Scottish Borders Planning

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.

In April 2021, a massive 180 applications for planning permission and other consents, including listed building and conservation area consents and applications for works to protected trees, were received.  This must be an indication that the Covid-19 Pandemic is coming to an end; a false dawn [let’s hope not].  The vast majority of applications related to the erection of single dwellinghouses and alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, and works to trees. 

The effects of the restrictions imposed by the Scottish Government during the pandemic will no doubt impact on the long-term future of some of the hospitality venues in the Borders.  Perhaps a first indication is the planning application to change the use of the former Tweedside Hotel in Innerleithen into a dwellinghouse (SBC Ref: 21/00701/FUL).  Another application for the conversion of the public house/night club at 5 Vault Square, Kelso into 14 flats may well be another example (SBC Ref: 21/00673/FUL).

Proposals for wind farms keep coming.  The latest is a Section 36 application for the Teviot Wind Farm at Priesthaugh, east of Teviothead and south west of Hawick (SBC Ref: 21/00629/SCO).  The proposal comprises some 75 wind turbines up to a height of 220m to blade tip, with several having a reduced height of 180m to blade tip.  This is a major development and the decision on the proposal will eventually be made by the Scottish Government following consultation with a wide range of bodies, including Scottish Borders Council.  SBC and the local community may well not be happy with that!

However, perhaps the most significant planning application this month (and this year) is the screening request in relation to the environmental impact of the proposed Galashiels Community Campus; an application by jmarchitects on behalf of the council itself (SBC Ref: 21/00511/SCR).  The site includes the existing Galashiels Academy and grounds, Scott Park and the existing Galashiels Swimming Pool and car park.  This is just the very first stage in the planning process and it looks as though it may well be a tortuous one for there is a considerable momentum building amongst objectors to the loss of a [large or small?] part of Scott Park for the development.  Although the Galashiels members on the council appear to be unanimous in their support for the preferred option, the ‘Friends of Scott Park’ is gaining support for its opposition to development on any part of Scott Park, an area gifted to the burgh in 1939.

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 April, at 113 decisions, is again well below the number of applications received.  The backlog continues to grow as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.  The most exciting planning  permission granted this month is that for the proposed redevelopment of the fish market in Eyemouth (SBC Ref: 21/00055/FUL).  Permission for the demolition of the existing building, a concrete portal-framed structure constructed in the 1960s, was granted in November last year.  The fish market had been converted into a maritime museum, in the form of a galleon, in 2005 but has been lying empty since 2016.  It is generally accepted that the building has little architectural or historic merit and detracts from the character and appearance of the harbour area.  Eyemouth Harbour Trust has received funding from the Scottish Government and Scottish Borders Council to construct a new building on the site as part of the Eyemouth Waterfront Regeneration Project in a bid to ‘re-imagine’ the harbour side.  It is hoped that this development will be the catalyst for other projects to modernise the harbour area.  The proposed development comprises a series of pavilions designed to reflect the traditional gable design of the harbour frontage.  The ground floor of each pavilion would provide space for local businesses, craft shops, a food hall, and community use such as exhibitions, senior and after-school activities.  This is no doubt a significant development in terms of the transformation of the harbour area and of Eyemouth, which has seen its status change as fishing has declined.

Six applications were refused by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers in April: (i) erection of a dwellinghouse on land west of Westwater, West Linton in Peeblesshire (SBC Ref: 21/00285/PPP); (ii) erection of a dwellinghouse at New Greenhill, Selkirk (SBC Ref: 20/00668/PPP): (iii) modification of a planning obligation to allow additional housing at Wester Ulston, Jedburgh (SBC Ref: 21/00047/MOD75); (iv) proposed replacement windows and door at Linden Causewayend, Ancrum, Jedburgh (SBC Ref: 20/00962/FUL); (v) the erection of perimeter security fencing at a store and year at Acredale Industrial Estate, Eyemouth (SBC Ref: 20/00809/FUL): and (vi) installation of billboard signage at Lidl, Wilton Path, Hawick (SBC Ref: 20/01544/ADV).

In relation to appeals to Scottish Ministers, two appeals remain outstanding: (i) an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses at 8 Ballantyne Place, Peebles (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2087; and (ii) an appeal against the non-determination of a planning application for the erection of 22 dwellinghouses on land east of Edinburgh Road, Peebles (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2088).  In relation to the compulsory purchase order for 2 High Street/12 Market Place, Jedburgh, one objection remains outstanding and, accordingly, a [virtual] public local inquiry was held on 5 May 2021 (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). 

In March 2021, some 150 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 of applications related to the erection of single dwellinghouses and alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, and works to trees. 

Perhaps the most significant application is in Galashiels, where a planning application has now been received for phase 2 of the proposed residential development, comprising 69 dwellings, at Buckholm Corner (SBC Ref: 21/00417/FUL).  This proposal was the subject of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) in May 2020.  The site is allocated for residential development in the adopted local development plan [and has been since the 1970s].  All of the housing would be social rented properties, owned and managed by Eildon Housing Association.

An interesting, and perhaps rather sad application, in Peeblesshire relates to the change of use of the Old Bakehouse Restaurant in West Linton into two flats (SBC Ref: 21/00473/FUL).  I well remember visiting the Old Bakehouse tearoom in the 1970s and it has been a popular venue ever since.  Unfortunately, times change and it has been on the market for over five years.  It is owned by the proprietors of the Gordon Arms public house in West Linton [the only public house in the village] and both premises have been badly affected by the COVID Pandemic.  They consider that the public house is of more benefit to the community and propose to merge the restaurant into the public house.  It will be interesting to see the community reaction to this proposal.

