Planning Application Responses

November 2021

21/01584/FUL Replacement Windows at Units 1, 4, 5 and 6 School Brae, Peebles.
We object to this application as submitted.
This is a unique and characterful frontage in the heart of the Peebles conservation area, which features a high proportion of traditional astragalled timber windows. Although the building itself is not listed we feel strongly that the heritage value of this frontage within School Brae should be respected as if it were listed.
While we understand the need for new more energy efficient windows, and do not object to the existing windows being replaced for this purpose, we would prefer to see the use of high performance timber replacement windows of traditional construction in this location. However, if uPVC replacement windows are to be used, it is essential that the installed appearance of these matches the existing in all respects and does not result in the loss of the traditional character of this frontage. 
We are appalled at the proposed uPVC windows as described in the submitted manufacturer’s brochure, which we regard as unacceptable in terms of the installed appearance, while in our opinion the style of frame with rounded edges (“softer lines”) is not appropriate in this situation. No details have been submitted to show that the frames will be recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraphs 4.28, 4.29 and 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, to ensure that the externally exposed frame widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm, and no details have been submitted to show that the construction of the astragals to the new windows will reflect the traditional appearance of the original and will not appear like “stick-on” strips.
Considering the above, we are surprised to note on the application form that pre-application discussions have taken place, when required details were discussed. We would respectfully suggest that this being an application that has been made by Scottish Borders Council, there is an opportunity to set an example in how uPVC replacement windows can be successfully installed in a heritage environment to replicate the appearance of traditional sash and case windows.

October 2021

21/01584/FUL Replacement Windows at Units 1, 4, 5 and 6 School Brae, Peebles.
We object to this application as submitted.
This is a unique and characterful frontage in the heart of the Peebles conservation area, which features a high proportion of traditional astragalled timber windows. Although the building itself is not listed we feel strongly that the heritage value of this frontage within School Brae should be respected as if it were listed.
While we understand the need for new more energy efficient windows, and do not object to the existing windows being replaced for this purpose, we would prefer to see the use of high performance timber replacement windows of traditional construction in this location. However, if uPVC replacement windows are to be used, it is essential that the installed appearance of these matches the existing in all respects and does not result in the loss of the traditional character of this frontage. 
We are appalled at the proposed uPVC windows as described in the submitted manufacturer’s brochure, which we regard as unacceptable in terms of the installed appearance, while in our opinion the style of frame with rounded edges (“softer lines”) is not appropriate in this situation. No details have been submitted to show that the frames will be recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraphs 4.28, 4.29 and 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, to ensure that the externally exposed frame widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm, and no details have been submitted to show that the construction of the astragals to the new windows will reflect the traditional appearance of the original and will not appear like “stick-on” strips.
Considering the above, we are surprised to note on the application form that pre-application discussions have taken place, when required details were discussed. We would respectfully suggest that this being an application that has been made by Scottish Borders Council, there is an opportunity to set an example in how uPVC replacement windows can be successfully installed in a heritage environment to replicate the appearance of traditional sash and case windows.

21/01587/FUL Replacement windows at Parkview Springhill Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9ER.
We object to this proposal on the following grounds:
The existing property is of high architectural quality and heritage value, and is one of a row of four matching semi-detached houses in a prominent location within the conservation area, all of which appear to retain the original timber sash and case windows in generally good condition. We are concerned that from experience of other uPVC replacement window installations in Peebles, the installed appearance of the proposed uPVC replacement windows will not sufficiently match the original because of excessively thick exposed frames, and as such will potentially destroy the unspoiled traditional appearance of this attractive heritage row. 
Our concerns are reinforced by the image on page 4 of the submitted manufacturer's brochure, which shows how the windows would appear externally, with unacceptably thick exposed frames, and no installation details have been submitted to confirm otherwise. The new frames should be fully recessed into the existing openings in accordance with 4.29, 4.28 and 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors. 
The applicant claims that a precedent has been set by other nearby properties having uPVC replacement windows, but the existence of such installations of poor quality must not be taken as a precedent for the installed appearance of the proposed windows, which should be considered on its own merit in the context. 
Considering that the existing original windows appear to be in reasonable condition, we would hope that the applicant might review more sustainable options, including the very effective Ventrolla system of draught proofing, with slim double glazing fitted to the existing sashes, or replacement double glazed timber sashes fitted to the existing frames.

21/01455/FUL Alterations and extensions to dwellinghouse at Strontian 4 Dean Park Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8DD.
We object to this proposal.
The proposed box dormer at the rear elevation would be very much out of character and very visible from Edinburgh Road, while there is likely to be an issue of overlooking. The proposals do not take into account the existing rear extension to the adjacent property at 2 Dean Park, which the new extension would be built up against, and the junction is completely unresolved. 
The proposed front porch is fine in principle, but the detailing is not of sufficient quality for the location, and we would call for the details to reflect those on the existing porches at Nos 2 and 12 Dean Park.

September 2021

21/01273/FUL Replacement windows at The Stables, Frankscroft, Peebles.
No objection.  

21/01373/LBC Alterations to boundary wall at Garden Ground of Craigmount, Bonnington Road, Peebles.
No objection.

21/01289/LBC and 21/01290/FUL Internal and external alterations to Grooms, Stables and Coachmans Cottages, change of use of Cider Press and alterations to form 2 no holiday cottages, partial change of use to Grooms Cottage and alterations to form estate office, and re-roofing entire courtyard roof, at Kailzie, Peebles.
No objection.

21/01516/FUL Extension to provide orangery at Neidpath View 7 Caledonian Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9DL.
No objection.

21/01510/FUL Change the use from retail to dog grooming business at W T S Forsyth And Sons 17 - 19 Old Town Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JF.
No objection.

21/01512/FUL Alterations to garage to form ancillary accommodation at Orchard Lea Craigerne Lane Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9HQ.
No objection.

August 2021

21/01234/FUL Replacement windows at 13A Rosetta Road Peebles.
While we support the use of replacement sash and case windows that are designed and installed to match the appearance, proportions and frame thickness of the original traditional timber windows, we have to object to this application as insufficient information has been submitted to show that this will be the case. 
Specifically, there are no construction details to demonstrate that the uPVC frames are to be fully recessed in accordance with the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, and the submitted window profile sheet does not make clear that the “small” sash frame option is to be adopted.


21/01202/FUL Replacement windows and door at 3 Buchan Gardens Peebles.
We object to the proposed replacement windows.
While this is a relatively modern house within the conservation area, it has aluminium sash and case windows that already look reasonable in comparison with the traditional ones nearby. The proposed replacements are flat tilt and turn style with very thick frames, notably the 70mm horizontal transom, which would look out of place in the context, and as such would be visually detrimental. There are also no details showing the construction at the jambs and head, therefore we presume that the exposed frames would also be excessively thick.

21/01158/FUL Replacement windows (retrospective) at 11 Kirkland Street.
We are very concerned to see this retrospective application.
We understand that the applicant was advised, presumably by their installer, that the new windows would be almost indistinguishable from the original, and as such they would be acceptable to install within the conservation area. Unfortunately however, the end result is very much not the case, and as ever this is down to the uPVC window installer not recessing the frames behind the original opening, as is advised in the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, so that these appear excessively thick externally compared to the original. In this case, the frames at the jambs are showing some 50mm thickness beyond the perimeter beading that represents all that should be seen of the whole frame externally, while at the head this is more like 75mm, which in our view is unacceptable.
The application does not clearly show the comparison between the original windows and those that have now been installed. To assist we have attached a recent photo of the front window at 15 Kirkland Street, which is original, and another showing the installed windows at 11 Kirkland Street.
We have every sympathy with the applicant in this situation, and we realise that rejection of the retrospective application would bring financial hardship, but as this represents the very issue of concern that Peebles Civic Society has been attempting to highlight since before the publication of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors in 2015, we must object to this application accordingly, and request refusal.

