Planning Application Responses
March 2024
24/00247/FUL | Application under Section 42 to vary planning conditions 2 and 7 of planning permission 19/00182/PPP (erection of residential apartments) to vary wording of conditions | Site In Grounds Of Kingsmeadows House Kingsmeadows Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
The Peebles Civic Society strongly objects to this application for the following reasons.
We believe that application 24/00247/FUL is an attempt to use Section 42 to create a new planning permission and therefore period of validity without taking into consideration current planning policy, as three years have now passed and 19/00182/PPP has now expired. If the applicants wish to develop the site, a new planning application will need to be submitted, which takes into account NPF4 and the new Local Development Plan.
Our specific objections to varying planning conditions 2 and 7 remain and are set out below:
Condition 2
The Peebles Civic Society strongly objects to the applicant’s request to remove the word “except” from the Condition 2, which currently states:
“No development shall commence until all matters specified in conditions have, where required, been submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the development shall only take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved”
We can see no reason for changing the very clear wording of this condition and this appears to us to be an attempt to extend validity using a meaningless grammatical edit to the condition.
Condition 7
The Peebles Civic Society strongly objects to the applicant’s requested changes to Condition 7. The applicants propose that the wording is changed to “the woodland within [the] application site” as they believe that this does not follow Circular 4/1998, as Condition 7 is not relevant to the proposed development area. We fundamentally disagree with this statement for the following reasons:
1. Circular 4/1998 explicitly gives the planning authorities the right to “impose conditions regulating the development or use of land under the control of the applicant even if it is outside the site which is the subject of the application”. Therefore, they are incorrect to state that Condition 7 does not follow Circular4/1998.
2. Considering the importance of the Kingsmeadows woodland (both ecologically and also its amenity value) and the strength of local opinion (as demonstrated in the around 500 objections to 22/00 4 2 2 /AMC), it is imperative that the impact of any future developments on the whole woodland are taken into account. Development sites within this important woodland habitat cannot be considered in isolation from the surrounding area.
The Peebles Civic Society believe that the points we have raised above make it very clear that this application should be refused. If the applicants which to submit a new application, this can then be considered with regard to current planning policies.
24/00031/FUL – Variation to condition 7 of Planning permission 19/00182/PPP – Site in Grounds of Kingsmeadows House, Kingsmeadows Road, Peebles.
The Peebles Civic Society strongly objects to the applicant’s requested changes to Condition 7, as we did when we responded to the previous application 24/00031/FUL. We repeat our objection below:
They have asked for the wording to be changed from “The first application for matters specified as conditions application should be supported by a management plan for the site and the remainder of the parkland/woodland, detailing maintenance, curtilage, access and boundary treatment proposals” to “The first application for matters specified as conditions application should be supported by a management plan for the woodland within application site”. This is because they as they believe that this does not follow Circular 4/1998, as Condition 7 is not relevant to the proposed development area. We fundamentally disagree with this statement for the following reasons:
1. Circular 4/1998 explicitly gives the planning authorities the right to “impose conditions regulating the development or use of land under the control of the applicant even if it is outside the site which is the subject of the application”. Therefore, they are incorrect to state that Condition 7 does not follow Circular4/1998
2. Considering the importance of the Kingsmeadows woodland (both ecological and its amenity value) and the strength of local opinion (as demonstrated in the around 500 objections to the previous planning application), it is imperative that the impact of any future developments on the whole woodland must be taken into consideration. Development sites within this important woodland habitat cannot be considered in isolation to the surrounding area.
We therefore believe that this application should be refused with no change to the timescale set out in 19/00182/PPP.
24/00181/FUL- Residential development comprising of 2 dwellinghouses and 12 flats with associated works - Site Of Former March Street Mills March Street Peebles Scottish Borders.
We note that this application relates to previous 23/00884/FUL which has been approved subject to completion of legal agreements, and we understand that this site is to contain the affordable housing element that was required under 23/00884/FUL.
While there is a discrepancy within the submitted documents as to whether the 2 semi-detached units were to be affordable for rent along with the 12 flats, we have seen an email communication from the applicant’s agent confirming that all 14 units are to be affordable housing. Therefore on that basis we have no objections to the proposals.
24/00144/FUL Dormer extension and erection of garden shed Flat 3 29 Rosetta Road Peebles.
We have no objection to the proposed garden shed, but we strongly object to this application on account of the proposed dormer extension.
The wide box dormers as proposed would be out of scale and keeping with the traditional architectural style in this part of Peebles conservation area, where any original in-roof dormers have the traditional bay window profile, as can be seen on the opposite side of the road, but are not shown in any submitted street views.
The image submitted with the application showing two smaller non-traditional box dormers on the street frontage at 46 and 50 Rosetta Road seems in the absence of any explanatory design statement to imply that these are already a common feature in the street, but this is not the case, and in fact these are the only two such dormers in the whole length of Rosetta Road. However, these were installed many years ago, and in terms of current placemaking and design standards should not be taken as any precedent for further box dormers to be allowed on the street frontage.
Regarding the other street view images submitted with the application, the one labelled Rosetta Road - Rear Elevations is in fact at Cross Street and in a different area, and therefore provides little relevant support for the application, while the one labelled George Street - Front Elevations is not a relevant example in terms of locality or building type.
In our view the proposed box dormer to the front elevation on Rosetta Road would be particularly detrimental to the visual appearance of the street frontage and roofline of this attractive example of traditional North Peebles architecture at 27-29 Rosetta Road. The proposed dormer window style is also out of keeping with the proportions and arrangement of the existing frontage. While there might be less concern about such a box dormer to a rear elevation away from principal elevations, in this location the proposed dormer would be highly visible from Kirkland Street and would create a significant impact on the roofline when viewed from ground level, as compared to from above roof level as in the submitted 3D visualisations. The 3D visualisations also do not match the elevation drawings and appear to underplay the real scale of the dormer construction, while none of the drawings indicate the proposed external materials.
Although not a planning issue, we would add comment that the internal layout shows that the existing living/dining space would be significantly compromised by the proposed access stair such that the remaining space would be unsuitable to properly support a 4 bedroom/5 person dwelling. Therefore in our view the proposals would be over-development of the property.
February 2024
24/00071/FUL - Installation of ASHP to 14 no. maisonettes and erection of rickshaw store. - Site At Former Tweedbridge Court.
We have no objection to this application, but assume that the Environmental Health Officer will ask for information on that to demonstrate that noise levels from the 14 ASHPs will be within maximum noise nuisance guidelines.
24/00093/LBC - Internal and external alterations to school - Halyrude Primary School Rosetta Road.
We have no objection to the alterations themselves, but there is insufficient information to comment on the he proposed new glazed door and screen. This is a B-Listed building and proper matching traditional astragals with separate double glazed panes should normally be provided. However, a practical approach in this situation where the screen itself is not replicating a historic feature, and the new opening is not on the front elevation, would be to allow the proposed planted (i.e. simulated) timber astragals, provided that these were fitted inside and out to match the dimensions and profile of the existing, with internal bars fitted within the double glazing units to match the width of the outside and inside astragals. Details of any such planted astragals should be submitted for approval before work is allowed to commence.
January 2024
24/00031/FUL – Variation to condition 7 of Planning permission 19/00182/PPP – Site in Grounds of Kingsmeadows House, Kingsmeadows Road, Peebles.
The Peebles Civic Society strong objects to the applicant’s requested changes to Condition 7. They have asked for the wording to be changed to “the woodland within [the] application site” as they believe that this does not follow Circular 4/1998, as Condition 7 is not relevant to the proposed development area. We fundamentally disagree with this statement for the following reasons:
1. Circular 4/1998 explicitly gives the planning authorities the right to “impose conditions regulating the development or use of land under the control of the applicant even if it is outside the site which is the subject of the application”. Therefore, they are incorrect to state that Condition 7 does not follow Circular4/1998
2. Considering the importance of the Kingsmeadows woodland (both ecological and its amenity value) and the strength of local opinion (as demonstrated in the around 500 objections to the previous planning application), it is imperative that the impact of any future developments on the whole woodland must be taken into consideration. Development sites within this important woodland habitat cannot be considered in isolation to the surrounding area.
24/00030/FUL – Variation to condition 2 of Planning permission 19/00182/PPP – Site in Grounds of Kingsmeadows House, Kingsmeadows Road, Peebles.
The Peebles Civic Society strongly objects to the applicant’s request to remove the word “except” from the following condition:
2. No development shall commence until all matters specified in conditions have, where required, been submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the development shall only take place except in strict accordance with the details so approved.
We can see no reason for changing the very clear wording of this condition and therefore the deadline should not be extended.
