The Hope Family in Norton

My grandparents, John William and Margaret Hope, moved from Fairfields to Woodbine Cottage in 1917 with their five children: Eva (b.1908), Walter (b.1909), Elsie (b.1911), John (b.1913) and George (b.1914). Here, three more children were born; Douglas (b.1918), Margaret (b.1920) and Alfred (b.1922). Woodbine Cottage was a small holding located on the High Street just below the crossroads in the centre of the village [the Royal Corner].  Woodbine Cottage is the most probable location for the former George and Dragon Inn, which closed in 1878, and had then been occupied by a poultry farmer and a hirer of a pony and trap.  Here, they soon got to work erecting greenhouses on the attached land and created a market garden for the growing of vegetables, soft fruit and cut flowers.  According to the local press, my grandfather won the first of his many prizes at the local horticultural show in August 1920, the first in Norton following the First World War, where miners and farm hands competed against each other in 67 classes.  He won first prize in the horticultural section. According to the article: There were some remarkably fine potatoes, with peas and beans following close up.  Flowers were also good, especially the sweet peas and fruit was excellent in quality.

Finishing working at the pit following an accident at Askern Colliery, my grandfather built a shop next to the cottage, which soon became the most popular general store after the Co-op, which was further down High Street. Whilst he tended the market garden, my grandmother ran the grocers shop assisted by her eldest daughter, Eva, who would marry Arthur Heseltine, a bricklayer, in 1931 and live in Carleton, near Pontefract.  Their daughter, Margaret, would also help in the shop before her marriage to Lawrence [Laurie] Wild, Edmund Wild’s son, in 1942.  Laurie and Margaret would live first of all at Ryder’s Farm, at the bottom end of the village and then move to Schoolboy Farm, on the death of his father, Edmund Wild, who had acquired both farms in 1938 William Carter, who had purchased the properties from Campsmount Estate in 1919.  By the mid-1930s, their daughter, Elsie, was a bus conductress living in Bentley Road, Doncaster and would marry David Maclean, a Scotsman, in 1941, also employed with Doncaster Corporation.  They would move to Scotland later in the 1940s and live in Kennoway, Fife, where David would become a bus inspector with bus operator, W. Alexander & Sons Ltd.

Unlike my grandfather, and John, his father, none of my grandfather and grandmother’s five sons would work down the pit.  My father’s brother, John (Jack) would train as a butcher and marry Evelyn Bird, a miner’s daughter from Adwick-le-Street in 1941.  After the Second World War, Jack would take over Hall Farm, a dairy farm, from Arthur Sanderson and build a butcher’s shop on West End Road.  My father’s youngest brother, Alfred, would follow a career with British Railways as a carriage builder (joiner) at the carriage works in Doncaster. Their eldest son, Walter trained as a blacksmith and married to a local girl, Evelyn Hickman, lived in the row of semi-detached houses called ‘Mount Pleasant’ built by Hemsworth Rural District Council at Little Smeaton over the river Went.  In July 1929, at the age of 20 years, Walter went to work at the newly opened Coalite Plant next to the pit in Askern.  Until he left school, my father (George) would help in the market garden and cycle to the railway station at Little Smeaton to collect fish from the daily fish train that ran from Hull to Barnsley.  At the age of 14, in December 1929, he joined Walter at the Coalite Plant as a trainee draughtsman. He would take evening classes in engineering drawing at Doncaster Technical College and become the head draughtsman responsible for producing the plans for the expansion of the works and its maintenance. He would work at the ‘Plant’ until his death in December 1975 and eventually rise to become the General Manager of the works, knowledgeable in every respect of its operation, responsible to Mr. Flack, the managing director.

My father’s brother, Douglas (b.1918), followed in the footsteps of his uncles Robert and George and joined up as a professional soldier in 1937.  By the beginning of the Second World War (aged 21), he was a sergeant in the Royal Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons), which was amalgamated with other battalions to form the Royal Armoured Corps in 1939.  I don’t know how or why Douglas came to join the Royal Scots Greys but, in the 1930s, the Scots Greys were in much the same position as the rest of the British Army with a depleted strength and they commenced a vigorous recruiting drive.  Perhaps it was his experience of horses either on the small-holding or delivering goods from the shop that led him to choose a cavalry regiment; the Scots Greys were still mounted on horses at the outbreak of the Second World War.

The Scots Greys were in Palestine from October 1938 until 1942, policing the Palestine Mandate and operating in the vicinity of Jerusalem.  Throughout 1941, horses were gradually replaced by tanks and men who had spent their careers on horseback were retrained as drivers, loaders and gunners for tanks.  At the end of 1941, the regiment was transferred to the Eighth Army in Egypt.  They were held back from the battle for Tobruk in the Spring and Summer of 1942 because it was thought that they were still not fully combat ready, but they were finally committed to the fighting at the First Battle of El Alamein in September 1942.  A month later, they were in action at the Second Battle of El Alamein, which turned the tide in the North African Campaign and ended the Axis (Germany & Italy) threat to Egypt, the Suez Canal, and the Middle East and Persian oil fields.  It was the first big success against the Axis and revived the morale of the Allies and marked the start of the recapture of North Africa.

Unfortunately, Douglas was killed in the opening skirmishes on the first day of the battle (24 October 1942).  His body was never recovered and he has no known grave.  His name is recorded on the Alamein Memorial which forms the entrance to the Alamein Cemetery in Egypt.  It is also recorded in the roll of honour in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards Regimental Museum in Edinburgh Castle and on the war memorial in Campsall Cemetery.  Although Douglas died before I was born, I have a close connection with him. 

My father married my mother, Priscilla Ellis, in 1938 at Campsall Church; the reception was held in the Mission Room in Norton.  My Mother was from a long-standing Yorkshire family, the Ellis’s.  She was born in Thorne but at the time of their marriage, she lived in Bentley, her parents running a grocer’s shop at 43 High Street. My mother was “in service” for Mr. & Mrs. Warriner, proprietors of Warriner’s Garage located at the junction of the Great North Road (A1) and Bentley Road (A19) close to the bridge over the river Don. On their marriage, they bought one of the new semi-detached houses in Rycroft Avenue at the west end [top] of Norton where I was born in 1942, three weeks after the battle of El Alamein.  My mother and father had decided that, if their new baby was a boy, I was to be christened Paul but when news of the death of my father’s brother Douglas reached home, my grandmother pleaded with my mother to have me christened Douglas, in memory of him, and so I was christened Douglas George Hope (George after my father).  I never knew my Uncle Douglas nor my paternal grandfather, John William Hope, who also died before my birth, in June 1941.

Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) Update: July 2023

The Proposed LDP2 was submitted for Examination by Scottish Ministers in July 2022 and four reporters were appointed to assist with its speedy delivery. The Examination commenced in September 2022 and considered 76 outstanding issues arising from 1,351 unresolved representations to the proposed plan. The examination process included a comprehensive series of unaccompanied site inspections and requests for additional information. One hearing session was held to consider the calculation of the housing requirement on which the local plan is based. Account was taken of the new planning guidance from the Scottish Government embodied in National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) adopted by Scottish Ministers in February 2023. The Report of the Examination has now been submitted to Scottish Borders Council and, unless there are grounds for declining to follow its recommendations [which are limited], the council must make the modifications recommended in the Report of Examination.

The number of modifications proposed is considerable. Perhaps of most interest to the general public will be the decision of the Reporter(s) in relation to the proposed housing at Netherbarns, Galashiels [Issue 35]. After considering all the evidence, the Reporter considers that the allocation of the site at Netherbarns for housing has the potential to have an adverse impact on the setting of Abbotsford House and on its designed landscape. Having concluded that there is no overriding housing need for this allocation, the Reporter recommends that the allocation be deleted from the proposed plan.  No doubt the supporters of Abbotsford will be celebrating.

In relation to the overall proposals in LDP2 for the allocation of housing sites to meet the housing land requirement [Issue 6], an issue which was the subject of detailed debate at the hearing between the council and the private house builders, the Reporter recommends extensive modifications to Chapter 6 and Appendix 2 of the local development plan. In doing so, the Reporter has determined that the land requirement for the ten-year period 2023/24 to 2032/33 should be 4,800 housing units (480 per year on average). This compares with historical completions during the five-year period 2016/17 to 2020/21 of 288 housing units per year; a considerable increase is proposed. The policy in the LDP therefore is to encourage and facilitate an increased level of housing completions, particularly in respect of affordable housing. In relation to housing land supply, the Reporter recommends the deletion of six sites allocated in the LDP, including Netherbarns, with a total indicative capacity of 106 housing units. The Reporter is satisfied, even with the deletion of these sites, that there is sufficient housing land in the LDP to accommodate the housing land requirement of 4,800 housing units without the need to allocate additional sites besides those identified in the proposed plan. Indeed, there is a large surplus of land which could accommodate in excess of 9,000 housing units. Furthermore, windfall sites, that is sites which have not been identified for housing in the LDP, could provide some 100 house units each year based on the previous ten-year average. In fact, completions on windfall sites have provided over about a third of all completions over the past ten years.

Twelve new sites are allocated in the LDP with an indicative capacity of over 400 housing units, including the site at Burnhead, Hawick [AHAW1027], a site previously considered for industrial development. Land to the northeast [BHAW1001] and to the east [BHAW1004] is now allocated for business and industry. It is noted in the Report of the Examination that the owners/tenants of the land remain opposed to the allocation of land at Burnhead for housing/industry. Burnhead was first identified as a potential industrial site back in the 1970s and over a fifteen year period the Borders Regional Council attempted to purchase the land for development to no avail [see my book on Town and Country Planning in the Scottish Borders 1946-1996]. Will Scottish Borders Council be any more successful in enabling the development of this site.

There is much more to disseminate in the Report of Examination, which is now available to view on the DPEA website and should be made available on the Council’s own website. In terms of the Vision, Aims and Spatial Strategy of the Plan, there is little change. The Report makes no changes to the spatial strategy although representations were submitted objecting to the concentration of development in the three strategic development areas and to the concentration of improved connectivity on the links to the north and south without any reference to improving east-west connectivity. In relation to sustainability and climate change [paragraph 4.7], the Report emphasises the continuing need to reduce private vehicular travel, which will indeed be very difficult for many Borderers. In relation to renewable energy, the Government’s adoption of NPF4 has implications for the council’s policies on renewable energy. The council’s 2018 Supplementary Guidance on Renewable Energy will, on the adoption of LDP2, have no development plan status. This guidance may still be used in the assessment of renewable energy proposals but as the national policy context within which it was prepared has been superseded, some aspects of the guidance is no longer applicable. In relation to policy ED9, the Reporter considers that referring to wind turbines as contentious, and highlighting the need for careful scrutiny of applications for 200 metre high turbines is not helpful within the context of addressing climate change and meeting renewable energy targets. The Reporter considers that the wording of policy ED9 can no longer be described as “robust” or up to date. Consequently, policy ED9 has been replaced and will now indicate that development proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported and will be assessed in accordance with NPF4 Policy 11, paragraphs b) to f) and other provisions of NPF4. Much more emphasis, therefore, has been placed on national planning guidance in the assessment of renewable energy proposals, including wind farms.

There is much more to digest in this comprehensive Report of Examination of LDP2 and no doubt, in due course, Scottish Borders Council will publish its response to the Report of Examination by the Council’s Planning Officer. I am looking forward to seeing it.

Town and Country Planning in the Scottish Borders 1946-1996

Published by Edinburgh University Press, this book studies how the practice of town and country planning in the Scottish Borders changed over a fifty-year period from 1946 to 1996. The focus of the book is on an area which encompasses the historic counties of Peeblesshire, Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Berwickshire; an area synonymous with woven cloth [tweed] knitwear and agriculture. This area has a rich past but the peaceful tranquillity of its landscape gives little indication of the challenges faced by the area as a result of the decline in its traditional industries and the loss of population after 1891.

Against the background of the social, economic and political changes of the twentieth century, the book shows how town and country planning emerged from being a fringe activity in Borders local government to become a driving force for change in the region. The book provides a comprehensive appraisal of the changing role of planning in the Scottish Borders during this time and describes how planning evolved from simply a system of land use control to a dynamic, pro-active, multi-disciplined collaboration encompassing not only spatial planning but also economic development and promotion, project design and implementation, urban conservation, rural heritage and countryside management, and environmental planning.

The book describes the principal characteristics of the Scottish Borders in terms of its development prior to the twentieth century. It traces the origins of town and country planning in Britain and the establishment of the planning system in the region. It compares and contrasts the different ways in which the four counties implemented the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 and details the principal policies and proposals in the first county development plans. It describes how planning in the Scottish Borders broadened its horizons in the 1960s as “Planning” in its widest sense took centre stage and more attention was paid by Central Government to the plight of rural areas such as the Scottish Borders with the preparation of the Central Borders Study and the Tweedbank initiative. It details how planning and economic development in the region became inexorably linked.

