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 1 September at 10.00 a.m. ------------------ Present: - Councillors R. Smith (Chairman), M. Ballantyne, J. Brown, I. Gillespie, J. Fullarton, D. Moffat, S. Mountford, B. White. Apologies:- Councillors S. Bell. In Attendance:- Development Standards Manager, Major Applications, Review and Enforcement Manager, Principal Roads Planning Officer, Chief Legal Officer, Democratic Services Team Leader, Democratic Services Officer (F Henderson). MINUTE 1. There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting held on 4 August 214. DECISION APPROVED for signature by the Chairman. APPLICATIONS 2. There had been circulated copies of reports by the Service Director Regulatory Services on applications for planning permission requiring consideration by the Committee. DECISION DEALT with the applications as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute. PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2014/15 3. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Service Director Regulatory Services which proposed that members approve the Planning Performance Framework 2014/15, attached as Appendix A to the report, for submission to Scottish Ministers. The report explained that the Planning Performance Framework (PPF) provided a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to performance assessment in the Planning Service and allowed for a more holistic approach to service delivery and improvement to be reported to Scottish Ministers, the Council and the public. The copy of the PPF included in Appendix A to the report was in word format and on agreement of its content, a publication version would be prepared by the Graphics Section for submission to Scottish Ministers. DECISION AGREED that Planning and Building Standards Committee approve the Planning Performance Framework as detailed in Appendix A to this report. PLANNING REFORM AND GOVERNANCE OF THE PLANNING SYSTEM REVIEW 4. With reference the paragraph 7 of the Minute of 6 May 2014, there had been circulated copies of a report by the Service Director Regulatory Services which updated Members on the progress made on items 1 to 5 contained in the Appendix to the report on “Planning Reform and Governance of the Planning System Review. The identified items concerned the operation and quality of documentation presented to Members at the Local Review Body and the report had been prepared in accordance with the decision of Planning and Building Standards Committee that the revised arrangements for managing documentation at the 1 Local Review Body be reviewed after a period of four months. Members were pleased to note progress to date but asked that further work be carried out to identify, where possible, duplicate information. DECISION (a) NOTED the improvements already implemented in paragraph 3.1. (b) APPROVED the implementation of electronic committee papers for the Local Review Body, on the successful conclusion of the corporate study. APPEALS AND REVIEWS 5. There had been circulated copies of a report by the Service Director Regulatory Services on Appeals to the Scottish Ministers and Local Reviews. DECISION NOTED that:- (a) an Appeal had been received in respect of the use of Certificate of Lawful Existing Use as Class 5 at Border Coachcraft, Eastgate, Denholm, Hawick - 14/00546/CLEU; (b) Scottish Ministers had dismissed the appeal in respect of the erection of wind energy development comprising of eight turbines 125m high to tip and associated infrastructure including: hardstandings, control building, compound and transformers, borrow pit, access tracks and temporary construction compounds on land South West of Whitslade (Barrel Law), Selkirk; (c) there remained two appeals outstanding in respect of:- x Stonecroft, Lamberton x Meigle Row, Clovenfords (d) review requests had been received in respect of the following:- (i) Erection of dwellinghouse, detached garage/stable block and formation of sand paddock (change of house type previously approved under consent 11/01093/FUL) on Site 3 Rhymers Tower Land at Huntshaw Farm, Huntshaw Road, Earlston - 14/00467/FUL; (ii) Replacement windows at Borthwick House, Main Street, West Linton - 14/00478/FUL; (iii) Change of use from retail (Class 1) to solicitors office (Class 2) at Shop, 84 Channel Street, Galashiels – 14/00585/FUL; (iv) Erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage at Land South of Tumble Tud, Highridgehall, Kelso - 14/00589/FUL (e) the Local Review Body had upheld the Appointed Officers decision to refuse the following:- (i) Erection of dwellinghouse on Garden Ground of the Ramparts, Cockburnspath - 14/00215/FUL (ii) Erection of wind turbine up to 102m high to tip and ancillary development on Land East and