21/00872/FUL Replacement windows to front elevation (retrospective) at 9 Kirkland Street.
We are very concerned to see this retrospective application.
We note that the applicant understood, presumably following advice from their installer, that the new windows would be almost indistinguishable from the original, and as such they would be acceptable to install within the conservation area. Unfortunately however, the end result is very much not the case, and as ever this is down to the uPVC window installer not recessing the frames behind the original opening, as is advised in the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, so that these appear excessively thick externally compared to the original. In this case, the frames at the jambs are showing some 50mm thickness beyond the perimeter beading that represents all that should be seen of the whole frame externally, while at the head this is more like 75mm, which in our view is unacceptable.
The application does not show the comparison between the original windows and those that have now been installed. To assist we have attached a recent photo of the front window at 15 Kirkland Street, which is original, and another showing the installed windows at 9 Kirkland Street.
We have every sympathy with the applicant in this situation, and we realise that rejection of the retrospective application would bring financial hardship, but as this represents the very issue of concern that Peebles Civic Society has been attempting to highlight since before the publication of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors in 2015, we must object to this application accordingly, and request refusal.

21/01117/FUL Erection of 4 no holiday pods at Land East Of Park Hotel Innerleithen Road.
We object to this application on the following grounds:
We are intrigued by the proposed “potting shed” idea, but we are concerned about the location, over-development of the site, and the potential visual impact so close to the main road at the entrance to Peebles. 
We note from the submitted drawings that the units would be approximately 3.6 metres high to the ridge, and more than 10 metres long, the full length of which would be visible from the public footpath to the west; and while the site is lower than the adjacent pavement level, the ridge height would still be around 2.8 metres above pavement level. The gables of the units would also be very close to the north boundary wall - ranging from 3 metres nearest to the hotel, to only 1.7 metres nearest to the roundabout, scaling off the plan drawing. The section drawing however rather misleadingly shows the building at 3.6 metres from the wall, which does not match the plan. In our view, the bulk of 4 such units shoe-horned into this small site would create a significant visual impact to the public domain from the west and north, and as such the proposal would in reality be an over-development of the site.
The section drawing states that timber fencing would be provided “for extra screening from the road”, but in our view this in itself would create an additional negative visual impact at 1.8 metres above pavement level in this location, while cutting off the present open views south from the public pavement, and significantly changing the character of the public space at the entrance to Peebles.

21/01146/FUL Change of use from Class 1 to Class 1 and Class 3 at 42 - 44 High Street.
Further to our response to application 21/00597/FUL, we note that notwithstanding the application description, this is the expected change of use application for the premises as a whole from the present retail use (Class 1) to a café including the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises (Class 3 sui generis).
We also note that the proposed plans indicate separate areas for Class 1 use (café tables) and Class 3 use (circulation areas), which appears to be an incorrect interpretation of the Use Classes Order. We would expect Class 3 (sui generis) to cover the whole use as this brings additional environmental issues to be considered, and the related uses cannot be separated in practice. 
Despite this however, no information has been submitted to address the important environmental issues of noise, kitchen extract ventilation and food waste management that relate to the proposed new use. With regard to the latter the applicant appears to misunderstand the waste management implications of the change of use from a clothes shop to a café and hot/cold food shop in stating that this is not applicable to the change of use.
We therefore have to object to the application as submitted due to lack of the above details, and we reserve further comment until the required additional information is provided.

July 2021

21/01069/LBC and 21/01067/FUL Alterations to Tower House and Store to form holiday let accommodation.
We support this application and its sensitive approach to the architectural heritage of the building, which will lead to the continuing sustainable re-use of the tower house.

21/01041/FUL Formation of roof balcony and erection of garden room at Tantallon Frankscroft Peebles.
No Objection.

21/00989/LBC and 21/00990/FUL Change of use from Class 3 to Class 1, alterations and external redecoration at The Tatler, 65 - 67 High Street, Peebles.
We have no objection to the proposed change of use, and we welcome the proposal to bring this High Street frontage back to life again after several years in disuse.
However, we have concerns about some aspects of the proposed external alterations, as follows:
1. We feel that the proposal to paint the whole 3-floor elevation of this C-listed building in one dark blue/grey colour, including window bands and shop frontage, would be overly imposing and out of character in Peebles High Street, whereas this might be suitable in central Edinburgh.
2. In our view the proposed hanging sign would be rather too large.
3. The internal illumination of the proposed signs 1 and 2 would be inappropriate in the High Street, which in any case would be contrary to the advice in the SPG Shop Fronts and Shop Signs.
4. We have no objection to the proposed awning, but we feel that the proposed 600mm high lettering proposed for the top of the awning when open would be rather out of scale in the High Street.
We would also add comment that the existing second floor window is missing from the elevation drawing, while the submitted design statement erroneously quotes the listing for the property next door (73 High Street). The correct listing is LB39195.

June 2021

21/00952/LBC and 21/00953/FUL External redecoration at Bridgelands, 13 Caledonian Road, Peebles.
We assume that the windows and external door frames are to remain white on this semi-detached listed building, in which case we have no objection to this application.

21/00896/FUL Deposition of excavated soil/ gravel (retrospective) - Field East Of 2 Edinburgh Road, Peebles.
We object to the use of this archaeologically significant location for the permanent deposition of excavated spoil from the construction works at 2 Edinburgh Road, and to this application for retrospective consent for the deposition work that has proceeded to completion without planning consent regardless of clear prior advice given by the planning officer.

As is clear from the submitted site plan, the material in question has been deposited on the southern end of the two remaining historic Venlaw cultivation terraces, and has directly impinged on the upper terrace. The “natural indentation” referred to in the submitted description of works would in fact appear to be the bottom of the sharply banked profile of the upper cultivation terrace, which the material has been used to infill and thus modify. To allow the situation to remain as proposed will cause a permanent deformation of the distinctive historic land profile in this location, which in our view will adversely affect an archaeological asset of local significance, with no benefits whatsoever that could outweigh the heritage value of the asset, contrary to Policy EP8. (See photos 1-3 below)

Notwithstanding the location as above, the material itself is euphemistically described in the submitted description of works, and the accompanying low resolution photos do not adequately show the extremely poor quality of the surface. Rather than soil and gravel, it is in fact mainly subsoil with many large angular rocks and boulders, and the surface would require a layer of topsoil to render it suitable for grass and as a safe walking surface to match the existing field. The description of works states that the area has been planted with grass seed, but this description misrepresents the actual situation on site. (See photos 4-6 below)

While the original pile has been roughly spread out, we could not describe this as having been graded as stated in the application, and the suggestion that later on in this growing season the site will look the same as it was prior to the works is not plausible. We also note that the pile has been created over the line of an existing grassy pathway, which emphasises the depth of the deposited material. (See photo 7 below)

The reason given for the retrospective application is that it was not believed that planning permission would be required, but this is not a credible statement. The issue of the ground works that had commenced at 2 Edinburgh Road during the week beginning 8th March 2021 was a subject of discussion at the Peebles Civic Society committee meeting of 16th March 2021, when it was noted that the planning officer had advised the agent by email on 12th March 2021 that any storage of excavated material outwith the construction site could only be on a temporary basis, but that any permanent change in the level of the land due to deposition of excavated materials would require a planning application. Our understanding was that such a planning application might not be granted, and accordingly the planning officer had further advised that the application should be submitted pre-commencement. However, this advice seems to have been ignored, as the works continued regardless thereafter, and the required planning application has been submitted some 11 weeks later, with the deposition work now being a fait accompli.

Further to the above, it seems to us that there can be no excuse for a professional agent not to know, or to find out, that this is an archaeologically sensitive site. The landowner also has responsibility for the archaeological asset to the extent that it is on their land with their knowledge, and they should have raised this point with the agent before allowing the work to proceed.

We call for this application to be refused, and for the material to be removed from the site as originally advised by the planning officer, with the area made good afterwards and restored to its original state. To allow this application through any sort of compromise on mitigation would surely set a highly undesirable precedent for further similar actions in the future.

21/00973/FUL Replace 2 no windows to front elevation at 3 Venlaw Court Peebles.
We object to the proposed style of the replacement windows. We would prefer to see UPVC sash and case windows that more closely match the original windows, rather than the ones included in this application.

21/00939/FUL Changes of location of heat pumps (revision to planning permission 18/01287/FUL) at Castle Venlaw Hotel Edinburgh Road Peebles.
We are aware of the ongoing planning enforcement situation at Venlaw Castle, and we have no objection.