24/00042/FUL - Change of use to form hot food takeaway - Central Baguette High Street
Peebles.
We have no objection to this change of use and support this application by Tweeddale Youth Action to open Project Pizza.
24/00001/LBC and 24/00002/FUL Internal and external alterations for new heating system St Peters Church Eastgate.
No objection.
23/01905/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse 4 Clement Gunn Square Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8LW.
No objection.
23/01860/FUL Erection of garage Kingsmuir House Glen Road Peebles.
Although we note the objection lodged by a neighbour, we have no objection to this application.
December 2023
23/01831/LBC Internal alterations, replacment windows and roof covering Kailzie West Lodge South Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9HT.
No objection.
23/01832/LBC Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse Kailzie West Lodge North Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9HT.
The Kailzie West Lodges are paired and Category B Listed, and we are concerned that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on these two important Georgian buildings. We object partly because the proposed sunroom is not a high-quality modern addition that compliments the Georgian building or a traditional design that reflects the existing architectural detailing. We also agree with the comments by Historic Environment Scotland that the sunroom should not extend around the corner of the building in order to reduce its visual impact and that their suggestions for alternative designs should be considered in a revised planning application.
23/01589/FUL Alterations to dwellinghouse and external redecoration The Mount Lodge Springwood Terrace Peebles.
No objection.
23/01564/FUL Redevelopment of Holiday Park to provide 100 holiday lodges, provision of a new access route, maintenance building, supporting infrastructure and alterations to the stables building to accommodate supporting facilities. Land South East And West Of Rosetta Caravan Park Rosetta Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
Although we are generally supportive of the plans for the redevelopment of Rosetta Holiday Park, we do have the following comments:
Traffic
We are concerned about the potential for increased traffic along Rosetta Road as a result of the reopening of the holiday park. This is particularly an issue as the Rosetta Road is effectively restricted to a single lane through lines of parked cars on either side of the road. While traffic from Rosetta Caravan Park was greater in the past when it was in its heyday, and the new development may simply restore this level of traffic movement, significant new housing developments have appeared opposite Rosetta House at Standalane, which will result in more traffic than before. Both the Peebles Civic Society and the Peebles Community Council responses to LDP2 raised concerns about increased traffic from proposed developments in this area and the same issues arise with this application. The need for a (suitably positioned) second road crossing over the Eddleston Water is covered in the now accepted LDP2 as a condition for developing the land at Rosetta, which we believe should include this application too.
We note that the summary in the Transport Assessment Section 6 states that “The proposed development is therefore forecast to have a minimal impact on the operation of the local road network including on Rosetta Road in the vicinity of Halyrude R C Primary School.” However, this assessment is based on the observation in paragraph 3.5.3 that “Standalane Way becomes Rosetta Road immediately to the south of the site, with the road supporting two-way operation to the north of March Street...” But this is not the case in practice, as cars are always parked on both sides of the road, with the result Rosetta Road is in effect a single lane road.
Section 7 in the Transport Assessment argues that the majority of construction vehicles, including HGVs, will access and leave the site via the Chapelhill road. If this is successful, we believe that it should be a condition that all service vehicles should use this route in future. We also propose that customers are also encouraged through holiday park rules to use this route for arrival and for going on car trips, and to prioritise walking/cycling/public transport for local access to Peebles. NPF4 Policy 13, which concerns sustainable transport, states that the policy intent is “to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably”. This should be implemented at this development.
Former Stable Block
We welcome the proposals to convert the former stables building to a “Welcome Building”. However, we also agree with the comments and recommendations of HES in their consultation response regarding the proposed removal of historic features, and hope that their recommendations can be accommodated.
Former parkland to the east of Rosetta House
We are pleased to see that it is proposed to restore the former designed landscape to the east of Rosetta House, with the area cleared of all the former touring caravan park facilities, and the restoration of the northern access as a pedestrian/cycle and construction/service vehicle route. We strongly support this restoration on the assumption that no future development (housing or otherwise) is proposed for this area.
23/01744/FUL - Replacement of door with corner bi-fold window - Woodlands Springhill Road Peebles.
No objection.
23/01678/FUL - Installation of Solar Photo Voltaic array to roof - Branxholme Springhill Road Peebles.
Although the Peebles Civic Society regrets the visual impact the array will have on one half of this symmetrical frontage, we support the installation of solar panels in principal and appreciate that the south-facing roof has a limited area. Therefore, we have no objection this application.
23/01742/FUL - Installation of roof lights and new tile for ventilation extract - Dalgety 10 Montgomery Place Peebles.
No objection.
23/01730/LBC - Internal alterations to block up internal door - Peebles Area Offices Rosetta Road.
No objection.
November 2023
23/01159/LBC and 23/01680/FUL Replacement tiles to roof Langlands 5 St Andrew's Place Peebles.
We object to this application.
This property is one of three matching traditional houses (1, 3 and 5 St. Andrews Place), all listed Category C(S), and all having the original Welsh slates. Under the heading Statement of Special Interest, the statutory listing for 5 St Andrews Place has the following note, which is relevant to this matter: “Attached to 3 St Andrews Place by matched pair of boarded timber doors to garden, and identical in all details (see separate listing).” Nos. 1 and 3 St. Andrews Place are noted as a semi-detached pair. The statutory listing therefore identifies the importance of these three outstanding examples of traditional Peebles domestic architecture being seen as one group.
Spanish slates have a noticeably different appearance to Welsh slates, having a lighter grey colour and a reflective sheen, and they can often be slightly irregular in terms of flatness. Therefore, we are concerned that the proposed replacement of the existing Welsh slates with new Spanish slates would significantly change the appearance of 5 St. Andrews Place, which would impact detrimentally on its visual relationship with the adjacent listed properties in this building group.
New Welsh slate is readily available, second-hand Welsh slate perhaps less so these days, but there should be no difficulty in sourcing a matching replacement. Any higher unit costs in the supply of new Welsh slate would likely be offset by the salvage and re-use of sound existing slates, of which there should be a reasonable proportion.
October 2023
23/00225/FUL and 23/00140/LBC | Replacement windows | Middle House Kingsmuir Hall Bonnington Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9HE.
No objection.
23/01479/FUL | Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse |11 Crossland Crescent Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8LF.
No objection.
23/01418/FUL | Alterations and extensions to dwellinghouse and formation of new parking area | Sideways Bonnington Road Peebles.
No objection.
September 2023
23/01404/FUL Formation of a new door opening within the gable wall. 19 Wemyss Place Peebles
Scottish Borders EH45 8JT.
No objection.
23/01380/FUL Installation of 2 no roof lights (retrospective) Second Floor Flat Kingsmuir Hall Bonnington Road Peebles.
No objection.
23/01379/LBC Internal and external alterations (retrospective) Second Floor Flat Kingsmuir Hall Bonnington Road Peebles.
No objection.
23/01231/FUL | Erection of double garage | Land East Of 2 Kingsway.
We object to this application. We are concerned that the proposed garage and parking spaces will be built on greenspace that is highly valued by local residents and should be protected from the type of development proposed here. We understand that the title deeds state that the land should only be used as an ornamental garden. We are also concerned about the proposed use of the garage and any non-domestic use of the site, or future development as a dwelling house should be clearly ruled out. It is simply not an appropriate place to build a large double garage with four parking spaces that is not related to the adjoining property.
23/01320/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse 12 Kirkland Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8EX.
We do object to the proposed windows on the grounds that insufficient information has been submitted to ensure that their external appearance will not be detrimental to the traditional character of the conservation area. The proposed uPVC sash and case windows do have the potential of improving on the current windows, but the frames would need to be recessed to reflect the traditional appearance of the area and so that the new frames do not appear significantly thicker than the existing ones. Also the proposed horns are not in keeping with windows in the conservation area.
We have no objection to the proposed extension or the use of Spanish slates on the roof.
23/01314/LBC and 23/01313/FUL External alterations to hotel and formation of new access ramp Tontine Hotel High Street.
No objection.
23/01215/FUL | Erection of replacement garage | Queensdale Greenside Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JA.
No objection.
23/01225/FUL Replacement windows Dalgairn Springwood Terrace.
No objection.
23/01216/FUL Installation of photo voltaic array to roof Parkview Springhill Road.
No objection.
August 2023
23/01075/FUL and 23/01070/LBC External redecoration to rear elevation
and repaint door 11A Northgate Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8RX.
No objection.
3/01047/FUL Replacement windows Wilkie Place 57 Rosetta Road Peebles.
If the current timber windows and frames are to be replaced by uPVC ones, it is essential
that they are 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 widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm. We feel
that the current 102mm combined external width of frame and sash, as per the
manufacturer’s brochure, would be visually unacceptable within the conservation area,
unless significantly reduced by recessing the frames. The replacement windows should also
be without horns as are the existing windows.
