It’s not yet 5 months since I became a member of the Peebles Community Council and simultaneously landed the role of Planning Convener. Not long before, I had never even heard of a Community Council, let alone wanted to be on one. I was enjoying my retirement and the freedom from responsibility that it gave me. However, I had taken a very visible stand against the new South Parks development and also helped the community fight the plans for the four storey flats at Tweedbridge Court. Subsequently, the Community Council thought I may be useful, and they can be very persuasive!

All of this has been a significant learning curve. In resisting the plans for South Parks and Tweedbridge Court, it was necessary to study Scottish Borders Council (SBC) policies, procedures and guidelines and the same for those issued by the Scottish Government. There were also items of legislation and a whole raft of documents that apply to roads. Many of these documents extend to hundreds of pages and make very dry reading.

My role before retirement has helped me in climbing this mountain of information. Two years before retirement I was made redundant as my company in Aberdeen closed its operations. I was then fortunate to be offered a position with Technip, a very large French engineering company. With them I was working on a major contract for BP West of Shetland on what was known as QUAD 204. My role included auditing ships and companies for HSEQ (Health, Safety, Environment and Quality) from Shetland to West Africa. Analysing planning issues has many similarities with auditing.

There is still a large learning curve for me attached to working with the Community Council. The issues generated by SBC are many and varied and residents of Peebles and District often ask the Community Council for assistance in approaching our elected Councillors and the body they represent. The Community Council also assist other causes where requested, such as Bonnie Peebles, Peebles in Bloom, the Peebles Community Trust – the list is endless and greatly extended by more subjects raised though the Tweeddale Area Partnership.

As Planning Convener there have already been several issues that my colleagues on the Community Council have asked me to either support or object to. These are all issues that would affect the town and its surroundings directly. Generally, we do not take a position on felling trees, extensions, new windows and most single developments unless specifically asked to.

Just now, we are still objecting to further major development south of the Tweed, at least until a second river crossing is built. We note in this context an SBC Roads Department report filed under the kittlegairy application. This report considers that the mini roundabout by the Courthouse will reach its practical capacity to take traffic once the development at South Parks and Tweedbridge Court are completed. We support SBC’s Planning Department in its position regarding the Rosetta Holiday Park proposal. Looking forward, we await the publication of the new draft Local Development Plan (LDP2). In this respect we already have the assurance of the Leader of the Council, that LDP2 will not include any major developments on the south side of the river.

Recently, an initial filing has been tabled by a developer for land that has already been refused consent twice, both by SBC and then on appeal to the Scottish Government by the Scottish Government Reporter. This land to the East of Edinburgh Road and immediately below Castle Venlaw lies outside the Development Boundary. Reviewing the SBC planning portal demonstrates that the last time this site attracted a proposal for building, approximately 150 objections were lodged by residents, including those from the Community Council and Peebles Civic Society. In refusing the appeal last time, the Scottish Government reporter concluded “that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and in particular a fundamental LDP policy PMD4”.

At this time, we would argue that nothing has changed and as such this proposal should also be refused. However, we are open minded and as such will await the substance of the proposal and feedback from the community before taking a stand one way or the other. For those who would like to know more about these proposals, the application is registered on the SBC Planning Portal under 19/01192/PAN. Your opinion counts and we urge anyone with a view to register it with SBC’s planning department.

Peter Maudsley

Planning Convenor

Peebles and District Community Council