Planning Application Responses
Peebles Civic Society – Planning Application Responses
March 2018
18/00250/FUL Mr and Mrs Large. 3 Hydro Gardens Innerleithen Road. Erection of a conservatory.
No objection.
18/00290/FUL Alan MacBeth. 78 Old town. Alterations to dwellinghouse and formation of new access and parking area.
No objection.
18/00277/FUL Mr J Thomson. 7 Venlaw Court replacement windows.
No objection.
18/00293/LBC Mr David Kilshaw. Salon 5 Northgate. Installation of illuminated signage.
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 2018
Planning Application numbers 17/01694/FUL and 17/01695/CON Eastgate Filling Station Peebles.
We note that the applicant has provided additional details and we welcome the opportunity to assess these.
We are concerned that the design proposed is inappropriate for this location and we object to this planning application for the following reasons.
The site is in an important location on the approach to Peebles adjacent to the roundabout forming the entrance to the town centre. It is in the Conservation Area and is close to houses constructed of masonry. The site calls for a higher quality of design, insofar as this can be achieved with a small building.
We fully support the views of the Community Council and the Scottish Borders Council Heritage and Design Officer. We strongly recommend his suggestion for the alternative canopy profile edge.
The white steel cladding is wrong for this site. The objective of the applicant is to create a modern design and it is surely possible to create a clean and impressive modern design in masonry to complement the surrounding buildings.
We think that the curved wall heads are very disappointing and although possibly appropriate on other sites, they should not be used in this situation.
Again the lettering of the fascia above the shopfront is too large especially as the advert is also on the sign. Maybe the M&S SIMPLY FOOD lettering should not be on this wall at all as it is on the side wall and sign. This surely applies to the BP and Wild Bean café signs.
The Heritage and Design Officer’s alternative proposal will lighten the impact of the canopy edge and we think it will add a quality to canopy.
Regarding the proposed retaining wall that has been introduced to the north of the site, we would comment that the height and impact of this could be significantly reduced by allowing the landscaping to follow the ground levels between the raised platform and the site boundary.
We suggest that the applicant reconsiders the design.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Application 18/00059/FUL Mrs D. Alexander. Plora 8 Montgomery Place
Alterations to and extension to dwellinghouse.
No objection
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Application 18/00030/FUL Mr D.Strachan, Rosebank. Greenside. Replacement windows and formation of parking space.
No objection
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2018
17/01750/FUL Mr Peter Dixon. Rothes, Frankscroft.
Extension of dwellinghouse and replacement of detached garage.
No objections. A good proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/01694/FUL and 17/01695/CON
Replacement of Service Station Peebles Inneleithen Road
We object to the application on the basis that the new building is undefined as set out below. As it will be larger it will be obtrusive and overcrowd the site.
We are very concerned about the poor quality of the details submitted for this application.
The property is in the Peebles Conservation Area.
We acknowledge the Design Statement as we quote form it thus: " There are different architectural styles in the immediate locale but we feel that a modern filling stations are distinctive entities and their design should reflect their purpose. The proposed design creates a modern attractive and simplified design"
The applicant must do more to satisfy this objective and illustrate in more detail. Not just to refer to the new sales building and canopy over the pumps to be to BP/AECOM standard. We are not party to these standards.
We ask that the applicant provides more details. The drawings are lacking reference to materials, colour and finish. It would be helpful to have drawings illustrating these and perspective views of the entire site to enable us to judge the impact of the development. The BP advertising sign should also be illustrated and not just left to a separate application later.
Surely the intention of the applicant is to sell the proposal, We do not consider that the applicant has done so. Also the timing of the application is questionable and we ask for more time to evaluate the design than the need to respond by 5. January and look forward to receiving more details.
Gerard Bakker for Peebles Civic Society
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 2017
17/01533/LBC and 17/01542/FUL Mr John Varney
Internal and external alterations
21 March Street. Peebles.
We object. The single building comprises both 19 and 21 March Street. Together they are listed category C. and are in the Conservation Area.
Both houses have front elevations facing on March Street consisting of timber windows. The introduction of uPVC windows to the March Street elevation for property 21 will destroy the cohesion of the façade that is to be viewed as a whole.
The renewal of the front door is counter to policy of the supplementary planning guidance Replacement Windows and Doors paragraph 3.24 requiring exact ‘like for like’ replacement.
The application does not have details of the manufacturer of the windows and details of the installation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/01635/FUL and 17/01637/LBC
Internal alterations and installation of new signage. Change of use Class 1 retail to Class 2 Office.
Old Corn Exchange High Street
No objection to the change from Class 1 to Class 2.
We assume that there will be a separate application for the signage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/01630/FUL Mr John Harris
Extension to dwellinghouse, amendment to previous application 17/00950/FUL
Cottage 2 Edderstone Road.
Change from whinstone to render as the winstone was not available for any sources.
No objection
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/01656/FUL Mr David Kilshaw.
Change of use from hairdresser Class 1 to Office Class 2.
Salon 5 Northgate.
No objection as the premises can always revert back to class 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/01618/FUL Mr Ranald Burnett and Mr McEwan Fraser
Change of use from office to residential. Alterations to form 2 flats.
Unit 1B Dovecot Road Industrial Estate.
No objection
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 2017
17/01303/FUL – Mrs S Campbell
Replacement windows
Lower Glencairn 3 Caledonian Road Peebles
We object.
We regret that the application is for uPVC replacement windows. There are no details of the installation. We are concerned that the proposal, if this is to be with the usual method of frame construction and installation, will alter the appearance of the ground floor fenestration unacceptably in relation to the remaining upper floor fenestration. We advise that the application be refused and the use of high performance timber sash and case windows encouraged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/01310/FUL – Mr J Brown
Replacement windows
31 Cuddyside Peebles
We Object. The new windows should reflect to glazing pattern of the rest of the properties in this development. There is a consistency of glazing pattern throughout the estate and it would be regrettable if a 'free for all' is allowed. It is recognised that the flat above the property has not conformed to the glazing pattern but it is the only one so far. Also the details of the installation are not provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/01340/FUL – Ms Elizabeth Boag
Alterations to dwellinghouse
Yester Innerleithen Road Peebles
No objection
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/01373/FUL & 17/01374/LBC – Dr Robert Duncan
Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse
Ravenscraig Frankscroft Peebles
We are concerned by the differing pitches and heights of the two extensions. The dominant nature of the west elevation roof profile and ridge height will obscure much of the first floor windows and associated architectural detail, and thus would be detrimental to the architectural character of the building,while obstructing the outlookfrom the upper rooms. There is no specification for the timber cladding andfinish. The two horizontal slit windows on the west elevation, which would directly face the site entrance, are out of character with the rest of the building.
R W Ireland 19.10.2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 2017
17/01142/FUL – Ms Martha Shortreed
Replacement window
Traquair 39 Crossland Crescent Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/01229/FUL – Mrs Gillian Reilly
Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse
1 School Brae Peebles
No objection.
R W Ireland 20.09.2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 2017
17/01069/FUL – Mr Gavin Thornley
Alterations to dwellinghouse and formation of raised decking area
3 Bonnington Road Peebles
No objection.
R W Ireland 16.08.2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 2017
17/00950/FUL – John Harris
Extension to dwellinghouse
2 Edderston Road Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00982/FUL – Ms Helen Gault
Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse
14 Dean park Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00991/FUL – Mr Andrew McFadyen
Replacement windows
2 Wemyss Place Peebles
The application is lacking in details of the window type and construction and should not be considered until the relevant details are supplied to ensure that the proposal complies with current policy, including the usual requirement that the new windows should be set back into the full width of the window opening.
R W Ireland 19.07.2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society – Planning Responses
May 2017
17/00640/FUL – Ms Sheila Cuthbertson
Installation of photovoltaic array to roof
6 Buchan Gardens Peebles
No objection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00678/FUL – Mr & Mrs P Melrose
Replacement windows to front elevation and new window slapping
40 High street Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00606/PPP – AWG Property Ltd and Taylor Wimpey
Residential development with associated roads, access, infrastructure, open space and landscaping including land for drainage/flood mitigation purposes
Land east of 10 Kittlegairy Avenue Peebles
We object to the advance notice for the planning permission in principle on the basis that it is premature, the traffic statement is inconclusive and the flood risk mitigation is deficient in its proposals and the extent of landfill causes some serious problems of lorry traffic delivering the intended landfill medium. We have read the Forward Planning Section of the Scottish Borders Council planning department response to the planning application and agree with it and its conclusions.
1. Review of the Local development Plan LDP and the Scottish Borders housing Land Supply Audit
Peebles is in the Western Strategic Development Area SDA (including Cardrona, Innerleithen and Walkerburn) and the Northern Housing Market Area.