Also in Peeblesshire, an application for the erection of 4 glamping pods at Glenormiston, west of Innerleithen has generated a great deal of interest from both supporters and objectors (SBC Ref: 21/00382/FUL).  Clearly, such accommodation would be attractive to visitors with the vast network of mountain bike trails and walks in this area of the Tweed Valley.  However, there are also deep concerns from existing residents in the area on a number of issues.  The decision on this application may well be finely balanced.

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 March, at 110 decisions, is again well below the number of applications received.  The backlog continues to grow as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.  Perhaps one proposal to pick out would be the change of use of Netherurd House, near Blyth Bridge in Peeblesshire from a residential institution to a private house (SBC Ref: 21/00026/FUL).  The original house was built in the 1790s and was gifted to the Scottish Girl Guide’s in 1952.  It has been used by the Girl Guide Association Scotland [Girlguiding Scotland) as a training centre until it closed in March 2020.  It is to be returned to a family home.

Only four applications were refused by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers in March: (i) erection of a dwellinghouse, east of The Bungalow, Edington, Chirnside in Berwickshire (SBC Ref: 21/00045/FUL); (ii) erection of a dwellinghouse at Rachan Woodlands, Broughton in Peeblesshire (SBC Ref: 21/00030/PPP): erection of a dwellinghouse at 63 Brownsmuir Park, Lauder (SBC Ref: 21/00016/PPP); and (iv) erection of a dwellinghouse at Kilnknowe House, East End, Earlston (SBC Ref: 20/01334/PPP).

At its meeting on 1 March, conducted remotely by Microsoft Teams, the Planning and Building Standards Committee agreed to object to the proposed wind farm at Castleweary, Fawside, near Hawick, an application submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) (SBC Ref: 19/00756/S36).  The grounds for objection related to the impact of the proposal on landscape character, visual amenity, the visual impact of aviation lighting and archaeological impacts.  The committee, however, decided to approve a variation of conditions attached to the consent for a wind farm at Braidlie, near Hawick, which had been granted planning permission by Scottish Ministers on appeal, to allow the commencement of development prior to the approval of a Radar Mitigation Scheme (SBC Ref: 18/01456/FUL).

At is meeting on 29 March, conducted remotely by Microsoft Teams, the Planning and Building Standards Committee approved a major development that will, if implemented, transform Newtown St. Boswells (SBC Ref: 19/00210/PPP).  It was back in 1948 that Sir Frank Mears, in his Regional Plan for Central and South East Scotland, postulated the development of Newtown St. Boswells as an administrative hub for the Borders Region, with housing, offices, agricultural college and hospital.  In 1968, Professor Johnson-Marshall of Edinburgh University, in his Government sponsored report The Central Borders: a Plan for Expansion, proposed that Newtown St. Boswells be the focus for a ‘New Town’ of 10,000 people, in addition to the planned development of Tweedbank.  With strong resistance from the burgh councils, particularly Hawick and Jedburgh, nothing came of this proposal and there has been little development in Newtown, even though it has been the administrative centre for the region since 1975.  Now it seem there is a possibility that Newtown could develop into some kind of rural hub with the granting of planning permission for the redevelopment of the auction mart to provide a mixed use development of housing, retail, offices, hotel, light industry and leisure facilities.  Let’s hope that this proposal is economically viable and not just a pipe-dream.  There is no timescale for the proposal.

At its meeting on 15 March, the Local Review Body considered two appeals against the refusal of planning permission by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer for (i) the erection of a dwellinghouse at Balcladach, Easter Ulston, Jedburgh (SBC Ref: 20/00956/PPP); and (ii) the erection of a dwellinghouse at Whinneybrae, Skirling in Peeblesshire (SBC Ref: 20/00923/PPP).  In both cases, the LRB upheld the Chief Planning and Housing Officer’s decision to refuse planning permission.

In relation to appeals to Scottish Ministers, to the obvious relief and satisfaction of the local community, the appeal against the council’s refusal of planning permission for the erection of 52 holiday lodges on land north west of Willowdean House, Foulden in Berwickshire was dismissed on 18 March 2021 (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2081).  In dismissing the appeal, the Reporter considered that, despite the efforts to make the design a high quality development, he considered that the proposed development would have a damaging landscape and visual impact.  He considered that the opportunities to benefit the local economy were limited and the countryside location to be non-compliant with the expectations of policy ED8 of the local development plan.

In relation to the compulsory purchase order for 2 High Street/12 Market Place, Jedburgh, one objection remains outstanding and, accordingly, a [virtual] public local inquiry is programmed for 5 May 2021 (DPEA Ref: CPO-SBD-011).  Two other appeals are outstanding: (i) an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses at 8 Ballantyne Place, Peebles (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2087; and (ii) an appeal against the non-determination of a planning application for the erection of 22 dwellinghouses on land east of Edinburgh Road, Peebles (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2088).

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). 

In February 2021, some 127 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 of applications related to the erection of single dwellinghouses and alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, and works to trees.  There have been one or two more significant applications. 

On the south-western boundary of the Region, at Mosspaul, a planning application has now been submitted for the creation of a caravan site of 9 static caravans (SBC Ref: 21/00273/FUL).  Mosspaul has been operating (prior to the COVID pandemic) as an event space for groups of up to 50 people, including accommodation for up to 19 people.  The proprietor is intending to focus on smaller, family groups with “staycation” holidays the target.  It is estimated that nine static caravans could accommodate 36 people, in addition to the accommodation in the hotel building.  Renewed objections to the proposal have been made by the adjoining occupant of Mosspaul Bothy.

