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 9 April 2012 at 10.00 a.m. ------

Present: - Councillors J. Houston (Chairman), N. Calvert, J. Fullarton, T. Jones, G. Logan, J. Mitchell, D. Moffat, C. Riddell-Carre, R. Smith, N. Watson, T. Weatherston, Apologies:- Councillor J. Brown, In Attendance:- Development Manager (Applications), Road User Senior Technician, Plans and Research Manager, Managing Solicitor – Commercial Services, Committee and Elections Team Leader, Committee and Elections Officer (F. Walling).

ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. The Chairman informed Members that items 5(e) and 11 of the agenda had been withdrawn. He also varied the order of business as shown on the agenda and the Minute reflects the order in which the items were considered at the meeting.

MINUTE 2. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting of 12 March 2012.

DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman.

APPLICATIONS 3. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee.

DECISION DEALT with the applications as detailed in Appendix 1 to this Minute.

DRAFT MINI PLANNING BRIEF – FORMER ROYAL HOTEL, STOW 4. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services seeking approval for the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance mini planning brief for the former Royal Hotel site, Stow, as appended to the report, to be used as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period. The site, located off Townfoot Road, Stow, was currently vacant following the recent demolition of the former Royal Hotel buildings. The site was also allocated within the Adopted Local Plan 2011 as a 0.2 hectare mixed use site with an indicative capacity of 11 units. The mini planning brief set out the main opportunities and constraints for the redevelopment of the site and provided an indicative framework vision for the site. It aimed to lead to a high quality redevelopment in the heart of the Stow Conservation Area. As part of the redevelopment of this site in Stow the Council proposed the relocation of the public toilets to a location closer to community venues. Members welcomed the proposals for this vacant site. The draft mini planning brief would be subject to a 12 week public consultation period and the comments received taken into consideration in the finalisation of the brief.

DECISION AGREED:-

(a) to approve the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance mini planning brief for the former Royal Hotel site, Stow, as detailed in Appendix A to the report, as a basis 1 Item No 4 for public consultation for a 12 week period, and to report back any substantive comments to this committee: and

(b) that if there were no substantive comments arising from the consultation the brief be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.

DRAFT PLANNING BRIEF – DUNS PRIMARY SCHOOL 5. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services seeking approval for the draft planning brief for the Duns Primary School site, as appended to the report, to be used as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period. The existing Primary School site was located within close proximity to the centre of Duns and was bounded to the east by residential properties, to the south by agricultural land, the west by residential properties and to the north by the A6105. Duns Primary School had severe capacity issues as a result of recent developments in the catchment area and it was expected that it would relocate to the Former High School buildings. It was explained that the Duns Primary School site had a developable area of approximately 2.9 hectares and was located immediately adjacent to the Duns Conservation Area. As an allocated redevelopment opportunity, potential uses for the site included housing, employment, or a mix of uses which could include community uses and open space. If the site was developed for solely residential use, it had an indicative capacity of 45 units, including affordable units. The brief included a plan to illustrate linkage of the site to adjoining allocated housing sites, longer term mixed used sites and the A6105.

DECISION AGREED:-

(a) to approve the draft planning brief for the Duns Primary School site, as detailed in Appendix A to the report, as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period, and to report back any substantive comments to this committee: and

(b) that if there were no substantive comments arising from the consultation the brief be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.

DRAFT PLANNING BRIEF – TODLAW PLAYING FIELDS, DUNS 6. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services seeking approval for the draft planning brief for the Todlaw Playing Fields site, Duns, as appended to the report, to be used as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period. The report explained that the site, of existing playing fields at Todlaw, was located within relatively close proximity to the centre of Duns and was bounded by residential properties to the east, by the public park to the north east and by open ground to the north and west. To the south lay an open area of ground and beyond that was a recent housing development by Berwickshire Housing Association. The 2 hectare site was allocated for housing in the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 with an indicative capacity of 30 units. There was currently a rugby pitch on the site which would need to be relocated, most likely to the site of the former Berwickshire High School site before any on site development commenced. The main access from the site would be via the allocated housing land to the south. In order to ensure good practice connectivity within the area the brief indicated where access routes should be formed from the site and where the site should be linked with adjoining land.

DECISION AGREED:-

(a) to approve the draft planning brief for the Todlaw Playing Fields site, Duns, as detailed in Appendix A to the report, as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period, and to report back any substantive comments to this committee: and

b) that if there were no substantive comments arising from the consultation the brief be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services. 2 Item No 4

DRAFT MINI PLANNING BRIEF – RENWICK GARDENS & WEST RENWICK GARDENS, MOREBATTLE 7. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services seeking approval for the draft mini planning brief for the Renwick Gardens and West Renwick Gardens sites, in Morebattle. The draft brief, appended to the report, was to be used as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period. The report explained that there were two housing allocations within Morebattle identified in the Consolidated Local Plan; Renwick Gardens had a site area of 0.4 hectares and an indicative housing capacity of 9 units and West Renwick Gardens had a site area of 1.3 hectares and an indicative capacity of 20 units. The site at Renwick Gardens was located to the east of the existing Eildon Housing development of ‘Renwick Gardens’. The site was currently used as a playing field with a small area being used as allotments. These uses were informal and they would not appear to have the benefit of formal planning consent. The site could be accessed via the existing housing development of Renwick Gardens. The site at West Renwick Gardens was located at the western edge of Morebattle, fronts onto the B6401 and adjoined the aforementioned site. The land was currently in arable use and there were no existing buildings on the site. Access to the site would be taken from the B6401 and the site would have a pedestrian link to the Primary School and village centre. As the two adjacent housing allocations had similar characteristics, opportunities and constraints it was proposed that the mini brief could cover both sites together. Members were happy with the draft planning brief but asked for the photograph of housing on an adjacent site on page 2 of the brief to be replaced with another example to better illustrate the type of design required.

DECISION AGREED:-

(a) to approve the draft mini planning brief for the Renwick Gardens and West Renwick Gardens sites, Morebattle, as detailed in Appendix A to the report, as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period, and to report back any substantive comments to this committee: and

(b) that if there were no substantive comments arising from the consultation the brief be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE – REPLACEMENT WINDOWS 8. With reference to paragraph 3 of the Minute of 11 August 2008, there had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services seeking approval for the updated Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Replacement windows, attached as Appendix A to the report, as a material consideration in the determination of applications. The report explained that the updated SPG on replacement windows had been prepared following the publication of Historic Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Note: Windows which included a change in policy stance relating to circumstances where double glazing may be acceptable. The changes proposed in the Draft SPG on Replacement Windows related only to category ‘A’ and ‘B’ listed buildings. As those changes were as a result of a change in national policy, the Draft SPG was consulted on for a period of 8 weeks. Details of each consultation response, the Council’s response to those comments and recommendation were included in Appendix B to the report. The key changes proposed to the finalised SPG as a result of the public consultation related to changes in detail of the double-glazing element allowed; clarification that the double glazing was to be inserted into existing joinery; detail of the supporting information to be included with an application; and noting that new glazing should be fixed with putty. In the discussion that followed Councillor Riddell-Carre expressed her view that the SPG overlooked technological advances in respect of materials and was not consistent with the Council’s sustainability policies. She drew attention to a paragraph within section 1.2.1. of the SPG which she proposed should be amended in respect of the reference to materials and clarified the amendment she proposed.

3 Item No 4 VOTE Councillor Calvert, seconded by Councillor Houston, moved that the SPG be approved but that officers be requested to continue to review the SPG in the light of any advances in technology relating to materials and sustainability.

Councillor Riddell-Carre, seconded by Councillor Moffat, moved that the SPG be amended on the lines she had suggested and a revised SPG be brought back to the committee for further consideration.

On show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 9 votes Amendment - 2 votes The motion was accordingly carried.

DECISION AGREED:-

(a) to approve the updated SPG on Replacement Windows as attached as Appendix A to the report;

(b) to request that officers continue to review the SPG in the light of any advances in technology relating to materials and sustainability.

APPEALS AND REVIEWS 9. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews.

DECISION NOTED that:-

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

(i) subject to conditions, the erection of a dwellinghouse on land south east of Hillcrest, Castlehill, Peebles; and

(ii) subject to a condition, replacement windows at 81 High Street, Selkirk.

(b) the Scottish Ministers had dismissed appeals in relation to enforcements in respect of:-

(i) 2 or 3 static caravans occupied without permission on land adjacent to Turtleton Farm buildings, Duns. (The landowner); and

(ii) 2 or 3 static caravans occupied without permission on land adjacent to Turtleton Farm buildings, Duns. (The occupiers).

(c) review requests had been received in respect of the re-location of an existing stable block and erection of dwellinghouse at the stables, Old Quarry, Stonefield Place, Hawick;

(d) the Local Review Body had sustained appeals in respect of:-

(i) erection of two dwellinghouses on land north of Hownam School House, Hownam (subject to conditions and a S75 Agreement);

(ii) replacement windows at Spottiswoode House, Gattonside, Melrose;

(iii) replacement windows at 16B Canongate, Jedburgh; and

4 Item No 4 (iv) erection of dwellinghouse, car port and stables/workshop/store on land north west of Greenlawdean Farmhouse, Greenlaw

(e) the Local Review Body had dismissed appeals in respect of:-

(i) erection of 3 wind turbines at Cockburn Farm, Cockburn Farm Road, Duns;

(ii) erection of four dwellinghouses (renewal of previous consent 05/01610/OUT) on land north of Nisbet Mill Cottages, Nisbet Mill Farm, Jedburgh (terms of refusal varied);

(iii) erection of wind turbine 24.9m high to tip on land north west of Cambwell Farm, Biggar;

(iv) erection of two dwellinghouses on land north east of Westcote Farmhouse (Plots 2 and 3), Hawick;

(v) change of use from storage and alterations to form dwellinghouse at the Old Coach House, Minto;

(vi) extension to provide upper floor accommodation at 43, Gillsland, Eyemouth;

(f) the Local Review Body had dismissed an appeal regarding a condition and removed consent in respect of the erection of a dwellinghouse and car port on land south west of Shepherds Cottage, Easter Housebyres, Melrose.

(g) the Local Review Body dismissed an appeal in part and varied the terms of approval in respect of the erection of a boundary fence and entrance gates (retrospective) at Inch Bonny, Newcastle Road, Jedburgh.

PRIVATE BUSINESS 10. DECISION AGREED under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the business detailed in Appendix II to this Minute on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 7A to the Act.

SUMMARY OF PRIVATE BUSINESS

DECLARATION OF INTEREST Councillor Riddell-Carre declared an interest in the following item of business in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct and left the Chamber during the discussion.

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF PLANNING APPLICATION 09/01005/OUT 1. Councillors considered a report by the Director of Environment and Infrastructure.

The meeting concluded at 1.55 p.m.

5 Item No 4

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE 9 APRIL 2012 APPENDIX I APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Reference Name and Address Nature of Development Location

12/00194/FUL Miller Homes Ltd Erection of 49 Fields 4650 And 4074 Miller House dwellinghouses with Easter Langlee 2 Lochside View associated Galashiels Edinburgh Park infrastructure and Edinburgh EH12 9DH landscaping

Decision: Approved subject to an updated legal agreement and the following conditions and informatives:

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. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved site plan (00)001 Rev D, house and ground levels (subject to there being no alterations within the protection areas of retained trees) and house designs, including the glazing pattern of windows and garage door designs, unless otherwise amended by this schedule of conditions or agreed with the Planning Authority. This shall include Plots 14 and 15 being recessed 300mm behind plots 12 and 13, and hipped Yeats house types on plots 32,33 and 48. Where floor plans are inconsistent with the elevational drawings, the houses shall be completed in accordance with the elevational drawings. The Gala Corner House type (drawing no 02) shall be erected on plots 11,27,36,41 and 49 and not as specified on drawing no 02. In addition, Plots 1 and 11 shall include a window on the gable as illustrated on drawing no 01 Reason: To ensure the development is carried out as approved under this consent in a manner which overcomes any apparent inconsistencies between the approved drawings

3. Works to form the right hand turning lane footways alongside the C77 to the north and south of the access onto the C77 shall be implemented in accordance with the specifications agreed under Condition 3 of 11/00832/FUL before the occupancy of the first dwellinghouse on this site. Further details, and timing of, improvements to the bus stop on the north side of the B6374, including bus shelter, path link and kerbing; and, the provision of a new bus shelter and kerbing on the south side of the B6374 shall be submitted before development commences on this site. Once approved, the works shall be completed in accordance with the approved specifications and timescale Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety, and to maximise pedestrian and public transport connections to the development

4. All trees alongside the site shall be protected in accordance with measures agreed under condition 4 of 11/00832/FUL including the provision of protective fencing. There shall be no further trees removed to facilitate the development beyond those approved expressly under consent 11/00832/FUL and there shall be no works carried out within the protected areas unless expressly approved under condition 4 of that consent. Reason: To ensure that only those trees agreed for removal under 11/00832/FULshall be so removed and all remaining trees are safeguarded during the construction period and retained thereafter

5. The development shall be carried out in accordance with a phasing programme which is in accordance with the phasing programme agreed under condition 6 of 11/00832/FUL and which has first been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before development commences. This shall include all buildings, roads, paths, parking areas, 6 Item No 4 landscaping and planting, boundary treatments, open spaces, and water, foul and surface water drainage services. Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in a manner which ensures that occupied residential units are provided with necessary infrastructure and services, including shop, landscaping and open space as part of the overall site approved under 11/00832/FUL

6. The landscaping on the site shall be carried out in accordance with drawings 109.74.01-03 except in so far as they shall be revised or augmented by the following:

i. Adjustments and/or additional planting alongside plots 17 and 18 and within the car parking area to the rear of plots 12-17 ii. Adjustment of hedging alongside plot 41 to provide for the parking space on the approved plan ((00)001 Rev D)

Additional planting requirements shall include location, species and number. The landscaping scheme, as approved with these additional/revised measures shall be implemented in accordance with the phasing programme referred to in Condition 5. Reason: To ensure the provision of landscaping which compliments the street scene and open space

7. The external materials for all buildings within the development shall be implemented in accordance with plan ((00)001 Rev D) and in accordance with samples agreed under 11/00832/FUL, in addition to prior submission and approval by the Planning Authority of a sample of the timber proposed for porches and the distribution of timber and render porches within the site. All basecourses shall be limited to two brick courses or 150mm of stone unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that materials and colours compliment the design and layout of the development

8. Boundary treatments shall be carried out in accordance with the approved site plan ((00)001 Rev D) and in accordance with specifications agreed for F4 and F18 under 11/00832/FUL and subject to prior submission and approval of a revision to the boundary treatments for Plots 17 and 18; additional W6 walling on Plot 6; and specifications of the natural stone wall at Plot 1, W6, W18 and F32. All boundary treatments shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and details and in accordance with the approved phasing programme. Reason: The boundary treatments are appropriate to the character of the development subject to agreement of detailed designs and materials

9. The specification of all roads and paths shall be in accordance with the approved site plan ((00)001 Rev D) and in accordance with samples agreed in writing under 11/00832/FUL and subject to submission of the grey chipped road surface and details/samples of the path finishes having first been made to and approved by the Planning Authority. Once approved, all works shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and details and in accordance with the approved phasing programme Reason: To ensure the treatment of roads and paths is appropriate visually and to maximise use by pedestrians where appropriate

10. Development shall not commence until the following details are submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and, once approved, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details: i. A revised pipework layout for the Wallace house type front elevation ii. A more detailed scaled drawing of eave and verge treatments to ensure consistency with those approved under 11/00832/FUL iii. A more detailed scaled drawing of the corner glazed arrangement on Plot 1. iv. All detached garage elevations for all relevant plots (except Plot 1 which shall be in accordance with those approved under this consent) v. A rear elevation for the Gala Corner Turner house type (for all plots except Plot 1) 7 Item No 4 vi. A gable elevation of house type 3BV

Reason: Further details of these aspects are required to ensure an appropriate visual impact

11. No development shall commence until written evidence is provided on behalf of Scottish Water to confirm that mains water, foul and surface water drainage systems shall be made available to serve the development. Surface water drainage shall be in accordance with the measures approved under 11/00832/FUL Reason: To ensure the development can be adequately serviced

12. The badger protection fence agreed under condition 18 of 11/00832/FUL shall be erected before development commences and retained until its completion. An information leaflet, in the format agreed under 11/00832/FUL, shall be distributed to all new dwellinghouse purchasers within the development prior to their occupation of dwellinghouses. No works shall commence on site until additional measures to minimise the risk to badgers during the construction period have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority Reason: To minimise risk to badgers and their habitats during and after construction

13. Interpretation boards related to the hill fort to the north-east shall be provided within the site. The design, location and timing of provision shall be agreed with the Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: To enhance the interpretation of a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

Informatives

1. The Deed of Conditions Plan (09-01) agreed for the overall development under 11/00832/FUL requires adjustment to fit this layout and to be agreed with the Planning Authority to fulfil the terms of the existing Section 75 legal agreement. In terms of maintenance details for this particular part of the site, the measures specified on the approved landscaping plans are considered sufficient to address the requirements of the Section 75 legal agreement as regards maintenance of open space and landscaping, though the maintenance measures for the entire site remain to be fully agreed on the following points: further details of the factoring scheme itself; hedging to the rear of plots 1, 4-8 being included in the factoring scheme; details of play area inspection and maintenance; confirmation that Scottish Water will adopt the SUDs attenuation area and planting in accordance with the approved landscaping and maintenance scheme; the SUDs area being cut to the wildflower specification; hedging within 2 metres of a road junction being maintained at no higher than 900mm; and, annual inspection by an arboriculturist of the mature trees within the woodland being specified. A plan of the play area, with equipment selected from that specified in the agreement, will be required to be agreed.

2. Due to the land having contained a sheep wash, it may be potentially contaminative.

3. Contact should be made with the Council’s archaeology officer in the event further finds of potential archaeological interest are found.

4. A septic tank for Easter Langlee Cottages may be directly affected by work on this site. This is a private matter for the applicants and affected parties to address.

VOTE

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor Smith, moved that the application be approved.

Councillor Riddell-Carre, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, moved as an amendment that officers revisit Condition 9 of the consent with a view to requiring a reduction in the proportion of white and magnolia coloured house to reduce the impact of the development on the surrounding area.

8 Item No 4 On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 5 votes Amendment - 5 votes The chairman exercised his casting vote in favour of the motion which was therefore duly carried.

12/00192/FUL EnergieKontor UK Ltd Erection of temporary Land south west of Per Mr Thomas Walker 60m high Meteorological Prenderguest Farm 4330 Ground Floor Park mast Ayton Approach Thorpe Park Leeds LS15 8GB

Decision: Refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed mast, by particular reason of its scale and height, would have an intrusive and unacceptable landscape and visual impact upon the surrounding open landscape character, and would therefore be contrary to Policies N6 and N9 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan and G1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan.

2. The proposed development would result in the development of prime agricultural land, which would be inconsistent with Policies E1 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan and R1 of the Scottish Borders Local Plan.

VOTE

Councillor Weatherston, seconded by Councillor Logan, moved that the application be approved for a limited period of two years from the date of the consent.

Councillor Fullarton, seconded by Councillor Calvert, moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the basis that the proposal was contrary to Policies N6, N9 and E1 of the Structure Plan and G1 and R1 of the Local Plan in that it would have an intrusive and unacceptable landscape and visual impact and would result in the development of prime agricultural land.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 4 votes Amendment -7 votes The amendment was duly carried.

12/00021/FUL Mr Robert Forrest Installation of ground Land at Preston Farm, Per Jamie Renton mounted solar array Preston, Richard Amos Ltd Duns 2 Golden Square Duns TD11 3AW

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and informative:

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

3. No part of the development shall project more than 1.65m above ground level. Ground level shall be defined as the general land level within 0.5m of each panel.

9 Item No 4 Reason: to ensure that the overall height of the development is controlled, to ensure that visual impact is minimised.

4. Within twelve months of the end of the useful life of the solar array panels hereby approved, all solar panels and ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition, or other such condition as may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: The anticipated design life of the solar array has a limited life expectancy.

5. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, no part of the development hereby permitted shall be sited within 10 metres of the boundary of the property known as Jedlea. Details for additional planting in the area between this boundary and the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter implemented in accordance with those details prior to the installation of the panels hereby approved.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining residential property.

6. The edge of each photovoltaic panel shall be finished with a matt black trim in accordance with a scheme of details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To reduce the visual impact of the development.

7. Notwithstanding the details shown on the plans hereby approved, no development shall commence until precise details for the location of the proposed inverter equipment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, no development shall take place except in strict accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure that the inverter is located appropriately to minimise the potential for noise disturbance to adjoining residential occupiers.

Informative:

1. It is recommended that, to meet the requirements of condition 7 above, the inverter(s) be located close to the western boundary of the application site.

VOTE

Councillor Riddell-Carre, seconded by Councillor Fullarton, moved that the application be approved subject to the addition of conditions requiring no development to be permitted within 10 metres of the boundary of Jedlea; that additional planting be required in the area between this boundary and the development; that the edge of each photovoltaic panel be finished with a matt black trim; and that the inverter be located towards the western end of the site to minimise noise disturbance.

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor Jones, moved as an amendment that the application be continued to allow further consultation with community to take place.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 7 votes Amendment - 4 votes The motion was duly carried.

10 Item No 4 11/01093/FUL Mr Simon Gillie & Mrs Erection of Site 3 (Rhymers Angela Brown dwellinghouse and Tower) Land at Ray Cherry Architect detached garage with Huntshaw Farm, Site 3 (Rhymers Tower) annexe accommodation Huntshaw, Road, Land at Huntshaw Farm, Earlston Huntshaw, Road, Earlston

Decision: Approved subject to a legal agreement addressing contribution towards the education facilities, and the following conditions and applicant informatives:

2. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, and unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, no development shall commence until precise details of the finished external surfaces of the dwellinghouse and ancillary building hereby approved have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable the proper form and layout of the development and the effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings and to safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

3. Unless appropriate alternative arrangements are submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Planning Authority (please see Informative Note 1), obscure glazing shall be fitted in the first floor window on the East Elevation (that is, the gable elevation facing towards Site 4, Huntshaw) of the ancillary building hereby consented. Prior to its installation, details of this obscure glazing shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. Following its installation, the approved obscure glazing shall thereafter be maintained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of ensuring that an appropriate level of privacy can be maintained between the ancillary building on Site 3, Huntshaw, and the garden ground of Site 4, Huntshaw.

4. Unless otherwise approved by the Planning Authority, the ancillary building hereby approved shall be used solely as ancillary accommodation in connection with the residential use of the main dwellinghouse hereby consented, and shall at no time be converted to a self-contained residential unit or serve as a business premises. Reason: Consent is for a single residential property, and is explicitly not for the use of the ancillary building as either a separate dwellinghouse or as a business premises.

5. No development shall take place until the developer has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation outlining a Watching Brief. This will be formulated by a contracted archaeologist and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Access should be afforded to allow investigation by a contracted archaeologist(s) nominated by the developer and agreed to by the Planning Authority. The developer shall allow the archaeologist(s) to observe relevant below ground excavation during development, investigate and record features of interest and recover finds and samples if necessary. Results will be submitted to the Planning Authority for review in the form of a Data Structure Report. If significant archaeology is discovered below ground, excavation should cease pending further consultation with the Planning Authority. The developer will ensure that any significant data and finds undergo post- excavation analysis, the results of which will be submitted to the Planning Authority. Reason: The site is within an area where ground works may interfere with, or result in the destruction of, archaeological remains, and it is therefore desirable to afford a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site. 11 Item No 4

6. The dwellinghouse and ancillary building hereby consented shall not be occupied until the parking and turning area shown on the approved drawings has been completed (properly consolidated, surfaced and drained) and is available for use by the occupants' vehicle(s). Thereafter, this parking and turning area shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the residential property hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate space within the site for the parking of vehicles clear of the access road.

7. The dwellinghouse and ancillary building hereby consented shall not be occupied until the water supply and both surface water and foul drainage are all functional. Reason: To ensure that the site is fit for habitation prior to its occupation.

8. Prior to the commencement of development details of a scheme for surface water drainage, utilising SUDS techniques, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Department. Following approval, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Any subsequent change or changes to the approved details shall first have been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, prior to the implementation of this change/these changes. Reason: To ensure that this aspect of the consented development has no unacceptable impacts upon the landscape or environment.

9. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings, the development hereby approved shall not take place except in strict accordance with a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works, which shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority before the commencement of development. Details of the scheme shall include (as appropriate): a) existing and finished ground levels in relation to a fixed datum preferably ordnance; b) existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained and, in the case of damage, restored; c) location and design, including materials, of walls, fences and gates d) soft and hard landscaping works; e) existing and proposed services such as cables, pipelines, sub-stations; f) other artefacts and structures such as street furniture, play equipment; and g) A programme for completion and subsequent maintenance. h) Provision for a robust landscaping belt along the northern boundary of the site. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory form, layout and assimilation of the development.

10. Unless the Planning Authority has provided written advice to the contrary, no development shall commence until (i) a scheme has been submitted by the Developer (at their own expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site and (ii) this scheme has been approved in writing by the Planning Authority and all actions required in advance of the commencement of development by that scheme, have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The scheme shall contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination, and must include:- a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model, measurement of pollutant linkages through a detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of risk such contamination presents. The scope and method of this investigation to be agreed in advance with the Council, and be undertaken in accordance with PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011. b) 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). c) Submission of a Validation Report (should remedial action be required) by the competent person employed by the developer who will validate and verify the completion of works to a satisfactory standard as agreed with the Council. d) 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.

12 Item No 4 The development hereby approved shall not commence until the Developer has received confirmation in writing from the Planning Authority that the scheme has been implemented and completed appropriately, and (if appropriate) that monitoring measures are satisfactorily in place. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Where monitoring measures are required within the period beyond the commencement of development, these shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the potential for health risk arising from any identified land contamination has been adequately addressed.

Informatives

1. With reference to Planning Condition No. 3, it is considered that an appropriate alternative arrangement to the fitting of obscure glazing in the first floor window on the East Elevation of the ancillary building hereby consented, would be the deletion of the aforementioned window, and either the use of a rooflight or rooflights to light the Bedroom and/or there may be potential for an amendment to the internal layout to allow the room to be lit from another elevation (North Elevation or South Elevation), which has the potential to be dealt with as a minor amendment. In the event that the developers wish to pursue either of these options, it will be necessary to supply appropriately amended drawings setting out the proposed revisions, showing the aforementioned window deleted, and indicating the appearance and positioning of any new proposed rooflight(s) and/or windows. Please note that the Planning Authority’s formal (written) approval of these drawings would be required before any such change could be implemented.

2. It is a legal requirement that the Right of Way to the west of the site must be maintained open and free from obstruction, both during the course of development and thereafter, in perpetuity. No additional stiles, gates, steps or barriers to access may be erected, that would deter future use.

VOTE

Councillor Calvert, seconded by Councillor Houston, moved that the application be approved subject to the extension of condition 9 to require the provision of a robust landscaping belt along the northern boundary of the site.

Councillor Watson, seconded by Councillor Moffat, moved as an amendment that the application be refused on the basis that the proposal was contrary to Policy G1 parts 1and 13 of the Local Plan in that the design of the house would not respect the character of the neighbouring properties.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 9 votes Amendment - 2 votes The motion was duly carried.

NOTE Members wished it to be recorded that in the Committee’s view the consent for this dwellinghouse would complete the building group in respect of the northerly direction.

13 Item No 4

12/00182/FUL Mrs Catriona Bhatia Siting of mobile field Land North East Of Kiltane shelter and mobile Plumers Knowe Eshiels hay/feed store Cardrona Peebles (retrospective) Scottish Borders

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and informative:

1. The timber walls of the buildings shall be finished in a colour to be agreed in writing by the planning authority and the agreed colour shall be applied within three months of the date on this consent.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development appropriate to the rural setting

2. Notwithstanding the location of the two buildings shown on the approved plans, if the buildings are to be relocated within the application site, the new location shall be agreed on site with the planning authority prior to the relocation taking place.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development appropriate to the rural setting.

Informative:

1. There may be archaeological remains on the site which could be disturbed during any groundworks and the applicant is advised to contact the council’s archaeologist before any further work is undertaken.