The LDP clearly states that for the town of Peebles there are 2 sites for housing in the proposed period:
APEEB021 Housing South of South Park 50
APEEB041 Violet Bank 25
Total 75
The Housing Supplementary Guidance undertaken in 2016 has further identified 2 sites to satisfy the demand for a further 100 houses in Peebles as part of the 916 demanded for the whole of the Scottish Borders. These are site APEEB044, TP138 Rosetta Road, an addition of 30 houses and the March Street Mill site 70 houses bringing the total for the LDP to 175.
There is an inconsistency in the 2017 Scottish Borders Housing Land Supply Audit. The Rosetta Road development, on account of its current planning consent status features in the Housing Land Audit as 100 houses included in the LDP in addition to the 75 thus bringing the effective total including the SPG Housing to 275.
There has been a consistent over provision of the numbers in the LDP due to Windfall sites amounting to some 20% of the whole for the Scottish Borders. In the current 2017 Housing Land Audit there are (excluding small sites) TP139 Kingsmeadows Mansion 24, TP141 Land East of Glentress House 33 totalling 57. Furthermore there is the Tweedbridge Court at 50 bringing the total to 107.
The net result of this assessment is to conclude that in Peebles there is provision for a total of 382 houses for the planning period up to 2025 compared to the 175 in the adjusted LDP. In addition the Housing Land Audit concludes that there is an adequate supply of housing for the next 8 years.
The Western Spatial Strategy in the LDP states in para 3.22 ‘The Plan identifies housing allocations to serve the whole of the Western SDA and seeks to spread that development beyond Peebles into the other main settlements of Tweeddale. This is intended to achieve greater social cohesion and manage pressure on key services and facilities.’ It is clear from the history of housing development in Peebles that Peebles is still under pressure from housing developers.
Site SPEEB005 Peebles East (South of the River)
The site is listed as ‘Potential Term Mixed Use (Subject to Review)’
Appendix 3 Supplementary Guidance and Standards in the current LDP identifies Peebles South East for potential longer term development subject to review. This site is listed to be subject to planning framework preparation in advance of the next Development Plan Review.
The proposers in the introduction to the Planning Application Report Statement states in 1.4 ‘This Planning Statement and accompanying application documentation confirms that the Site is effective in meeting SBC’s 5 year effective housing land requirement and can come forward for housing now to meet requisite housing demand within SBC’
We contest this as is demonstrated in the above section on the outcome of the LDP concluding that there is sufficient available land with housing proposals to meet the requisite housing demand within SBC.
POLICY BE12 Further Housing Land Safeguarding states: ‘The areas indicated in the settlement profiles for longer term expansion and protection shall be safeguarded accordingly. Proposals for housing development in such expansion areas coming forward in advance of the identification of a shortfall in the effective housing land supply will be treated as premature’.
The site is also outwith the settlement boundary in the LDP. The site has been defined ‘Potential Term Mixed Use (subject to Review) and has therefore not been included with the settlement boundary as it is still subject to reviews on a number of fundamental issues by SBC independently of the developer.
POLICY PMD4 Development Outwith Development Boundaries para 1.1 states: ‘the aim of the policy is to ensure that most development is located within defined Development boundaries……… It is considered that development outwith the Development Boundary should not be seen as an alternative to allocated sites where these are available and therefore should not be an ‘’exceptional’’ occurrence.
We consider that the proposal is not an exceptional occurrence.
2 Traffic Assessment
A condition of the inclusion of this site in the LDP is the provision of a new bridge linking north and south of the River Tweed. The proposer’s traffic consultant’s assessment concludes that the Tweed Bridge can accommodate the traffic generated by the site. The issue of traffic does not just concern the capacity of the bridge but the small roundabout outside the Parish Church as well as the High Street.
The proposer’s traffic consultant concludes in the traffic assessment that the roundabout and the high Street are difficult to model on account of queuing at the roundabout and the presence of the pedestrian crossing in the High Street causing platooning; the creation of a queue following the traffic light releasing traffic as the lights go from red to green. ‘However, a platooning vehicle issue has been identified at the B7062 Kingsmeadows Road / A72 / High Street Mini-Roundabout which is causing fluctuating queues during peak commuter periods and resulting in difficulty accurately modelling the junction.’ This is a natural feature of the busy High Street and should not be a criticsm.
The other sites listed in the LDP and Housing land Audit south of the River Tweed need to be taken into account. Site APEEB021 Housing south of South Park for 50 and the Windfall site TP139 Kingsmedows Mansion for 24 needs to be taken into account as well. The 200 houses proposed by the developer will obviously cause a significant increase and congestion in the centre of Peebles and so triggers the need for the second bridge.
3 Flood Risk Assessment.
The flood risk proposals do not include the safeguarded land for employment. We feel that the proposals should include the mitigation measures for the entire site and not leave the site for employment unresolved.
The proposal to increase the level of the site for the housing by 1.6 - 2.5 m indicated by the by the drainage cover levels related to the existing ground levels in the Fairhurst drawing 94600/2030 revision C cause us concern. The site for housing is some 500m x 200m amounting to some 200,000 cubic meters of fill. How is this going to be delivered? There will surely be a traffic issue – via the town centre, from the quarry at Neidpath, from the quarry towards Leadburn or along the B7063 from the east?
4 Conclusion
The Application is premature. Having regard to this and the above concerns, the application should be refused.
R W Ireland 22.05.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society – Planning Responses April 2017
17/00444/CON – WTS Forsyth & Sons
Demolition of dwellinghouse
Dwellinghouse North east of 23 Eastgate Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00445/FUL – WTS Forsyth & Sons
Erection of dwellinghouse
Dwellinghouse North east of 23 Eastgate Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00419/FUL – Mr Dave Hodson
Formation of door from window, installation of 4 no. rooflights and erection of storage shed
Tweeddale Youth Action Old Corn Exchange School Brae Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00420/LBC - Mr Dave Hodson
Internal and external alterations
Tweeddale Youth Action Old Corn Exchange School Brae Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00482/FUL – Mr Mark Sinclair
Erection of replacement garage with attached store, alterations to driveway and erection of fence
Rosemount Innerleithen Road Peebles
No objection.
R W Ireland 19.04.2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society - Planning Resposes March 2017
17/00255/FUL – Mr Iomhar McIvor
Erection of extension
5 Venlaw Road Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00140/FUL – Mr Graham Lumb
Alterations and single storey extension to dwellinghouse and replacement windows (retrospective)
10 Tweed Avenue Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00280/FUL – Mr Mark Sinclair
Alterations to dwellinghouse
Rosemount Innerleithen Road Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00290/FUL – Mr Nick Barrett
Alterations to dwellinhouse
Edenhope 89 Northgate Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00330/FUL – Miss Emma Scott
Replacement of 2 No windows
57F Northgate Peebles
We object.
No details of windows provided. Replacements should match lower window on street frontage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00350/FUL – Mrs Dee Hollingsbee
Alterations to form off street parking
Trencom 9 Caledonian Road Peebles
We object.
1.Rendering should be stone colour so as not to stand out or a better proposal would be to have the returns using the stone retrieved from the wall so that there is a continuity of the street wall and the returns. The rear wall could be stone coloured concrete.
2.We are concerned about access at a point close to the Fire Station and poor visibility due to regularly parked cars in the vicinity.
3.No details given of temporary fencing, including colour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00357/FUL & 17/00358/LBC – Mr Ken Young
Erection of external store and boundary fence
18 Biggiesknowe Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00388/FUL & 17/00389/LBC – Mr Sandy Grant
Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse
Graham Cottage 16 Elcho Street Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00399/FUL – Mr & Mrs Gould
Replacement dormer window
Westwinds Haystoun Avenue Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00412/LBC & 17/00 414/FUL – Mr & Mrs Grewar
Alterations to form door from window
4 Kingsmeadows House Kingsmeadows Road Peebles
No objection.
R W Ireland 22.03.2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society – Planning Responses February 2017
17/00095/FUL – Mr & Mrs Istephan
Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse
38 Kirkland Street Peebles
No objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00064/CON – Moorbrook Textiles Ltd
Demolition of mill buildings
March Street Mill March Street Peebles
No objection
But we would like the following conditions attached to the consent:
· Extensive photographic recording of the site including the exterior and interior of all buildings including those being retained.
· A full historical report is prepared with all available historic illustrations from the company’s archivesand handed to Historic Environment Scotland and the Peebles Museum.