In Peebles, following a pre-application consultation in November/December 2019, a planning application has now been submitted for the extension of Edston Quarry to provide 2.2 million tonnes of hard rock at an annual production rate of 100,000 tonnes per annum over a period of 22 years (SBC Ref: 21/00222/FUL).  The area of the current planning permission is 10ha, the current excavation area being 5ha.  The proposed extension will give an overall site area of 13.5ha and an excavation area of 9ha.  Perhaps more controversial is the application for a new sand and gravel quarry at South Slipperfield, West Linton (SBC Ref: 21/00152/FUL).  This proposal was the subject of a pre-application consultation in October 2020. 

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 December, at 90 decisions, is again well below the number of applications received.  Consequently, the backlog continues to grow as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.  One approval that perhaps stands out from the rest is the granting of planning permission for the construction of a narrow gauge railway, new entrance and associated car parking at Ayton Castle in Berwickshire (SBC Ref: 20/00267/FUL).  The proposal is part of a long term strategy to improve and enhance Ayton Castle and its grounds as a destination for visitors.  The initial attention is being focussed on the restoration of the walled garden with its dilapidated potting sheds capable of being converted into a café, shop and toilets.  The proposed narrow gauge railway would pass through the grounds and connect the walled garden with the front of the main building.  An exciting proposal!

In Kelso, planning permission has now been issued, with a signed legal agreement in respect of contributions to education and off-site play provision, for the change of use of the main High School building and alterations to form 34 extra care flats and the erection of 47 dwellinghouses in the grounds (SBC Ref: 19/01244/FUL & 19/01245/LBC).  One other proposal that is worth a mention is that for a new factory and office facility for Cademuir Engineering on land alongside the A6091 at Tweedbank (SBC Ref: 20/01019/FUL).  This proposal is sited on land previously set aside as a landscape strip alongside the A6091 to screen the industrial estate and distance it from the main tourist route between the A68 and A7 but it seems that this fundamental element in the original design of the Tweedbank development does not now carry much weight.  Conditions have been attached to the planning permission in respect of the existing trees on the site and the landscaping of the site but the scale of the proposed building and its siting leave little room for any substantial screening from the main road.  No applications were refused planning permission by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers in February

I reported on the meeting of the Planning and Building Standards Committee on 1 February in my last post.  The meeting of the Local Review Body on 15 February was cancelled and, consequently, there is nothing to report. 

In relation to appeals to Scottish Ministers, the Report dealing with the appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land at Burnside, Lower Green, West Linton in Peeblesshire (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2084) has intimated his intention to allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to a Section 75 Agreement in respect of education improvements.  The planning permission will not be issued until the agreement is reached and registered.  The appeal against the council’s refusal of planning permission for the erection of 52 holiday lodges on land north west of Willowdean House, Foulden in Berwickshire remains outstanding (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2081).  In relation to the compulsory purchase order for 2 High Street/12 Market Place, Jedburgh, one objection remains outstanding and, accordingly, unless the objection is withdrawn a public local inquiry will require to be held (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). 

As 2021 beckons, the future looks brighter but the council’s Planning Department remains closed to the public with case officers working remotely from home.  The vaccination programme is now well under-way and the lock-down since the New Year seems to be having an effect on the spread of the disease but there still seems to be a long way to go before social interaction will be anything like it was last January and the Planning Department returns to ‘normal’.  The planning process, however, continues; planning applications are being submitted and decisions must be made. 

In January 2021, some 124 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 of applications related to the erection of single dwellinghouses and alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, and works to trees.  There have been one or two more significant applications. 

Perhaps the most exciting application this month is that for the proposed redevelopment of the fish market in Eyemouth (SBC Ref: 21/00055/FUL).  Permission for the demolition of the existing building, a concrete portal-framed structure constructed in the 1960s, was granted in November last year.  The fish market had been converted into a maritime museum, in the form of a galleon, in 2005 but has been lying empty since 2016.  It is generally accepted that the building has little architectural or historic merit and detracts from the character and appearance of the harbour area.  Eyemouth Harbour Trust has received funding from the Scottish Government and Scottish Borders Council to construct a new building on the site as part of the Eyemouth Waterfront Regeneration Project in a bid to ‘re-imagine’ the harbour side.  It is hoped that this development will be the catalyst for other projects to modernise the harbour area.  The proposed development comprises a series of pavilions with gaps between to allow views of the harbour.  The design of the pavilions reflects the traditional gable design of the harbour frontage.  The ground floor of each pavilion would provide space for local businesses, craft shops, a food hall, and community use such as exhibitions, senior and after-school activities.  Workspaces would be provided above.  This is no doubt a significant proposal in terms of the transformation of the harbour area and of Eyemouth, which has seen its status change as fishing has declined.

In Kelso, the Border Union Agricultural Society (BUAS) has submitted an application for the siting of touring caravans/motorhomes on part of Springwood Park (SBC Ref: 21/00049/CLEU).  Touring caravans/motorhomes have been regularly sited within Springwood Park when various events have been held on the Showground, such as dog shows, but permission is now sought to allow caravans/motorhomes to be sited at other times, on the basis that caravans/motorhomes provide a safe, socially-distanced holiday accommodation.

In Peebles, we seem to have another instance of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) submitted with glaringly inadequate information.  This application, for residential development in the grounds of Kingsmeadows House, simply comprises an application form and location plan with little or no information about the scale and nature of the proposal (SBC Ref: 20/01624/PAN).  The application says little about the public involvement measures to be undertaken other than that there will be an online community consultation at some future date, which will be advertised in the local press.  At last, the council’s planning officer responsible for such major applications has got wise to the ever increasing practice of developers of drip feeding the public with a proposal and has reminded the developer’s agent that the objective of Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) is for communities to be better informed and engaged meaningfully with developers.  This means the details of an application should be comprehensive, be easy to understand, jargon free, accessible and relevant.  Let us hope that the information provided in this case will fully meet these requirements and not consist of a lot of ifs and buts, and that the public will have sufficient warning in the press and sufficient time to assess the impact the proposal on the community.  Concerns have already been raised by the public about the lack of detail of the proposal and it will be interesting to see when the date for the online community engagement event is advertised in the local press [hopefully at least 7 days before the event!] and how much information is provided about the proposed development in the online consultation event.