The book discusses the effect of local government reorganisation in 1975 on planning in the Scottish Borders with the establishment of the Borders Regional Council as a unitary planning authority for the area and explores the key policies and proposals for land use and development in the region’s first structure and local plans. The book examines the challenges and achievements of the 1980s, a period of economic volatility, when the regional council’s role in economic development expanded and partnerships with a range of organisations such as the Scottish Development Agency and the Countryside Commission for Scotland, was key to securing investment and implementing proposals. The 1990s was a period of uncertainty with a number of significant organisational and operational changes amongst Scotland’s principal agencies, and a move towards sustainable economic development. The book details how environmental issues came to the fore and, with the reorganisation of local government in 1996 looming, examines the role of the Planning and Development Department in preparing for the challenges of the twenty-first century. It also looks forward to the impact of the significant changes to the Scottish planning system resulting from the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and the subsequent changes to town and country planning in Scotland.

According to Craig McLaren, Director of RTPI Scotland, ‘There are few, if any, books that provide such a detailed history of the practice of town and country planning in Scotland and, given the increasingly divergent planning systems, practice and policy being introduced across different parts of the UK, this book is an essential read for all those interested in the history of town and country planning in Scotland’.

To obtain a copy, visit edinburghuniversitypress.com/book/9781399503334, use code NEW30 at checkout to save 30%.

Development Planning: January 2023

The current Local Development Plan (LDP1) was adopted in May 2016. The Strategic Development Plan for south east Scotland [SESplan], approved in June 2013, together with LDP1 form the statutory Development Plan for the Scottish Borders. The adoption of LDP1 included the requirement to produce Supplementary Guidance on Housing Land, in order to meet the additional requirement of 916 houses, and on Renewable Energy. The Supplementary Guidance on Housing Land was formally Adopted in November 2017 following submission to Scottish Ministers for scrutiny. The Supplementary Guidance on Renewable Energy was formally adopted in July 2018.The Scottish Government’s policy as stated in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), published June 2014, states that the Planning Service should be plan-led with plans being up-to-date and relevant. Local Development Plans are intended to guide development for 10 years. It could be 2024 before the replacement local development plan (LDP2) is formally adopted and replaces LDP1.

The Proposed LDP2, was presented to Scottish Borders Council way back in September 2020 and was then placed on deposit for representations. In excess of 1000 responses were received, this being over double the number received at the same stage during the production of LDP1. It was March 2022, partly as a result of the COVID Pandemic, before a report was presented to the council on the representations received, and the council’s response to each of the matters raised in representations was agreed. The Proposed LDP2 was submitted for Examination by Scottish Ministers in July 2022 and Reporters have been appointed to carry out this examination. Four reporters have been appointed to assist with the speedy delivery of the Examination report [See the Scottish Government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division File Reference LDP-140-3].

According to the Development Plan Scheme, approved by the Council in November 2022, it is likely to be the summer of 2023 before the examination is completed. At the present time, the examination is progressing on the basis of written submissions and it will be for the lead Reporter to determine whether any formal hearings are required. The Council expects to be in a position to publicise any proposed modifications to the local development plan during the summer and adopt the local development plan in the autumn. It has to be said that this sounds rather optimistic, bearing in mind the scale of the objections that have been aroused by some of the issues, such as the proposed housing development at Netherbarns, Galashiels.

Previous local development plans have been prepared within the framework set out in strategic development plans and the Government’s National Planning Framework. National Planning Framework NPF3 was published in June 2014 and a replacement draft NPF4 was published in November 2021. The revised draft NPF4 was laid before the Scottish Parliament in November 2022. The principal proposals in NPF4 are designed to: support emerging low-carbon and zero emissions technologies; enable more renewable energy generation; help rural communities grow; and regenerate city and town centres. According to the convenor of RTPI Scotland, it is hoped that this framework will “usher in a new plan-led era that can make sure our towns and cities are greener, healthier and more vibrant”. However, he added that to make this vision of Scotland in 2050 a reality “we need to provide the appropriate resources to our planning departments to prepare local development plans and manage planning applications to guide development appropriately”.

However, the signs are not good. In its analysis of the resources in the planning service, published in December 2022, RTPI Scotland points out that whilst Planning has a vital role to play in moving towards a sustainable, resilient and zero-carbon economy, limited resources and ambition for planning can create a cycle of low-quality development and reduce confidence in the planning system and local authorities. According to the analysis, the Planning Service is the most severely affected of all local government services in terms of budgets with a reduction of 38% since 2010. Planning application fees only cover 66% of their processing costs. Planning department staff has been cut by 25% since 2009.  The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 will substantially increase the number of duties on planning authorities without providing new resources. Data gathered from planning authorities indicates that only around 8% of planning staff are under 30 years of age whilst over 39% are over 50 years old. The planning sector will require an additional 680-730 new entrants over the next 10-15 years and there is a real need to make sure that we have enough planners to produce development plans and process planning applications to support the post-COVID recovery.

I sincerely hope that the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) is listening. Limited resources and a lack of ambition seems to be the order of the day in the local authority planning community.

Norton in 1921

The individual returns of every household in the 1921 Census were released in 2022 under the 100-year rule. It was the first census in the UK to ask about place of work and the name of the employer as well as occupation in addition to information about the age and marital status of every household member. Close to 38 million individuals completed the census in England and Wales. It was carried out on 19 June 1921, postponed from the usual census time of April due to industrial unrest. After the First World War, England and Wales was hit with a period of economic uncertainty, and by 1921 over two million people were unemployed leading to widespread industrial unrest. Coal miners led the charge.

In 1921 over a million people worked in the mines. Throughout the war, coal mines were nationalised but in 1921 control of the mines was due to return to the hands of the mine owners, who intended to cut miners’ wages. Miners rejected the proposed wage reduction and suggested that the Government should fix a levy on a ton of coal to raise a pool of money to provide all miners with a minimum wage regardless of how profitable the pit they worked in. The country’s largest union, the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain ordered a strike on 1 April 1921. The Triple Alliance, a coalition of miners, railwaymen and transport workers, created in 1914, announced a strike for 15 April, a date which became known as Black Friday 1921, but this was called off on 12 April. Nevertheless, miners who refused to accept the wage reductions were locked out of employment.

