Peebles Civic Society

In the course of its monthly business agenda Peebles Civic Society Committee attends to many important and current  issues. When these matters are discussed and decisions are made it may result in necessary correspondence being sent to Officers of the Council and other persons to advance such matters. Following are some current items of key correspondence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter sent on 10 February 2012

Ms Jane Webster                                                                               

Legal and Democratic Services

Scottish Borders Council

Council Headquarters

Newtown St. Boswells

Melrose  TD6 0SA

Dear Madam,

Scottish Borders Council:  Proposed Traffic Regulation Order,

Eastgate, Peebles

We thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this traffic regulation order with the revised proposals for amending the parking along the Eastgate.

Whilst we welcome the proposal to increase the waiting stands for taxis we have a number of concerns that we feel that you should take into account.  The proposed amendments to the Eastgate and Innerleithen Road to the east of Tweedbrae have a number of shortcomings that we feel would outweigh the proposal for increased parking along this part of the road:

·         Because of the acute angle of the junction of Tweed Brae and Eastgate looking east, visibility for drivers exiting from Tweed Brae is already limited, and the fact that there are no parked cars on the south side of the main road at present means that the distant stream of traffic can at least be seen over the pavement and wall.

·         At present all the parking spaces are along one side of the road.  However, the proposal to create the new taxi spaces on the south side opposite the McCarthy & Stone entrance, while retaining the existing parking spaces outside Osso, would create a pinch point and an awkward line for traffic to follow.  For part of the road journey traffic would follow the north pavement line and then the driving line moves over to the south side whereas at present traffic simply follows the south pavement line for the entire length of this part of the  journey from the roundabout to the junction with Tweedbrae.

·         We would welcome the additional parking and taxi spaces, and locating these on the south side of the road would improve visibility for residents on the north side leaving their private drives.  However, moving the parking to the south side causes visibility problems for traffic exiting from the busier public car park at the Park Hotel, while pedestrians on the residential side of the street will have traffic passing closer to the pavement without the protection of the parked cars.

• The proposed waiting area opposite the petrol station will surely cause problems.  At present vehicles turning into it leave a lane on the left for traffic to pass, but that will be blocked by parked vehicles on the south side of the road.
• We are concerned about the potential visual impact of the proposed row of parked cars and vans on the south side of the road, against the backdrop of the stunning view to the south that greets visitors on this approach to the town centre.  We feel that this would compromise the very pleasant approach to and exit from the Eastgate, one of the qualities that makes Peebles so attractive.

 We therefore consider that the problems that we list above outweigh the advantages gained by the proposals.

 Yours faithfully,

 Gerard Bakker, Hon Sec Peebles Civic Society.

Copy;   Peebles Councillors and Community Council.

 Letter to Peeblesshire News sent on 22 June 2011.

Sir,

 I refer to the report which appeared in the 17 June of your paper, under the heading “Rail Option receives bridge support”. In that report you say that the favoured option of  Peebles Civic Society was route 4, Cavalry Park Central. While that is essentially correct, it is taken out of context. In my letter published in your newspaper on 20 May I was at pains to point out that the Society was of the opinion that no firm decision regarding a second bridge should be made until  a Peebles Master Plan showing how the town will accommodate future growth has been prepared and the public consulted on its conclusions.

The report which appears to be based on information provided by Scottish Borders Council, quotes a number of statistics which gives a misleading impression of the outcome. In the first instance the so called “public consultation”, was in fact a presentation summarising the Peebles Transport Study carried out by MVA Consultants and further information provided by the Council’s Planning Department, indicating possible future areas of development. The event which took place on 30/31 March was advertised as “Peebles Development Exhibition”, without any  reference to “consultation”.  In addition  there was  no formal notification inviting public comment. In practice those who attended the presentation were invited to complete a questionnaire which was entirely focussed on the issue of the second bridge and made no provision for comment on wider issues, not least of which is the sustainable expansion of the town.