· Retention of sufficient of the masonry and round headed sandstone window arches and timber sashes to replicate the character of the original Mill Shed to form the new building for commercial use on the site of the original Boiler House adjacent to the Engine house. Retention of the masonry and slates from the office building facing on March Street for use in the terrace of houses replacing the office.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00063/PPP - Moorbrook Textiles Ltd
Erection of residential units, form dwellinghouse from engine house, relocation of allotment space, erection of workshop with associated access and infrastructure works
March Street Mill March Street Peebles
We object.
We note that the Scottish Borders Council Planning Department has not provided a planning and development brief in accordance with policy PMD 2.
The development does not adhere to some of the critical conditions in the Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Housing for this site MPEEB007. For Mixed Use (preferred).
· The site must provide a mix of uses including housing, employment, and potentially commercial and community use.
We are disappointed that only 300 sqm of employment facilities have been provided. The value of the site for employment is for the long term. We consider that there is a shortage of employment land in the Local Plan in the current planning period term and this application could have satisfied the need. There is no reference to communal facilities being provided.
· LDP Policy HD1 Affordable and Special Needs Housing. The developer considers that the development would not be viable if these affordable houses were provided. We are concerned that the developer is thus avoiding providing this contribution to the affordable housing stock in Peebles.
· LDP Policy IS2 Developer Contributions. The developer considers that the developer contributions are being satisfied by the proposed development. The developer claims that if contributions to the provision of schools, school extensions or associated facilities etc were to be charged, the development would not be viable. We are concerned that the developer is thus seeking to avoid this valued contribution.
· LDP Policy EP11 Protection of Greenspace. A key feature of the site is the presence of allotments. We are concerned about the reduction of the area of the allotments from 0.45 ha to 0.37ha.
· Policy PMD2 requires all new development to be of high quality. A master plan has been submitted as part of the application and we have the following criticsms:
The entrance from March Street.
The new terrace replacing the office building should be not higher than the adjacent houses and of the character and stonework of the adjacent houses. The entrance to the site is mundane and does not reflect the importance of the remaining 64 houses in the interior. This is an important addition to the housing in Peebles and should not be hidden! There is a precedence for turning the corner with a terrace and this should be adopted here. The lodge is retained on the east side of the entrance. There is no indication of car parking for the March Street terrace, this could be inserted at the end of the turn in of the terrace before the pair of semi-detached houses. There is a curious shed at the east end of the row of semi-detached houses that weakens the entrance.
The west end of the site.
The layout of the row of houses backing onto Rosetta Road is weak, neither a row nor a terrace. A possible proposal could be a two storey terrace with parking similar to the three storey terrace backing onto Ballantine Place. The adoption of a terrace here will go some way to achieve our suggestion for a series of terraced squares in the consultation feed-back that we offered.
The apartments
The layout and diagram of the apartments is confusing and disappointing. Why does the site plan show primary frontage on only three sides of the building? The intention for the building to rise from two storeys to four storeys opposite the Engine house in distinct units of pairs of apartments is logical but the lean to on the south end of the east elevation is curious and not consistent with the remainder of the proposal. The same criticism is made of the building towards the west end. The development of the design should achieve a consistency of language.
The commercial building adjoining the Engine House.
The 300 sqm is considered to be a mean provision of employment land and the site should be enlarged to include the pink coded space to the west of the Engine Shed to at least increase the area to 400sqm to partially overcome the shortage. The proposal is unclear as to the replacement of the old Boiler House but here is an opportunity to recreate a replica of the best of the old buildings. Retention of sufficient of the masonry and round headed sandstone window arches and timber sashes to replicate the character of the original Mill Shed should be considered.
General Architectural Character
There should be a consistency of architectural character throughout the development the site except for the March Street entrance terrace. The section on Urban Character of the Design and Access Statement 6.36 is useful. The traditional residential layout and local building types illustrations are suitable for the building to replace the office building on March Street. There is an opportunity to create a modern and consistent character to the substantial development of the interior of the site that is a once in a lifetime occurrence in the centre of Peebles. A well-considered modern character would be appropriate with the principles of a conservation area as it would be a clear and valuable statement of the architectural character and achievements of the 21st century.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00077/FUL – Mr Peter Dixon
Alterations and single story extension incorporating double garage to dwellinghouse
Rothes Frankscroft Peebles
No objection
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1700171/FUL – Mr R Cornwall
Extension to dwellinghouse
12 Biggiesknowe Peebles
No objection, but we suggest that the painted rendering is dark in colour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00185 – Mr & Mrs Harris
Repalcement windows and doors
The Cottage 2 Edderston Road Peebles
No objection, subject to replacement windows being set back to the full width of the window reveals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00190/FUL – Mr N MacIver
Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse
13 Buchan Gardens Peebles
1.No objection in principle.
2.It would be preferable to have the existing quoin blocks either removed or disguised so as give an appearance of unity between the existing building and the extension.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00008/FUL – Queensberry Properties (Peebles)Ltd
External re-decoration and replacement windows and doors
1 & 2 Hydro Gardens Innerleithen Road Peebles
1.We object to the addition of planted astragals on the upper sash and feel that the appearance of the windows would be better without them.
2.Otherwise, no objection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00235/FUL – Mrs Cameron
Replacement windows and doors
87 Northgate Peebles
No objection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00207/FUL – Mrs Lynsey Rennie
Change of use of school to auction house and business hub
Premises former The Old School Church Road Peebles
No objection.
R W Ireland 22.02.2017
Peebles Civic Society - Planning Responses - January 2017
16/01186/LBC & 16/01187/FUL - Mr Andrew McFadyen
Internal and external alterations
8A Kingsmeadows Road Peebles
We commend the attempts made by the developer to meet our objections to the original application. However there remain a number of issues which concern us.
1. While we still remain concerned about the potentially detrimental effect of adding a 3rd storey to the rear access stair and bathroom block, we note that the colour now proposed for the cladding of this part and the box dormer will reduce the visual impact.
2. The original roof plan showed a boiler flue coming up on the front slope from below but there is no front elevation showing this. As this is a listed building application in a prominent location, a front elevation drawing should be provided along with accurate details of the colour, height and materials of the proposed flue.
3. In our previous response we drew attention to the accuracy of the drawings submitted, but we note that the revised drawings have still not corrected the height and detail of the existing chimneys.
4. We object to the proposed replacement of windows on the front elevation, which in our view would be detrimental to the integrity of the listed frontage of No.8. This frontage is unique in Peebles, having been “eclectically enriched in the late 19th Century” as specifically referred to in the official listing:
NO 8 ST MARGARET'S: symmetrical; eclectically enriched in late 19th century; now divided as flats with upper entrance to rear. Pilastered doorpiece at centre; bracketed arched cornice supports pair of lions rampant holding shields with monogram PL; thistle and ST MARGARETS below arch; glazed and panelled door. Flanked by canted flat-roofed corniced timber windows. At 1st floor windows with moulded cills and shaped aprons; panels between bearing thistle and rose.
Gabled return with small attic window to right.
Timber multi-pane casement windows. Grey slates; dry-dashed stacks.
The casement style windows and their unique design form a fundamental part of the listed front elevation to No.8 (ground and first floor together), therefore any window replacement should be strictly “like for like” as per current guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/001568/FUL – Mr L Hayworth
Erection of machinery store, log store and boundary fence
The Old manse Innerleithen Road Peebles
No objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17/00015/PPP – S Carmichael Properties Ltd
Residential development with associated supporting infrastructure
Land east of Knapdale 54 Edinburgh Road Peebles
We strongly object to the proposal to develop housing on this site.
We question the significance of the applicant’s assessment of the outcome of the public consultation held on the 27th of October 2016. The report states that 27 visitors attended the consultation, only 2 copies of the questionnaire were left and a further 4 copies were received by post. The report refers to one to one discussions with the visitors but no record of the discussions is produced. The report contains the full report by the Peebles Civic Society. Of the 27 visitors only 11 were strongly supportive, 5 were supportive and 11 were strongly opposed to the development referred to in question 1.
It is presumptive to base the acceptability of the proposal to develop this site on the statement in section 5.1 that ‘it is clear that the majority of the respondents were supportive of the principle of the proposed development of the site’ when only 27 people attended the consultation.
Landscape sensitivity
We feel that developing this site for housing on the upper slopes will severely compromise the landscape setting for the Eddleston Burn Valley and the approach to Peebles from the North.
We base our objection on the Scottish Borders Development and Landscape Capacity Study Peebles Final Report March 2007 prepared by the Scottish Borders Council.
The introduction to this report states: key characteristics of Peebles includes:
‘The visual containment created by the sloping valley sides and approaches to the town along winding valley floors, where landform and trees screen the town.’ This would be compromised if the higher slopes of the proposed site is built on.