21/00596/ADV Installation of New Signage at 42-44 High Street, Peebles.
Although Peebles Civic Society has not been formally consulted on the above planning application, we have to respond as follows, as the matter is within our area of interest.
We would refer you to our response to planning application 21/00597/FUL in respect of the same property and applicant, and we would point out that the present use of the premises is Class 1. Therefore consent for advertising in relation to a proposed café is not appropriate at this time.
Notwithstanding however, we object to the proposed digital display screens, as in our view such illuminated active advertising would not be in keeping with the character of Peebles High Street. Accordingly these would be contrary to Policy IS16, and also to the SPG Shop Fronts and Shop Signs which clearly states that signs within conservation areas should not be illuminated internally.

21/00875/LBC 21/00877/FUL External redecoration and re-slate roof at 56 High Street Peebles.
Considering that this is a Grade C listed building within the conservation area and forming an important part of the High Street frontage, we have to object to the application as submitted on account of the quality of the proposals.
We are concerned at the proposal to replace the existing rosemary clay tiles with economy grade Spanish slates. The rosemary tiles are mentioned in the listing, and this is one of only 3 roofs in the High Street with this finish, along with one other in Eastgate, which presently add an important visual texture and interest in the streetscape. For this reason we are uncomfortable with the idea of replacing the rosemary tiles with slates in this location. However, as Spanish slates generally have a lighter colour and a greater sheen compared to traditional Scottish and Welsh types, and economy grades are known to be relatively thin with likely variable degrees of flatness, we are concerned that these would look out of place in the High Street in any case.
Regarding the repainting proposals, we are unable to comment as the proposals are insufficiently clear, in that a) the description does not confirm the extent of the grey wall colour and whether this includes the window bands, which would change the present character of the frontage, and b) there are no details to confirm how the woodwork to the shop front is to be painted

21/00843/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse at Rosebud Cottage, 12 Rosetta Road, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00835/LBC Alterations and extension to form dwellinghouse from Cider Press, internal and external alterations to Grooms, Stables and Coachmans Cottages at Kailzie, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00834/FUL Alterations and extension to form dwellinghouse from Cider Press, internal and external alterations to Grooms, Stables and Coachmans Cottages at Kailzie, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00833/LBC Alterations to dwellinghouse at Venlaw North Lodge, Edinburgh Road, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00832/FUL Alterations to dwellinghouse at Venlaw North Lodge Edinburgh Road Peebles.
No objection.

May 2021

21/00689/LBC Installation of new handrail across bridge and replacement of existing lighting at Priorsford Bridge, Peebles.
No objection and we commend the proposals.

21/00682/FUL Alterations to dwellinghouse and erection of 2 no wooden outbuildings at Bisley, Damdale, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00764/FUL Replacement windows to front elevation at 21C Old Town, Peebles.
We have no objection in principle this application, but would like to highlight the lack of construction details about the windows. This is a recurring issue with planning applications we are sent and we would repeat our response to a previous application:

"The submitted window details do not show the construction details and how the replacement windows will be recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraphs 4.28, 4.29 and 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, to ensure that the externally exposed frame widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm". We encourage SBC to insist that these details are included in future planning applications.

21/00699/FUL Replacement windows and doors at 22 Damcroft, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00674/PPP Erection of dwellinghouse (renewal of planning permission 18/00306/PPP) Land Adjacent Kingswood Lodge Bonnington Road, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00633/FUL Extend existing dormer and installation of 2no rooflights At The Mount Lodge, Springwood Terrace,
Peebles
.
We do not object to this application in principle. However, we would comment as below.

We acknowledge the applicant’s intention to refresh and consolidate the appearance of the existing rear dormer and extension, which we note is rather out of scale with the original traditional cottage, within the proposed new cladding material. For this to be successful the new cladding would need to be well detailed, but we are concerned that the submitted drawings appear to be lacking in sufficient detail to ensure that this will be the case, for example:

The drawing does not state whether the “vertical corrugated panelling” material is to be timber or metal, and if the latter, we would doubt its suitability for use within the conservation area unless appropriately designed;
There is no information to describe the scale and appearance of the cladding profile, how this would be detailed at junctions and openings, and particularly the material for the flat roof edge trim, which would be highly visible from all sides;
The existing stepped flat roof profile has not been correctly shown on the drawings, nor how the existing rhones would be refitted or replaced;
The proposed “false façade infill” on the east elevation is difficult to envisage fully, but the corresponding side of this is not shown on the west elevation in any case;
We have doubts about the use of the “vertical corrugated panelling” to reclad the dormer upstand on the front elevation above the ridge of the original cottage roof, and we suggest that this might be better renewed in lead, or even in slate, as traditional materials. Use of the same cladding as the rear dormer and extension may have the effect of emphasising the bulk of the latter above the original cottage roof line.

Regarding the proposed new rooflights to the front elevation, we note that these are to be almost twice as long as they are wide, which the drawing does not make clear. We would suggest that this stretched proportion, emphasised as it would be by the conservation style central astragals, might be somewhat out of keeping with the traditional front elevation.

21/00627/FUL Changes to site levels, road/parking/footway layouts, relocation and resizing of bin store, landscaping and boundary treatments at Castle Venlaw Hotel, Edinburgh Road, Peebles.
No objection.

April 2021

21/00597/FUL Change of use of pavement to form outside seating area at 42 - 44 High Street, Peebles.
We object to this application on the following grounds:

This application clearly seeks change of use of the public pavement, which in our view would not be appropriate as such. It would be more appropriate if a suitable licence was obtained for the temporary occupation of the extended space during opening hours, but not for a permanent change of use, which would effectively be an appropriation of public space for private business use. We note that the outside seating area shown on the plan is around 19m2, but the application form states that the new floorspace is to be 29m2, which is not defined on the plan.

Our main concern however is that there is nothing in the application that is applying for change of use from the present retail use (Class 1) to a café (Class 3) as the submitted floor plan describes. The application form also wrongly states that the proposed use type is “Class 1 Retail (food)”. While Class 3 could be deemed an acceptable development on the High Street in terms of planning policy, use for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises (which is a likely intention of the applicant) would not, but in either case an appropriate planning application would be required to address the associated issues of kitchen ventilation and food waste management. 

21/00569/LBC Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse at Garden House, Kailzie, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00540/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and erection of home office at Bracklyn, 15 Crossland Crescent, Peebles.
No Objection.

21/00536/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse at St Marnocks, Frankscroft, Peebles.
No objection.  

21/00512/FUL Change of use from 2 No commercial units and alterations to form 2 No residential flats at 77 Northgate Peebles.
We object to this proposed change of use.
1) These small centrally located ground floor units are ideal for small business use, and it would be short-sighted to allow these to be permanently lost to residential use. We are concerned that significant areas of employment land within Peebles have already been lost to new housing developments over the years, including conversion of former trade and commercial premises within the central area, while there remains a continuing demand for central locations for small trade and professional businesses, albeit on hold during the current Covid-19 restrictions. Some of these are now relocated to Cavalry Park on the periphery of the town, where they are less visible and accessible, while creating additional vehicular travel. Considering the objectives of Policy ED3 in the Proposed LDP 2020 in recognising the changing role of town centres as community and service centres as well as retail locations, we believe it is important to maintain a supply of suitable premises for small businesses and start-ups within the central area of the town.
2) Notwithstanding the above, in our opinion these units are unsuitable for residential conversion, and the proposed plans appear unworkable in terms of the Building Standards Regulations. While the internal gross area of each 2-person flat as shown would be no more than 25 metres squared in total, after allowing for acoustic and thermal insulation upgrading, there would be no satisfactory way to deal with the requirement for external bin storage and clothes drying area.

21/00465/FUL Alterations to garage to form additional accommodation and erection of new garage, at Bellisle, Frankscroft, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00412/FUL Change of use of bank to form restaurant with takeaway facility and installation of extraction flue | 78 High Street Peebles.
We object to this application on the following grounds:

1. While we acknowledge that change of use from Class 2 to Class 3 would normally be acceptable within the core activity area in terms of Policy ED4, we note that this application explicitly requests planning permission for a take-away facility (Class 3 Sui Generis) which is not the same as Class 3, and the implication is that the proposed take-away use will be a primary business activity and not merely incidental to the proposed use as a small restaurant. Policy ED4 states that proposals for uses other than Class 1 and 3 at ground level in core activity areas will normally be refused. However, no convincing argument has been made to justify any policy exception in this case and therefore we object to this element of the proposed change of use.

