Agenda item

1.            Continuation of review of 21/00244/FUL

1.1         With reference to paragraph 1 of the Minute of 13 September 2021, the Local Review Body continued their consideration of the request from AB Wight Engineering Ltd c/o Murray Land & Buildings, Hillside, Dean Place, Newstead, Melrose TD6 9RL, to review refusal of the planning application for the erection of a new agricultural machinery dealership premises at Slater’s Yard, Charlesfield, St Boswells TD6 0HH.  Clarification had been requested by Members, in the form of an unaccompanied  site visit and hearing session regarding:-

• the availability of Industrial land within Charlesfield Industrial Estate, St. Boswells and surrounding area;

Following the hearing session Members of the Local Review Body would consider all aspects of the review with no further input from the hearing attendees.

HEARING SESSION

1.2       The appellants Mr Gary Wight and Mr Andrew Wight together with their Agent Mr Jamie Murray were in attendance at the Hearing to present their case.  Speaking on behalf of Scottish Borders Council’s Forward Planning Service was Mr Charles Johnston, Principal Officer, Plans and Research.  A Hearing statement on behalf of the appellants had been circulated.  A statement by Mr Johnston had also been circulated.

1.3       Mr Murray, on behalf of his clients explained that the Industrial Land within Charlesfield Industrial site had been divided into Zones and was owned by three owners.  Zone A was for sale as the former owners Alexander Inglis & Son, grain merchants had entered administration, but the use of the land would remain the same.  The land east was effectively a ransom strip and would be sold as part of the whole grain plant, neither land parcels in Zone A had been marketed or available prior to the former owners entering administration and there was nothing to suggest that this would change.  Zone B was owned by Iona Environmental Infrastructure Holdco Ltd who owned and ran St Boswells Biogas Plant.  Part of the larger southern parcel was under planning application for a distillery and was only ever likely to be developed by the owners of the land for their own use, it was not available to third parties and none of it had been marketed for sale or let in the local plan period.     Zone C was owned by James McCorquodale and was not readily developable without significant infrastructure installation, based on a larger development and was therefore not available in the short or medium term.  Whilst an Employment Land Audit was carried out by SBC in 2019, this was not a suitable rebuttal to the lack of land’s availability.  A survey or box ticking exercise cannot get away from the fact that the land had not been marketed for sale or let in this period to date.  Furthermore, discussions by the Applicants with the three landowners, advised that none of these sites were available to them in the short to medium term.  Whilst the zoning of land had a place and it was a requirement of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act, to include a Local Development Plan with policies, it did not offer any guarantees that the land zoned would become what it had been zoned for, or that it would be available to third parties, nor did the timeline have any real bearing.  The council had sought to purchase land elsewhere in the recent past to control the outcome of their local plan, however, that did not always work as location, availability and the market dictated.  Furthermore, there was vacant, serviced business land throughout the Scottish Borders, particularly in the southern and eastern parts of the region, as evidenced by the Council’s own website advertisements and had been the case for some time.  Whilst it was ideological to afford business and employment land opportunities in all of these towns, it also showed that location was key to business, and that the market dictated.  There was a distinct lack of land availability in and around Charlesfield Industrial Estate and the Applicant had taken the opportunity to purchase a site with an existing use. Although the site did not meet with all of the Council’s Local Development Plan policies, it was trumped by Slaters Yard’s established and existing use and the Local Plan’s failure to provide alternative sites for development. The Charlesfield Extension land might end up being used for Employment, but only being available to the existing owners or large developers. Therefore, it had ultimately failed to provide business land opportunities to local businesses in a timeous manner.

1.4     Mr Johnston explained that Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) set out the Scottish Government’s planning policies in relation to economic development. SPP required local authorities to allocate sites appropriate for a range of business sectors and business sizes in the plan area. The Local Development Plan (LDP) provided this, identifying land across the Scottish Borders.  Allocating such sites as part of the LDP was a lengthy process involving the identification of the most appropriate sites having undertaken detailed consultation with a range of bodies and the public.  Importantly, the Council’s Economic Development team fed into this process in terms of considering available land, land take-up and where new allocations needed to be sought.   In essence the LDP process ensured land was specifically allocated across the region for a wide range of business and industrial uses, in order to try to ensure business and industrial development did not take place in an uncoordinated piecemeal fashion throughout the rural countryside within inappropriate locations. LDP Polices ED2 and ED7 referred to those points and were referred to in the Planning Case Officer’s report. The LDP process and ultimate Plan adoption, which included all allocated sites and planning policies, was ultimately signed off by Scottish Ministers. Over the years the allocated business and industrial site at Charlesfield had proved to be an area which had successfully accommodated many businesses and continued to do so.

1.6       In order to comply with the national and local policy requirements and help guide the LDP, the Forward Planning team carried out an annual Employment Land Audit (ELA). The ELA was a key survey in helping give an up to date position across the Region in terms of business and industrial land provision. It monitored the supply, take-up and status of business and industrial land within the Scottish Borders, in accordance with SPP. The monitoring process allowed the LDP process the opportunity to allocate land where a shortfall was identified.