Section on Peebles North East that this valley side west facing slope section 8.2 states:
Landscape Character and Experience - ‘High Sensitivity’ The diversity of spaces and woodland types creates a landscape of some scenic quality which would be lost if development took place.
Settlement Form – ‘Some Sensitivity’ Steep slopes act as enclosure to the town and extensive expansion up these would extend the settlement away from the enclosed valley floor…’
Immediate Settlement Edge – ’High Sensitivity’ the definition provided by the steep slopes provides a robust settlement edge and a well defined sense of containment for the town.’
Section 8.5.1 concludes that ‘there were no landscape opportunities identified for settlement expansion in this area,’
Proposer’s Landscape Capacity Study
The Landscape Capacity Study proposes various mitigation measures including tree screening on the western boundary. The site slopes steeply to the west towards the Edinburgh Road (a total difference in levels of 36m) and the housing is likely to be on the higher ground some 15m above the western boundary so tree screening would be of little use on account of the difference in levels. The 40 or so houses and gardens would give little opportunity for significant internal site screening bearing in mind the building recommendations regarding the proximity of trees to buildings.
The Landscape Capacity Study is severely deficient in its visual images. Had the proposer added images of the proposed housing development onto the viewpoint pictures it would, we believe, have firmly illustrated our concerns. The impact could not be described as minor.
We thus contest the statement in the conclusion section 8.4 proposer’s Landscape Capacity Statement:
‘it is concluded that development will have a minor visual effect on the wider landscape when seen in the context of the existing settlement’
Scottish Borders Council Assessment for the Housing Supplementary guidance.
Thus we are strongly in support of the Scottish Borders Council assessment of the proposal to include this site in Housing Supplementary Guidance.
‘It is considered that the site contributes greatly to the setting of the settlement. Development at this location would result in a negative impact on the wider settlement and not just the immediate area. …… the site is wholly included within the SBC Venlaw Designated Landscape…. The site is within the SLA and would negatively impact on it’
Need for housing.
There have been a series of windfall and infill housing developments here in Peebles that have not been accounted for in the 2016 housing Land Audit amounting to 121 units (excluding Rosetta Holiday Park at 100 units) that need to be taken into account in response to the Planning Guidance Note that is being proposed by the Scottish Borders Council. We therefore consider this application to be superfluous to meeting the demand.
Relation to Local Development Plan.
The site is outwith the Development Boundary that has been set by the recent Local Development Plan and the 40 or so houses would be inappropriate on the site.
Site Access
The construction of the 40 or so houses will involve considerable disturbance to the site entry and those living on the site boundary especially during the earthmoving operations and construction activities. The 40 houses will generate traffic. We are thus very concerned about the access onto the main road bearing in mind the road characteristics for the junction.
R W Ireland 20.01.2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society – Planning Responses - November 2016
16/01288/FUL – Mrs Janis Peasland
Erection of entrance gates and railings
Braehead Frankscroft Peebles
No objection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01316/LBC & 16/01317/FUL – Ms Tricia Farrell
External alterations and replacement doors
The Lodge Kingsmuir Hall Bonnington Road Peebles
No objection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01328/FUL – Mr C Borthwick
Replacement window and door
1 George Street Peebles
1.We object.
2.There are no details of how the windows are to be installed. They should be installed within the original sash case checks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01231/FUL – Mr Gary Smith
Replacement windows and door
St Ronan’s Cottage 40 March Street Peebles
1.We object
2.The street is in the Conservation Area so item 3.32 of the Scottish Borders Supplementary Planning Guidance on Replacement Windows and Doors applies. In particular item 3.36 “integral fanlights within doors are not historically accurate and should therefore be avoided. Glazed panels within doors may be acceptable”. We note that the replacement door is a great improvement over the one existing, but the replacement should follow the recommendation in item 3.36.
3.There are no details of how the windows will be installed. They should be installed within the original sash case checks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01351/FUL – Mr Graham Hunter
Erection of replacement retaining wall (retrospective) and erection of summer house.
Bellvue Guest House 16A March Street Peebles
No objection.
R W Ireland 16.11.2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society – Planning Responses October 2016
16/01186/LBC & 16/01187/FUL – Mr Andrew McFadyen
Internal and External alterations
8A Kingsmeadows Road, Peebles.
1.We Object
2.This is a Listed Buildings in a prominent location within the Peebles Conservation Area.
3.The drawings submitted are incorrect in a number of respects. In particular proposed south and west elevations are inconsistent. No front elevation has been provided, which would have shown that the ridge line would have shown that the roof line of raised rear roof section would project above the existing roof line throughout its length, destroying the basic integrity of the subject of the application and the adjoining property.
4.The west face of the proposed dormer windows will create a considerable visual impact and together with the bulk of the raised rear extension will have a detrimental effect on the original integrity of the early 19th century design of the building.
5.The replacement windows proposed on the front elevation are not “like for like” with those existing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01133/LBC – Mr Gordon Brown
Replacement windows
Nithsdale 1 Venlaw Road Peebles
1.No objection.
2.The care being taken to ensure fully like for like replacement is to be commended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01107/FUL & 16/01108/LBC – Mr & Mrs Johnstone
Extension to dwellinghouse
12 St Andrew’s Road Peebles
No objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01215/FUL – Cecelia Clegg
Extension to dwellinghouse and erection of summer room
34 Wemyss place Peebles
1.No objection in principle, although we are concerned at the lack of clarity regarding the adjoining roof and mutual boundary arrangement. A drawing should be required to improve this detail.
2.No objection to erection of summer house.
R W Ireland 21.10.2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society – Planning Responses -September 2016
16/00957/LBC – Dunkyan Ltd
Replacement windows and door
Rose Cottage, Kingsmeadows Road, Peebles.
1.We object.
2.Sufficient details have not been provided. A brochure cover is not good enough What is shown is not very appropriate and certainly not “like for like” as demanded by the Planning Guidance in respect of a Listed Building.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01010/FUL Mr Gar Powell-Evans
Erection of replacement garage, boundary fence and hard standing
Kilcreggan, Innerleithen Road, Peebles.
No objection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01026/FUL – Miss Lisa Campbell
Replacement rooflights
57D Northgate, Peebles.
No objection providing that conservation rooflights are specified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/00902/LBC – Mrs Norah Ridley
Installation of replacement front door (retrospective)
Tantah House Lower Floor, Edderston Road, Peebles.
No objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/01066/FUL – Mr Robb
Installation of new shopfront comprising facia, widows and access door
11 Eastgate, Peebles.
1.No objection to physical alterations.
2.We are however, concerned by the lack of information regarding the proposed colour scheme and signage and feel that that this should be addressed before the application is considered.
R. Ireland. 21.09.16.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society – Planning Responses - August 2016
16/00911/FUL -Mr Alexander Sharp
External re-decoration
11 & 13 Biggiesknowe Peebles
No objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/00897/FUL – Ms B Vannan
Replacement windows
2 Clement Gunn Square Peebles
We object.
1. We are concerned about the lack any drawing showing how the replacements are to be installed in the window opening as any change from the original will be a departure from the communal character of the development.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/00913/FUL – Mr Iomhar McIver
Change of use from dwellinghouse to form hairdressing salon
Shiloh 5 Venlaw Road Peebles
1. We object
2. We are concerned about the possible negative effect of a commercial unit being introduced in the middle of this residential terrace, particularly if it was to come with overt signage. No details of signage have been submitted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/00941/LBC – Mr & Mrs S & J Rae
Replacement windows
Venlaw South Lodge Edinburgh Road Peebles
1. We object.
2. The property is Listed “C” and we are concerned that the proposed replacement are not strictly “Like for LiKe”, having regard to the delicate character of the originals.
3. There is a lack of detail as to how the replacements are to be installed within the window opening.
R W Ireland 18.08.2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society – Planning responses July 2016
16/00747/FUL – Mansfield Care Ltd
Alterations and extensions to care home
Peebles Nursing Home Tweed Green Peebles
No objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/00798/FUL – Mr & Mrs Laird
Erection of conservatory
6 Dovecot Lade Peebles
No objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/00785/FUL – Mr Scott Johnstone
Dormer extension
Drumyat 12 Kirkland Street Peebles
No objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/00811/FUL – Mrs Kirsty Kondol
Replacement windows
Mayfield Cottage 100 Old Town Peebles
No objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/00571/LBC – Mr Tony Leighton
Replace existing solar panels and installation of additional solar panels
Dilkusha House Chambers terrace Peebles
No objection.
R W Ireland 21.07.2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Application 15/01460/FUL – Scottish Borders Council
Construction of 3G Pitch synthetic sports pitch and associated earthworks, fencing, floodlighting, installation of changing facilities and construction of car parking and footpaths.