For these reasons we object to this application as submitted subject to acceptable
installation details being provided.
23/00977/FUL and 23/00978/LBC - Dormer extension to dwellinghouse, erection of garden room and installation of Photo Voltaic array to roof - Meikle Cottage 2 Kingsmeadows Cottages Kingsmeadows Road .
We agree with the comments and issues raised by the Heritage and Design Officer in their response to this application. In particular, we agree with the concerns about the proposed dormer and garden room. Regarding the dormer, we also note that the proposed plan drawing has not been amended to show the reduced size of dormer, even though the elevation has been amended. For these reasons we object to the proposals.
We also agree that if the solar panels are black with black frames/or frameless, they would be acceptable.
23/00877/FUL - Alterations and two storey extension to dwellinghouse including new front porch - Gowanlea 6 Venlaw Road.
No objection
.
July 2023
23/00884/FUL - Residential development comprising of 71 houses and flats with associated work and change of use for boiler house/engine house to commercial use - Site Of Former March Street Mills March Street (7th July).
The Peebles Civic Society objects to this proposal to build 71 houses and flats on the site of the March Street Mill. Although we do recognise and welcome that the developers carried out significant public consultation and have explained how they have revised the plans in the Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report that is included with the planning application documents, we still have significant concerns which are raised below. We agree that these changes have improved the design and that they are now more pedestrian and resident friendly.
Our major concern is still centred on the construction of 71 houses and flats in a relatively small former industrial site (i.e. the density of building) and the consequences that this will have to the loss of local potential employment opportunities in central Peebles, the increased traffic on March Street (we note that no traffic survey has been undertaken, although one was promised to be included with the application) and the impact that an increase in population with have local facilities and infrastructure, including healthcare and schools. This looks like another example of development occurring before the capacity of the town’s facilities and infrastructure has been improved to cope with the increased population (especially children and those in need of care and support). The developers do acknowledge that they expect to contribute to financing local facilities. However, this piecemeal approach is not a replacement for proper strategic planning and resourcing ahead of future developments to which developers should of course contribute.
In our response to the original LDP2 (24th January 2021) we noted the following which is directly relevant to this application:
“Volume 1 Chapter 7, paragraph 7.4: We are concerned that significant areas of employment land within Peebles have been lost to new housing developments over the years, while there is a continuing demand for central locations for small trade and professional businesses. Some of these are now relocated on the periphery of the town, where they are less visible and accessible, and this inevitably has created additional vehicular traffic.”
“We note that paragraph 7.4 states that “It is the role of the LDP policies to ensure that our town centres remain a vibrant focus for communities, not just as retail hubs, but also as service centres. ..Weight must therefore be given to the need to stimulate economic activity in our town centres within the planning application decision making process.” We ask that this consideration should also apply to planning applications that could lead to the loss of employment land within the town boundaries, e.g. change of use to housing, or loss of existing central retail sites. Also with reference to Policy ED3 para 1.5, we ask that small trade businesses be considered as appropriate developments within the terminology.”
We also specifically commented on the proposed building of 71 dwellings on the site of the March Street Mill by the original mill owners which is still relevant now:
“March Street Mill (70 homes/Mixed Use) [MPEEB007]: This was an industrial site and the development proposed by the owners would again add a large number of properties with the same issues as highlighted above (ie increased traffic).”
“The mixed development planned for this site, the need to encourage local employment within Peebles and the ongoing involvement of the local community indicates how local needs should be fully involved in any future development of this site.”
We have objected to the demolition of the March Street Mill administration building in our response to 23/00883/CON and also object to the proposed design of the buildings which would replace this and face onto March Street. We believe that the administration building does have potential for possible business units and/or community use and that these possibilities should be explored rather constructing the four proposed properties. We understand where the design concept of repetitive small gables facing to the front has come from, but feel that it does not sit comfortably with the residential character of the surrounding conservation area. The existing residential buildings in this part of Peebles generally have the main roof slopes facing the front, with smaller dormer gables of varying size and character. The proposed gable end buildings are at odds with this.
We are very concerned and object to the reduction in the area of allotments proposed in this application. The redrawing of the eastern the eastern boundary of the allotments, the construction of the access path and the substation will lead to a substantial loss of allotment and green space. Without a detailed survey to confirm exactly what will be lost it is difficult to be certain, but estimates have concluded that out of a total of 51 plots, five will be lost completely and another 15 reduced in size, varying from about one-third of the area to a small corner. Not only will this have significant impact on the those that care for the allotments, but will also lead to a reduction in greenspace, which was one of the main reasons for the Reporter refusing planning consent to the original owners of the site, Moorbrook. Any development should have a minimal impact on the allotments and adjustments should be make to the number and density of proposed properties to accomplish this.
As stated above, we are concerned about the overall density of housing and also the scale of the three-story blocks, which despite the reassurances from the developers in the PAC we feel do not fit well into the overall character of the conservation area.
The relocation of the substation should consider the potential impact on the health of nearby residents and precautions should be designed to ensure that these are minimised.
23/00883/CON - Demolition of existing mill buildings - Site Of Former March Street Mills March Street (7th July).
Whilst we understand that any redevelopment of the March Street Mill site will require the demolition of most the buildings that cover the site and welcome the retention and renovations to the Gate Lodge, Engine House and Boiler House, we object to this application due to the proposed demolition of the administration building which faces onto March Street. We believe that the existing administration building forms an important part of the historic March Street frontage and together with the site entrance, with the former gate lodge and gate posts, has significant heritage character. We also believe that the building has potential for business or community use.
We disagree with the conclusions in the Conservation Area Consent Report that the “administration building is unsuitable for retention and its removal would not adversely affect the conservation area due to its difference in form to the neighbouring properties and extent of alterations required to provide level access”. This misses the point that this building forms an important part of the heritage of the Conservation Area by being one of the few parts of the March Street Mill that is readily visible to the rest of the town from street level.
We can see potential for the former administration building to be converted to accommodate economic use, perhaps some much-needed centrally located business units. This goes to the heart of the problem that the Peebles Civic Society pointed in our response to LDP2 of the 24th January 2021:
“We are concerned that significant areas of employment land within Peebles have been lost to new housing developments over the years, while there is a continuing demand for central locations for small trade and professional businesses. Some of these are now relocated on the periphery of the town, where they are less visible and accessible, and this inevitably has created additional vehicular traffic.”
We also noted that:
“…consideration should also apply to planning applications that could lead to the loss of employment land within the town boundaries, e.g. change of use to housing, or loss of existing central retail sites. Also with reference to Policy ED3 para 1.5, we ask that small trade businesses be considered as appropriate developments within the terminology.”
To us, the structural problems highlighted in the Conservation Area Consent Report are not unsurmountable and at the very least the façade could be kept with new units constructed behind this. It may also be possible that the building, or part of the building could be used as a community resource. Further consultation with the community should take place before a final decision is made about the fate of the administration building.
We also have objections to the proposed buildings which would replace the administration building, but these will be presented in our response to 23/00884/FUL, as will our objections about the loss of greenspace and the impact on the allotments in particular.
23/00887/FUL - Replacement windows - 6 Damdale Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8DG (4th July).
We object to this planning application because the detailed section drawings included on the proposed elevation drawing show that the frames would be packed out at head and jambs so that they would not be properly recessed. This would not be in accordance with paragraphs 4.28, 4.29 and 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, which ensures that the externally exposed widths at jambs and head are within the traditional range of 15-20mm. The combined exposed frame and sash width (100mm) would not only be out of keeping with the traditional sash and case style, but also considerably larger than that of the existing replacement windows. The detail also shows a large packer below the window sill, which is not in keeping with the traditional detail.
We also note that the drawings appear to be inaccurate in terms of the actual proportions of the upper and lower sashes on both floors
23/00878/LBC Replacement windows Craigmount Bonnington Road Peebles.
Whilst it is welcome that the current windows are being replaced by timber “like for like” ones, we object to the way the details of the frames are shown in the application. The frames should be recessed, and it is not clear from the plans that this will be the case. Before accepting this application, we would recommend that it is confirmed that recessed frames will be installed.
23/00862/FUL Replacement windows 5A Old Town Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JF.
We object to this application because if the windows and frames are to be replaced by uPVC ones, it is essential that they are 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 widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm. Recessed frames are no shown in this application. Also, the application should read “sash and case”, and not “sash and casement”.
June 2023
23/00815/FUL Change of use from hairdresser (Class 1A) to residential flat (sui Generis). 76 High Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8SW.
We have no objection to the change of use from a hairdresser to a residential flat. However, we note that there do not appear to be any planning or building warrant applications relating to the conversion of the old bin store behind this property. A retrospective application may be required.