Amid the coal strikes and the threat of a general strike, the census programmed for 8 April was called off for the first time since the census began in 1841. The rescheduled date, 19 June, was announced on 4 May 1921 but by census day many miners were still on strike or locked out and no resolution had been found. Census returns show the continued effects of the miners’ strike with some miners reporting themselves as ‘out of work’ or ‘on strike’. Indeed, in the Norton Parish returns, 59 out of the 184 individuals classified as miners, described themselves as either ‘out of work’ or ‘on strike’. Many other miners, who did not add this description in their return, would also be unemployed at the time.

The 1921 Census indicates how Norton had drastically changed from the previous census in 1911. At the national level, the First World War and the outbreak of ‘Spanish’ Flu in 1918 had overwhelming effects on world population and that of the United Kingdom. Norton was not immune to the effects of the First World War; the war memorial on the wall of the Royal Hotel, erected in 1919, commemorates 17 casualties of WWI from Norton and surrounding villages. There is continuing debate as to where the ‘Spanish’ Flu pandemic, which lasted from 1918 to 1920, originated. Whatever its origins, it became known as the ‘Spanish’ pandemic because it was the Spanish press that first reported the outbreak amongst soldiers returning from the First World War. Unlike most of the European and American press, which was restricted in what it could publish, as a neutral country the Spanish press was not subject to the same reporting restrictions. The flu pandemic, which killed between 50 and 100 million people worldwide, killed more people than the First World War. It is estimated that some 228,000 people died in the UK. However, the absence of a Health Ministry meant that there was no national collation of deaths. In addition, flu was often not reported as a contributory cause of death when pneumonia, bronchitis, heart disease and tuberculosis were involved. It is known that the virus was disproportionately deadly to adults between the ages of 25 and 34, and to women in particular but the death of children drew most attention in the press.

It is difficult to assess the direct impact on small communities like Norton. An examination of the burial records shows that throughout the period leading up to the First World War, the number of deaths in Norton was less than 10 per annum. The number leapt to 16 in 1919 and 11 in 1920 before falling back to 7 in 1921 and 4 in 1922. An analysis of the deaths in 1919 shows that the vast majority of persons who died were over 65 years old [11 people; 6 male and 5 female]. Two were very young children, 3 and 4 months old; one was aged 14 years; one 18 years old and one 26 years old.  Thus, only one of the sixteen deaths related to the most vulnerable 25-34 age group. In 1920, only 3 of the 11 deaths related to persons over 65 years old. Four were aged 45-60 years old, one was aged 17 years, one was 2 years old, one was 4 months and one 3 months. None came within the most vulnerable 25-34 age group.

Perhaps of most significance in the development of Norton was the opening of the colliery at Askern. With the sinking of Askern Colliery, miners arrived from as far afield as Wales, Cumbria and County Durham; in 1923 the workforce amounted to 1,380 employees [1,150 below ground and 230 on the surface]. By 1933, it had increased to 2,650 employees [2,300 below ground and 350 on the surface] (see Norton at the beginning of the 20th century). The impact of the opening of the pit in 1916 is clearly shown in the change in the population characteristics of Norton between 1911 and 1921. In 1911, there were 126 occupied houses in Norton with a population of 516 persons. By 1921, the number of occupied houses had risen to 236 with a population of 1142 persons; average family size had increased from 4 persons to 5 persons. Some families comprised more than 10 persons, accommodated in houses with only 2 or 3 bedrooms.

In 1911, there was no one living in Norton whose occupation was related to coal mining; the largest occupation was farming and related industries. In 1921, over 50% of the employed population of the village was employed in coal mining [184 workers out of 358 in total]. Whilst farming still employed a substantial number of workers [over 65 workers], other industries were also prominent, such as the brickworks in Askern.  The Coalite works did not start up until 1929. Relatively few people travelled beyond Norton and Askern to work; some journeyed to Doncaster, either to work at the railway engine and carriage works or in shops and offices.

Whilst Kelly’s 1922 directory lists 12 farmers in Norton, 17 ‘Farmers’ are identified in the 1921 Census [compared with 24 in 1911].                           

                      

                              Westfield Farm                  George Bramley

                              Cliff Hill Farm                    Henry Auty

                              Hall Farm                            Edmund Wild (Dairyman)

                              The Lilacs                           Alfred Hough

                              Manor House                      Edward Terry

                              Manor Farm                        Frank Lodge

                              Priory Farm                        Joshua Smith

                              The Priory                           John Milner

                              Wright’s Farm                    Herbert Asquith

                              Poplar Farm                        John Woodward

                              Vine House Farm               Frederick Bryan (Dairyman)

                              Southfields                         Frank Moulson

                              Schoolboy Farm                 unoccupied

                              Hollies Farm                       unoccupied

                              East End Farm                    Edward Sanderson

                              Travellers’ Rest Farm        William Saul (Small Farmer)

                              White House Farm             Samuel Warriner

                              Ryder’s Farm                     William Laycock

                              Norton Common Farm      John Kealey

A number of farms identified in the 1911 census are not shown as occupied in the 1921 census: for instance, Schoolboy Farm and the adjacent Hollies Farm. Schoolboy Farm (10 acres), described as a small-holding and tenanted by Charles Johnson, was purchased by Mr. W.N. Carter from Campsmount Estate in 1919 but, in 1921, Charles Johnson is recorded as occupying a property on High Street adjacent to North View, and described as a ‘grocer’. In 1921, in addition to the three pubs [inns] there were nine shops in the village: two butchers, the Post Office, the Co-op store, Waddington’s Cash Stores, three grocers [Hope’s, Charles Johnson’s and Annie Dickson’s] and a ‘sweet shop’ run by Annie Sawbridge at Greenside on West End Road. It is noticeable that three shops that would rise to prominence in the 1930s do not figure in the 1921 census: Allcock’s shop and Miss Child’s shop on Station Road and Kirkby’s at Fairfields. The West End Stores was not built until 1938 and Wardle’s shop would not open until after the Second World War.

The vast majority of the 100 or so new terraced houses built in the village were occupied by miners and their families who had come from other parts of the country, usually other mining areas. In 1911, more than half the population of the village had been born in the village or in the immediately surrounding villages, such as Stubbs Walden, Campsall, Little Smeaton and Womersley. Only 19 of the 126 families in the village originated from outside Yorkshire. By contrast, in 1921, less than 20% of the population had been born in Norton and surrounding villages; only 23 of the 236 families originated from the village itself. Miners and their families had been attracted principally from elsewhere in Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, County Durham, Lancashire and Wales, and a range of other counties from Kent in the south to Scotland in the north.  Norton in 1921 was no longer simply a farming community with associated tradesmen but was a far more cosmopolitan community than it was prior to the First World War.