A number of statistics were quoted in the report. Like all statistics, these need to be viewed objectively, otherwise they can be misleading. In this instance it would appear that there has been a “spinning” of the results. It is our understanding that some 175 responses were received and that with the exception of statuary bodies and others such as ourselves, the remainder, numbering 169 comprised completed questionnaires handed out at the exhibition. Those represent less than 3% of the voting population of Peebles, while the number indicating a preference for a second bridge, represents less than 2%. Furthermore to describe the responses in favour of Route 1 as “The popular” route is stretching credibility. There were 160 responses to the question which asked which of the six options would be best. 37 opted for Route 1, which represents less than 1% of the electorate.

It remains the view of the Civic Society that there should be a much fuller debate of the issues involved. This should not await the outcome of the Council’s consideration of the situation later in the summer, but there should be an opportunity for the public to be better informed of the issues involved and to discuss the consequences. The Society remains willing to host an appropriate forum.

May I again draw your readers attention to the response of the Society which can be found on our website at www.peeblescivicsociety.co.uk.

I am etc

Ronald Ireland, Chairman

Letter to the Peeblesshire News Editor on 20 May 2011.

Peebles Second Bridge Study

Sir,

I refer to the report published in last week’s Peeblesshire News that the Peebles Community Council has given its backing to the proposal for a second bridge.

The Peebles Civic Society sees one of its primary functions as monitoring and influencing the whole question of future development of Peebles and is of the opinion that the question of a second bridge and its consequences lies at the heart of any debate about expansion and development of the town. The Society has submitted a detailed response to the Study carried out on behalf of Scottish Borders Council by MVA Consultants and while we support the Community Council’s call for further consultation, we do take issue with the conclusions reached by them.

At the present time proposals for future development suggest that this will take place south of the river. As the Tweed Bridge is undoubtedly approaching capacity, the scale of development proposed makes a second bridge inevitable. However, in the view of the Society the question of a second bridge should not be considered in isolation, but must be part of a much wider study. Peebles has now reached the stage where it is imperative that a fully detailed Master Plan for the whole town is produced to demonstrate how the town will be able to accommodate the increase in housing  and associated traffic, health provision, schooling (both primary and secondary) and services infrastructure (water, drainage and power). Only after this has been done and accepted by the community should the decision be made as to whether or not Peebles can expand further and the increase in housing to the south be accommodated. No firm decision regarding a second bridge should be made until such a Master Plan has been prepared and the public consulted on its conclusions.

The full text of the Society’s response to the Transport Study can be found on the Society’s website at www.peeblescivicsociety.co.uk. In the meantime the Society would be prepared to host a public meeting to consider the MVA Transport Study and its implications for the future development of the town, with a view to giving the community a better understanding of the issues involved.

I am etc

Ronald Ireland, Chairman Peebles Civic Society

PEEBLES CIVIC SOCIETY

 RESPONSE TO THE SCOTTISH  BORDERS COUNCIL STAG1 REPORT PEEBLES SECOND BRIDGE STUDY

1. Introduction

1.1     Our response is to the proposal to consider the construction of a second bridge over the River Tweed to serve the community south of the river. The study is described in the MVA report:  Peebles STAG1. A full version of our response can be seen on the Society’s website at www.peeblescivicsociety.co.uk.

1.2     The current Local Plan identifies extensive land to the east of Cavalry Park and two smaller sites to the southwest of Whitehaugh for the forthcoming development period after 2018. These could add significantly to the size of the town and could have significant implications on the long term development and character of the town centre.  We see the proposal to construct a second bridge as causing a major change to the town that needs to be considered now. Thus, before considering the six bridge sites listed in the MVA report the question of the desirability of the construction of a second bridge needs to be discussed. 

2. Our principal conclusions are :

2.1     That it is imperative that a fully detailed Master Plan for the whole town to describe how the future of Peebles is to be realised is produced now before any firm decision is made on the second bridge.

2.2     If a second bridge is to be built with expansion to the south of the river, then it is imperative that the bridge and connecting roads are fully completed and operational before any construction work starts on the new housing estates.  Other related infrastructure projects should be planned to be complete by the time of the completion of the housing and the opening of the new route.

