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, no windows are to be installed on the western gable of the “B” Type House on Plot 1 or the eastern gable of the “B” Type House on Plot 8. Reason: To safeguard residential amenity.

Informatives

1. The applicant should contact Scottish Power before the development commences to discuss the underground electricity line which passes through the site.

2. The Council’s Environmental Health Service advises the following:

The installation should be designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Engineers. If necessary, suitable shuttering should be provided for each lamp to prevent unwanted light affecting the occupiers of properties off site.

The Control of Pollution Act 1974 allows the Council to set times during which work may be carried out and the methods used. The following are the recommended hours for noisy work Monday – Friday 0700 – 1900 Saturday 0900 – 1300 Sunday (Public Holidays) – no permitted work (except by prior notification to Scottish Borders Council.

Contractors will be expected to adhere to the noise control measures contained in British Standard 5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites.

For more information or to make a request to carry out works outside the above hours please contact an Environmental Health Officer at [email protected]

DRAWING NUMBERS

Large Scale Site Layout 13039(PL)002-E Site Layout 13039(PL)003-E Site Sections Sheet 1 13039(PL)005-B Site Sections 13039(PL)006-A Boundary Treatments 13039(PL)004-D Accommodation Schedule Landscape Proposals 12-01e Site Layout Parking Provision 13039(PL)007-B Vehicle Tracking 4249-204 A Apartments Ground Floor Plan 13039(PL)130-B Apartments First Floor Plan 13039(PL)131-B Apartments Second Floor Plan 13039(PL)132-B Apartments North Elevation and South Elevation 13039(PL)133-B Apartments East Elevation and West Elevation 13039(PL)134-B Apartments Cycle Store 13039(PL)135 House Type A Plans and Elevations 13039(PL)100-A House Type A2 Plans and Elevations 13039(PL)105-A House Type B Plans and Elevations 13039(PL)110-A

Planning and Building Standards Committee 22 Item No. 5(d)

House Type C Elevations 13039(PL)121-A House Type C Plans 13039(PL)120-A Contour Plan Location Plan 13039(PL)001-A Photomontage 1 Photomontage 2 Overshadowing Compliance 13039(PL)008

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director (Regulatory Services)

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 23 Item No. 5(d)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 24 Item No. 5(e)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

8 DECEMBER 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 14/01102/FUL OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Hawick and Hermitage PROPOSAL: Part change of use from clubrooms and alterations to form class 1 retail store on ground floor SITE: Royal British Legion 3 North Hermitage Street Newcastleton APPLICANT: Armstrong and Turnbull AGENT: Rodney Jeremiah Architectural Services

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is situated on the south east side of North Hermitage Street, within the Newcastleton Conservation Area. It is a large building, with an attractive stone frontage, sash and case timber windows and a central entrance with a timber door. There is a stone wing to the rear and a smaller, rendered extension with a metal fire escape enclosed by sheeting. The side and rear elevations have a mix of window styles and materials. The building has a slate roof.

There is a yard to the rear accessed from both Whitchester Lane to the north and Whitchester Street to the south via a narrow private access road. The yard is enclosed by a low stone wall to the north, a timber fence to the south east and trees to the south.

The building was formerly the British Legion building but is now vacant. The ground floor included a lobby, lounge, bar, function room, office and toilets. There is a function room at first floor level.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The current application relates only to the ground floor of the building. The function room on the first floor will remain. The proposal is to convert the ground floor of the building into retail use. The original proposal was for the main part to be a general store and the smaller unit to be a hairdressing salon. The proposal, as amended, is for one retail unit with the smaller room omitted from the application. The lobby, office and toilets would remain. The internal alterations include the removal of walls and the blocking up of doorways.

In the front elevation one window would become a door to the smaller room. A new door would be fitted into the existing entrance but recessed to allow for a ramp and a new door would be formed to provide a separate entrance to the function room. The original proposal was for two of the timber sash and case windows to be replaced with a shop window. The proposal has been amended and the windows in the front

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(e)

elevation would be replaced on a like-for-like basis. Two air conditioning units and refrigeration units would be installed on the rear elevation within the yard area.

The submitted drawing shows a Spar sign above the entrance but no details of colour, material or illumination have been provided.

PLANNING HISTORY

95/01246/FUL: Wet dash render gable end. Approved 17th August 1995

96/01099/FUL: Extension to clubrooms. Approved 8th October 1996

99/00727/FUL: Erection of boundary fence. Approved 2nd August 1999

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Thirty three representations have been received (17 objections and 16 in support). These are available for Members to view on the Public Access System. The following planning issues have been raised:

x The Design and Access Statement is inaccurate as the Legion has been closed since 2011 and not from 2006.

x Insufficient information has been submitted regarding floor space created, internal layout, employment generated, car parking and signage.

x The existing general store is currently vacant and the village cannot support further general store expansion.

x The village is well served by the existing Costcutter, a family business, which will go out of business if a Spar is allowed.

x The store will not be operated by the Spar Organisation but as a franchise run by an independent retailer who has an arrangement with a Spar distributer or wholesaler for the supply of goods.

x There is no business plan or retail impact study. This development would not be profitable unless the sale of alcohol is the main economic and financial element. The proposal would result in an overprovision of the sale of alcohol and other commodities.

x The hairdressing salon is an existing business situated in Buccleuch House and so the proposal would only result in one new business.

x The proposal would not be beneficial to the village as the population of the village and surrounding area is not large enough to support another store and it would be difficult for the existing shops and family businesses to survive. The post office and general store/newsagent have recently closed. Vacant shops harm the appearance of the village and Conservation Area. Jobs will be lost if existing businesses close as a result of this proposal.

x The village has a grocery store, butchers and hardware store, which contains the post office. These businesses already compete with on-line shopping, deliveries from large supermarket chains and with people travelling to Hawick

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(e)

and Carlisle. Moving the post office to the new premises would harm the store that currently accommodates it.

x Inadequate parking will result in cars parking in the side streets and affecting resident’s parking on North Hermitage Street. There is already a heavy demand for parking on North Hermitage Street and this will add to the pressure, causing an obstruction and affecting visibility. A 20mph speed limit should be considered.

x The use of the rear yard for parking would affect residential amenities. It is not large enough to accommodate 7 spaces. The existing function room at first floor level would also require parking.

x There are no details of where deliveries will take place. The rear yard is within a residential area and the access lane is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles. Deliveries from the main street will cause congestion, an obstruction and would affect pedestrian safety close to the primary school.

x Access to the rear of the property would be via the lane from Douglas Square. This is narrow and its upkeep is the responsibility of the two householders at either side of the lane. No provision has been made to repair to the lane, if required.

x Demand on existing drainage and water supply.

x The function rooms will continue to be used for events and disabled access is required.

x The proposal is for alterations to a building within the Conservation Area and part of the village’s built heritage. The alterations to the frontage, including the signage, are out of keeping with the character of the building.

x Noise nuisance from the air conditioning unit and extractor fans.

x The use of the building will disturb local residents.

x Other uses, such as tourism or residential uses, would be more appropriate for the building and would benefit the village.

x The proposal would provide choice in the village, reducing the need to travel outwith the village, and would provide a use for the empty building that benefits the community.

x The post office relocated to its current location until a permanent store and agent could be found. It is open for 12 hours per week but moving it to the proposed store would allow it to open longer.

x The proposed store will employ 6 people.

x The proposal will attract tourists to the village by providing better services and facilities.

x The building is situated on the main road and so the shop front would not be out of character.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(e)

x The Square can be used for parking and the function room generated a demand for parking when it was open. Lorries already deliver to other premises in the village and there were also deliveries to the Legion when it was open.

x The proposal would provide modern premises for the existing hairdresser.

x The reopening of the function room would benefit the community.

x The building will have a ramp for disabled access.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Design and Access Statement (As Amended)

x The building was used as the British Legion Club building until 2011 and has been vacant since then.

x The main part of the ground floor will be adapted to form a general store operated by franchise holders of the Spar shop group. The smaller ground floor room fronting North hermitage Street will remain vacant and an application for the change of use of this room will be submitted at a later date. The reinstatement of the entrance door remains part of this current application.