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 December, at 92 decisions, is again well below the number of applications received.  Consequently, the backlog continues to grow as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.  Five applications were refused planning permission by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers: (i) erection of a dwellinghouse at Dogcraig Cottage, Scotsmill, Peebles (SBC Ref: 20/01350/PPP); (ii) the erection of a boundary fence at 1 Raeburn Lane, Selkirk (SBC Ref: 20/01234/FUL); (iii) the installation of replacement windows at 5 Sandbed, Hawick (SBC Ref: 20/01236/FUL); (iv) erection of polystructure cattle shed and hydroponics unit at Fishwick in Berwickshire (SBC Ref: 18/00519/FUL; and (v) erection of polystructure cattle shed and hydroponics unit at Renton Bush, Reston, Berwickshire (SBC Ref: 18/00518/FUL).

In relation to items (iv) and (v) above, each of these proposals comprised a large 40m by 50m building to house cattle and a separate 40m by 10m hydroponics unit producing feed for the cattle.  In both cases, significant groundworks had already been carried out and, in the case of the Renton Bush proposal, construction of the buildings had also begun prior to the submission of the application.  Also, the proposals formed part of a wider ambitious demonstration farming project comprising, amongst other things, wind turbines.  The proposed developments generated a lengthy dialogue between the Planning Department and the applicant’s agents.  However, although the potential economic benefits are significant, the Chief Planning Office had over-riding concerns in relation to the proposal to erect new agricultural buildings unrelated to any existing farm building complex.  The Chief Planning Officer considered that insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that unacceptable adverse ecological impacts would not arise from the developments; and also that they would adversely affect the surrounding rural character.  In respect of the Renton Bush proposal, this site is located within an area recorded as semi-natural ancient native woodland and prior to the application being submitted, a significant number of mature trees were felled to clear the site without an appropriate felling licence, generating objections from Scottish Forestry and the Woodland Trust.  Whilst this is a matter for Scottish Forestry, the impact of the development on protected trees was considered to render the proposal contrary to the local development plan.

The Planning and Building Standards Committee met, remotely by Microsoft Teams, on Monday 11 January to consider one planning applications.  The committee gave the green light to a residential development of five dwellinghouses on the old station yard at Dolphinton in Peeblesshire (SBC Ref: 20/01382/PPP).  At its meeting on 1 February, the Planning and Building Standards Committee had no hesitation in granting planning permission to Network Rail for the much anticipated re-opening of Reston rail station in Berwickshire (SBC Ref: 20/01133/FUL).  After a long campaign, this station, closed in 1964, is going to be re-opened with the construction of new platforms, waiting shelters and car parking.  It is hoped that this development will open up other transport links with the eastern Borders and aid regeneration.  However, we will have to wait to see what service is provided at the station.

In relation to appeals to Scottish Ministers, perhaps as expected, the appeals in relation to the refusals of planning permission for the erection of two poultry buildings at Hutton Hall Barns, Hutton in Berwickshire (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2082 & PPA-140-2083) have been upheld and planning permission granted for these developments.  The Reporter in these cases was satisfied that the rural character of the area was appropriate for the scale of development proposed and that the proposals would not have an adverse impact on local biodiversity subject to the imposition of the appropriate planning conditions.  The appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land at Burnside, Lower Green, West Linton in Peeblesshire (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2084) and the appeal against the council’s refusal of planning permission for the erection of 52 holiday lodges on land north west of Willowdean House, Foulden in Berwickshire both remain outstanding (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2081). 

In relation to the compulsory purchase order for 2 High Street/12 Market Place, Jedburgh, one objection remains outstanding and, accordingly, unless the objection is withdrawn a public local inquiry will require to be held (DPEA Ref: CPO-SBD-011).  The objector has been given until the 3 February 2021 to withdraw the objection.  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). 

Finally, the deadline for representations on the Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP2), the 25 February 2021, has now passed.  According to the council’s publicity, this deadline is final and any representations received after this date will not be considered.  It will be interesting to see the extent to which the Proposed LDP has excited the Borders public.  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 opposite Abbotsford House, the proposed new Galashiels Academy on Scott Park and the proposals for the Hollybush area have certainly caught the attention of some members of the Galashiels community.  I’m sure that more will be heard of these, and other contentious issues in the local development plan.  The next step will be for the council’s planning officials to examine all the representations made and present them to the Council.  Watch this space!

As 2020 comes to a close, little has changed since March, the council’s Planning Department remains closed to the public with case officers working remotely from home.  Is their light at the end of the tunnel?  The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on all our lives, some far more than others.  Not surprisingly, planning activity was severely limited in the Spring of this year with construction work in abeyance and architects, planning consultants and tradesmen at home protecting their families.  Although there was some relaxing of restrictions during the summer, planning activity has remained below that of recent years.  The average number of planning applications received and determined in recent years has topped 1500 per annum but, in contrast, during 2020, only 1350 such applications were received by the Scottish Borders Council, the lowest for many years.  Whilst planning applications continue to be registered and are being processed in as normal a way as possible, less than 1200 applications were determined in 2020, meaning that the backlog of undetermined applications continues to grow.