2. Notwithstanding the above point, and considering that there are already three take-away restaurants in close proximity to the application address, we are concerned that the proposed new take-away facility could detract from residential and business amenity at this end of the High Street in a number of ways, including very late opening hours 7 days a week, an increase in illegal parking, and additional food refuse collections on the street adjacent to the bus stop. Regarding waste management, we consider it likely that the proposed internal (under-stair?) waste store would be inadequate for purpose, which could result in waste bins being stored externally at the rear of the property.

3. We strongly object to the proposed flue from both visual impact and nuisance points of view.
Contrary to the suggestion in the supporting statement that “the extraction flue has been skilfully concealed behind the existing chimney head and concealed from the street”, the submitted details clearly show that this is to be a substantial 500mm diameter galvanised steel flue externally mounted on the existing gable and chimney to its full height, with an industrial-looking cowl mounted on top. Due to the elevated rear façade, and the reflective material of the flue, this would be highly visible from the A72, St Michael’s Bank and residential properties on Biggiesknowe, and as such would be visually intrusive in the conservation area. 
Further to the above, we note that the rear elevation drawing is not to scale and does not fully show the context of adjacent buildings, which misleadingly suggests that the proposed flue would terminate at the ridge height of the existing buildings on High Street, which is not the case. In fact the flue terminal would be level with the top floor windows of High Street residential and office apartments, including the recently approved dormer window to 72 High Street. Apart from the unacceptable visual intrusion for some nearby occupants, as illustrated by the image on the right which is from the existing window at 72 High Street, this raises a significant concern about potential odours emanating from the flue at window level from morning until late at night, despite the proposed use of a vertical discharge cowl, and considering the unpredictability of wind currents. Increasing the flue velocity to counter this effect would only worsen the potential noise nuisance."

21/00424/LBC Replacement of existing roof lights at Peebles Hotel Hydro, Innerleithen Road, Peebles.
We welcome the revised proposals as submitted, and we are glad to support this application, considering the urgency of the proposed repair and alteration works for safety reasons as explained in the supporting statement.

21/00410/LBC Replacement garage doors at Reiverslaw, Bonnington Road, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00406/LBC Alterations and extension to Tantah Lodge, Edderston Road, Peebles.
We have no objection to this application in principle. 

However, while the drawings state that the replacement uPVC windows and astragals are to match the existing, no construction details have been submitted to confirm the window frame details and how the windows will be recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraphs 4.28, 4.29 and 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, to ensure that the externally exposed frame widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm, which will be important to achieving the intended matching appearance.

We would also add comment that while the proposed projecting box eaves detail is effective in consolidating and adding interest to the rear extension, we have a mixed view on the proportions of this compared to the original Category C(S) listed cottage, and the detailing of the eaves junctions.

21/00405/FUL Replacement windows at 33 March Street, Peebles.
We have no objection to this application in principle, considering the stated intention that the replacement windows are to look identical to the existing in terms of frame dimensions, glass dimensions and frame details.
However, we note that the submitted window details do not show the construction details and how the replacement windows will be recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraphs 4.28, 4.29 and 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, to ensure that the externally exposed frame widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm, which will be important to achieving the intended identical appearance.

March 2021

21/00380/FUL Complete replacement of roof slates at Whincroft, 8 Rosetta Road, Peebles.
No objection.

21/00261/LBC and 21/00276/FUL Replacement windows at Garden Flat, Elderscroft, 2 Springhill Road, Peebles.
We do not object to this proposal in principle. However, considering the Grade C listing of the building, and the owner’s undoubted desire to achieve an end result that will enhance the property, we are concerned that the detail submitted by the agent is lacking in sufficient accuracy and detail to ensure that the latter will be the case. We therefore have to object to the application as currently submitted on the following grounds:

The drawings are not sufficiently accurate and therefore crucially misrepresent the proportions of the existing windows and frames, particularly the narrow central first floor window, where the upper sash cannot be a square while retaining the existing proportions as stated on the drawing, and the central frame thickness to the front bay windows that appear to have double sashes. The central window is obscured by trees in the submitted photos.

As is required under Policy EP7, we would expect a detailed description and/or photos to be submitted with the Listed Building Consent application to clearly show the construction and operation of the existing traditional windows that are to be replaced, which are quite unusual, along with a supporting statement explaining the bespoke design of the proposed uPVC replacement windows, how these will look and operate as installed in comparison with the existing, and particularly the construction of the astragals and front bay windows.

The submitted window sections do not show the construction details and how the replacement window frames will be recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraph 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, to ensure that the externally exposed widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm. This is important, and as uPVC windows are being proposed rather than like for like timber windows, we would be concerned that without such detail being confirmed and controlled, there is a risk that the end result would be at least disappointing, and at worst detrimental to the traditional style and particular character of the listed building, considering the prominence and visibility of the first floor windows in question.

21/00145/LBC and 21/00126/FUL Alteration to dwellinghouse, Craiglee, 13 Crossland Crescent, Peebles
No objection.

21/00217/FUL Installation of solar panel array to roof, 5 Tweed Avenue, Peebles
The Peebles Civic Society does not object to this application, as we strongly feel that we need to support renewable energy. However, we are aware of the impact solar panels in conservation areas and would encourage that guidance on minimising visual impact is followed.

21/00284/LBC Internal alterations to Apartment 2 Kingsmeadows House
No objection.

February 2021

21/00107/FUL -Replacement front door (retrospective) - 9 Young Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JX
We do not object to this application, but feel that the asymmetrical design is out of keeping with a conservation area. However all of the front doors on this side of the street have already been replaced with modern off-the-shelf doors, so we do not feel an objection is appropriate. This situation seems to reflect previous standards of planning control in the conservation area.

January 2021

20/01564/LBC: Internal Alterations to Dwellinghouse: Priorsford House, Tweed Avenue
No objection.

20/01516/FUL: Alterations to dwellinghouse, 4 Crossland Crescent, Peebles
Whilst we have no objection in principle, considering how visible the front elevation is in the conservation area, wewould like to see clarification that the new window description “sash and casement” means traditional style sash and case, and that these will be installed with the frames recessed at the jambs and head in the traditional fashion.

20/01525/FUL: Alterations and formation of entrance shelter, Hay Lodge Health Centre, Old Town, Peebles
No objection.

2/00024/FUL - Single Storey Extension to Dwellinghouse, 23 Edderston Road, Peebles
No objection in principal, but we note that no details are provided to show how the proposed extension will join the current extension to the neighbouring property to the south. Details should be provided and approved by SBC.

20/01350/PPP - Erection of dwelling house with associated access - Site East of Dogcraig Cottage, Scotsmill
We object to this application on the following grounds:
We note that there is an undeveloped site between the property now called Dogcraig Cottage and the application site, for which full planning permission was granted in 1999 for a new dwelling house, but the consent may have lapsed. This gap site appears to be misrepresented in the indicative visualisation, which gives the impression that the proposed site adjoins Dogcraig Cottage and is thus closer to the existing buildings than it actually is. The gap means that the proposed new development would be detached from the existing group, which would undermine any case that might otherwise have been made for extending the building group to the east, even with good design. 
In terms of design, the indicative plans and visualisation submitted with the application make no attempt to address the essential issues of height, scale, siting, design and materials to ensure sympathy with the character and sense of place of the existing building group, as required under Policy HD2. In our view only a full application should be accepted for a sensitive site such as this, to remove all doubt about the quality of the proposal before any planning consent is issued.


December 2020

20/01420/FUL: Extension to dwellinghouse - 23 Standalane View.
No objection.

20/01422/FUL: Erection of dwellinghouse with attached garage - Garden Ground Of Craigmount Bonnington Road.
No objection.

20/01440/CLPU: Extension to dwellinghouse, 2 Eliots Park.
No objection.

20/01354/LBC: Installation of chimney flue - Lyne Cottage 5 Kingsmeadows Cottages Kingsmeadows Road.
No objection.

20/01413/FUL: Alterations and extensions to dwellinghouse - 42 Connor Street Peebles.
No Objection.

20/01493/LBC - Internal and external alterations (revision to Listed Building Consent 18/01286/LBC) Castle Venlaw Hotel, Edinburgh Road, EH45 8QG.
No Objection

20/01472/FUL - Installation of a Scottish Water Top up Tap Land South Of 1A Tweed Green Peebles EH45 8AP
No objection and we support this application.

November 2020

20/01299/FUL - Installation of satellite dish at Rosebud Cottage, 12 Rosetta Road, Peebles EH45 8JU
No objection.