23/00773/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and formation of new access. 30 Northgate Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8RS.
No objection.
May 2023
23/00400/FUL Replacement of two number windows and front entrance door. 12 Young Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JX..
We object to the proposed replacement front window, as tilt and turn windows are not
appropriate in this conservation area location. We believe It should not be relevant that
inappropriate and poor quality replacement windows have already been installed in other
houses nearby, as we do not wish to see any further deterioration in the traditional
character of the conservation area.
We have no objection to the proposed replacement bathroom window, as this will not be
visible from the street, and the existing window is modern. However, we do note that the
117mm combined frame and sash width all round will result in a bit less glass area than the
existing small window.
We have no objection to the replacement front door.
23/00554/FUL Replacement windows and door to first floor flat. 2A Tweed Green Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8AP.
We have no objection to the front windows being replaced specifically on a “like for like” basis, but we note that the words “like for like” are missing in the description of the replacement front windows. We also would like to comment that the submitted window brochure extracts do not include any dimensioned frame details for the proposed sliding sash and case windows, and that in the absence of any submitted installation details the exposed external width of the installed frames should not exceed that of the existing.
We have no objection to the replacement porch windows providing that the existing stained glass windows are not historic features of the building. We also note that the frame details for the replacement porch windows show typically thick uPVC frames at 70mm width on the outside, with probably only a 12mm check, and 75mm frames for the small opening hopper window, we think that these look unsightly and out of proportion. We would prefer to see narrower frames used for these small windows, as they will be prominently visible from the public close.
We have no objection to the proposed replacement door.
April 2023
23/00524/FUL Change of use of from Class 4 business to Class 5 plant hire and builders yard (retrospective) White Bridge Park Kingsmeadows Road.
It is pity that this is a retrospective application and permission for a change of use was not submitted in advance by its current owners. However, we do not object to the actual change of use, as the site has separate access and does not appear to impact negatively on Cavalry Park users or other neighbours.
23/00535/FUL Installation of Solar Photo Voltiac panels to the roof Peebles Swimming Pool Port Brae.
We do not object to this application and support the use of photovoltaic panels to improve the sustainability of running the swimming pool.
23/00510/FUL Replacement door 51A Northgate Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8BU.
Unfortunately there are no original traditional front doors (or windows) in the vicinity of this property and the proposed door does not improve this situation. We would have liked to have seen a more traditional style to improve the situation, rather than the proposed flush unpanelled door. However, considering the other nearby doors and the door it is replacing, we are not formally objecting to this application.
23/00463/FUL Change of colour to windows (revision to previously approved permission 19/01348/FUL 1 Springwood Terrace Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9ET.
No objection.
23/00417/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse (revision to existing planning permission 22/00389/FUL) 6 Elcho Street Mews Peebles EH45 8LP.
No objection.
23/00397/LBC Retrospective partial replacement of roof slate, Museum High Street , Peebles.
Peebles Civic Society strongly objects to the inappropriate replacement of original roof slates on this important A-listed building, which this retrospective application for listed building consent has now drawn attention to.
No report with photographic record has been submitted with the application to show the condition and appearance of the roof areas in question prior to the works being carried out, and to justify complete replacement rather than selective re-use of the original green-tinged Westmorland (or possibly Cumbrian) slates. We would have expected that a significant proportion of the original slates could have been salvaged and re-used, as it is the nails that generally fail rather than the slates, and as Westmorland and Cumbrian slates are still quarried and readily available, unlike Scots slates, matching replacement slates could have been sourced. The replacement material however appears to be new slates possibly of Spanish origin, considering their light grey colour and sheen particularly when dry, which in our view is a significant mismatch with the remaining areas of original slates and thus an inappropriate choice in this highly sensitive context. In addition, these new slates have not been laid to diminishing courses as would have been the case originally and as can be seen in the adjacent roof areas. We are concerned to note therefore that the roof slate replacement work that has been carried out has materially and detrimentally altered the original appearance of the listed building.
Considering the A-listed status of the building, we are surprised that the consultation response from Historic Environment Scotland is to make no comment. We would like an explanation for this and we may follow this up directly.
The submitted low-resolution photographs do not clearly show the re-slated areas fully in context, therefore we have provided some additional photographs at the end of this response to clarify the points we make above.
It has also been drawn to our attention that the roof over the adjacent A-listed Town House has been similarly re-slated (photograph below). A separate application for listed building consent should be required for this.
In our opinion the unauthorised slates should be removed and the relevant roof areas made good with matching material and coursing. And we expect Scottish Borders Council to uphold in this case the standards of planning control appropriate to A-listed buildings that would be applied to any other applicant. (Photographs not included in this spreadsheet).
March 2023
23/00280/FUL Replacement windows 15 Bridgegate Court Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8RW.
We do not object to this application as long as the external appearance (including colour) matches the existing windows to retain the coherence of the elevations
23/00104/FUL. Replacement windows Sheardale. 27 Kirkland Street Peebles.
We object to this application for the following reasons.
We welcome the replacement with sash and case windows, but it is essential that the frames are 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 widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm. But there is a need for construction details to be submitted to confirm and that the window designs are appropriate to the local area and building (i.e. not including horns, a more appropriate choice of colour for rear window frames and the dimensions of the upper and lower lights defined and agreed to be appropriate).
We are concerned about the proposal to replace the existing (modern) sash and case windows on the street frontage elevation with uPVC casement style windows, which would be inappropriate in appearance.
23/00140/LBC and 23/00225/FUL. Replacement roof lights, installation of PV array to roof and internal alterations. Middle House Kingsmuir Hall Bonnington Road Peebles.
We welcome the removal of the external aluminium secondary glazing, but if the windows are replaced by uPVC ones it is essential that they are 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 widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm. We have no objection to the PV array, especially as it is not visible to the public.
23/00218/LBC. Internal and external alterations Coachmans Cottages and Cider Press (amendment to existing consent 21/01289/LBC).
No objection.
23/00095/FUL. Alterations to form off-street parking area. Neidpath View 7 Caledonian Road Peebles.
We object to this application.
We note that this is a re-application and that the design has changed since the previous one. The arrangement of steps has been changed to reduce the number of steps in the topmost flight by 4 risers, so that the pathway along the top of the wall has increased in height by 630mm. The result of the latter is that the back retaining wall has also increased in height to 4.08m compared to the 3.15m that was approved after the planning officer asked that the height of the retaining wall be reduced to make it visually more acceptable. We therefore believe that the increased height would be visually unacceptable, and that the previously approved height should be adhered to, including the previously approved arrangement of steps and pathway at the top level.
We have no objection to the proposed wall finishes.
February 2023
23/00169/FUL Installation of 12 no. Photo voltaic array to pitched roof. 1 Springwood Terrace Peebles.
No objection.
23/00102/FUL Installation of solar panel array to front and rear roof. Craigendarroch 7A Bonnington Road.
We do not object in principle to this application, but feel that the layout of solar panels on the rear elevation is poor. We suggest that it would be possible to utilise the garage roof, with four panels on each side. This would allow the arrangement on the main roof to be simplified into a single row along the top of the roof on each side, which would look much better.
23/00052/LBC and 23/00051/FUL: Alterations and dormer extension to dwellinghouse, erection of garden room and installation of PV array to roof. Meikle Cottage 2 Kingsmeadows Cottages Kingsmeadows Road Peebles.
No objection.
23/00050/FUL: Extension to dwellinghouse 23 South Park West Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9EF.
No objection.
23/00043/LBC and 23/00042/FUL: Replacement windows Peebles Hotel Hydro Innerleithen Road.
No objection.
22/01785/AMC: Erection of dwellinghouse Land Adjacent Kingswood Lodge Bonnington Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
No Objection.
January 2023
22/02011/FUL: Formation of off street parking and alterations to wall to form access gate. Morven Cottage 2 Rosetta Road Peebles.
No objection.
22/01979/LBC and 22/01978/FUL: Alterations and replacement windows: Office 3 Cuddy Bridge Peebles.
We have no objection to this application and welcome the installation of new double glazed timber sash and case windows on a like for like basis.
We note that the vertical window section detail correctly shows the daylight size of the opening in relation to the overall frame height, with the head of the frame recessed to show only the depth of the sash channel beading externally and assume that the equivalent detail will apply to the jambs. It would have been helpful if the jamb details had been provided as well..
22/01934/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse Zuleika Cottages Caledonian Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
No objection.
22/01930/FUL and refurbishments to 6 no Garages to form 6 no Storage Lock up units Garages West Of 10 Walkershaugh Peebles.
No objection.
22/01842/FUL External redecoration 68 High Street Peebles.
No objection.
