Firm appeals Borders quarry refusal

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

A decision by members of Scottish Borders Council to reject proposals for a 75-acre quarry in rural Peeblesshire because of its perceived harm to the landscape and the impact on a nearby Roman road is being challenged by the developers who claim the extraction of 1.4 million tonnes of sand and gravel is in the "public interest".

Agents for Forfar-based Stonepack Ltd. have lodged an appeal with the Scottish Government against last August's Borders planning committee decision. Councillors rejected the concept of a quarry which would have operated over a period of 15 years on South Slipperfield farm, close to the village of West Linton.

Local opposition to the plans was so strong that a special Quarry Action Group was formed. Its members were responsible for some of the 139 representations while there were only 18 submissions in  support of the project in an area of special landscape value. It seems likely the group will be reactivated to oppose Stonepack's appeal.

Senior planning officers at SBC, Craig Miller and Ian Aikman concluded in a report to committee: "The application is considered to be in contravention of national objectives and Local Development Plan Policies on securing additional reserves and extraction of minerals, whilst ensuring that the environmental impacts are either acceptable with mitigation and/or outweighed by the demonstration of significant public benefit. 

"The visual and landscape impacts within the Pentland Hills Special Landscape Area (SLA) and on local landscape character will be significantly adverse and incapable of being overcome through mitigation. Furthermore, there will be adverse cultural heritage impacts on the appreciation of the setting of the Core Path which adjoins the north-western boundary of the site and which carries, or immediately adjoins, the line of the Roman Road linking Inveresk with Crawford. 

"All other material factors have been considered but do not outweigh the adverse impacts and contravention of Local Development Plan Policies aforementioned and could have been addressed by planning conditions and a legal agreement, had the application been supported."

But an attempt is made in the newly published Appeal Statement lodged by Edinburgh law firm Brodies to demolish the planners' reasons for refusal.

It is claimed in the 23-page statement: "This appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted, on the grounds that the Proposed Development would result in a broad range of benefits; demonstrates a high degree of development plan policy compliance and finds substantial support from Scottish Government policy. 

It is the appellant's contention that minerals make an important contribution to the economy, providing materials for construction, energy supply and other uses, and supporting employment

A quote from national policies in the appeal statement reads: "The extraction and use of minerals makes an essential contribution to the Scottish economy by providing important raw materials for manufacturing, construction, agriculture and other industries. The planning system should safeguard important mineral resources and ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet the demands of industry in a way that minimises the impacts of extraction on the environment and local communities”. 

According to Stonepack the Proposed Development would address a substantial deficit in the minerals landbank in the market area. The mineral deposit within the Proposed Development area is a good quality sand and gravel. There is an established market demand for these products within the Scottish Borders and adjoining regions. The appellant is seeking to secure a long-term supply of aggregates to meet its business needs. The development would support continued employment at Stonepack's  existing business at Broxburn.

In a reference to the Pentland Hills SLA, the appeal document says: " The Pentland Hills Special Landscape Area within the Scottish Borders, is a valued landscape for wildness character and recreational access. The Proposed Development has no effect on these key aspects. While the site is subject to this local landscape designation, it does not preclude the acceptability of a minerals development subject to the level of landscape and visual impacts."

And so far as heritage assets are concerned: "The Appellant acknowledges that some cultural heritage assets may have a heightened sensitivity to changes of this nature where aspects of their setting draw on specific environmental conditions – such as a sense of solitude at a remote religious asset – however, it is not appropriate to consider the Roman Road as a noise or dust-sensitive asset given these characteristics are not intrinsic to the importance of the asset.”

Stonepack believes the Proposed Development is in the public interest and delivers social or economic benefits of national or local importance. They say the council’s reasons for refusal are not based on the correct interpretation of the development plan policies and are not supported by the evidence.