Agenda Document Pack - Local Review Body - 21/09/2026
Midlothian Council · 21 September 2026
Back to Local Review Body — 21 September 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, Normandy Drive, Dalkeith, EH22 1GJ Date: Monday, 21 September 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 62
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 15 June 2026 submitted for approval 3 - 6 5 Public Reports Notice of Reviews - Determination Reports by Chief Officer Place 5.1 26/00107/DPP - Notice of Review: 2 Dundas Park, Bonnyrigg, report by Chief Officer Place 7 - 26 5.2 25/00666/DPP - Notice of Review: Land West of Springfield House, Lasswade, report by Chief Officer Place 27 - 62 6 Private Reports No items for discussion 7 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on Monday 9 November 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 62
Page 3
INTERNAL USE ONLY DRAFT BY/DATE: REVIEW BY/DATE: 1-993 Minute of Meeting Local Review Body Monday 21 September 2026 Item No 4.1 Local Review Body Date Time Venue Monday 15 June 2026 13.00 Normandy Court/MS Teams Present: Councillor Imrie (Chair) Councillor Alexander (Virtual) Councillor Bowen (Virtual) Councillor Cassidy Councillor Drummond (Virtual) Councillor McEwan Councillor McManus Councillor Milligan Councillor Winchester (Virtual) In attendance: Councillor Pottinger (Virtual) 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). There were no apologises submitted. 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 Page 3 of 62
Page 4
the discussion of the item in the agenda. No declarations of interest were intimated at this stage of the proceedings. 4. Minutes of Previous Meeting The Minute of the LRB meeting of 11 May 2026 was unanimously approved as a correct record. 5. Reports and Items for Discussion Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.1 Notice of Review: Land North 5 Wadingburn Lane, Lasswade Determination Report Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised 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 and garage, formation of access, landscaping and associated works on land North 5 Wadingburn Lane, Lasswade. 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 LRB Members. LRB members discussed the site visit that was conducted earlier today adding it was beneficial to see the location in person, as this provided some context to the application. Councillor McManus added that they would be in favour of upholding the appeal as the property is modern in style, although is sympathetic to the character of the surrounding area. Councillor Cassidy added that the additional property will complete the land rather than one property looking isolated from the area. Councillor Alexander expressed that they felt that approval for the property will be taking a lot of the greenery away from the area and advised that they were minded to oppose granting planning permission. Councillor McEwan added that the applicant should have advised when the previous planning application was granted that there were plans for 2 properties, considering that LRB Members have been informed the applicant owns all of the land. Councillor Milligan asked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer to confirm whether the site is prime agricultural land. Councillor Milligan also queried whether the applicant owned all of the land and asked if the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer knew whether Scottish Water owned the end part of the land. Page 4 of 62
Page 5
The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised they were not sure if Scottish Water owned the end part of the land. In the 2017 Midlothian Local Plan it is identified as prime agricultural land and at that point that was the appropriate land use. Councillor Bowen noted that they would support upholding the appeal as they feel the agricultural land would not be used for this purpose and will remain a part of scrub land and have no use. Councillor McManus asked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer to provide some detail regarding the removal of some trees that surround the area. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer highlighted, as seen today at the site visit, there was clearing of vegetation and confirmed that this is not a breach of planning control. In terms of the ground that Members saw this morning, the area that has been cleared is to accommodate the construction of the property. The landscaping is intended to retain the trees as much as possible although there would be removal of some trees to create a point of access. Councillor Cassidy asked if it was possible to have a condition added that, if this application was granted, there would be no more properties built on that land. