ITEM 6 PLANNING APPEALS & REVIEWS Briefing Note by Service Director Regulatory Services PLANNING AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMITTEE 4th August 2014 1 PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this briefing note is to give details of Appeals and Local Reviews which have been received and determined during the last month. 2 APPEALS RECEIVED 2.1 Planning Applications 2.1.1 Reference: 14/00106/MOD75 Proposal: Modification of planning obligation pursuant to planning permission 06/01404/FUL Site: Land South of Meigle Row, Clovenfords Appellant: Barratt East Scotland Reasons for Refusal: SBC policy provision exists to enable development contributions to be varied or waived, if transparently demonstrated, to make an otherwise viable project unviable. This reflects Circular 3/2012. However, this exception policy may be implemented in response to site specific abnormals or exceptional costs and to enable the commencement of development. It is not designed to indemnify applicants from deteriorating industry-wide market fluctuations nor costs inherent in the character and nature of the site, but which had not been adequately quantified pre-purchase by the developer. Grounds of Appeal: The Appellant believes that some of the developer contributions are no longer necessary, and that the viability of the development (Vinery Park) is under threat from significant abnormal costs. They state that the Development Plan identifies affordable housing, education and Waverley Line reinstatement as the infrastructure priorities. The Appellant agrees and is asking that its financial contributions (planning obligations) are spent on these. Rather than go through recalculating affordable housing values etc, the Appellant suggests a commuted sum. SBHA has an active new build programme which this can be paid into. Although a replacement for Caddonfoot Primary School has been constructed and opened, the Appellant still agrees to make contributions towards catchment education provision. A reduced amount still means that the developer is contributing to both an extension for Galashiels Academy and money for future expansion at Clovenfords Primary School. Section 39 of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act 2006 allows the Council Planning & Building Standards Committee 4th August 2014 1 to require the payment of developer contributions towards re-construction of the Railway, which the Appellant doesn’t dispute. Method of Appeal: Written Representations 2.2 Enforcements 2.2.1 Reference: 14/00056/UNDEV Proposal: Pigeon loft trailer has been sited on land without planning permission Site: Stonecroft, Lamberton Appellant: William Holland Reason for Notice: Unauthorised Development Grounds of Appeal: The parking of an agricultural trailer for a temporary period on agricultural land does not require Planning consent and therefore it is irrational to demand that the vehicle should be removed. Method of Appeal: Written Representations 3 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED 3.1 Planning Applications Nil 3.2 Enforcements Nil 4 APPEALS OUTSTANDING 4.1 There remained 1 appeal previously reported on which a decision was still awaited when this report was prepared on 18th July 2014. This relates to a site at: x Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk x 5 REVIEW REQUESTS RECEIVED 5.1 Reference: 13/00095/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind turbine 48m high to tip Site: Land North West of Addinston Farm, Lauder Appellant: Mrs Kirsteen McKerrow Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposed turbine would be contrary to Policies G1 and D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that it would have a significant adverse effect on local landscape character, including that designated for conservation within the Lammermuir Hills Special Landscape Area, as a consequence of its siting resulting in significant visibility across a range of sensitive receptors, including not only the Special Landscape Area in which it would be sited, but also the A68, the A697, Carfraemill, Oxton, and Addinston Hillfort. These unacceptable effects would not be off-set by any benefit to the wider economy and environment. 2. The proposed development would be contrary to Policies Planning & Building Standards Committee 4th August 2014 2 G1 and D4 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 in that it would have a significant adverse cumulative landscape and visual impact as a consequence of the discordance that would result from an isolated wind turbine of notably different design and operation being sited in a prominent and highly visible location within the vicinity of a strategically important transport corridor (A68 and A697), along which drivers and their passengers presently encounter sequentially over a relatively short duration and distance of travel, and occasionally in superimposition, a number of wind energy developments that are uniformly characterised by groups of three-bladed turbines. These unacceptable effects would not be off-set by any benefit to the wider economy and environment. 