x The first floor would remain as a function room with an average of two functions a month

x The building would remain essentially unaltered apart from the reinstatement of two doorways allowing access from North Hermitage Street and the blocking up of a doorway to the side passage. There will be no public access to the rear of the building apart from the fire exits.

x New signage is proposed that will reflect the building’s location in the Conservation Area.

x New windows will be like-for-like and the new doors will be panelled timber. There will be a ramped entrance to make the building accessible.

x Public and staff access to the store and function room will be via two separate doors from North Hermitage Street. The car park to the rear will be reserved for staff. Some roadside parking is available in front of the building and there is free parking in Douglas Square easily accessible for customers.

x The shop will open from 7am until 8pm Monday the Friday, 7am until 7pm Saturdays and 8am until 6pm on Sundays. A post office will be located within the store operating during shop opening hours on Monday to Saturday.

x Deliveries would be from North Hermitage Street between 7am and 9am Monday to Friday and there would be thee deliveries a week. A lay-by outside the shop and the width of the street means there would be little disruption during deliveries.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(e)

x The shop will employ 3 full time staff, including the franchise holders, and four part time staff.

x The air conditioning unit will be positioned adjacent to the rear wall and will be designed to produce low noise levels and so there would be no noise impact on nearby properties. There would be no cooking or baking on-site.

x A business plan has been prepared with an assessment of the viability of a new shop of this type in Newcastleton.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: There is a general support for the change of use to buildings within town centres, and, given the existing on-street parking and parking associated with the property I shall have no objections to this proposal. The parking area to the rear of the property should be tidied up to maximise its benefits.

Flood Protection Officer: The site is not at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years. That is the 0.5% annual risk of a flood occurring in any one year. This is a small scale development that is unlikely to have a significant effect on the storage capacity of the functional flood plain or affect local flooding problems and I would not oppose it on flooding grounds.

Environmental Health: I have assessed this application in terms of noise. No information has been provided regarding the plant equipment that the shop and hair dressers will potentially install. In order to assess this application the applicant must provide the information regarding the refrigeration, air conditioning and any other noise emitting equipment that will be installed, confirm if there will be cooking or baking of any food on-site and confirm the time of the earliest and latest delivery to the retail shop.

Economic Development: Supports the creation of 2 retail premises which will support the economy of the village and create new jobs.

Statutory Consultees

Newcastleton Community Council: No response.

Other Consultees

None.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SES Plan Strategic Development Plan 2013

Policy 1B: The Spatial Strategy: Development Principles Policy 3: Town Centres and Retail

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(e)

Policy G4: Flooding Policy G7: Infill Development Policy BE4: Conservation Areas Policy ED3: Shopping Development Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards

Proposed Local Development Plan 2013

Policy PMD2: Quality Standards Policy PMD5: Infill Development Policy ED3: Town Centres and Shopping Development Policy HD3: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy EP9: Conservation Areas Policy IS7: Parking Provision and Standards Policy IS8: Flooding

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Guidance on Householder Developments July 2006 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Placemaking and Design. January 2010 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Replacement Windows April 2012 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Shop Fronts and Shop Signs March 2011

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether this is an appropriate use of the building in this part of Newcastleton.

x The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and on visual amenities.

x The impact of the proposal on residential amenities.

x Access, parking, deliveries and road safety issues.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

SESplan policy 3 promotes a sequential approach to retail proposals. Local Plan policy ED3 seeks to support and enhance town centres and town centre locations for retail development is preferred to edge-of-centre locations.

The proposal is to convert the ground floor of the British Legion building in Newcastleton into a retail outlet. The information submitted with the application indicates this would be operated as a Spar store catering for food shopping. The first floor of the building was previously used by the British Legion as a function room and this use will remain, though no longer operated by the British Legion, and does not form part of the current application.

The building is situated just off the central square in Newcastleton and it can be argued that it is within the village centre. The proposal would therefore comply with policy ED3.

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

The development is not of a scale or located in an out-of-centre location that would require a Retail Impact Assessment, which would asses the impact of a retail proposal on the vitality and viability of a town or village centre. The aim of policy ED3 is to guide new shopping development to town and village centres thereby helping to protect and enhance the vitality and viability of town and village centres. Although a number of representations have been received expressing concern over the impact of this proposal on existing stores in Newcastleton it is not the role of the planning system to protect individual shops or to intervene in legitimate competition. To refuse this application because it might impact on another individual or business would be unreasonable.

Policy G7 allows the change of use of buildings within the development boundary of a settlement provided that certain criteria are met. The first of these is that the proposal does not conflict with the established use of the area. This part of Newcastleton has a mix of residential and commercial uses, such as the Copshaw Kitchen Restaurant to the immediate north east and the Costcutter store, Liddesdale Hotel and the Grapes Hotel in Douglas Square. The area around Douglas Square is where the commercial services within the village and it is therefore considered that the proposal would be in keeping with this part of Newcastleton.

Design and Impact on Conservation Area

Policy 1B of the SESplan states that Development Plans should have regard to the need to improve the quality of life in local communities by conserving and enhancing the natural and built environment to create more healthy and attractive places to live. Development Plans should have regard to the need for high quality design, energy efficiency and the use of sustainable building materials.

Policy G1 of the Local Plan requires all development to be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit in with Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings. The policy contains a number of standards that would apply to all development. Policy G7 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. The proposal should not detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding area. Policy BE4 states that development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on its character and appearance will be refused.

The proposal involves a number of internal alterations to form the retail unit. Externally the alterations are minor in nature. In the front elevation one window opening would be extended to form a door and a new door would be inserted into a blocked-up doorway. A new door would be fitted at the existing entrance but recessed to allow for a small ramp. These doors would be timber and a condition would ensure that the colour has to be agreed.

The proposal as originally submitted was to replace two timber sash and case windows with a shop window. The building is situated within the Prime Frontage/Core Area of the Conservation Area and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Replacement Windows requires like-for-like replacements of the same material, method of opening and glazing pattern. The existing windows contribute significantly to the attractiveness of the building and it was felt that the proposed window would be inappropriate for this building and this part of the Conservation Area. The proposal has been amended so that the three windows in

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(e)

the front elevation would be replaced with like-for-like windows and this will be controlled by a planning condition.

No details if the proposed signage for the store has been submitted. This is an attractive building within the Conservation Area and large plastic or aluminium signs would not be appropriate for this building. Individual letters applied to the stonework would be more in keeping with the character of the area and the building and this advice will be passed on to the applicant via a condition and informative note.

It is considered that the proposal would bring a vacant building back into use in the centre of the village. The external alterations proposed are minor in nature and would be in keeping with the character of the building. The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not harm the visual amenities of the area.

Impact on Residential Amenities

Policy G7 of the Local Plan states that the development should not result in any significant loss of daylight, sunshine or privacy to adjoining properties as a result of overshadowing or overlooking. Policy H2 states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted.

No extensions are proposed for the building or additional window openings and so the proposal would result in any overlooking or loss of light concerns.

The building was previously occupied by the British Legion, with a bar and public room on the ground floor. The existing function room on the first floor is to remain, with a separate entrance formed from North Hermitage Street. The previous use would have generated a certain level of traffic, activity and noise and it is considered that the change of use of the ground floor to a retail unit would not constitute a worsening of the situation. The building is located within the centre of the village where there are other commercial uses.

Two air conditioning units and two refrigeration units are proposed for the rear elevation of the building adjacent to the yard area. Details of the type and noise levels have been submitted and Environmental Health has been consulted. A condition is required to ensure that the refrigeration and air conditioning units are approved by the Planning Authority before the development commences. It is, however, likely that units could be installed with noise levels that do not disturb residents of nearby houses.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would not harm the residential amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties.

Access and Parking

Policy G7 of the Local Plan requires that adequate access and servicing can be achieved. Policy Inf4 requires that car parking should be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.

The agent has submitted a drawing to demonstrate how seven staff parking spaces would be accommodated within the rear yard. Customer parking would be on-street, on North Hermitage Street and within Douglas Square. There is a narrow strip of ground along the North Hermitage Street frontage for parking.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(e)

The Roads Planning Service advises that there is support for the change of use of buildings and they have no objections to the proposal. They advise that the yard to the rear would adequately accommodate five parking spaces, which is sufficient for staff parking, and the agent has amended the site plan to delete two spaces.