3. The following are extracts from our fuller response

3.1     Peebles is a very attractive small town with a population of some 8200 people in 2008.

3.2     The current Local Plan 2011 shows that the future expansion of the town will be to the south of the river.  Land at Whithaugh identified in the Plan could provide land for some 340 houses and is  referred to in the Local Plan as being dependent on the construction of the second Tweed bridge.  The area to the south of the B7062 Kingsmeadows Road, although scheduled as open space in the River Tweed flood plain, will undoubtedly come under pressure from developers for additional housing development by constructing flood mitigation measures as has been done for the Cavalry Park development.  If successful this would release a considerable area of additional development land, with a probable potential of some further 200 houses.

3.3     A further 540 houses would be likely to give rise to an increase in the population from the 8200 figure in 2008 to 9500, an increase of some 16%. Our approximate assessment is that 60% of the people of Peebles live south of the river. This would amount to an increase of some 26%.  Accordingly the volume of traffic using the present Tweed Bridge could increase in peak hour to a level well above the capacity of the bridge.

3.4     The STAG1 report refers to the main load on the bridge being caused by commuter traffic to Edinburgh.  Surely thus it would be beneficial to investigate possibilities of any further housing being located to the north of the town centre.

3.5    Can Peebles accommodate this increase in population without destroying its character?  

3.6     The main asset to the town is the character of the buildings along the High Street, Northgate, Eastgate and the main road through the Old Town.  This is the main attraction to tourists and must not be destroyed by over development. The purpose of a conservation area is to preserve and enhance the character and this objective needs to be respected. 

3.7     Whilst we obviously are concerned with and support the viability of the small shops in the town we see the main pressure from an increased population in Peebles and the surrounding area being on the two supermarkets needing expansion and additional parking.

3.8     As new housing referred to above is to be sited on the perimeter of the town, there will be increased traffic into and out of the town with a need for increased car parking for visiting the town centre for shopping.  There is no land available close to the centre of town to accommodate additional parking. 

3.9     Two main roads into town are narrow and congested with on street parking through the Old Town from the west and along the Edinburgh Road from the north. Only the entry from the east along the Innerleithen Road is straight, wide and free of on street parking.  Peebles town centre is thus locked into a narrow and congested road system. As well as locally generated traffic it carries commuting traffic from the east going to and from Edinburgh, and the A72 east west through traffic crosses the town via the High Street and Old Town.

3.10   The current Local plan 2011 refers to the fact that the primary and Secondary schools are reaching full capacity.  The Hay Lodge Health Centre is full, infrastructure such as water supply and drainage treatment are up to capacity and need expansion.

3.11  All these facts indicate that Peebles is reaching its practical limit.

3.12   Peebles has now reached the stage where it is imperative that a fully detailed Master Plan is produced for the whole town to demonstrate how it will be able to accommodate  the increase in housing and associated traffic, health provision, schooling and services infrastructure. Only after this has been done and accepted by the community should the decision be made be made whether or not Peebles can expand further and the increase in housing to the south be accommodated.

4. The selection of the position of the second bridge.

4.1     As we are being given the opportunity to comment of the siting of the new bridge we do so bearing in mind our views expressed above on the desirability of further major development to the town.   The STAG1 report suggests six possibilities and appraises these in terms of traffic convenience.  We see the issue as being a balance between traffic convenience, impact on surrounding areas and practicability.  We do not consider that any one route provides this.

4.2     Routes B1 and B2 are both within the Conservation Area and would have a severe and detrimental impact on the area through which they pass. B2 would pass through and destroy the Gytes playing fields.

4.3     B3 has sight line problems at both its north and south access points.

4.4     B5 and B6 have been abandoned by the STAG report and we concur with this and the reasons for rejection.

4.5  On a brief assessment, only B4 merits further consideration, but adjustments would be necessary to improve access from Innerleithen Road and the route  through Cavalry Park.

                                                           Peebles Civic Society

                                                                     19 May 2011