Agenda Document Pack - Local Review Body - 11/05/2026
Midlothian Council · 11 May 2026
Back to Local Review Body — 11 May 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Notice of Meeting and Agenda Local Review Body Venue: Normandy Court/ Hybrid, Normandy Court, 20 Normandy Dr, Dalkeith, EH22 1JG Date: Monday, 11 May 2026 Time: 13:00 Executive Director : Place Contact: Clerk Name: Democratic Services Clerk Telephone: Clerk Email: democratic.services@midlothian.gov.uk Further Information: This is a meeting which is open to members of the public. Privacy notice: Please note that this meeting may be recorded. The recording may be publicly available following the meeting. If you would like to know how Midlothian Council collects, uses and shares your personal information, please visit our website: www.midlothian.gov.uk Page 1 of 40
Page 2
1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies 2 Order of Business Including notice of new business submitted as urgent for consideration at the end of the meeting. 3 Declaration of Interest Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest. 4 Minute of Previous Meeting 4.1 Minute of the meeting of Local Review Body of 23 March 2026 submitted for approval 3 - 8 5 Public Reports 5.1 Notice of Review: Land Adjacent 34 Mavisbank, Loanhead Determination Report, report by Chief Officer Place 9 - 40 6 Private Reports No items for discussion 7 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on Monday 15 June 2026. Plans and papers relating to the applications on this agenda can also be viewed at https://planning-applications.midlothian.gov.uk/OnlinePlanning Page 2 of 40
Page 3
INTERNAL USE ONLY DRAFT BY/DATE: REVIEW BY/DATE: 1-993 Minute of Meeting Local Review Body Monday 11 May 2026 Item No 4.1 Local Review Body Date Time Venue Monday 23 March 2026 13.00 Normandy Court/MS Teams Present: Councillor Imrie (Chair) Councillor Alexander Councillor Bowen Councillor Cassidy Councillor McEwan Councillor Drummond (Virtual) Councillor Smaill In attendance: Peter Arnsdorf, Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer Hannah Forbes, Democratic Services Officer Maria Perez, Democratic Services Officer 1. Welcome and Apologies The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Local Review Body (LRB). Apologies were submitted by Councillor McManus and Councillor Winchester. 2. Order of Business The order of business is as outlined the agenda. 3. Declaration of Interest The Chair invited the LRB Members to declare their interest at this point or during the discussion of the item in the agenda. Page 3 of 40
Page 4
4. Minutes of Previous Meeting The Minute of the LRB Meeting of 2 February 2026 was unanimously approved as a correct record. Councillor Smaill noted an arising matter for the LRB’s attention, Councillor Smaill asked if there has been further information in relation to the electric charging point in Pathhead and asked for LRB Members to be updated on where the decision will stand. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer confirmed that Elected Members were minded to grant the electric vehicle charging point subject to two conditions, first being to formally notify Transport Scotland due to the nature of the works. This has been actioned and Transport Scotland confirmed that the Council are free to reach their own decisions. Secondly, the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer was to check with Legal Services and confirmed that the Council is not liable for any potential trip or risk hazard from the charging cable if the applicant is doing what they have been granted planning permission for. Councillor McEwan asked who is responsible for maintaining the tarred area and ensuring it is in good order. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer confirmed that it is not Midlothian Council’s responsibility, this would be down to the landowner and Transport Scotland. Councillor Cassidy raised concern that electric vehicle charging is becoming a common issue and asked if there could be a seminar in relation to electric cars and charging of vehicles, as issues are currently taking months to come to a determination. The Chair shared their understanding that the policy was being looked at in relation to electric vehicle charging and there will be some documentation included in the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 (MLDP). The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised that the Council is working at the regional level in terms of its own electric vehicle infrastructure project. There is a piece of work ongoing which has previously resulted in a Council workshop with reports still to come. Within the Councils parking standards there is reference to electric vehicle charging, however at a previous Planning Committee there was a paper brought to update the current 2015 standards where Elected Members were not happy to go with the changes that were proposed. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised they would be happy to bring back a paper to a future Planning Committee to update Elected Members on the Council’s position in terms of operational matters. 5. Reports and Items for Discussion Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.1 25/00519/DPP - Land adjacent to 103 Lothian Street, Bonnyrigg Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer presented the report. The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for the Local Review Body (LRB) to consider a ‘Notice of Review’ for the formation of car park and associated works at land adjacent 103 Lothian Street, Bonnyrigg. It is recommended that the LRB: Page 4 of 40