The Design and Access Statement states that deliveries to the store would be from North Hermitage Street to the front, between 7am and 9am three times a week. This would mean that delivery lorries would not need to access the rear yard via the narrow lanes each side and would have less of an impact on local residents. This delivery arrangement is in place for other premises within the village centre.

It is accepted that Newcastleton is located within a rural area where car use is the norm, however, the store would be located within the village centre and so would be accessible to local residents on foot.

Other Issues

The Council’s Flood Protection Officer advises that the site is not at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years and would not oppose the proposal on flooding grounds.

The agent has submitted an amended Design and Access Statement and supporting information to address the inaccuracies and lack of detailed information in the original submission.

A ramp from North Hermitage Street into the store is proposed to aid access but the issue of fire escapes would be dealt with by Building Standards as part of the Building Warrant application.

CONCLUSION

The proposal, subject to conditions, complies with policies G1, G7, BE4, ED3, H2 and Inf4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 in that the proposed retail use would be appropriate for this central part of Newcastleton and the proposed alterations to the building would not harm the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the visual amenities of the area. It is considered that the proposed use would not harm the residential amenities of occupiers of surrounding properties and adequate on-site and on-street parking would be available.

RECOMMENDATION BY SERVICE DIRECTOR (REGULATORY SERVICES):

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

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(e)

3. Details of the position, size, colour and materials of any signage to be displayed on the building or within the application site to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any advertisement being displayed. Thereafter the works are to be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1994.

4. The new external doors proposed for the front elevation of the building to be timber (with glazing as appropriate) and the exact style and colour finish to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The doors then to be installed as approved. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

5. The proposed replacement windows in the front elevation of the building to be timber sash and case with white painted frames and astragals. Exact details of the windows, including frame and astragal thickness and colour, horns and method of opening, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The replacement windows to be installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

6. The car parking in the rear yard to be provided in accordance with Drawing Number 2380-1B before the retail use becomes operational. Reason: To ensure adequate staff parking is provided within the site.

7. No development shall take place until precise details of the position, type, dimensions and noise levels of the refrigeration units and air conditioning units have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The units then to be installed as per the approved details before the retail use becomes operational Reason: To protect residential amenities.

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

Informatives

In respect of condition 3, the signs may require a separate application for Advertisement Consent. Guidance on what type of signage would be appropriate for the Conservation Area can be found in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Shop Fronts and Shop Signs March 2011 available to view on the Council’s website. Discreet signage would be appropriate; for example, individual letters with a matt finish fixed to the stone above the entrance.

The retail store will need to be registered with the Council before commencing operations. In order to ensure that the layout of the premises complies with the registration requirements the applicant should contact an Environmental Health

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(e)

Officer as the earliest stage possible. This can be done be calling 0300 100 1800 or e-mailing [email protected]

DRAWING NUMBERS

2280-2 Location Plan 2375-1 Ground Floor Plan as Existing 2376-1A Ground Floor as Proposed 2377-1 First Floor Plan as Existing 2378-3 A Elevations as Proposed 2379-1 Elevations as Existing 2380-1B Site Plan

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director (Regulatory Services)

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 Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(e)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No. 5(f)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

8 DECEMBER 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 14/01008/FUL OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Hawick and Denholm PROPOSAL: Change of use from office and alterations and extension to form dwellinghouse SITE: Former Office 30 Commercial Road Hawick APPLICANT: Mr Ronnie Murray AGENT: Aitken Turnbull Architects Ltd

SITE DESCRIPTION

The property is a two-storey, semi detached building situated on the north west side of Commercial Road, outwith the Conservation Area. It was last used as office for the adjacent builder’s yard to the west.

There is a two storey dwellinghouse adjoining the building to the south east with Commercial Road and the River Teviot beyond. The access road to the serve the two properties and the builder’s yard is to the north east and beyond this is the Wilton Mills site, where all the buildings have been demolished except for the Clock Tower. To the south west is the Peugeot car sales and repairs garage.

The building has pink rendered walls, a slate roof and white painted timber sash and case windows in the front elevation with a six-on-six glazing pattern and UPVC windows to the rear. There is a 1.8m high timber fence on the rear boundary with the Peugeot garage.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is to convert the building into a dwellinghouse. This would have a living room, shower room and utility room at ground floor level and two bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor level. An extension would be erected on the rear elevation to provide a kitchen and dining room. This would have cedar cladding for the walls and a mineral felt roof. One door in the front elevation would be blocked up to form a timber window to match those at first floor level.

The lean-to on the rear elevation would be demolished and a patio area formed. The ground to the rear would be extended into the adjacent builder’s yard to provide an area of garden ground and this would be enclosed by a timber fence to match the existing. A timber fence would also be erected on the side boundary with the adjoining property.

Access would be from Commercial Road via the existing access and two parking spaces are proposed at the junction.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(f)

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no planning history for this site.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

There are no representations.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A Planning Design and Access Statement has been submitted by the agent and is available for Members to view in full on the Public Access website:

x The applicant, Mr R Murray (Bayhill Farming Ltd), owns the entire site including the redundant former builder's yard to the north west and the existing two storey building and car parking bays. The front section of the building is a residential unit whilst the rear section, to which the application relates, is a disused builder's office.

x The building was originally a single residential dwelling which served workers from the local mill. The rear section later served as an office and was subsequently purchased to form office accommodation serving the builder's firm, which ceased trading two years ago.

x The proposal is to convert the rear section of the building to form a new residential unit (returning the building to its original use). The existing on-site car parking bays would be split between the front and rear dwellings with a minimum of two bays provided for the new conversion unit.

x The conversion would retain the existing external stone rendered walls and slate pitched roof. Internally, the ground floor would be reconfigured to a house with a new single storey extension to the south west to provide kitchen and dining accommodation. All windows and doors are to be replaced in timber to match existing. The new ground floor extension is to be formed in timber with horizontal cedar cladding finish, to provide a clear and visible break between the old and new.

x A new enlarged garden area is to be formed with a new timber fence separating the garden area from the builder's yard.

x The existing walls are to be repaired/repainted where necessary and a former door opening will be built up to sill height with a blockwork and wet dash render finish to match existing.

x The foul and surface water drainage is to connect into existing on-site drains, which connect into the public sewers. The mains water supply will be utilised.

x Commercial Road is at risk of flooding from the nearby River Teviot. The proposed floor levels are to be raised slightly from the existing office levels to allow the installation of floor insulation, however this is restricted due to the accessible entrance requirements of Building Standards.

x The property will be designed with flood resilient materials in accordance with PAN 69, such as ground bearing concrete floor slabs. Services are to be

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(f)

raised to higher levels to avoid flood damage. Existing vents to the external walls are to be removed and built up and where necessary vent guards will be used for wall penetrations. On-site sandbags are to be utilised to all door openings at ground floor level. An Evacuation Plan is to be implemented by applicant in association with SEPA’s early flood line warning, as well as the local Hawick Flood Group.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: I shall have no objections to the proposal provided a minimum of two parking spaces, excluding any garages, are provided for and thereafter retained in perpetuity within the curtilage of the property.

I have some concern regarding the potential mix of traffic associated with a dwelling and the adjoining business, however as there is an existing dwelling adjoining this property and given the layout of the access serving both, these concerns are not enough to result in an objection from this section.

Archaeology Officer: I can support this application. Given the significant erosion of the local historic fabric through demolitions of industrial heritage, it is important to find uses for the existing historic structures on Commercial Road. This building dates from either the late 18th century or early 19th century and was associated with the Wilton Woollen Mill, perhaps as miller’s accommodation. The western gable of the building fronted the mill lead that drove all the mills on Commercial Road into the 20th century, and evidence for the lead will exist as a buried feature immediately west of the building.

As the alterations to the building are minimal I do not feel in this instance that archaeological building recording is necessary. However I would welcome a condition that seeks to have record photographs, taken after stripping out of existing partitions and features, of internal and external walls and features. I would also welcome a design approach that seeks to retain original features in the final designs.

