37 notable & 3 veteran trees at risk

According to PCC's expert arboricultural report

• "The proposed development itself would require the direct removal of 34 trees."
• "The 'mature trees to the east,' I believe would almost certainly end up being lost as collateral damage as a result of root damage sustained during development."
• "I believe that there is no feasible way to construct the access road ... without losing the majority of the trees in the vicinity."
• "All in all the AIA [Arboricultural Impact Assessment] is a minor masterpiece of client-friendly, disingenuous writing. It claims the whole proposed development can all be achieved with minimal effect on the existing tree cover but, unsurprisingly, no back-up detail is given to support those assertions."
• "SBC planners do not seem to have sought the advice of their own, in-house Tree Officer, which is frankly astonishing given it is such a high-profile and important site in the heart of the Peebles Conservation Area with so many magnificent, rare and notable trees."

Otter, bats and red squirrel at risk

According to PCC's expert ecology report

• "In my expert opinion otter activity was significantly under recorded."
• "It would be negligent for the Local Review Body to grant consent for this application in the absence of up to date, contemporary ecological data."
• "The Council are unable to approve this planning application unless a Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the development is undertaken."
• "The semi-natural broadleaved woodland on the site is assessed as being of only local value in the Ecological Baseline Report. No mention is made of the importance of this site in providing an ecological corridor along the River Tweed"
• "Kingsmeadows House and Policies are such an important asset to the biodiversity and public of Peebles. I remain very concerned about the cumulative impact of this development on the entire woodland area."

Proposal is in the flood plain

• "The approved design statement confirms that the proposal is in the flood plain."
• "The Flood Risk Assessment is out of date and not fit for purpose as the data used for flood modelling severely underestimates the actual flood risk."

Read more in chapter 8 of PCC's objection

Who benefits from luxury flats?

• "These luxury flats won't alleviate SBC’s affordable housing emergency."

Read more in chapter 9 of PCC's objection

Mr Pritchett claims

"The section [42] therefore makes it clear that such an application shall only consider the conditions of the consent and not revisit the original planning permission. Any representations relating to the principle of the development would not therefore be relevant or material."

However, permission has expired and we have new, NPF4 & LDP2 policies, i.e.

[37] "Where the development has not yet commenced, this may involve a reconsideration of the principle of development in light of any material change in the development plan policies." [2020] CSIH 13

The Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland

“Our view is that if the Council determines [i.e. approves] 24/00031/FUL and 24/00247/FUL without an appropriate assessment, there would be grounds for a judicial review arising from a breach of the Regulation 48(1) duty.”

Read more in chapter 5 of PCC's objection

Harper Macleod

"these applications cannot be considered as the requirements in S.42(4) are applicable." "We are firmly of the view that there is no precedent which limits the scope and timing of S.42(4), and our interpretation of S.42(4) is therefore correct."

Read more in chapter 11 of PCC's objection