December 2022
22/01851/FUL: Erection of Dwellinghouse and detached garage at Plot C, Land east of Craigmount, Bonnington Road, Peebles.
We object to this application on account of the poor elevational design, the lack of sufficient architectural interest to reflect the context, and the potential impact of the ridge height. We do not agree with the statement that the design will fit in with the adjacent buildings, and a street elevation to scale would be useful to show the proposed house in context along with the relative ground and ridge heights.
2/01835/LBC Internal and external alterations to primary school Halyrude Primary School Rosetta Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
Purely from a listed building application point of view, we have no objection to the proposed internal alterations and new external access doorway.
We do however have some concern about the potential visual effect of the proposed fenced playground area at the front of the building, the strange layout of this, which is effectively smaller than the current playground area and appears not to be suitable for purpose, and the way this enclosure will awkwardly divide the external space in front of the listed building. Therefore we object to this aspect of the application.
In addition, we note the submitted objections from Rosetta Playgroup, parents, educators and others, who all make valid points about the shortcomings of the proposals from an operational point of view, and it would appear that there has been little or no pre-application consultation. Bearing in mind the current furore about the design of the new Peebles High School, we would suggest that this application should be withdrawn until a proper consultation has been carried out.
22/01888/FUL Replacement windows (retrospective) 8 Bridgegate Court Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8RW.
No objection.
22/01861/LBC and 22/01860/FUL Alterations to Annex Building and installation of integrated PV panels to South facing roof.
We have no objection to this application, although we do note that this will lead to the creation of an additional dwelling on the ground floor through the conversion of the existing stores, which would be a change of use.
2/01858/FUL Installation of Solar Photo Voltaic array to roof and Air Source Hybrid Pump to side elevation 21 Kirkland Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8EU.
No objection.
22/01831/FUL Replacement windows Strathnairn 5 Edderston Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
This is an attractive traditional terraced frontage within the conservation area, and while we would prefer to see timber sash and case windows, replacement uPVC windows are acceptable provided that the externally visible widths of the frames and sashes dimensions closely match the original in order to preserve the traditional character of the frontage, in accordance with paragraph 4.32 in the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors.
For this reason we object to this application on the grounds that the 50mm width of exposed frames at jambs and head as shown in the submitted window details are unnecessarily excessive and not a true reflection of the traditional detail. It should not be difficult to resolve this by recessing the new frames further behind the existing openings in line with the advice contained in paragraphs 4.28, 4.29 and 4.33 of the SPG, therefore we request that the window section details are amended to show the externally exposed frame widths at jambs and head within the traditional range of 15-20mm.
22/01598/LBC Replacement windows Tantah Lodge Edderston Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
We note that this application relates to the currently approved applications 21/00407/FUL and 21/00406/LBC, which originally proposed the replacement of the original front windows in uPVC, but this was later changed to state that the front windows were to be retained. The previous application stated that the replacement windows and astragals were to match the existing, but this application makes no such statement.
Particularly as this is a listed building, and the frontage is the original part, it is important that the frames and astragals of the replacement windows will be a reasonable match to the existing windows, while it is essential that the frames are 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 widths at jambs and head will be within the traditional range of 15-20mm.
22/01821/FUL Scottish Borders Council Victoria Park Springhill Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
Whilst we do not object to this application, it is important that every step is taken to reduce light pollution from lateral light spillage. This can be a particular problem with LED streetlights and we believe that protective shields should be fitted to reduce light spillage to ensure only the necessary areas are lit.
November 2022
22/01664/FUL Change of use of Rooms 2 and 3 and alterations to form dwellinghouse Rooms 2 And 3 Peebles Business Hub Old Church Road Peebles.
We do not object to this application, but would recommend that ideally the new uPVC windows on the west elevation should have frame dimensions that reflect those of the existing sash and case windows adjacent.
22/01639/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse Strathnaver 7 Tweed Avenue Peebles.
Whilst we do not object to this application, we would like to see clarification that the replacement timber windows are to be sash and case. We also note that the painting of the window frames in dark grey paint is out of character with this conservation area street frontage.
22/01637/LBC New signage Shop 23 High Street Peebles.
No objection.
22/01421/FUL Formation of access and boundary fence The Millers House Scotsmill Kailzie Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9HS.
We object to this retrospective planning application on the grounds of the negative impact that it would appear to have on road safety.
22/01466/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse. Cir Mhor 20 Kirkland Street.
No objection.
October 2022
22/01359/FUL Alterations and extension to bowling club and re-locate storage building Peebles Bowling Club Walkershaugh.
No objection.
22/01451/LBC and 22/01450/FUL Internal and external alterations and Alterations to garage doors to rear elevation Tontine Hotel High Street.
No objection.
22/01524/FUL Alterations to dwellinghouse 17 Dukehaugh, Peebles.
No objection.
September 2022
22/01451/LBC and 22/01450/FUL Internal and external alterations and Alterations to garage doors to rear elevation Tontine Hotel High Street.
No objection.
22/01359/FUL Alterations and extension to bowling club and re-locate storage building Peebles Bowling Club Walkershaugh.
No objection.
22/01319/LBC Alterations and extension to dwellinghosue The Mill House Scotsmill Kailzie.
No objection.
August 2022
22/01211/FUL Replacement balcony doors 4 - 5 Elcho Street Mews Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8LP.
No objection.
/01212/LBC Roof and chimney repairs Cross Keys Hotel 24 Northgate Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8RS.
We welcome the proposed comprehensive remedial works to the roof of the historic Cross Keys. However, we wish to emphasise the importance of the necessary replacement natural slates being of appropriate colour and appearance so that these will match the originals as closely as possible, including the unique contrasting “WW” initials and decoration to the front elevation.
We are concerned at the proposed use of new Spanish slate as this usually has a lighter colour and more reflective appearance than Scottish slate. Welsh slate on the other hand is often more purple in colour, but we note for example that some new Welsh slate products such as SIGA 120 Excellence have been successfully used in a Scottish heritage context. While reclaimed Scottish slate would be the best choice in our opinion, we would ask that whatever is used, samples are obtained for matching and approval before any work commences.
22/01129/PPP Erection of dwellinghouse Garden Ground Of The Croft Chambers Terrace Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9DZ.
We object to this application on the basis that an outline planning application is inadequate due to the complexity and sensitivity of the site in relation to the surrounding trees, properties and also potential issues with regards to access.
Without details about the footprint of the new building (or its height), it is not possible to judge its impact on the surrounding trees, and the adjoining properties of The Croft, 13 and 15 Caledonian Road. Access is also a potential issue, with regards to the suitability of upgrading the existing private access to shared vehicular access serving two dwelling houses. Also whether the existing private access to the west of the site would be used for additional access, which is narrow and has poor visibility where it joins Caledonian Road/Frankscroft.
We would hope that a full planning is submitted instead, which would allow a proper assessment of the suitability of the development.
22/01070/FUL Change of use of dwellinghouse and alterations to form 2 no holiday let accommodation (retrospective) 58 George Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8DN.
No objection.
22/01094/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse 6 Tweed Avenue Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8AS.
No objection.
July 2022
22/01102/LBC 22/01101/FUL External alterations to dwellinghouse Cabbage Hall Tweed Green Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8AP.
No objection.
22/01085/FUL Alterations to outbuilding to form first floor accommodation Rosedale 45 High Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8AN.
No objection.
22/01048/FUL External redecoration and replacement window and 2 no doors at stair turret 68 Rosetta Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8HQ.
No objection.
22/01049/LBC Alterations to internal layout 47 - 1 March Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8ES.
No objection.
22/01018/LBC Alterations to remove suspended ceiling to burgh hall Burgh Hall Chambers Institute High Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8AF.
We object. In our view this planning application is premature, as the possibilities for the necessary and long-overdue improvements and upgrading of the Chambers Institution as a whole have not been fully and properly explored, and any works to be carried out, however small, should be part of an overall masterplan that is agreed with Historic Environment Scotland and also with the Peebles community.
The iconic Chambers Institution was gifted by William Chambers in 1859 in trust for the benefit of the people of Peebles and Peeblesshire, and is the most significant occupied A listed building in the town, but it is now sorely in need of comprehensive modernisation to render it fit for ongoing and future purposes. Scottish Borders Council as the inherited Trustee of this public trust has a duty to manage the Chambers Institution in the best interests of the local community as beneficiaries, yet there has been no consultation with the beneficiaries on the proposals that are now being put forward in this application.
While a public consultation was carried out in 2015 to gather opinion on what could be done to revitalise the Chambers Institution to meet future needs and aspirations, the options appraisal that followed was sketchy and inconclusive. Surprisingly the study did not include any exploration of options to make better use of the Burgh Hall for the needs of the town, and the existing hall, entrance foyer, toilets, stage and inaccessible kitchen were unaltered in all 3 options. Considering that there is now heightened community interest in the matter, a critical review of the 2015 consultation and options appraisal would now be appropriate.