Flood Protection Officer: The site is at risk from both a fluvial and pluvial flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years. That is the 0.5% annual risk of a flood occurring in any one year.

Hydraulic modelling was produced in the Hawick Town Centre Direct Flood Defences Final Report in July 2011 for this Council by Halcrow, which shows the proposed development area to be within the 1 in 200 year inundation outline for the River Teviot.

Within the SEPA indicative flood mapping it is shown that the fluvial flood depths at a 1 in 200 year flood event are expected to be between 0.3 – 1.0m and above 1.0m at some points of the site. It is also shown that the pluvial flood depths could reach between 0.3 – 1.0m at the site during a 1 in 200 year flood event.

It should be noted that in 2005, Commercial Road was inundated after overtopping occurred at the Cobble Cauld at the Commonhaugh Car Park and flowed down Commercial Road, causing the collapse of a wall very close to the site due to the pressure of the water trapped behind the wall on the Commercial Road side.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(f)

As this development site is located in a low lying area within Commercial Road that is at high flood risk, I would state that residential development is unsuitable at this site and I would object to this application on the grounds of flood risk.

Re-consultation: Reply awaited.

Director of Education and Lifelong Learning: The proposed development is located within the catchment area for Drumlanrig Primary School and Hawick High School. No contributions are sought for this application.

Environmental Health: No comments.

Statutory Consultees

Transport Scotland: The Director advises that planning permission be refused. There is insufficient parking available to cater for the dwelling and the neighbouring business. Details of where the displaced vehicles will park should be provided.

Re-consultation: The Director does not propose to advise against the granting of permission.

Hawick Community Council: No objections or comments to make and support the application.

SEPA: We object in principle to the proposed development on the grounds that it may place buildings and persons at flood risk contrary to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and PAN 69. Given the location of the proposed development within the functional floodplain and the increase in vulnerability we do not consider that it meets with the requirements of SPP and our position is unlikely to change.

The site lies within the medium likelihood (0.5% annual probability or 1 in 200 year) flood extent of the SEPA Flood Map, and may therefore be at medium to high risk of both fluvial and pluvial flooding. There is a well documented history of flooding in the vicinity of this development, for example in 2005, the River Teviot flooded Commercial Road; the wall immediately upstream of Wilton Mill was destroyed and the surrounding streets were flooded.

From the 2004 Halcrow report, the predicted flood depth at this location is 1.58 metres on the path/ road adjacent to the river during a 1:200 year event. Based on the single site flood frequency analysis for the River Teviot at Hawick, the 2005 flood event has an approximate return period of 70 years, though it maybe less than this, with a return period of 30-35 years.

There is a Flood Protection Scheme proposed for Hawick but there is no final design has and no funding has been secured. The standard of protection for the scheme is a 1:75 year event. The standard of protection afforded by the proposed defences does not match the required level of protection for new development as outlined in SPP.

We appreciate that the site is brownfield however there is an increase in sensitivity from office to residential. A change of use to a dwellinghouse could significantly increase the overall flood risks.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(f)

Other Consultees

None.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

SES Plan Strategic Development Plan 2013

Policy 1B: The Spatial Strategy: Development Principles Policy 15: Flooding

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G4: Flooding Policy G5: Developer Contributions Policy G7: Infill Development Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy H3: Land Use Allocations Policy Inf4: Parking Provisions and Standards

Proposed Local Development Plan 2013

Policy PMD2: Quality Standards Policy PMD3: Land Use Allocations Policy PMD5: Infill Development Policy HD3: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy IS2: Developer Contributions Policy IS7: Parking Provision and Standards Policy IS8: Flooding Policy IS9: Waste Water Treatment Standards and Sustainable Urban Drainage

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Planning Policy June 2014 PAN 69: Planning and Building Standards Advice on Flooding Supplementary Planning Guidance: Commercial Road Hawick February 2009

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether this is an appropriate use for this part of Hawick.

x The impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of occupants of residential properties in the surrounding area.

x Access, parking and road safety issues.

x Whether the site is at risk of flooding and, if so, whether the risk of flooding significantly outweighs other aspects of the proposal.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(f)

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning policy

The site is within the Commercial Road area allocated in the Local Plan for redevelopment. Policy H3 of the Local Plan allows housing, employment, retailing or a mix of uses. The main aim of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Commercial Road Hawick February 2009 is to revitalise and regenerate the local area. A mix of residential and commercial uses are encouraged, with residential preferred for the adjacent Wilton Mills site.

Policy G7 allows the re-use of buildings provided certain criteria are met. The proposal should not conflict with the established use of the area. Given the character of the surrounding area, there is a potential conflict of uses if planning permission is granted to convert this office building into a dwellinghouse.

There is a dwellinghouse adjoining this building, although the remainder of this part of Commercial Road is predominantly commercial in character, with a builder’s yard, car sales and repairs garage and Sainsbury’s supermarket in the immediate vicinity.

The Wilton Mills site was also in commercial use, though the buildings were vacant for some time before they were demolished and there is no planning permission in place for the redevelopment of the site. The planning application for the demolition of the buildings and the erection of a foodstore on the Wilton Mill site has been withdrawn and so there is no certainty about the future use of this site. The mill building and YM building have been demolished and the rubble is still within the site, which does not provide an attractive outlook for the proposed dwellinghouse.

Information provided by the Council’s Archaeology Officer confirms that the application building was once a dwellinghouse, probably associated with the adjacent woollen mill. The adjacent dwellinghouse, which is currently vacant, the builders’ yard and the application site are all in the same ownership. The proposal includes incorporating an area of ground to the north west of the building into the site to use as garden ground, providing a small buffer between the proposed dwellinghouse and builders’ yard; this would be enclosed by a 1.8m fence. A similar fence would separate the proposed dwellinghouse from the car sales and repair garage to the rear.

The information submitted with the application indicates that the proposed dwellinghouse would remain in the same ownership as the builder’s yard. If this remains the case then there would be no conflict of uses. However, given the range of uses in the vicinity, it would not seem necessary or reasonable to tie the occupation or ownership of the proposed dwellinghouse to the builder’s yard and anyone renting or buying the property would be aware of the character of the area. It is considered that any conflict of uses that may occur would not be significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.

Design and Impact on Visual Amenities

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

The proposed alterations to the front of the building are minor, involving replacement windows on a like-for-like basis and the blocking up of a door to provide a window to match the existing. The proposed extension to the rear is small in scale and the design and materials are considered acceptable; it would not be prominent in the streetscene. It is considered that the proposal would not harm the visual amenities of the area.

Impact on Residential Amenities

The proposed extension is small in scale and would not affect the light or privacy of occupants of the adjoining dwellinghouse. There are no other residential properties in the vicinity of the site.

Access and Parking

Policy G7 of the Local Plan requires that adequate access and servicing can be achieved. Policy Inf4 requires that car parking should be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards.

An access from Commercial Road (A7) serves the existing dwellinghouse, this office building and the builders’ yard. There are currently five parking spaces adjacent to the access onto the A7; three parking spaces would be allocated to the existing dwellinghouse and two for the proposed dwellinghouse.

Transport Scotland originally objected to the application as details of on-site parking were required. The agent has supplied this to Transport Scotland and they now have no objections to the proposal.

The Roads Planning Service requires the provision of two on-site parking spaces and these are shown on the site plan. They were concerned regarding the potential mix of traffic associated with a dwelling and the adjoining business, however the Roads Planning Service felt that as there is an existing dwelling adjoining this property and given the layout of the access serving both, these concerns were are not sufficient to object to the proposal.

Flooding

SPP states that development should be located away from functional flood plains and medium to high risk areas. Development that would have a significant probability of being affected by flooding or would increase the probability of flooding elsewhere should be avoided. Residential development in built-up areas in medium to high risk areas would only be acceptable if flood protection measures are in place but where built development is permitted, measures to protect against or manage flood risk and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(f)

water resistant materials will be required and any loss of flood storage capacity mitigated to achieve a neutral or better outcome.