5.2 Reference: 14/00115/FUL Proposal: Erection of 2 No wind turbines 34.5m high to tip and associated infrastructure Site: Land North West of Alemill Farm, Eyemouth Appellant: Fine Energy Ltd Reason for Refusal: The proposed development is found to be contrary to Policies D4 and G1 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011, in that the turbines would be widely visible within the surrounding area. The scale of the turbines would introduce dominant features in the landscape which breach the sky line and result in having a significant adverse impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area, particularly when viewed from Cairncross. 5.3 Reference: 14/00215/FUL Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse Site: Garden Ground of the Ramparts, Cockburnspath Appellant: Mr & Mrs David Haddow Reasons for Refusal: The proposal is contrary to Policies D2, G1 and EP2 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and SPG notes on New Housing in the Borders Countryside 2008 and Placemaking and Design 2010, in that the proposed development site does not relate well to the scale and spacing of neighbouring sites within the building group. The resultant design of the proposal is of a mass and scale which represents overdevelopment of the site and results in an inappropriate form of development within the rural landscape which would detract from the setting of the Berwickshire Coast SLA 5.4 Reference: 14/00236/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind turbine up to 102m high to tip and ancillary development Site: Land East and South East of Thorneydykes Farm, Westruther Appellant: R H Tait & Sons Reasons for Refusal: 1. The proposed development would, both per se and in culmination with the extant wind turbine at Bassendeanhill Farm, have a significant adverse effect on local landscape character as a consequence of its scale and, in particular, the height of the turbine, resulting in significant visibility across a range of sensitive receptors, including the A697, the A6089, the B6456, the settlement at Westruther, the large building group at Houndslow and the scheduled site of ‘Houndslow,settlement 600m NW of’’. From these and numerous other vantages including smaller building groups and local roads within two to three kilometres, the proposed development would appear unacceptably Planning & Building Standards Committee 4th August 2014 3 dominant in the landscape. Moreover, it would unacceptably extend wind energy development further into a medium-scaled, settled landscape without sufficient mitigation to address the concern that this landscape cannot accommodate this scale of wind energy development. These unacceptable effects would not be off-set by any benefit to the wider economy and environment, and it is considered, would be contrary to Policies D4 and G1 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. 2. The proposed development would adversely affect the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument of "Houndslow,settlement 600m NW of" and impact to an unacceptable degree upon the visitors' experience and interpretation of the aforementioned cultural heritage resource without this unacceptable effect being off-set by any benefit to the wider economy and environment. It is therefore considered that this impact would be contrary to Policies BE2, D4 and G1 of the Consolidated Local Plan 2011. 6 REVIEWS DETERMINED 6.1 Reference: 12/01333/FUL Proposal: Erection of 2 No Wind Turbines 45m High to Tip, Access Track, Substation and Electrical Kiosks Site: Land South West of Whiterig Farm, Eyemouth Appellant: Tellus Energy Ltd Reason for Refusal: It is considered that the proposal would be contrary to policy D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011, the Council’s SPG Renewable Energy (2007), Wind Energy (2011), and SPG Landscape and Visual Guidance on Single and Small Groups of Wind Turbines in Berwickshire (2013), in that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the open rolling landscape to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area, in particular when viewed from key sensitive receptors to include the A1, Habchester Fort, and residential properties in the surrounding area in particular the Moorpark group. Method of Review: Review of Papers & Site Visit Review Decision: Decision of Appointed Officer Upheld 6.2 Reference: 13/01361/FUL Proposal: Erection of wind turbine 41.8m high to tip and formation of new access track Site: Land North West of Helenslea, Primsidemill, Yetholm Appellant: Mr James Wauchope Reason for Refusal: The proposal would be contrary to Policies G1 and D4 of the Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Wind Energy 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Local Landscape Designations 2012. The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon the local landscape character, due to the height of the proposed turbine and the prominence of the site within the local landscape, which would result in an overbearing and visually intrusive structure that would be significantly visible across a range of sensitive receptors, including the St Cuthbert’s Way, the SSSI, the Cheviot Foothills Special Landscape Area and to a lesser extent, the Pennine Way. It is not considered that these concerns would be outweighed by any social or economic benefit to be derived from the location and operation of the proposed turbine.