12/00089/FUL Mrs Diane Palmer Change of use of land Yard SBC The Anna 2 Jedburgh Grove and siting of temporary Jedburgh Jedburgh building for leisure facilities

Decision: Approved subject to the following conditions and Informative:

2. Permission is granted for a limited period of 3 years from the date of this consent and, unless an application is made and consent is granted for its retention, the portacabin shall be removed from the site the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition at the expiration of the period granted. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area, in that the portacabin is constructed of materials which are of an inappropriate nature for the granting of permanent consent and to enable the Planning Authority to review the matter at the end of a limited period. Furthermore, to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the longer term redevelopment of the site.

3. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise colour of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roof of the building 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.

4. Details of the precise method of fixing the portacabin to the ground to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved details. 14 Item No 4 Reason: To prevent the portacabin being washed away in a flood, causing potential damage downstream and blocking culverts and bridges.

5. Details of the surface water drainage to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately serviced.

Informatives

In respect of condition 4, the consultation response from the Council’s Flood Protection Officer is attached for the information of the applicant.

12/00309/FUL Hawick Campervan Part change of use of Common Haugh Car Welcome car park to seasonal park West of Hawick 32 Cheviot Road Hawick facility for camper vans Burns Club Hawick TD9 0BE

Decision: Approved subject the following conditions and informatives:

2. Permission is granted for a limited period of 3 years from the date of this consent and, unless an application is made and consent is granted for its retention, the camper van facility shall be removed from the site, the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition at the expiration of the period granted. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to review the matter at the end of the limited period.

3. The site shall be occupied by camper vans only between March and October in the same year unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is used for holiday purposes only.

4. Details of the proposed method for marking out the camper van area within the car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the use becomes operational. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To enable the proper effective assimilation of the development into its wider surroundings.

5. Details of the location, size, materials and colour of any signs to be displayed on or around the site advertising the facility to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before the signs are erected. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

Informatives

The consultation response from the Council’s Flood Protection Officer is attached for the information of the applicant.

The Roads Planning Service advises that the existing Traffic Order for the car park requires to be amended.

15 Item No 5 (a)

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER:12/00137/FUL OFFICER: Dorothy Amyes WARD: Galashiels and District PROPOSAL: Formation of pedestrian Underpass beneath railway and associated works SITE: Land East and South of 2 Heriot Way, Heriot APPLICANT: Transport Scotland AGENT: Mott MacDonald Limited

INFORMATION FOR MEMBERS

This application has been referred to the Planning and Building Standards Committee under the scheme of delegation prepared in accordance with Part 3, Section 17 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 which inserts Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008, as the Council, as planning authority, has a financial interest in the land which is part of the route of the Waverley Line.

While the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 effectively grants planning permission for most works within identified limits (known as the “Limits of Deviation”), some of the works proposed here extend beyond these limits, hence the need for an application in this case.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site comprises a length of the former railway line between 2 and 3 Heriot Way, land on either side of the track and the existing public road between these two properties.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is proposed to construct a pedestrian underpass under the proposed railway line to provide pedestrian access to and from the A7 and the bus stops on this route. Heriot Way is to be stopped up. The underpass consists of two sets of steps and two long access ramps on either side of the track to connect to the pedestrian underpass. The access ramps will have a gradient of 1 in 20 and the ramps and steps will be surrounded by a parapet and vertical infill bars. The base of the parapet will be approximately 0.6m higher than the surrounding ground level.

At the lowest level beneath the railway line the ground level will be 3.7m below the base of the parapet. It is proposed to install a sump containing surface drainage pumps at the western end of the underpass. Water from the sump will be pumped into the railway track drainage. Localised landscaping is proposed around the small

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No 5 (a) embankment surrounding the parapet and a 1.7m high standard timber acoustic barrier will be erected between the railings and the single track rail line with a railway boundary fence at the north and south ends.

The finished colour of the metal infill bars and handrails will be predominantly grey but will be a brighter colour such as yellow, where required, to aid the visually impaired. The walls will be finished in grey where they are visible from the outside while the walls of the underpass will be white to increase brightness. The underpass will be lit and will be connected to the existing street lighting.

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no relevant planning history for this site.

The proposal is an alternative to the layout authorised under the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 which comprises a pedestrian footbridge with step only access.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Four letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposal. The objections can be summarised as follows: x Poor design x Wrong location close to existing residential properties x Loss of residential amenity due to loss of privacy, noise x Flooding issues x Loss of on street parking x Difficult disabled access x No parking provision for commuters x Inadequate screening x Compound impact of railway

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicants have submitted a supporting letter, a flood risk assessment and information relating to proposed flood water pumps.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001-2018 N20 – Design I2 - Rail Services I3 – Protection of Former Railway Routes I15 – Flood Risk Areas C1 – Access to Services and Facilities N7 – Protection of Nature Conservation Interest N15 – Regional and Local Archaeological Sites

Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 G1 – Quality Standards for New Development H2 - Protection of Residential Amenity G4- Flooding Inf 2 - Protection of Access Routes

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

Inf 6 - Sustainable Urban Drainage Inf 10 - Transport Development BE2 - Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments NE1- International Nature Conservation Sites NE2 - National Nature Conservation Sites NE3 - Local Biodiversity NE5 Development affecting the Water Environment

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

SPG – Placemaking and Design Scottish Planning Policy 2010 Waverley (Scotland) Act 2006

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Archaeology

No archaeological implications for this proposal.

Ecology

The proposed site is on and adjacent to the Waverley line, including areas of thorn- scrub and an area of fen-meadow (Filipendula ulmaria dominated) within the north- west boundary of the site. The Gala water (non-designated stretch) is approximately 15m west of the proposed boundary.

Measures are required to protect breeding birds and waterbodies and the following conditions are recommended - Any vegetation and scrub clearance to be carried out outside of the breeding bird season (breeding season end March-August).

- Protect the water body (Gala water) adjacent to the development area. Adopt SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 (general guidance and works affecting watercourses), PPG 3, 4, 7, 13 (site drainage), PPG 2, 8 (oil storage) and PPG 6 (construction and demolition) as appropriate.

Flood Risk

The Indicative River & Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) prepared by SEPA indicates that the site may be at risk from a flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years.

Having reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment submitted as part of this application and taking into consideration the details provided by SEPA in their response, it is confirmed that there are no objections to the proposed development but would like to include the following condition should approval be given.

1. The underpass should be constructed as a water retaining structure and any associated flood walls should be intricate to that structure, crest levels of any such walls should not be less than 254.9mAOD. The detailed design of this structure should be submitted to the planning authority for approval.

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

Should the mitigation option highlighted in the FRA to modify or increase the two culvert directly downstream of the development be undertaken, the Flood Protection Team require that the FRA is modified to include this and to assess any increased flood risk downstream of these structures as a result of these modifications.

Environmental Health

Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation).

The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2.

Roads Planning

No objections.

Statutory Consultees

SEPA

No objections. The proposed mitigation measures for the development are noted. The FRA demonstrates that the development will not be within the floodplain therefore SEPA have no objection to landraising or a flood wall being instated. However, if modification to the downstream Heriot Way culvert is the preferred option, the applicant would need to ensure that there would be no increased risk of flooding downstream of the culvert.

Although the underpass will be located outwith the functional floodplain, there will be a significant reduction in levels which in reality will create an ‘embankment’ between the Gala Water and the underpass. This is shown on Underbridge Plans 47 (4-4) on Section B-B. The embankment like feature should be designed adequately to withstand floodwater. Failure of this embankment will result in flood water entering the underpass and potentially increasing the risk of flooding to developments on the northern side of the railway line.

Heriot Community Council

Majority support the application. An underpass will be far less obtrusive than the alternative proposal for a footbridge and is to be welcomed as an overall improvement to the scheme. Also welcome the dialogue with the applicants.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key planning issues are whether or not the proposed development would have acceptable landscape, visual and environmental impacts; would adversely affect neighbouring amenity in a manner which would conflict with development plan

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 5 (a) policies and, if so, whether other material considerations, including the originally consented Parliamentary Scheme, would be sufficient to outweigh such potential conflicts.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

As part of the plans authorised under the legislation for the Waverley railway line Heriot Way is to be stopped up and it was proposed to erect a footbridge over the railway at this location to allow for pedestrian access to and from the A7. This footbridge would have had step-only access which would not provide easy access for disabled users or residents with young children in prams or push chairs.

The current proposal is for an alternative arrangement by forming an underpass with ramps which would allow for disabled access. As a low level construction it would also be less visually intrusive in the landscape than a high level footbridge. The visual impact of the underpass can be lessened with appropriate coloured finishes on the guard rails and surrounding landscaping.

The ground level surrounding the access ramps will be raised to form an embankment approximately 0.6m above the existing ground level. This is required as a flood prevention measure and is considered to be acceptable. The areas of the steps closest to the existing properties are 1.9m lower than the base of the railings and as such they do not raise any significant issues in relation to loss of privacy for the residents of these properties and the underpass will have the effect of reducing the number of pedestrians walking along the southern side of Heriot Way.

Although the construction of the underpass will restrict on-street parking immediately outside 3 Heriot Way, it is within the area of roadway which is already planned to be stopped up and on-street parking will be available close by. It should be noted that there are no rights for residents to park on a public road – even outside their own property – and this is not a material planning consideration.

The underpass will provide a link for residents in Heriot and the surrounding area to the existing bus stop on the A7 adjacent to Heriot Way providing public transport links to Edinburgh, Galashiels and beyond and it is considered that this is the appropriate location for the underpass. It is noted that there is no proposed dedicated parking but there are no parking restrictions on the public road which will not have any through traffic when stopped up.

There is potential for flooding and mitigation is proposed which is acceptable to both SEPA and the council’s Flood Protection Team subject to a number of safeguards being incorporated into the final design. In order to remove any water that may accumulate at the lowest point of the underpass it is proposed to install a sump and a pump to remove the water. Concern has been expressed that the pump will cause excessive noise pollution for adjacent properties. The applicants have submitted additional information regarding this matter. Although the type of pump has not been specified it is noted that the applicant’s specialists consider that the pumps are inherently quiet and they consider that the location and nature of the enclosure means that noise or vibration are not anticipated to affect adjacent properties. The council’s noise specialist has reviewed the submissions and has not raised any concerns. However, should Members be minded to approve this application, it is recommended that a suitably worded condition limiting any noise emissions should be placed on any consents.

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

The site is located close to the Gala Water and it is considered that mitigation is required to protect the ecology of the area. This can be achieved through suitably worded conditions. Landscape planting is proposed, although details are not specified, along the new embankment and this will not only provide screening and reduce the impact of the long stretches of railings but also provide additional habitats for insects and birds.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development would not have unacceptable landscape, visual and environmental impacts; it would not adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity and would have significant advantages in terms of access when compared to the previously proposed foot bridge.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend that 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 Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3. The underpass should be constructed as a water retaining structure and any associated flood walls should be intricate to that structure, crest levels of any such walls should not be less than 254.9mAOD. Before any development commences on site the detailed design of the structure should be submitted to the planning authority for approval. Reason: To ensure that the structure is constructed in an appropriate manner to protect the public from any potential flooding.

4. Should the mitigation option highlighted in the Flood Risk Assessment to modify or increase the two culverts directly downstream of the development be undertaken, the Flood Risk Assessment shall be modified to include this and to assess any increased flood risk downstream of these structures as a result of these modifications. The revised Flood Risk Assessment shall then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority with any further mitigation required by the revised Assessment being put in place prior to the completion of the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that the development does not cause an increased flood risk

5. 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):

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

i. indication of existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be removed, those to be retained and, in the case of damage, proposals for their restoration

ii. location of new trees, shrubs, hedges and grassed areas

iii. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density

iv. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance.

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

6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and shall be maintained thereafter and replaced as may be necessary for a period of two years from the date of completion of the planting, seeding or turfing. Reason: To ensure that the proposed landscaping is carried out as approved.

7. No development shall take place until details of the proposed surface drainage pumps have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the amenity currently enjoyed by adjoining occupiers.

8. Any vegetation and scrub clearance to be carried out outside of the breeding bird season (breeding season end March-August). Reason: In order to protect any breeding birds on the site

9. The applicant shall adopt SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 (general guidance and works affecting watercourses), PPG 3, 4, 7, 13 (site drainage), PPG 2, 8 (oil storage) and PPG 6 (construction and demolition) as appropriate. Reason: To protect the water body (Gala water) adjacent to the development area.

10. Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation). Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the amenity currently enjoyed by adjoining occupiers.

11. The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the amenity currently enjoyed by adjoining occupiers.

DRAWING NUMBERS Block Plan and Location Plan - MMD-265578-C-DR-00-XX-0056 REV P3 Elevations - MMD-265578-C-DR-00-XX-0057 REV P2 Elevations- MMD-265578-C-DR-00-XX-0059 REV P1 Sections - MMD-265578-C-DR-00-XX-0060 REVP1

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

Approved by

Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

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

Author(s) Name Designation Dorothy Amyes Planning Officer

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No 5 (b)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/00138/FUL OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Jedburgh and District PROPOSAL: Construction of landfill gas flare, compound structure and associated works SITE: Land South West of Dunion Hill Jedburgh APPLICANT: Scottish Borders Council AGENT: Graeme Duff

SITE DESCRIPTION

The landfill site is located to the south of the disused quarry at the summit of Dunion Hill. Access is gained from the B6358. The use of the site for waste disposal has ceased and the land has been grassed over.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is to install a landfill gas flare within the landfill site as part of the gas management plan. This would involve the formation of a compound containing a black/dark grey chimney 0.92m in diameter and 6m in height containing the flare and an equipment store (2m by 3m and 2.5m in height). The compound would be 4m by 6m enclosed by a 2.5m palisade fence and the compound would have a concrete base.

New and proposed landfill gas collection wells will be connected to the gas flare by underground pipework. The flare is a requirement of the Council’s gas management obligations on the site under the waste management licence.

The application has to be determined by the Planning and Building Standards Committee as the Council owns the land and is the applicant.

PLANNING HISTORY

05/02336/FUL: Erection of eight wind turbines and ancillary development including permanent meteorologist mast, substation and control building, borrow pits, construction of new access road and upgrading of existing access roads. Refused 11th September 2007.

07/01498/FUL: Installation of additional telecommunications equipment cabin. Approved 31st October 2007.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

No representations have been received.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No 5 (b)

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The following information has been submitted by the agent and is available for Members to view in full on the Public Access System:

Letter of Support:

x The flare is a requirement of the Council’s gas management obligations on the site under the licence. Alternative options for gas management have been explored including gas engine and free venting. The flare is considered to be the most technically and economically practicable option for addressing gas generation at the site.

The lifetime of the flare would be 20 – 30 years.

The compound will comprise of a dark grey/black enclosed flare with a chimney together with a portacabin style metallic compound box. The site will be secured by a metal palisade fence and will not be staffed but monthly maintenance visits will be undertaken.

Dunion Hill Gas Flare Design Document:

x The Dunion Hill Landfill Site operated from 1980 to 2002 accepting inert and non-hazardous wastes. Scottish Borders Council holds the Waste Management Licence issued by SEPA, which covers 9.6 hectares.

x As part of the aftercare it is a requirement of the site operator to minimise potential impact of the landfill gas on the environment through management of landfill gas.

x An Options Appraisal concluded that a gas flare system forms the most appropriate means of managing the gas generation of the site and this has been confirmed by SEPA.

x Planning permission was granted in May 1980 by Roxburgh District Council for the use of land for the disposal of domestic, trade and industrial refuse adjacent to and south of Dunion Hill Quarry Jedburgh. Scottish Borders Council is the operator of the site. The landfill site closed in 2002 and the site was capped with 1m thick layer of restoration soils seeded with grass. The site is now predominantly grass covered.

x The site was formerly a hard rock quarry with vertical quarry walls and the waste was disposed of within the quarried voids.

x There are a number of ground water monitoring wells at Dunion Hill.

x The Council own the site but Tarmac has servitude over a portion of this land.

x Cycle access exists on the south east of the Council owned land but outwith the works area but needs to be considered as part of the proposed works/ongoing access issues for the site.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No 5 (b)

x The gas collection system will be upgraded. Four landfill gas collection wells exist and 12 additional wells will be installed. The wells will be connected to a gas extraction wellhead. Pipework will connect the wellhead to the gas extraction main; this pipework will initially be formed above ground but after a 6 month period will be buried 400mm underground. The pipework network will be connected to the gas flare.

x The gas flare will be equipped with an auto slam-shut valve to prevent untreated landfill gas venting into the atmosphere.

x The flare compound is to be constructed on the waste mass and so a concrete hardstanding layer will be formed to house the flare and compound. The compound area would be 6m by 3m.

x Health and safety issues have been considered as part of the design.

x Testing has indicated that areas of the landfill site are emitting methane suggesting the capping layer is not sufficiently thick to contain the gas generated by the landfill.

x As part of the gas flare operation the site will be regularly monitored and maintained.

Dunion Hill Gas Management System:

The gas management system will utilise suitable existing wells with new wells strategically placed to provide better extraction capability. The landfill gas will be delivered to the gas flare via pipework.

The system is designed to enable the landfill gas to be collected, managed, treated and monitored in compliance with SEPA guidance and UK legislation.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N20: Design Policy I17: Waste Management

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2: Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf7: Waste Management Facilities

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Guidance Draft Local Landscape Designations August 2011

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No 5 (b)

Archaeology Officer: There are no archaeological implications for this proposal.

Environmental Health: Noise levels emitted by any plant and machinery used on the premises should not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR20 between the hours of 2300 – 0700 and NR 30 at all other times when measured within the nearest noise sensitive dwelling (windows can be open for ventilation).

The noise emanating from any plant and machinery used on the premises should not contain any discernible tonal component. Tonality shall be determined with reference to BS 7445-2.

Roads Planning Service: No objections

Statutory Consultees

SEPA: This site is currently operated under a Waste Management Licence (WML/E/20100) with Scottish Borders Council being the licence holder. A Closure Notice was issued by SEPA in 2004 and waste disposal at the site ceased after this date. We require that gas management systems are put in place to manage the landfill gas being produced and flaring is considered to be the best option for management at this site. We therefore support the principle of the proposal. Maintenance and monitoring of the flare should be agreed with our local Operations team as part of the landfill gas management plan.

Jed Valley Community Council: Reply awaited.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main issue with this application is the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities of the area and the candidate Special Landscape Area.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

Policy I17 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001 - 2018 states that the Council will have regard to the need to safeguard the amenity and environmental quality of existing and future developments from significant and adverse impact from waste management facilities. Policy Inf7 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 relates to waste management facilities and requires consideration of site restoration, aftercare and after use.

The landfill site at Dunion Hill was previously a quarry and operated for 22 years, closing in 2002. The landfill site was restored. The landfill site was operated by the Council and the land is still in their ownership and the Waste Management Licence is held by the Council. As part of the aftercare it is a requirement of the site licence to minimise potential impact of the landfill gas on the environment through the management of landfill gas.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 5 (b)

The agent advises that alternative options for gas management have been investigated and the proposed gas flare is considered to be the most technically and economically practicable option for addressing gas generation at the site. This involves gas collection wells which are connected to the gas flare through a network of pipes across the landfill site. The flare would be enclosed within a 6m high chimney.

SEPA has confirmed that gas management systems are required to manage the landfill gas being produced at this site and flaring is considered to be the best option for management at this site, subject to maintenance and monitoring. They therefore have no objections to the proposal.

Design

Policy N20 of the Structure Plan states that the Council will encourage a high quality of layout, design and materials in all new developments. Policy G1 of the Local Plan requires all development to be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit in with Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings.

The proposal is for a small compound surrounded by a palisade fence. The compound would contain a 6m high chimney and an equipment store of a container/portacabin style. Limited detail has been provided of the equipment store but this can be controlled by a planning condition. The colour of the chimney can also be controlled by a condition. Subject to acceptable details, the design is considered to be appropriate for the site.

Landscape and Visual Impacts

The site is situated within the Teviot Valleys candidate Special Landscape Area, which is now a material planning consideration in determining applications, albeit of limited weight at this stage. The Supplementary Planning Guidance Draft Local Landscape Designations August 2011 requires the consideration of development on hilltops such as masts or wind farms, which may be visible within the valleys.

The compound would be a small development within the overall landfill site. The compound would be 6m by 4m and the equipment store and fence would be 2.5m in height. These works would not be visually intrusive in the landscape.

The proposed chimney would be 6m in height and does have the potential to be prominent. The compound would be sited within the landfill site to the south of Dunion Hill, which formed part of the old quarry. The chimney would not be sited on the highest part of Dunion Hill, where there are already prominent telecommunication masts. It is considered that, given the scale of the development and topography of the surrounding area, the proposal would not harm the visual amenities of the area or be unduly prominent in the landscape. The flare would be enclosed within the chimney rather than exposed, virtually eliminating any visual impact.

Impact on Residential Amenities

Policy H2 of the Local Plan states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of residential areas will not be permitted.

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

There are no residential properties in the surrounding area that would be affected by the proposal in terms of noise or odour. Environmental Health has requested a condition regarding noise levels.

Access

Policy Inf2 of the Local Plan seeks to uphold access rights by protecting existing access routes.

There is a cycle route to the south east of the Dunion, part of the Jedforest Mountain Bike Trails. This route is along an existing right of way which is outwith the application site. These access routes would not be affected by the development.

CONCLUSION

The proposal complies with the relevant development plan policies and would not harm the visual amenities of the area whilst ensuring that the Council complies with its Waste Management Licence for the site.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

2. The colour of the chimney, compound box and perimeter fence to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area.

3. Details of the dimensions, materials and external appearance of the compound box to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development is commenced. The development then to be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to maintain effective control over the development.

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

DRAWING NUMBERS

Proposed Gas Extraction Well Network 162021-002 Gas Flare Compound 162021J-007 Gas Flare Compound Plan 162021J-008

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

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No 5 (b)

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/00214/FUL OFFICER: John Hiscox WARD: Mid Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Erection of 8 no. floodlighting columns SITE: Playing Field, Former Berwickshire High School, Langtongate, Duns, Berwickshire APPLICANT: Sports Duns AGENT:

SITE DESCRIPTION:

The site is situated within the grounds of the former Berwickshire High School, on the outskirts of Duns. Existing grassed pitch areas are presently being reconfigured to provide an updated layout that includes better pitches which have the potential to be lit during hours of darkness. It is the floodlighting column array that needs planning permission.

The playing fields are situated in the background and to the west of the school, which is a Category B listed building. To the south is the A6105 road that heads south-west to Greenlaw; to the north beyond the edge of the school grounds are several dwellinghouses associated with the former historic Duns estate; to the east is the former school campus which includes the Duns swimming pool; and to the west, beyond a private lane leading north to the Duns Castle Estate, is a single traditional dwelling known as The Geans, a Category C(S) listed building which can be seen from the site, in its setting.

Generally, the playing field is visible from a variety of vantage points including the new school on the south side of the A6105 and the A-road itself.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

The submitted documents forming the planning application show proposals for 8 floodlighting columns, each 15m in height, which would provide light to 2 pitches (4 columns per pitch).

Hours of operation are stated as being 1900 to 2100 hours on each weekday (not weekends).

The application is accompanied by a specification statement from the contractor/supplier, which indicates luminance/power levels, and shows details of the lamp heads.

No information relating to proposed colour/finish of the columns has yet be submitted.

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

Note: a mature and prominent Oak tree has recently been felled within the playing field/site area. This operation was undertaken outside the planning process without the need for any specific consent.

The application relates to land owned by Scottish Borders Council and, under the Development Management Regulations 2009, a determination on the application must be made by the Planning and Building Standards Committee.

PLANNING HISTORY:

There is no planning history of strict relevance to the current proposals.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY:

There have been no formal representations submitted in relation to this planning application.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

The application is supported only by a planning application form, and associated specifications and drawings. There are no formal supporting statements.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018:

Policy N17 – Listed Buildings Policy N20 – Design Policy C1 – Access to Services and Facilities Policy C4 – Sports Facilities

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011:

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy BE1 – Listed Buildings Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

x Historic Scotland publication ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Setting’ (October 2010)

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees:

Scottish Borders Council Road Planning Manager: No objection.

Scottish Borders Council Built Heritage and Biodiversity Officer: No objection.

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

Statutory Consultees:

Duns Community Council: No response.

Other Consultees:

Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland: No response.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

x Impact of the proposed development on wider landscape/heritage setting x Impact of proposed development on local heritage settings x Impact on residential amenity

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Impact on wider landscape/heritage setting:

The principal concern in the context of this planning application is that the school is situated on the fringes of the Duns Castle Estate, a designated Historic Park/Garden listed by Historic Scotland. Its edges are just to the north and north-west of the playing field site, within 20-30m at closest measurement. A well-used public path exists adjacent to the west edge of the site, the other side of a cypress hedge running for nearly the entire length of the application site, which leads to the designated park/garden beyond.

The designated park includes many trees and woodlands, which act as a buffer between its fringes and the historic core of the park, which includes the castle itself and its prime historic setting. The former high school site already has a strong utilitarian and functional presence which is distinct from the historic park beyond. It includes buildings and other structures which already help to define its own curtilage such as shelters, rugby posts, lamp-posts and the substantial swimming pool building. The addition of the floodlighting columns would not tangibly change the current landscape arrangement between the historic park and the school site.

Impact on local heritage settings:

Taking into consideration the longstanding use of the overall site and what makes the listed school building important, which is principally its façade towards the south (as reflected in the consultation response of the Built Heritage Officer), it is considered that the installation of the columns would not prejudice the setting of the school.

There is, however, a second listed building that could potentially be affected by the development, known as ‘The Geans’, a Category C(S) listed building to the west of the field. Although the layout of the columns has kept them away from being directly to the east elevation of The Geans, which can be clearly seen from the playing fields, the development would potentially change the setting of this building to its disadvantage:

x the site plan shows columns actually set into the Cypress hedgerow, which would break its continuity and unnecessarily breach this strong landscape/amenity feature and reduce the protection of amenity afforded to occupants of the dwelling; x the introduction of the columns would have the potential to clutter views to the east elevation of the building, and significantly change the backdrop to the

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

building when viewed on approach via the public path and from the school grounds. The east elevation is the principal elevation, which at the time of its listing was much more prominent because the cypress hedge now in place was not there.

Impact on private amenity:

As alluded to in the previous paragraph, the introduction of the columns would have the potential to make a significant difference to the occupiers of The Geans, who would have two 15m columns placed to the south-east and north-east of the building. It would be essential to ensure that the development, if supported, does not severely harm the amenity belonging to this dwelling.

The light spread diagrams show contours of light spill from each pitch which are limited and are largely contained within the playing pitches concerned.

Assessment:

The playing fields associated with the former school are important to Duns and the wider area as they enable training and matchplay of rugby and football for adults and children. It is important to give support to enterprises that will enable this use to be sustained. These sports are of a nature which requires occasional matches and regular training to be held during hours of darkness in the evenings. The principle of the development proposed is therefore reasonable. The site is not so close to, or in the midst of an environment which would make the lighting a dominant and incongruous feature of the landscape/visual environment in the broader sense and the impact on private amenity could be tolerated.

The potential impact on the setting of The Geans is an unfortunate by-product of the proposals, but not one which would give rise to a reason to resist the development from a planning point of view. The level of impact would not be so great as to promote an overriding planning concern and hours of use can be controlled so that lighting would not affect the adjoining house at times when such disturbance would be likely to be unacceptable.

However, there are two caveats that are necessary to ensure that the development is appropriate, both of which are most relevant to the relationship of the development with The Geans and without which, conflict may arise. The first of these is that siting new columns within the hedgerows is undesirable. For this reason, the developer has been approached and has agreed to site the columns outwith the spread of the hedge. Although it is not a historic feature, being a modern Cypress hedge, it does form a clear separation between the playing field and everything to the west of it, including The Geans.

The second is that it may be appropriate, to enable the development to be in keeping with the setting of the The Geans and for visual effects to be mitigated, to require the columns to be coloured, and not simply a plain metal finish. A dark brown might be preferable as it would relate better to trees and woodlands beyond, or perhaps a deep green akin to the new columns sited very recently at Duns Tennis Club (in Duns Public Park).

These two latter requirements could be given coverage in appropriate planning conditions and would not preclude a determination being made.