Policy 15 of the SESplan states that Local Development Plans should avoid any new development in areas at medium to high flood risk. Policy G4 of the Local Plan refers to developments where there is an identified flood risk; developments will not be permitted if it would be at significant risk of flooding or would materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

SEPA has objected to the proposal on the grounds that it may place buildings and persons at flood risk contrary to SPP and PAN 69. They advise that the site is within the and may be at medium to high risk of both fluvial and pluvial flooding. There is a well documented history of flooding in the vicinity of this development and the predicted flood depth at this location. The Flood Protection Scheme proposed for Hawick is for a 1in 75 year event, which does not match the required level of protection for new development as outlined in SPP. A change of use to a dwelling house could significantly increase the overall flood risk, especially in relation to human health and financial impacts.

The Council’s Flood Protection Officer also objects to the application on flood risk grounds. He advises that as this development site is located in a low lying area within Commercial Road that is at high flood risk residential development is unsuitable at this site.

It is accepted that the site will flood, due to its proximity to the River Teviot. The building has been vacant for some time and given the current economic climate, the chances of the building being re-used for any office or commercial use are low. The building adjacent to it is an existing residential property, also at risk of flooding. The use of the building for residential purposes, whilst increasing its sensitivity, appears to be the only realistic future use of the property. This is an existing building and so opportunities for altering the building to reduce the risk of flooding and damage to property are limited. To refuse this application would blight the building and it is very likely that it would remain empty for the foreseeable future, possibly falling into a state of disrepair. Moreover, such a decision would set a precedent which may limit the scope for the use of land and buildings within Commercial Road and Hawick town centre more generally. Against that background, the more pragmatic response would be to consider the most appropriate mitigation to address the issue of flood risk.

The agent has submitted a statement demonstrating how mitigation measures can be incorporated into the design of the development and how the impact of flooding could be dealt with by future residents. The Council’s Flood Protection Officer has been consulted on this and his response will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Taking all these issues into account, it is therefore recommended that the application be approved with the objection from SEPA in place. If Members are minded to approve the application, it would then have to be referred to Scottish Ministers.

Developer Contributions

Policies G5 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan Adopted 2008 states that where a site is acceptable but cannot proceed due to deficiencies in infrastructure or due to environmental impacts the Council will require developers to make contributions towards the cost of addressing such deficiencies.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(f)

No financial contributions are required towards affordable housing or education facilities in the local area.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development is considered acceptable and in compliance with policies G1, G7, H2 and Inf4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011. The proposal would not negatively impact upon residential amenities or the visual amenities of the area and would bring a vacant building back into use. Adequate on- site car parking can be provided.

It is accepted that the site is at risk of flooding and there is no flood prevention scheme in place in Hawick at the moment. It is unlikely that the proposed building would be used for any office or other commercial use, given the current economic climate in Hawick. To refuse this application would mean that the building is blighted and remains vacant for the foreseeable future, to the detriment of the area, and so it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the mitigation measures submitted by the agent.

RECOMMENDATION BY SERVICE DIRECTOR (REGULATORY SERVICES):

I recommend the application is approved subject to the approval of the Scottish Ministers and the following conditions:

3. After stripping internal features the applicant will undertake a programme of Historic Building Photography of internal and external walls and features. Photos should be clearly numbered and plans of the building annotated to reflect where photos were taken. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review and approval as a single pdf file in the form of a Historic Building Photography Report prior to development commencing. Further photography may be required to ensure a full and true record of the structure prior to approval of the report. Reason: To preserve by record a building of historical interest.

4. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the extension have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: The materials require further consideration to ensure a satisfactory form of development, which contributes appropriately to its setting.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(f)

5. The two parking spaces shown on Drawing Number PROP-02 to be made available for parking by occupants of the dwellinghouse hereby approved before the dwellinghouse is occupied and retained in perpetuity. Reason: To ensure that adequate parking is provided within the site.

6. The flood mitigation measures contained within the agent’s Planning Design and Access Statement October 2014 to be implemented as part of the development and following occupation of the dwellinghouse. Reason: To lessen the impact of potential flooding at the site.

DRAWING NUMBERS

LOC-01 Location Plan EXIST-01 Plans and Elevations PROP-01A Elevations PTOP-02 Site Plan

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director (Regulatory Services)

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 Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(f)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(g)

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

8 DECEMBER 2014

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBERS: 13/00761/FUL; 13/00764/MOD75; 13/00765/FUL; and 13/00766/MOD75 OFFICER: Stuart Herkes WARD: Leaderdale and Melrose PROPOSAL: Variation of planning condition 3 of planning permission E030/93; Modification or discharge of planning obligation E030/93 and E183/93; Removal of planning condition 1 on planning permission 05/00442/OUT & 06/00435/FUL; and Modification or discharge of planning obligation 05/00442/OUT & 06/00435/FUL SITE: Larkhill and Larkhill Cottage, Lauder APPLICANT: Mr J Hepburne Scott AGENT: Smith and Garratt Rural Asset Management

These four applications seek consent to remove occupancy restrictions and legal ties relating to two existing residential properties, “Larkhill” and “Larkhill Cottage”, at Larkhill Farm, near Lauder. Approval would allow these same properties to be separated from, and occupied independently of, the land holding and agricultural business at Larkhill, and in the case of “Larkhill Cottage”, also occupied on a permanent, year-round basis.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The properties concerned are two new-build dwellinghouses, “Larkhill” and “Larkhill Cottage” that have been established in a rural location, 1.5km to the south of Lauder, and in close proximity to the public road (Langshaw to Lauder), which is within 50m.

Both dwellings were supported at the time of their respective approvals by the Planning Authority as being directly related to business operations based on the land holding at Larkhill. This holding comprises 213.91acres, and was created in the early 1990s from land which up until that point, had been within the holding of Woodheads Farm.

“Larkhill” was granted planning consent in 1993 as a farmhouse by Planning Consent E030/93 (now 93/01156/OUT), with the detailed design for the dwellinghouse approved by Planning Consent E183/93 (now 93/01157/REM).

“Larkhill Cottage” was granted planning consent as a dwellinghouse in 2006 by Planning Consent 06/00435/FUL, and is required by planning condition not to be occupied on a permanent basis. It is used as holiday accommodation.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No. 5(g)

Along with a timber-clad shed for which there is no planning history (at least in the period since 1990), these dwellings are partially separated from Woodheads Farm to the east and the public road to the north, by a small wooded shelter belt.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The applications seek the complete discharge of the legal agreements relating to the use and disposal of “Larkhill” and “Larkhill Cottage”, and the complete removal of one of the identified planning conditions. Planning Condition No 3 attached to Planning Consent E030/93 alone is identified for variation (as opposed to for removal).

Beyond these proposals, the supporting statement offers some ‘fall back’ positions, essentially involving proposed variations as alternatives to the outright removal of the various planning instruments identified within the applications. These, it is explained, would only be sought if the Planning Authority was not to be agreeable to the complete removal or discharge of the conditions and obligations concerned.

PLANNING HISTORY

“Larkhill”

“Larkhill” was granted planning permission in 1993 as a farmhouse (93/01156/OUT); and the detailed design for the same dwellinghouse (93/01157/REM) was approved later that same year. The principle of a new dwellinghouse in this location was only supported on the basis that a new house was required to accommodate the centre of operations of the newly-formed land holding at Larkhill.

Permission was granted subject to planning conditions, including No 3, which is: Occupation of the proposed dwellinghouse to be limited to a person employed or last employed in agriculture as defined in Section 275 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1972 or any dependent of such a person residing with him or her and including a widow or widower of such a person. Reason: The erection of a dwellinghouse for normal residential occupation would be contrary to the Council's policy on housing in the countryside.

Following Members’ determination of the detailed application, a legal agreement (Section 50) was concluded. It requires that: (i) beyond the single dwellinghouse which the Planning Authority was content to grant planning approval, no further dwellings should be constructed upon the same land holding other than a dwellinghouse to accommodate an agricultural worker (Clause 2); (ii) the land shall always be used as a single farm or part of a farm, and for no other purpose (Clause 3); and (iii) the land shall always be held in a single ownership and no part of it shall ever be sold or otherwise disposed of except in the case of the disposals of individual small plots or the realignment of boundaries, facilitation of public works or other purposes consistent with the proper management of the farm (Clause 4).