Page 5
a) determine the review; and b) the planning advisor draft and issue the decision of the LRB through the Chair The Chair thanked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer for the report and opened to questions and comments from LRB Members. LRB Members highlighted their concerns around the unsightly hoarding that is around the site and blocking access for the community to grounds that are owned by Midlothian Council. Councillor Cassidy stated they were happy for the applicant to proceed with the original application and planning permission that was approved in 2024. The Chair seconded Councillor Cassidy’s suggestion to dismiss the appeal and go ahead with the original planning permission that has previously been granted. Councillor Cassidy added that they would like to add a condition that the hoarding is taken down as soon as possible, and the applicant advised of a time constraint to complete the ongoing work. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer clarified that, if the applicant implements the previously lodged application that was granted planning permission during construction, they can make the site secure as per the permitted development rights. It was confirmed that the hoarding that is currently placed around the site is for security. Once the planning permission previously granted is implemented the hoarding should be removed. It was identified that Midlothian Council are still the landowners and the Councils Estate Department would be in contact with the applicants regarding the fencing. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer also confirmed the planning permission granted in 2024 has a 3-year condition to implement the work. Once the work has begun the Council do not have a mechanism to forcefully have the work completed by a certain date. However, it was suggested that the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer could liaise with the Estates Department to ensure the progress of the works is monitored. Decision LRB determined to uphold the decision of the Planning Department and refuse this revised planning permission. LRB also determined to uphold the planning permission granted in 2024. Action Planning Advisor will prepare a decision notice for issuing through the Chair of the LRB. Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.2 25/00190/DPP – Armadilla, Whitehill Road, Rosewell Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer presented the report for determination. The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for the Local Page 5 of 40
Page 6
Review Body (LRB) to consider a ‘Notice of Review’ for the erection of six dwellinghouses, formation of access, landscaping and associated works at Armadilla, Whitehill Road, Rosewell. It is recommended that the LRB: a) determine the review; and b) the planning advisor draft and issue the decision of the LRB through the Chair The Chair thanked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer for the report and opened to questions and comments from committee. LRB members noted that it was an interesting visit and highlighted the beautiful grounds of the countryside, noting the only improvement to the area would be to take down the buildings that are currently placed and to put up some luxury buildings. Councillor Alexander shared their concern around the road leading down to the area and those who use it, adding that they are not sure how substantial the structure of the bridge is. Councillor Smaill noted that, whilst the existing buildings are unattractive to the area, the site the planning application is on is enclosed by woodland and will not be seen by anyone else. For this reason, Councillor Smaill moved to grant planning permission. The Chair responded to Councillor Alexander’s concerns around the access road, highlighting that Road Services have cleared the road and provided assurance that the road has been checked. The Chair added that if LRB Members are minded to grant planning permission, the terms and conditions in the paperwork would also be agreed to. LRB Members unanimously agreed to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission subject to the conditions specified in the report. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer added that in the report there is reference to the requirement of developer contributions due to the application consisting of 6 units. Decision LRB determined to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission subject to conditions specified in the report. Action Planning Advisor will prepare a decision notice for issuing through the Chair of the LRB. Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.3 25/00377/PPP - Land to Northeast of Fallhills Farmhouse, Penicuik Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer Page 6 of 40
Page 7