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

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend that the planning application is approved subject to conditions, for the following reason:

Taking into consideration the proposed siting, height, design and intended use of the floodlighting, including proposed hours of usage, the development would accord with planning policies relating to design/development quality, protection of listed buildings and their settings, and protection of residential amenity. However, conditions would be necessary to ensure this accord, in relation to final column finish/colour and placement of the columns outwith the Cypress hedgerow.

Conditions:

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

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

3 Notwithstanding the information contained within the application drawings, and in particular the proposed Layout drawing DRFC-001 (Rev E), no columns shall be sited within the Cypress hedgerow bounding the site to the west. Prior to commencement of development, a revised drawing showing precisely the revised location for each of the columns in the vicinity of the hedgerow shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the layout shown in the drawing approved in response to this condition. Reason: the hedgerow forms an important boundary buffer and gives clear separation between the playing fields and the path/dwelling beyond. Breaching it to site the columns would be unnecessary, and is avoidable.

4 The final colour and finish of the columns is hereby not approved and shall be the submission of further submissions to the planning authority. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed colour and finish 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: To ensure that the development would relate appropriately to the dwellinghouse known as The Geans, in terms of the outlook/amenity of its occupiers and also in terms of the potential impact of the development on the setting of the Category C(S) listed building.

5 The floodlighting shall only be operated between the hours of 19:00 to 21:00 on weekdays, and shall not be operated outwith these times. Reason: to protect the amenity of residents close to the site and to ensure that use of the site does not prejudice.

6. If it proves to be necessary upon operation of the floodlights and after further assessment and advice by the Environmental Health service of the Council,

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

any mitigative measures to control and reduce light spread shall be carried out within an agreed timescale in accordance with a scheme of details that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

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

Informatives

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

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

DRAWING NUMBERS

Specification CalcuLuX Area 7.4.0.0 27.9.11 2.3.12 Elevation CC4882 Rev 01 8.6.10 2.3.12 Site Plan DRFC-001 Rev E 10.11.11 2.3.12 Location 1:1250 4.10.11 2.3.12

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation John Hiscox Planning Officer

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

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

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/00275/FUL

OFFICER: Mr C Miller WARD: Tweeddale West PROPOSAL: Erection of sports building, full size synthetic pitch, 8 no. floodlights, synthetic sprint track and synthetic jump track SITE: Peebles High School, Springwood Road, Peebles APPLICANT: Scottish Borders Council AGENT: Architecture, Environment and Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located to the south of Peebles, within the existing playing fields complex separating the High School from residential areas to the west at Morninghill and The Loanings. A tree belt also lies along the western boundary and other mature trees exist at the edges of the playing firelds. Further residential areas lie to the north and two dwellinghouses abut the site immediately to the east. The southern boundary is formed by Craigerne Lane and further playing fields to the south. An existing three court games hall adjoins the school and abuts Craigerne Lane. This will be demolished once the new sports building is in use.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The application has been submitted by Scottish Borders Council and, under the Development Management Regulations 2009, a determination on the application must be made by the Planning and Building Standards Committee.

The main element of the proposals is a replacement sports hall to be positioned to the north-west of the existing school building and existing sports hall. This building will provide a main full-height games hall, a smaller hall, fitness suite, storage, dressing rooms and offices. The main and smaller halls will be the highest part of the building utilising a curved sloping roof of aluminium standing seam with the highest part of the wall and roof facing west into the playing fields. This elevation will be blank except for high-level clerestorey windows lighting the halls.

Lower curved roof sections flank the main halls accommodating the fitness suite and stores. A mono-pitched single storey section of building faces east towards the existing car parking and houses, which is the direction the main entrance to the building faces. The building will be externally clad in composite rendered panels and the single storey section will be clad in coloured insulated panels to provide contrast – all material colours still require to be specified and agreed. Windows will be framed in powder-coated aluminium.

1 Item No 5 (d)

The proposals also involve alterations to the existing sports pitch arrangements. Currently, two grass pitches lie south of Craigerne Lane and six smaller ones to the north including three grass pitches used for hockey and a summer athletics track marked out over one of these. The alterations involve retention of the three northerly hockey pitches but changes to the other pitches. A new synthetic pitch will be formed between the new games hall building and The Loanings, surrounded by 3m high green coated mesh fencing, rising to 4.5m high behind the goal areas. The pitch will be lit by eight 15m high floodlight columns along the sides, each column providing 4 x 2kw light fittings.

A synthetic sprint track and long jump are also proposed alongside the synthetic track and the summer running track will now be overlain on the grass pitch immediately north of Craigerne Lane. Three pitches will now be formed from two to the south of Craigerne Lane, including two additional hockey pitches.

APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION

A Design Statement was submitted in support of the application and this is available to view on Public Access. It explains the design evolution and how the submissions were arrived at after earlier versions were considered. It also contains photographs, sketches and sections demonstrating the proposals.

PLANNING HISTORY

Previous proposals for an all-weather pitch and floodlighting were withdrawn in 2001 and a subsequent application approved in 2010. The approved proposals (09/01689/FUL) positioned the synthetic pitch nearer to Craigerne Lane but still with high mesh fencing around the pitch and eight floodlighting columns at 16m heights. The wattage output for the 2010 scheme was a third of the output proposed in 2001. The current scheme wattage output doubles the approved output from 2010.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2018

Policy C2 – Education and Health Services Policy C4 – Sports Facilities

Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan (2011)

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Manager: Response awaited.

Environmental Health:

In order to prevent light pollution, recommends conditions be attached to any Planning Consent to ensure the lights should not be operated after 22:00 hrs or before 07:00 hrs, that the installation should be designed in accordance with the guidance produced by The Institution of Lighting Engineers and that, if necessary,

2 Item No 5 (d) suitable shuttering should be provided for each lamp to prevent unwanted light affecting the occupiers of properties off site.

Landscape Section: Response awaited.

Access Officer:

There are no claimed rights of way through or affected by the development. The path to the west is separated by a hedge and fence so should remain unaffected.

Statutory Consultees

Sportscotland:

No objections in that the provisions of the SPP are met by the proposals which compensate for the loss of existing grass pitches by the improvement of existing pitches and the synthetic pitch. Expresses a wish for needs of sporting community to be taken into account before the surface of the synthetic pitch is finalised, identifying the differences in 2G and 3G surfaces for sports such as rugby and hockey and the findings of the Scottish Borders Facility Strategy (2011) which identified the need for more 3G pitches. The proposed pitch is inadequate in size for 3G provision.

Peebles and District Community Council:

Welcomes much needed improvements but comments on need to control parking on grass verges around Craigerne Lane, inadequate facilities for community use, need to reposition indoor changing rooms and expresses concerns at the reduction in availability of rugby pitches.

Non Statutory Consultees

Peebles Civic Society:

No objections.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Representations on the application have been received from 28 people and groups. They can be viewed in full on the Public Access system. 20 are in support of the application, seven against and one general comment. The comments in support include the following points: x The proposals are much needed improvements for the school and the community. x The facilities enhance all-weather, indoor and winter/evening usage. x Assists towards the sports aspects of the Curriculum of Excellence.

The general comments and those in opposition include the following points: x Hockey provision has increased at the expense of rugby provision, in contrast to the school’s name and reputation for rugby. The priorities should be redressed and a 3G surface for rugby should be provided to compensate. x The indoor changing facilities are inadequate. x The synthetic surface should be 2G for hockey.

3 Item No 5 (d) x The sports hall building will impact on residential amenity and privacy, being too close to dwellinghouse and conservatory windows. x The proximity of the building and position of the entrance will increase noise nuisance, diminish natural daylight, increase artificial light pollution and devalue property. x The synthetic pitch will increase noise nuisance after school hours and its hours of operation would be more intrusive than the previous hours allowed. x The synthetic pitch and associated fencing will result in increased litter, damage and detrimental impacts on residential amenity through increased noise, impact on sunlight and potential damage and devaluation. x The new building would have less impact on property if placed on footprint of existing or along Craigerne Lane. x Proposals contrary to Schedule 3 of the Development Management Regulations 2008. x Inaccurate light spill diagrams. x Inadequate pre-application engagement with most affected neighbours.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining issues with this application are the environmental impact of the new building, lights, columns, pitch and fencing, both on the residential properties nearby and on the wider area and their compliance with relevant Development Plan Policies.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning policy

The proposed sports hall, synthetic pitch, fencing and lights are proposed to enhance school training facilities at Peebles High School although it is acknowledged that this would provide opportunities for usage by other community groups too. Structure Plan Policy C4 encourages sports and recreation facilities although Local Plan Policies G1 and H2 wish to ensure that any new development respects the nature and character of the area, which is of school grounds, open space and residential property.

Environmental Impact

The synthetic pitch installation would replace an existing grass pitch. The lights and columns will be 15m above the ground and the surrounding fencing will be 4.5m high to the rear of the goals. The remainder of the fencing will be 3m high to the open northern field side and to the edge facing Craigerne Lane. Notwithstanding the impacts of illumination (see below), the site is part of an open green swathe of school grounds and pitches straddling Craigerne Lane, with residential property on all sides albeit at some distance. The nearest dwellinghouses at Morning Hill and The Loanings to the west of the site are partially screened from the site by a mature tree belt bordering a footpath. Although their view through the trees to the site is still possible given the height of the tree canopies, it is rear elevations that are mainly affected and the trees will still play a part in reducing visual impact.

The lighting columns themselves will also be below the trees, which assists with landscape and townscape integration. With appropriate dark green colouring on the mesh fencing, the visual impacts of the installation will be able to be reduced to acceptable levels. A condition can ensure appropriate colouring of the fencing. A similar installation with 16m high floodlights was approved and implemented on the

4 Item No 5 (d) southern edge of Wilton Lodge Park on the entrance to Hawick from the west. Having the benefit of assessing that completed installation in the parkland and residential fringe setting it occupies, it is very likely that that this similar installation will be able to be successfully visually integrated into the specific setting at Peebles.

It must also be noted that a previous proposal with slightly higher (though fewer) lights was approved in 2010 with the synthetic pitch alongside Craigerne Lane in a more open location. The new location is more appropriate in terms of landscape impact and positioning between existing/proposed school buildings and residential development.

The proposed sports hall will represent a significant improvement in provision compared to the existing gym hall which will be demolished upon completion of the new building. This phased approach is designed to cause minimum disruption to the school’s curriculum by allowing continued indoor sports accommodation. This has partly influenced the position of the new building which may, otherwise, have been positioned on the site of the demolished building. The new position also allows for continued extension of Peebles High School in the most appropriate location, the Millennium Wing being seen as a possible area for such expansion. A number of different design permutations have been considered before arriving at the finished and submitted design.

Whilst the impact of the building has been minimised with regard to the requirements of the school, the siting has also taken into account the wider environmental and residential amenity impacts by being positioned away from the open green swathe of fields either side of Craigerne Lane and within the visual envelope of the school complex and away from the houses at Morning Hill and The Loanings. When viewed from distance, there is a logic in reducing the impacts on the green spaces surrounding the school and separating housing areas from the school complex.

The design of the building has taken into account the location and the varied architectural influences in the area, producing a building with lower sections, sloping roofs and other techniques to break up the mass of the sports hall. The mixture of rendered panels, insulated boards and aluminium framed windows will also help increase interest. All samples and colours will need to be reserved for further agreement by condition.

There are also disadvantages in locating the sports hall where proposed, in relation to impacts on the two dwellinghouses at the western end of Springwood Road. Whilst “The Yetts” has significant tree screening between it and the new building and faces away from the school playing fields, “Cranford” is only separated from the fields by a relatively low stone wall with some tree screening at either corner. Lounge and conservatory windows will face directly into the entrance area of the new building and it is understandable that objections have been raised from the owners about privacy and noise impacts, even though, to a large extent, those issues already exist.

The submitted Design Statement demonstrates how the potential impacts have influenced the design of the building with lower single storey elements nearest to the affected dwellinghouse, sloping barrel vaulted roofs rising away from the house and slightly lower flanking wings. With recognition of the guidelines in the Council’s “Sunlight and Privacy” SPG, the Design Statement demonstrates that unobstructed 25 degree angles can still be achieved both from the windows of the house but also even from ground level at the boundary wall. The receipt of sunlight is not, therefore, a determining issue with the application.

5 Item No 5 (d)

However, it is recognised that there will be an impact on privacy to the habitable room windows and garden of “Cranford” in the absence of any proposed additional screening. Although it is understood that planted screening could be hampered by the relocation of underground services in this area, it is considered that additional screening is necessary to prevent direct overlooking from both the new entrance area and the ground floor windows within the building, given the proximity. A high screen fence would be the minimum requirement and Architectural Services will be meeting with the affected proprietors before proposing screening proposals which will be verified to members at the Committee meeting.

In terms of compliance with the aforementioned Development Plan Policies and subject to enhanced screening proposals, it is considered that the proposal will enhance existing sports provision whilst respecting the quality, nature and character of the surrounding area and residential properties.

Lighting impact

One of the most critical issues with floodlighting is the potential for light pollution and undue impact on residential properties nearby. Policy H2 seeks to ensure that any development that would have an adverse effect on existing residential areas should not be permitted. In this particular location, the nearest dwellinghouses are to the west of the site at The Loanings. There are also other dwellinghouses surrounding the site at a greater distance although The Loanings properties are the most affected. Light spread diagrams and calculations have been submitted on the basis of the current proposals for 15m high columns with four lights per head. As with the previous proposals approved in 2010, it is demonstrated that the higher columns (12m columns were proposed in 2001) are able to concentrate light more specifically onto the pitch and create less nuisance through spread. The amount of illumination is also now only two thirds of the amount proposed in 2001, albeit greater than that approved in 2010.

The light spread diagrams show contours of light spill from the pitch which are limited and only reach the garden areas of the nearest affected properties, not taking into account the shading mitigation caused by the tree canopies. It is stated that the amount of light “trespass” to neighbouring windows will be within accepted tolerances.

In considering light pollution, technical advice on the light spread diagrams is necessary. Members will note that the Environmental Health were consulted and raise no objection subject to various restrictions including no operation of the lights during the period 10pm to 7am, compliance with the guidance of the Institution of Lighting Engineers and the fitting of shields should light spill be an issue. These additional controls were accepted by the Council in 2010 and can again be attached as Informatives and Conditions to ensure that light pollution should not become a nuisance. In the event that there are further problems following compliance with the conditions, then the Council have the remit to act upon the nuisance directly under Environmental Health legislation.

Whilst there is a significant level of local concern at the issue of light pollution, it is clear from the Environmental Health response that adjustments will be possible to make the installation comply with their regulations. It is also acknowledged that floodlighting was previously approved in the immediate vicinity in 2010. Subject to appropriate conditions and Informatives, the proposals are considered to be in compliance with Development Plan Policies on protection of residential amenity.

6 Item No 5 (d)

Noise impact

Policy H2 also requires to be assessed in relation to the impacts of noise on nearby residential property, especially those nearest in The Loanings. Concerns have been raised about noise by those residents.

It is accepted that there will be an increase in general noise levels for a larger part of the day due to the intention to floodlight the all-weather surface. The existing tree screen between the synthetic pitch and the houses will remain unaffected and, although it is accepted that there may be an intensification of use, the houses are already impacted by playing field use and any increased levels of usage do not substantiate a refusal of the scheme – especially as the pitch has only moved northwards a short distance from where it was previously approved and the same hours of lighting operation imposed as a condition – which thus controls the use of the pitch and associated noise.

Whilst it is accepted that the tree screen between the pitch and The Loanings is sparser than that which separates Morning Hill from the pitch, especially at lower levels, it must also be acknowledged that the Committee have already agreed the principle of the all-weather pitch slightly further south. The noise impacts on the adjoining residents have already, therefore, been considered and accepted.

The other amendments to pitches and location of running tracks and long jump pit should not create any additional impacts on residential properties beyond the levels of impact already experienced and to be expected when adjoining school playing fields and open spaces.

It is noted that the time restrictions suggested by Environmental Health would avoid incursion of noise into antisocial hours. Though timber baffle fencing is no longer proposed within the synthetic pitch area, there continues to be no objection from Environmental Health in relation to noise generation. They would, in any case, also be able to use their own legislation should noise levels reach the category of statutory nuisance.

The impacts of noise on the dwellinghouses closest to the new sports hall reception area have resulted in significant concerns being expressed although no specific concerns have been outlined by Environmental Health. The occupants of “Cranford” disagree with the location of the sports hall and the potential noise generating from the positioning of the main entrance area to the building close to their boundary. The screen fencing mentioned above will not satisfactorily reduce noise without other methods being adopted and it is believed that Architectural Services are also looking into the fencing being acoustically shielded. The case officer has also suggested to Architectural Services that the main entrance could be screened from “”Cranford” by re-orientating the entrance to the south rather than facing the dwellinghouse. This would not involve any repositioning of the building.

Members will be updated on any revised screening proposals at the meeting. Officers feel that measures do need to be taken although it is also accepted that “Cranford”, more than any other property in the vicinity, experiences the greatest existing impact from school activity close to its boundary on three sides. An open aspect from their property to the west cannot, therefore, be justifiably protected completely although mitigating measures should minimise noise disruption to acceptable levels taking into account the existing situation.

7 Item No 5 (d)

Other issues

A number of the objections and general comments have related to potential tensions between the levels of rugby and hockey provision, there being a comment that provision for rugby is suffering through the new proposals. Sportscotland also refer to the requirement for further community consideration in deciding on the style of surface for the new synthetic pitch, one style of surface not being suitable for both sports together. It is considered that such requirements and potential tensions between the sports must be taken into account by the Council as developer but not through the planning process, as there can be no justification to exert controls over different users of the pitches, particularly as no loss of recreational space, in general term, arises from the proposal.

CONCLUSION

In summary and subject to a satisfactory screening proposals being submitted, the proposed sports building, all-weather playing surface, floodlights and fencing will comply with Development Plan Policies on environmental and residential impact and can be controlled by condition and Informative to minimise this impact to acceptable levels.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES

I recommend the application is approved subject to the following conditions and Applicant Informatives

2. Samples of all external materials proposed for the sports hall building to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area

3. Full details of boundary screening and landscaping around the proposed sports hall building to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority before the development commences. Once approved, the screening and landscaping to be carried out within an agreed timescale. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

4. The colours to be applied to all new fences shall first have been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area

5. No lights approved by this permission shall be operated between the hours of 22:00 and 07:00. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

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

8 Item No 5 (d)

Informatives

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

Approved by

Name Designation Signature Brian Frater Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

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

Author(s) Name Designation Craig Miller Principal Planning Officer

9 Item No 5 (d)

10 Item No 5 (e)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER:12/00286/FUL OFFICER: Carlos Clarke WARD: Leaderdale and Melrose PROPOSAL: Siting of storage container SITE: Tweedbank Sports Field APPLICANT: Stuart Kerr AGENT: None

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application originally related to a site at the northern end of Tweedbank sports pitches, just south of a path that links Weavers Linn to Tweedbank View and separates the pitches from the housing within the former. During the course of the application, in response to concerns raised by residents within Weavers Linn and by this department, the proposed structure was relocated approximately 25 metres further south.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks full planning consent for the siting of a metal storage container for Tweedbank Thistle Football Club. The container measures approximately 6.1m (length) by 2.44m (width) and would be 2.44m in height. A photograph submitted with the application indicates it would be white in colour, though the application submission states that it can be painted.

PLANNING HISTORY

No relevant history

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Two letters of representation have been submitted, copies of which are available to view on “Public Access”. A summary of the comments raised is noted as follows:

x No objections in principle are raised, and the work of the football club is commended, but a better location should be found for the container. x The container would be too close to residential homes. A more fitting location could be found that is more discrete and inoffensive. An alternative location suggested is nearer the entrance to the sports pitches next to the Astroturf pitch, or where the existing container is on the other side of the pitches. x The container would be an obvious eyesore and won’t blend in even if painted. The current container is at the far end of the ports pitches and blends in with the trees such that you do not notice it is there. This would be out of place, and take away from the beautiful unspoilt area.

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

x There are safety issues given its proximity to Weavers Linn, with children likely to climb onto it, which they already do with trees, and because it will block a line of sight to the pitches to allow supervision of residents’ own children. x There would be noise from doors opening and closing and it is queried whether the siting means there would be more playing nearer to houses. x The size of the container is queried. x This would set a precedent for others to site containers.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The application form states that the application is to provide storage facilities for Tweedbank Thistle Football Club, will be painted to blend in with the area and utilised for years to come. The club has been in the community for 20 years and provides community spirit and health benefits to all kids involved.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

No consultations undertaken.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

N20 Design C4 Sports Facilities C5 Protection of Playing Fields/Sports Pitches

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

G1 Quality Standards for New Development H2 Protection of Residential Amenity NE4 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows G7 Infill Development

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

SPG Trees and Development 2008 SPG Guidance on Householder Development 2006

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Whether the visual impact and use of the container would be sympathetic to the surrounding area, particularly nearby residential properties

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

PRINCIPLE

Structure Plan Policy C4 supports the provision of sports facilities and this proposal would not involve, either in its original or revised location, any loss of sports pitches. There would be no significant loss of open space associated with the development or loss of trees (see further comments below). The proposed use would clearly link to, and be incidental to, the use of the existing established sports pitches and raise no

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No 5 (e) land use concerns, access or servicing issues. The football club is a local organisation but, in any case, any proposals to site containers would have to be treated on their own merits. This current proposal does not raise any concerns regarding cumulative impact with existing containers, given the size of the area and its current visual containment. The provision of access for placing the container on site is one reason why the original site was chosen and, for this, or the alternative siting now proposed, the Council, as landowner of the pitches, has no objection to the provision of access provided any existing features removed to allow for it are reinstated as appropriate. The applicants will have to discuss access with the Borders Sport and Leisure Trust, who lease the land to the east, including the Astroturf pitch and running track, should access be needed via their facilities. These issues would be for the applicants to address separately from the planning application process.

VISUAL AND AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS

The area containing the sports pitches is flat, screened by trees from wider views from the west and south, and alongside sports facilities to the east and planting to the north. The siting of a container in this area should not have any significant visual impact in principle, particularly if painted a dark green colour. For such a structure, however, it would be necessary to limit consent to a temporary period, given that it has the potential to deteriorate relatively quickly and a condition would allow its visual appearance to be reviewed at the end of the period. A five year period is considered reasonable in that regard,

If completed according to the original site plan, the container may have affected trees, but it would have been expected that its precise positioning would have been designed to avoid any such loss. In any case, the original siting would have rendered the container directly visible from the passing path to its north, sited as it would be close to a gap in the boundary planting. It is not considered that the container would have adversely affected the privacy, outlook or light available to even the nearest property nor have a significant effect in terms of noise impact, given that it would relate to an existing use and because of its position relative to the windows of the nearby properties which have their gables, with limited window openings, facing south towards the pitches. The impact of the container on view is not a material consideration, including the blocking of views into the pitches. Nevertheless, there is some sympathy with local residents given that the container would be sited close to the planted boundary, on higher ground, and have a more obtrusive visual impact from both the path and neighbouring properties, with associated noise implications, than would appear to be necessary if it were sited further into the sports grounds.

In response, though access to install the container will be an issue for the applicant to resolve, he has agreed to reposition the container further south, just west of the Astroturf pitch. This amended siting would place the container further away from nearby residential properties and would be relatively comfortably sited adjacent the Astroturf pitch. This revised location is considered agreeable in terms of its visual impact and impact on the amenity of residential properties.

CONCLUSION

Subject to compliance with the schedule of conditions, the revised siting for the container is considered compliant with development plan policies with respect to, in particular, its impact on visual amenity and the amenity of nearby residential properties.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No 5 (e)

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

1. Permission is granted for a limited period of 5 years from the date of this consent and, unless an application is made and consent is granted for its retention, the container shall be removed from the site and the land restored to its former condition at the expiration of the period granted. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area, in that the container is constructed of materials which are of an inappropriate nature for the granting of permanent consent and to enable the Planning Authority to monitor the appearance of the development at the end of a limited period

2. No development shall commence until the external colour of the container is agreed with the Planning Authority in writing by means of a specific RAL or BS colour reference. The container shall only be installed after having first been completely painted with the approved colour and shall not be subsequently painted an alternative colour without the written approval of the Planning Authority Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the development

DRAWING NUMBERS

Location Plan – Revised 14.05.12 Photo

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Carlos Clarke Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 5 (e)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No 5 (f)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBERS: 12/00416/FUL & 12/00538/LBCNN OFFICER: Deborah Chalmers WARD: Hawick and Hermitage PROPOSALS: Change of Use from (Class 11 to Class 1) and Erection of new signage SITE: 5 Buccleuch Street, Hawick APPLICANT: Director of Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council AGENT: Scottish Borders Council

SITE DESCRIPTION

5 Buccleuch Street is situated within the Town Centre and Conservation Area, but outwith the Prime Retail Frontage area. The property in question is a C Listed Building. The application relates to the ground floor premises of 5 Buccleuch Street. The ground floor is currently a vacant premises with two floors of flats above. The former use was the ‘Escape Youth Café’ and the unit is currently Class 11 (Assembly & Leisure). The property in question has a natural stone finish with a slated roof. 5 Buccleuch Street is attached to properties on either side namely Peter Scott and a kebab takeaway.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Full Planning permission is sought for the change of use from Class 11 (Assembly & Leisure) to Class 1 (Shops) for the ground floor premises at 5 Buccleuch Street, which is located within the town centre. The Listed Building Consent seeks consent for the erection of signage for the ground floor premises. The following report relates jointly to applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent for the change of use and erection of signage.

Advertisement Consent is not required for the signage in this instance, given that it meets the criteria outlined in Class IV ‘Advertisements on Business Premises’ contained within The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisments) (Scotland) Regulations 1984. There is no other external re-decoration proposed as part of the proposal that would require planning consent.

5 Buccleuch Street was granted planning consent (01/00815/COU) for use Class 11 on the 27th July 2001 for a computer games centre. More recently the shop premises was used as the ‘Escape Youth Café’ which closed in 2011. The current planning application is to change the use from Class 11 to Class 1 for a retail art gallery. The shop will sell and display local art and craftwork by Borders artists with an area for selling antiques. The applicant has indicated that they hope to give opportunities to

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No 5 (f) local Borders artists and crafts people to bring their work to the marketplace. It is also hoped to develop links with local schools.

The Listed Building Consent seeks consent for the erection of signage for the shop. There is no existing signage above the shop front and the fascia is currently painted brown. The proposal includes erecting a sign onto the existing fascia, measuring 9.3m in length and 0.59m in height. The fascia is to be made from 4mm dibond with vinyl lettering applied to the face and a gloss finish. The proposed lettering, ‘Reiver’s Moon Gallery’ will measure 5.5m in length and 0.36m in height, positioned in the centre of the sign. The fascia is to be ultramarine blue and the letters are to be yellow. These colours reflect the traditional Hawick Common Riding colours.

PLANNING HISTORY

01/00815/COU – Change of use from bistro to computers games centre

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

There have been no representations submitted to date.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant has not submitted any information in support of the application.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N17: Listed Buildings Policy N18: Development affecting Conservation Areas Policy E19: Town Centre Enhancement

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy BE1: Listed Buildings Policy BE4: Conservation Areas Policy BE5: Advertisements Policy ED5: Town Centres Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity

Supplementary Planning Guidance:

Scottish Borders Shop Fronts and Shop Signs (March 2011)

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: Advised that the road serving the property is a trunk road, the comments of Transport Scotland may have to be sought. Otherwise, recommend in favour of this application.

Heritage and Design Officer: Advised that it is not clear whether the signage will be matt or gloss finish. The Officer advised matt or a semi-matt finish would be

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No 5 (f) preferable rather than a high gloss. The signage in this location is acceptable and they are content that the proposal will have no adverse impact on the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building. They recommend no objection to the proposal, however would prefer to know how reflective the finish of the signage will be as a matt or semi matt finish would be preferable.

Statutory Consultees

Hawick Community Council: No response to date.

Other Consultees

Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland: No response to date.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key considerations of this proposal are whether the proposed development will;

x Be an acceptable use for a Town Centre location; x Result in any adverse impact upon the setting of the Conservation Area; x Detract from the appearance of the Listed building;

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Policy

The proposal to change the use to Class 1 and erect signage at 5 Buccleuch Street, Hawick has to be assessed against the Council’s policies, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011.