In December, some 112 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 of applications related to the erection of single dwellinghouses and alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, and works to trees.  A quiet end to the year, with no outstanding planning applications to report other than perhaps the re-application for a previously approved chalet development at Scoutscroft Holiday Centre at Coldingham (SBC Ref: 20/01545/FUL), the proposal for the provision of touring caravan/motorhome pitches on a permanent basis at Springwood Park in Kelso (SBC Ref: 20/01517/CLPU), and the laying out of roads, static caravan stances, play areas and landscaping for phase 2 of the caravan park at Thirlestane Castle, Lauder (SBC Ref: 20/01494/FUL); three proposals that may well have been prompted, at least in part, by the Covid Pandemic and the likelihood of an increase in staycation holidays in the coming years.

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 December, at 97 decisions, is again below the number of applications received.  Consequently, the backlog continues to grow as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.  Only one application was refused planning permission by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers: an application for the erection of a log cabin for holiday let at 31 Dulse Craig, Eyemouth (SBC Ref: 20/01227/FUL).

The Planning and Building Standards Committee met, remotely by Microsoft Teams, on Monday 7 December to consider three planning applications.  The committee gave the green light for the establishment of a holiday caravan and camping park, comprising 99 static pitches, 14 touring pitches, luxury lodges and glamping accommodation, on a 15 acre site on the western edge of Coldstream (SBC Ref: 19/01454/FUL).  The developer has operated the Blackadder Holiday Park in Greenlaw for some 25 years and has been investigating the possible development of a holiday park at Coldstream for some time.  Although there was considerable opposition to the proposal, there was also some support for a caravan/camp site to bolster Coldstream as a tourist centre.  The committee decided that the potential economic benefits outweighed the landscape impact concerns and granted planning permission, subject to the condition that the static caravans be occupied for a maximum 6 months in any one year.

The committee also decided to grant planning permission for the use of land at Quarry Farm, Lamberton for equestrian use to facilitate the relocation of the existing business (SBC Ref: 20/00769/FUL) and, despite considerable objections from the local community, the committee decided by 5 votes to 3 to grant planning permission for changes to the design of two dwellinghouses on land opposite West Lodge, Minto, previously approved in 2019 under planning consent 19/00947/FUL (SBC Ref: 20/00893/FUL). 

The Local Review Body met on 14 December, conducted remotely by Microsoft Teams, and considered two appeals against refusals of planning permission by the Chief Planning Officer under delegated powers.  The LRB reversed the Chief Planning Officer’s decision to refuse an application for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land at East Neuk, Morebattle and granted planning permission (SBC Ref: 20/00028/PPP & 20/00025/RREF).  The LRB decided to uphold the Chief Planning Officer’s decision to refuse planning permission for the formation of a dormer at 19 Myrescroft Road, Ancrum (SBC Ref: 20/00537/FUL & 20/00026/RREF). 

In relation to appeals to Scottish Ministers, the appeals in relation to the refusals of planning permission for the erection of two poultry buildings at Hutton Hall Barns, Hutton in Berwickshire (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2082 & PPA-140-2083) remain outstanding.  The Reporter in this case has intimated to parties that he will be carrying out an unaccompanied inspection of the sites of the two applications, Covid restrictions permitting.  The appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land at Burnside, Lower Green, West Linton in Peeblesshire will also be the subject of an unaccompanied site inspection (SBC Ref: PPA-140-2084).  The appeal against the council’s refusal of planning permission for the erection of 52 holiday lodges on land north west of Willowdean House, Foulden in Berwickshire remains outstanding (SBC Ref: 20/00067/FUL & DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2081). 

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).  The council’s objection relates to the visual impact of the proposed red aviation lights to be fitted to seven of the eleven turbines and the impact on the landscape character of the area.  The Reporters appointed to consider the proposal conducted an unaccompanied inspection of the site and viewpoints on 3 September. 

Might I take this opportunity to remind readers of this blog that the deadline for representations on the Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP2) is 25 January 2021 and that, according to the councils publicity, this deadline is final and any representations received after this date will not be considered.  So, don’t miss your chance to have your say on the future strategy for development and land use change in the Scottish Borders.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to pay my tribute to Andrew L. Tulley MBE, who died at the end of November.  I knew Drew well as Chairman (that was the name used back then) of the Planning and Development Committee of the Borders Regional Council.  He would go on to lead Scottish Borders Council after 1996 (until 2002).  As others have remarked, he stood no nonsense from professional officers, who were well-paid to give advice, and did not suffer fools.  He gave ‘total commitment’ to everything he tackled and expected the same from you.  Nevertheless, he was very fair and respected your advice and opinion, whether he agreed with it or not.  I got on well with him.  He will be sorely missed and as William Shakespeare says in Hamlet “He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again”, or perhaps the following epitaph by Robert Burns might be more appropriate “A Man’s A Man for A’That”.

The council’s Planning Department remains closed to the public with case officers working remotely from home.  Nevertheless, new planning applications continue to be registered and are being processed in as normal a way as possible; applications continue to be publicised on the council’s website and in the local press.  In November, some 124 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 of applications related to the erection of single dwellinghouses and alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, and works to trees. 

On the tourism front, an application has been submitted for the erection of eight holiday lodges in woodland at Broomy Braes on the east side of the Leader Water within the policy grounds of Thirlestane Castle, Lauder (SBC Ref: 20/01355/FUL).  Yet another request for a scoping opinion on a large windfarm proposal submitted to the Scottish Government under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1969 has been received by the council; this time for a proposed 15 turbines with a maximum tip height of 220 metres at Ditcher Law, which is located 8km north-west of Lauder, on the east side of the A68 adjacent to the Dun Law Windfarm (SBC Ref: 20/01486/SCO).