20/00849/FUL - replacement door Hillview, Greenside Place, Peebles EH45 8JA
We object to this application for the following reasons:
1. No credible justification has been provided for the removal of the original door, which is a good example of a traditional double storm door, is a matching pair with the same on the semi-detached house adjacent, and remains in good condition.
2. The applicant has stated that the purpose of the alteration is to bring more light into the hallway, but there is already a traditional inner glazed door, and a glazed fanlight above both doors that allows light into the hall even when the outer storm door is closed. Therefore there is no real need for the outer door to be glazed as well.
3. The applicant has also stated that the outer door needs to be replaced to allow post to be delivered. However, all that needs to be done is to fit a letter plate to the existing door, similar to the neighbouring door adjacent.
4. Notwithstanding the above, we are concerned at the lack of accurate drawings and images to show how the proposed replacement door would look in relation to its original neighbour, including the proposed use of an unidentified “composite material”, presumably uPVC, which would be inappropriate in the situation.
5. In our view the proposed alteration, particularly the introduction of external glazed panels and the use of uPVC, would be detrimental to the appearance of the existing paired frontage which is elevated and quite visible within the conservation area.

20/01290/FUL and 20/01291/LBC - Replacement windows at Flat 3, 45 Northgate, Peebles EH45 8BU
We note that this application relates to a grade C(S) listed building within the conservation area, and proposes the replacement of the existing timber windows in uPVC. We also note that concurrent applications 20/01289/FUL and 20/01252/LBC are for similar replacement of windows to Flat 2 below within the same building, which should be considered together with this application.

As stated in our response of 19th February 2020 to applications 20/00020/FUL and 20/00135/LBC for this property that were subsequently withdrawn, we object in principle to the use of uPVC replacement windows on a listed building within the conservation area, and particularly on the historic Northgate frontage. No design statement has been submitted in support of the application as required by Policy EP7, to include clear justification for the use of uPVC in this situation rather than one of the many high-performance traditional style timber windows that are available on the market.

In addition, no details have been submitted to show how the replacement windows will replicate the installed appearance of traditional timber sash and case windows as far as possible, particularly in terms of externally visible frame widths, and how the frames of the replacement windows will be recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraph 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, to ensure that the externally exposed widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm. We are concerned that without such detail being confirmed the end result would be detrimental to the traditional style of the listed building, and would conflict with the original windows that remain on the paired dormer on the south side of the same roof, albeit currently in poor condition.

We would point out that drawing 005 is incorrect in that the details shown are the same as the proposed uPVC replacements, while the existing windows are traditional timber construction.

We note that the rear elevation of the building is exposed and highly prominent at the end of the block, and as such is effectively a principal elevation. Therefore rather than modern tilt and turn as proposed, we would prefer to see the replacement kitchen dormer window in a traditional sash and case style, as it would have been originally considering the proportions of the opening, and thus to coordinate the appearance of the listed elevation with the existing sash and case windows on the ground floor below, and with the concurrent application for Flat 1 in between. Any future application to replace the windows to Flats 2 and 4 in the southern half of the building could then be required to conform to the same traditional style. Rather than accepting previous inappropriate window replacements as the comparative standard, we consider that the opportunity should be taken to improve and enhance the character and integrity of the listed building, and thus to enhance the historic character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with policies EP7 and EP9.

Although not part of this application, we should also point out that the rear dormer window to the other top floor flat at 45 Northgate (Flat 4) appears to have been replaced at some time relatively recently, and the flat is apparently undergoing some refurbishment at present, but there is no record of any planning or listed building application for this. The replacement window (compared to the current Google street view) has excessively thick frames and in our view the appearance is detrimental to the appearance of the listed building for the reasons mentioned above.

20/01273/FUL and 20/01274/LBC - Alterations to roof to replace glazing with slate at Peebles Hotel Hydro, EH45 8LX
We note the urgency of the proposed repair and alteration works for safety reasons as explained in the supporting statement. We also note that the alterations will provide the opportunity to do away with the old black-out system and associated operational safety issues, to improve the roof insulation and to introduce more controllable lighting within the ballroom below.

We support the application for the above reasons, but subject to the following observations:

1. Considering that the building is B listed, the existing louvred roof vents are an interesting historic detail that in our view would be worth retaining as an integral part of the new wholly re-slated roof, and the proposed alteration would otherwise create the impression of a modern extension within the courtyard. Although the ballroom roof is not seen from the ground, it can still be seen from the upper level windows in the hotel, and retention of the existing vents could avoid the need for the modern ventilated ridge that is indicated on the drawings.

2. The supporting statement refers to the possibility of using LED lighting to simulate the significant daylighting quality of the existing rooflights so that “the internal day to day experience of the space will be unchanged”, but no details of this have been submitted. As this is an important aspect of the intention to retain the existing interior character of the ballroom as far as possible, we would suggest that the lighting design should also be submitted for approval as part of this application, even if this was by suspensive condition to allow consent to be released.

October 2020

20/01213/FUL - Replacement dormer windows and ground floor side window, 20 Young Street
No objection.

20/00849/FUL - replacement door Hillview, Greenside Place, Peebles EH45 8JA
It's not a major development, but the door in question is elevated and quite visible within the conservation area. It’s a nice example of a traditional double storm door, and a matching pair with the same on the semi-detached house next door (apart from colour). Therefore I have some concerns about the proposed “composite material” and the lack of accurate drawings or images to show how the new doors will look in relation to its original neighbour. I would say that in that context the new doors should at least be designed to reflect the style and proportions of the existing doors, but I’m not at all sure about the idea of introducing the upper glazed panels.

20/00894/FUL and 20/01113/LBC Venlaw South Lodge Edinburgh Road
We note that this application follows on from approved application 16/00941/LBC, and we support the planning officer’s considered conclusions on that application, which were following the submission of further details to mitigate the adverse visual effects of the thicker uPVC window frames, including a slimmer frame profile, improved astragal details, and confirmation of the external visible width of the frames. We also note however that this application does not include the same supporting detail on frame width mitigation.
It is essential that the remainder of the replacement windows are no worse in terms of external visible frame width than those installed in 2017, particularly in the case of the dormers which are considerably more prominent than those on the ground floor. Therefore we have to object to the application as currently submitted, in the absence of the following information:
a) Confirmation that the replacement windows will have the same slimmer profile that was agreed with the planning authority in 2016;
b) Confirmation that the astragal width and detail will also be as agreed in 2016; and
c) Confirmation that the new window frames will be recessed behind the existing reveals so that the external visible width of the frame and sash combined will be no greater than the existing as far as possible.

September 2020

20/01040/FUL Sunnybank Cottage 101 Northgate Replacement windows and door

We object to this application on the following basis:

a) The submitted drawings do not show how the frames of the replacement windows and door will be recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraph 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, to ensure that the externally exposed parts will match the width of the existing, which is traditionally 15-20mm.

b) Detail C on drawing 0163/PP/03 appears to indicate that the outside face of the window and door frames will be flush with the outside surface of both timber and stone surrounds, which would be completely unacceptable.  The traditional stone reveal depth of 125-150mm must be maintained, and the dormer window should have a minimum reveal to the cladding boards of 25mm.

c) Detail C on drawing 0163/PP/06 indicates an outward opening door, which we presume is an error, but the proposed threshold detail shows an unnecessarily high threshold frame, which would be out of keeping with the traditional front door in terms of appearance, not to mention the trip hazard it would likely create

 

20/00894/FUL and 20/01113/LBC Venlaw South Lodge Edinburgh Road

We note that this application follows on from approved application 16/00941/LBC, and we support the planning officer’s considered conclusions on that application, which were following the submission of further details to mitigate the adverse visual effects of the thicker uPVC window frames, including a slimmer frame profile, improved astragal details, and confirmation of the external visible width of the frames.  We also note however that this application does not include the same supporting detail on frame width mitigation.
It is essential that the remainder of the replacement windows are no worse in terms of external visible frame width than those installed in 2017, particularly in the case of the dormers which are considerably more prominent than those on the ground floor.  Therefore we have to object to the application as currently submitted, in the absence of the following information:

  1. Confirmation that the replacement windows will have the same slimmer profile that was agreed with the planning authority in 2016;
  2. Confirmation that the astragal width and detail will also be as agreed in 2016; and
  3. Confirmation that the new window frames will be recessed behind the existing reveals so that the external visible width of the frame and sash combined will be no greater than the existing as far as possible.