Structure Plan Policy E19 states that town centre enhancement, including the provision of new retail facilities and complementary non-retail uses, will be encouraged. Policy ED5, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, aims to encourage an appropriate mix of town centre uses that will maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. Proposals for shopping development and other appropriate town centre development, will generally be approved within defined town centres of the larger settlements provided that the character, vitality, viability and mixed use nature of the town centre will be maintained and enhanced. Appropriate development other than Class 1 shop uses includes: food and drink, offices, commercial leisure and entertainment, residential, health care, education and tourism related uses.

Structure Plan Policy N17 states proposed alterations to Listed Buildings, their setting and related fixtures, will only be permitted where such alterations maintain and preferably enhance the special architectural or historic quality of the building. Policy BE1, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 states that the Council will support development proposals that protect maintain and enhance active use and conservation of Listed Buildings. New developments that would adversely affect the setting of a Listed Building will not be permitted. The aim of the policy is to protect Listed Buildings from works that would spoil their character.

Structure Plan Policy N18 states that development proposals should seek to retain existing features which are considered integral to the character of the Conservation Area. There will be a presumption against development which is considered likely to

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No 5 (f) have an adverse impact on a Conservation Area. Policy BE4, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, states that the Council aims to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. Development within or adjacent to a Conservation Area that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on its character and appearance will be refused. All new development must be located and designed to preserve or enhance the special architectural or historic character of the Conservation Areas.

Policy BE5, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, aims to ensure that advertisements within built-up areas do not adversely affect local character, amenity or safety. The policy reflects the need to ensure a higher quality of design and materials for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, reflecting the property or areas character or appearance. Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance: Shop Fronts and Shop Signs provides guidance in relation to new signage.

Policy G1, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, states that all new development will be expected to be of high quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit with Scottish Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings. Furthermore, Policy H2 states that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas will not be permitted.

Appropriate Town Centre Use

The property is located outwith the Prime Retail Frontage, therefore the provisions outlined within Policy ED5 apply. The policy aims to encourage an appropriate mix of town centre uses that will maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. As the property if located within the Hawick Town Centre but outwith the Prime Retail Frontage, the proposed use is considered acceptable and in compliance with the mixed uses encouraged in Policy ED5 for such locations. In recent years Hawick has experienced high vacancy rates with this property being vacated in 2011. The take up of this unit is encouraged as it is considered that the retail premises will create increased footfall contributing to the vitality and viability of the wider Town Centre.

Visual Appearance

The erection of the signage must be assessed against Policy BE1: Listed Buildings, in order to ensure that the proposal will not negatively affect the setting of the Listed Building and Policy BE5: Advertisements, to ensure that the proposal does not adversely affect the local character, amenity of safety. The Heritage and Design Officer advised no objection provided that the finish of the signage is clarified. The applicant has since clarified that the sign will be finished in gloss. Whilst the Heritage and Design Officer would prefer a matt or semi matt finish, there is no objection to the gloss finish and it is considered acceptable. The premises is located within the Hawick Conservation Area and therefore must be assessed against Policy BE4: Conservation Areas, as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. It is not considered that the proposed signage would impact upon the existing building, surrounding landscape or visual amenities of the area. Furthermore, the development will not result in a negative impact upon the character or appearance of the Listed Building or wider Conservation Area. The proposed sign will not adversely affect the local character, amenity or safety of the area and the colour scheme and layout of the sign are appropriate for the location, reflecting the traditional local colours of the town.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 5 (f)

Roads and Access

The Roads Planning Service have no objection to the proposed development. It was not considered necessary to consult Transport Scotland in relation to this application, given the existing town centre location with similar uses.

CONCLUSION

The key issues are whether the proposal is acceptable taking into consideration current policy in respect of; town centre uses, listed buildings and conservation area.

It is considered that a Class 1 (Shops) use is appropriate for such a town centre location. In terms of the design, materials and layout of the sign, it is not considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the listed building or the character and appearance of the wider conservation area. In terms of the residential amenity, the proposed use will not have an unacceptable impact upon the public realm or the neighbouring residential properties.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

Planning Application: 12/00416/FUL

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

2. Details of any change in colour of the shop front and doors are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any change being made, Thereafter the works are to be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Informatives:

1. Be advised that any external alterations in the future may require Full Planning Permission depending upon the proposed details.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Ref Plan Type Location Plan Site Plan

Listed Building Consent: 12/00538/LBCNN

I recommend the listed building consent is approved subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No 5 (f)

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.

Informatives:

1. Be advised that any external alterations in the future may require Listed Building Consent depending upon the proposed details.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Plan Ref Plan Type Location Plan Site Plan Elevations

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Deborah Chalmers Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 5 (f)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No 5 (g)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBERS: 12/00452/FUL OFFICER: Deborah Chalmers WARD: Hawick and Denholm PROPOSALS: Erection of meteorological mast and associated equipment (maximum height including equipment 81.5m) SITE: Land South of Dykeraw Farm, Hawick APPLICANT: Director of Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council AGENT: Scottish Borders Council

SITE DESCRIPTION

The application site is located within the Dykeraw Plantation in the Wauchope Forest and has recently been felled. The site lies 7km to the south east of Bonchester Bridge and the Carter Bar lies 6.5km to the south east from the proposed site. The A6088 runs to the north east of the application site. The mast would be located within the Dykeraw Plantation which is a commercial forestry plantation sited 4km to the south east from Chesters.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of an anemometer mast on a site 4km to the south east from Chesters. Permission is sought on a temporary basis for the erection of the mast, in order to gather wind speed data in order to establish the technical feasibility of this site to support a proposed wind farm development. The proposed mast would be tubular steel and would be secured to the ground by a series of guy wires fixed to anchor points. The mast will have a height of 77m, while the overall structure extends to 81.5m which includes the wind vane. The proposed cable will stay secure via a series of land anchors, basically a series of large pegs which would be removed completely on decommissioning of the mast.

Members should be aware that this application relates to the met mast only and no planning application or scoping opinion has been submitted for the erection of wind turbines on this site.

PLANNING HISTORY

There is no planning history on this site to date.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

At the time of writing this report a total of 13 individual objections had been received to this application and 2 from organisations, namely Minto Hills Conservation Group and Chesters Wind Farm Action Groups. All representations were received within the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No 5 (g) statutory period for representations following advertisement in the local press. The objections can be viewed in full on the Public Access website, and can be summarised as follows:

x Location within an area of significant protection in the Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance; x Location within the 7km Protection Zone of the Carter Bar; x Request that any aviation lighting is infa-red; x Request that a condition limits consent to two years; x Impact upon the scenic and panoramic hills; x Impact upon the forest, landscape, ecology and ground water systems associated with deforestation; x Proximity to residential properties; x Siting within a sensitive landscape; x The development will break the sky line; x Site lies within an area of significant protection; x Cumulative impact with Cummings Hill mast and Birneyknowe site; x Visual impact due to the elevated nature of the site; x Visibility from viewpoints between Bonchester Bridge and Chesters along the A6088; x The site is located within the SBC Spatial Strategy significantly protected area; x Visibility from the scenic viewpoint Ruberslaw; x Precursor to a wind farm; x Negative impacts of the wind farm development; x Impact upon wildlife; x Impact upon the designated Conservation Area; x Detrimental impact upon the environment; x Detrimental impact upon the residential amenity; x Health issues; x Inadequate screening; x Loss of view; x Noise nuisance; x Trees and landscape affected; x Impact upon ecology; x Impact upon tourism; x Impact upon archaeological sites; x Environmental issues; x Impact upon the landscape and iconic views; x The mast will be dominant within the landscape; x Impact that the lights will have upon star gazing in the area; x Out of scale with any adjacent landscape features or vegetation, which will give no screening from the A6088; x Out of context with the existing landscape; x The potential impact of any future wind turbines on the site; x Excess of wind energy being produced; x Proximity to the Teviot Valleys candidate Special Landscape Area;

Members should note that a number of the submitted objections relate to the erection of wind farm developments as well as the proposed meteorological mast. The current application seeks permission only for a temporary mast only therefore comments pertaining to the development of a wind farm are not relevant to the current proposal.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No 5 (g)

Members should also be aware that only material considerations should be considered in their assessment of this proposal.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant has not submitted any information in support of the application.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018:

Policy N9 – Maintaining Landscape Character Policy N20 – Design Policy E16 – Rural Economic Development Policy I19 – Renewable Energy Policy I20 – Wind Energy Developments

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011:

Policy G1 – Quality Standards for New Development Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy D4 – Renewable Energy Development

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

• Scottish Planning Policy • Supplementary Planning Guidance: Wind Energy (May 2011) • Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Local Landscape Designations • The Borders Landscape Character Assessment

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service: No response to date.

Statutory Consultees:

Ministry of Defence: They have no safeguarding objections to this proposal. The MOD requests that the mast is fitted with aviation lighting. The mast should be fitted with a minimum intensity 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infa-red lighting at the highest practicable point. Whilst they have no safeguarding objections to the application, the height of the development will necessitate that the aeronautical

NATS: No response to date.

Other Consultees:

Community Council: No response to date.

SNH: No response to date.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No 5 (g)

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The key planning issues with this application are:

x Whether or not the proposed meteorological mast complies with the provisions of the development plan; x Consideration must be given as to whether or not the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Whilst the purpose of the proposed mast is to establish the suitability of the meteorological conditions at the site for the generation of energy from wind power, it must be stressed that any subsequent proposal to develop wind turbines at, or in the vicinity of, the site would be the subject of a separate planning application. Accordingly, the determination of the current application is not an appropriate occasion at which to consider the merits or otherwise, of wind energy development at the site.

Planning Policy

The proposal to erect a meteorological mast and associated equipment has to be assessed against the Development Plan, which comprises the Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan and Consolidated Scottish Borders Structure Plan. Of limited weight to this application is the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy. Of lesser weight again, but nonetheless still a consideration, is the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Local Landscape Designations.

Structure Plan Policy I19 (Renewable Energy) supports the development of renewable energy sources that can be developed in an environmentally acceptable manner. Structure Plan Policy I20 (Wind Energy Developments) outlines criteria in which to assess wind energy developments. Both policies are relevant to the consideration of wind energy proposals, but not to a wind speed mast specifically.

Policy D4 (Renewable Energy Developments), as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, sets out the Council’s position with regards to renewable energy whilst ensuring that the impacts on the environment are properly controlled. The site falls within the area of significant protection, as identified within the Spatial Strategy, contained within the Supplementary Planning Guidance (Wind Energy). Furthermore, the Carter Bar viewpoint has been identified as being of significant strategic importance and is safeguarded by a 7km buffer around it.

However, as with the Structure Plan, there is no specific reference in Policy D4 or the Supplementary Planning Guidance (Wind Energy) to the installation of wind monitoring masts associated with proposed wind energy developments and it would not be appropriate to assess the current proposals against this policy or SPG. Nor is it appropriate to consider need as a material consideration in cases such as this. Rather, it is appropriate to consider whether the development is appropriate on its own planning merits.

Structure Plan Policy N9 (Maintaining Landscape Character) states that proposals for development and land use change will be guided by the Scottish Borders Landscape Assessment with the aim of maintaining the integrity of the landscape character and

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 5 (g) enhancing its quality. It is not considered that there would be a conflict with this policy in approving a wind monitoring mast for a temporary period.

The Scottish Borders Landscape Assessment identifies this site as falling within Landscape Character Type No.5 ‘Southern Uplands Type: Forest Covered’. It falls within an upland type within the Wauchope Forest. The key characteristics of this landscape are large scale rolling landform, dominant coniferous forest cover with occasional areas of pine and larch and simple uniform character. The landcover if dominated by sitka spruce plantation, with occasional pine, larch and broadleaf species, confined to the lower hill slopes and forest edges.

Landuse is predominantly commercial forestry. Visual horizons in this landscape type are mainly confined by trees and where longer views can be gained visual orientation is often difficult due to the uniformity of much of the forest cover. The visual sensitivity is moderate due to the low intermediate intervisibility combined with relatively few routes which cross or view the areas, the most important of which are the A68 Carter Bar route and the B709 Ettrick/Eskdalemuir route.

Structure Plan Policy N20 (Design) states that the Council will encourage a high quality of layout, design and materials in all new development. Policy G1 (Quality Standards for New Development) as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, states that all new development will be expected to be of a higher quality in accordance with sustainability principles, designed to fit with the Scottish Borders townscapes and to integrate with its landscape surroundings. Policy H2 (Protection of Residential Amenity) as contained within the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, advises that development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas will not be permitted.

The impacts of the proposed anemometer mast upon the landscape are discussed below.

Landscape and Visual Impact

While the installation of the anemometer mast would require some limited ground works for the anchors of the guy wires and base of the mast, it is considered that this work and the temporary presence of the anemometer itself will have no unacceptable impact upon the natural environment, provided that the site is restored to its former use at decommissioning.

It is accepted that both singly, and cumulatively there is some visual impact associated with the installation of temporary anemometre masts. Although masts of this nature are visible in the landscape, their visual impact tends to be temporary and tolerable because of the lightweight structure and see-through appearance of the mast and associated guy wires. The structures are difficult to see in the wider landscape particularly from long range, due to their lightweight nature. It is also considered that such masts, although they may be retained for a number of years, are by their construction and usefulness not designed to be permanent structures. At some stage, therefore, whether because they are superseded by wind farm development, replaced by other structures (with planning permission relating to them) or dismantled and removed because wind farm development does not take place, they will be removed from their sites. Overall, it is contended that while the landscape character of the area allows for long range uninterrupted views, the proposed mast would not have a significant long term impact on the landscape character of the area as the masts tend to ‘disappear’ over these longer distances.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No 5 (g)

Although it would be visible, it is not considered that the proposed mast would have a significantly detrimental impact upon the landscape character of the wider surrounding area. There is significant difference between the visual impacts of an anemometer mast compared to a modern wind turbine, and a single slender lattice structure would not be considered to have a harmful effect on the landscape., particularly in more distant views. The fact permission sought would be temporary and the development sought is reversible would mean that there would be no lasting visual or landscape impact.

There are generally limited material planning reasons for masts to be resisted, particularly as they are, almost without exception, applied for on a temporary basis and will eventually be removed as their useful life comes to an end. While they are generally accepted to be a pre-cursory requirement prior to the submission of applications for wind energy developments, Members should note that acceptance of any proposed met mast does not commit the planning authority to accepting proposals for wind energy development on the site. As stated earlier, proposals for wind energy developments will be considered on their own merits under any forthcoming application which may be submitted.

Overall, the proposal is not considered to be a development which would be of such an adverse impact upon the landscape that it should be refused.

Designated Areas

The application site is not located within any designated area as defined by the Development Plan.

Civil Aviation Safeguarding

The proposed site falls within the statutory safeguarded area for the Eskdalemuir Testing Station. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) were consulted and has no safeguarding objection to the proposed development and advise that the height of the development will necessitate that aeronautical charts and mapping records are amended. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Safeguarding therefore requests that, as a condition of any planning permission, the developer must notify the DIO Safeguarding of the following information prior to development commencing:

a. Precise location of development b. Date of commencement of the construction c. Date of completion of the construction d. The height above ground of the tallest structure e. The maximum extension height of any construction equipment.

The MoD recognises that a meteorological monitoring mast is frequently deployed prior to the development of a windfarm. The applicant should note that the erection of wind turbines in this area may affect military aviation and radar. This will be related to the applicant via an informative note.

Access and Parking

The Roads Planning Service have not commented on the proposed development to date.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 5 (g)

Objections

Members will note that some of the submitted objections concern the potential for a windfarm on the site. These objections should not directly relate to the development for which permission is sought and should be afforded limited weight. Members are required to determine only the planning application before them. That the anemometer is considered by some objectors to be enabling or advancing development related to wind farm schemes is not relevant to its own suitability and whether it is consistent with planning policy. Members must therefore base the decision on this application solely on the impacts of the proposed mast.

Aviation lighting

Objectors have requested that any aviation lighting fitted is to be infa-red. The MOD consultation response requested that the mast be fitted with aviation lighting with a minimum intensity 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infa-red lighting at the highest practicable point. Therefore a condition will be placed upon the planning consent requesting such a lighting is installed.

Limited time for planning consent

Objections have been raised requesting that consent is limited to two years. Temporary planning consent for such a proposal is not uncommon and it is normal practice to grant temporary consent for a three year period. This allows sufficient time in order for construction, wind speed information to be gathered and the mast decommissioning. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to grant planning consent for a three year period. However, Members are entitled to take the view that a lesser period would be appropriate.

Forest, landscape, ecology, ground water systems

Objections have been raised in relation to the impact upon the forest, landscape, ecology and ground water systems associated with deforestation. The site of the proposed mast has already been felled and it must be acknowledged that, as an area of commercial forest, this is not unexpected. SNH were consulted as part of the planning application, however no response has been received to date.

Conservation area

Objections were raised in relation to the impact upon the designated conservation area. However, the site does not fall within any Conservation Area or any specific landscape designation.

Health Issues

Objections were raised in relation to the potential health issues as a result of the proposed development. Given that the nature of this proposal is to monitor wind speeds, Environmental Health were not consulted as part of the planning application. It is not considered that a temporary structure of this nature would given rise to any detrimental health issues.

Loss of view

Objections were raised in relation to the loss of a view and lack of screening associated with the development. However, the loss of a view is not a material

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No 5 (g) planning consideration and cannot be taken into consideration when assessing this proposal.

Tourism

Objections have been raised in relation to the potential adverse impacts upon local tourism. Several objections have been received highlighting concern regarding the adverse impacts that the proposed development of an anemometer mast would have upon the local and wider landscape. On a temporary basis, it is unlikely that its visual impacts would be significant from tourist viewpoints or that there would be any consequent harm to tourism more generally.

Archaeological sites

There is no known archaeological interest within the immediate vicinity of the site that would lead to an objection on these grounds.

Star gazing

Objections have been raised in relation to the negative impact that the lights associated with the mast will have upon star gazing. The light on the mast is a safety feature and it is considered that given that the light is a safety aspect and the structure is temporary, there would be no permanent loss for star gazing within the vicinity of the mast. The nature of the proposed lighting is not such that it would result in an unacceptable level of light pollution.

Conclusion

Members are advised that each application should be considered on its own merits. In the case of this specific application, it is considered that in the absence of any safety objections from the Ministry of Defence, there are not considered any defendable reasons to withhold planning permission for the proposed mast. The landscape and amenity impacts of the proposed mast would not be so adverse as to justify the refusal of the application. However, the recommendation is to delegate to officers approval subject to satisfactory consultation responses from NATS, Roads Planning Service and SNH.

Approval of this mast would allow a more informed decision to be made:

- by the developer in determining whether to proceed to a planning application or a wind farm development; and - by the Planning Authority in being presented with wind speed data at the time of considering any subsequent planning application for turbines within the vicinity.

Approval of this planning application would not convey any acceptance on the Planning Authority’s part on the acceptability or otherwise of a wind farm development on the site. Such a decision would have to be made on its own merits.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development is considered acceptable subject to conditions, and would comply with the relevant Scottish Borders Structure Plan and Consolidated Local Plan Policies in that the temporary mast will not have a significant long term impact on the landscape of the area. This conclusion should not be taken as an

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No 5 (g) indication of the acceptability of a wind farm development upon the site. This planning application for an anemometer mast is not the relevant route however for such matters to be considered.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

I recommend that the application is delegated approval subject to a satisfactory reply from SNH, Roads Planning Service and NATS advising no objection and conditions and informative.

1. Approval is granted for a limited period of three years from the date of this consent and, unless application is made and consent obtained, the mast shall be removed and the ground reinstated to its original condition at the expiry of the three year period. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

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

3. Prior to commencement of development, a construction method statement outlining the route of access for equipment, labour and materials is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the details in the approved statement. Reason: To prevent the unnecessary formation of additional or multiple routes of access to the mast site.

4. The reinstatement of the site to be completed within 6 months of the decommissioning of the anemometer. Reason: To ensures the satisfactory restoration of the site.

5. The meteorological mast hereby approved shall be fitted with 25 candela omni directional red lighting or infra-red lighting at the highest practicable point prior to the use of the mast commencing. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.

6. Prior to development commencing the details outlined below shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority following consultation with the Ministry of Defence:

Reason: In the interests of aviation safety as the height of the development will necessitate that aeronautical charts and mapping records held by the Ministry of Defence are amended.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No 5 (g)

Informatives:

It should be noted that:

1. Attention is drawn to the consultation reply from the Ministry of Defence.

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Deborah Chalmers Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No 5 (g)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No 5 (h)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 12/00480/FUL OFFICER: Julie Hayward WARD: Kelso and District PROPOSAL: Erection of building to provide business hub, public toilets and 2 bus shelters with provision of pedestrian pend linking Horsemarket and Woodmarket SITE: Public Toilets at Horsemarket Woodmarket Kelso APPLICANT: Scottish Borders Council AGENT: Camerons Ltd

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site comprises of the public toilets and pedestrian lane between Horsemarket and Woodmarket in Kelso. The site is located within Kelso Conservation Area; both frontages of the building are within the Prime Frontage/Core Area of the Conservation Area. The adjoining buildings at 13-17 Horsemarket and 22-24 Woodmarket to the north east are Category B Listed Buildings. The Black Swan public house to the south west is a category C(S) Listed Building. The public convenience building on the site is single storey, with a flat roof. It has cream painted walls with beige coloured rendered base course and window surrounds. The building has high level frosted windows with metal frames. A BT public call box is located on the Woodmarket side of the building, in a raised area of pavement between the building and footway.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is to demolish the public convenience building and to erect a four storey building on the site. This would provide replacement public toilets, bus shelters on the Horsemarket and Woodmarket sides and a pend between the two streets at ground floor level. Office space would be provided at first, second and third floor levels.

The ground floor would have natural sandstone cladding with a glazed canopy over the bus shelter. The first and second floors would have a smooth render finish. The roof slope facing Horsemarket would be slate with roof lights; the roof slope facing Woodmarket would have a zinc roof with a glass balustrade to a terraced area. The windows would have grey aluminium frames. Solar panels would be installed on the flat roofed area between the two pitches.

There would be a feature wall at ground floor level of the pend with natural sandstone cladding at low level and illuminated glazing at high level to include art work and signage. A tourist information panel would be provided on the Woodmarket elevation.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No 5 (h)

PLANNING HISTORY

10/01417/CON: Demolition of toilet block. Approved 26th January 2011

10/01418/FUL: Erection of building to provide business hub, public toilets and 2 No bus shelters, with provision of pedestrian pend linking Horsemarket and Woodmarket. Approved 26th January 2011.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

Two representations have been received. These are available for Members to view on the Public Access System. The following planning issues have been raised:

x Aspects of the exterior design (windows, balcony and stone cladding) do not appear to be in keeping with the surrounding buildings.

x The interior is an improvement on the last version of the plans.

x The tenant of 15B Horsemarket is concerned about the existing fan ducts and satellite dish. The new building would abut the first and second floor flats at no.15 Horsemarket with the Card Shop below. There is a satellite dish on the side elevation and the Council should make arrangements for this to be taken down and reinstated on another part of the building and paying for this work to be carried out. Provision for the fan ducts on this elevation should also be made.

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The agent has submitted a Design Statement and Supporting Information and this is available for Members to view in full on the Public Access System:

x The project to replace the existing single storey public toilets with a three storey with attic building is a constituent part of the Kelso Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI).

x Funding for the project has been secured from the European Regional Development Fund, the Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund.

x Planning permission was approved in 2011 to accommodate current functions and this application seeks to develop the project in response to comments received as part of the previous application and ongoing Council consultation.

x Comments received related primarily to the public convenience provision and the proposal now provides dedicated male and female toilets replacing the approved unisex cubicles, increasing the overall toilet provision and providing clearer segregation at ground floor level.

x The aim to integrate a range of complementary uses to the benefit of local residents, businesses and visitors within a fit for purpose building remains. Research has shown that there is a lack of high quality, smaller sized units within the town catering for start up and small enterprises and so flexible, lettable office and business spaces are proposed on the upper floors.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No 5 (h)

x The project incorporates an integrated Transport Hub as part of the Kelso Town Centre Traffic Management Scheme. It will provide sheltered bus waiting areas for new bus stops with public transport information. An automated tourist information service will be incorporated. The pedestrian route between Woodmarket and Horsemarket will be retained and enhanced and will form part of the overall town centre improvements.

x The site is within the Conservation Area and forms a gap in the continuous terraces. Both Woodmarket and Horsemarket are densely developed with a variety of building styles, heights, materials and uses.

x The site is significant in that is straddles and links Woodmarket and Horsemarket. The project responds to this by forming individual responses to each streetscape.

x In Horsemarket buildings vary in arrangement and storey height. The proposed building “plugs” the gap and continues the eaves line of the neighbouring property to the north east. The pitched roof, fenestration and shop front line have been developed with respect to the immediate context.

x Due to the historical pattern of development, the Woodmarket context is unusual in that the building has to bridge the terrace and acknowledge a corner situation with the pend and Black Swan elevation. The building responds with book end gables and a feature window to allow passive supervision of the pend. A lowered eaves line and set back of the roof responds to the lower building heights of the neighbouring properties and assists in the building forming a corner to the pend. The massing and materials are “of their time” whilst respecting the historic and traditional forms of the context.

x Clarity is provided between the public and private use. The public conveniences have separate entrances off the pend and the office entrance is from Horsemarket.

x Stone cladding is proposed at ground floor level in line with neighbouring buildings. The upper floors would be smooth render. Natural slate roofing is proposed for the Horsemarket elevation whilst zinc is proposed for Woodmarket where the roof is more expressive in response to massing requirements. Glass canopies are proposed over the bus waiting areas to provide protection from the rain. Paving will match materials used elsewhere in the Conservation Area.

x Photovoltaic panels are to be provided on the flat roof; these will be invisible from street level and will provide a sustainable energy supply to the communal office areas.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N15: Regional and Local Archaeology Sites

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No 5 (h)

Policy N17: Listed Buildings Policy N18: Development Affecting Conservation Areas Policy N20: Design Policy E12: Employment Land Supply Policy E19: Town Centre Enhancement Policy C1: Access to Services and Facilities Policy I1: Transportation and Development Policy I4: Public Transport Provision Policy I11: Parking Provision in New Development

Consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011

Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development Policy G7: Infill Development Policy BE1: Listed Buildings Policy BE2: Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy BE4: Conservation Areas Policy ED4: Prime Retail Frontage Policy ED5: Town Centres Policy H2: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf2: Protection of Access Routes Policy Inf 4: Parking Provisions and Standards Policy Inf12: Public Infrastructure and Local Service Provision

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Placemaking and Design (January 2010) Supplementary Planning Guidance: Designing Out Crime in the Scottish Borders (August 2007) Supplementary Planning Guidance: Privacy and Sunlight Guidance (July 2006)

Scottish Planning Policy 2010 Planning Advice Note: Planning and Archaeology 2/2011 Designing Places (2001) Designing Streets (2010) Scottish Historic Environment Policy July 2009 Historic Scotland

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Archaeology Officer:

I can confirm that there is archaeological potential within this site. A watching brief was conducted on behalf of the applicant by GUARD Archaeology Ltd during ground investigations. The results from this remain inconclusive on the presence or absence of below-ground archaeology. There is a suspicion that the building which preceded the current public conveniences overlay a cellar, as do both adjoining buildings. The ground investigations showed that the prior building was cleared from the site to the natural ground surface on one side, but suggested that walls or unconsolidated rubble existed on the other side. It therefore remains a possibility that buried archaeology related to the earlier building or its cellar will exist on this site.

Unfortunately, I am unable to comment further on the specific impacts as the application was not accompanied by information on foundations.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 5 (h)

However, given the potential I feel it is prudent to recommend a condition seeking a watching brief during below ground excavations. Given that the sub-surface archaeology may be quite complex, I also suggest that the developer build in sufficient time into their schedule to allow archaeological investigations to take place. This should be negotiated with both the hired contractor and the Archaeology Officer.