Norton would continue to grow and change throughout the 1920s and 1930s and by 1939 there would be some 375 occupied houses in the village with a population of over 1500 persons.

Planning Progress Report: August 2022

My posts have been somewhat erratic over this past year, mainly because things have been relatively quiet on the planning front in the Scottish Borders. I have also, over the past two or three years been concentrating on my research into the history of town and country planning in the Scottish Borders during the period 1946-96 for a forthcoming book to be published by Edinburgh University Press [in 2023]. For a number of years now, I have been visiting the Heritage Hub in Hawick delving into the planning activities of the four former county councils; Peeblesshire, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Berwickshire, which together with a small part of Midlothian County Council formed the Borders Region in 1975. I have been indebted to a number of former colleagues who have helped me greatly in drawing information together on the planning and development activities of the BRC, the challenges it faced and its achievements during the period 1975-1996. My book will examine how town and country planning [for that is its proper name, although some refer simply to ‘Town Planning’ and others simply to ‘Planning’] evolved in the Scottish Borders from its inception to the demise of the Borders Regional Council in 1996. I shall leave others to deal with Scottish Borders Council.

Returning to the issues of today, I should perhaps draw your attention to the fact that SBC has now submitted its Proposed Local Development Plan [LDP2] to Scottish Ministers for examination of the unresolved issues. In reality it is now for a Reporter [or Reporters] from the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division of the Scottish Government (which is still referred to as the DPEA) to hold hearings/inquiry into the objections received to the submitted local development plan. Apparently, some 1,043 representations were received by the council when the LDP was put out to consultation in November 2020.  It has taken some eighteen months for the council to digest all the representations received and draw them together into 76 groups.  Objections and concerns have been raised in relation to all eight introductory chapters in Volume 1 of the LDP. There are fifty-eight planning policies within Volume 1 and the majority have been the subject of representations. There are also unresolved issues with regard to proposals in fifty-two of the ninety-three settlements in Volume 2 of the LDP. The proposed allocation of a site for housing at Netherbarns, Galashiels has generated a large volume of representations. The submission to the DPEA also highlights a proposed housing allocation in Eddleston, in Peeblesshire, which abuts the holiday hut site at Hatton Knowe, to which objections were received out of time and which the council considers should be disregarded. It will be interesting to see what the Reporter(s) appointed to the local development plan examination decide to do.

All the details relating to the LDP Examination can be found on the DPEA website www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk (Ref. No. LDP-140-3). It will, no doubt, be some considerable time before any examination takes place but progress will be charted on the DPEA’s publicly accessible website. I shall certainly be watching events.

Development Management: January 2022 Update

The past six months have been relatively quiet on the planning front in the Scottish Borders. Most of the applications received in the second half of 2021, some 700 in number, as in the first six months related to the erection of single dwellinghouses and alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, and works to trees.  The majority of the applications received have been dealt with under delegated powers by the Chief Planning Officer and his staff.  The Planning and Building Standards Committee, in fact, met only four times in the past six months and dealt with five applications, the most noteworthy being the approval of an application to extend the life of the Lurgiescleuch (Pine Burn) Wind Farm, south-west of Hawick from 25 to 40 years. The Local Review Board met five times between August and December 2021 and dealt with some 10 appeals, five of which were upheld, with the Chief Planning Officer’s decision reversed and planning permission granted.

I’ve been looking back over the past three years at the trend in applications received and decided. In 2019, prior to the COVID Pandemic, some 1600 applications were received by the planning department and 1550 applications were decided [one would expect the number of applications received and the decisions made to be evenly balanced but, of course, some applications received are withdrawn before a decision can be made]. In 2020, the number of applications received fell to a little over 1350, as the Pandemic took hold, and the number decided was below 1200, indicating a backlog of applications to be decided. In 2021, the number of applications received bounced back to 1650 applications [even though the Pandemic persisted], but with less than 1400 applications decided, the backlog continues to grow

. As of 31 January, national guidance around working from home has been relaxed enabling a phased return to offices. Surveys of normally office-based staff during the enforced home-working have established that the vast majority are very content with home-working and would like to continue, even when COVID-19 restrictions are eased. SBC does not envisage a notable increase in the number of staff returning to the offices in Newtown St. Boswells.  What this means for the Planning Department and access to officers by the public and applicants is unclear.

If you want to find out more about the applications received and the decisions made, check out the council’s Public Access Portal

In relation to appeals to Scottish Ministers, the appeal against an enforcement notice alleging the use of open amenity land as garden ground and the erection thereon of two sheds and a boundary fence, at 1 Broad Street, Eyemouth was dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld on 8 October 2021 (DPEA Ref: ENA-140-2016). The appeal against the refusal of listed building consent for replacement windows at Rowanside, The Row, Longformacus in Berwickshire was dismissed on 1 November 2021 (DPEA Ref: LBA-140-2006). The appeal against the refusal of the council to grant a Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of the property, Greenloaning at West Linton, for short stay commercial letting remains outstanding (DPEA Ref: CLUD-140-2004 & SBC Ref: 21/00958/CLPU). 

An application for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for a windfarm comprising 45 turbines on land west of Castleweary, south of Hawick, called Faw Side Wind Farm has yet to be decided. A Pre-examination Meeting [virtual] is programmed for 23 February to discuss the timetable for a public inquiry into objections to the proposal.  The majority of the proposed windfarm is within Dumfries and Galloway Council area and the proposed wind farm has prompted widespread opposition from both Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries & Galloway Council and a number of organisations. Interestingly, the Scottish Government published a draft Onshore Wind Policy Statement in October 2021, designed to meet its plans to more than double Scotland’s onshore wind capacity by 2030.  According to Michael Matheson, the ‘Net Zero and Energy Secretary’ onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective forms of large-scale electricity generation and is vital to Scotland’s future energy mix. There is a clear expectation that the region will deliver further capacity through the re-powering of existing sites and/or new windfarms. Many of the most acceptable/appropriate sites have been developed and there are landscape capacity concerns in relation to large areas of the Borders. This document was considered by SBC at its meeting in January 2022 when a comprehensive response was agreed. Reading the response, it is not immediately clear where the council stands on the prospect of larger and/or more wind turbines in the region other than the principle ‘of the right development in the right place’; that the environmental and landscape qualities of the Borders should not be adversely prejudiced.  I await the results of the Scottish Government’s consultation on onshore wind energy with interest.