August 2020

20/00891/FUL Benrig  1 Cuddyside  Alterations and extension to dwelling house.
We welcome this potential improvement. No Objection

20/0960/FUL Construction of new Play Park Victoria Park. Springhill Road.

No objection


20/00929/FUL:  45, 47 and 49 Old Town (retrospective)

No objection to the proposed repainting of 47 Old Town, and the same to the proposed painting of the existing render finish at 45 and 49 Old Town, but that for avoidance of doubt due to the lack of clarity in the application we would object to any painting of the existing sandstone window/door surrounds and eaves string course which relate to the same on the eastern half of the building. 


20/00969/FUL and 20/00970/FUL Chambers House, 72 High Street
No objection.

20/00971/FUL 8 Dukehaugh
No objection.


20/01005/CON and 20/01006/FUL Erection of replacement dwelling house, NE of 23 Eastgate

No objection

20/01012/FUL Replacement windows, 6 Clement Gunn Square

No objection
20/01021/FUL Formation of off-street parking area, 30 March Street
No objection

March to July 2020

Responses to planning applications received during the period of "Lockdown" due to the Coronavirus Crisis.

20/00205/FUL  Groendaal   19 Caladonian Road.  Erection of a porch.
No objection.


20/206/FUL  Glenburn 49 March Street.  Alterations and extension to dwelling house.
No objection.


20/00275/FUL  Land North East of the Lodge.  Kingmadows Road.
We strongly object to this application. Increased traffic volume will compromise the Tweed Bridge and the High Street roundabout. We fully support the letters of objection. It is a green corridor that supports a large number of native wildlife species, including several on the RSPB’s red and amber lists of Birds of Conservation Concern. There is also evidence of hedgehog, badger, weasel, roe deer, pipistrelle bats and red squirrel. The 2018 Main Issues Report stated: 2.24: The development plan process seeks to ensure the right development takes place in the right place. The Scottish Borders is an attractive place to live and work and the Council must continue to strike the balance between supporting sustainable economic growth and protecting the landscape and environment. EP 11 States for the protection of Green Space. 1.1 The aim of the policy is to give protection to a wide range of defined types of greenspace with settlements and to prevent their piecemeal loss to development. 1.3. Whist the Local Development Plan identifies key greenspaces within settlements, the policy acknowledges that there are other greenspaces also within settlements. The policy also extends protection to those other greenspaces and that compensatory provisions are made. It is certainly immediately adjacent to the River Tweed SSSI, which is material to that extent. The site is also covered by a tree preservation order as part of the Peebles Conservation Area. It lies within a designated Conservation Area, a Special Landscape Area and the Scottish Borders Strategic Green Network The whole estate Kingsmeadows is Listed as a conservation area category B in a 225 year old estate. This site is a garden ground and mature woodland relating to whole site Kingsmeadows House. The suggestion that the site should be classified as brownfield land is nonsense, as in planning terms this normally means a derelict site that has previously been developed with buildings, and as such may potentially be contaminated. The tennis court and bowling green are in use playing tennis and the bowling green has a football goal and is a nice grass area. The developers have not issued an existing site plan that is important in viewing the application. The developers propose cutting down 32 mature trees, 28 of which are considered of high or moderate conservation value in a tree survey carried out by the developers in 2018. The developers are proposed to growing new trees and their 200 Scale site plan has enormous trees they will take a long time to grow. The Kingsmeadows House will suffer from the time that the trees are growing and the new houses will be seen for a long time. The LDP commits SBC to “… direct new development to the right locations, balancing the needs of the community, the economy and the environment.” [LDP, page 3]. This balance is best served by preserving the integrity of the woodlands surrounding Kingsmeadows House.

20/00280/FUL Alteration to form new window and roof terrace.
No objection.

20/00328/FUL 20/00329/CON Lawn Tennis Club 1 Glen Road Erection of replacement clubhouse and formation of all ability access.
We fully supported this application.


20/00348/FUL   12 Biggiesknowe.  Erection of retaining wall (retrospective).
No objection.


20/00358/FUL  Lawn Tennis Club  1 Glen Road. Erection of replacement clubhouse and formation of all ability access.
We fully support this application.


20/00401/FUL  6 Hydro Gardens Innerleithen Road. Alterations and extension to dwelling house.
No objection.


20/00407/LBC 20/00429/FUL Ravesmeade Innerliethen Road. Internal and External alterations.
No objection.


20/00465/FUL Clach Gorm 5 Cross Road. Alterations and extension to dwelling house.
No objection.


20/00576/FUL  Cairnswood  Innerleithen.  Road Alterations and extension of dwelling house.
No objection.


20/00607/FUL Rosebank Greenside.  Alterations to parking areas and erection of metal railing.
No objection.


20/00635/FUL Trancrom 9 Caledonian Road. Replacement Windows.
This is an application to replace existing traditional timber sash and case windows in uPVC, in a highly prominent location in the Peebles conservation area.
We would raise no objection to the use of high quality uPVC replacement windows for the reasons stated in the submitted supporting statement, and we note and applaud the applicant’s objective to replicate the appearance of the existing traditional sash and case windows as far as possible, with matching frame sizes.  However, we have to express concern at the lack of explicit installation details to control how the replacement windows will be installed within the openings, so that the externally exposed part of the window frames (as opposed to the sash frames) will also match the existing condition (traditionally 15-20mm). 
While no construction drawings have been provided, we note that the submitted scope of works states that the 70mm thick frames are to be fitted into the existing (timber sash and case) boxes, which is cause for concern, as this is likely to result in a wide frame margin externally.  As per 4.33 in the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, the applicant should be required “to disguise the thickness of the frames by fitting them into the checks behind the stone surrounds” and “to submit details confirming the dimensions of the window frame which will be exposed”.  This will be very important if the applicant’s objective is to be fully achieved.
20/00658/FUL  Graham Cottage 16 Elcho Street Alteration to dwelling house
No objection.


20/00691/FUL  Land West of 8 Ballantyne Place.
We object to the above application on the following grounds:
1. Removal of a designated play area and amenity space that is used and valued by the current residents.
2. Overdevelopment and increase in density.
3.  Detriment to residential amenity and loss of open space.
4.  Increased traffic and exacerbation of existing access and parking problems.
5.  Inappropriate scale of development and insensitive elevational design.
We note that this application contains virtually the same proposals as previous applications 12/01357/FUL, 14/00635/FUL and 19/01535/FUL, all of which we objected to in similar terms. 
We also note that this is a re-submission of application 19/01535/FUL for the same applicant, which was withdrawn in order to provide further supporting information.  However, none of the information submitted with the current application addresses any of our concerns.  Furthermore, the submitted design statement implies that “comprehensive consultations” have taken place with neighbours, Peebles Civic Society and Peebles Community Council, but this is not the case.
We are aware that there has been a change in planning policy that, if retrospectively applied, would effectively remove the requirement for a play area within the development, and clearly the primary objective of this and the previous applications above is quite simply to take advantage of this idea.  However, this should not mean that the previously allocated play area is no longer needed.  While remaining an integral part of the originally approved development layout, despite the original developer not providing any physical play facilities following completion of the scheme, this small area of amenity space continues to provide an oasis within an already very dense residential scheme that is isolated from other residential areas, having its only access through a small but busy industrial estate.  Despite recognising that the existing play area is currently planted with shrubs, bark chipped and maintained by the residents’ association, the submitted design statement is dismissive of its value to the residents, stating that it “serves little practical function”.  This however is not the view of the residents, who believe that they have rights in common to the use of this space as stated in their title deeds.
Notwithstanding the allocated play area and the interests of the residents as above, it is our view that the addition of two further houses to the originally approved development of 28 houses as proposed would in any case constitute overdevelopment and an unacceptable increase in density, with the consequent detriment to visual and residential amenity, reduction of already limited open space, increased traffic within the confined cul-de-sac layout, and exacerbation of existing access and parking problems.  The concerns of residents regarding the latter have been ongoing for several years, and have recently been raised with local councillors.

In terms of design, in our view the proposed extension does not respect the scale and roofscape of the existing symmetrical block (which is not fully illustrated on the drawings), thus adding to the negative visual impact that this development would inevitably have on the established sense of place within the cul-de-sac.  We note that the current application has increased the number of occupants from 3 to 4 per house.
We hope that the issues above will be subject to a fresh review under this application, including consultations with residents and local councillors.