Principal Officer (Heritage and Design):

A scheme was approved last year for this infill, but there had been local concern about the layout of the ground floor toilet accommodation in particular and this had been covered by a specific planning condition. Once the external design team was appointed early this year, they were tasked to review the ground floor arrangements and develop alternatives to address the concerns raised by Councillors and the community council, amongst others. The brief they were given was to ensure that the toilet accommodation (in terms of number of units) was no worse than the existing and ideally better including improved disabled toilet provision. In addition the Council has effectively changed its approach in toilet provision since the last application was lodged and no longer is keen on individual uni-sex cubicles and has now reverted to a more traditional approach. The resultant revised plan, which also moved the location of the access stairs, effectively meant that there was no space for a small ground floor office unit as included in the previously approved scheme and in order to meet the specific requirements for a minimum plan area of office accommodation the building now has some office accommodation in the roof space.

The scheme now submitted has three faces; that to Woodmarket and that to Horsemarket as well as that onto the pend.

The Horsemarket façade, which is continuous, is a more traditional approach with references to the adjacent buildings and a window rhythm which matches the general street rhythm. The actual windows themselves are very contemporary in design and were specifically intend not to be replica 12 pane sash and case windows, but rather with a very dark frame were intended to make the frames recess into the openings.

The pend, which is less visible from a distance, was intended to give an opportunity for a more contemporary approach and also to try to make it welcoming and feeling safe to use with clerestory glazing, and extended glazed area at the foot of the stair hall leading to the upstairs offices. The canted gable window element was intended to add interest to the blank gable. The use of the natural sandstone on the ground floor of all three facades of the building was intended to provide a uniform solid base for the building.

The Woodmarket elevation has been designed in a more contemporary manner and it has to step between the existing buildings and stop short of the Black Swan where windows have been inserted in the gable. The ground floor approach is similar to that of Horsemarket with a recessed bus shelter and projecting canopy, but the upper wall is simpler and ends in a flat parapet wallhead with the roof plane being set further back.

I must empathise that I have declared an interest in this application as part of the funding is allocated from the Kelso THI and I have been involved in the development of the proposals with other colleagues in the Department. That being said, I consider that the scheme as now proposed will make a positive contribution to Kelso Conservation Area, subject to conditions.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No 5 (h)

Roads Planning Service:

My comments to the previously approved application 10/01418/FUL apply similarly to this application namely whilst the application proposes a new building development in a town centre location without the provision of additional parking, the building is being provided as part of the town centre redevelopments within Kelso. The town centre redevelopment scheme proposes the provision of additional on-street parking, the introduction of a one-way system and the provision of additional bus stops within the town centre. The aim of that scheme is to make transport within the town centre more sustainable and to encourage the general public to use more sustainable means of transport. When the additional on-street parking is considered alongside the additional bus stops, the central location within the town and the close proximity of the parking and bus stops to the proposed development, I will not object to the proposal on roads grounds.

Statutory Consultees

Kelso Community Council: Reply awaited.

Kelso Amenity Society:

In favour of the proposed plans and welcome the blend of old and new forms and material. Vandal-proof sanitary-ware is needed. Warm colours should be used as backgrounds in the display panels as this pend will be rather dark and dismal.

Other Consultees

None

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

The main determining issues with this application are whether the proposals comply with Development Plan Policies in relation to the preservation of the Prime Retail Frontage, impacts on the character of Listed Buildings and the Conservation Area and impacts of the proposals on adjoining properties. Consideration should also be given to national and local planning policy and guidance on design and town centre development.

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Planning Policy

Planning permission was granted in 2010 for the erection of a building on this site to provide a business hub, public toilets and two bus shelters, with the provision of a pedestrian pend linking Horsemarket and Woodmarket. This current application seeks to amend that permission.

The application site is within an area subject to policy ED4 (Prime Retail Frontage) of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011. This states that the Council will resist the loss of shop uses within Prime Retail Frontages. Proposals for uses other than shop uses at ground floor level on Prime Retail Frontages will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the development would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the viability or vitality of the town centre.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 5 (h)

The proposal is consistent with this policy in that no retail space would be lost and the replacement uses would contribute to a satisfatory mix of appropriate uses within the town centre, which in turn would contribute to its vitality and viability. It is considered that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the vitality or viability of the town centre should the proposals be approved.

The site is situated within the town centre as designated in the Local Plan. Policy ED5 states that outwith the ground floor level of defined Prime Retail Frontages a variety of uses appropriate to a town centre will be supported. Office uses (Classes 2 and 4 of the Use Classes Scotland Order) are included in the list of acceptable uses. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with policy ED5.

Policy G7 of the Local Plan is also relevant. It permits development on non-allocated and infill sites such as this one, provided the relevant criteria of the policy can be met. In the case of this application, there is not considered to be any conflict with the criteria contained in policy G7 but these criteria will be addressed within this report.

Proposed Uses

Policy E12 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001 - 2018 states that the Council will seek to secure the provision of a range of marketable sites of the right size and quality to meet the requirements of business and industry. Policy E19 encourages town centre enhancement. Policy C1 states that the Council will support the improvement of services and facilities in settlements and will ensure that access to services and facilities is enhanced. Policy Inf12 of the Local Plan confirms that the Council will encourage the retention of and improvements to public infrastructure and local services.

The proposal will provide five separate, modern office units in a central and accessible location in the centre of Kelso. At ground floor level separate male and female toilets are proposed together with an accessible WC. Bus waiting areas with a canopy over will be provided on both the Horsemarket and Woodmarket elevations.

The floor layout of the building has been amended from that previously approved in 2010 as a result of representations received in respect of that planning application and from public consultations. The original approval was for unisex toilets that had doors opening directly onto Horsemarket and the pend. This arrangement was not considered to be desirable but allowed a business space to be formed at ground floor level.

The revised layout is considered a vast improvement on that originally approved as it allows for separate male and female facilities and increases the number of cubicles proposed. Access to the toilets would be from the pend via a lobby rather than direct access from the street to each cubicle.

The proposal would therefore provide an enhanced facility within the centre of Kelso. However, to achieve the level of office accommodation required the proposed building now includes accommodation within the attic space.

Design

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No 5 (h) landscape surroundings. The policy contains a number of standards that would apply to all development. Policy G7 of the Local Plan requires that the development respects the scale, form, design, materials and density of its surroundings; the individual and cumulative effects of the development should not lead to over- development or town cramming.

The Supplementary Planning Guidance: Placemaking and Design (January 2010) requires that infill development responds to the existing rhythm of the built frontage, roofline and storey heights to ensure the development fits well within the wider townscape.

The Design Statement submitted by the agent acknowledges that the site bridges the historic streets of Horsemarket and Woodmarket and is a gap site within continuous terraces comprising of a variety of building styles, design and materials. The design has been arrived at taking into account the context of the site, which is slightly different for both streets and so a different design approach is applied for both street frontages.

The Horsemarket streetscene is continuous with the storey height of buildings varying considerably. The majority of buildings are stone and/or render with natural slate roofs and timber sash and case windows. The proposed Horsemarket elevation is more of a traditional approach, incorporating elements of the existing streetscene and adjacent buildings. The proposed elevation gives the impression of a fascia that lines up with the adjacent shops; the frontage would be stone and render and the roof would be natural slate reflecting the traditional properties within the street. The windows have vertical proportions although a contemporary design is proposed and the windows would have dark grey aluminium frames rather than traditional timber sash and case windows, which was a condition of the previous approval. The proposed windows would give the building a more contemporary feel rather than replicating the traditional sash and case windows; the dark frames proposed are intended to make the frames recess into the openings. The building would be higher than any other when viewed from Horsemarket but is considered that this would not make the building unduly prominent as there are very few places at ground level in Horsemarket where the whole building can be viewed. The 3D images submitted with the application are useful in this respect as they show how the building would look when viewed from street level. The building line would match that of the adjacent property.

A more contemporary approach has been taken for the Woodmarket elevation. Although the walls would be render and stone, the roof would be zinc and set back with a glazed balustrade to the terraced area. The building line would match that of the adjacent properties, the roof height would be similar to the Border Hotel to the south west and the frontage gives the appearance of a fascia to match the adjacent shop, as with the Horsemarket elevation. The windows would be of the same modern design as those on the Horsemarket elevation. The building is required to extend the terrace of properties in Woodmarket but also stop short of the Black Swan where there are windows and an entrance door in the side elevation.

As there is a gap between the side elevation of the building and the Black Swan, this elevation has the potential to be more prominent in the streetscene. Discussions have taken place with the agent on how to treat the end elevation of the proposed building at roof level to the pend. Initial drawings indicated a right angled return at the wall head which appeared quite harsh. However, following these discussions, an amended drawing has been submitted to address these concerns; the gable end

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No 5 (h) would be softened through the introduction of a “pitched” return, thereby matching the other gable on the Woodmarket elevation.

The pend would be less visible from the street and so a more contemporary design is proposed with glazing around the office entrance and at high level and sandstone cladding to the walls. The canted gable window is proposed to add some architectural interest to the blank gable. The design approach seeks to provide a safe and welcoming route for pedestrians between Horsemarket and Woodmarket.

The original approval for this scheme proposed a more traditional design for the building. The current design approach is for a modern infill building incorporating design features and materials seen elsewhere in the street scene. It does not seek to replicate the existing buildings but seeks a contemporary approach to provide a landmark building in the centre of Kelso.

It is considered that the submitted scheme takes an appropriate design approach. The form and scale is considered to be acceptable. Its success will depend to a great extent on the quality and colours of the external materials used. A planning condition will control all materials to be used in the exterior finishes and surfaces of the development.

Impact on the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings

Policy N17 of the Structure Plan seeks to preserve the character of Listed Buildings, their setting and related fixtures. Policy BE1 of the Local Plan states that the Council will support development proposals that protect, maintain, and enhance active use and conservation of Listed Buildings. All Listed Buildings will be protected against all works which would have a detrimental effect on their listed character, integrity or setting. Policy N18 of the Structure Plan supports development affecting Conservation Areas that is of a quality and design which will preserve the character and appearance of these areas. Policy BE4 of the Local Plan 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. Policy G7 requires that developments should not detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

The site is within the Conservation Area and the adjacent properties on both sides are Listed Buildings. However, the site is currently occupied by a flat roofed toilet block that is of no architectural merit; Conservation Area Consent has already been approved to demolish this building. The site currently does little to enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and, in truth, detracts from it at this point.

The proposal would result in the redevelopment of this unattrative part of Kelso town centre and would result in the closure of a gap in the street frontages of both Horsemarket and Woodmarket with a building that relects the scale, form and matrerials of the Listed Buildings on both sides.

The design rationale clearly acknowledges the senstivity of the site and historic nature of the surrounding environment. Given the current appearance of the site, the proposed development is considered, in design terms, to represent a considerable enhancement of the Conservation Area at this point. It is considered that the proposal would ,make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and would not have an adverse effect on the setting of the Listed Buildings.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No 5 (h)

Impact on Neighbouring Properties

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.

The proposed building line of the building would match that to the Black Swan and nos 13 – 17 Horsemarket and 22 – 24 Woodmarket. The proposed terrace would be set back into the roof space. It is considered that the proposal would not affect the amenities of occupiers of these properties in terms of light and privacy.

The Black Swan has an entrance door and windows in the side elevation and so the proposed building has been set back to allow for the continued use of this entrance and to allow light into the windows.

The adjacent gable ends of the existing buildings contain a number of vents, drainage pipes and a satellite dish. These would have to be satisfactorily repositioned before the development could take place, but these are matters for the parties concerned. The agent will be advised of this via an informative note.

Archaeology

Policy N15 of the Structure Plan states that proposal which will adversely affect an archaeological site of regional or local significance will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the archaeological value of the site or feature. Policy BE2 of the Local Plan required developers to carry out detailed investigations to secure compliance with policy N15.

The Council’s Archaeologist has advised that there is archaeological potential within this site. The condition requested in his consultation response should be attached to any planning permission for this proposal.

Access and Parking

Policies I1 and I4 of the Structure Plan guides development to locations that are well served by a variety of means of transport, especially public transport. Policy Inf2 of the Local Plan seeks to uphold access rights by protecting existing access routes. Policy I11 of the Structure Plan and Inf4 of the Local Plan require that car parking should be provided in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards. Policy G7 requires that adequate access and servicing can be achieved.

The site is situated within a town centre location and it is considered that the site accessible to a variety of means of transport including walking, cycling, public transport and the private car.

The town centre traffic management scheme and road and pavement works undertaken in Kelso as part of the Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) includes a one way system for Woodmarket and Horsemarket. Bus stops from elsewhere in the town centre have been relocated to both streets adjacent to the site. Given this wider initiative, the justification for the position of the bus shelters and their integration into the proposed building is considered logical and acceptable in planning terms. The bus shelters will provide a much needed public facility in this part of Kelso town centre.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 Item No 5 (h)

The present pedestrian route between Horsemarket and Woodmarket would be maintained and enhanced. A pend would be formed onto the Horsemarket elevation, whilst an open vennel would front onto Woodmarket.

Lighting under the pend, including from the entrance to the upper floors, and the open nature of the remainder of the vennel should ensure a safe environment is created and a planning condition will ensure submission and agreement of a lighting scheme. Together with careful consideration of materials and finishes, this should ensure that a safe and welcoming access route space is created.

No on-site parking is proposed as part of this development. However, this is a town centre redevelopment site and there is on-street parking available in Woodmarket and Horsemarket as well as in the Square. The town centre traffic management scheme introduced a one-way system and resulted in the provision of additional bus stops and on-street parking within the town centre. The overall aim of the scheme is to make transport within the town centre more sustainable and to encourage the general public to use more sustainable means of transport. The Roads Planning Service has not objected to the application on access or parking grounds.

CONCLUSION

With the imposition of appropriate conditions, the application is considered to comply with Development Plan Policies on uses within Prime Retail Frontages and town centres, enhancement of town centres and the preservation and enhancement of Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES:

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

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 11 Item No 5 (h)

3. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roofs of the building, cladding, glazed canopies, balustrade and hard surfacing, 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: In the interests of the appearance of the Kelso Conservation Area and to maintain effective control over the development.

4. Details of the material, frame thickness, glazing bars, colour and method of opening of the windows and glazed openings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the Kelso Conservation Area and to maintain effective control over the development.

5. Details of the backlit panels and displays, illuminated glazing, artwork, signage and illuminated display panels for the side elevation of the pend to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the Kelso Conservation Area and to maintain effective control over the development.

6. A scheme for the exterior lighting for the pend and vennel is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure the development complies with designing out crime principles and to ensure an acceptable public space is created.

7. Details of the position, size, design, materials and method of illumination of the tourist information point on the Woodmarket elevation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. Thereafter the development is to be completed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the Kelso Conservation Area, and to maintain effective control over the development.

8. Doors must be hung so as not to open onto the public footway. Reason: To ensure safety for users of the public footway.

Informatives

A variety of street furniture within the application boundary will be affected by the proposals, including a telephone box, street sign and waste bins. Consideration should be given to relocation, removal and rationalisation of this street furniture.

Proposals should be drawn up for the repositioning of any extract ventilation fans, satellite dishes, drainage pipes etc on the two adjacent gable walls that would be affected by this development.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 12 Item No 5 (h)

DRAWING NUMBERS

Location Plan 9067/9-01 Rev B Proposed Ground Floor 9043/0-01 Rev E Proposed Upper Floors 9043/0-02 Rev D Proposed Upper Floors 9067/0-03 Rev E Proposed Elevation Woodmarket 9067/0-05 Rev G Proposed Elevation Horsemarket 9043/0-06 Rev E Proposed Elevation to Pend 9067/0-07 Rev G Proposed Elevations 9067/0-08 Rev F 3D Image Woodmarket 9043/0-11 Rev A 3D Image Woodmarket View 1 9067/0-13 Rev B 3D Image Woodmarket View 2 9067/0-14 Rev B 3D Image Woodmarket View 3 9067/0-15 Rev B 3D Image Horsemarket 9043/0-10 Rev A 3D Image Horsemarket View 1 9043/0-10 Rev B 3D Image Horsemarket View 2 9043/0-11 Rev B 3D Image Horsemarket View 3 9043/0-12 Rev A

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation Julie Hayward Principal Planning Officer

Planning and Building Standards Committee 13 Item No 5 (h)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 14 Item No 5 (i)

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

ITEM: REFERENCE NUMBER: 11/01051/PPP OFFICER: J Hiscox WARD: Mid Berwickshire PROPOSAL: Erection of two dwellinghouses SITE: Land north and west of Oaklands, Greenlaw Road, Duns APPLICANT: Dr S Oliver AGENT: Edwin Thompson & Co

SITE DESCRIPTION:

The site is situated close to the junction of the A6105 Duns-Greenlaw main road and the C-class road from Pouterlynie to Longformacus. It lies approximately 1.5km to the south-west of Duns town centre and just over 300m to the west of the school playing field forming part of the campus to the new Berwickshire High School.

The submitted location plans (updated 22.2.12 – see next section) identify the site to the north-east of the dwelling known as ‘Oaklands’, which is within the applicants’ ownership.

The site has boundaries with the A6105 and the C-class road to Longformacus on its south-east and north-east sides, and shares a boundary with a dwelling in separate ownership on the north side (‘Pouterlynie Park’).

The site is currently accessed via an existing multi-use (agriculture, pedestrian, vehicular) access off the C-road which presently serves 4 dwellings. It separates two dwellings known as Pouterlynie Park and Scotsview, neither of which has an independent access onto the C-class road.

The area of land might be described as a grassed paddock. It contains several trees which partially characterise it.

The entire site is situated within the settlement boundary for Duns as shown in the 2011 Consolidated Local Plan.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

Two residential plots would be created on the paddock situated at the junction of the A6105 and the C-class road to Longformacus. The site and both plots would be reached via a single new access off the C-class road, in the northern corner of the site. Amended drawings, received on 22 February 2012, show this arrangement in principle. The revisions therefore relate specifically to the proposed access arrangements, which were considered too significant to be considered a non-material

Planning and Building Standards Committee 1 Item No 5 (i) variation, given that the previous proposal indicated a quite different arrangement, which was itself subject to specific conditions.

As originally proposed, the access to the new houses would have shared the existing access of other houses to the north and west. As now indicated, a new purpose-built access would be created at a new location directly from the plots to the C-class road.

PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE, NOVEMBER 2011:

When originally submitted, this application included details of a third plot to the south- west of the dwelling known as Oaklands (shown on location plan). However, it was deleted from the scheme just before consideration by Members at the November 2011 Committee meeting. At that meeting, Members agreed the officer recommendation to approve the application (two remaining plots) subject to conditions, and following conclusion of a legal agreement to secure developer contributions.

The current application reflects this approved arrangement and relates only to the site considered by Members in November.

It is only the change to the access proposals that has necessitated submission of revised drawings and further presentation to Members of the Planning & Building Standards Committee.

PLANNING HISTORY:

Beyond the current application, there is no planning history relating to the site.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY:

Two letters of representation have been received raising objection to the development proposals. Both are submitted on behalf of the same local resident, one to the original proposal, with a second relating specifically to the revised scheme received in February 2012. A summary of the planning concerns listed is as follows:

(Original scheme):

x previous Section 50 Legal Agreement relates to the land and precludes further development. Original Agreement set in place restricted development within specified distance of junction x additional traffic during construction and once houses have been built and occupied would prejudice amenity of existing residents in houses nearby x site is prone to flooding

(Amended scheme):

x new access proposal worsens application, in respect of: 1. impact on residential amenity of adjacent household (would have access very close to property and result in two accesses, one either side of the dwelling)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 2 Item No 5 (i)

2. potential road safety issues due to restricted visibility and proximity to junction with A6105

APPLICANTS’ SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

The original application was supported by a short Design Statement, prepared by the agent, which:

x describes site and existing development x discusses reasoning behind design approach adopted in the indicative application drawings x describes access, landscaping and materials proposed x describes existing/proposed services

There is no supplementary Design Statement relating to the revised access arrangements.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Scottish Borders Council Consultees

Roads Planning Service – original response:

No objections in principle. Requires the existing private road to be upgraded to an adoptable standard, shared surface. Requires detailed design to incorporate drainage, street lighting, turning-head. States that no direct access will be permitted onto the A6105, in the interests of road safety.

Roads Planning Service – updated response:

No objection in principle, but requires various matters to be covered by conditions or dealt with at Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions stage.

Archaeology Officer:

No archaeological implications.

Flood Risk Officer:

Describes 1 in 200 year flooding potential for part of Plot 1 which no longer forms part of the application.

Statutory Consultees

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency:

Identifies a flood risk relating to part of the site, submitting this response as an objection unless, via a FRA, the development proposals are demonstrated not to promote flood risk. Note – relates to site now not forming part of the application.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 3 Item No 5 (i)

Duns Community Council:

No objections.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES:

Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018

Policy N20 – Design Policy I13 – Water Quality Policy I14 – Surface Water Policy I15 – Flood Risk Areas

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 NE4 – Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows Policy NE5 – Development Affecting the Water Environment Policy H2 – Protection of Residential Amenity Policy Inf3 – Road Adoption Standards Policy Inf6 – Sustainable Urban Drainage

OTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance:

x Placemaking and Design (2010)

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Having regard to the fact that this application seeks only Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) for the erection of 2 dwellings at this stage, the key issues are:

(i) whether the proposal accords with adopted land-use policy (ii) whether any other factors, such as flood risk, road safety, amenity would influence the planning position (iii) whether any issues raised in representations would influence the planning position (iv) the status of the Section 50 Legal Agreement covering this land.

The fact that the Committee has already been minded to grant planning permission for the principle of housing on the site is an important material consideration in the determination of this application.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 4 Item No 5 (i)

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATION:

Land-use planning policy principle:

The land is completely within the settlement boundary on the 2011 Consolidated Local Plan. Although it is not allocated for a specific use, the predominant surrounding use in the locality is private housing.

Although the site is ‘green field’ in nature, it falls within the settlement boundary of Duns and therefore the principle of residential development on this site is consistent with Policy G7 of the Local Plan, in that this is an ‘infill development site’. In the general terms, therefore, a proposal for housing on this site is consistent with land use policy.

Roads issues:

The consultation response of the Roads Planning Service to the original scheme confirmed that the existing junction, which originally proposed to be used, is adequate to accommodate the additional traffic to the new plots. However, this confirmation was subject to a requirement to bring the shared access road up to adoptable standards. This would require a Road Construction Consent (RCC) to be obtained in addition to a planning permission, and would result in the provision of drainage, street lighting and a turning head.

The updated consultation response to the new scheme – and access arrangements – confirms that this amended layout does not give rise to significant road safety concerns and that acceptable visibility could be achieved.

By reducing the units to two and including a separate access, the requirement for an upgrade of the existing access road to an adoptable standard has been removed. Upgrading works would have required the developer to amend the construction of the road to indicate a shared surface and provide such things as street lighting and a turning area for service vehicles. The new access proposed to serve the dwellings can be constructed in a less formal manner as both roads will remain private. This is arguably more consistent with the semi-rural character of the site location.

There are no concerns over the proximity of the new access to the road junction. It is likely that required standards can be met, and conditions are proposed to cover these issues.

Public Amenity:

The submitted indicative design material depicts very plain bungalows. This particular design approach would not be encouraged and does not add value to the application. However, as permission is only sought for the principle of housing on the site at this stage, design would not be an overriding issue in the determination of this application, although a higher standard of design would be expected at the detailed stage.

Generally, the introduction of housing into this site would not significantly change the wider setting as there is already a well-established residential group around the site. The roadside of the A6105 would not be breached and would remain as a strongly defined boundary/edge. A house on the plot nearest to Duns would have the potential to create a focal point or landmark owing to its position at the corner of the

Planning and Building Standards Committee 5 Item No 5 (i) two much used public roads. The site does include several trees that could, if siting accommodates them, add to the character of the resultant development.

In the event of this application being approved, it would necessarily be followed by application(s) for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions, which would allow the visual impact to be more carefully assessed, in the context of specific development proposals.

Private Amenity:

Despite the issues raised in the objections by a near neighbour, supporting the development principle would cause no obvious detriment to the private amenity of any existing occupants. There is adequate space between existing buildings and the intended plots to avoid creating an unacceptable future relationship between old and new components.

The introduction of the new access to the south of the objectors’ property would affect the amenity of its occupiers, but if subsequent applications for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions are handled appropriately the affect could be minimised and not prejudicial.

Development Contributions:

Development contributions will be payable in the event of planning permission being granted, in relation to schooling provision and affordable housing.

Previous Section 50 Agreement:

An earlier Section 50 Agreement affects the land the subject of this application. It restricts further development on land following earlier planning permissions for housing development. However, its justification would appear to have been superseded by the inclusion of the site within the settlement boundary in the Local Plan. As the proposed development would now appear to be consistent with current planning policy, it would not be reasonable to refuse permission on the basis of an earlier legal agreement that has its foundations in a superseded policy framework. The terms of that agreement may, however, need to be revisited.

CONCLUSION:

With Plot 1 having been deleted from the scheme, the concerns about flood risk have been removed and no other planning or technical constraints exist that would give rise to any sustainable objection, in its modified form. The matters stated in the objection letters are not considered to give rise to overriding reasons to refuse the proposals. Subsequent revisions to the application in respect of access arrangements are considered satisfactory. It is therefore concluded that, subject to the conclusion of a Section 69 or 75 to secure developer contributions, planning permission should be granted for two dwelling plots on the land to the north and east of Oaklands. However, any planning permission must give clear advice confirming that the indicative design/layout approach is not to inform any AMC applications.

RECOMMENDATION BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES::

I recommend the application is approved subject to a legal agreement addressing contribution towards local schooling provision and off-site affordable housing, and the following conditions:

Planning and Building Standards Committee 6 Item No 5 (i)

1 No development shall commence until the details of the layout, siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2 Application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision shall be made to the Planning Authority before whichever is the latest of the following: (a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or (b) the expiration of six months from the date on which an earlier application for approval of matters specified in the conditions set out in this decision notice was refused or dismissed following an appeal. Only one application may be submitted under paragraph (b) of this condition, where such an application is made later than three years after the date of this consent. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

3 No development shall commence until all matters specified in conditions have, where required, been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall only take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved. Reason: To achieve a satisfactory form of development, and to comply with the requirements of Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

4 Prior to occupation of any new unit of accommodation, the following items shall be provided: (i) the proposed access shall be formed to SBC Roads Planning Manager specification DC-10. The width of the access shall be amended to provide a minimum width of 5.5 metres, thus allowing two vehicles to pass at the mouth of the access; (ii) the new private road shall be constructed to the same specification as the access, for the first 7.5 metres; (iii) the remainder of new private road shall be a minimum of 3.7 metres and constructed to provide a free draining smooth running surface, capable of withstanding a minimum axle loading of 14 tonne; (iv) parking and turning for a minimum of two vehicles, not including garages, shall be provided and retained in perpetuity within the curtilage of each plot These requirements shall be reflected in any subsequent Application for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions. Reason: to ensure that the development is serviced/accessed in such a way that amenity and road safety are achieved.

5 No development shall be commenced until such a time as it has been demonstrated that all matters relating to foul and surface water drainage have been addressed via a drainage management plan which includes SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage), which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority as part of any detailed submission, pursuant to this

Planning and Building Standards Committee 7 Item No 5 (i)

planning permission in principle. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details agreed in response to this condition. Reason: The Planning Authority is aware that drainage issues are likely to arise at this site, that have not been fully addressed in the planning application, which establishes only the land-use principle of the area of land identified in the submitted drawing(s).

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

Informatives

1 The applicant is reminded that this permission is subject to a legal agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The agreement covers matters of developer contributions towards the provision of local schooling (Berwickshire High School and Duns Primary School) and towards off-site affordable housing.

2 The applicant is advised that the indicative design shown in the site plan and the Typical House Type drawings forming part of the planning application are not endorsed, and should not inform any future proposals in subsequent applications for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions, which will be expected to reflect the aims and aspirations of the Council’s Placemaking and Design Supplementary Planning Guidance.