“Larkhill Cottage”

Planning Consent 06/00435/FUL permitted a new dwellinghouse for holiday accommodation use, subject to the following planning condition: Occupancy of the house to be no more than 9 months in any calendar year.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No. 5(g)

Reason: Permanent occupation of the house would be contrary to the Council’s Housing in the Countryside policy.

Although approval was not directly conditional upon the conclusion of any new legal agreement, a variation to the existing Section 50 legal agreement was nonetheless still required to allow the erection of a dwellinghouse in this location. This would otherwise have been inconsistent with the terms of the existing legal agreement.

The variation references an unimplemented outline planning consent (05/00442/OUT) and not Planning Consent 06/00435/FUL. This is not fatal, as the agreement would remain a burden on the land, regardless of the permission. It records in Clause 2 that the Council and Owner agree variations to the previous legal agreement, which are itemised as being: A) The variation of Clause 2 of the Section 50 Agreement to allow a Holiday Cottage to be erected on the land; B) The said Holiday Cottage to be occupied for no more than nine months in any calendar year; and C) The grant of planning permission (that is, Planning Consent 05/00442/OUT) to be made subject to a number of planning conditions.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

No representations have been received in response to the public consultations.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The application is supported by:

x Supporting Statement; x Financial Viability Statement, which concludes that the agricultural business at Larkhill is unviable, and that the agricultural unit cannot now be farmed viably.

In addition to the above, the operator of a neighbouring farm (Woodheads Farm) has provided a confidential letter directly to the Planning Officer, but copied to the Applicant, which expresses a conditional but serious interest in the acquisition of land within the holding at Larkhill for agricultural use.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011

x Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development x Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity x Policy D2: Housing in the Countryside

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance:

x New Housing in the Borders Countryside (2008)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No. 5(g)

x Place-Making and Design (2010)

Emerging Local Development Plan

x Scottish Borders Council: Proposed Local Development Plan 2013

Scottish Government:

x Scottish Planning Policy (2014) x Circular 3/2012 - Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements x Circular 4/1998 - Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions x Letter from the Chief Planner Advising Heads of Planning of the Scottish Government's view that restrictions on the occupancy of new housing are rarely appropriate and so should generally be avoided (November 2011).

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

The Council’s Legal Services and Economic Development Sections were consulted.

Legal Services has not responded to the public consultations, but it is not anticipated that the proposals raise any technical concerns legally. (Although legal resolutions would be required in the event of either or both of the two applications to modify or discharge legal agreements being approved, the assessments required in both cases are reasonably confined to a consideration of the planning merits of the proposals).

Economic Development was asked to review and provide feedback upon the Applicant’s financial case. This feedback was provided verbally to the Planning Officer. The fact of the provision of this verbal advice is acknowledged in a written consultation response. While Economic Development acknowledged that the farm business described in the financial case was unviable, Planning Officer was verbally advised that they did not concur with the conclusion of the Applicant’s Financial Report, which was that the agricultural unit itself was now inherently unviable. (The Planning Officer has relayed this advice to the Applicant, who disputes Economic Development’s assessment and maintains the conclusions of the Financial Report).

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Whether or not the planning conditions meet the tests set out in Planning Circular 4/1998; x Whether or not the planning obligations meet the tests set out in Planning Circular 3/2012; x Whether or not there have been any critical changes within planning policy since the time of the imposition of the conditions and obligations concerned, and/or whether there are any other material considerations, that would now permit for the removal of the legal ties and occupancy restrictions; x Whether or not the reasons for, and the terms of, the original restrictions remain valid; x Whether or not the removal or variation of the occupancy restrictions would be consistent with current adopted planning policy on Housing in the Countryside; and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No. 5(g)

x Whether or not there would be any other unacceptable impacts upon the environment and/or amenity of the site and surrounding area, were the conditions and obligations to be removed/discharged or varied as proposed.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATIONS:

Purpose

The Applicant’s supporting statement advises that the purpose of the four applications is to achieve the following aims:

(i) allow the Applicant to retire from farming; (ii) allow the Applicant to fund his retirement through the sale of a block of land; (iii) allow the Applicant to stay in the home he and his wife built (“Larkhill”); and (iv) allow greater flexibility within the use of the associated cottage (“Larkhill Cottage”) for the accommodation of a home-help, should the need arise.

Since points (i) and (iii) are not in fact directly prohibited by any of the planning conditions or planning obligations that are identified for removal or variation, these points do not require any further consideration.

The identified legal agreements and some of the planning conditions do prevent the Applicant from achieving points (ii) and (iv) and it is therefore appropriate to consider the purpose of the original restrictions and whether that purpose remains and would still be consistent with current policy.

Methodology

The applications propose the removal and/or modification of planning conditions and planning obligations. Taking account of the advice of Planning Circular 4/1998 and Planning Circular 3/2012, each proposal, it is considered, would be appropriately assessed in accordance with three basic stages:

(1) In each individual case, it needs to be considered whether or not the imposition of the specific planning condition or planning obligation concerned was justified at the time that it was originally imposed;

(2) If it is determined that it was, then having regard to any changes in circumstances on site and/or within the planning policy context in the interim period, it needs to be considered whether or not there is still a justifiable planning need for that planning condition or planning obligation to be maintained; and

(3) If it is considered that there is, then the final step would be to consider whether or not there is justification for the planning condition or planning obligation concerned to be varied to address the Applicant’s specific concern(s).

The Scottish Government (Circular 3/2012) advises that planning obligations should not be imposed where the requirement is appropriately met by planning conditions. Accordingly, assessment reasonably proceeds from a consideration of the proposals relating to the planning obligations in the first instance, and ahead of those relating to the planning conditions. The applications are therefore considered below in the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No. 5(g) following order: 13/00764/MOD75 (“Larkhill”); 13/00766/MOD75 (“Larkhill Cottage”); 13/00761/FUL (“Larkhill”); and 13/00765/FUL (“Larkhill Cottage”).

13/00764/MOD75: Removal of Planning Obligation from “Larkhill”

Original Justification

With regard to the planning approval of the property which became “Larkhill”, three matters are regulated by the Section 50 legal agreement, namely: (i) a prohibition on any further dwellinghouses on the land holding; (ii) a requirement that the land always be used for farming (as a single farm, or as part of a farm); and (iii) a requirement that the land be held in perpetuity as a single ownership, with no part of it sold or otherwise disposed of separately.

The first matter (point i.) and any requirement that the land only be used for farming (part of point ii.), are all capable of being regulated through the planning system as the applications which would be required for any such works would need to be assessed against prevailing policy. Whilst they provide a safeguard, therefore, these provisions within the legal agreement are arguably superfluous. They would not be used in similar cases today. Accordingly, there is no requirement to assess either of these points any further. The concern that the land always be retained as one holding (part of point ii.) and the last matter (point iii), are by contrast, not concerns that could have been addressed by planning condition. Their inclusion as provisions within the legal agreement is sound in this respect.

Taking account of the circumstances at the time of the original imposition of the planning obligation (and specifically the Planning Authority’s concern that the dwellinghouse “Larkhill” and the land holding at Larkhill, be held together as a single indivisible unit), this obligation would have been both necessary and reasonable at the time that it was imposed. Circumstances have however changed in the intervening period, and account appropriately needs to be had to those changes, which relate both to farming operations at Larkhill and to the relationship of Larkhill to the building group at Woodheads Farm.

Farming Operations at Larkhill

In its current circumstances, the agricultural unit at Larkhill appears to be under-used, and to lack any meaningful centre of operations that would normally be associated with a full-time modern farming business. Accordingly, it would in all probability require substantial investment were a new and independent operator to take over the running of this unit. A new operator would most likely need to secure investment not only for livestock, but also for appropriate farm buildings, machinery and equipment and potentially even for a new farmhouse were the Applicant to remain, as he intends, in residence at “Larkhill” while retaining “Larkhill Cottage” as a residential annex.