On the development planning front, all has been quiet since the publication of the Proposed Local Development Plan in the Autumn of 2020. The period for representations on the Proposed LDP ran to 25 January 2021 [a year ago], since when nothing has been heard. Normally, one would have expected arrangements to have been made by now for the holding of a public examination [inquiry] to allow unresolved representations [objections] to be considered by an independent Reporter from the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning and Environmental appeals. Apparently, in excess of 1000 responses were received, testament to the interest in planning in the region [also perhaps a reflection of the dis-satisfaction with certain proposals]. In November 2021, the council published its updated Development Plan Scheme which suggests that the Examination of the Proposed LDP could now be held in the Spring/Summer of 2022, with any proposed modifications resulting from the Examination published during the Winter of 2022, following which the LDP would be adopted in early 2023 [another year’s time].

Scottish Planning Policy states that the Planning Service should be plan-led with plans being up-to-date and relevant. The present Local Development Plan was adopted in May 2016, based on information obtained in 2012 and an Examination in November 2014. The housing element of the LDP adopted in May 2016 was modified in November 2017, on the instructions of the Scottish Ministers, through the preparation of Supplementary Guidance on Housing, which allocated additional land for housing. Is this LDP still up-to-date and relevant? Furthermore, given all that has happened over the past couple of years, including a stand-still in house construction and the latent demand for new housing as evidenced by rising house prices, one wonders whether the new LDP prepared in 2018/2019 will need further revision before it is adopted.

Development Management: July/August 2021 update

In July and August, a total of some 270 applications for planning permission and other consents, including listed building and conservation area consents and applications for works to protected trees, were received.  The vast majority related to the erection of single dwellinghouses and alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, and works to trees.  In Galashiels, an application has now been received for the demolition of the Abbotsford Arms Hotel and the erection of a drive-thru coffee shop to be operated by Starbucks franchisee Burton and Speke Ltd, seven days a week between 6.00am and 10.00pm (SBC Ref: 21/01380/FUL).  The proposed unit would have both internal and external seating and parking for 17 cars.  A more welcome proposal than previous ideas!

Another interesting application is that for the refurbishment of the spectator stand at Gala Fairydean Club at Netherdale, Galashiels (SBC Ref: 21/01335/LBC). The stand is in poor condition and Historic Environment Scotland welcome the proposals to bring this A-listed building back into use. According to Historic Environment Scotland, “The Gala Fairydean football stand is an outstanding work of Late Modernist Formalism in Scotland. Designed by renowned architect Peter Womersley alongside engineers Ove Arup (1963-65), the building represents part of an international trend toward a more sculptural, aesthetic approach to architecture as opposed to the pure functionalism associated with earlier International Modernism.” The proposed work will be welcomed not only by the purists, who wish to see this building retained as a prime example of the work of Peter Womersley but also by the members of Gala Fairydean Club.  It is a pity that the same approach is not being taken by the owner of another of Peter Womersley’s masterpieces, the Bernat Klein Studio at High Sunderland, near Selkirk.

In Peeblesshire, an application has been submitted under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1898 for an amended wind farm scheme in the Clioch Hills (SBC Ref: 21/01134/S36). A scheme for 18 turbines (115m height to tip) was approved by Scottish Ministers in July 2016 following a public inquiry in May/June 2015.  The developer considers that the approved scheme under-uses the site and the amended scheme comprises 12 turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 149.9m. Will SBC maintain its opposition to the wind farm or consider the amended scheme an improvement and remove its opposition? The council has also been consulted on a proposed wind farm west of Moffat (Rivox Wind Farm), comprising 33 turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 230m (SBC Ref: 21/01129/NECON).  It seems that there is a never-ending production line of onshore wind farms as well as off-shore wind farms. Preparing for COP26?

Check out the council’s Public Access Portal if you want to find out more about the above applications or any other application submitted in the past month.

The number of applications determined by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers in July and August, at 248 decisions, continues to be below the number of applications received.  The backlog continues to grow as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.  In Galashiels, planning permission was granted for phase 2 of the Buckholm Corner residential development, which comprises 69 affordable dwellinghouses for rent by Eildon Housing Association (SBC Ref: 21/00417/FUL). The saga of the use of the residential property Greenloaning on the Loan in West Linton goes on. The latest application for a certificate of lawful use for the use of the property for short stay commercial letting was refused on 18 August 2021 (SBC Ref: 21/00958/CLPU).  No doubt an appeal will be forthcoming (see below).

Eleven applications were refused by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers in July/August: the majority related to the erection of dwellinghouses and ancillary development; one related to the deposit of excavated soil/gravel from a house building operation in a nearby field in Peebles (SBC Ref: 21/00896/FUL); and one related to the siting of a mobile catering van to serve mountain bikers, cyclists etc. in Innerleithen (21/00836/FUL). Appeals to the Local Review Board can be expected!

The Planning and Building Standards Committee has met once in the past two month, on 2 August, when the Committee considered four applications. Planning permission was granted for the extension of Edston Quarry, near Peebles (SBC Ref: 21/00222/FUL), for the erection of 69 dwellings on the site at Buckholm Corner, Galashiels (SBC Ref: 21/00417/FUL); for the erection of a dwellinghouse and detached barn at Eckford Moss Cottage, near Kelso (SBC Ref: 21/00293/FUL); and for the erection of over-night accommodation for dogs and a cabin for staff use at a canine care centre at Newlands, north of Hawick (SBC Ref: 21/00687/FUL).

The Local Review Body (LRB) met on 12 July and overturned two decisions by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission for: (i) replacement windows and door at Linden Causewayend, Ancrum (SBC Ref: 21/00008/RREF); and (ii) the erection of a dwellinghouse at The Old Barn, Westwater, West Linton (SBC Ref: 21/00010/RREF) and granted planning permission for both developments.  At its meeting on 16 August, the LRB overturned three decisions by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission for: (i) the erection of a dwellinghouse at Dogcraig Cottage, Scotsmill, Peebles (SBC Ref: 21/00007/RREF); (ii) the erection of a dwellinghouse at Rachan Woodlands, Broughton in Peeblesshire (SBC Ref: 21/00011/RREF); and (iii) for the use of a site at Acredale Industrial Estate, Eyemouth for business and industry (SBC Ref: 21/00014/RREF).

As predicted an appeal has quickly been submitted to Scottish Ministers against the refusal of the council to grant a Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of the property, Greenloaning at West Linton, for short stay commercial letting (DPEA Ref: CLUD-140-2004 & SBC Ref: 21/00958/CLPU).  An appeal has also been submitted in respect of the refusal of listed building consent for replacement windows at Rowanside, The Row, Longformacus in Berwickshire (DPEA Ref: LBA-140-2006).