DRAWING NUMBERS

Approved:

Draft Site Plan 12/G075/PL01 Received 22.2.12 Access Details 12/G075/PL02 Received 22.2.12

Not Approved:

Typical House Type BL1044(B).02 Site Plan BL1044(B).01 (Superseded 22.2.12)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 8 Item No 5 (i)

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

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

Author(s) Name Designation John Hiscox Planning Officer (Devt Mgmt)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 9 Item No 5 (i)

Planning and Building Standards Committee 10 ITEM NO 6

PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF SECTION 69 AGREEMENT COVERING LAND EAST OF A & R BROWNLIE, EAST END, EARLSTON, WITH A SECTION 75 AGREEMENT

Report by Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31st May 2012

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider a request for the proposed replacement of the Section 69 Agreement entered into in 2006 by Scottish Borders Council and the owner of The Old Sawmill Development, East End, Earlston, with a Section 75 Agreement for the purpose of establishing and regulating a new arrangement for the payment of the development contributions required against this housing development. 1.2 Development Contributions towards the reinstatement of the Waverley Rail Link have previously been collected by the Council in accordance with a Section 69 Agreement and in relation to all twenty four of the dwellinghouses consented by Planning Consent 04/01052/FUL. However, the Developer now wishes to be refunded an amount equivalent to seventeen of these development contributions on the understanding that these contributions will be ‘re-paid’ to the Council as and when the seventeen currently un-built dwellings are completed. While the request to phase payments over the course of the construction of a housing development is similar to recent developer approaches to the payment of development contributions, the Council is not able legally to return Developer Contributions collected pursuant to the Railway legislation. Accordingly, it is considered that the request to conclude a new Section 75 agreement should be refused.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 I recommend that the Planning and Building Standards Committee refuse to approve the formulation of a new Section 75 Agreement to cover the anticipated development contributions in respect of the un-built houses.

Planning and Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 1 3 BACKGROUND th 3.1 Planning permission (04/01052/FUL) was granted on 29 January 2007 at land east of the premises of A & R Brownlie, East End, Earlston, for the road and plot layout for twenty four dwellinghouses. 3.2 The approval was subject to the conclusion of a legal agreement to secure development contributions towards the reinstatement of the Borders Railway, and a Section 69 Agreement was concluded in December 2006 under the terms that the required contributions were made in accordance with the rate prevailing at that time (£1,648 per dwelling, making the total, £39,552). 3.3 The Developer now seeks to replace the 2006 Section 69 Agreement with a new Section 75 Agreement. In essence, it is requested that they should be reimbursed for those development contributions (already paid under the terms of the Section 69 Agreement) in respect of dwellings that are not yet built. There are 17 such un-built dwellings. It is proposed that this would be secured by a new Section 75 Legal Agreement, requiring the Developer to re-pay these contributions at a future point in time when the remaining dwellings are actually constructed. In a supporting letter, it is advised that this new arrangement is sought to assist the Developer in the commercial aspects and funding cash flow for the future development of the project. 3.4 In essence, this request is similar to recent developer approaches to phase payments of development contributions over the course of construction of housing developments. However, the development contributions in question, are not only already paid, but, more specifically, are payments regulated by the Waverley Railway legislation. The latter requires that any contribution collected under its terms, must be applied within a period of 12 months. All such contributions are applied upon being deposited in a ring-fenced account. From that point, these monies can neither be removed nor used for any purpose other than for the meeting of railway costs. The A & R Brownlie Contribution has been applied and therefore cannot be returned to the Developer. 4 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Financial There are financial implications to approving the Developer’s request. Aside from the administrative and staff costs arising from concluding the variation to the legal agreement, the Developer would also be reimbursed a sum equivalent to those contributions (that have already been paid to the Council) in respect of the dwellings that have not yet been constructed. Theoretically at least, contributions would/could then be ‘re-collected’ at whatever the prevailing rate is at the time that the contributions are paid. However it is possible that a disruption to the Railway funds being held may impact on the Council’s ability to meet its financial obligations under the railway project. 4.2 Risk and Mitigations (a) There is a risk that contributions that are reimbursed to the Developer are not subsequently re-paid at a later stage in time because the full scheme of 24 dwellings is ultimately not built out, or built out in full. In this event, the Developer would not be obliged under the terms of the Section 75 Agreement, to pay contributions for dwellings that are never actually constructed. While there is potential for the Council to ‘re-collect’ all 17 contributions at a higher rate than was originally paid under the terms of the Section 69 Agreement, there is also potential for the Council to incur a loss as a direct consequence of this decision, if only a reduced number of dwellings, or no dwellings, are thereafter constructed. (b) There is a risk that approval of the Developer’s request may set a precedent for the reimbursement of collected contributions, but any

Planning and Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 2 subsequent requests would need to be considered in the context of their own prevailing circumstances. (c) There is a risk that a disruption to the Railway funds being held may impact on the Council’s ability to meet its financial obligations under the railway project. 4.3 Equalities (a) There are no equality issues in approving this report. 4.4 Acting Sustainably (a) Economic Growth There are no implications for economic growth. (b) Social Cohesion There are no implications for social cohesion in approving this report. (c) Protection of the environment There are no implications for the protection of the environment in approving this report. 4.5 Carbon Management (a) No implications. 4.6 Rural Proofing (a) No implications. 4.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation (a) There are no changes to be made.

5 CONSULTATION 5.1 Consultation on this report has been undertaken including with the Clerk to the Council, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, the Head of Audit and Risk, and the Financial Services Manager/Corporate Finance Manager. Their comments have been incorporated into this report where appropriate.

Approved by

Head of Planning and Regulatory Services……………………………

Signature ……………………………………

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Stuart Herkes Planning Officer (01835) 825039

Background Papers: Letter dated 27th March 2012 from A & R Brownlie. Previous Minute Reference: None

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

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

Planning and Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 3 ITEM NO 7

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE, STIRLING STREET GALASHIELS

Report by Director of Environment & Infrastructure

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31 MAY 2012

1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks approval for the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance for Stirling Street, Galashiels (see Appendix A) to be used as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period.

1.2 The site is substantially allocated in the Consolidated Local Plan for commercial redevelopment within the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan (2011), and amounts to 0.9 hectares. The site is situated between the proposed Transport Interchange facility and the heart of the town as accessed via Douglas Bridge. The draft brief sets out guidance in relation to the development of the Stirling Street site in Galashiels town centre. It seeks to:

x Identify the main constraints on the site x Establish spatial principles for development of the site that relate positively to the Transport Interchange and wider townscape x Provide an outline framework for future redevelopment, in terms of urban design principles, land use options and planning issues Identify anticipated requirements for developer contributions

2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 I recommend that the Committee:

(a) Approves the draft planning brief for Stirling Street, Galashiels as detailed in Appendix A, as a basis for public consultation for a 12 week period, and that if there are any substantive comments then they should be reported back to this Committee.

(b) Agrees that if there are no substantive comments arising from consultation that the brief should be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services, and that it should be used as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

3 SUBJECT MATTER draft Supplementary Planning Guidance Stirling Street, Galashiels

Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 1 3.1 The Council has prepared this draft planning brief for the site to create a development vision, address potential constraints on the sites and encourage good quality new development in accordance with sustainability principles which fit with the townscape of the settlement and integrate with its landscape surroundings. The planning brief sets out an Urban Design Framework which will provide guidance to any developer of the site or any other interested party and will be a material consideration when determining planning applications. The site is strategically important to the setting and integration of the proposed Transport Interchange within the wider town centre, and lies adjacent to the Gala Water.

The intention for the site is that it should provide a high quality sustainable development site in a strategically important location, for subsequent sale on the open market.

4 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Financial (a) There are no direct financial implications arising from approval of the draft planning brief for public consultation. The approved brief will provide guidance to developers for development on the sites.

(b) There are ongoing costs related to staff resources needed to carry out research and management relating to the production of the framework and any printing costs. These costs can be met by Planning and Regulatory Services.

4.2 Risk and Mitigations The key risks are considered to be: Risk of not providing guidance (i) The lack of guidance would cause uncertainty to the developers and the public and be a barrier to effective decision making by the Council. This could result in an ad hoc and inconsistent decision making with the policies in the Local Plan not being taken fully into account.

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

(iii) It is considered that the failure to approve the draft planning brief for public consultation would have resource impacts in the Development Management Section, potentially resulting in delays processing planning applications. In addition, it may ultimately have both a negative impact on the development and on the thorough assessment of the environmental impact of development.

Risk of providing guidance (i) There are no perceived risks related to the adoption of the guidance by the Council.

In accordance with the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 a pre-screening assessment of the draft mini planning brief for the sites has been undertaken to identify whether there will be potentially significant environmental effects. The pre-screening exercise was undertaken using the criteria specified in Schedule 2 of the Act. The pre-screening did not identify any significant environmental effects therefore a full SEA is not required.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 2 4.3 Equalities An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out on this proposal and there are no adverse equality implications.

4.4 Acting Sustainably The draft planning brief seeks to ensure the sustainable redevelopment of an urban infill site, encouraging sustainable design and use of resources. By setting out a clear quality standard, the draft planning brief seeks to positively contribute to the quality and setting of the proposed transport interchange and surrounding pedestrian environment, which will encourage sustainable transport use.

4.5 Carbon Management The draft planning brief has no direct impact on the Council’s carbon management.

4.6 Rural Proofing In terms of rural proofing the Brief for this redevelopment site will not have a negative impact on the rural area.

4.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation No changes proposed

5 CONSULTATION 5.1 The following consultation has been carried out. The Chief Financial Officer, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, the Head of Audit and Risk, the Clerk to the Council.

Approved by

Director of Environment & Infrastructure Signature …………………………………

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Martin Wanless Forward Planning Manager Carol Cooke Urban Designer, E & I 01835 825060

Background Papers: Appendix A – Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance Stirling Street, Galashiels Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Carol Cooke can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.

Contact us at: Carol Cooke, Urban Designer, Built & Natural Heritage, Environment & Infrastructure, Council HQ, 01835 825060

Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 3 Stirling Street Redevelopment Urban Design Framework Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance

May 2012

Scottish Borders Council 1 This page is left intentionally blank to enable double sided printing

2 Scottish Borders Council

Contents Page

1 INTRODUCTION 5 Purpose of Framework Objectives 2 CONTEXT 6 Local Plan Policy Context Site description Future change Forward planning Constraints 3 URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK 18 Douglas Bridge/Transport Interchange Redevelopment area • Development Vision • Spatial principles • Land Use Options Stirling Street/Gala Water Redevelopment area • Development Vision • Spatial principles • Land Use Options Ladhope Vale/Stirling Street Redevelopment Area • Development Vision • Spatial principles • Land Use Options Residential/Non-residential development 4 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 26 Energy Efficient Design Renewable Energy 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 27 Water Resources and Waste Management Archaeology Ecology Pollution Remediation / Demolition 6 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS 28 APPENDIX

Scottish Borders Council 3 This page is left intentionally blank to enable double sided printing

4 Scottish Borders Council 1 INTRODUCTION

Purpose of Framework 1.1 This Urban Design Framework sets out Scottish Borders Councils vision for the redevelopment of the Stirling Street area. It seeks to set the context for future redevelopment by:

• identifying key constraints and opportunities for the area • provide an outline framework for future redevelopment, in terms of urban design principles, land use options and planning issues. • identify anticipated requirements for development contributions

1.2 This Framework should be considered in conjunction with appropriate planning guidance given at the local and national level. A selection of related policy advice and guidance is referenced within this document, but this should not be regarded as exhaustive.

1.3 The overarching aim of this document is to ensure the delivery of a quality, contextual addition to the Galashiels townscape, enhancing the town centre environment and respecting the town’s built heritage. It seeks to promote an appropriate form and range of uses that will reinforce the viability and vitality of the town centre whilst linking the new Transport Interchange to the heart of the town, maximising the benefits of the Borders Railway. This document is intended to provide clarity on the requirements of Scottish Borders Council, whilst allowing for adaptability and innovation in the detailed development of proposals. Objectives 1.4 The Stirling Street area forms a prime location within Central Galashiels in the context of the proposed Borders Railway, the proposed Transport Interchange, the town centre and the Gala Water corridor(see Fig 2: Location Plan). The area forms a key arrival point into the town from all modes of transport:

• by car from the A7 north/southbound and A72 eastbound • by train from the proposed passenger rail halt (which will connect Galashiels regionally with Edinburgh & the Lothians, and locally with Tweedbank) • by bus from the proposed Transport Interchange (T.I) • by cycle/on foot via the Black Path and future improvements to the Gala Water Corridor

1.5 The Stirling Street area also plays a pivotal role as the link in ‘stitching together’ the town centre with the new public transport interchange and as an opportunity for opening up the currently underexploited frontage to the Gala Water within the town centre. Scottish Borders Council 5 1.6 This strategic prominence of the area presents an opportunity for development to impact positively on the wider townscape and economic vitality of central Galashiels. The main objectives of this Framework and of any future development must be to ensure that an appropriately high standard of development is achieved that: 1. Relates positively to the proposed T.I (Transport Interchange) facility 2. Represents a quality, contextual addition to the Galashiels townscape 3. Complements existing town centre activity 4. Creates a sense of arrival to Galashiels from the proposed T.I/A7 corridor/Black Path 5. Provides an attractive and direct pedestrian link between the T.I and the town centre 6. Creates an attractive waterfront edge to the Gala Water with pedestrian access and buildings + spaces that positively address the riverside, a currently underutilised asset within the town 7. Ensures a range of uses is provided that is appropriate to the wider town centre area 8. Accommodates ground floor active frontage to the primary routes/spaces, including the waterfront, Stirling Street, and the link between the T.I and the town centre

1.7 This Urban Design Framework sets out in principle the Council’s vision for achieving these objectives and is a material consideration in determining any planning application.

2 CONTEXT

Local Plan Policy Context 2.1 The key driver to the urban design framework is the delivery of the Borders Railway and associated public transport benefits. The Council’s Consolidated Structure Plan supports the reopening of the Borders Railway along with the protection of the associated station sites along the route. This is allied with the promotion of public transport provision.

2.2 In the Consolidated Local Plan the Council’s policy position is given further detail in Policy Inf1 on Transport Safeguarding, and in the Galashiels settlement statement through the safeguarding of the railway route, the station site (site ref zRS2) and the linked transport interchange (site ref zTI1).

2.3 The Urban Design Framework incorporates a core area that includes the transport interchange site and a site on Stirling Street (site ref zCR3) allocated for commercial redevelopment.

2.4 As noted above the transport interchange site is safeguarded to allow delivery of the required interchange. The current plans for the Transport Interchange require only a proportion of the land identified by site zTI1. Therefore, any surplus land would require to be considered against the broad policy position applicable to the area. The site lies within Galashiels town centre and is covered by Policy ED5 on ‘Town Centres’. This policy allows a range of uses appropriate to a town centre. This includes shops, offices, commercial leisure and entertainment, residential, health care, education and tourism. The policy seeks to maintain the character, vitality, viability and mixed use nature of the town centre and any proposed 6 Scottish Borders Council development that would create an unacceptable adverse impact on it would be Fig 1 - Policy Context: refused. Extract from Consolidated Local Plan 2011: Galashiels Central Policy Map. 2.5 The Stirling Street site is covered by policy H3 and allows for commercial redevelopment within classes 1-4 of the Use Classes Order. Any exceptions to commercial use are to be justified under section 5 of Policy H3, including the provision of significant community benefit outweighing the need to maintain the original proposed use.

2.6 Whilst a range of policies in the Local Plan may be applicable to any particular development, any development proposals should also take particular account of the following policy considerations:

• The Gala Water runs immediately to the south of the core area of the framework. The river is designated a Special Area of Conservation under European law and is covered by Policy NE1 ‘International Nature Conservation Sites’ which requires any development proposals to be subject to an assessment of the implications on the site’s conservation objectives.

• The Galashiels Conservation Area lies immediately to the south of the river to the south of the framework area, and is covered by Policy BE4 ‘Conservation Areas’. This policy requires that any development adjacent to it does not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

• The redevelopment area contains a Category C(s) Listed building on Ladhope Vale, and lies adjacent to the Category B Listed St Andrews Church.

Scottish Borders Council 7 Site description Fig 2 - Stirling Street Redevelopment Area, 2.7 The Stirling Street Redevelopment Area covered by this Urban Design Framework Central Galashiels: Location is situated within Galashiels town centre, north of the Gala Water. As summarised Plan above the extents are defined by the sites allocated within Scottish Borders Council’s Consolidated Local Plan (2011) as zCR3 and zTI1, bounded to the north by Ladhope Vale and to the west by Stirling Place. The southern edge is bounded by the Gala Water, with the Abbotsford Hotel and St Andrews Church forming the eastern edge. The study area extends to 0.9ha (including Stirling Street Fig 3 - Historic maps carriageway), broken down into distinct land parcels of the following approximate of study area: shown indicatively in red: areas: 1 - 1921 1 - 0.23ha Original alignment of 2 - 0.3 ha Stirling Street, terminating at the Church/Abbotsford 3 - 0.26ha Hotel/former Railway terminus; no footbridge connection to Channel 2.8 The area comprises a range of brownfield land, existing buildings, car parks and Street. riverside land. With the arrival of the Transport Interchange the area will undergo transformational physical change as well as an altered relationship to the wider 2 - 1978 town centre, as a primary ‘gateway’ to the town. As such the study area has a Closure of railway line; strategically prominent role within the town centre, forming a key point of arrival Stirling Street still fully intact; arrival of Bus by car, taxi, pedestrian, cycle, bus and – in the future – rail. For the purposes

[ 1:2,500 [ 1:1,250 GALASHIELS GALASHIELS Epoch 3: 1921 Epoch 6: 1978 Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023423. Licence number 100023423. 1 - 1921 2 - 1978 8 Scottish Borders Council

[ 1:2,500 GALASHIELS Epoch 3: 1921 Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023423. of this Framework, the area of land dedicated to the delivery of the Transport Interchange facility is not included in these recommendations as it is subject to the specific requirements of the T.I, however the detailed design of the T.I will be required to reflect the wider vision for the area as a cohesive part of the urban fabric as set out in this Framework.

2.9 The site was historically part of the 19th century planned expansion of Galashiels, designed to provide Mill worker’s housing and associated shops and services. Stirling Street formed an axial spine, culminating in the former railway station, the (Category B Listed) St Andrews Church (known then as St Marys and St Andrews Church) and associated school. The area remained largely unchanged for 100 years. The bus station and footbridge link to the town was constructed in the mid-70’s, around the same time as the railway was dismantled, with the later demolition of the school to accommodate the realignment of Ladhope Vale. The Abbotsford Arms Hotel sits on the original alignment of Stirling Street. There is only one Category C(s) Listed Building within the study area, the former Borders Textile and Engineering Supplies Company on Ladhope Vale. Galashiels context 2.10 Galashiels town centre sits within the steeply sided Gala Water valley centred on the historic core. More recent expansion of the settlement has spread up the steep valley sides, creating a dramatic relationship between landscape and built form. The town centre boundary is defined to the north of the study area by a steep embankment and extensive brick retaining wall, the most recent version constructed in 1916 protecting the route of the railway line. The site lies just outwith the Conservation area which is immediately south of the Gala Water. The most direct physical link between the site and the heart of the town centre/ conservation area is the pedestrian route of Douglas Bridge, which includes the footbridge and Douglas Bridge shopping area, a modern 1.5 storey retail development built in the early 90’s.

2.11 The townscape of Galashiels town centre is characterised by 19th century buildings ranging from 2-5 storeys, often consisting of residential/office space above retail, while the former mill buildings that remain stand distinctly taller. The recently completed 7 storey Eildon Housing development at Laidlaw Court, just by the Gala Water about 300m upstream from the Stirling Street site, forms a modern response to the scale and massing of the former Mill buildings. Traditional materials such as greywacke sandstone and whinstone under Welsh slate roofs are typical to the area. Recent development has seen the arrival of large floorplate retail such as the retail parks to the east and west of the town Fig 4 - Galashiels town centre, 2011: traditional centre, and even more recently the construction of the 24 hour Tesco and Asda form, scale and materials stores, approximately 500 metres from the site. (left - Channel Street, right -

Scottish Borders Council 9 Future change 2.12 The area is subject to significant future change in the next 5 years, with a number of major projects underway, namely: • delivery of the Borders Railway, including the realignment of the Black Path walking/cycling route • construction of a new multi-modal Transport Interchange facility • completion of the Galashiels Inner Relief Road and associated town centre civic space improvements A brief summary of these interventions is provided below, as context for the future vision contained within the Urban Design Framework. Borders Railway 2.13 The construction of the Borders Railway will see the reinstatement of the original track bed immediately north of the site, following the base of the retaining structure/slope parallel to the Ladhope Vale road corridor. The railway line is programmed to be operational by 2014, connecting Galashiels and the wider Scottish Borders with Edinburgh and the Lothians, bringing passenger rail to the heart of the town. The arrival of this new infrastructure will impact on the physical form of the area as well as change people’s perception, creating a new arrival point into the town and new patterns of pedestrian movement and activity. There are also associated Development Contribution requirements, as summarised in paragraph 6.2. Black Path Realignment 2.14 The Black Path forms a promoted walking and cycling route that links Galashiels with Tweedbank, following the line of the former rail track bed. As part of Fig 5 - Indicative layout the Borders Railway project the Black Path is required to be replaced with for Galashiels Transport an appropriate alternative route. The aspiration is for the path to follow the Interchange as at 2011. Showing: Gala Water for as much of the route as is possible, opening up the currently • the new road alignment underexploited Gala Water as an accessible, attractive feature running through passenger rail halt the centre of Galashiels, in much the same way as has been achieved at the • bus terminus layout Water of Leith in Edinburgh. There are real opportunities to realise this aspiration • and indicative building within the Urban Design Framework. While this path may be included within the footprint. confines of any required flood defences (see Constraints section below), flood Note: this is subject to gates will be required at either end of any access route as it passes through any detailed design during 2012-2013 flood protection measure.

10 Scottish Borders Council Transport Interchange 2.15 In conjunction with the arrival of the Borders Railway there will be the construction of a new passenger rail halt and adjacent Transport Interchange for integrated Bus/Taxi/Rail travel. The T.I will provide passenger facilities on the ground floor with showers and lockers - to promote cycling and walking to the transport hub - as well as seating, tourist information and retail space. The TI will include two more floor of business space within the heart of the town with excellent transport links.

2.16 The T.I facility will form a high quality focal point, as the entrance to the Scottish Borders to create a positive impression for visitors and investors to the area. The design of the building and the public realm will seek to integrate the facility into its surroundings, creating visual and physical linkage to the heart of the town. The T.I is programmed to be completed by December 2014 and initial design development is included as an appendix to this SPG, which looks at the interface of the building with the wider redevelopment and townscape context.

The Galashiels Inner Relief Road (GIRR) 2.17 The development of a new relief road for Galashiels is designed to accommodate increased vehicular traffic on the A7 and A72 and rerouting this through traffic away from the centre to create an improved environment for residents and shoppers. The improvements open up development opportunities within the town and provide improved links to the new Transport Interchange. The GIRR project has been implemented in phases;

2.18 Phase 1 consisted of the new road network from Station Brae to George Craig Bridge and provided the infrastructure for the adjacent retail developments (ASDA, Tesco and retail development on the former Lochcarron site)

2.19 Phase 2 was opened in April 2009 and linked Phase 1 from Paton Street up to Albert Place/Abbotsford Road (Braw Lads Brae), via the former Scottish Borders Council depot site. This new road completed the relief road for southbound traffic from the A7 and A72, allowing the through traffic to negotiate Galashiels without entering the heart of the town creating the opportunity for pedestrian and parking improvements in Market Street.

2.20 Phase 3 of the Inner Relief Road returns Ladhope Vale back to a two-way road, closes the Market Street junction with Ladhope Vale and improves the junction configuration at the top and bottom of Bridge Place. Vehicular access to the town centre is via a new mini roundabout at the Stirling Place / Ladhope Vale Junction, onto Stirling Street and Market Street. The closure of the Market Street junction will create space needed for the new Transport Interchange, adjacent to the new passenger rail platform on Ladhope Vale. This phase has just commenced at the time of writing this Urban Design Framework and is programmed to be complete Summer 2012.

2.20 Phase 4 (GIRR 4 town centre improvements) - the final infrastructure improvement scheme of the Galashiels Inner Relief Road is GIRR 4, which builds on the benefits of removing through traffic from the centre of town via road and civic space improvements. With the reduction in traffic through the centre of town some of the road carriageway is returned to the pedestrian and more on street parking is provided. The road improvements extend to Market Street, Bank Street and High Street, while civic spaces at Market Square, Channel Street and Cornmill Square are subject to public realm improvement works. These improvements are scheduled to be fully complete by the end of 2012. Scottish Borders Council 11 Forward Planning 2.21 Future change in this area is, as outlined, subject to a range of factors which will alter the nature and form of the area. The redevelopment of the Stirling Street area will be incremental, subject to market factors and the delivery of the Transport Interchange. Reflective of this the Urban Design Framework considers the 3 sites as discrete but inter-related parcels of development:

1 Douglas Bridge/Transport Interchange redevelopment area: this area is integral to the delivery of the Transport Interchange (and its linkage to the town centre) and as such is considered as a ‘first phase’ redevelopment area to maximise the benefits of the Borders Railway. 2 Stirling Street/Gala Water redevelopment area: this area is currently home to a retail store and a car park, the redevelopment of which will be subject to market demand for change as a longer term redevelopment. 3 Ladhope Vale/Stirling street redevelopment area: this area contains a range of premises and historic buildings, and redevelopment will by the nature of the site be required to be smaller scale interventions subject to market demand and also considered a longer term redevelopment area Fig 6 - Breakdown of redevelopment areas within site

12 Scottish Borders Council Fig 7 - Site photos: L-R: Stirling Street buildings, existing Bus Station/Douglas Bridge area, existing superstore site Constraints 2.22 The Stirling Street Redevelopment Area is subject to a range of constraints, summarised below. Site Ownership 2.23 The area is under ownership of various landowners. While the detailed ownership arrangement is more complex,the main land ownership titles are detailed below:

1 Douglas Bridge/Transport Interchange redevelopment area Multiple ownership: the existing car park area and the area adjacent to the existing footpath entrance from the east are under SBC ownership. First Bus owns the area north of the existing footpath to rear of bus station 2 Stirling Street/Gala Water redevelopment area Owned by Co-operative Group 3 Ladhope Vale/Stirling street redevelopment area Multiple ownership, including adopted Council car park.

Co-operative Group

Fig 8 - Indicative Land Ownership

Scottish Borders Council 13 Views 2.24 As a result of the dramatic valley formation, many inward views to the town are from above, creating a highly visible and distinctive roofscape. Any design will be required to present a carefully considered roofscape to these views, with a clear design rationale. Expansive floorplates with monotonous flat roofing of the kind often associated with ‘big box’ retail will not be allowed. Similarly views from the key vistas of the town centre along Douglas Bridge and from the T.I/Ladhope Vale/ Station Brae area are all key considerations.

Fig 9 - Site appraisal

14 Scottish Borders Council View along Douglas Bridge towards site Ladhope Vale corridor/new flatted development in background

Gala Water Douglas Bridge Shopping area: pedestrian frontage to waterfront

Site boundary wall to east: pedestrian access to Bus Station/Bridge Existing site frontage to Gala Water

Fig 10 - Key features/views within surrounding area Gala Water 2.25 The Redevelopment sites lie immediately adjacent to the Gala Water corridor. This presents an opportunity in terms of opening up a currently underutilised asset, but careful consideration is required as to how any new development relates to the riverside area. Development should seek to encourage people and activity in and around the riverside area, creating opportunities for active frontage, overlooking and even outdoor civic space. Any development that turns its ‘back’ to the water will not be considered acceptable, and as such the treatment of the riverside elevation will be a key consideration.

