Cockburnspath & Cove
Community Council -Extraordinary Meeting - 3rd August 2006
Venue: Cockburnspath Village Hall
Present: Members of the Community Council
Scottish Borders Council (SBC) - Steven Callan- Development Control Officer
Turley Associates- Robin Holder & Michael Macauley
Euan Robson- MSP, Roxburgh and Berwickshire
Approx 50 members of the community
Chairman opened meeting and introduced Turley Associates (acting for Caledonian Trust), asking them to present their proposals. Robin Holder & Michael Macauley gave the background to and the detail of their proposals.
RH began by clarifying an apparent misunderstanding of the application, in that it offered five separate options, ranging from a proposed minimum of 8 to a maximum of 16 houses.
Their Client asked them to prepare a planning application for the development of Cove, Scottish Borders Council was approached, in particular Alasdair Maclean, to determine the planning policies and council views on any developments in the area, based on an initial set of options presented. The SBC where not responsive to these options. The application was modified into the present format.
A presentation was given which expanded on the details contained in a Turley Presentation Document (copies were made available at the conclusion of the meeting).
When the Turley presentation was finished, Steven Callan (SC), Development Control Officer from SBC was invited to speak. He went on to say that, he was unable to comment on the proposals, as the planning process was still on going and many responses were still awaited on them. The application would go to the main planning committee on the 1st September at the very earliest, but may be subject to change.
.......
A question was put to SC;
Q: How did the Local Plan apply to the Cove,
A: Cove is not considered the same as Cockburnspath under the Local Plan but is described as a `preferred building group` under current
and proposed policies
......................................
The Chair then interrupted stop further `ad hoc` questions in order to conclude the Turley presentation and open the meeting to questions through the Chair, but before doing so, referred to Turleys and reading from their Presentation Document said that the Cove area was not mentioned in the Local Plan for re-development. In his experience of 30 years on the council, the Cove area had never been mentioned or proposed for development under any of the Local Plans.
Turley replied that under the current Local Plan (Berwickshire LP 1994) and proposed replacement ( Scottish Borders LP 2005) Cove was one of 16 listed `preferred building groups` in which the development of new housing should be encouraged.
The meeting was then opened for questions from the floor;
Q for Turley: Why was Cove chosen and what was the demand?
A: They asked by their Client to look at Cove and the possibility of development there under existing planning regulations.
The assessment of the demand for the housing lay with the Client, not Turley
........
Q for Turley: Does your Client own any of the land proposed for development?
A: They replied no.
.......
Q for Turley: Options 3 & 4 require a new access road from the existing car park. What changes are proposed for the existing feeder
road to the car park, as present width restrictions cause problems.
A: SBC would consider such an objection if either or both options were adopted, as the total number of new houses would be 8 then it
was thought that the impact would be minimal. The SBC would of course have the final say.
Also as an alternative, Option 5, if adopted instead would not incur this problem as a new access was provided.
.........................
Q for Turley: In the event of one of the smaller options being implemented what prevents further applications being made for the
remaining options.
A: Turley denied that their multi-option application was indicative of a `Stalking Horse` approach (small scale leading to large scale). The
SBC of course have the final say on what will be permitted. There is no intention of going beyond the level of development in their
proposal. Although they do acknowledge that 2 of the options are significant developments and are using those to test if they are
acceptable to the SBC and the community. Their clients preference would of course be for larger scale development.
........................
Q for SBC/Turley: Could you clarify the position of the land with relation to the kind of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and also
The new organisation The Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative (SSMEI) which has made comments
regarding the ground between the A1 and the sea.
A for SBC: The whole of the Berwickshire coastline is classified as SSSI
Regarding the SSMEI, Steven Callan is not the officer dealing with the application and is not aware of their comments,
However, he will inform him so that they will be taken into account.
A for Turley: The land for development is not subject to any SSSI designated area or any Nature or Land Conservancy Area as far as
they are aware, but
are open to correction if that is disputed.
....
Q for Turley: 1- Could you confirm that Caledonian Trust is a PLC and not a charitable organisation and
2- That Turley Associates will be paid a Fee for obtaining planning permission on their behalf.
3- Caledonian have not yet started on the development in Cockburnspath and it seems unreasonable to be wanting to Land
Bank even more before making this start on this site.
A : 1- They do not know the status of the Trust nor what type of organisation it is, but can find out if required.
2- Yes they are being paid.