Victoria Park and Land North and west of Victoria Park Day Centre, Peebles
Observations of Peebles Civic Society
1. Opening Statement
i)We object to this application.
ii) The application is lacking in essential information which would be expected of any developer submitting an application for a development of this scale and complexity. We note that no detailed drawings, elevations or profiles have been included in respect of the proposed associated earthworks, drainage and installation of permanent cabin style changing facilities and parking. As this is a Full Planning Application full details in respect of these should be submitted before further consideration is given to the application.
iii) The scale and nature of the building works: fencing, lighting, changing rooms and car parking on the land will clearly constitute ‘Development’ and as such it is subject to strict controls. In making this proposal the Council is going against its own Development Policies and the current Local Development Plan.
2. Key facts
4. Victoria Park is rated as Key Green Space in the Current Local Development Plan and is identified as KEY GREEN SPACE GSPEEB006. The Scottish Borders Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Green Spaces para 1.3 states that ‘the Scottish Borders will have a network of accessible, high quality and highly valued green spaces creating communities and settlements to be proud of, promoting sustainability, supporting biodiversity, and extensively contributing to the economic, social and environmental aspirations of the region’. The Guidance goes on to differentiate between ‘Amenity Space’, that is parks and gardens, and ‘Functional Space’, that is recreational use, including organised sports facilities. Victoria Park is currently an Amenity Space and has been identified in Supplementary Planning Guidance, October 2009 asa ‘Park and Garden’.
5. By rating Victoria Park as KEY GREEN SPACE, it comes under Policy EP11 which states that these spaces are considered to be of greatest value to the community and therefore worthy of protection. Policy EP11 goes on to state that only proposals that will enhance the space will be supported by the Council.
3. Application
The application has been lodged on behalf of Scottish Borders Council. The Land Ownership Certificate states that “No person other than the applicant was an owner of any part of the land to which the application relates at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the accompanying application.”
This is not correct. The whole of the land is in the ownership of Peebles Common Good. The interest of Scottish Borders Council is as trustee.
4. Design Statement
Background
Consultation
The information provided in relation to alternative sites is irrelevant to this current application.
We would however, comment upon the Public Exhibitions which are referred to. The two Public Exhibitions held in February and June 2015 are referred to as “public consultation” from which the conclusion was drawn that “Victoria Park was considered the preferred location”. The exhibitions were not formally advertised and were the subject of only limited intimation and cannot therefore be regarded as proper consultations from which conclusions can be drawn.
Victoria Park
We agree with the factual information provided.
Planning Context
We agree that the aim of policy BE4 and emerging policy EP9 is to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and prevent its piecemeal loss to development. Victoria Park has been identified as Key Green Space and currently as “Amenity Space”, which does not include recreational use. We do not agree that the proposed pitch is compatible with those policies and the current use as Amenity Space.
Furthermore, the Planning (Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 gives a definition of Conservation Areas as areas ‘of special architectural or historical interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’ We stress the words ‘appearance’ and ‘character’. The introduction of the 3G pitch will contradict this definition.
In Supplementary Planning Guidance, October 2009 Victoria Park is identified asa ‘Park and Garden’. Forward Planning Section in its Consultation Reply say, “It is the view of Plans and Research that this proposal will not result in loss of open space as it is only the type of open space that is changing. It is accepted that through time the typology of a space or part of a space can change depending on the requirements of the community”. We disagree. An area that is fenced off and to which access is regulated, is an enclosed space and cannot be regarded as “open space”. Fencing off the area required for the pitch is therefore, a loss of open space
We agree with the factual statement set out in the first paragraph and also the first sentence of the second paragraph. We disagree with the statement and conclusion set out in the remainder of this paragraph. No Environmental Impact Assessment has been provided in support of this statement and the application should not be considered further until a full and illustrated Environmental Impact Assessment has been provided. This is a usual expectation in the case of a contentious proposal potentially affecting the local environment in a Conservation Area in one or more negative ways.
We agree with the statement in the first sentence of the next following paragraph in reference to Policy EP11.
The statement in the remainder of the paragraph, is a statement of opinion,
Site Selection and Analysis
The information provided regarding alternative options is irrelevant to this application.
Preferred Option
The information in relation to Options A and B is irrelevant to the present application.
Other Facilities
The application is for Full Planning. No plans, elevations, specifications or o details of materials have been provided in respect of the proposed changing facilities, office and accessible toilet/changing room, pathways or car park.
The provision for vehicle parking is inadequate and does not meet the Council’s current requirements.Scottish Borders Council Local Plan Supplementary Guidance 2009,B6 Outdoor Sports Facilities, B6– Artificial Turf Pitches, states the following:
“Vehicle Access and Parking • On-site parking for not less than 40 cars per pitch for players plus one space for every 15 spectator seats in stands”
Only 14 spaces are to be provided in addition to 14 existing allocated to the Day Care Centre, on the assumption that use of the pitch may be at times when the Day Care Centre is not operating. We think that this is an unrealistic assumption. There is no provision for parking of coaches or mini coaches.
It is inevitable that when matches are being played the requirement will be even greater. Consequently, this will impact adversely on adjacent streets.
Mitigation & Enhancement.
We note that it is proposed to remove a total of 57 trees, including 11 lime trees which are an integral part of a line of similar trees running in a westerly direction through the park. This represents a serious loss of amenity.
While noting the intention to plant “over 100” trees of various sizes, no Planting Plan has been provided specifying the age and size of the new trees. It is likely to be many years before adequate screening is achieved, if at all.
We also note that in order to accommodate the pitch, substantial earthworks, including major excavations will be necessary to achieve the required level for the length of the pitch. These will have a serious impact on the landscape of the park.
A detailed Landscape Plan should be provided which shows how the new levels and profiles are to be achieved. We understand this would be expected of any developer in similar circumstances. The application should not be further considered until a full Landscape Plan is submitted.
Services
(Flooding and Drainage)
It is proposed that surface water from under the pitch will be taken to a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) before being “discharge(sic) to either the adjacent River Tweed or a public water surface water sewer”. No details have been provided as to the location of the SUDS or its final discharge.
The current SEPA flood map shows that this corner of Victoria Park is officially identified as being at risk of regular surface water flooding. The site is subject to flooding, but the application form fails to admit that this is a known negative site characteristic in terms of the proposed use. No scheme of drainage has been provided to show how this will be avoided after the development has taken place.
5. Environmental Impact
Policy H2 of the Scottish Borders Council Local Plan states that:
“Development that is judged to have an adverse impact on the amenity of existing or proposed residential areas will not be permitted.”
The location of the pitch is in close proximity to a residential area, including pensioners’ houses. We note that it will be less than 30 metres from the nearest housing and that there are significant numbers of houses in Cleland Avenue, Moss Park and Victoria Park Drive, within a range of 100 metres, which will suffer a sever loss of amenity in respect of disturbance, light and noise pollution, particularly inappropriate to an area with a high proportion of elderly residents. The proposed development is therefore contrary to current Council policy.
6.Conclusion
· The application is ill considered and provides insufficient evidence to justify the loss of green public amenity space that has benefited the community for 127 years.
· The introduction of Functional Space is inappropriate to an area of Key Green Space and amenity park and garden within the Peebles Conservation Area, which ought to be preserved and protected from any development in accordance with current Local Plan policies.
It will have a significant negative impact on the adjacent residential area, contrary to current Local Plan policies
The application should be rejected
R W Ireland Peebles Civic Society 27 December 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Application 13/00444/FUL
Rosetta Holiday Park, Rosetta Road, Peebles
Mixed use redevelopment of the site incorporating reconfigured and improved holiday park, central facilities building, open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure.
We object to this application on the following grounds:
The housing component is not in accordance with the current Consolidated Local Plan.
- The application is premature in relation to the adoption of SESplan and the current Local Plan update.
- The proposal will cause an unacceptable level of traffic in the area.
- There is no indication of how the increased infrastructure demands will be met
- There is an unacceptable impact on the landscape setting of the site in an Area of Great Landscape Value.
- We refer to some design issues that cause us concern.
Response Structure
1 Procedural
2 Scottish Borders housing requirements and the timing of the application
3 Traffic considerations
4 Infrastructure considerations
5 Landscape impact considerations
6 Design matters
1. Procedural
The application is listed as “FULL” which means that none of the components of the proposal are expected to require further planning consents if the project as a whole is approved.
Only the holiday park and the central facilities building are described in detail for a FULL application.
We note that Section 9 of the application refers to residential development but the number of houses is not stated.
The site contains a series of historic buildings listed by Historic Scotland. The work to the Rosetta House grade B, the Lodge and Gate Piers grade C(S), the Stables grade B and the Walled Garden and Garden Building grade C(S) would need listed building consent.