Scottish Borders Council 15 HU NTER 'S B RID GE R OAD 12 6 LAD HO P E C RES CEN T Nort h Pa th Highr idge Scale [1:75,000] 15 KEYPLAN BM 12 5.18 m 123. 9m 10 14

LAD HO P E D RI VE

8 2 16 RO BER TS C O UR T

Gara ge 122. 1m 69 24 4 66 HIG H 25 BUC KH OL M SI DE

HIG H R OA D 1 65 3 PH 26

61 ISL AN D S TREE T El Sub Sta 28 1 BM 115 .81m

54 3 Pa th 5 53 TCB 52 51 38 36 Ward Bdy 118.0 m 35 HALL STR EET 42 Gala CR 38 7 49 43 32 47 Water 37 9 45 44a CR Ward Bdy 43 44b 1 45

39 32 LADHOPE 22 35 30 Bu ilder's Yar d VA LE 33 El 36 28 Bal lencrieff 44 23 Su b Sta Ladhope Bri dge Spring woo d LAD HO P E D R LAD HO P E 21 18 Sur g er y Ward Bdy Tank CR ESC ENT 15 14 Pa th Ladhope 17 16 Bu ild er's Yd 38 46 Re cr ea t ion 13 12 BRIDGE PLA CE Eastwood Ground CR Rer esmount Car Par k 11 8 BM 10 Ba kery 9 117.1 7m El 49 6b 7 Ladhope 14 The Corr ie Su b Golf 10 ISL AN D STREE T Recreation Ground BRIDGE PLA CE Sta Cour se 16 114.0 m 12 HAL L PL AC E Bridge 5 Balnacoul Pa th 27 41 Kilmeny 29 Inn Brae park 14 Roxbu rgh House Cour t (PH ) 15 15 39 Depot 16 4a 3 16a Oakbank LB HALL STR EET 10 10 12 36 Skerr yvo re 17 8 Golf Course 2 6 4 Kingar th 53 9 Che rrytree s Golden Longridge FO R EBR AE PARK 7 113.1 m Lio n Gara ge 8 (PH ) Hea therbank Car Par k

6 112 Greenwell Uph il l Congr eg ation al Su rge ry 119 to 15 3 56 6a 55 UN IO N STRE ET Chur ch Flood route originatting from Tantallon 7 Hillfoot 8 5b 104 FOR EBR AE PARK to 54 10 1 25 102 overtopping9 at Plumtree Laurel Bank FO R EBR AE PARK 7 C lu b 100 12 CR 11 Ran noch Car nethy 13 117 113 98 94a 51 to 17 to 20 14 96 17 94 Ladhope 15 Manse 50 Belveder e 19 Forebr ae House 111 BRI DG E STRE ET Sp orts Hall 1 Am bula nce 109 Pa th

88 Dun earn to Depot HIG H STR EET 92 HIG H R OA D 2 ROXBU RGH STR EET 16 CR 101 Po lic e Statio n 3 39 Car Par k to Torvannoch 97 to 37 Craigvar Digital Map Data © Bartholomew (1999) HU NTER 'S B RIDGE ROAD 14 82 6 to 12 LADHOP E CRES C 86 N ort h 7 Wo rk s Teleph one athPa t Chapel S treet Highr id ge Exch ang e 13 ENT Highfield Scale [1:75,000] JOHNSTON'S CLOSE 14 15 KEYPLAN Sunnyba nk BM 12 5.18 m 123. 9m 10 14 95 8 12 El Sub Sta LADHOP E DRIVE 9 6 13 LAD HO P E VAL E Hawthor nbank 11 11 29 8 72 T O 80 2 16 Wo rk s 10 ROBERTS COURT 26 83 BM 113 .31m 81 Gara ge 122. 1m 10 69 BO TAN Y L AN E 24 4 66 HIG H 25 Parken d St Andrew's BUC KH OLMSI DE 8 HIG H R OA D Art C entre 1 65 3 79 PH 26 Mill Hall 9 61 ISLAND S TR El S ub S PLA CE 28 BM 115 .81m 19 ta 2 1 6 21 EE T 54 Car Par k athPa t Ward Bdy 3 18 64 5 TC B Hall 53 52 20 118.0 m C St eps 51 38 36 Ward Bdy 35 28 8 HALL STR EET 42 CR 38 4 49 43 Gala 32 West Lynnwood 60 7 14 47 Water 37 3 26 9 45 44a CR Ward Bdy 44b 62 43 12 1 45 39 112.3 m 32 LADHOPE 22 35 30 Bu ild er's Yar d 10 VA LE El Sub Sta 33 E l 16 36 24 28 Bal lencrieff 44 23 Su b S ta Ladhope Bridge Spri ng woo d LADHOP E DR LA D H O P E 21 18 S u r g e r y W a rd B d y Tank CRESCENT Eas t M ill 22 15 14 Pa t h Ladhope 71a 17 16 B ui l de r ' s Y d 38 20 46 R e c r e a t i o n 19 LEGEND 13 12 BRI DG E PLA CE Eastw ood Ground 56 11 CR Rer esmount 1 to 8 18 C ar P ar k ur t 8 BM 10 B a k e r y 9 117.1 7m E l 49 6b 7 Ladhope 1 14 The C orr ie S u b Gol f 10 ISLAN D 30 STREE T Recreation Ground BRI DG E PLA CE 9 S t a C our se 71 16 114.0 m 12 HALL PLAC E Bridge 5 Bal nacoul Pa t h CW 27 41 Ki l meny 50 to 52 29 In n 11 Brae park 24 14 Roxbu rgh House Co (PH) ST IR LI NG 15 15 39 D epot St N inian's 3 22 11 16 4a 16a Oa kbank LB 10 13 HALL STR EET 10 36 Sk err y vo re 65 Ch ur ch SIM E PL ACE 12 17 69 C lu b 8 15 Golf Course East 63 2 6 12 ST IR LI NG S T REE T 53 9 4 Ki ngar th 9 17 Che rrytree s Lyn nwood 20 Golden Longri dge FOREBRAE PARK 7 113.1 m L i o n Gara ge 19 8 (PH) Hea therbank C ar P ar k 6 Gr eenw el l U p h il l PC 112 21 57 Congr eg ation al Su rge ry 119 to 15 3 56 Ba nk 6a 55 C lu b 55 UN IO N STRE ET C hur ch Flood route originatting from Ta ntal l on 7 Hil l foot 8 5b 104 FOR EBR AE PARK 10 to 54 10 1 25 102 30 overtopping9 at Plumtree 23 Laurel Bank FOR EBR AE PARK 7 C lu b 100 12 CR 11 Ran noch 59 53 Car nethy 34 117 1.33% (75yr) Flood Extent 13 113 98 94a 51 to 17 to 20 14 96 Child Welfa re 17 94 Ladhope 15 51 50 25 Manse Bel veder e 5 46 32 Centr e H STR EET19 Forebr ae House 111 BRI DG E STRE ET Sp orts Hall 1 49 Am bul a nce 109 P h t a 88 Dun earn D epot to HIG H STR EET 92 Car ParHIG H R OA D k 2 ROXBU RG 16 CR 39 C ar P ar k 101 Po lic e Statio n 3 Depot to To rvannoch 44 97 to 37 Digital Map Data © Bartholomew (1999) 14 Cr ai gvar 82 to 40 86 Tel eph one 7 W o r k s 111.9m Exch ang e 13 C ha pel St r e et Highfi el d JOHNSTON'S CLOSE 14 Sunnyba nk 95 8 1 49a 42 1 12 El Sub Sta 9 6 LADH Hawthor nbank 36 13 11 11 Car Par k W o r k s 72 T O 80 10 45 26 83 OP E VALE 38 81 BM 113 .31m HIG H STR EET BOTAN Y LAN 10 St Andrew's Parken d 24 PH 8 Art C en tr e 79 Mill Hall 9 P LA CE 2 19 6 1% (100yr) Flood Extent 26 21 C ar P ar k 64 18 yBd W d r a C St eps E Hall 20 4 28 8 West Lynnwood 22 60 3 26 14 112.3 m 62 12 El S ub S ta 10 CF 24 16 71a East Mill 22 20 19 LEGEND Head Po st C56 lu b 1 to 8 18 1 30 71 9 CW 50 to 52 11 24 St Ninian's S T IR LI NG 22 11 13 Office uCb l 65 C h u r c h SIME PLACE E a s t 69 63 15 29 3 1 12 S T IR LI NG S T RE E T 9 17 Lyn nwo od 20 5 7 19 14 to 20 21 PARK STR EET PC 57 C lu b 55 B a n k

10 30 23 59 53 34 1.33% (75yr) Flood Extent 167 163 Child Welfa re 51 25 5 46 32 C entr e 27 1 49 C ar P ar k 165 Depot 44 Car Par k 25 111.9m 40 49a 42 TCB ' s 1 1 0.5% (200yr) Flood Extent C ar P ar k 36 CW Eastmou nt 45 38 21 HIGH STR EET 3 1a 1 24 PH 26 Gala Wate r 1% (100yr) Flood Extent 147 to 1 61 129 22 CF 17 H ead Po st C lu b Hotel BM Office Bee c hb a nk Pl ac e 143 19 29 3 1 5 7 Ba nk 14 to 20 PARK STR EET 111.72167 m163 FB 27 1 C ar P ar k 145 13 165 25 0.5% (200yr) Flood Extent T C B ' s CW 21 Eastmou nt 1 to 27 9 3 1a 1 Gala Wate r 9 11 147 to 1 61 129 H otel 17 BM B ee c hb a n 143 19 B a n k Car Park 2 4 FB 111.72 m 145 11 13 1 to 27 9 11 9 6 Car Park 2 4 11 k P ac l e 13 6 256 256 13 GALASHIELS 131 Mil l l ead to Watercourses Mil l l ead 133 23 B a n k GALASHIELS 252 15 131 12 to 10 17 Bu s Statio n 13 to 37 12 Watercourses 16 18b 133 23 Ba nk 228 to 2 50 25 1 to 7 10 14 252 G al a P ar k15 C ou r t 18 27

8 208 to 2 26 12 1a 27 29 1 to 12 6 4 FB 10 29 Bu s Statio n 23 17 Hall 1 31 to 39 C ar P ar k 73 46 HIG H R OA D

2 Spring woo d Ban k 13 to 37 72 CU RR IE RO A 12 35 71 16 18b Apos tolic El S ub S ta 34 37 228 to 2 50 70 5 CW 47 25C h u r c h 182 to 1 96 69 7 41to 43 1 to 7 41 200 to 2 06 2 10 14 GA LA 49 132 P RA K 36- 38 18 68 111.0m 43 to 67 Our Lady and D Gala Park Court 51 126 124 66 7 122 46 45 St Andrew 69 166 47 Pr esby 53 168 65 C h u r c h Ward Bdy 5 Douglas Bridge 133 198 170 to 1 80 64 27 46 4 4 49 to 59 135 154 to 63 48 131 120 6 1 8 137 139 1 64 208 to 2 26 150 Sch ool Ho use 116 27 1 CH ANN EL STR EET 1a 7 10 29 1 to 12 6 4 148 3 144 50 FB 142 B u r g h 9 GI B S 2 El S ub S ta BM 12 0.70 m 146 to 1 52 29 7 CL 5 136 GALA PARK 134 to 1 40 146 O N S ' 23 E l 134 142 112 4 54 130 140 8 4 114 P r i m a r y 10 6 1 Hall Su b S ta 132 144 146 PO 144 52 56 61 120. 7m 31 to 39 Car Par k 73 156 140 110 School 11 110.0 m 63 2 117.2 m 158 168 4612 106 STATI ON BR AE Flood extents based on LiDAR Building Elevation Model HIG H R OA D 152 162 164 138 104 65 67 75 STATION BRAE 108 1 150 160 14 100 Galaside SCOTT S TR EE T to 13 6 102 12 1 4 36 69 71

2 TCB 55 to 59 13 73 Spring woo d Ban k 98 15 GA LA LA NE 72 128 94 58 to 68 (BEM) which includes building heights withinCU RR IE topographic RO AD 22 44 92 90 18 123 88 16 40 to 12 6 96 17 42 Clai ri nda 126. 5m Mil l Le ad sur fac e. 24 ST AND R EW STRE ET 35 46 77 7 9 71 118 121 86 81 48 Apostolic 94 84 68 to 82 87 19 SM El Sub Sta 96 37 8 85 Flood Extents are therefore confined to roads and open 34 to 116 119 50 OV ERH AU 93 91 73 to 81 113 E l S u b 76 CW 70 5 6 52 83 104 98 110 117 S t a Gill's Close 47 BALMORAL PLAC E Ch ur ch Anderson's spac es 111 82 7 May 108 RA E 22 109. 1m Chambers 182 to 1 96 100 115 66 GH STR EET 69 B nak 106 41to 43 9 41 200 to 2 06 85 to 91 110 104 2 11 57 95 9 7 Ward Bdy 64 GALA PAR GA LA to 10 2 23 2 4 iew Ba nViekw PH 114 BAN K STR EET BAN K H otel 49 132 116 36- 38 56 5 8 60 CO UR T 60 99 PA R K 96 25 28a 56 65 88 101 OvertoppingT h e of 111.0m K This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the 68 52 5 4 62 26 62 Lodge 14 Craigie B ank 99 118 BAN K STR EET B 27 109. 2m to 12 6 58 43 18 6 93 94 50 BAN K CLOSE 71 to 67 4 90 91 52 103 103 Our Lady and 126 10 97 46 SM permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her 8 28 48 H eal th 51 124 95 92 B a n k right bankC aul dSM 2 128 88 66 130 85 7 105 C entr e 97 to 10 9 134 89 46 42 44 Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised 122 132 46 44 96 H eal th St Andrew 83 45 Pa th 105 136 87 42 61 5 9 111 C entr e 67 6 3 31 69 80 8 2 40 B a n k Pr esby 142 138 77 81 reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to 166 36 115 76 7 8 47 53 168 65 3 79 E l Ch ur ch 37 34 111 Ward Bdy 117 144 75 Sta tue 115 198 5 1 Douglas Bridge 82 51 PH S u b 64 81 5 prosecution or civil proceedings. License 10023423, 2008. 113 146 36 83 109. 0m S t a 133 39 38 170 to 1 80 125 152 68 7 2 69 3 35 84 to BM 73 7 87 109. 44m 119 to 148 CR 4674 4 4 67 Pa th CU RR IE 150 11 9 B M 49 to 59 57 135 154 to 1 64 71 37b RO AD 63 154 48 BM 10 8.53 m 131 15 51 74 88 131 156 1 120 6 66 53 137 129 158 C lu b 62 55 36 61 LIVIN GS TON E PLA CE hPa t MARK ET STR EET 139 135 64 47 78 CR Sch ool Ho use 63 49 133 164 60 150 37a 76 Market Place 53 44 1 160 58 CH ANNTank EL STR EET 37 109. 0m 116 143 166 96 139 38 80 94 5619 39 Pavilion 7 145 21 141 C ar P ar k 's C h ur ch 41 Gala P a rk Ga rde ns 1 174 17 39 4 0 to 18 2 10 41 3 149 STW ANDSTREET R E 34 148 Hall St Ai da n 30 36 144 151 54 48 1 to 30 42 2 50 32 GALA PARK 34 9 GI BS O N' S 2 184 28 35 El Sub Sta to 19 2 52 Stor e 142 Cl o s e Bur g h 44 43 BM 12 0.70 m 146 to 1 52 5 26 1 7 35 22 45 CL 29 37 50 18 136 146 194 30 GALA PARK 134 to 1 40 20 42 112 4 200 24 46 44 32 134 142 54 20 27 El 6 Dairy 24 16 10 41 22 130 140 8 4 114 Prim ar y Pa th 40 47 4 8 132 144 38 Gover nm ent 28 52 14 61 C hi mn ey 146 144 56 25 Bu i ld i ngs Su b Sta 156 PO 204 26 120. 7m 11 50 2 110.0 m 37 Car 140 110 63 7 School 36 35 3 51 117.2 m 106 34 9 168 34 13 P a r k 158 32 STATI ON BR AE 12 BM 12 Flood extents based on LiDAR Building Elevation Model 3 STATION BR AE 138 Focus Centre E l 10 52 152 162 164 104 117.9 4m38 65 11 5 67 75 108 S u b 36 32 12 LB 14 S t a 27 16 1 160 14 46 31 PH Gr e en S tr ee t 150 to 13 6 100 12 1 4 SCO TT 30 69 71 Galaside 26 SCO TT S TR EE T 36 STREE T 25 102 29 LIVIN GS TON E 28 TCB Volu ntee r Ha ll 10 13 24 73 PC BM 111.254 9m 4 55 to 59 St M argaret's P LA CE 21 GA LA LA NE 19 2 15 23 Mon RC Primary School 8 6 128 98 19 T k (BEM) which includes building heights within topographic 94 Ba keho use Bu rn 58 to 68 56 4 6 2 4 M AR K ET Vol u ntee r 60 STR E ET 22 44 18 Hall Gr e en S tr ee t Tk 90 16 PH 57 5 8 Gala Wate r Ba keho use 11 62 Ward Bdy 92 Bakehou se 15 1 TCB 171 18 123 88 16 Bu r n Burn BANK STREE 167 228 GA LA 40 232 14 9 3 PAR K to 12 6 13 C lu b 5 17 1 17 3 Clairinda 96 17 St M argaret's 42 230 Mon 234 7 12 surface. R C P r i m a r y 9 126. 5m Mil l Le ad 10 5 T ST AND R EW STRE ET School 173 7 77 7 9 FIGURE 11 7 24 46 175 ST AND R EW STRE ET 13a 121 179177 15 1 7 118 86 CR 81 Sh el ter 8 19 CR C ar P ar k 4 1 23 2 5 48 3 183 3 94 84 E l 181 29a 27 2 9 Ward Bdy 87 68 to 82 Su b S ta 244 31 5 7 19 248 6 ST JOHN STREET SM 2 96 Cornmill Court CORNMILL SQUARE 1 Flood Extents are therefore confined to roads and open 17to 19 8 85 246 37a 6 8 FB to 116 119 185 SCOTT S TR EE T 250 10 Mem l LIVIN GS TON E PLA CE OV ERH AU GH STR EET33 50187 37b 39 93 91 189 252 16 1 8 12 113 El S ub 258 35 26 14 73 to 81 37 28 76 The B othy 22 El S ub S ta 6 52 254 41 34 24 20 83 GALA WATER EXISTING Sta 256 104 98 110 117 45 36 Gill's Close 43 32 BALMORAL PLAC E 47 Su rge ry R u l e Li bra ry Mon Swim ming Pool Know e TCB Anders on's spaces 260 262 C ar P ar k 111 264 38 82 May 108 Scale1:2,500 22 Oakwood 109. 1m Counc il Offices C ar P ar k Chambers 115 Wel l w ood Brae side FLOOD EXTENTS 100 66 40 28a Ba nk 106 1to1 6 9 85 to 91 110 104 11 57 95 9 7 Ward Bdy 64 to 10 2 GALA PARK 23 2 4 View Ba nk PH 114 BAN K STR EET BAN K Hotel 116 56 5 860 CO UR T 60 99 96 25 28a 56 65 88 101 OvertoppingThe of 26 Lodge This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the 14 Craigie Bank 52 5 4 62 BAN K STR EET BRA E 62 99 118 27 58 109. 2m 93 to 12 6 94 18 6 4 90 91 50 BAN K C LO SE 71 103 52 10 103 97 SM 8 46 permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her 28 48 Health 95 92 Ba nk right bankCauldSM 2 128 88 130 85 105 Centr e 97 to 10 9 134 89 46 Fig 11 - Flood Mapping 132 44 Flooding 96 42 44 Health Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised 83 Pa th 105 136 87 42 61 5 9 111 Centr e 67 6 3 extract 31 80 8 2 40 Ba nk 36 142 138 77 81 reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to 115 76 7 8 79 3 34 111 El 37 144 2.26 The Stirling Street developmentSta tue area115 lies within the 1 in 200 year flood envelope 117 75 1 82 51 PH Su b 81 5 prosecution or civil proceedings. License 10023423, 2008. 113 146 36 83 109. 0m Sta 39 125 152 68 7 2 69 3 38 35 84 to BM 73 7 87 109. 44m of the Indicative Flood Mapping developedCR by SEPA. Any development at this 119 to 148 74 67 150 11 9 BM 57 Pa th CU RR IE 71 37b BM 10 8.53 m RO AD 154 15 88 131 156 51 74 129 158 66 53 62 55 location wouldC lu b require flood protection measures to protect against flood risk up 36 61 LIVIN GS TON E PLA CE Pa th MARK ET STR EET 135 64 47 78 CR 133 164 60 63 49 37a 76 Market Place 53 44 160 58 Tank 37 109. 0m 143 166 to a magnitude of 196 in 200 year plus climate change. In accordance with Scottish 139 38 80 94 5619 39 Pavilion 145 21 141 Car Par k 41 Gala Pa rk Ga rde ns 1 174 17 39 4 0 to 18 2 ST AND R E 41 Planning Policy any development that is undertaken on the functional flood plain 149 W S TREE T 34 Hall 36 151 54 St Ai dan's C hurch 30 48 1 to 30 42 2 34 184 32 GA LA PA RK is required to have associated35 compensatory storage provided upstream. 28 to 19 2 52 Stor e 44 Close 26 43 1 35 22 45 29 194 37 50 18 20 42 30 24 32 200 20 46 44 27 24 16 Dairy 41 22 Pa th 40 47 4 8 Gover nm ent 28 38 14 Chimn ey 26 25 Bu ildings 204 50 37 For the purpose of this site the easiest way to protect any proposed development Car 35 3 3 7 34 36 9 51 34 13 Park BM 32 12 Focus Centre El 10 3 52 117.9 4m38 11 5 Su b would be to construct12 a floodwall with associated flood gates around the site, 36 32 LB 14 Sta 27 16 46 31 Gr e en S tr ee t 30 PH SCO TT 26 STREE T 25 this could be a stand alone wall or the development could be designed in such 29 LI VIN GS T ON E 28 Volu ntee r Ha ll 10 24 PC BM 111.254 9m 4 St M argaret's PLA CE 19 21 2 23 Mon RC Primary School 8 6 a manner where buildings19 act as the flood protectionTk barrier. Compensatory Ba keho use Bu rn 56 4 6 2 4 M AR K ET Volu ntee r 60 STR E ET 18 Hall Gr e en S tr ee t Tk 16 PH 57 5 8 Gala Wate r Ba keho use 11 storage would have 62to be provided as a requirement, upstream of the proposed Ward Bdy 15 Bakehou se171 1 Bu rn TCB Burn BAN K STR EET 167 228 GA L A 232 14 9 3 PAR K 13 C lu b 5 St M argaret's 1 17 3 230 7 developmentMon site. The Galashiels Flood Prevention Scheme, which is currently 234 RC Pr ima ry 12 10 5 9 School 173 7 FIGURE 11 7 175 ST AND R EW STRE ET 13a 179177 15 1 7 being developed, has highlighted twelve potential compensatory storage/ CR Sh elter 8 19 CR Car Par k 4 1 23 2 5 3 183 3 El 181 29a 27 2 9 Ward Bdy

7 5 7 Su b Sta 244 6 31 washland areas located upstream of Galashiels in agricultural land. The developer 248 2 ST JOH N STRE ET Cornmill Court CORN MIL L SQUA RE 1 17to 19 246 37a 6 8 FB 185 SCO TT S TR EE T 250 10 Mem l LIVIN GS TON E PLA CE 33 187 37b 39 of this site would be required to negotiate with any landowner and fund 189 252 16 1 8 12 258 35 26 14 37 28 The Bothy 22 El Sub Sta 254 41 34 24 20 GALA WATER EXISTING 256 compensatory storage creation on farmland. 45 36 43 32 47 Su rge ry Rul e Libra ry Mon Swim ming Pool Knowe TCB 260 262 264 38 Car Par k Scale1:2,500 Oakwood Counc il Offices Car Par k Wellwood Brae side FLOOD EXTENTS 1to1 6 40 28a To accurately determine the flood risk to this area and any flood protection measures required, a Flood Risk Assessment is required to be provided by the developer.

16 Scottish Borders Council Access & Parking 2.27 Vehicular access to the redevelopment area is taken off Stirling Street. Given the relatively narrow width of the three development sites, one of the challenges in developing the site will be providing internal access and/or circulation space whilst maintaining a positive street frontage, dependant on the nature of proposed development.

2.28 Pedestrian access and movement between the town centre, the T.I and the Gala Water is a key consideration for any development and must inform any proposals from the outset. The standard and detailed alignment will be set by the initial Transport Interchange development.

2.29 Parking provision for the redevelopment area will be considered in the context of the wider town centre parking provision: as a key development site within the town centre and in conjunction with the strategic sustainable transport hub of the Transport Interchange, this wider context provides opportunities for considering parking provision holistically for the three sites, dependant on the proposed end use and taking cognisance of the opportunities for modal shift from cars to alternative forms of transport.

2.30 There are opportunities to enhance existing parking in and around the town centre to compensate for any shortfall in parking, such as provision of a footpath/ cycle path link (including bridge) between the existing Ladhope Vale Car park and the centre of town via Sime Place

Contamination 2.31 The site does not have a recent history of industrial use. However, appropriate investigation works should be carried out to ascertain any possible contaminants present. Given the proximity to the Gala Water any development must demonstrate appropriate measures to contain any potential contamination source-s and ensure surface water run off is managed, all in full consultation with SEPA and the local planning authority.

Scottish Borders Council 17 3 URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK

3.1 Given the strategic importance of this site to the wider area and the Council’s commitment to a quality, contextual addition to the town centre - and reflecting the constraints and policy context previously outlined – the following Development Vision, Spatial Principles and Land use Options have been developed for each of the 3 development parcels. Any proposals for development within this area are required to reflect the principles outlined below.

Fig 12 - Urban Design Framework

18 Scottish Borders Council 1 Douglas Bridge/Transport Interchange redevelopment area

Development Vision 3.2 A new ‘street’ extending the urban fabric of Douglas Bridge across and linking the transport interchange with the heart of the town centre, defined by two development blocks. The new development will draw people from the Transport Interchange, creating an attractive direct link to the town centre. The redevelopment of this area must also seek to open up the Gala waterfront, creating ‘active’ frontage and civic space that positively addresses the riverside. Spatial Principles 3.3 Development of this site is required to form a new section of ‘street’, defined by the built form, providing a direct link from Douglas Bridge to the Transport Interchange entrance. This pedestrian-only ‘street’ could be incorporated as an internal or external route, dependant on the nature of development proposed. The developable area, less the landtake required for this access route is approximately as follows: 1a (west) – 0.04 ha 1b (east) – 0.14 ha

1 Building Line • The new development must deliver a ‘perimeter block’ form, giving careful consideration to the creation of a positive frontage to the new pedestrian route, the Gala Water and to Stirling Street. • Development of the site should achieve overall continuity in the design of the elevations to Gala Water/Stirling Street to ensure a strong civic presence and quality addition to the townscape of central Galashiels. Even if the site is subject to subdivision, development must consider this frontage in its entirety. • Building design should incorporate key corner frontage onto the Douglas Bridge/ Stirling Street entrances to the new ‘street’ (see ‘Focal Points’ below) 2 Storey heights • Development of the site must include buildings no less than 2 storeys and no more than 4 storeys in height (unless in exceptional circumstances) relating to the Transport Interchange. The overall massing must relate to context, with a clear design rationale that is sensitive to the adjacent buildings, waterfront and the adjacent St Andrews Church. 3 Frontage activity • The built form must present ‘active’ frontage at the ground floor to 1) the new pedestrian street, 2) the Gala Water and associated pedestrian access and 3) the Stirling Street frontage, with careful consideration given to creating an animated edge to the adjacent public realm, as appropriate to the end use. • The western area, 1a, is considered in the context of the adjacent Commercial Redevelopment site, therefore frontage to the western boundary is less important as this will be ‘internal’ to the larger streetblock in the longer term. 4 Access & Parking • The ‘new street’ required to link Douglas Bridge with the T.I is to form a primary pedestrian route that stitches the T.I into the heart of the town. As such it is required that this route forms a high quality pedestrian environment, with a quality public realm relating to the new civic spaces associated with the T.I, lined with active frontage that incorporates a range of uses and activities. Scottish Borders Council 19 • The opening up of the Gala Water to pedestrian access is a wider aspiration for the town, in the context of the Black Path realignment. The waterfront to this site presents an immediate opportunity to deliver a section of this. In this context, provision of an attractive pedestrian route defined by sensitively designed built frontage with an appropriate setback is required. • Access for services/ parking provision can be taken off Stirling Street to the site, preferably via a pend access that retains a continuity in the frontage to the street. • Parking levels should preferably be as detailed in Scottish Borders Council’s Standard for Development Roads, the SEStran Parking Standards and the Local Plan and is dependant on the type of development proposed. Given the constrained nature of the site and the central location in the context of sustainable transport opportunities, consideration may be given to relaxation of parking standards provided that this can be demonstrated to be in wider interests of the proper planning of the area and in the context of the sustainable transport opportunities being made available via the T.I • Please note that a Transport Assessment will be required for the redevelopment area, which will assess and resolve any issues relating to the local road network and sustainable travel patterns. 5 Key focal points The development of the site must contribute positively to the existing townscape of Galashiels and the strategically important arrival point of the T.I, serving to ‘stitch’ the two together. There are key focal points that should be expressed in order to enhance this;

1. The corner frontages that address the Gala Water/new pedestrian street, framing views towards the T.I and punctuating the route between the T.I and the town centre 2. The corner frontage(s) that address Stirling Street/new pedestrian street when viewed from the T.I, serving to draw people into the town centre as they emerge from the T.I 3. The riverside pedestrian environment and adjacent elevations, drawing activity to the waterfront and exploiting a currently underutilised asset within the town centre 4. The setting of St Andrews Church, including the built frontage to the Church/ Stirling Street and the pedestrian entrance to the Gala Water walkway 5. The roofscape as viewed from surrounding steep valley sides to the north and south of the town centre Land use 3.4 The site in its current form is deemed appropriate for development of the following uses, either singly or as a mixed use development, provided proposals are in accordance with Policy ED5 on ‘Town Centres’ and Policy H3, with the exceptions outlined in paragraph 2.5: • Office (Class 2, Class 4) • Hotel (Class 7) • Retail (Class 1) • Leisure (Class 11) • Class 3 (Food and Drink)

An appropriate quality and form of development, comprising some/one of these uses, will reflect the strategic importance of this site to the town centre and the integration of the new T.I.