In relation to existing appeals to Scottish Ministers, the compulsory purchase order for 2 High Street/12 Market Place, Jedburgh was confirmed on 11 August 2021 (DPEA Ref: CPO-SBD-011).  The appeal against the refusal of advertisement consent for Bill Board signage at the Lidl store in Hawick was dismissed on 16 August and advertisement consent was refused (DPEA Ref: ADA-140-2000).  The appeal against an enforcement notice alleging the use of open amenity land as garden ground and the erection thereon of two sheds and a boundary fence, at 1 Broad Street, Eyemouth remains outstanding (DPEA Ref: ENA-140-2016). A decision is also awaited on the application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for an expansion of the Crystal Rig Wind Farm in the Lammermuirs, comprising the addition of 11 turbines to the existing 90 turbines (DPEA Ref: WIN-140-8). 

Development Management: May/June 2021 Update

In May and June, a total of some 285 applications for planning permission and other consents, including listed building and conservation area consents and applications for works to protected trees, were received.  The vast majority related to the erection of single dwellinghouses and alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, and works to trees. 

The Proposal of Application Notice has now been submitted for the Galashiels Community Campus, including replacement secondary school, community swimming pool and sports facilities (SBC Ref: 21/00850/PAN).  A virtual public exhibition of the proposals will be held online at www.scotborders.gov.uk/galacampus from Thursday 8 July until Thursday 19 August and an unstaffed physical public exhibition will be held at the Galashiels Transport Interchange from Friday 9 July until Thursday 19 august.  Live and interactive online consultation sessions will take place on 28 July between 6.00pm and 9.00pm and on 4 August between 2.00pm and 5.00pm.  To obtain an invitation to either of these events you must register your interest at galacampus@scotborders.gov.uk. See the local press for more details!!

A Proposal of Application Notice has also been submitted for the Peebles Community Campus, (SBC Ref: 21/01034/PAN).  Few details of the proposed public consultation are revealed in the PAN other than the fact that the formal online public event will take place on the week commencing 19 July and be advertised in the Peeblesshire News and Border Telegraph at least 7 days before the event.

A proposal that has also hit the headlines is the application for a grain distillery at the Charlesfield Industrial Estate, near St. Boswells (SBC Ref: 21/00851/FUL).  The facility would use high-quality local cereals and produce 20m litres of alcohol a year for use in blended whisky, gin and vodka.  The £46m project would create 200 construction jobs and 20 permanent jobs. 

Perhaps the most exciting proposal [and topical] is the proposal by Wemyss and March Estates to restore 174ha of blanket bog on two hill sheep farms, Chapelhope and Winterhope, at the top of the Megget and Yarrow Valleys (SBC Ref: 21/00876/PN).  The work will enhance this important area of blanket bog and result in additional carbon capture. A project that is very welcome.

At the other end of the spectrum, in Berwickshire, a request has been made for a Scoping Opinion as to the level of detail required by the planning authority in the proposed Environmental Statement to be submitted in relation to a proposal for mineral extraction over 82ha of land at Lemington Farm, 3km north of Reston (SBC Ref: 21/01083/SCO).  It is proposed to extract 300,000 tonnes of Greywacke per year for an initial period of 20 years, after which the land would be restored to agriculture.

Meanwhile, in Peeblesshire, the Saga of the use of the property Green Loaning on the Loan in West Linton continues, with the submission of an application for a certificate of lawfulness for the use of the property for holiday letting (SBC Ref: 21/00958/CLPU).  The use of the property as a party venue has caused untold annoyance and disquiet to nearby residents for many years.  When will this end or is ‘planning enforcement’ to be found to be a blunt instrument!

Check out the council’s Public Access Portal if you want to find out more about the above applications or any other application submitted in the past month.

The number of applications determined by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers in May and June, at 242 decisions, is again below the number of applications received.  The backlog continues to grow as a result of COVID-19 restrictions. 

Out of almost 250 decisions, perhaps mention should be made of the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to grant planning permission for the siting of 7 static caravans at the Mosspaul Hotel on the A7 close to the border with Dumfries and Galloway.  This historic Inn, a destination for Hawick Common Riding in ‘normal’ times, has had a chequered history in recent years.  Pre-pandemic it had been rented out as a party venue, popular with hen and stag parties, much to the chagrin of the close neighbours.  Colourful descriptions have been voiced of naked gentlemen playing football on the A7 at dead of night!  Planning permission has now been granted for the siting of second-hand caravans on adjoining land, ostensibly for genuine holidaymakers, subject to a number of conditions in relation to the layout and siting of the caravans, the carrying out of a tree survey, the submission of details of the external materials and colour of the caravans, the submission of a detailed landscaping plan, the means of water supply, surface and foul drainage, and the external lighting of the site.  All these details are to be submitted and agreed before the development commences [I did notice said caravans, obtained from another site, scattered about the grounds of the Mosspaul Hotel the last time I passed the location last week!] The occupation of the caravans should be restricted to ‘genuine holidaymakers’ and for individual periods not exceeding four weeks in total within any consecutive period of 13 weeks and a register of holidaymakers is to be kept for inspection by an authorised officer of the council.  I wonder if the council are to employ an officer to specifically ensure that all these conditions are complied with.  Seems like a monumental task to me [it’s a long way from Newtown].  As I have indicated before, planning conditions require to be enforceable so it will be interesting to see if this is achieved here.

Twelve applications were refused by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers in May/June: four related to the erection of dwellinghouses; one related to the extension of a dwellinghouse; two related to replacement windows in dwellinghouses; two related to the installation of signage on a listed building in Kelso; one related to the change of use of office space within Cavalry Park business park to a day centre for the elderly; one related to the change of use of commercial units on Northgate, Peebles into two flats; and one related to the erection of an agricultural machinery dealership premises at Charlesfield Road, St. Boswells.  Appeals to the Local Review Board can be expected!

During the past two months, there has been little activity in terms of meetings of the Planning and Building Standards Committee and the Local Review Board.  On 31 May, the Planning and Building Standards Committee considered one application and granted planning permission for the erection of 2 glamping pods on land at Drummonds Hall, Lauder (SBC Ref: 20/01024/FUL).  On 28th June, the Planning and Building Standards Committee granted planning permission for eight holiday lodges within woodland at Thirlestane Castle, Lauder (SBC Ref: 20/01355/FUL).