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised that they could not have a condition to that effect, however any future planning applications would come before Members to determine their view and confirmed that if planning permission was granted there could be wording in the justification to that effect. The Chair expressed that it would have been more appropriate for the applicant to have submitted planning permission for both properties at the same time, noting their disappointment that it has been 2 years since the previous application was granted planning permission, and nothing has been started. As Councillor Alexander moved to uphold the Planning departments decision to refuse planning permission, the motion was seconded by Councillor McEwan. Councillor McManus moving to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission, this was seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Following a roll call vote there were 5 votes for upholding the decision of the Planning department to refuse planning permission and 4 votes for upholding the appeal and granting planning permission. Therefore, LRB Members were overall in favour of not upholding the appeal and refusing planning permission. Decision LRB determined to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. 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 13:18pm. The next meeting of the LRB is scheduled for Monday 21 September 2026. Page 5 of 62
Page 6
Page 6 of 62
Page 7
Local Review Body Monday 21 September 2026 Item No 5.1 Notice of Review: 2 Dundas Park, Bonnyrigg 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 erection of a porch at 2 Dundas Park, Bonnyrigg. 2 Background 2.1 Planning application 26/00107/DPP for the erection of a porch at 2 Dundas Park, Bonnyrigg was refused planning permission on 12 June 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); • A copy of the decision notice, excluding the standard advisory notes, issued on 12 June 2026 (Appendix D); and • A copy of the key plans/drawings (Appendix E). 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: • 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. Page 7 of 62
Page 8
4.2 The case officer’s report identified that there was one consultation response. As part of the review process the interested party was notified of the review – no additional comments have been received. 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). 2. The external materials and finishes of the porch extension shall match those on the existing house. Reason: To ensure that the porch extension matches the external appearance of the existing building and thereby maintains the visual quality of the area. Page 8 of 62
Page 9
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: 8 September 2026 Report Contact: Ingrid Forteath, Planning Officer Background Papers: Planning application 26/00107/DPP available for inspection online. Page 9 of 62
Page 10
Page 10 of 62
Page 11
Page 11 of 62
Page 12
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Site Address Details Mr 2 DUNDAS PARK ALEX Midlothian Council CRAWFORD Dundas Park 2 BONNYRIGG EH19 3AX EH19 3AX Midlothian 665042 Bonnyrigg 331116 Page 12 of 62
Page 13
Page 3 of 5 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. 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) Erection of Porch We are seeking a review as we believe the proposed porch is in keeping with similar developments in the surrounding area and would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the street. The porch also provides necessary space for future accessibility needs. Full reasons for seeking the review are provided in the accompanying Statement in Support of Notice of Review. Page 13 of 62
Page 14
Page 4 of 5 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? * 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 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. Images of extensions Statement in Support of Review 26/00107/DPP 12/06/2026 27/02/2026 Page 14 of 62
Page 15
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 Stephen Lothian Declaration Date: 13/08/2026 Fee Exemption Reason I have arranged to pay my fee directly to my Authority Page 15 of 62
Page 16
Statement in Support of Notice of Review Planning Application Ref: 26/00107/DPP Site Address: 2 Dundas Park, Bonnyrigg. We started this planning application with the intention of trying to design a front extension for the property that would fit nicely within the area be similar to extensions in the neighbouring streets. Please also see accompanying examples some front extenions took inspiration from, including the one which we are almost exactly the same as at 58 Dundas Street which is directly over the road. The applicant respectfully requests that the Local Review Body overturn the decision to refuse planning permission for the proposed front porch extension. The reason for refusal states that the extension would appear over-dominant on the principal elevation and would be prominent within the street scene, contrary to Policies 14 and 16 of National Planning Framework 4 and Policy DEV2 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan. We respectfully disagree with this conclusion for the following reasons. 1. The proposal is in keeping with the surrounding area The proposed porch is not an unusual or isolated form of development. There are a number of properties within the surrounding area that have front extensions or porches of a similar scale and appearance. As such, the proposal would not appear out of character or introduce an alien feature into the streetscape. The decision notice provides no evidence that this proposal is materially different from existing developments nearby. We therefore consider the conclusion that the extension would be uncharacteristic of the area to be unsupported. 