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 November, at 87 decisions, is well below the number of applications received.  Consequently, the backlog continues to grow as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.  In Galashiels, planning permission has been granted for the conversion of Thorniedean House on the Melrose Road from offices to a single dwellinghouse (SBC Ref: 19/01699/FUL).  This Victorian villa has been used in the past as offices by the former Selkirkshire County Council and the Borders Regional Council.  It has been empty for a number of years and, together with the adjacent former Borders College building is allocated for redevelopment in the adopted local development plan. 

The decision to grant permission for the demolition of the former fish market in Eyemouth will no doubt be welcomed (SBC Ref: 20/00482/CON).  The existing building, a concrete portal-framed structure, was constructed in the 1960s and converted into a maritime museum following the construction of new facilities on the east side of the harbour in the 1990s.  The design of the museum mimicked the appearance of a galleon!  The building has little architectural or historic merit and detracts from the character and appearance of the harbour area.  Its demolition will open up views of the harbour and I doubt whether it will be missed!  At the other end of the Region, planning permission has been granted for the siting of 17 holiday pods at Riverview Holiday Park, Mangerton, near Newcastleton (SBC Ref: 19/01815/FUL). 

Three applications were refused planning permission by the Chief Planning and Housing Officer under delegated powers: (i) an application to determine whether the erection of an ancillary building within the garden ground of a dwellinghouse at Broughton, Peeblesshire was permitted development (SBC Ref: 20/01370/CLPU); (ii) an application to determine whether the conversion of a stone barn to form residential accommodation at East Mains Farmhouse, Gordon, Berwickshire was permitted development (SBC Ref: 20/01047/CLPU); and (iii) an application for the erection of a dwellinghouse at Easter Ulston, Jedburgh (SBC Ref: 20/00956/PPP).

The Planning and Building Standards Committee met, remotely by Microsoft Teams, on Monday 2 November to consider one planning application.  The committee decided to refuse planning permission for the erection of two dwellinghouses on land at Ballantyne Place, Peebles (SBC Ref: 20/00691/FUL).  The Ballantyne Place development, to the north of March Street Mills, was constructed in 2002 and the application site was set aside for the provision of a play area in accordance with the planning permission for the development.  The Chief Planning Officer, in recommending approval of planning permission, drew attention to the fact that council policy on the provision of play areas within developments has changed since the original planning permission was granted and there was no reason to continue to require the land to be retained for a play area (which had not yet been provided by the developer) given that the council’s policy now was to decommission small play areas and consolidate play provision in larger facilities.  Nevertheless, the committee decided to refuse the application by 4 votes to 3.

The Local Review Body met on 16 November, conducted remotely by Microsoft Teams, and considered three appeals against refusals of planning permission by the Chief Planning Officer under delegated powers.  The LRB reversed the Chief Planning Officer’s decision to refuse an application for the erection of a dwellinghouse at Old Belses, near Jedburgh and granted planning permission, following a reassessment of the proposed access to the development (SBC Ref: 20/00486/FUL & 20/00022/RREF).  The LRB decided to continue consideration of the appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on garden ground attached to Clifton Cottage, Kirk Yetholm pending a virtual site visit ( a viewing of a video of the site to be taken by a member of the planning department) (SBC Ref: 20/00453/FUL & 20/00018/RREF). 

In relation to appeals to Scottish Ministers, many residents of Hawick will be pleased to know that Scottish Ministers have decided to grant planning permission for the erection of a retail unit and drive thru restaurant and takeaway on Commercial Road, Hawick (DPEA Ref: NA-SBD-056).  Scottish Borders Council’s decision to grant the application in March 2020 had been referred to Scottish Ministers because of the perceived flood risk.  Scottish Ministers agreed with the Scottish Government Reporter, appointed to consider the proposal, that the proposal was consistent with the Local Development Plan which identifies the site for regeneration.  They also accepted the Reporter’s findings that the site would be protected by the flood protection measures presently being implemented and that the development would not add to the flood risk.

As was perhaps expected, appeals have been submitted in relation to the refusals of planning permission for the erection of two poultry buildings at Hutton Hall Barns, Hutton in Berwickshire (DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2082 & PPA-140-2083).  An appeal has also been submitted against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land at Burnside, Lower Green, West Linton in Peeblesshire (SBC Ref: PPA-140-2084).  The appeal against the council’s refusal of planning permission for the erection of 52 holiday lodges on land north west of Willowdean House, Foulden in Berwickshire remains outstanding (SBC Ref: 20/00067/FUL & DPEA Ref: PPA-140-2081).  A previous application for a similar development was refused planning permission on 2 September 2019; an appeal to Scottish Ministers against that refusal was ruled out of time because it was not submitted within 6 months of the date of refusal by the council, thus prompting the repeat application.  The repeat application was refused by the Planning and Building Standards Committee on 3 August for similar reasons to the previous decision [on the grounds that the proposed holiday lodges are not in keeping with the local environment and would have an unacceptable adverse impact on local infrastructure, specifically the capacity of local roads].

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).  The council’s objection relates to the visual impact of the proposed red aviation lights to be fitted to seven of the eleven turbines and the impact on the landscape character of the area.  The Reporters appointed to consider the proposal conducted an unaccompanied inspection of the site and viewpoints on 3 September. 

Finally, I was interested to read the comments of the Leader of the Scottish Conservative Party at the recent 2020 Scottish Party Conference on the subject of empowering local communities.  The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which received Royal Assent on 25 July 2019, introduced provisions for Local Place Plans (LPPs), produced by local communities, which set out their priorities for the development and use of land in the local area.  The LPP must be taken into account by the planning authority in the preparation of the Local Development Plan.  Research carried out by the Royal Town Planning Institute (Scotland) indicated that a considerable amount of funding would be required to facilitate the production of LPPs.  Support in terms of skills and resources would need to be provided to communities by planning authorities if LPPs are to be effective.  We await further information from the Scottish Government on the roll-out of LPPs!