The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer presented the report for determination. The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for the Local Review Body (LRB) to consider a ‘Notice of Review’ for an application for planning permission in principle for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land to the northeast of Fallhills Farmhouse, Penicuik. It is recommended that the LRB: a) determine the review; and b) the planning advisor draft and issue the decision of the LRB through the Chair The Chair thanked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer for the report and opened to questions and comments from committee. Councillor Alexander shared their concern that a precedent is being set, and the countryside is being subjected to more developments on this site. Councillor Smaill also shared their reservations with houses in the countryside; however, noted this application is out of view from the road and felt this particular location would be okay. Councillor Drummond noted that the green areas surrounding the property makes it feel that it is still part of the countryside however raised concern that should more properties be built, the area would look more built up. Councillor McEwan added that they have no objections to the application although added their concern around the size of the house that may come forward to planning. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised LRB Members that, at the moment the design detail of the property has not been submitted. It was clarified that, should planning permission be granted in principle, Officers would be working with the applicant to produce a design compatible to the buildings either side of it. Councillor Alexander moved to uphold the Officers proposal due to a precedent being created to allow more building. Councillor Drummond seconded. Councillor Cassidy moved to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission, this was seconded by Councillor Smaill. Therefore, due to a split in decision a roll call vote was performed, where there was 4 for upholding the appeal and 3 for upholding the decision of the Planning Department therefore LRB Members were overall in favour to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission subject to the conditions specified in the report. Decision LRB determined to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission subject to the conditions specified in the report. Action Planning Advisor will prepare a decision notice for issuing through the Chair of the LRB. Page 7 of 40
Page 8
Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.4 25/00163/DPP - Land at Mossbank, 30 Howgate, Penicuik Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer presented the report for determination. The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for the Local Review Body (LRB) to consider a ‘Notice of Review’ for the erection of dwellinghouse, formation of access, landscaping and associated works at land at Mossbank, 30 Howgate, Penicuik. It is recommended that the LRB: a) determine the review; and b) the planning advisor draft and issue the decision of the LRB through the Chair The Chair thanked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer for the report and opened to questions and comments from committee. Councillor Bowen moved to grant planning permission due to the application not having an impact on the traffic in the area and the site not being visible from the road. They also noted the greenery around the property that will be removed was neglected. Councillor McEwan seconded the motion to grant planning permission. Councillor Cassidy moved to dismiss the appeal due to the greenery that would be removed from the property as they felt it was a sanctuary for wildlife. As there was no seconder the motion fell, and the Chair moved to grant planning permission subject to the conditions specified in the report. Decision LRB determined to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission subject to conditions specified in the report. Action Planning Advisor will prepare a decision notice for issuing through the Chair of the LRB. 6. Date of next meeting The meeting concluded at 13:31pm. The next meeting of the LRB is scheduled for Monday 11 May 2026. Page 8 of 40
Page 9
Local Review Body Monday 11 May 2026 Item No 5.1 Notice of Review: Land Adjacent 34 Mavisbank, Loanhead Determination Report Report by Chief Officer Place 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for the Local Review Body (LRB) to consider a ‘Notice of Review’ for the change of use of public open space to private garden ground at land adjacent 34 Mavisbank, Loanhead. 2 Background 2.1 Planning application 25/00568/DPP for the change of use of public open space to private garden ground at land adjacent 34 Mavisbank, Loanhead was refused planning permission on 12 January 2026; a copy of the decision is attached to this report. 2.2 The review has progressed through the following stages: 1 Submission of Notice of Review by the applicant. 2 The Registration and Acknowledgement of the Notice of Review. 3 Carrying out Notification and Consultation. 3 Supporting Documents 3.1 Attached to this report are the following documents: • A site location plan (Appendix A); • A copy of the notice of review form and supporting statement (Appendix B). Any duplication of information is not attached; • A copy of the case officer’s report (Appendix C); and • A copy of the decision notice, excluding the standard advisory notes, issued on 12 January 2026 (Appendix D). 3.2 The full planning application case file and the development plan policies referred to in the case officer’s report can be viewed online via www.midlothian.gov.uk. 4 Procedures 4.1 In accordance with agreed procedures, the LRB: Page 9 of 40
Page 10