In our view the optimum solution to updating and improving the Chambers Institution and Burgh Hall, to improving access and circulation between the various parts, and to restoring its presently tired character, will be found in a comprehensive remodelling of the whole complex, for which proper planned funding needs to be sought and put in place, possibly including Scottish Government support funding or Lottery and charitable funding through arrangements involving local community bodies.
While we have no objection in principle to the removal of the existing suspended ceiling and the restoration of the original roof and upper windows as part of a coordinated plan, we are concerned that the submitted proposals have not been thought through. Without dimensions on the drawings it is difficult to estimate the full height of the original hall (10 metres?), but it will be significantly more than twice the current suspended ceiling height. This will certainly be an impressive space, but perhaps also with an impressive reverberation that could be problematic for some frequent users, and such a large volume will be more difficult to heat economically. With the retention of the existing old stage, toilets and domestic scale kitchen without disabled access, the proposed alterations will not only fail to address current issues, but will compromise the opportunity to recreate an inspiring and up to date Burgh Hall facility. As an example, earlier architects’ proposals showed that the insertion of a complete new floor in the Burgh Hall, as has been done successfully elsewhere in similar buildings, would allow the creation of a potentially stunning new upper hall that would benefit from the character of the original architecture, along with the release of new space for toilets, kitchen and meeting rooms etc on the ground floor, and internal links to the other parts of the Chambers Institution. The proposed installation of 6 new chandeliers, 12 new wall lights and 4 new destratification fans, would either prevent such visionary options of remodelling the Burgh Hall, or become a waste of public money if further conflicting alterations are agreed at a later date.
We would suggest that this application should be withdrawn until comprehensive plans are agreed for the holistic improvement and upgrading of the Chambers Institution.
22/00816/FUL Replacement windows 28 Biggiesknowe Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8HS.
We object to this application.
The proposed frame thicknesses are excessive at 71mm, particularly in proportion to the size of the window openings, which would be detrimental to the character of the building within the conservation area. The proposed bottom rail however should be taller than 58mm to reflect the traditional sash and case proportions. No installation details have been submitted, which should confirm that the windows will also be recessed into the existing openings so that the exposed face of the frames at jambs and head are no more than 15mm to reflect the traditional appearance of sash and case windows, in accordance with 4.29 and 4.33 in the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors.
22/00983/FUL Change of use from existing Class 4 Office to Class 11 Gymnasium (retrospective) Units 9 And 10 Cavalry Park Business Centre Cavalry Park Peebles Scottish Borders.
No objection.
22/00920/FUL (and 22/00914/LBC) Refurbishment and alterations to first floor windows Kerfield House Innerleithen Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8BG.
No objection.
22/00955/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse Marybank 9 Murray Place Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8DJ.
No objection.
June 2022
22/00924/FUL Alterations to dwellinghouse 30 Northgate Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8RS.
No objection.
22/00911/FUL Siting of storage container Land South Of Peebles R F C Pavilion Neidpath Road Old Town Peebles Scottish Borders.
No Objection.
22/00850/FUL Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage Site East Of Dogcraig Cottage Scotsmill Peebles Scottish Borders.
Whilst we do not object to this application, we would like the following to be considered before the planning application is approved
a) We would prefer that sliding sash and case windows are installed, rather than casement ones. These would reflect the context and the intentionally traditional flavour of the proposed house design.
b) The colour of the rendered walls should be carefully considered to minimise the visual impact and to show consistency with the appearance of the existing buildings to the west. This would fit with the intention in the design statement to continue the existing building group.
c) We would also request that a detailed landscape plan is submitted for approval prior to construction, which should include a reasonable level of screen planting along the south boundary.
22/00842/FUL Replacement windows 13A Rosetta Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JU.
While timber replacement windows would always be preferable, the proposed frame and installation dimensions satisfy the conditions that should be applied for uPVC to be used as an alternative in the conservation area.
However, we would hope the planning officer insists that the specified “clip-on” astragals are replaced by ones designed and fixed to give the impression of proper astragals.
22/00788/FUL Alterations and dormer extension to dwellinghouse 11 Tweed Avenue Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8AS.
No objection.
22/00726/FUL Replacement windows Gordonville 6 St Andrew's Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JJ.
We object to this application. Firstly, the tilt and turn uPVC windows are not acceptable in the Peebles Conservation Area. Secondly, the 110mm thick transom, more than twice the usual thickness of traditional meeting rails, will spoil the appearance of this attractive property with its high quality stonework and 2-over-4 timber sash and case windows. Although recessed, the proposed 45mm exposed frame margin is too large to reflect the traditional detail and we would hope that the sash and case windows that are insisted upon will have narrower frames.
22/00775/FUL Alterations to garage to form additional accommodation 15 Ballantyne Place Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8GA.
No objection.
May 2022
22/00732/FUL Replacement windows and doors (retrospective) 24 Dean Park Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8DD.
We note that the replacement windows are similar to the existing ones and have no objection to them or the new door.
However, it is a pity that the mullion was removed in the past and that the window frames are not thinner.
22/00498/FUL Extension to dwellinghouse 17 Dukehaugh Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9DN.
No Objection.
22/00585/FUL Replacement windows and formation of replacement boundary. Dun Whinny 2 Springwood Terrace Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9ET.
Whilst the drawing states that the uPVC replacement windows are to have "the same frame dimensions and proportions as the existing (timber sash and case) windows", this would appear to actually mean the externally visible frame dimensions. This needs to be clarified. The window brochure contains no dimensioned frame details to confirm that these will be the same as the existing as stated and, more importantly, no installation details have been provided to confirm that the frames will be recessed behind the existing openings (in accordance 4.29 and 4.33 in the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors) in order to achieve the appearance described on the proposal drawing. We believe that all of this information should be checked and confirmed before this planning application is approved.
We welcome the improvement to the boundary wall.
April 2022
22/00584/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse. 23 Edderston Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9DT.
No objection
22/00544/FUL Change of use to from Retail (Class 1) to Office (Class 3) and external redecoration. 53 Northgate Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8BU.
We have no objection to the change of use to a wine and cheese shop. However, the location plan includes the shop next door (N. 49), i.e. two shop frontages. It is important that a new plans is provided that clearly shows the extent of the proposed frontage redecoration, including the colour of windows and door.
22/00517/LBC Remove existing rear door and replace with window. Craigerne Lodge Edderston Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9JD.
We have no objection to this proposal in principle, but it should be clarified that the matching sash and case window will also be installed with recessed frames to match the existing ones. Also, considering that this is a listed building, we query why the proposed new window is not designed to be the same height and width as the existing adjacent one, which would surely look better and be more in keeping.
22/00172/LBC Installation of non-illuminated signage. Eastgate Theatre And Art Centre Eastgate Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8AD.
No objection.
22/00458/FUL Replacement windows. Oak Cottage 61 Old Town Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JE.
We object to this application due to the lack of sufficient clear information and the potential for the proposed uPVC window replacements to be detrimental to the appearance of this attractive traditional frontage within the Conservation Area. No details of frame sizes or installation have been submitted, and it is not clear which alternative external finish is proposed. The frames of any replacement windows should be recessed behind the existing openings as per 4.29 and 4.33 in the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors. There are no details to describe what colour and texture the “Premium + foil” finish would be, perhaps a wood effect, but we believe that in this situation this would be inappropriate and white would be better. The sash frame to the proposed replacement rear window would also be excessively thick and out of character. The mock astragals to dormer side windows should also match the dimensions and positions of the originals.
22/00483/FUL Alterations to dwellinghouse Preston Villa 26 Wemyss Place Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JT.
No objection.
22/00452/FUL Replace existing dormers with single dormer and replacement first
floor front windows 7A Rosetta Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JU.
We have no objection in principal to this application and in particular we welcome the double glazed timber sash and case windows. However, we would like it confirmed that when installed these windows will be recessed as the original would have been.
22/00344/FUL Formation of decking and erection of boundary fence (retrospective) 21A Biggiesknowe Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8HS.
No objection.
22/00451/FUL Replacement windows and door 11 Montgomery Place Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8ET.
We have no objection to the replacement door and are happy in principle with the replacement windows. We welcome the dimensioned section details showing the uPVC frames recessed into the existing openings, however believe the exposed frame dimension is too great at 38mm, and should be 20mm to properly represent the traditional detail in the conservation area. Also, whilst the window elevation details look satisfactory in terms of the proportion of exposed frame showing, these do not match the section details. These should be confirmed before this planning application is confirmed.