Douglas Ross, the Leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, has gone much further and, according to David Mundell, MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (which includes the old county of Peeblesshire), Douglas Ross has ‘promised’ that he would deliver the power for local communities to veto unwanted developments and ‘end the cycle of Scottish Government Ministers overruling community objections’.  Presumably, in referring to Scottish Ministers, he also means Scottish Government Reporters, who make probably 90% of the decisions on planning appeals, under delegated powers.  At first glance, this might sound attractive to communities who have seen wind farms and other developments approved, on appeal, by Reporters against the wishes of varying numbers of local objectors.  Of course, the counter-argument is that, when it comes to implementing planning policy (which is set out in national planning policy guidance as well as regional strategic development plans and local development plans), a dispassionate view is required from a third party.  Also, how would a community reach a decision, would a referendum be required every time?

Community councils were established by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which enacted the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission Report of 1969.  Some 67 community councils were established in 1975 by the then four District Councils in the Borders Region.  Since then, community councils have played their part, to varying degrees, in influencing development and changes in land use in their area through involvement in the preparation of development plans and in responding to planning applications.  The success of community councils is difficult to measure and perhaps it is time to thoroughly examine how local communities can become more proactive in shaping the future of their communities.

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Planning (Scotland) Regulations 2008, the Scottish Borders Proposed Local Development Plan is now available for public comment.  The period for representations to be made to the council extends to 25 January 2021.  As previously intimated, due to COVID-19 restrictions, the usual methods for consultation on the proposed local development plan; exhibitions, public events and public meetings, are impossible.  Copies of the relevant documents will not be available for inspection at public libraries or council contact centres, as is the normal practice.  However, the council has produced an online video presentation and the proposed local development plan (in two volumes) is available for inspection on the council’s website.

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, “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.” 

It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that more has not been done to publicise the availability of the proposed local development plan for comment at this crucial time in the development plan process for this is the main opportunity for the public to have their say.  The formal notice of the publication of the Plan in the local press appears (in very small type) lost amongst adverts for allotment regulations and road closing orders.  In the Winter 2020 edition of the council’s own newspaper, SBCONNECT, a piece entitled ‘Your views are wanted on Local Development Plan’ takes up little more than half a column.  Clearly, education matters, which has a two-page spread, and being prepared for winter weather, which has a similar two-page coverage, are far more important.  It is a great pity that the opportunity has not been taken in the council’s newspaper to give some prominence to the major policy issues and proposals set out in the proposed local development plan.

Little attention has been paid, so far, in the local press to the content of the local development plan.  Perhaps, our local journalists could pursue their role of informing the public and stimulating debate by devoting some space to the policies and proposals in the local development plan.  Surely, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a page or two could be found over a couple of weekly editions to draw attention to some of the more important policies and proposals that are to affect our lives on a daily basis. 

One issue that has grabbed the headlines this week is the council’s investigation of a site for a replacement Galashiels Academy, which would include most, if not all, of Scott Park.  On 6 October the Executive Committee of the Council approved a report on Secondary Schools which suggests that the proposed location for the new build is on the town side of the existing building and extends into the existing Scott Park.  This was a couple of weeks after the full Council approved the proposed local development plan, on 25 September, which makes no mention of such a proposal.  Indeed, future education provision warrants little attention in the local development plan, which seems strange given its purpose is to set out future policies and proposals for the use of land and development.  The proposals map for Galashiels identifies the whole of Scott Park and Gala Policies as Key Greenspace.  Policy EP11 in the Plan is unequivocal: “Key Greenspaces as identified on Proposals Maps will be protected from development that will result in their loss.”  Seems like a lack of communication somewhere.

The campaign for a Scottish Borders National Park seems to be gaining momentum but the recently published Local Development Plan (LDP2) offers little guidance on the position of the Scottish Borders Council as planning authority on this issue.  Paragraph 8.15 of LDP2 points out that 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].  LDP2 also offers the opinion that, whilst the support of the council for such a proposal would be a material consideration for Scottish Ministers, it is unlikely to be the key determining factor in their final decision.  LDP2 goes on to say that the council will consider this matter further in due course and that this will involve investigating what would be involved in establishing a designation and considering site options [presumably this means the area to be designated].  It is unclear what this commitment means; is the Council intending to consider this matter outwith the local development plan process or is it now going to introduce it into the LDP at this late stage in the process?  Some clarification is perhaps needed from our elected members.

History tells us that since the idea of National Parks in the UK was first mooted back in the 1930s, there has been a long running tension about what the purpose of National Park designation should be.  Even the title ‘National Park’ can be misleading and easily misinterpreted.  The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949 led to the designation of 10 national parks in England & Wales; with the twin purposes ‘for the preservation and enhancement of the natural beauty’ and ‘for encouraging the provision or improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the opportunities for open air recreation and the study of nature’.  The balance to be struck between conserving the natural beauty of national parks and encouraging tourism developments within their boundaries has long been a cause of friction.  Even today, debate rages in the Lake District, for instance, over zip wires and other tourist developments aimed at encouraging more tourists at the expense of the environment.

In Scotland, a report on national parks prepared by a committee under the chairmanship of Sir J. Douglas Ramsay, published in 1945, included a recommendation for the creation of five national parks in Scotland, all in the Highlands.  Three areas were put on the reserve list for consideration at a later date, including an area centred on St. Mary’s Loch in the Scottish Borders.  However, although the designation of national parks proceeded in England &Wales, there was no such enthusiasm in Scotland; this has been put down to the fact that access to the countryside was open to all and ‘free’ in Scotland [not the case in England & Wales in the immediate post-war period].  There was also opposition amongst landowners in Scotland to what was seen as a move to increase public ownership of the countryside.