3- The Trust does have permission to build in Copath and they do intend to implement that, remembering that these are allocations
made by the SBC in accordance with the Local Plan. The suggestion that Land Banking was involved at Cove was not the objective,
but to build houses at a profit in the best possible way.
....................
Q for Turley: 1- Members of the local community had been assured by the landowner that the bulk of the land required for the proposed
Cove development would not be sold, so why was the Trust wasting time, money and effort on something they would
never own.
2- A suggestion was made that if the developer obtained permission then he could go back to the land owner and offer a
more inflated price for the land (as against that for agricultural land) as an inducement to sell, and was that happening
here?
A : 1- They were not aware of this assurance, but if true, it would of course not go through. Neverless that does not stop the application
being made and the SBC approving or not.
2- They accepted that the suggestion was common practice but in their view, in this case this it is a plan, which encourages
development in the cove, the extent and manner in which it does is a matter for discussion and consideration by the SBC. Should a
developer be criticised for responding to the positive policies of a plan in order to increase value and a profit.
...............
Q for Turley: Are you aware of a letter written by Euan Robson MSP to the community, regarding your application for Cove and his
recommendations as to what should be their response.
A : They were aware that his objection was based on their application being contrary to the existing Local Plan because the land
concerned was excluded from development. In their view, he was wrong.
....................
At this point the Chairman called the attention of the meeting to the fact that Mr Euan Robson MSP was present and he was invited to speak, which he did, re-iterating his objection that the application be rejected, and having taken advice recommended that the community should read all the applicable documents and information so that they can come to their own conclusions. The SBC will make the final decision in due time.
Many people present voiced agreement with his view.
.................
A View : This was a comment rather than an objection: What is lost at Cove we will lost forever. The uniqueness of the hamlet of Cove cannot be improved upon that this application would destroy its character. The member considered there was no merit in the plans and should be rejected outright.
Q for Turley: 1- Where was the demand coming from for additional homes in the Cove? It was not coming from the community within the
Cove, they do not want the development and there will be additional housing provision when the Cockburnspath
development begins.
2- How many other similar areas are affected by the Local Plan?
3- General questions were asked of the residents, regarding any approaches being made to them for the purchase of their
properties or were any homes selling quickly and at high prices which might justify the claim of a demand. The
response, was no.
A : 1- A personal opinion was that the demand comes from outside Cove from those wishing to enjoy the environment it provides. If there
were no demand then houses would not be built.
The question of satisfying the demand lay with the client
2- The Local Plan encouraged development of new housing for `preferred building groups` at Cove and 15 other locations.
........................................
Q for Turley: The design of the Bungalows built on the Cove approach road were criticised for not fitting in with the existing local
housing . The houses were built to the specific requirements of the SBC of that time.
A : In preliminary discussions with SBC planning it was suggested that if the bungalows were now to be built, their design would not be
appropriate. Any new housing
would be designed to fit in the local features.
. ...........................
Q for Turley: Was your client aware of the meeting?
A : Yes, he chose not to come, we are his agents for the Planning application.
.................................................
Q for Turley: 1- Will the design of the proposed houses match the existing ones.
2- Concerns expressed over size and numbers of houses proposed, taking over the village.
3- Mention made of recent additions to the village, increasing house/family numbers by 20%
4- Type of house (3 or 4 bed), price £150k+, affordable housing, Edinburgh commuters
A : 1- Where practicable elements of the existing houses will be incorporated into the new. If permission is given then detailed designs will
be produced.
A : 2- The maximum size will 1 to 2 stories and the maximum increase in numbers of houses would be 50%(Max allowable is 100%)
A : 3- Turley referred to these additions asking if they had posed any problems in respect of Q1 & 2, the questioner had reservations.
A : 4- Discussed definition of large house, which Turley said they were not proposing, suggesting that modern family requirements are Ύ
beds, although the SBC (which has an affordable housing policy) had written recently requesting the inclusion of some affordable
housing.
............................
Q for Turley: 1- We have a school which is `bulging at the seems` and an inadequate sewage plant, what thought has been given to
dealing with these problems?
A : After discussions with the Education Dept, they were informed that school is not `bulging at the seems` and in the future there will be
spare capacity. The new sewage plant can be extended with a contribution being made and any problems with it are concern of Scottish
Water.
.................................................
Q for Turley: 1- The new houses (Toll View) in Cockburnspath were felt not to integrate with the main older housing stock and it was
feared that the same mistake could be made here.
2- Toll View does not fit in with Copath and that experience raises doubts as to whether your proposals will here.
A : 1- They agreed with this view, they were not involved in that application and planning & design has progressed since then.