There is a layout of the housing proposal but no detail of the individual houses and accompanying roads and landscaping.
We would thus expect any planning consent to be conditional on the requirement for the applicant to submit for Listed Building Consents for works to the historic buildings and for a further FULL consent for the housing component of the project. This would allow further consultation with interested parties.
2. Scottish Borders housing requirements and the timing of the application
The site is not denoted for housing in the current Local Development Plan.
The Scottish Borders Council Housing Land Audit Technical Note 2012 reviews the current state of housing requirement in the Borders. The HLA states that for the period 2009-2019 there are no further requirements for sites as the requirements of the current Structure Development Plan have already been met. For the period 2019 –2024 the SESplan SDP allocates a quota of 100 houses in the Western Development Area with a further 50 houses outwith the area. The proposed Local Development Plan MIR (Main Issues Report) suggests on site in Peebles APEEB021 South of South Parks of 50 houses. An alternative site APEEB041 Violet Bank ll has a capacity of 25 houses.
The SESplan Report Para 85states; ‘The Western Borders SDA is a secondary focus for development. This SDA is characterized by its physical proximity to Edinburgh and consequently experiences pressures for housing within car commuting distance of the Capital. As with the Central Borders SDA, the focus in the short term will be the delivery of the existing committed developments, with large scale land releases limited. The LDP will therefore allocate sites for 100 new homes to meet the housing land requirement over the period 2019 – 2024.’ The SESplan MIR in Chapter 8 paragraph 8.98 refers to the particular situation current in Peebles: ‘Additional housing, retail and employment development in the Borders is focussed on the Primary Hub and to a lesser degree on the western Hub. The Western Hub, particularly at Peebles, has been subject to significant development pressure that will require to be distributed over a wider area within the hub. However up to 500 units could be accommodated in the Peebles/Innerleithen/ Walkerburn corridor.’
Thus the SESplan recognises the problem in Peebles and accordingly the Council has limited additional housing sites in Peebles in the proposed Local Plan review.
The Rosetta Holiday Park was not proposed for housing in the Consolidated Local Development Plan or the current Local Plan MIR. The recommendation of the Local Development Plan MIR to Council is that no decision is made on housing requirements until the SESplan SDP is finalised after consultation with the participating regions.
However the SESplan in paragraph 114 recognises the need for flexibility in housing allocations. ‘Therefore, there may be circumstances over the period to 2024 where LPAs may consider that there would be benefit in enabling the housing land requirements set out within this SDP to meet the housing land shortfall to be delivered in the earlier (2009 – 2019) rather than later (2019 – 2024) plan period. Such circumstances should be defined within the LDP’.
Policy 6 Housing and flexibility states: ‘Local Planning Authorities may consider re-phasing the allocations specified for the Strategic Development Areas over the periods 2009 – 2019 and 2019 – 2024 as identified in Policy 5 and Tables 3 and 4, to bring forward the 2019 – 2024 requirement to the 2009 – 2019 period where there is justification to meet local needs or development would meet community regeneration objectives. Local Development Plans will identify the relevant criteria’.
The need to provide in additional housing advance of the stated period has not been identified in the current Local Plan MIR. See section 5 housing 5.17 question 7 has two options, the preferred option is that ‘the scale and broad location of additional housing land should be in line with that set out in the SDP’.
Therefore we consider that the application for 172 houses is not consistent with the current proposed Sesplan SDP so it is premature and until the Sesplan SDP is finalised and adopted the site should not be considered further.
3. Traffic Considerations.
We are concerned at the impact of the increase in vehicular traffic generated by this development. The Traffic Impact Assessment takes into account the traffic generated by the 172 houses on the site as well as the 53 houses to be built on Violet Bank. This amounts to some 225 cars for the houses at a rate of 1 car per household.
It goes on to state that the holiday park traffic is not increased as the capacity is no greater than as at present. Page 27‘While the proposals include the redevelopment of the holiday park, this element of the development will not generate any new travel demand’. However only 5 of the chalets out of the 60 proposed in area 1 have been built but the overall increase in units is 35 once the reduction in tourist pitches is taken into account. Thus taking the houses and tourist traffic into account the number of cars could amount to some 450 using the two sites. (225 + 219)
We are not convinced that the Traffic Impact Assessment adequately reflects this situation regarding increase in traffic due to the development. The road network between the site and the centre of town comprises a complex system of roads, narrow with some parking on both sides, difficult junctions and a one way system to reach the A72 through the Old town. It must also be noted that the road to the north is narrow with passing places.
We feel that the relief road through Dalatho should feature in any future development in this area.
Thus we do not consider that the Traffic Assessment will truly reflect the impact of the development on the surrounding area.
4. Infrastructure Considerations.
We are concerned that there is a trend for development to precede the provision of the necessary infrastructure to support the increase in demand, thus causing overloading of it’s various components.
The SESplan MIR is very clear in its approach to future development. In Chapter 4 Context Challenges and Priorities para 4.1 it states that ‘Transport and infrastructure are key requirements in taking forward the SESplan growth strategy……..and its action Programme will set clear requirements to provide for the delivery of…..and key local infrastructure in relation to development’
This aim is further amplified in Chapter 7 Strategic Policy Areas paras 7.5 to 7.15 where the preferred approach to it states thus: ‘The preferred approach is to develop a policy framework for the LDPs to bring forward the land required to deliver the spatial strategy dependent on the availability of essential infrastructure. It should also seek contributions from developers to help address any shortfalls in infrastructure that are consequential on all new developments……’ no alternative approach to this is suggested.
The SESplan Policy 9 Infrastructure also states: ‘The Strategic Development Plan identifies through its Action Programme infrastructure required to deliver the development of the Strategy. Local Development Plans will: b. Provide policy guidance that will require sufficient infrastructure to be available, or its provision to be committed, before development can proceed. Any exceptions will have to be justified to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and will not set a precedent for the wider SESplan area; and c. Pursue the delivery of infrastructure through developer contributions, funding from infrastructure providers or other appropriate means, including the promotion of alternative delivery mechanisms.’
Although the SESplan has not been adopted yet these provisions are so important that we consider it unlikely that they will be excluded from the SESplan policies’.
There has recently been a considerable increase in housing in Peebles, the consequences of which have still to be experienced. Including this development some 350 houses would be added to the housing stock. ( for examplethe 172 houses proposed together with the 55 houses in the Violet Bank and the old Dunwhinny site 16 that have planning consent and 50% of the Whitehaugh estate 108 yet to be constructed),Together these would place an ever increasing burden on the infrastructure of the town; roads, water and drainage, electricity, schools and health facilities.
We believe that the facilities and infrastructure in Peebles is now becoming critical. To comply with the demands of the SESplan policies, and specifically policy 9, it is therefore incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate how the infrastructure can cope with the increase in demand resulting from the proposal and what measures are to be taken to satisfy the various infrastructure needs.
The applicant only refers to infrastructure in the table on planning policies once. In response to Policy inf5 the applicant states that ‘The holiday park is currently connected to the public sewerage system and the current intention is for the proposed development to utilise this connection, with upgrades where necessary.’ The applicant does not give any assessment of the impact on the present disposal system and what upgrades will be needed to cope with increase quantities of effluent.
With regard to the need for school places both in the primary and secondary levels. We have learned that the Peebles High School for year 2014/15 at 93% capacity is under pressure, Kingsland Primary School is almost at the severe category of 100% at 98% capacity and Priorsford Primary School is beyond the underpressure category at 91% capacity. Only Halyrude RC Primary School has any real spare capacity of 50% utilization at present. The further provision of school places needs to be addressed before any further major development takes place.
The applicant’s Design Report comments on PAN 2/2010 ‘Infrastructure’ that infrastructure can be delivered to accommodate the proposals. This statement is not further detailed in the application and we would consider that the issue has not been adequately addressed.
We can see no other references to satisfying infrastructure needs in the submission. Bearing in mind the objective of the SESplan aims concerning infrastructure, we consider this deficiency to be critical and until detailed proposals are submitted of how the infrastructure implications are to be met and funded, the consideration for consent should not be finalised by the Council.
5. Landscape Impact Considerations
Our main concern is that the field alongside to the south of the field that has planning consent for 60 static caravans on which the applicant proposes to build lodges is to house static caravans most of which are being displaced from the parkland below Rosetta House where they are screened by the mature landscape. These will now be very visible from the Core Path from Shieldgreen dropping past Venlaw Farm and Venlaw Castle. This is a well used and popular path used both by visitors and local residents. They will also be visible from the upper storeys of the Venlaw Castle Hotel. Although the Landscape Impact Assessment recognises the effects on this view it downplays the significance and we consider that the mitigation methods to be adopted as minimal and not effective.