While this might appear inconsistent with Economic Development’s view that the agricultural unit remains capable of accommodating a viable agricultural business, it is recognised that the under-developed nature of farming operations at Larkhill, make it highly likely that there would be difficulty in attracting a third party successor in operation. Any such successor would need to approach the venture almost ‘from scratch’. In these circumstances, and whilst ownership is not a planning matter, positive regard can be had to the interest of the neighbouring farmer, which has the potential not only to return the majority of the land to more productive farm use but

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No. 5(g) also to minimise the need for any new buildings and dwellings that would otherwise be required to establish the operation of a viable modern farming unit at Larkhill.

Viewed from the perspective of the need to ensure that the land at Larkhill is used as effectively as possible for agricultural purposes, but in light of the applicant’s obvious intention to retire, the existing legal agreement might be viewed as a barrier to the reactivation of this unit as productive farmland. In these circumstances, no planning purpose appears to be served by its continued requirement. Indeed, maintaining the requirements that the land be held as a single unit in association with “Larkhill”, may lead to a proliferation of new buildings, including housing, at Larkhill to serve any successor in the business; or, as would appear more likely, result in the Applicant continuing in occupation at both houses, while the land is either unused, under-used, or let to a neighbouring farm. While none of the latter is itself unacceptable, it does not represent any settled, long-term solution to secure full and productive farm use of the land. This is instead most likely to be achieved within the ownership of a viable farm business that is itself actively engaged in the working of the land. This lends some support to the case for the removal of the legal tie to allow the release of the land that the Applicant wishes to sell, and which the neighbouring farmer wishes to acquire.

There nevertheless remains the risk that, were the planning obligation to be removed unconditionally, the majority of the land might be sold off to a third party. This might then result in future planning proposals to site farm buildings, including any farm worker accommodation. However, any such proposals would require to be assessed on their own planning merits, and in relation to any farm business case presented in support of them. This matter therefore remains capable of being appropriately regulated through the operation of the planning system. Accordingly, there is no reasonable requirement to seek to retain any existing, or to introduce any new, legal restriction on the disposal of the land at Larkhill.

With regard to the minority of the land that the Applicant intends to retain, the sale of the majority of the farmland, would almost inevitably result in a reduced or remnant holding at Larkhill itself, that would then be incapable of supporting any full-time agricultural business. Notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant is prepared to accept the maintenance of the existing legal tie between his house and the reduced holding, there would be no planning purpose served by requiring its retention.

Relationship to Building Group at Woodheads

It is considered that the Applicant has a point with regard to the relationship that has developed over recent years between Larkhill and Woodheads. While “Larkhill” was originally detached from Woodheads, this separation has been blurred in the intervening period. This has been firstly as a consequence of the erection of “Larkhill Cottage” itself, and secondly, by another new-build property at Woodheads, both within what had been the intervening space.

As a consequence of these additions, all that meaningfully separates the two groups of buildings now is an agricultural track and some trees.

It is at least arguable that the dwellings at “Larkhill” now exist within a shared setting with Woodheads, and might be reasonably be regarded as a related group of buildings, given the separation from this collective group from any other properties in the locality.

This is not to say that the two dwellings at Larkhill would be considered well-related to Woodheads were they now being proposed and assessed within the prevailing

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No. 5(g) planning policy context, but realities on the ground are such that they are not isolated properties any more. In these circumstances, the need for a legal agreement to prevent or discourage a proliferation of housing at Larkhill, is certainly less defensible than it was at the time that the legal agreement was imposed.

Conclusion

It is not accepted that the farm at Larkhill is inherently unviable as an agricultural unit. However, with the applicant’s stated intention to retire, there is no guarantee that the land would be farmed productively or that, if it were, that a proposal for a further house may need to be considered. However, sufficient evidence has been provided to show that genuine interest in acquiring the majority of the farm land, and positive account can be had to the potential for this land to be absorbed into an active agricultural unit. This may, in turn, lessen the requirement for further housing to run the existing holding. It would also, if anything, be liable to be used more intensively and effectively for agricultural purposes than it is at present.

Notwithstanding the above, it is further considered that the circumstances justifying the Section 50 planning obligation have been eroded considerably since the time of the original imposition of this agreement due to changes in the surrounding landscape. There is less distinction to be made between Larkhill and Woodheads, and the two are now arguably parts of the same building group, with a shared sense of place.

Taking account of the above, and even allowing that the farmland might be sold off to a third party, it is not considered that the legal agreement is preventing any impacts upon the environment or amenity of the surrounding area that would not otherwise be appropriately regulated through the normal operation of the planning system.

It is considered that the Section 50 legal agreement could now be discharged in full, and that this would not have any unacceptable impacts upon the environment and/or amenity of the site and the surrounding area.

13/00766/MOD75: Removal of Planning Obligation from “Larkhill Cottage”

With regard to the planning approval of the property which became “Larkhill Cottage”, three matters are regulated by planning obligation, namely: (a) the variation of Clause 2 of the Section 50 Agreement to allow a Holiday Cottage to be erected on the land; (b) the said Holiday Cottage to be occupied for no more than nine months in any calendar year; and (c) the grant of planning permission is be made subject to a number of planning conditions.

The last matter (c.) is entirely capable of being appropriately regulated through planning controls, without the need for the legal agreement. The second matter (b.) was also made the subject of a planning condition (attached to both planning permission 05/00442/OUT and Planning Consent 06/00435/FUL) and therefore did not also need to be made the subject of a legal agreement. In light of this, these matters (b. and c.) do not require any further consideration, and the relevant provisions within the legal agreement could be appropriately discharged without any impact on the planning position.

The first matter (a.) is something of a technicality. It arose because there was a legal requirement to vary the terms of the pre-existing legal agreement to allow the construction of a holiday accommodation unit, which would otherwise have been contrary to the terms of that existing agreement. Accordingly, this variation was

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No. 5(g) certainly legally necessary at the time. However, this is not a planning reason in its own right. The matter of whether or not it is appropriate for there to be any legal restriction on any further development at the site in the first place has already been considered above in relation to the legal agreement concluded in relation to “Larkhill”. As noted above, any further development of dwellinghouses is appropriately regulated through the planning system. Accordingly, if it is accepted that there was no requirement for the original provision to have been imposed in the first place, it follows that the related variation itself, serves no useful purpose, either in conjunction or in isolation.

From a planning perspective, there is no requirement for the legal agreement that was concluded in relation to Planning Consent 05/00442/OUT and the property that became “Larkhill Cottage”, to be maintained. It would now be appropriately discharged along with the Section 50 agreement, and regardless of the view that is taken with respect to the maintenance of the planning condition prohibiting permanent occupation of the cottage.

13/00761/FUL: Variation of Planning Condition No 3 relating to “Larkhill”

In light of the points already considered above with respect to the Section 50 Legal Agreement, there would be no justifiable requirement for “Larkhill” to be retained as farm worker accommodation, particularly if it were accepted as now being reasonably related to the building group at Woodheads.

Although the Applicant has asked for this particular condition to be varied, it is considered that it would in the circumstances, be more appropriately removed. Amendment of the description on this point from “variation” to “removal” is recommended.

13/00765/FUL: Variation of Planning Condition No 1 relating to “Larkhill Cottage”

Given the position already described above that “Larkhill Cottage” might be regarded as being well-related to a building group, it is not considered that there is any planning reason why the restriction on permanent occupancy should be maintained on this property. However, one difficulty is that the removal of the permanent occupancy planning condition along with the discharge of both the Section 50 and Section 75 legal agreements, would result in a building that would then be capable of independent residential use. This might then be passed on to a third party unrelated to any occupation of “Larkhill” and/or to any business use otherwise based at Larkhill.

This is not necessarily unacceptable in principle, particularly given the above noted consideration that the dwelling is reasonably well-related to the building group at Woodheads. The property would moreover, appear readily capable of being separated from “Larkhill”, and of accommodating an independent residential use with its own garden ground and parking areas. However, neither this application nor the original permission (06/00435/FUL) have afforded any appropriate opportunity to consider the specific detail of how any separate residential use of “Larkhill Cottage” would be considered against policy. Moreover, no development contributions were collected at the time of the original approval, because it was approved for use as holiday-let accommodation only. Accordingly, it would be reasonable, firstly, to require that the detail of the accommodation of any independent residential use of the building should be subject to scrutiny within a full planning application. Secondly, it would also be reasonable to seek the opportunity to require development contributions in the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No. 5(g) event that it was subsequently proposed that the property be used independently of “Larkhill”. Otherwise a new dwellinghouse capable of accommodating a family would be delivered in the absence of any such requirements having first been met, but without there being any less potential for that property to introduce burdens onto local services commensurate with those associated with the introduction of any other new property within the surrounding area.