20/00699/FUL  Unit 2 School Brae.  Part change of use from retail to mixed use comprising retail/ meditation/ workshops/studies space on upper floor .
No objection.


20/00722/FUL  42 Northgate.  Change of use from retail to micro pub.
No objection.

Planning application 20/00753/FUL

Land East of Knapdale, 54 Edinburgh Road
Erection of 22 dwelling houses with access road and associated work.

We object to the above application in the strongest terms, and on the following grounds:
1. Development outwith the settlement boundary without valid justification.
2. Design and scale of development totally inappropriate for location.
3. Detriment to landscape and visual amenity, including significant loss of mature trees.
4.  Detriment to residential amenity.
5.  Road safety and access issues. 
There have been several previous applications and requests for this site to be considered for private housing development, and all have been rejected, including the planning appeal in relation to the 2017 planning application.  The latter process identified and addressed the fundamental policy issue of this site being wholly outwith the settlement boundary, and the reporter firmly rejected the appellant’s claim that there was a shortfall in the effective 5 year housing land supply that could justify an exception under Policy PMD4, which is material to the current application, regardless of any development design questions.
The current Housing Land Audit states that the Scottish Borders has a housing land supply of 5.6 years, which meets Scottish Planning Policy requirements with an excess of 399 units, and on that basis, this site is not needed to make up any shortfall.  The submitted Planning Statement attempts to show that due to slow progress on some approved sites this may not be the case in practice, but the study does not focus on the relevant Peebles area, where there continues to be an issue of local oversupply due to the strong demand for housing development land in this area, and omits to include additions such as the 71 houses approved at South Parks over the 50 allocated.  
Not taken in to account in the above is the addition of windfall sites, created through entrepreneurial developer activity, which is a particular issue in Peebles as has been highlighted by Peebles Civic Society since the publication of the Local Development Plan in 2016.  In our response to the Main Issues Report 2018 we pointed out the distorting effect that such approvals have on land supply projections, with 338 windfall units having already been added to the 225 units planned within the LDP at that time, not including the additions due to current planning applications, or the additional sites for development identified in the MIR for future land supply.  Thus we see the proposed development at Venlaw as yet another windfall application.
Notwithstanding the question of exceptional approval under Policy PMD4, the design of the proposed development is in our view totally inappropriate for the location.  The choice of repeated and equally spaced blocks in a ribbon development along a single access road does nothing to create a sense of place and identity for each potential occupant that could conceivably comply with the principles of Placemaking and Design.  In addition, with the repetitive frontages at a relentless 3 storeys, there has been little attempt “to minimise the height above the properties in Edinburgh Road” as stated in the submitted planning statement (7.4).
This is a prominent and highly sensitive site from a landscape point of view, being within both the Venlaw Castle Designed Landscape and the Tweed Valley Special Landscape Area, and highly visible from several viewpoints across the town.  The Design and Access Statement in fact very clearly shows the negative visual impact that the proposed development would create, even from selected viewpoints.  As we have stated in our previous planning responses, we feel strongly that there should be no development even on the lower slopes of this site.  Thus we endorsed the similar findings of the Development and Landscape Capacity Study in 2007, and we also agree with Scottish Borders Council’s more recent grounds for rejection of this site for inclusion within Housing Supplementary Guidance:
 “It is considered that the site contributes greatly to the setting of the settlement. Development at this location would result in a negative impact on the wider settlement and not just the immediate area. …… the site is wholly included within the SBC Venlaw Designated Landscape…. The site is within the SLA and would negatively impact on it”
We are concerned at the proposal to remove 20 mostly mature trees, some of which are estimated to have been growing for 200-250 years, in order to form the new vehicular access for the development.  These trees currently form the gateway to the Venlaw Castle driveway, and as such are a significant feature of the designed landscape, which would be lost.  However, these trees also currently provide strong landscape screening of the site from the A703 when approaching from Edinburgh, and if removed as proposed the view from the roadway would then be directly into the site along the proposed access road, and the proposed small-scale replanting around the entrance would provide little mitigation.  We note that the landscape masterplan somewhat misleadingly shows the existing woodland screen extending over Venlaw North Lodge to the site entrance, which is not the reality.
A significant aspect of the proposal is a landscaped buffer zone which is intended to mitigate the visual impact of the development from the west, with woodland planting (1-1.25m) and some isolated semi-mature trees (4-5m).  This planting will hardly provide any significant screening for several years, but as the landscape section indicates, when the trees begin to reach the desired height for effective screening, they will at the same time create undesirable and increasingly dense and tall shading to the properties on Edinburgh Road.
We echo the concerns of many residents, and responses by the Roads Planning Service to previous applications, that the proposed development will create additional traffic hazards due to the multiplicity of junctions in this area, and the location just within the northerly main road entrance to the town.  The Road Safety Review appears to be a superficial exercise, conducted over a one and a quarter hour period at a time when traffic would be expected to be relatively quiet, and the conclusions only look at the design of the new access.  We also question the validity of the Traffic Survey that was carried out at Kingsmeadows Road in providing data for the proposed Venlaw site which would exit onto a busy main road in contrast, with strong conflicts in right turn exit and entry, and constant traffic in and out of Harrisons and Crossburn Caravan Park on the opposite side of the road.  In his response to the 2017 application, we recall that the owner of Harrisons expressed concern at the potential safety issues that would be created by such a new access, with around 60,000 vehicles entering and exiting the service station annually at 7 days per week, regular petrol tanker deliveries, 400 new cars and 600 used cars being delivered each year, 2,025 service jobs being done annually, and associated daily delivery of parts, and that is before the activities at Crossburn Caravan Park are assessed.
Perhaps a small point, but it would appear from the levels layout that the footpaths to east and west of the proposed access road as they lead up to the development from the access ramp arrangement would be too steep for comfort in adverse weather, at around 1 in 14 and 1 in 11 respectively.
We attended the pre-application presentation held in November last year, and considering the near unanimous objections from attendees that we observed then, we are astonished at the applicant’s creative interpretation of the public consultations in stating that “the feedback to the detailed designs was positive”.  We note that the agents feel that the consultation process with the Community Council and the wider community has “provided valuable input”, but we fail to see how “this has been reflected in the revised proposals for which planning permission is now being sought”.

20/00763/FUL Lisnagarvey and Mon Albri. Cross Street  Alteration and extension to 2 dwelling houses.
“We suggest that we call for the proposed dormer to be finished in slates to match on all sides”

December 2019

19/01658/LBC 19/01660/FUL Installation of 8 no CCTV at Holland and Sherry Ltd factory.
No objection.

19/01657/LBC  Mr Glen Comys. Internal and external alteration.  Reiverslaw Lodge Bonnington Road.
No objection

19 01563/FUL  Peebles Hydro Hotel.  Installation of electric car charging unit.
No objection.

19/01702/FUL  Mr Lea Brash.  Clarlaverock,  Old Town. Sub-division, alterations and extension to form additional dwelling house.
No objection proving that the existing boundary wall is retained, as this will conceal the proposed off – street parking.

19/01705/FUL  Mr Robert Dalgleish.  Change of use from office/store and alteration to form residential flat,  68 Old Town.
No objection.

October and November 2019

19/01361/FUL Groenendaal 19 Caledonian Road, Peebles.
No objection.

19/01413/FUL (Dechmount Cottage 34 Dean Park)
Our objection to this proposal is that it is not well detailed. We have concerns regarding the uncomfortable juxtaposition of the new extension to the boundary and existing extension at No 32. The proposal to extend the existing waste and rainwater pipes over the new extension roof (and apparently through the new guttering) is ill considered and likely to prove unsightly.

19/01441/FUL (Pinewood 6 Wemyss Place Peebles)
We object to this proposal because the elevation drawings and window schedule imply that the new windows will look exactly the same as the existing. This will clearly not be the case, considering that the submitted section drawings show unnecessarily exposed uPVC frames. This will be detrimental to the traditional character of the property, which forms a semi-detached pair with No 8. There are also no details showing how the proposed astragals would look, these need to be externally applied to any replacement windows, to reflect the existing traditional appearance.

19/01424/FUL (Dun Whinny 2 Springwood Terrace)
We have no objection to this proposal, as long as the replacement window details that state that they will have the same dimensions and proportions as the existing windows are followed through.