The Landscape Impact Assessment recognizes that the site and Peebles is in an area of landscape sensitivity. This is also the view taken in the Scottish Borders Development and Landscape Capacity Study for Peebles Final Report March 2007. The study lists sensitivity to the hillsides and the land below and along the river for this area (North West). The settlement edge is given ‘Views and Visual Features High Sensitivity’ and the study states that ‘these slopes are highly visible from the A703 and from elevated viewpoints along the valley sides’.
Furthermore the Landscape Impact Assessment page 7states:It is therefore considered that opportunities exist to use the existing designed landscape structure to provide a meaningful context to Rosetta House; ensure long term retention of the existing woodland; provide a mature setting for the rationalised holiday park and develop the lower lying component of the site for housing.
So, the rationalization of the holiday park by placing the static caravans high up on the valley side in area 5 is being achieved at the expense of the sensitive landscape character.
The applicants state in section 4.5 Visual Mitigation that: Visual effects resulting from the introduction of the proposed development would arise from the creation of a new residential area, extension of the Holiday Park with static caravans and new park facilities building, associated designed landscape, boundary infill planting, street lighting and substantial areas of retained and enhanced perimeter tree planting. These effects can, in some instances, be mitigated by sensitive site design, use of appropriate materials and colours and provision of screening.
The Planning, Design and Access Statement Rosetta Holiday Park, page25 Leisure Accommodation 6.10states:‘The layout of the proposed static caravan and touring fields are sympathetic to the overall site and condusive to making good use of space available, falling in line with requirements of the site licence and common practice standards relating to spacing and density……. Caravans will sit within well landscaped fields on higher ground affording attractive views to the surrounding,areas including the adjacent golf course.’ 347C 349C 350C 375C 659C 668C
We also consider that the applicant has given scant regard to the intention to mitigate the intrusion of the static caravans through a number of illustrations of white caravans in the design statement. These will be visible from a great distance.
Policy G8 Development outwith Development Boundaries applies to this proposal. Area 1 for which consent is already given (planning application 07/00004/FUL) and area 5 that is subject to this application are both outwith the development boundary. The policy states that development outwith the development boundary will normally be refused but can be accepted under listed circumstances but subject to certain conditions. We consider that condition 7 ‘does not prejudice the character, visual cohesion or natural built up edge of the settlement, and 8. does not cause a significant adverse effect on the landscape setting of the settlement or the natural heritage of the surrounding area’ should apply to this application. We also consider that in relation to development in area 5 directly to the south of area 1 does not conform to the principle 2 on which planning decision may be taken: ‘the cumulative effect of any other developments outwith the Development Boundary within the current Local Plan period.’
Policy BE8 Caravan and Camping Sites also applies. Whilst the application is for an extension of an existing site under this policy we consider that condition 1 ‘Be in keeping with their local environment and not cause unacceptable environmental impacts’ should apply on account of the visual impact on the landscape setting discussed above. We see this as a creeping intrusion into a sensitive landscape in and Area of Great Landscape Value.
Policy EP2 Areas of Great Landscape Value states that ‘Where development proposals impact on an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), developers will be required to comply with Structure Plan policy N11. Structure Plan Policy N11: In assessing proposals for development in Areas of Great Landscape Value, the Council will seek to safeguard landscape quality and will have particular regard to the landscape impact of the proposed development. Proposals that have a significant adverse impact will only be permitted where the impact is clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national or local importance.’
As discussed above we consider that the development of static caravans on area 5 will add to the adverse impact.
We note the proposal to have chalets on area 1 with what appears to be a good level of landscape planting. However, we see that there is no intention to lessen the impact of the present static caravans on area 2 by planting between the caravans and likewise there is no indication in the Landscape Master Plan for landscaping and planting of the interior of area 5 with the result that the static caravans will be as obvious as those presently on area 2.
6. Design Matters.
There are a number of design matters that concern us:
The Rosetta House and the Stables are listed buildings and their landscape setting in parkland is an important feature of their quality.
We consider that there are too many houses proposed for this site and that the parkland character of Rosetta House is being severely destroyed. The number of houses should be reduced to give a lesser density with more open landscaped space.
The parkland setting for the stables has been destroyed as the houses planned to the north of the stables block are far too close and that these should be omitted.
The access road to the housing to the north of Rosetta House passes far too close to the entrance to Rosetta House.
The Traffic Assessment shows the access to the Holiday Park itself passing the front of Rosetta House ( Fig 2.7 Street Hierarchy). We note that the Master Plan shows the access to the Holiday Park branching off the approach road well clear of Rosetta house. Any planning consent should be on the basis of the Holiday Park access being on the Master Plan.
The Holiday Park facilities building and the access road are far too close to the stables that are being converted to apartments. Also entrance to the facilities building faces towards the apartments with a large glazed entrance with illuminated sign. This whole layout will be very intrusive with traffic and people disturbing the residents.
GJB 21.5.2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Planning Application 13/00444/PPP
Rosetta Holiday Park, Rosetta Road, Peebles
Mixed use development comprising of new housing, relocation of caravan park incorporating static pitches, erection of facilities building and sales office.
We continue with our objection to this application.
Procedural.
The previous application for this project was 13/00444/FUL to which we responded with our letter of 22 May 2013. We have received notification of the revised application by letter dated 20 January 2014 for application ref: 13/00444/PPP that we consider to be a revision and not a new application. This letter also advised that our comments with regard to application 13/00444/FUL would still be considered in the evaluation of this present application. We therefore now respond to the information given in the revised application.
We base our response on the revised Landscape Sketch Master Plan and the Rosetta Holiday Park Supplementary Report December 2013 accompanying the application. We note that pages 21-25 were not included in our copy and the on-line version also does not have these pages but has a page 25 as conclusion.
Scottish Borders housing requirements and the timing of the application
We note that the revised proposal reduces the number of houses from 172 to 130.
Since our previous response the Scottish Borders Council Proposed Local development Plan (LDP) has been issued for consultation. We are informed that the SESplan housing review has been taken into account in the preparation of the Proposed LDP.
For the current planning period the housing need for Peebles within the Western Strategic Development Area has been satisfied and no additional housing is suggested in the Propose LDP to meet any shortfall.
The Proposed LDP addressing the housing needs for the forthcoming period 2019 to 2024 identifies two new sites for safeguarding in Peebles to satisfy the housing requirement: APEEB021 South of South Parks 50 houses and APEEB Violet Bank II 25 houses. The proposed site is not included in the Proposed LDP.
If permission were to be granted the addition of 130 houses would greatly exceed the target of 75 houses for Peebles.
Such a development would be of a windfall and infill nature. We consider that the amount of houses proposed significantly exceeds the amount that could be justified under this definition. As infill development we would also consider that the cumulative effect would be counter to conditions ii), iii) and v) of Planning Policy G7 Infill Development.
This application thus remains contrary to both the current LDP and the Proposed LDP. Any development here would be premature for the current planning period and that of the Proposed LDP.
Traffic Considerations.
We note that a revised Traffic Impact Assessment has been undertaken but we feel that although the TIA attempts to demonstrate that the increased traffic can be accommodated in theory. We consider that in practice the introduction of this traffic will seriously impact on the real traffic situation of the surrounding roads.
Infrastructure Considerations.
We are concerned that the documentation accompanying the revised application does not address any further the problem of satisfying potential deficiencies in the infrastructure of Peebles caused by this development. Until detailed proposals are submitted on how the infrastructure implications are to be met and funded, the consideration should still not be finalised by the Council. As such the application has not demonstrated that criteria v of policy G7 Infill Development is being satisfied.
Landscape Impact Considerations
We note that in the revised application Supplementary Report Section 3 Landscape Analysis the view from the east across the valley has not been addressed. The analysis concentrates on views out form the development and only cites the view in from the south. We therefore still contend that scant regard has been given to the visual impact of the development on the views from across the valley especially in relation to the proposed siting of the static caravans high on the valley side.
Indicative housing layouts.
We note that the Supplementary Report gives indicative layouts. These do not really indicate impact on the site but we note the intention to preserve open parkland to the front of Rosetta House.
We are still concerned that the access road for the housing zones A and B pass close in front of Rosetta House.
We note that the Holiday Park facilities building has now been sited away from the stables building. This is an improvement but placing it at the far end of a row of touring caravan plots is to be questioned.
GJB 7 Feb 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society
Planning Application no: 13/00444/PPP
Proposal 11/00639 Mixed use development comprising of new housing, relocation of caravan park incorporating static pitches, erection of facilities building and sales office.