20 Scottish Borders Council 2 Stirling Street/Gala Water redevelopment area

Development Vision 3.5 The site comprises 0.29 hectares of waterfront land that provides a central location for a range of appropriate uses. The vision for the site is to comprise a medium-high density development that responds to the existing townscape and the newly opened Gala Water riverside, creating animated frontage to the river and Stirling Place/Stirling Street, enriching existing town centre activity. Spatial Principles 3.6 Development of this site is required to follow the ‘grain’ of the existing street pattern, relating to the streetblock and creating and attractive edge to Gala Water/ Stirling Place/Stirling Street. Given the dimension of the site (approx. 35m across) this could be achieved in a variety of ways depending on end use. 1 Building Line • The new development must deliver a positive frontage to Gala Water and the associated new riverside walkway • The building line should present a positive frontage to Stirling Street and Stirling Place – dependant on the land use/layout proposed and constrained by the relatively narrow width of the site, this can be achieved through a variety of means either as a perimeter block or an arrangement of linked building groups in the form of courtyards or terraces. • Development of the site should be considered in conjunction with the adjacent development of site 1 to ensure overall continuity in the elevations to Gala Water/Stirling Street, creating a quality addition to the townscape of central Galashiels. Even if the site is subject to subdivision, development must consider this frontage in its entirety. 2 Storey heights • Development of the site must include buildings no less than 2 storeys and no more than 4 storeys in height unless in exceptional circumstances. The overall massing must relate to context, with a clear design rationale that is responds to the wider townscape, waterfront and the T.I/St Andrews Church area. Given the narrow width of the site and the optimum distance between buildings in new development, the ‘perimeter block’ form (figure xx) could only be accommodated by 2 storey buildings – see figures xx and xx for further explanation. Given the historic and townscape context, the site would lend itself well to mews-style 2 - 2.5 storey mixed use development. 3 Frontage activity • Any form of development is required to present an animated ground floor frontage to the street/waterfront to enliven the public realm and ensure a sense of connectedness between the development and its surroundings. Dependant on end use the means of achieving this will range from simple door/window openings (with little/no setback of the building line) for residential properties to shopfront/office/hotel facades. 4 Access & Parking • Access to the site for parking/services can be taken off Stirling Street. Depending on the proposed form of development a single or dual point of access may be appropriate, preferrably via a pend. • Parking should be accommodated within an internal courtyard where possible, containing the cars and retaining a strong building line to the street. • The opening up of the Gala Water to pedestrian access is a wider aspiration for the town, in the context of the Black Path realignment. The waterfront to Scottish Borders Council 21 this site presents an immediate opportunity to deliver a section of this. In this contFocal ext, provision of an attractive pedestrian route defined by sensitively designed built frontage with an appropriate setback is required. • Parking levels should preferably be as detailed in Scottish Borders Council’s Standard for Development Roads, the SEStran Parking Standards and the Local Plan and is dependant on the type of development proposed. • Please note that a Transport Assessment will be required for the redevelopment area, which will assess and resolve any issues relating to the local road network and sustainable travel patterns. 5 Key focal points • The key focal points for the development of this site are: 1. The waterfront edge: the sensitive handling of this in relation to the opportunity of opening up the waterfront as a currently underexploited asset and access route 2. Frontage to Stirling Street: as a backdrop to the town centre and to arrival views into the town from Ladhope Vale (via car) or the reopened Railway line (via train). This elevation must therefore be designed as a coherent whole, regardless of any possible subdivision of development/land use, to ensure a quality addition to the townscape is achieved. 3. The roofscape, in views across/towards the town centre from the surrounding valley sides, has the potential to form a visually prominent Figure 13 - Urban Design Framework extract showing waterfront treatment - see relevant sections, opposite

C A

A B

22 Scottish Borders Council Figure 14 - Indicative Illustrative section A -Area 1: sections through Redevelopment sites and Douglas Bridge their interface with Gala Redevelopment area Water riverside showing waterfront civic Space around Douglas Bridge see waterfront marked on plan:

Illustrative section B - Area 1: Douglas Bridge Redevelopment area showing Black Path see waterfront marked on plan:

Illustrative section C - Area 2: Stirling Street/Gala Water redevelopment area showing Black Path informal walkway see waterfront marked on plan:

Scottish Borders Council 23 feature dependant on the end scale and massing of development. Therefore consideration must be given to the roofscape within the wider townscape. Land use 3.7 This site is allocated as an area of Commercial Redevelopment and as such site is deemed appropriate for development of the following uses, either singly or as a mixed use development, provided proposals are in accordance with Policy H3, with the exceptions outlined in paragraph 2.5: • Office (Class 2, Class 4) • Hotel (Class 7) • Retail (Class 1) • Leisure (Class 11) • Residential (Class 9) • Residential institution (Class 8) • Non residential institution (Class 10) • Class 3 (Food and Drink)

3 Ladhope Vale/Stirling street redevelopment area Development Vision 3.8 The vision for this site seeks a sensitive infill development that works with the remaining built fabric. The former Borders Textile and Engineering Supplies Company on Ladhope Vale is a Category C(s) listed building, while the surrounding built fabric is largely intact. Any new development should seek to retain and reuse these existing buildings, working with the historic fabric, and any deviation from these principles requires a full justification of demonstrable benefit to the wider town centre to be made. The car park site adjacent to Stirling Place represents an infill opportunity that should seek to present a positive frontage to Ladhope Vale, celebrating its corner site and marking the beginning of the streetblock that contains the Transport Interchange. Spatial Principles 1 Building Line • The building line for any new development must seek to continue to relate to the Ladhope Vale/Stirling Street frontage, as the existing fabric does. The corner site at Stirling Place requires frontage to address all 3 street elevations, and as such requires sensitive handling. The building line to the east should be aligned to enclose the ‘street’ and create a positive relationship with the adjacent Transport Interchange civic space. 2 Storey heights • Development of the site must include buildings no less than 2 storeys and no more than 4 storeys in height (unless in exceptional circumstances) relating to the Transport Interchange. The overall massing must relate to context, with a clear design rationale that is sensitive to the adjacent buildings. 3 Frontage activity • Any new development is required to present an animated ground floor frontage to the street, particularly to the new Transport Interchange and the Stirling Place/Ladhope Vale corner frontages. Dependant on end use the means of achieving this will range from simple door/window openings with little/no setback of the building line (for residential properties) to shopfront/office/hotel facades with no setback.

24 Scottish Borders Council 4 Access & Parking • Access to this redevelopment area is restricted by the street geometry and the plot width. • Parking provision will be based on the nature and scale of development 5 Key focal points • The key focal points for the development of this site are: 1. The Stirling Place/Ladhope Vale corner 2. Existing buildings retained on Ladhope Vale/Stirling Street. 3. The frontage to the new Transport Interchange: there is a real opportunity to enhance the setting of the Transport Interchange and provide a sense of enclosure to the civic space around the T.I Land use 3.9 The site in its current form is deemed appropriate for development of the following uses, either singly or as a mixed use development, provided proposals are in accordance with Policy H3 and the exceptions outlined in paragraph 2.5: • Office (Class 2, Class 4) • Hotel (Class 7) • Retail (Class 1) • Leisure (Class 11) • Residential (Class 9) • Residential institution (Class 8) • Non residential institution (Class 10) • Food and Drink (Class 3)

Non-residential redevelopment 3.10 For non-residential uses, (Office, Hotel, Retail, Leisure & Non-residential Institution), the major implications will need to be addressed through appropriate studies. In this and the above policy contexts, proposals incorporating substantive retail development should be accompanied by a retail impact appraisal where appropriate. It is noted that for sites 1, only non-residential uses are deemed appropriate given the strategic importance of the site to the wider town and T.I. Generally, though not exclusively, development contributions will not be sought in respect of proposed new business or industrial developments. Notwithstanding, it is recommended that commercial development proposals are discussed with the Development Negotiator at an early juncture to identify any potential contribution requirements.

Residential development 3.11 While a mixed use development would be preferable and would be consistent with the terms of the Local Plan, where a case has been made, and provided that other requirements of the SPG are met, single residential use may be appropriate for site 2. Upper floor residential may be appropriate in accordance with Policy ED5 on Town Centres, in any of the 3 areas.. Any proposals will be required to satisfy prevailing development contribution policy objectives. The nature and extent of such contribution requirements will reflect the anticipated impacts of development proposals upon service, infrastructure and facility provision. SBC publishes Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to assist with the provisional assessment of contribution liabilities. SBC’s Development Negotiator can also supply provisional assessments of policy implications if provided with relevant information. The early clarification of development contribution policy implications is recommended in all instances. Scottish Borders Council 25 4 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

Energy Efficient Design 4.1 The Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Placemaking & Design sets out guidance on ‘designing out’ energy needs and creating sustainable new development. The SPG requires that new development is as efficient as is practicably possible in the use of natural and man-made resources. These principles apply to the building design, construction and operational energy requirements. This includes considering the site layout (microclimate, building orientation, water handling and use of sustainable resources) and the individual building design. Any new development on the site will have to demonstrate comprehensive integration of these principles to both the site layout and the individual building design.

Renewable Energy 4.2 There is a Scottish Government commitment to increasing the amount of renewable energy generated through appropriately designed buildings (see Scottish Planning Policy and advice). The council has prepared an SPG on Renewable Energy that requires an Energy Statement to be prepared for all new development (see below).

4.3 The Scottish Borders Structure Plan (adopted by Scottish Ministers in 2001) Policy 121 “Small Scale Renewable Energy Technologies” states: “Proposals for community and small scale renewable energy generation (or related techniques) will be encouraged where they have no significant adverse impact on the natural and built environment or amenity of the area.” “All developers, whatever the nature of their proposals, will be encouraged to consider the potential to use materials, designs and technologies which either reduce the impact of energy consumption or reduce the environmental impact of energy generation when formulating proposals.”

4.4 The Local Plan (LP) 2011 Principle 1 (Sustainability) states: “In determining planning applications and preparing development briefs, the Council will have regard to the following sustainability principles which underpin all the Plan’s policies and which developers will be expected to incorporate into their developments…” “… (5) the efficient use of energy and resources, particularly non-renewable sources.”

4.5 The LP policy G1 (5) states: “…in terms of the layout, orientation, construction and energy supply, the development (should) demonstrate that appropriate measures have been taken to maximise the efficient use of energy and resources, including the use of renewable energy and resources and the incorporation of sustainable construction techniques.” Energy statement 4.6 Scottish Borders Council requires an energy statement to be provided for development whose total floorspace is equal to or greater than 500sq. m. This should set out clearly how the building has been designed and will be constructed to minimise energy needs whilst maximising efficiency, as well as detailing any provision made for renewable energy. See Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG): Renewable Energy (2007) for more details. Developers must demonstrate how they comply with these policies. 26 Scottish Borders Council 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

Water Resources and Waste Management 5.1 There may be capacity constraints regarding the water supply network. Current waste water capacity may be adequate. A Drainage Impact Assessment will be required for this site. Consultation will be required with Scottish Water regarding the capacity of foul sewage disposal. Depending on the programme for development, development contributions may be required to ensure appropriate public foul sewer connection is achieved.

An appropriate Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) is required to conform to SEPA, Scottish Water and the local planning authority standards and will require appropriate consultation. Due to the limited space that will be available for the development a sensible approach in relation to SUDS would be underground attenuation tanks. Consultation with SNH will also be necessary.

Archaeology 5.2 Before any new development, the appropriate archaeological surveys and monitoring should be carried out and ’buried’ remains of structures should be expected. As outlined above the study area formerly comprised of predominantly Mill workers housing, built as a planned settlement expansion in the 19th century around Stirling Street as the axial spine. Some of this remains intact on the Ladhope Vale/Stirling Street site.

Ecology 5.3 To meet European and national legalisation, and the requirements of the Council’s Biodiversity policy, new development requires a bat and breeding bird survey where relevant. The Council’s Ecology Officer should be contacted for more information (see contacts below). The appropriate design of bat boxes, bat bricks and bird boxes, including for swifts, needs to be incorporated into the design of the new buildings. Appropriate mitigation measures will be required to avoid significant adverse effects on the integrity of the Gala Water as part of the River Tweed SAC (Special Area of Conservation). Otter and bat surveys of river bank and lade structures may also be required. Opportunities for enhancement of the riparian habitat through measures such as planting of appropriate species (e.g. grey willow, common alder, downy birch as appropriate) must also be considered to ensure any new development contributes positively to the wider habitat network and environmental quality of the town centre.

Pollution Remediation / Demolition 5.4 The site may contain contamination from historic industrial land uses. To ascertain the nature and extents of this a detailed survey will be required in advance of preparing any development proposals. The specific manner in which SEPA requires its Pollution Prevention Guidelines to be implemented on this site will need to be observed.

Scottish Borders Council 27 Sustainability 5.5 Any proposed development should incorporate provision for waste and recycling facilities in the layout and design of the site in accordance with PAN 63 Waste Management Planning.

The minimisation of waste during the construction phase should also be outlined as part of development proposals, demonstrating that: • Construction practices minimise the use of raw materials and maximise the use of secondary aggregates and recycled or renewable materials;

• Waste material generated by the proposal is reduced and re-used or recycled where appropriate on site (for example in landscaping not resulting in excessive earth moulding and mounding). There may be opportunities to utilise surplus soils for sustainable purposes elsewhere.

6 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

6.1 Depending upon the nature and extent of development proposals, contributions towards the expansion of existing or new infrastructure, services and facilities may be required. SBC publishes Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) enabling stakeholders to provisionally assess contribution requirements. There are specific SPGs for: • Development Contributions • Affordable Housing • Green Space

6.2 The Development Negotiator will also provide additional support to help identify and quantify development contribution policy implications.

At the time of writing, it is envisaged that contributions may be sought towards: • Affordable Housing – 25% on-site provision • Borders Railway Line Re-instatement • St Peter’s Primary School – new school rate • Galashiels Academy – extension rate • Central Borders Road Traffic Infrastructure • Open Space – potential on-site provision or contribution via a commuted sum to off-site provision • Play Facility – potential on-site provision or contribution via a commuted sum to off-site provision

28 Scottish Borders Council APPENDIX POLICY CONTEXT

Scottish Government Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan • Designing Places (2011) • Designing Streets • Policy G1: Quality Standards for New Development • Scottish Planning Policy • Planning Advice Note (PAN) 33: Development of • Policy G4: Flooding Contaminated Land • Policy G5: Developer Contributions • PAN 42: Archaeology - the Planning Process and • Policy BE2: Archaeological Sites & Ancient Scheduled Monument Procedures Monuments • PAN 45 Annex 1: Planning for Micro Renewables • Policy NE3: Local Biodiversity • PAN 51: Planning, Environmental Protection and • Policy NE4: Trees, Woodlands & Hedgerows Regulation • Policy NE5: Development Affecting the Water • PAN 52: Planning in Small Towns Environment • PAN 61: Planning & Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems • Policy H1: Affordable Housing • PAN 65: Planning and Open Space • Policy Inf2: Protection of Access Routes • PAN 67: Housing Quality • Policy Inf3: Road Adoption Standards • PAN 68: Design Statements • Policy Inf4: Parking Standards • PAN 77: Designing Safer Places • Policy Inf6: Sustainable Urban Drainage • PAN 78: Inclusive Design • Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Placemaking • PAN 2/2010: Affordable Housing & Housing Land Audits & Design Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018 • SPG Affordable Housing • Policy N16: Archaeological Evaluation, Preservation & • SPG Developer Contributions Recording • SPG Biodiversity • Policy N20: Design • SPG Designing Out Crime in the Scottish Borders • Policy H7: Affordable & Special Needs Housing – • SPG Renewable Energy Proportion • SEPA Pollution Prevention Guidelines • Policy H8: Affordable & Special Needs Housing – • PPG 1 General guide to the prevention of pollution Assessment • Policy C6: Open Space • Trees/Landscape BS Standard 5837: 2005 ‘Trees in • Policy C7: Play Areas Relation to Construction’ (Arboricultural Association • Policy C8: Access Network 2005). • Policy I5: Cycling • Policy I7: Walking • Policy I11: Parking Provision in New Development • Policy I15: Flood Risk Areas

Scottish Borders Council 29 CONTACTS WITHIN SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

• John Hayward (Development Standards Manager), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 825068 E-mail: [email protected]

• Carlos Clarke (Principal Planning Officer), Area office, Albert Place, Galashiels, TD1 3DL • Tel: 01835 826735 E-mail: [email protected]

• Martin Wanless (Plans & Research Manager), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 825063 E-mail: [email protected]

• Andy Tharme (Ecology Officer), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 826514 E-mail: [email protected]

• Jon Bowie (Development Negotiator) Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 824000 E-mail: [email protected]

• Derek Inglis (Principal Roads Planning Officer), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 826639 E-mail: [email protected]

• Jason Hedley (Neighbourhood Services Manager), Council Headquarters, Scott House (A), Sprouston Road Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 824000 E-mail: [email protected]

• Julie Rankine (Waste Strategy Manager), Council Headquarters - Scott House (A), Sprouston Road, Newtown St Boswells TD6 0QD • Tel: 01835 825111 Ext 6629 Email: [email protected]

• Andy Millar (Built & Natural Heritage Manager), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 825062 E-mail: [email protected]

• Carol Cooke (Urban Designer), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 825060 E-mail: [email protected]

• Mark Douglas (Principal Officer Built Heritage & Biodiversity), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 826563 E-mail: [email protected]

• David Green (Flood Protection Programme Manager) Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 825180 E-mail: [email protected]

• Annette Patterson (Asset Development Manager), Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA • Tel: 01835 824000 E-mail: [email protected]

30 Scottish Borders Council APPENDIX Galashiels Transport Interchange Initial Design Development March 2012

Scottish Borders Council 31 G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e I n i t i a l d e s i g n d e v e l o p m e n t

2 6 M a r c h 2 0 1 2 G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e G a l a s h i e l s T r a n s p o r t I n t e r c h a n g e ITEM NO 8

PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS

Briefing Note by Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE

31st May 2012

1 PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of this briefing note is to give details of Appeals and Local Reviews which have been received and determined during the last month.

2 APPEALS RECEIVED

2.1 Planning Applications

Nil

2.2 Enforcements

Nil

3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

3.1 Planning Applications

3.1.1 Reference: 11/00595/LBCNN Proposal: Erection of boundary fence and entrance gates (retrospective) Site: Inch Bonny, Newcastle Road, Jedburgh Appellant: Mr Alan Duthie

Reasons for Refusal: The existing fence, due to its position, length, design, height and materials would be contrary to policy N17 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001 - 2018 and policy BE1 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 in that it adversely affects the character and setting of the Listed Building.

Grounds of Appeal: 1. Scottish Planning Policy and Historic Scotland policy both recognise the need to balance conservation concerns with change and functionality. This should be particularly considered given the Category C Listing of the subjects, i.e. they are not of regional or national importance. 2. The previous boundary was of poor quality, damaged hedgerow and low-level fencing which had become inadequate as a secure, safe enclosure given the increase in heavy traffic on the A68 in recent decades; it should be noted that Inchbonny has remained largely un-modernised for many decades and the applicant is investing in Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 1 sympathetically bringing the property up to standard. 3. Given there was no historical enclosure type to re-create, the applicant has utilised natural and high quality materials in the form of treated wood with coping, black ironmongery and additional tree planting to create a contemporary but connected boundary in relation to the house and stables, which tapers down to adjoining field boundaries to the north and south. 4. Views to Inchbonny House from the southern approach are retained by virtue of the bending road and position of the house, i.e. the enclosure of the property is not appreciated until the driver is almost beside the property with the majority of the south-facing elevation still clearly visible (i.e. the particular features of note). 5. The suggested alternative of setting the fence back is not feasible due to a drop in levels, whilst also leaving a gap between a ‘secondary’ fence and any new planting that would collect litter from A68 traffic; also the fence would, by virtue of being closer to the house, have a greater impact on the Listed building from within the plot. 6. Significantly, the Council’s Heritage & Design Officer notes that he is unsure whether Listed Building consent is required as this would only be the case if any of the listed structures were to be directly affected by the works; the only specific issue he refers to is if the entrance gates were replacing original or significant gates which is not the case. 7. The height (up to 1.85m) of the fence at its highest point meets with the basic requirements advised by the British Horse Society in terms of keeping of stallions; safety for the horses and A68 road users is of paramount importance. 8. Should no adequate enclosure be allowed, this would not respect the functional use of the property and therefore its very character and historic quality, i.e. the continued functional use for stables and paddock would be unviable.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

Reporter’s Decision: Sustained

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Philip G Hutchinson, granted listed building consent unconditionally. The reporter concluded that the council has recently confirmed, unambiguously, its view that the effect of the fence (with minor adjustments at access points) on the setting of this listed building is acceptable overall. In this light the council’s continued resistance of this current appeal has become untenable.

3.1.2 Reference: 11/00677/FUL Proposal: Erection of 82 dwellinghouses incorporating affordable housing Site: Land East & North East of 37 St Andrew's Close, West Linton Appellant: Springfield Properties Plc

Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy N20 of the Consolidated Structure Plan 2011-18, Policies G1 and H3 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and the provisions of Supplementary Planning Guidance on Placemaking and Design and the Robinsland Planning Brief 2008 in that: (a) it fails to meet the required design standards to produce a high quality and attractive residential expansion of West Linton that is fully integrated into the village displaying necessary elements of local distinctiveness and identity. (b) it does not provide sufficient justification for the removal of the existing traditional stone buildings at Robinsland Farm or why, in the event of their removal, the proposed development can not seek to mitigate such loss by respecting the footprint of the buildings in the design and/or reusing the stone material on site. If approved, the development would be harmful to Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 2 the appearance and character of his part of West Linton. 2. The proposed development is contrary to Policy H9 of the consolidated Structure Plan 2001-2018, Policies G5 and H1 of the consolidated Scottish Borders Local Plan 2011 and the provisions of Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing 2007 and Supplementary Planning Guidance on Development Contributions 2011 in that the applicant has withdrawn the proposal to provide 25% affordable housing units on the site. The removal of the affordable housing from the application means that the development will fail to provide the range and choice of housing required to meet local housing need in the Northern Housing Market Area.

Grounds of Appeal: 1. Whether the design, siting and layout related to the proposals are acceptable. 2. Whether the loss of the steading buildings is acceptable. 3. Whether there is a requirement for the provision of affordable housing as part of the proposed development.

Method of Appeal: Written Representations

Reporter’s Decision: Dismissed

Summary of Decision: The Reporter, Philip G Hutchinson, asked the following questions – 1. Should the stone steadings be converted or reconstructed as part of the scheme? 2. Is the balance of the layout - such as the ‘arrival square’ - acceptable? 3. Is the deletion of the originally proposed affordable housing justified? All three questions he answered in the negative. He also carefully considered all the other matters which had been raised, including the extensive but less central policy background which had been mentioned, but they did not outweigh those considerations on which his decision was based.

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 21st May 2012.

5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED

5.1 Reference: 11/01392/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind turbine 54 metres high to tip & associated infrastructure Site: Land South West of Old Farmhouse Townhead, Cockburnspath Appellant: Windberry Energy Operations Ltd

Reason for Refusal: 1. The development would conflict with Policies N20, I19 and I20 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018, and Policies G1, EP2, EP4 and D4 of the Consolidated 2011 Scottish Borders Local Plan, in that: - the proposed development would harm the local landscape setting by virtue of its design, location, scale, prominence in the landscape and cumulation with other consented development, in particular at Drone Hill (Coldingham Moor) - the proposed development would adversely affect the setting of the Coastal Area of Great Landscape Value. Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 3 2. The development would conflict with Policies I19 and I20 of the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 2001-2018, and Policies G1, H2 and D4 of the Consolidated 2011 Scottish Borders Local Plan, in that: - having regard to the siting and scale of the turbine, the proposed development would conflict with the private amenity of nearby occupiers of property outwith the control of the developer or landowner of the application site, due to potential for shadow flicker to occur and due to the relatively short distance between the proposed turbine and the curtilage of the dwelling (known as Old Townhead Farmhouse).

5.2 Reference: 11/01531/FUL Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse with associated access & landscaping Site: Land North West of Leadervale House, Earlston Appellant: Mr Robert Younger

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is contrary in principle to Approved Structure Plan Policies H7 and H8 and Adopted Local Plan Policy D2, in that (i) it is not well-related to an existing rural building group and (ii) no economic requirement for a new dwellinghouse in this location has been presented in support of the application.

5.3 Reference: 11/01562/PPP Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Land South West of Lethem Lodge, Camptown, Jedburgh Appellant: Mr Tim Butt

Reason for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to Policy H7 Scottish Borders Consolidated Structure Plan 2001- 2018, Policies NE4 and D2 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan Adopted 2011 and the Supplementary Planning Guidance - New Housing in the Borders Countryside December 2008 in that the proposed development would represent an inappropriate addition to the existing building group at Lethem and would have an adverse effect the landscape and amenity of the surrounding area and woodland preservation and would not respect the character of the building group.

5.4 Reference: 11/01656/PPP Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse (extension to previous consent 08/01021/OUT) Site: Site East of Friarshaugh, Gattonside Appellant: E M D Cameron (Lady Abernethy)

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would conflict with Policy EP3 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and, in doing so, would comprise development within the undeveloped surroundings of the existing building group, detracting from its setting within the landscape and the contribution of this landscape setting to the Countryside Around Town’s designation. Material considerations, including the previous planning history of the site, do not outweigh the presumption in favour of the development plan in this case.

Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 4 6 REVIEWS DETERMINED

6.1 Reference: 11/00789/PPP Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse and livery stable building Site: Land East of Kippilaw Hill, Melrose Appellant: Mr and Mrs I MacDonald

Reason for Refusal: The proposed development would be contrary to Policies H7 and H8 of Consolidated Structure Plan 2009 and Policy D2 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, in that the proposed development would not relate sympathetically to an existing building group in a manner which is compliant with development plan policies and New Housing in the Borders Countryside Guidance Note 2008 and that, while the proposed business requires a rural location, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a dwellinghouse is required to serve the business and that the business is sufficiently sustainable to support a permanent dwellinghouse.

Method of Review: Review of Papers

Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld (Terms of Refusal Varied).

7 REVIEWS OUTSTANDING

7.1 There remained 1 review previously reported on which a decision is still awaited when this report was prepared on 21st May 2012. This relates to the site at:

x Stonefield Place, Hawick x

Approved by

Brian Frater Head of Planning & Regulatory Services

Signature …………………………………..

Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Laura Marshall Administrative Assistant 01835 824000 Ext 5409

Background Papers: None. Previous Minute Reference: None.

Contact us at Environment & Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA. Tel. No. 01835 825431 Fax No. 01835 825071 Email: [email protected]

Planning & Building Standards Committee 31st May 2012 5