1.7       Mr Johnston went on to explain that a number of factors might come into play when considering the availability of land for purchase. The appellants had made reference to this in their LRB submission and the following paragraphs make reference to relevant procedures and matters to be considered as well as responding to the appellants comments.  In the first instance it was always advised that any party wishing to set up a new business or to relocate should contact the Council at an early stage in order to discuss potential sites to ascertain any issues to be addressed. The ELA was a key document in helping find potential sites. This procedure proved successful in working together to help and identify suitable sites which satisfied all parties and was the advice and preferred practice as opposed to purchasing a piece of land and then seeking consent for proposals which might raise a number of major issues. The Council’s Economic Development team would take a lead on this. In this instance there were no records of the applicants having contacted the Council to discuss potential sites prior to contacting Development Management to arrange a site meeting to discuss the site in question. A number of issues were subsequently raised and the appellants were advised that the site proposals did not comply with planning policy, although it was understood the appellants proceeded to purchase the site. As stated in the Planning Case Officer’s report little information was submitted at the planning application stage confirming why alternative sites were not able to be pursued. This would have been helpful and expected as part of the application submission in order to confirm why the site purchased was the only available option.   It was contended that there was a considerable amount of available business and industrial land at Charlesfield as detailed in Appendix 3 to the report. It was however acknowledged the definition and interpretation of immediately available land could be subjective, and it was understood why the amount stated at the planning application stage, 11.5ha taken from the 2019 Audit, could be challenged. Some of the land could be argued to be incorporated within the 1 to 5 year period.  Having checked the history of the categorisation of sites, up until 2013 sites in Charlesfield within the allocation zEL19 were categorised as being available between 1 to 5 years. However, in 2014 the Council’s Economic Development team advised that given the planning application for the anaerobic digestion plant had been approved and a related application had been submitted for the access road which opened up land in the vicinity, the categorisation should be changed to being immediately available. Consequently that categorisation had continued within subsequent audits and remained the case.

1.8       However, whether land was categorised to be immediately available or would be available at some point after that, critically if there was a genuine interest in developing land, parties, including the Council when contacted, could come together to discuss steps in order that sites could hopefully be made available and developed sooner than perhaps anticipated. The Council was unsure how long the appellants had been seeking a new site, but often it must be accepted that choosing a site could take a period of time involving detailed consideration of a range of sites and issues with help and input from other parties. The Council was always eager to get involved in helping identify an appropriate site for any party in the normal manner. This might involve discussions with relevant bodies, including the South of Scotland Enterprise (SOSE), to acquire land and develop it. Just because land may not be immediately available did not mean that circumstances could not be changed and sites could be released and developed. Many other allocations in the LDP were in other uses / ownerships at present, housing allocations for example, but that did not mean if an interested party came forward they could become a priority to be developed. It should also be noted that whilst there may be costs involved in setting up necessary infrastructure in Charlesfield to service the site, which was common practice for many industrial sites, the site subject to this appeal also required work to be carried out to install necessary services into the site.

1.9       On being given the opportunity to ask questions, Members asked whether Zone 3 would have the necessary infrastructure.  The Appellants were asked if they had sought advice from Scottish Borders Council prior to purchasing the land at Charlsefield.  Mr A Wight advised that they had been very involved with everyone at Charlesfield since 2007 and had regular conversations with the owners over that time.  They had viewed the site history and as it was a brown field site and had previously had a planning application against it, had made their own decision to proceed.  They had been unaware that there was a process to follow.  In response to a question as to whether they had considered sites further afield, Mr A Wight advised that they had not and explained that the customer base was very specific and they were convinced that their customer base would not move with them should they re-locate. 

1.10   Mr Murray sought clarification of the classification of land being available as having spoken to land owners there was no land available, however, it was classed as immediately available. Mr Johnston advised that working together with SBC Planning and Economic development can enable land to be made available.  Mr Johnston questioned the Appellants as to what was meant by the statement that the east land parcel of land in Zone A was a ransom strip as Zone A had been sold to a new owner.  Mr Johnston had not doubt that the Appellants had spoken to the owners, however there was no evidence.

 1.11  After the parties involved had given closing summaries of their submissions, the Chairman closed the Hearing session and the Local Review Body reconvened to continue consideration of the review.  Members agreed that both the unaccompanied site visit which they had undertaken and the Hearing had been useful in providing further information.  Despite the information supplied, Members remained unclear about land available within Charlesfield and after discussion Members concluded that they could not make a determination without further procedure and clarification on these matters.

VOTE

Councillor Moffat, seconded by Councillor Richards moved that the Appeal be upheld and the Officers decision overturned.

Councillor Laing, seconded by Councillor Small moved as an amendment that the matter be further continued to allow the Appellants and their Agent to meet with the Planning Officer and a representative from Economic Development with a view to the submission of a position statement.

As the meeting was conducted by Microsoft Teams members were unable to vote by the normal show of hands and gave a verbal response as to how they wished to vote the result of which was as follows:-

Motion – 3 votes

Amendment – 3 votes

As there was an equality of votes, the Chairman exercised his casting vote in favour of a continuation.

DECISION

AGREED that:-

(a)        the review could not be determined without further procedure in the form of      written submissions from the Applicants and Planning Officer as follows;

·         further written information on the Industrial Land available within Charlesfield Industrial Site, following a meeting with a view to the submission of a position statement, which may be a single statement agreed by both parties or two separate statements; and

·         the Meeting to include the Applicants, Agent, Planning Officer and a representative from Economic Development.

 (d)       the review be continued on a date to be arranged.