• Have determined to undertake a site visit (only elected members attending the site visit can participate in the determination of the review); and • Have determined to progress the review by written submissions. 4.2 The case officer’s report identified that there were two consultation responses, and three representations received (objections). As part of the review process the interested parties were notified of the review – one additional comment has been received reinforcing their objection. All comments can be viewed online on the electronic planning application case file. 4.3 The next stage in the process is for the LRB to determine the review in accordance with the agreed procedure: • Identify any provisions of the development plan which are relevant to the decision; • Interpret them carefully, looking at the aims and objectives of the plan as well as detailed wording of policies; • Consider whether or not the proposal accords with the development plan; • Identify and consider relevant material considerations for and against the proposal; • Assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the development plan; and • State the reason/s for the decision and state any conditions required if planning permission is granted. 4.4 In reaching a decision on the case the planning advisor can advise on appropriate phraseology and on appropriate planning reasons for reaching a decision. 4.5 Following the determination of the review the planning advisor will prepare a decision notice for issuing through the Chair of the LRB. A copy of the decision notice will be reported back to the LRB for noting. 4.6 A copy of the LRB decision will be placed on the planning authority’s planning register and made available for inspection online. 5 Conditions 5.1 In accordance with the procedures agreed by the LRB at its meeting of 20 June 2022, and without prejudice to the determination of the review, the following condition has been prepared for the consideration of the LRB if it is minded to uphold the review and grant planning permission. 1. The development to which this permission relates shall commence no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019). Page 10 of 40
Page 11
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that order) no development shall be carried out on the application site. Reason: To safeguard the visual and residential amenity of the surrounding area and the amenity of footpath users. 6 Recommendations 6.1 It is recommended that the LRB: a) determine the review; and b) the planning advisor draft and issue the decision of the LRB through the Chair Peter Arnsdorf Head of Placemaking Date: 30 April 2026 Report Contact: Ingrid Forteath, Planning Officer Ingrid.Forteath@midlothian.gov.uk Background Papers: Planning application 25/00568/DPP available for inspection online. Page 11 of 40
Page 12
N Midlothian Council Fairfield House 8 Lothian Road Dalkeith, EH22 3AA Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Crown copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Service Place Directorate Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2026) Change of use of public open space to private garden ground. Land adjacent to 34 Mavisbank, Loanhead. File No. 25/00568/DPP Scale 1:250 Appendix A Page 12 of 40
Page 13
Page 1 of 5 Fairfield House 8 Lothian Road Dalkeith EH22 3ZN Tel: 0131 271 3302 Fax: 0131 271 3537 Email: planning- applications@midlothian.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100750750-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else actingon behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Mr Ho-Yin Yip 34 Mavisbank 34 Mavisbank EH20 9DE United Kingdom Loanhead Appendix B Page 13 of 40
Page 14
Page 2 of 5 Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. 34 MAVISBANK Change of use of an area of public open space adjacent to 34 Mavisbank, Loanhead, to private garden ground, with no operational development, structures, boundary treatments or hard surfacing proposed at this stage. Midlothian Council LOANHEAD EH20 9DE 665257 328280 Page 14 of 40
Page 15
Page 3 of 5 What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * The decision is unsound due to misapplication of NPF4 Policy 16(h), failure to properly assess material health considerations, reliance on speculative future development not forming part of the application, and inconsistent planning judgment. Full grounds are set out in the attached statement. Appeal statement (Pillars 1–4); GP consultation evidence; medical reports (ADHD, autism, anxiety, musculoskeletal); medication records; Joint Disability Impact Statement; Carer Statement; applicant response to representations; Boundary Treatment Statement; planning history and permissions for 28 Mavisbank; site plans and application drawings. 25/00568/DPP 12/01/2026 23/10/2025 Page 15 of 40
Page 16
Page 4 of 5 Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures. Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates Further written submissions on specific matters A site inspection is required to understand the physical context, including the open character of the land, absence of enclosure or built development, and its relationship to the terrace. It will assist in assessing the limited impact of the proposal and in comparing it with nearby properties, including 28 Mavisbank, where more intrusive development has been permitted. Further written submissions may be required to address any specific points raised by the planning authority or Local Review Body, including clarification of the health evidence, scope of the proposal, and planning context. This will assist in ensuring that all material considerations are fully understood and properly assessed. Page 16 of 40