Land South East and West of Rosetta Caravan Park, Rosetta Road, Peebles.
Procedural.
This response is submitted in relation to the notice dated 15 May 2014. In addition to the pre application consultation by the developers, we have responded to this application as it has developed with the following submissions: 22 May 2013, 5 February 2014 to invitation dated 20 January 2014. The invitation letter of 15 May 2014 advises that our comments with regard to the previous applications will still be taken into consideration in the evaluation of this application. We therefore base our present response only on the information described on the ‘Revised Landscape Sketch Master Plan drawing no 0789/ 19 rev B dated 06.05.2014 submitted with the notice.
Site Capacity.
The original application was for 172 houses subsequently reduced to 130. We note that this application does not state a proposed number of houses and we find this unacceptable as many of the issues relate to Structure Plan and Local Plan housing requirements, infrastructure and traffic. The site plan describes areas of differing density without illustration or numbers to each plot. We therefore cannot comment on the overall capacity of the site. Acceptance of this proposal could lay the Council open to pressure in subsequent applications to over development of the site.
Landscape and Layout considerations.
· We note that the whole of the area of in front of Rosetta House is now to be retained as parkland. This is an improvement and should consent be granted there should be a condition against future development of any nature here in perpetuity.
· Area A, Medium density housing, we note that the advance structure planting dividing this area has been removed. We consider that some planting should be introduced here to break up the area of housing and would expect this to be detailed further in any future planning application for this area.
· We see the new road layout around the Rosetta House taking the access road to areas C, D and A clear of the front Rosetta house as an improvement. We also see the access road to the caravan park has been moved further away from the rear of the house as an improvement.
· The caravan park office and facilities are now located at the entrance to the touring caravan pitches and we see this as an improvement.
We are however very concerned about the positioning and layout of the static caravan site. We therefore repeat our concerns stated in our response of 5 February 2014. We still contend that scant regard has been given to the impact on the view across the valley from the east specially the popular walking route from Venlaw Hill. The static caravans are still located high on the valley side and due to their shape and light colour , white of light grey, will be very visible. They are now arranged in a tighter spacing albeit with two tree dividers but they now appear to be so close that the opportunity to integrate planting between the caravans has been lost thereby increasing the apparent mass of the units.
GJB 22 May 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peebles Civic Society response to
Planning Application 14/00136/FUL
Revised application dated 12 June 2014
We object to this proposal for the following reasons:
Introduction
We repeat the objections submitted for the original application dated13 February 2014 amended as appropriate in relation to the revised application. We refer to the issues raised in our response the first application as we consider that the issues described still apply.
Peebles Hydro Hotel site
The letter accompanying the original application states that the site is ‘white’ land’ within the settlement boundary’ and that the land is an ‘undeveloped site’ Until the sale of the site the land was part of the hotel land and as such was not ‘undeveloped’. We consider that the sale of the site for development has diminished the scope for the hotel to provide recreational facilities for the future. Moreover the hotel is in use class 7 whereas the intended use of the site is residential use class 9.
In the Design statement the developer’s agent infers that “the principle of development on this site is agreed”. We would disagree with this view taken by the developer’s agent and surely it is by the process of the Council reviewing the planning application taking into account all relevant issues that this fact can be established.
The hotel and grounds are category ‘B’ listed by Historic Scotland and the site is within the Peebles Conservation Area. We consider that the landscape of the site and the boundary walls to be included in the listing. The protection of the landscape setting of the hotel, its aspect and the boundary wall is therefore important.
Relationship with the current Local Development Plan and the proposed Local Development Plan currently under review.
We note that the site is not allocated for development in the current or the proposed Local Development Plans. The housing requirement for the current Local Plan period has been satisfied and for the Proposed Local Plan there is only a need for 75 houses for the period 2019 – 2024 for which two sites have been allocated. The proposal to add further 34 houses would cause the allocation of houses in the proposed LDP to be considerably exceeded. We would therefore consider this proposal to be premature in respect of the housing allocation.
The Planning and Design Statement suggests that this site is more likely to be developed to meet short-term housing supply targets than other allocated sites in the town, thereby apparently meeting the SESPlan Policy 7 test, but there is no clear evidence supporting this statement. Inspection of the Housing Land Audit indicates that there is currently an adequate supply of housing both planned and under construction. We also consider this project to be counter to the view taken by the authors of the SESPlan Main Issues Report chapter 8 paragraph 8.98 that specially refers to the future development pressure on Peebles:‘ The Western Hub, particularly at Peebles, has been subject to significant development pressure that will need to be distributed over a wider area within the hub.’ It must be remembered that there is also another project in the planning application stage for 130 houses. (the Rosetta Holiday Park that although the revised application does not give quote definite numbers we assume the 130 still stands.)
Site Density
In the design Statement section 3.4 the authors question the view taken by the Peebles Civic Society on the scale of the development as being unsubstantiated. We consider our case to be substantiated for the reason given in our response. We now set in more detail the reasons for our grave concerns:
Nearly a third of the site contains the mature trees along the line of the old railway. Thus the effective developable area is restricted.
Planning Policy G7 ‘Infill development’ demands that the development satisfies certain criteria. We consider that the proposed development does not meet criteria iii) ‘the individual and cumulative effects of the development can be sustained by the social and economic infrastructure and it does not lead to over-development of or ‘town and village’ cramming. Even with the reduction of 4 flats we still consider that the site is being severely over developed and is thus counter to criteria iii of Planning Policy G7 as it is over development and cramming onto the site.
In addition we consider that the development does not comply with criteria iv) of Planning Policy G7: ‘it respects the scale, form, design materials and density of its surroundings’ as the the block of flats at the rear of the site do not respect the density of the surroundings.
Whilst the row of 8 large houses along Innerleithen Road might reflect the character of the houses to the west of the site, the remainder of the development behind this row is far too dense for the rural character of a site on the edge of the town.
We are particularly concerned about the density of the flatted development. The landscape setting of these flats demonstrates the severe over development. The apartments comprise 17 units of the total of 30 units for the site yet the apartments are crammed into a quarter of the developable area of the site.
The apartments face out to the south onto a large car park for the apartments and vehicle access to the houses facing onto Innerleithen Road. The addition of a few trees here hardly changes the character of the car parking area. The living rooms here on the ground floor face directly onto a 2m public footpath with no private space as a barrier between the living rooms and the car parking area. To the rear there is a fence or hedge some 2.5 to 3 m from the building face. Block 1 has its living room windows to the west only about 1m from a hedge of fence and the east flat has its living room window 2m from the hedge.
The open refuse store is hardly a good feature to have at the entrance to the flatted development and is likely to be too small for all 17 flats.
We note that the row of houses facing onto Innerleithen Road now follows the appropriate building line.
The layout of the units type C is greatly improved with good open space between the type A and B houses and the type C houses. The road layout is much improved.
Although the developers have improved the design by adopting the correct building line for the houses bordering on to Innerleithen road and the site layout of the six type C houses, the flatted development of 17 units still represents a severe over development of that part of the site. Block 2 has been redesigned with hipped roofs so the bulk and massing has improved somewhat. Block 1 has not changed materially since the first application and is still is far too bulky and dominant with the mansard roof adding to the massive character of the block and is out of character with the scale of the new block 2. We still consider that the number of 17 flats represents a severe over development of this part of the site.
Material Selection
We also question the design report section 5.5 where the designers refer to the materials used for the existing row of houses ‘ High quality ashlar quoins and window surrounds and random rubble walls…. ‘ ‘ We propose that the dwellings …will complement and enhance the character of the area’ .
However we see from the application drawings that ‘reconstructed stone ashlar’ and ‘reconstructed random course stone’ are still proposed. The perspective of the original application shows quoins in buff sandstone and a dark infill on the street elevations suggestive of the dark grey whinstone commonly used in Peebles. The revised application drawings do not indicate a colour of the sandstone ashlar that should be buff and rusticated. As this site is within the Peebles Conservation Area it is imperative that a high standard of finishes to match those of the rest of the terrace is adopted and we question that the proposed materials will meet this standard.
The proposed reconstructed stone will not match the existing materials and we doubt there is any real substitute for natural whinstone.
The applicant should note that, except for the end house Glentress, the rest of the row of houses have infill between the ashlar features that is finely pointed randomly coursed whinstone and to properly match the existing we would expect this to be adopted for the new houses. This quality is important as it establishes the character of the main façade of the houses and can also be seen in the cottage at the eastern entrance of the Hydro Hotel.
G.J.Bakker Sec. Peebles Civic Society 23 June. 2014
Programme for 2017-18
Full details of the new syllabus for 2017-2018 are available to view on the Public Meetings section of this website.
Photo Gallery