south East of Thorneydykes Farm, Westruther - 14/00236/FUL 2 (iii) Erection of dwellinghouse and detached garage at Land South of Tumble Tud, Highridgehall, Kelso - 14/00589/FUL (f) there were two appeals outstanding in respect of :- x Addinston Farm, Lauder x Alemill Farm, Eyemouth The meeting concluded at 1.05 p.m. 3 APPENDIX I APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION Reference Nature of Development Location 14/00623/FUL Removal of condition No.17 from Blythbank Farm West Linton planning consent 06/02193/FUL to remove the physical barrier for access to Hamiltonhall Steading Decision: Approved contrary to officer recommendation subject to a new planning condition requiring that the operation of the barrier be controlled by a robust scheme of operation. Officers were granted delegated powers to determine the precise wording of the condition and the scheme of operation. VOTE Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Moffat, moved refusal of the application as per the recommendation contained in the report. Councillor Ballantyne, Seconded by Councillor Mountford, moved as an amendment that Condition 17 be removed and replaced with a new condition requiring the applicant to adhere to a robust scheme of operation, the wording of such scheme to be agreed by officers. On a show of hands Members voted as follows:- Motion - 2 votes Amendment - 5 votes The Amendment was accordingly carried. Councillor Brown moved that the type of barrier be replaced with one which only prevented use of the access by large lorries but received no seconder. NOTE Councillor Bhatia, spoke against the application Mr David Dickson and Mr Jim Pratt, spoke against the application 14/00169/S36 Wind farm comprising 27 no. wind Land North Of Nether turbines, associated access tracks, Monynut Cottage (Aikengall crane hardstandings, 1 no. 2A) meteorological mast, substation, Cockburnspath construction compound and 5 no. Scottish Borders borrow pits Decision: That the Council indicate to Scottish Government that it objected to the application for a 27-turbine wind farm on the Aikengall 2A site. The 3 no. reasons for the objections are as follows: Reason for Objection 1: Impact on Landscape Character: The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1 and D4 of the Scottish Borders 2011 Local Plan, and Policy 10 of the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SESplan) in that the development would unacceptably harm the Borders landscape due to: (i) the prominence of the application site and the ability of the turbines and infrastructure to be seen as highly prominent and poorly contained new components of the landscape from a wide area due to their siting beyond the containment limitations of the receiving landscape (upland edges), as represented by viewpoints and ZTV information within the ES (ii) the unacceptable cumulative effects of the turbines and infrastructure with other consented or operational development at Crystal Rig, Aikengall, Hoprigshiels and Ferneylea resulting from the coalescence of schemes over different phases of landscape, between which is an absence 4 of adequate separation which, together with a lack of good topographical containment, would cause the underlying landscape character to be overwhelmed; and (iii) the adverse effect of the development on the underlying landscape resulting from its disharmonious appearance, dominance, massing, spread and layout design, and its combined relationship with other wind energy development with which it has overriding and harmful cumulative landscape effects, most noticeably with earlier phases of the Aikengall array but also with Crystal Rig. Reason for Objection 2: Adverse Visual and Amenity Impacts: The proposed development would be contrary to Policies G1, D4, BE2 and H2 of the Scottish Borders 2011 Local Plan, and Policy 10 of the South-East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SESplan) in that the development would give rise to unacceptable visual and residential amenity effects due to: (i) the high level of visibility of the development and lack of good topographical containment resulting from some of the turbines and infrastructure creeping over the upland edges and down the outer upland slopes (ii) the messy, unbalanced, cluttered and dominant appearance of the development due to the design layout, in particular due to increased overlapping, overtopping and intensification of the turbines within the visual envelope of the development (iii) the adverse effects experienced by users of the public path network and areas generally used for recreational access (iv) the potentially unacceptable level of visual impact caused by the dominance of the turbines in relation to a number of private residences, in particular