Page 17
Page 5 of 5 Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Ho-Yin Yip Declaration Date: 11/04/2026 Fee Exemption Reason This is an appeal or request for local review and is not subject to a fee Page 17 of 40
Page 18
Page 18 of 40
Page 19
Page 19 of 40
Page 20
Page 20 of 40
Page 21
Page 21 of 40
Page 22
Page 22 of 40
Page 23
Page 23 of 40
Page 24
Page 24 of 40
Page 25
Page 25 of 40
Page 26
Page 26 of 40
Page 27
Page 27 of 40
Page 28
Page 28 of 40
Page 29
Page 29 of 40
Page 30
Page 30 of 40
Page 31
Page 31 of 40
Page 32
Page 32 of 40
Page 33
MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING APPLICATION DELEGATED WORKSHEET: Planning Application Reference:25/00568/dpp Site Address: Land adjacent to 34 Mavisbank, Loanhead Site Description: The application property comprises an area of open space adjacent to 34 Mavisbank, which comprises an end terraced two storey dwelling house, located within a residential area. The open space comprises of an area of grassed open space measuring a maximum of approx. 5m wide and a maximum of approx. 14 m deep and approx. 54sq.m in area. Google maps show mature shrubs and leylandii planting along the northwest boundary of no. 34 in August of 2025. This has since been removed. Proposed Development: Change of use of public open space to private garden ground Proposed Development Details: It is proposed to change the area of grassed open space to the northwest of no 34 Mavisbank to private garden ground. The applicant has stated that at this stage no boundary treatment works, structures or hard surfaces are proposed. It is stated that it is proposed to regularise the existing boundary with details of any future changes to be submitted for assessment. The submitted supporting statement however states that one of the reasons for the application is to create a safe enclosed outdoor space. Background (Previous Applications, Supporting Documents, Development Briefs): History sheet checked. The applicant has submitted a statement in support of the application detailing the personal circumstances of the occupiers of the property at no. 34 stating that the change of use is intended to improve access, safety, health, and comfort of the occupiers of no. 34. In response to the representations received the applicant has stated that; no operational development is proposed in this submission and the application should be determined on the basis of the development proposed and not on hypothetical future scenarios; the footpath will not be obstructed; the historic removal of planting is not relevant to this application; and the application does not propose the removal of a park, equipped play area, or formal recreational facility, nor does it propose works that would sever pedestrian routes or wider connectivity. Consultations: Appendix C Page 33 of 40
Page 34
Loanhead and District Community Council – object to the proposal on the following grounds: the Mavisbank estate was designed and built as a small housing estate with public open space for the benefit of the residents of Loanhead; the open area space is part of a pedestrian access which allows residents to walk from one side of the estate to the other and originally had trees and shrubs growing which added to the pleasant characteristics of the area; the loss of this area would have a detrimental effect on the aesthetics of the area; Midlothian Council should strive to maintain ownership of any green spaces in Loanhead; and it is stated that once any space is lost it will never be recovered Midlothian Council Housing Service- Housing would not support the sale of this area of council land, as any development on it would remove the control for visibility to the neighbouring property at number 36. Midlothian Council Estates Service – No response Midlothian Council Landscape Resource Services – No response Representations: Three representations have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds: • The applicant does not specify the purpose for which the additional land is required • Submitted plans are unclear • Possible future development of boundary treatment or an extension or garage with construction impacting on the amenity of neighbouring properties • Impact on neighbouring properties in terms of outlook, light and access to public open space • Impact on sightlines • Loss of well used public walkway and public open space, which is used by children in the summer, to the disadvantage of the local community • A hedge comprising of mature 4m high trees has been removed from around no. 34 impacting on biodiversity • Midlothian's Green Network Guidance identifies publicly accessible open space, verges, planted boundaries, hedges and path networks as essential components of the green network and highlights the duty to maintain them for recreation, biodiversity and environmental quality. Granting this transfer would directly contradict those aims. • Approval would set an unwelcome precedent for similar proposals eroding the character and amenity of the estate • Impact on property value Relevant Planning Policies: Planning policy currently comprises National Planning Framework 4 and the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. The following policies are relevant to the proposal: NPF4 Page 34 of 40
Page 35
Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crises When considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 14 Design, quality and place a) Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. c) Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported. Policy 16 Quality homes g) Householder development proposals will be supported where they: i. do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials; and ii. do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. h) Householder development proposals that provide adaptations in response to risks from a changing climate, or relating to people with health conditions that lead to particular accommodation needs will be supported. The relevant policy of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 is; DEV2 – Protecting amenity within the built-up area - seeks to protect the character and amenity of the built-up area. Midlothian Green Network Supplementary Guidance Para 1.1.2 In Midlothian, the green network is connected areas of green and blue features within, around and between towns and villages that provide usable open space, routes for walking, cycling and horse riding, habitats for wildlife and plants, and natural surface water and flood water management opportunities. Green networks include green features like parks, woodlands, trees, planted areas, hedges, verges, allotments, community growing spaces, outdoor play and sports areas and gardens…… When considered together as a network, these green and blue features (referred to as components in this document) provide important assets that contribute to place and environmental quality, opportunities for shelter, access and travel, sustainable urban drainage, pollution mitigation, wildlife habitats and to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Planning Issues: The main planning issue to be considered is whether or not the proposal complies with the development plan policies and, if not, whether there are any material planning considerations which would otherwise justify approval. The central issue in the consideration of the application is the potential impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The submitted plans are acceptable for the purposes of assessing the planning application and are clear in Page 35 of 40
Page 36
that the footpath link will not be lost. Any impact on property values is not a material planning consideration in the assessment of the application. The removal of the hedge around the application property is not pertinent to the assessment of this application. The area of open space is situated adjacent to a footpath link running between nos 34 and 42 Mavisbank which serves nos 36 to 40 Mavisbank, which are set back from the road, which then continues along the side and rear of these properties emerging again between nos 4 and 6 Mavisbank to the north. There is an area of grassed open space containing a tree opposite the affected area of open space and a larger area of open space to the rear. The area of open space does not form part of the green network as defined on the map included in the supplementary guidance however forms an integral part of the layout of open spaces and footpath links within the estate. The open spaces are particularly important in adding interest and visual amenity to the surrounding area. The open space subject to this application enhances the appearance of the street scene and along with other areas of open space within the surrounding area makes a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the area. It also contributes to the setting of nos 36 to 40 Mavisbank and provides a pleasant outlook for these properties and a pleasant experience for users of the footpath. The applicant has stated that it is currently not proposed to erect a boundary treatment or any structure or hard surface on this area. However, should planning permission be granted for the change of use, whilst the land may be within the control of the applicant if left open it would still likely be used by members of the public to the same extent as at the present time with the likely outcome that the applicant would want to enclose the area which is intimated in the submitted supporting statement. Whilst each application should be dealt with on its own merits this does not prevent consideration of the consequential effects of granting planning permission. This is a valid material consideration in the assessment of the current application in that it relates to the development and use of land and is considered to fairly and reasonably relate to this particular application. Surrounding this area with a fence or building over it would seriously detract from the visual amenity of the area, the amenity of footpath users and the setting and outlook of properties to the rear. (The impact on neighbours’ amenity from construction works is not a reason for refusal particularly taking into account that in normal circumstances certain works can be carried out as permitted development not requiring planning permission from the Planning Authority.) For these reasons the proposal should not be supported on the basis of its potential impact on the amenity of the area being contrary to development plan policies. (The erection of a fence surrounding this area woud not have a significant impact on road or pedestrian safety.) Whilst each application is dealt with on its own merits approval of the current application would make it difficult to resist similar proposals in the area which would seriously erode the character of the estate. No. 34 benefits from a secure private back garden surrounded by a 1.8m approx. high fence. The gable elevation of no.34 which faces the area of open space does not contain any windows. Page 36 of 40
