The fight goes on to block housing development

Extra seats were needed in the Old Burgh Chamber at last week’s Peebles Community Council meeting to accommodate angry opponents of the proposals for Rosetta Caravan Park.

Nearly 20 residents were present - normally just one or two members of the public attend - to hear community council chairman Alasdair Stewart describe the way the £40 million development was pushed through as “cynical planning manipulation”.

Scottish Borders Council’s planning committee agreed by a majority of 4-1 to give planning permission in principle for 130 houses on parts of Rosetta Caravan Park.

As part of the deal applicants Aberdeen Asset Management have agreed to build a bridge over Eddleston Water linking Rosetta with the main Edinburgh Road.

And there is still some hope for opponents as the bridge and link road will have to be approved before the plan can go ahead.

The council is being asked to consider whether to relax its affordable housing rules for the new development to enable the developer to fund and complete the new bridge and road link before the housing is commenced.

The decision on relaxation of the affordable housing rules is still to be made by the Planning Committee. He added that subject to other conditions the proposals would comply with Development Plan Policies.

The scheme, which has been modified several times, will also see the existing caravan park operation relocated onto the fields behind Rosetta House.

Approval came despite opposition from the community council, Peebles Civic Society and 400 residents who signed a petition.

The site has not been allocated for housing in the local development plan and the application has been made on the basis that it constitutes an infill development.

Mr Stewart said: “We regard this a cynical manipulation of the planning regulations. Democracy doesn’t come into this - it’s just planning regulations.

“We’ll try to take it to a higher authority.

Crick Carleton, the chairman of the community council’s planning committee, said: “Our view is that this is not going to benefit Peebles at all. It’s housing that’s not wanted or needed.

“The idea that 130 houses could be constituted as infill does seem to be a nonsense - this is not what infill is supposed to be.” And Mr Stewart added: “This infill application and the other one in Innerleithen Road will double the number of houses in the local development plan.” None of the Scottish Borders councillors representing Peebles is a member of the planning committee where the decision was taken.

But a community councillor, Graham Mackie, was able to attend the planning committee meeting on behalf of the town.

“None of the councillors had local knowledge and they were guided by the council officers,” he said. “There was an acceptance that it couldn’t go ahead without improvement to the roads.

“But the building of the bridge is not straightforward because of the potential for flooding.” Resident Dougie Tait, who also attended the planning meeting, said: “It seems there’s been a lot of pressure put on the council to come up with a workable plan.

“The road proposal and bridge seems unworkable - the road would have to go through the school and nursery.” Resident John Crawley, who is soon to become a member of the community council, said: “The people behind this are not a cuddly local company. They want to make money and are not a friendly business looking to improve everyone’s lot.” Tweeddale East councillor Catriona Bhatia said residents in Kingsland Square and Dalatho would need help in how to go about opposing the bridge plan. “Some of them weren’t even aware that it was on the horizon until they read about it in the paper,” she said.

Mr Carleton confirmed that the developer was trying to forgo the Borders-wide obligation to provide affordable housing.

He said the council would review the application to have the obligation waived once there were firmer costings given for the bridge and road link.

“We need to make strong objection to any weakening of current requirements,” he added.

Mr Carleton stressed the community council’s concerns that local views had little influence on housing development.

Developers were profiting from the very attractive location and characteristics of Peebles and their work was undermining and devaluing the town for current future residents and visitors.

He added: “It is of still greater concern that the strategic planning system does not seem, in this instance, to fulfil its remit.” Tweedale East councillor Graham Garvie, the convener of SBC, said: “As a local resident I am very concerned with what’s coming out of this. We need 25 per cent social housing and to waive it for a bridge that might not be necessary seems a step too far.

“It is unacceptable and we have to find a way around this but we are dealing with sharp applicants.” Tweeddale East councillor Stuart Bell said if the planning application had been delayed and instead ajudicated by the Scottish Government it might have been a “bigger lottery” with fewer conditions imposed.

“The ship has sailed and people should now focus on the roads, access and bridge,” he added Resident Cliff Scupham has been one of the staunchest opponents of the project - and organised the original petition.

He was unable to attend last week’s community council meeting but said: “I am delighted that so many people went along and made their feelings known.

”All the local groups should now be focusing on the constraints to find a way of stopping this. It’s absolutely ridiculous that we have had no say and it’s all made a mockery of the local development plan.” Community councillors plan to meet Scottish Border councillors to gather further information about the project before organising a public meeting.