A : 2- They disagreed with this view on their proposals, they and SBC had a responsibility to follow good design practice. They agreed
that the newer houses in Copath did not fit-in.
...............................
Q for Turley: 1- Complaint about lack of consultation, but grateful for offer of funding towards Harbour upkeep
2- Meetings were had with SBC when it was said that no development would take place at Cove.
3- Compliance with SSSI was raised suggesting that the pressure of more people the area would have significant impact.
A : 1- Turley & SBC attended this meeting , expressed disappointment at the accusation of no consultation.
A : 2- Turley were at that meeting and SBC interpretation was that they were not sure that Councillors might not support the application.
They looked at the Planning Policies and SBC saw the analysis that Turley had made and were surprised at some of the options
being proposed, and they questioned whether that would be supported. They did not say,` this will not be supported`.
They thought that was in recognition of the fact there may be public opposition to the proposal. At that stage Turley did not know
of the reaction because nothing had been proposed. This is an unusual application because of the number of options.
A : 3- Turley had seen the objections on this subject and deferred to the expertise of Scottish Natural Heritage awaiting their response to
the application .Not being an expert on the subject of SSSI their general view was that the addition of 8 houses was likely to have
minimum impact on the area.
Turley asked if 20/25 additional residents on top of the normal visitor numbers would be significant.
...........................
Q for Turley: 1- What benefits would the proposals bring?
A : 1- Some funding would be available for local projects. They would be looking for suggestions from the residents.
Some ideas were floated such as, play areas and relocated car-parking areas. However, these were rejected as they would only
attract more people into the area.
A : 2- The school would benefit as there is projected to be a declining pupil roll ( disputed by residents).
A : 3- Affordable housing would be included, benefiting those who will not be commuting outside the area.
A : 4- Local business as well local clubs will benefit with more people in the area.
A : 5- Development helps in rejuvenating the area encouraging perhaps the return of some of those who have left.
...............................
A View: There are now a number of properties in the area being used as holiday homes. Will the purchasers of the homes be screened
as to their use of the homes.
...............................
Q for SBC: 1- What is the timescale for objections to be submitted
A : 1- 21 days from when the application lodged, some slippage may be allowed.
...............................
Q for Turley: 1-The options submitted still leave much land undeveloped, what is the risk of further applications?
2- How many parking spaces are allocated per house?
A : 1- The SBC could place conditions on current consent, but that does not stop anybody coming along and making further applications.
The Turley application, the probable maximum required will be 16.
A : 2- They will be guided by SBC criteria.
....................................
Q for Turley: 1- A number of trees planted on the developments, who is responsible for maintenance.
A : 1- The developer makes a payment to SBC and they do it, or a Factor agreement is entered into by the house purchasers.
The trees are only there as an extra, in the event of a go-ahead then proper landscape drawings would be produced.
Comment (from Chairman)- If the proposals are adopted and trees planted then the responsible party for maintenance must be identified.
....................................
Q for SBC: Is there any Archaeological involvement in these proposals
A : Yes, there response is awaited,
.....................................
Q for Turley: 1- What follows this meeting?
2- Do you consider the objections from the residents?
3- If the residents do not want this development will you walk away?
A : 1- They will advise
there client of todays proceedings.
Minutes will be produced .
Community Council observations will be produced and submitted.
Turley meets with SBC when all submissions are in.
A : 2- The Policy says that community objections have to be considered. Many applications have community objections, yet proceed.
A : 3- The client makes that decision. The SBC consider all the aspects of application before making the final decision.
.....................................................
Q for SBC: 1- Why was Cove chosen for this application, it could have been almost anywhere as all of the children will be driven to school
anyway.
A : 1- Encouragement is given for development in the `building group` areas where it is likely there are no other new developments.
Turley also added the comment that modern planning tends to shy away from `almost anywhere` type developments , groups of
structures tend to include all the usual infrastructure.
..........................................................
Q for Turley: 1- Are you aware of any other Caledonian development in progress in the nearby area?
A : 1- They were not aware, but would make enquiries and let them know.
Information was called out that a
site was located in East Saltoun
...............................................................
Q for SBC:1- Would the SBC view the application on a `why not` basis, as there is development planned for Cockburnspath so why not
for Cove also.
A : 1-Each application is considered on merit along with arising submissions and objections before submission to the committee.
..........................................................
General discussions took place on none related matters.
Copies of the Presentation were available for distribution.
The Chairman closed the meeting with thanks to all for attending.