Page 37
In summary the proposal has the potential to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the surrounding area to the detriment of the wider community and accordingly is contrary to development plan policies, and whilst the personal circumstances of the applicant are acknowledged this does not does not outweigh this conclusion. Recommendation: Refuse planning permission Page 37 of 40
Page 38
Refusal of Planning Permission Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Reg. No. 25/00568/DPP Mr Ho-Yin Christopher Yip 34 Mavisbank Loanhead EH20 9DE Midlothian Council, as Planning Authority, having considered the application by Mr Ho-Yin Christopher Yip, 34 Mavisbank, Loanhead, EH20 9DE, which was registered on 14 November 2025 in pursuance of their powers under the above Acts, hereby refuse permission to carry out the following proposed development: Change of use of public open space to private garden ground at Land adjacent to 34, Mavisbank, Loanhead in accordance with the application and the following documents/drawings: Document/Drawing. Drawing No/Scale Dated Location Plan 14.11.2025 Site Plan 14.11.2025 The reasons for the Council's decision are set out below: 1. The affected area of open space forms an integral part of the layout of open spaces and footpath links within the estate and is of particular value in that it adds interest and enhances the appearance of the surrounding area, contributes to the setting of no.s 36 to 40 Mavisbank and provides a pleasant outlook for these properties and a pleasant experience for users of the footpath providing an amenity for both residents and passers-by. Approval of planning permission would result in pressure to enclose this area which has the potential to seriously detract from the visual amenity of the area, the amenity of footpath users and the setting and outlook of properties to the rear. As a result of its potential detrimental impact on the amenity of the area the proposal is considered to be contrary to the aims of policies 14 and 16 of NPF4 and DEV2 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 which seek to protect the character and amenity of residential areas. 2. Approval of the planning application would make it difficult to resist similar proposals which would seriously erode the visual amenity of the estate also contrary to the aims of the aforementioned development plan policies. Appendix D Page 38 of 40
Page 39
Dated 12 / 1 / 2026 …………………………….. Duncan Robertson Lead Officer – Local Developments Fairfield House, 8 Lothian Road, Dalkeith, EH22 3AA Page 39 of 40
Page 40
Informative Note The proposed development lies within an area that has been defined by the Mining Remediation Authority as containing coal mining features at surface or shallow depth. These features may include: mine entries (shafts and adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and former surface mining sites. Although such features are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur, particularly as a result of new development taking place. Any form of development over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry can be dangerous and raises significant land stability and public safety risks. As a general precautionary principle, the Mining Remediation Authority considers that the building over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry should be avoided. In exceptional circumstance where this is unavoidable, expert advice must be sought to ensure a suitable engineering design which takes account of all relevant safety and environmental risk factors, including mine gas and mine-water. Your attention is drawn to the Mining Remediation Authority Policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-on-or-within-the-influencing-distance-of-mine- entries Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires a Mining Remediation Authority Permit. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, excavations for foundations, piling activities, other ground works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes. Application forms for Mining Remediation Authority permission and further guidance can be obtained from The Mining Remediation Authority’s website at: www.gov.uk/get-a-permit-to-deal-with- a-coal-mine-on-your-property What is a permit and how to get one? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permit- process/permit-process In areas where shallow coal seams are present caution should be taken when carrying out any on site burning or heat focused activities. If any future development has the potential to encounter coal seams which require excavating, for example excavation of building foundations, service trenches, development platforms, earthworks, non-coal mineral operations, an Incidental Coal Agreement will be required. Further information regarding Incidental Coal Agreements can be found here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incidental-coal-agreement/guidance-notes-for- applicants-for-incidental-coal-agreements If any coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Mining Remediation Authority on 0800 288 4242. Further information is available on the Mining Remediation Authority website at: Mining Remediation Authority https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/mining-remediation- authority Informative Note valid from 1st January 2025 until 31st December 2026 Page 40 of 40