22/00422/AMC Erection of block of residential flats comprising 14 No units with associated parking and access (approval of all matters specified in planning permission 19/00182/PPP) Site In Grounds Of Kingsmeadows House Kingsmeadows Kingsmeadows Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
We object to this application-please see pdf for details.
March 2022
22/00364/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse - Greenways Springhill Road Peebles Scottish Borders
EH45 9ER.
We have no objection to this application, as long as the new slates closely match the
existing ones .
22/00389/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse - 6 Elcho Street Mews Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8LP.
We have no objection to this application.
22/00363/FUL Construction of concrete skate park with flood lights - Victoria Park Springhill Road Peebles
Scottish Borders.
We welcome this application, and as long as any future lights do not create light pollution we have no objection.
22/00134/FUL Siting of catering trailer Car Park Kingsmeadows Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
We have no objection to this application.
22/00271/FUL Erection of new education building, extension to the existing Sports Pavilion, the partial demolition of the existing school buildings, the reconfiguration of car parking, playgrounds, soft landscaping, fencing, 3G sports pitches, lighting, CCTV cameras, amenity stores, substation and associated footpaths forming Community Campus. Peebles High School And Associated Land Springwood Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9HB.
Overall the Peebles Civic Society supports the plans for the new Peebles High School. The new building is a huge improvement on the current mix of buildings and we have no issues with the overall plan of the building. We are also pleased to see that the original “Science Building” is being retained and look forward to hearing the plans for its future use.
We recognise the concerns that have been raised about the details provided about the new sports facilities and in particular athletics provision and these should be addressed before this application is approved. The siting of the 3G pitch has caused particular concerns, ranging from lighting to the loss of mature trees.
In an earlier meeting about the plans for the news High School we were assured that this would be highly energy efficient, passive building, with any energy used zero carbon. We were led to believe that the installation of air source heat pumps and possibly photovoltaics was being considered. Whilst we know that high energy efficiency is a requirement of new schools, we cannot find any mention of the sustainability of the building in the application, apart from sustainable drainage systems. We would like sustainability and energy efficiency to be more explicitly stated and incorporated into the plans for the new building.
22/00152/FUL Formation of earth bund Land South Of Shop 1 - 2 Cuddy Bridge Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JB.
We have no objection to this application, as long as it is acceptable and does not create or exacerbate flooding problems for other properties.
22/00175/FUL Change of use of building to form 2 no holiday lets and erection of bicycle store: Office And Workshop Dovecot Road Industrial Estate Dovecot Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
We object to this application as the proposed use is unsuitable for the location, and the building is unsuitable for the proposed conversion into two flats.
The building has no associated curtilage or garden ground, and is enclosed by neighbouring properties to the rear and both sides. We understand that the four parking spaces and the adjacent triangular gravelled and planted area are not included within the property ownership, or at least have been adopted for public use, and as such these cannot be developed as part of the application as claimed on the plan.
The formation of residential window openings in the side elevations, whether existing or not, would create privacy, amenity and overlooking issues for both occupiers and neighbouring owners, notwithstanding that these would not be allowed on the property boundary under building standards regulations. Therefore the creation of a separate ground floor flat as proposed is not possible. In addition, no allowance has been made in the outline plans for the width of the necessary internal insulation to the existing external walls, which in reality would reduce the available floor space significantly.
Planning application 19/00577/FUL in relation to this property was approved for conversion to a single dwelling house, but all of the side windows were to be blocked up, with daylight only coming from the windows at the front and from new Velux windows in the roof, and a bin storage area was to be recessed into the front elevation. While in our view this would make for a poor quality living space in any case, the attempt to create two dwellings within the same volume, with double the bin storage requirement at the front, is unrealistic.
We are well aware of the current controversial issues to do with parking and vehicular traffic in this location, which is exacerbated by the daily conflict between the adjacent industrial and residential uses. The four parking spaces in front of the application property are already generally in constant use, and the addition of potentially four more cars accessing and parking in this area would not be welcomed by the current residents and business operators.
We object to this application as the proposed use is unsuitable for the location, and the building is unsuitable for the proposed conversion into two flats.
The building has no associated curtilage or garden ground, and is enclosed by neighbouring properties to the rear and both sides. We understand that the four parking spaces and the adjacent triangular gravelled and planted area are not included within the property ownership, or at least have been adopted for public use, and as such these cannot be developed as part of the application as claimed on the plan.
The formation of residential window openings in the side elevations, whether existing or not, would create privacy, amenity and overlooking issues for both occupiers and neighbouring owners, notwithstanding that these would not be allowed on the property boundary under building standards regulations. Therefore the creation of a separate ground floor flat as proposed is not possible. In addition, no allowance has been made in the outline plans for the width of the necessary internal insulation to the existing external walls, which in reality would reduce the available floor space significantly.
Planning application 19/00577/FUL in relation to this property was approved for conversion to a single dwelling house, but all of the side windows were to be blocked up, with daylight only coming from the windows at the front and from new Velux windows in the roof, and a bin storage area was to be recessed into the front elevation. While in our view this would make for a poor quality living space in any case, the attempt to create two dwellings within the same volume, with double the bin storage requirement at the front, is unrealistic.
We are well aware of the current controversial issues to do with parking and vehicular traffic in this location, which is exacerbated by the daily conflict between the adjacent industrial and residential uses. The four parking spaces in front of the application property are already generally in constant use, and the addition of potentially four more cars accessing and parking in this area would not be welcomed by the current residents and business operators.
February 2022
22/00099/FUL Refurbishment and replacement of windows: Drumsheugh Villa 4 Crossland Crescent Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8LF.
We welcome the proposals for upgrading the existing original sash and case windows to the front elevation, although we would ask that this includes retention of the existing astragals to the central window above the entrance door.
However, we wish to draw attention to the confused window terminology in the application, which refers to the existing front windows as “sash and casement” on the drawing, and “casement” on the application form, while manufacturers’ brochures have been provided with the application for both “sash” windows and casement windows. Whilst it can reasonably be assumed what is meant, what is formally approved should be clear and unambiguous. In this connection we would mention that the new first floor window to the side extension that was installed under approved application 20/01516/FUL is not in fact a sash and case window.
Although the existing sash and case windows to the rear elevation are also original, and important to the character of the house, we do not object to the proposed replacement of these in uPVC, provided that these are installed with the frames recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraphs 4.28, 4.29 and 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors.
While we note that the proposed uPVC replacement casement windows to the rear elevation will have thicker frames than the existing, we have no objection to these as the existing windows are relatively modern and out of public view.
22/00174/LBC Replacement garage door (retrospective) Langlands 5 St Andrew's Place Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JW.
We have no objection to this application, but we assume the colour will be neutral and agreed with the planning officer.
22/00115/FUL Replacement windows and doors: 11 Young Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JX.
We commend this application, as it clearly states and illustrates the problems with the current windows and front door. It then provides appropriate and detailed information on the replacements, which include recessed door frames and windows. The annotated photo showing the poor existing window installation to the rear of the building is particularly informative.
22/00124/FUL Change of use of flat to form additional accommodation to dental surgery. Flat 36B And Dental Surgery. 36 High Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8SF.
No objection.
22/00014/FUL Erection of garden room. The Mill House Scotsmill Kailzie Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9HS.
Whilst we do not in principle object to this application, we would comment that the submitted “site plan” does not show the proposed development to scale in comparison with the existing building and garden area, therefore a proper site plan to scale should be submitted to confirm that this will not detract from the setting of the listed building.
In addition, we note that while the proposed garden room will be detached and at a somewhat lower level than the adjacent house, it will be quite visible from the public road. Therefore we would suggest that the development would benefit from some landscape screening to the west, and the external finishes should ideally be in neutral colours to reflect those on the existing building.
22/00116/FUL Alterations and extensions to dwellinghoue (sic). Strontian 4 Dean Park Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8DD.
We object to this re-submitted application considering our concerns as set out below:
1. While the issue of overlooking is now no worse than the existing dormer, the flat roofed box dormer at the rear elevation would still be out of character with the existing row of houses, and would still be very visible from Edinburgh Road.
2. The proposal to have two separate box dormers only some 350mm apart is unworkable from a construction point of view, and would be as visually detrimental as a full width box dormer.
3. As in the previous application, the proposals do not take into account the existing ground floor rear extension to the adjacent property at 2 Dean Park, and how the boundary junction would be satisfactorily resolved.
4. The drawings appear to be inaccurate with regard to the position of the property boundaries to east and west, as the party walls are unlikely to be as thick as indicated, which throws doubt on the dimensional accuracy of the proposed plan layouts.