Following the creation of the Countryside Commission for Scotland (CCS) under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, powers became available to create Country Parks, relatively small areas, for open air recreation.  In a 1975 report entitled A Park System for Scotland, the CCS carefully considered the question of developing national parks in Scotland but concluded that the same objectives of improving recreational opportunities for the enjoyment of the countryside, whilst conserving its scenic attributes could be achieved in other ways.  Instead, more emphasis was placed on the creation of Country Parks, conveniently situated close to the built up areas, and Regional Parks, which would cover larger areas where the joint management of existing land uses and recreational use was required.  There are no Country Parks in the Scottish Borders, the nearest are Vogrie Country Park, near Pathhead and Dalkeith Country Park, but Bowhill Estate, Floors Castle Estate and Harestanes, near Jedburgh provide similar types of recreational facilities.  The Pentland Hills was proposed as a regional park in 1978 and was eventually designated a Regional Park in 1984.  The initial proposals for the Regional Park included part of Peeblesshire [the area north-west of the A702 including the headwaters of the Lyne Water and Baddinsgill and West Water reservoirs] but this area was omitted from the area designated in 1984.  Both the Borders Region Structure Plan 1980 and the Scottish Borders Structure Plan 1993 supported the inclusion of this area in the Regional Park.  However, although this area is an integral part of the Pentland Hills, geologically and topographically, there was little political enthusiasm for including it within the Regional Park.

Although the CCS did not support the need for national parks in Scotland, in a report entitled Scotland’s Scenic Heritage published in 1981, the CCS identified areas of Scotland called National Scenic Areas, described as “areas of unsurpassed attractiveness which must be conserved as part of Scotland’s natural heritage”.  The designation was based on the richness and diversity of the landscape elements and the spectacular or visually dramatic landscapes.  There are forty NSAs in Scotland, two in the Scottish Borders; Eildon and Leaderfoot NSA and Upper Tweeddale NSA.  The St. Mary’s Loch area, on the reserve list for designation as a national park in 1945, did not merit inclusion, much to the bewilderment of the Borders Regional Council.

A further CCS report into the protection of the landscape of Scotland, The Mountain Areas of Scotland – Conservation and Management, was published in 1990.  It recommended that four areas under such pressure should be designated as national parks, in order to retain their heritage value. The four areas identified were similar to those proposed by the Ramsay Committee of 1945: Loch Lomond & the Trossachs, the Cairngorms, Glen Coe-Ben Nevis-Black Mount and Wester Ross.  Nevertheless, no action was taken until the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999; the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, and Cairngorms national parks were established in 2002 and 2003 respectively under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.  Pressure continues to be exerted on the Scottish Government, by various campaign groups, for the designation of other areas in Scotland as national parks.  In 2013, the Scottish Campaign for National Parks proposed seven areas as suitable for national park status; five in the Highlands and Islands, Galloway in the south-west of Scotland and the Cheviot Hills in the Scottish Borders. 

In the Scottish Borders, there is an array of landscape/natural heritage designations designed to protect the landscape from inappropriate development: National Scenic Areas, Special Landscape Areas (formerly ‘Areas of Great Landscape Value’), Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.  The Pentland Hills, Upper Tweed/Tweedsmuir Hills, Cheviot foothills and the Lammermuirs, together with the Tweed Valley above and below the Eildon Hills NSA and the Berwickshire Coast are designated as Special Landscape Areas.  Together the National Scenic Area and Special Landscape Area designations cover around a third of the Scottish Borders.  Do we need another countryside conservation label?  What controls on development would be imposed? What tourism developments would be considered suitable?  Would additional finance be available for countryside recreation facilities?  No doubt, these questions will be amongst the questions that the council will consider when it investigates what is involved in the designation of a national park in the Scottish Borders.

The Proposed Local Development Plan (LDP2) [not a Draft Local Development Plan as reported in some of the press] has now been published by the council and is available for representations to be submitted.  The LDP is in two volumes: Volume 1: Policies and Volume 2: Settlement Profiles.  LDP2 is available for comment from 2 November 2020 to 25 January 2021. 

Prior to submitting representations, the public are being invited to watch a short introductory video which sets out the background to the LDP and how you can get involved (it lasts for approximately 5 minutes).  The video, with background views of the beautiful borders, is well worth listening to although the volume of the narrator is somewhat variable.  A more detailed ‘Story Map’ provides an overview of the LDP and a link to an interactive map where the proposed site allocations for development can be located.

Those interested in submitting representations are asked to submit these online, by email or in writing (online is the council’s preferred option).  According to the council’s website, during the representation period a further online video will be prepared in response to frequently asked questions; details to be shown on the council’s webpage Local Development Plan (Proposed).

So now is your chance to have your say on the council’s proposals.  As the video explains, at the end of the representation period (25 January 2021), when all representations have been received, if the council cannot resolve all the objections, any unresolved objections to the Proposed LDP will be referred to the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) and an Examination will then be conducted by a Reporter appointed by DPEA.  The Reporter will make recommendations as to whether any modifications should be made to the LDP to address the outstanding objections [these are largely binding on the council].  Once modifications have been made, the LDP would then be submitted to the Scottish Government and adopted by the council as the blueprint for the future use and development of land over the next 10 years.  It is anticipated that it will be late 2021/early 2022 before the LDP is adopted [although it could be later depending on circumstances such as the length of the COVID-19 Pandemic].

I can’t wait to see what the response is to the policies and proposals in the LDP, some of which will no doubt prove controversial.  Whilst we are restricted in what we can do because of COVID-19, there is now plenty of opportunity to read and digest the wide-ranging policies and proposals in the LDP.  Don’t miss this opportunity to influence the future of the Scottish Borders.