19/01471/FUL (Land East Of 30 Dukehaugh (Formerly 1-39 Tweedbridge)
We do not object to this revised plan.
Although we still think it is still quite a tall development, its reduced height works much better for the area than the original design. We recognise the improved landscaping and that photovoltaic panels may be installed. We would encourage the Council to insist that such energy saving measures form part of all such developments. The flood report does highlight that the site is at risk of flooding and that the buildings have been designed to cope with this. It is crucial the final developments is able to cope with floods.

19/01455/FUL and 19/01452/LBC (Tontine Hotel)
We do not object and the re-opening of the original windows should be an improvement, provided that the proposed new sash and case windows are well detailed to the standard required for a B listed historic building. The new window frames should comply with the SBC Supplementary Planning Guidance in terms of the frame and astragal detailing  (sections 4.28 and 4.29).

19/01470/FUL (46A Old Town)
We do not object to this planning application.

19/01490/LBC Reiverslaw Bonnington Road
We do not object to this planning application, on the condition that accurate and proper plans are submitted. The submitted drawings are lacking any scale, there are two different floor plans with differing overall length, and a proposed south elevation should be provided.  Also the proposed new chimney is not properly represented where it will come up through the roof on the east elevation. We also agree with the comments in the 2010 provisional enquiry response letter included with the current proposal.

 

August and September 2019

19/01270/FUL 16A Young Street, Peebles. Replacement windows.
SBC should be following their own regulations in overseeing how window replacement applications are scrutinized.
It was decided that we should gather information on other window replacement planning applications and write to SBC with our views on this controversial matter.
(SC) and (AD) have already expressed views which will be taken into account in framing the letter.

We note that this application is within the conservation area and there are now few properties left with original timber sash windows. Whilst not against people upgrading windows, we request that better details are provided to confirm that the design of the windows (uPVC) reflect the style and proportions of the original, with frames that are recessed at the jambs and head in the traditional way. It is very hard to tell if these windows comply with SBC's own regulations for conservation areas.

19/01263/FUL Glencora, 1 Connor Place. Retrospective application for the erection of a garden shed.
We object. We will support the letters of objection which have already been sent to SBC Planning Dept.
This is an enormous shed erected in defiance of planning law and needs to be scrutinized properly. In particular:

  1. The size of this "garden shed" is a cause of concern. This is a very large structure and far larger than a normal garden shed and we fail to understand how this could have been built without first seeking planning permission.
  2. This shed has been built very close to boundaries (less than 0.5 metres), which contravenes regulations.
  3. The privacy of neighbours has been affected by the size of this structure, its windows and closeness to boundaries.
  4. We wonder what is the purpose of this shed, due to its size and power supply.
  5. We are aware of problems created from rainfall runoff and also concerns about the retaining wall and its maintenance.

19/01243/FUL Woodvale,7 Edderston Road, Peebles. Change to roof. No objection.

19/01348/FUL  1 Springwood Terrace, Peebles. Alterations to dwelling house and erection of a replacement garage. No objection.

19/01239/PAN  Venlaw Farm, Peebles. Erection of 22 houses. Members of the Committee will attend the public consultation meeting to be held in the Burgh Hall on 25th September between 2:00 and 8:00pm.

July 2019

19/01027/FUL  Cranston house 18 Dean Park.  Replacement windows and dormer. No objection.

19/01048/FUL  The Sunflower Restaurant.  Change of use and alterations to form 2 flats.  I recommend no response.

19/01078/FUL  Flat C Damdale Mews Damdale. Replacement windows.  No objection

19/01163/FUL Erection of boundary fence. (retrospective) 49 Old Town.  I have responded no objection.

19/01195/FUL  17 George Street.   Replacement door. No objection.

19/01192/PAN  Venlaw farm.  Erection of 22 houses. The developers propose a public meeting at the burgh hall on the 25 September between 2pm and 8pm. 

June 2019

19/00550/FUL 12 Biggiesknow.  Replacement windows. No objection.

19/00644/FUL The Stables. Frankscroft.  Replacement Patio Doors. No Objection.

19/00660/FUL 29 1 Eastgate. Peebles  Extension of dwellinghouse to form replacement conservatory. No objection.

19/00654/FUL Laurel Bank 8 Crossland Crescent.  Alterations to dwellinghouse and erection of a boundary fence. No objection.

19/00719/FUL 9 Edderston Road. Extension of dwelinghouse and erection of boundary fence.
No objection.

19/00827/FUL 1 Northgate Vennel. Erection of decking and associated works. I have looked at the house and works proposed and recommend. No objection.

19/00837/FUL St Marnocks, Frankscroft. Replacement windows and installation of 3 number additional roof lights. No objection.

19/00845/FUL Cairnwood, Innerleithen Road.  Alterations and extension of dwellinghouse. No objection.

19/00852/LBC Reiverslaw Lodge.  Bonnington Road. Internal and external alterations. No objection.

May 2019

18/00557/FUL  Braeholm  Tweed Green. Replacement windows.
No objection.

18/00561/FUL   5 Tweed Avenue. Erection of 2 garden sheds and installation of chimney flue.
No objection.

18/00598/FUL Franksrcoft grange villa. Erection of replacement detached garage and formation of new access.
No objection.
The garage door elevation shows masonry piers to the garage door sides and we have drawn this to the attention of the planning officer.

April 2019

18/00406/LBC  Mr Allister Jamieson Peebles Old Parish Church, High Street. Erection of a notice board.
No objection.

18/00420/FULMr and Mrs Stuart Brown. Cintra Cottage 16 March Street. Alterations and single storey extension and erection of timber summerhouse.
No objection.

18/00421/FUL  Mr Frazer Swalwell. Glenmoy 12 March Street.
Alterations and single storey extension to dwellinghouse and erection of garage with ancillary accommodation on first floor.    To await for seeing what correspondence there is concerning the two storey garage nearer the time for response.  GB has checked the recent correspondence on May 2 and has responded thus:
No objection but we fully support the requirement made by the Dovecot Lade Owners Association.

18/00430/FUL and 18/00431/LBC   Mr Chris Cassidy. Crown Hotel 54 High Street.
External alterations.  No objection

18/00306/PPP  Mr Alan Bone. Land adjacent to kingswood Lodge, Bonnington Road.
Erection of dwellinghouse - renewal of planning permission 13/00317/PPP.  No objection.

March 2019

18/00250/FUL Mr and Mrs Large. 3 Hydro Gardens Innerleithen Road. Erection of a conservatory.
No objection.

18/00290/FUL Alan MacBeth. 78 Old town. Alterations to dwellinghouse and formation of new access and parking area.
No objection.

18/00277/FUL Mr J Thomson. 7 Venlaw Court replacement windows.
No objection.

18/00293/LBC Mr David Kilshaw. Salon 5 Northgate. Installation of illuminated signage.

February 2019

19/00097/FUL and 19/00100/LBC Eastgate Theatre. Alterations to existing glazed entrance screen. 
No objection.

19/00152/FUL  44a Rosetta Road. Alterations and dormer extension to flat. No objection

19/00173/FUL 1 Northgate Vennel.  External alterations to dewellinghouse. No objection
19/00192/CON and 19/00193/FUL Benrig.1 Cuddyside.  Demolition of dwellinghouse and erection of two dwellinghouses. No objection.

19/00182/PPP Kings Meadows House, Kings Meadows Road.  Erection of residential apartments.  Previous application 15/00822/PPP. I have responded:  We fully support the application and we hope it goes ahead. The proposers and their architects are to be commended for the design.

January 2019

18/01786/FUL  Maryfield House, Frankscroft. Installation of solar panel to garage roof. No objection.

19/00073/FUL  Flat B Damdale Mews, Damdale. Replacement windows. No objection. 
We recommend that the colour of the replacement windows matches the dark brown of the neighbouring windows.

18/00731/FUL   Gowanlea. Venlaw Road.  Erection of trellis fence and gateway arch.  No objection.

18/00836/ADV   Service Station. Illuminated – non illuminated signs.  No comment.

18/00816/LBC and 18/00815/FUL    Courthouse Business Centre.  High Street. Upper Ground Floor. Alterations to same wall finishes (caused by dry rot).  No objection.

18/00854/FUL 9 Crossland Crescent.  Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse.   No objection.