5. We do not object in principle to the installation of solar panels within the conservation area, where this can be done appropriately. However, this application attempts to cram too many panels into a small area of roof, which in our view would be detrimental to the appearance of this sensitive heritage frontage. In addition, considering our doubts about the accuracy of the drawings as above, we are concerned that the westernmost panel may in fact be encroaching onto the neighbouring roof. We would request that if approved, the number of panels should be limited to a maximum of four centrally positioned, and the top edges should not visually break the ridge line when viewed from street level.
6. As with the previous application, we consider that the proposed new front porch is acceptable in principle, but insufficient information has been provided to show that the detailing will be of sufficient quality for the location. In our view, the detailing should reflect that of the existing porches at Nos 2 and 12 Dean Park and we would suggest that elevation and construction details should be submitted for approval before any manufacture or installation takes place.
7. There is insufficient information provided about the proposed alterations to the existing windows to the front elevation which are to be “upgraded to double glazed units”. We are unable to comment further on this without the necessary clarification and details on materials, finishes and installation.
22/00091/FUL Erection of 3 no holiday pods. Land East Of Park Hotel Innerleithen Road Peebles Scottish Borders.
We acknowledge and welcome the reduction in the number of holiday pods and their relocation further south, which will result in less of a visual impact from the main road and footpath, but we still have concerns about this re-submitted application.
We are not convinced that the proposed development will contribute positively to the surrounding environment in terms of Policy PMD2. The suggested concept of “potting sheds” or “greenhouses” plays down the real scale of the three proposed buildings, which appear to sit rather uncomfortably in relation to the existing landscaped gardens, where the development would take up more than half of the existing eastern lawn. The basic linear privet hedge shown on the current plan suggests that little thought has been given to the appearance of the development within the landscape setting of the existing gardens, nor the visibility from the public areas to the north-west.
We would add comment that the drawing showing the more detailed plans and sections of the proposed buildings is misleading in that it has not been changed from the first application, and still shows the timber screen fence that was previously proposed adjacent to the public footpath.
22/00067/FUL Alterations to dwellinghouse. Eastgate House Innerleithen Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8BA.
We do not object to this application, but would like to see the applicants clarify whether the existing sash and case windows are to be replaced entirely with new timber windows including frames, or only the sashes are to be replaced. If the former is the case, obviously the new frames would need to be recessed behind the openings to match the appearance of the existing, in accordance with the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors.
January 2022
22/00057/FUL and 22/00058/LBC Erection of replacement fence and erection of gate arch. Cabbage Hall Tweed Green Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8AP.
No objection.
21/01968/LBC and 22/00041/FUL Installation of 2no rooflights. Apartment 11 Kingsmeadows House Kingsmeadows Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9HR .
No objection
21/01969/FUL, Alterations to dwellinghouse, Lindores 60 Old Town Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8JE.
This is an attractive and characterful example of a late Victorian villa with fine architectural detailing, including the rather unusual and quirky leaded upper window panes, and is an important feature of this corner location in the Old Town. It is also a building of some local historical importance, being the former home and doctor's surgery of Peebles historian Clement Bryce Gunn. We are surprised therefore, to realise that it is not currently a listed building, and accordingly we would make a plea for this to be considered.
Regarding the application above, we have no objections to the proposed alterations, and we are pleased that the proposed double glazing is to be achieved by replacing the existing single glazed panes with slim double glazing units and not by installing uPVC replacement windows.
However, considering our observations on the building’s architectural and historical interest as above, we are concerned that the application contains no proposals to replicate the existing leaded window panes, which we feel will be important to preserve the unique character of the existing windows and that of the south and east elevations.
We are also uncomfortable with the proposal to paint the existing window and door frames dark grey, which we feel would be out of character within the conservation area, and would significantly change the traditional appearance of this building.
21/01802/FUL Replacement windows 23A George Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8DL.
We object to the proposed single pane tilt and turn windows, which in our view will detract significantly from the last remaining consistency in this traditional Victorian terrace, which is the overlapping horizontal transom in one-third/two-third proportions that reflects the two-over-four style of the original timber sash and case windows. In fact it would appear that the flat below the application property still retains the original windows, which reinforces our point.
While we regret that the original two-over-four sash and case windows have almost all been replaced by a motley collection of modern replacement windows over the years, this should not mean that conservation area standards of window replacement planning control should be further relaxed to allow this inconsistent proposal.
We note that the existing windows to the frontage of the block shown in the submitted elevation photo are all sash and case type, including the originals mentioned above. We therefore would prefer to see the replacement windows to the application property also in sash and case style, with the frames set behind the openings in accordance with the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors to match the exposed frame thicknesses of the original windows below.
21/01892/FUL and 21/01893/LBC Alterations to dwellinghouse and formation of decking. Allanbank Villa 4 Murray Place Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8DJ.
We have no objection to this application in principle.
However, we would point out that the proposal drawings are lacking in detail with regard to the junction of the proposed external timber cladding and what looks like a new raised flat roof, and as to how the replacement for the existing rainwater gutter and downpipe is to be arranged.
December 2021
21/01866/LBC Replacement windows to rear elevation, Arnsheen Bonnington Road Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 9HF.
We are pleased to see this application for like-for-like replacement of existing traditional sash and case windows. We have no objection for the use for these proposed windows, which are more appropriate and more sustainable than the use of uPVC replacement windows.
We also assume the applicant will not need to pay a fee as they replacing the windows like-for-like.
21/01833/FUL Replacement windows at Sheardale 27 Kirkland Street Peebles Scottish Borders EH45 8EU.
We note that the other pair of original windows to the right of the front porch have already had uPVC replacement windows fitted with thick frames and plastic strips which serve as token astragals. The porch windows have also been replaced with uPVC windows as well, with plastic strips for astragals.
Despite the uPVC windows that have already been fitted, we would press that new uPVC windows must match the originals as closely as possible. We would object to frames that are not recessed into the existing openings in accordance with paragraphs 4.28, 4.29 and 4.33 of the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors, which ensures that the externally exposed frame widths at jambs and head are within the traditional range of 15-20mm.
21/01786/FUL Formation of new foot paths at Land North East And South Of Neidpath Toll Cottage.
We welcome this initiative to improve and add new footpaths in this popular walking area to the west of Peebles.
21/01772/FUL Alterations and extension to dwellinghouse and erection of garden room at Priorsford Villa, Tweed Green, Peebles.
No objection.
November 2021
21/01748/FUL Replacement of existing roof mounted warm water solar collectors with 10no roof mounted solar PV panels Lindores 60 Old Town Peebles.
We have no objection to this proposal.
21/01738/FUL Replacement windows Kilrubie 30 Wemyss Place Peebles.
We are pleased to see and support this application for the replacement of traditional timber sash and case windows with like for like windows with double glazing.
Further to our consultation response dated 17th November 2021 in respect of the above application, we wish to add comment that considering the proposals are to replace the existing sashes on a like-for-like basis with new traditionally made timber sashes to match all dimensions and historical detail, the only difference being the incorporation of slim double glazing units and draught stripping, it is our understanding that an application for planning permission should not have been required in this instance according to the SPG Replacement Windows and Doors.
If this is confirmed to be the case, we would be glad if the applicant was notified accordingly, and the application fee returned.
21/01744/FUL and 21/01745/LBC Installation of external condenser and erection of 5no bicycle lockers at Cross Keys Hotel 24 Northgate Peebles.
The proposed installation of the bicycle lockers is in an enclosed space, screened from public view and we have no objection this part of the application.
However, we find the Design and Access Statement to be very poor and lacking the necessary detail. The HVAC performance specification for the new kitchen cooling and ventilation installation does not describe any clear design proposal, which is for the HVAC contractor to decide, and in particular the mechanical ventilation specification offers six possible generic options with increasing filtration performance, while the ductwork is to terminate in a “taper cone.. ..located to prevent nuisance”.
Considering the sensitivity of any large commercial kitchen extract flue in this location, we call for more information to be submitted on the height and external appearance of the proposed flue, along with details of appropriate noise and odour control measures.
21/01732/FUL and 21/01731/LBC Installation of new signage and external redecoration at Peebles Fish Bar 24 High Street Peebles.
We have no objection to the redecoration proposals and the painting of the shopfront is welcome. We also have no issues with the replacement hanging sign.
However, we do have concerns about the proposed LED backlighting to the new shop front signage, which would be equivalent to internal illumination, and an overly commercial feature in the High Street.
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:
- Confirmation that the replacement windows will have the same slimmer profile that was agreed with the planning authority in 2016;
- Confirmation that the astragal width and detail will also be as agreed in 2016; and
- 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:
- 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.
- This shed has been built very close to boundaries (less than 0.5 metres), which contravenes regulations.
- The privacy of neighbours has been affected by the size of this structure, its windows and closeness to boundaries.
- We wonder what is the purpose of this shed, due to its size and power supply.
- 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.