On 17 May, the Local Review Body (LRB) considered one application for a review of the decision by the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission for the erection of a boundary fence at 1 Raeburn Lane, Selkirk (SC Ref: 20/01234/FUL).  The LRB, on the casting vote of the Chairman, decided to uphold the decision of the Chief Planning Officer and refused planning permission.  On 14 June, the LRB overturned the decision of the Chief Planning Officer to refuse planning permission for replacement windows at the premises of the Hawick Angling Club at 5 Sandbed, Hawick and granted planning permission subject to conditions (SBC Ref: 20/01236/FUL).  At the same meeting, the LRB upheld the Chief Planning Officers decision to refuse planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land at The Bungalow, Edington, Chirnside, Berwickshire (SBC Ref: 21/00045/FUL).

Two new appeals have been submitted to Scottish Ministers: (i) against an enforcement notice alleging the use of open amenity land as garden ground and the erection thereon of two sheds and a boundary fence, at 1 Broad Street, Eyemouth (DPEA Ref: ENA-140-2016); and (ii) against the refusal of advertisement consent for Bill Board signage at the Lidl store in Hawick (DPEA Ref: ADA-140-2000).

In relation to existing appeals to Scottish Ministers, decisions on two appeals have been received: on 18 May, the appeal against the non-determination of a planning application for the erection of 22 dwellinghouses on land east of Edinburgh Road, Peebles was dismissed and planning permission refused (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2088); and on 10 June, the appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses at 8 Ballantyne Place, Peebles was also dismissed and planning permission refused (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2087.  In relation to the compulsory purchase order for 2 High Street/12 Market Place, Jedburgh, a report on the [virtual] public local inquiry held on 5 May 2021 has been submitted to Scottish Ministers and a decision is awaited (DPEA Ref: CPO-SBD-011).  A decision is also awaited on the application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for an expansion of the Crystal Rig Wind Farm in the Lammermuirs, comprising the addition of 11 turbines to the existing 90 turbines (DPEA Ref: WIN-140-8). 

Development Planning Update: June 2021

The Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP2) was approved by Scottish Borders Council at its meeting on 25 September 2020.  It was the subject of publicity and available for representations to be submitted during November and December 2020 and January 2021.  The deadline for representations passed on the 25 January 2021.  The proposals for Peebles and Peeblesshire will no doubt figure in the list of representations as will certain proposals in Galashiels.  The proposed housing site at Netherbarns opposite Abbotsford House, the proposed new Galashiels Academy Campus on Scott Park and the proposals for the Hollybush area have certainly caught the attention of members of the Galashiels community.  An issue on which the Local Development Plan (LDP2) offers little guidance, is the question of a Scottish Borders National Park.  The campaign for a national park in the Borders seems to be growing but the designation of a national park is ultimately a matter for Scottish Ministers following an assessment and recommendation by Scottish Natural Heritage [rebranded as NatureScot on 24 August 2020]. 

The proposed local development plan (LDP2) is a major planning document and, as stated by Councillor Simon Mountford, the council’s Executive Member for Enhancing the Built Environment and Natural Heritage and Chairman of the Planning and Building Standards Committee, “The Plan will affect all Borderers on a daily basis, setting out where they can live, work, shop and socialise.  It identifies the housing and economic needs of all the towns and settlements in the Scottish Borders as well as the policies that will guide and govern future development.”  However, whilst we await the report on the nature of any representations received, and how the council is to proceed with LDP2, a great deal of attention is being given to other policy documents.

At its meeting on 17 June, the full council considered three important reports: (i) Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal Regional Growth Framework Update; (ii) Draft South of Scotland Regional Economic Strategy; and (iii) Climate Change Route Map for the Scottish Borders.  How LDP2 relates to these documents is not immediately clear.  None of them would appear to come within the remit of the Planning and Building Standards Committee.  The Planning and Building Standards Committee seems now to be solely a regulatory committee with little responsibility for positive action; little more than a development control committee [and since the vast majority of decisions on planning applications and building warrants are delegated to officers, has little to do, as illustrated by the limited numbers of planning applications dealt with at recent committee meetings].  At its meeting on 31 May 2021, the committee did consider a report on Supplementary Planning Guidance for the expansion of Tweedbank but offered little comment; the approval of this planning guidance [like the approval of the local development plan] is a matter for the full council. 

How things have changed over the past 25 years, since the establishment of Scottish Borders Council.  Prior to 1996, the Borders Regional Council’s Planning and Development Committee had wide-ranging responsibilities, not only the full range of planning responsibilities [local planning policy, development control and design guidance], but also industrial promotion and marketing, including business loans, industrial estate development, countryside management and the ranger service, town centre initiatives, building conservation and the archaeological service.  The committee was supported by a Planning and Development Department comprising in excess of 50 staff.  The Director of Planning and Development was a Chief Official, along with the Directors of Finance, Administration, Education, Social Work, Roads and Transportation, Water & Drainage.  Now, the Head of the Service, the Chief Planning and Housing Officer, is a third tier position within the ‘Leading Stakeholder & External Relationships’ Directorate [formerly the ‘Corporate Improvement & Economy’ Directorate].

It is not easy to make comparisons with today’s SBC structure but it is clear that the Planning and Building Standards Committee and the ‘Planning’ Department have far less responsibilities.  A recent survey on Resourcing the Planning Service published by RTPI Scotland, the professional body that represents Planners in Scotland, shows that the planning service is one of the most severely affected of all local government services with a reduction in budgets of 42% since 2009.  Nearly a third of planning staff have been cut since 2009.

In the view of RTPI Scotland, which I share, planning has a vital role to play in moving towards a sustainable, resilient and inclusive recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic through accelerating progress to a zero carbon economy, increasing resilience to risk from climate change, and through creating fair, healthy and prosperous communities.  The planning system is there to facilitate economic growth and innovation by bringing together people, activities and resources.  However, increasingly, planners are being side-lined and limited resources and a lack of ambition for planning to deliver quality outcomes is creating a vicious cycle of low-quality development and reduced confidence in the planning system and local authorities.  A view recently expressed by the outgoing Chair of the Planning and Building Standards Committee, Tom Miers!

Only 9% of staff in planning authorities are under 30 and it is estimated that over the next 10-15 years an additional 680-730 planners will need to be found.  Furthermore, the new Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 has introduced over 90 new and unfunded duties on the planning system.  Investment in the planning system is therefore urgently required as well as a re-appraisal of the role of ‘Planners’ in local authorities.  Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Planners led the way in rejuvenating Scotland and the UK.  They should be given the resources and the opportunities to do it again.