In line with the Scottish Government’s advice that legal agreements should be avoided as a means of regulating planning concerns, and especially in circumstances where such matters are appropriately capable of being regulated by planning condition, it is considered that the matter is reasonably addressed in this case through the imposition of a new planning condition. The Applicant’s expressed intention is that this could take the form of a planning condition requiring that “Larkhill Cottage” only be used as ancillary to the residential use of “Larkhill” but could also require in association with this, that it should not be used as an independent residential unit without a planning application for this, first having been made and approved. This would allow the Council to consider any consequences arising from this at the appropriate stage.

Given that Planning permission 05/01042/OUT has now expired unimplemented, the request for removal of the identified planning condition from that permission is no longer relevant.

Conclusion

Taking into consideration the supporting information, it is not considered that there are any unacceptable risks to the amenity and environment of the site or surrounding area, associated with the discharge of both legal agreements and the removal of all the occupancy restrictions imposed by planning conditions.

A new planning condition should however be imposed upon the use of “Larkhill Cottage” to require that it not be used independently of the residential use of “Larkhill”. It is considered that this would appropriately allow the Applicant to use the property as he has indicated, but would also require that any future proposed use as an independent dwellinghouse would require to be referred to the Planning Authority. This would allow the Council to assess the proposal against prevailing housing policy and whether or not development contributions should be collected.

RECOMMENDATION BY SERVICE DIRECTOR (REGULATORY SERVICES):

I recommend that the applications are all approved, but in the case of the approval of Planning Consent 13/00761/FUL subject to the proposal description being amended from “Variation” to “Removal” of Planning Condition No 3 of Planning Permission E030/93; and in the case of the approval of Planning Consent 13/00765/FUL, subject to the following planning condition:

Condition

1. The dwellinghouse at “Larkhill Cottage” shall only be used for ancillary residential use in connection with the use of the main dwellinghouse at “Larkhill” as a single residential property. It shall at no time be converted to, or otherwise used as, a self-contained unit independent of the residential use of “Larkhill”, unless an application for planning permission in that behalf has first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No. 5(g)

Reason: To retain effective control over the use of a dwellinghouse (“Larkhill Cottage”) that was originally only approved as a holiday accommodation unit in association with an existing dwellinghouse (“Larkhill”), the independent residential use of which potentially raises matters not fully considered within the determination of this planning permission (13/00765/FUL) or its predecessor (06/00435/FUL).

DRAWING NUMBERS – in all cases:

Drawing Number Title Location Plan OS Extract

Approved by Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Service Director (Regulatory Services)

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 Stuart Herkes Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No. 5(g)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 ITEM 6

PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS

Briefing Note by Service Director Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

8th December 2014

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this briefing note is to give details of Appeals and Local Reviews which have been received and determined during the last month.

2 APPEALS RECEIVED

2.1 Planning Applications

2.1.1 Reference: 14/00617/MOD75 Proposal: Discharge of planning obligation persuant to planning permission 99/00638/OUT Site: Site of Former Farm Cottage, Lylestane Farm, Oxton Appellant: Adam Wilson & Isabelle Campbell Young

Reasons for Refusal: The establishment of a new residential property in an isolated rural location in the absence of any restrictions upon its occupancy for the purposes of ensuring that it would only ever be used to serve a specific business’ identified operational requirements, would be directly contrary to the Council’s rural housing policy; and specifically, Policy D2 of the Adopted Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and the guidance of the approved Supplementary Guidance Note on New Housing in the Borders Countryside. Further, it is not considered that there any material considerations, including the advice and guidance of Circular 3/2012, that outweigh the need to determine this application in accordance with the Council’s adopted Housing in the Countryside Policy.

Grounds of Appeal: 1. The obligation fails to meet the tests of necessity and reasonableness and is not justified in planning policy. 2. The Council’s reason for refusal is misconceived. The grant of the Application (and therefore the Appeal) would not establish a new residential property in the countryside. The Application related (and this Appeal relates) to a planning obligation attaching to an existing property.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

2.2 Enforcements

Nil Planning & Building Standards Committee 8th December 2014 1 3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

Nil

3.2 Enforcements

Nil

4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING

4.1 There remained no appeals previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 26th November 2014.

5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED

5.1 Reference: 09/01727/FUL Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Site of Former Peel Sewage Works, Galashiels Appellant: RV Feavor and Heybridge Ltd

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposals are contrary to Scottish Borders Local Plan policy D2and G1 as the site is not located within a recognised building group and it does not relate well or contribute to a sense of place created by the existing building groups at Peel and Glenkinnon. There are no economic reasons for a dwellinghouse to be located at this site. 2. The proposals are contrary to emerging Scottish Borders Local Development Plan Policy EP5 as the development will have a significant visual impact on the immediate landscape of the Special Landscape Area 3 -Tweed, Ettrick and Yarrow Confluences as it is located in a prominent location on the steep sided wooded bank of the River Tweed where there is clear visibility from the surrounding roads and at the Nest roundabout. 3. The proposals do not comply with Local Plan policy NE3 - Biodiversity as no evidence, in the form of surveys, has been submitted to demonstrate whether species of importance (bats, otters and badgers) exist on the site. To permit the application without these surveys would be contrary to Scottish Government Guidance on surveys for species identified in the The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended).

6 REVIEWS DETERMINED

6.1 Reference: 09/01727/FUL Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Site of Former Peel Sewage Works, Galashiels Appellant: RV Feavor and Heybridge Ltd

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposals are contrary to Scottish Borders Local Plan policy D2and G1 as the site is not located within a recognised building group and it does not relate well or contribute to a sense of place created by the existing building groups at Peel and Glenkinnon. There are no economic reasons for a dwellinghouse to be located at this site. 2. The proposals are contrary to emerging Scottish Borders Local Development Planning & Building Standards Committee 8th December 2014 2 Plan Policy EP5 as the development will have a significant visual impact on the immediate landscape of the Special Landscape Area 3 -Tweed, Ettrick and Yarrow Confluences as it is located in a prominent location on the steep sided wooded bank of the River Tweed where there is clear visibility from the surrounding roads and at the Nest roundabout. 3. The proposals do not comply with Local Plan policy NE3 - Biodiversity as no evidence, in the form of surveys, has been submitted to demonstrate whether species of importance (bats, otters and badgers) exist on the site. To permit the application without these surveys would be contrary to Scottish Government Guidance on surveys for species identified in the The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended).

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld (Terms of Refusal Varied)

6.2 Reference: 14/00156/FUL - Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse and attached garage Site: Land North East of Garden House, Whitmuir, Selkirk Appellant: Mrs Katie Francis

Reason for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to policies D2 and G1 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011, and the advice contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008 in that the site is isolated from any building group, is unacceptable in landscape terms due to its detached, skyline location and because no suitable economic or agricultural justification for a further dwelling house in this location has been provided.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Overturned

6.3 Reference: 14/00520/FUL Proposal: Replacement windows and doors (retrospective) Site: 80 and 80A High Street, Innerleithen Appellant: Mike Todd

Reason for Refusal: The replacement windows, doors and fanlights fail to comply with Consolidated Local Plan Policies G1 and BE4 and with the advice contained within the "Replacement Windows" SPG in that the frame thicknesses, position of transomes, lack of upper astragals and infilling of arched heads to the windows and the door material and detailing are inappropriate to the character of the building and detrimental to the amenity of the Conservation Area.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld

7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING

7.1 There remained no reviews previously reported on which decisions were still awaited when this report was prepared on 26th November 2014.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 8th December 2014 3 Approved by

Brian Frater Service Director Regulatory Services

Signature ……………………………………

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Wemyss Administrative Assistant 01835 824000 Ext 5409

Background Papers: None. Previous Minute Reference: None.

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]

Planning & Building Standards Committee 8th December 2014 4