2. The Council’s own discussions demonstrate the proposal is acceptable in principle During discussions with the Planning Officer, it was indicated that the proposal could receive a favourable recommendation if the projection of the extension were reduced by approximately 300mm. This is an important consideration. A reduction of only 300mm would result in a negligible visual difference when viewed from the public street. It is therefore difficult to reconcile how an extension that is acceptable at one dimension becomes unacceptable solely because of such a marginal increase. This suggests that the proposal is fundamentally acceptable in planning terms and that the refusal is based on a very fine distinction that has little practical or visual impact. 3. The proposal has a genuine functional need The extension has not been designed simply to maximise additional floorspace. Page 16 of 62
Page 17
While personal circumstances are not the primary consideration in determining planning applications, they are a material consideration where there is no corresponding demonstrable harm to visual amenity. 4. No demonstrable harm has been identified The proposed porch remains modest in scale, is sympathetic to the existing dwelling and has been designed using materials and detailing that complement the existing property. The Council has not identified any adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity, road safety, daylight, privacy or overlooking. The refusal rests solely on a subjective assessment of appearance. Given the existence of similar developments in the locality and the Planning Officer’s own indication that a marginal reduction of only 300mm would make the proposal acceptable, we consider that the perceived visual impact has been overstated. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, we respectfully request that the Local Review Body overturn the refusal and grant planning permission. The proposal represents a modest, sympathetic addition to the dwelling that reflects development already present within the surrounding area. and would not result in unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the street scene. We therefore respectfully ask that the review be upheld and planning permission granted. Page 17 of 62
Page 18
MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING APPLICATION DELEGATED WORKSHEET: Planning Application Reference:26/00107dpp Site Address: 2 Dundas Park Bonnyrigg Site Description: The application property comprises a semi-detached two storey dwellinghouse, and its associated garden, located within a primarily residential area. The house is finished externally in drydash render with white plastic-coated window frames and brown concrete contoured roof tiles. There is an outbuilding at the side of the house and two sheds in the back garden. Proposed Development: Ercetion of porch Proposed Development Details: It is proposed to erect a porch extension at the front of the house measuring 5m wide and 2.6m deep. External materials have not been specified. Background (Previous Applications, Supporting Documents, Development Briefs): History sheet checked. 21/00035/dpp - Erection of porch at 58 Dundas Street, Bonnyrigg - porch at the front of the house measuring 1.85m deep and 4.85m wide with a monopitch roof – pp 09.03.21 The agent has advised the following in relation to policy 1 of NPF4: natural and reclaimed materials to be used; local contractor to be used; materials to be sourced locally where possible; proposal to comply with building regulations with regard to insulation and energy efficiency; and where possible bee and bird nest bricks to be installed. Consultations: Bonnyrigg and District Community Council – state the erection of a porch is a form of development that would normally be expected to have minimal wider community impact. The Community Council raises no objection and is content for matters of design, scale, and siting to be assessed by the Planning Authority against relevant Local Development Plan policies. Representations: None received. Relevant Planning Policies: Appendix C Page 18 of 62
Page 19
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 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. It is noted that policy DP6 House Extensions, from the now superseded 2008 Midlothian Local Plan, set out design guidance for new extensions requiring that they are well designed in order to maintain or enhance the appearance of the house and the locality. The policy guidelines contained in DP6 also relate to size of extensions, materials, impact on neighbours and remaining garden area. It also states that front porches to detached or semi-detached houses are usually acceptable provided they project less than two metres out from the front of the house. It also allowed for novel architectural solutions. The guidance set out within this policy has been successfully applied to development proposals throughout Midlothian. 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. Given that recently published building regulations require increased insulation in house extensions, which helps reduce heat loss and can reduce energy Page 19 of 62
Page 20
consumption in the home, along with other measures proposed, the proposed development will contribute to addressing the global climate crisis. The proposed development will not exacerbate the global nature crisis. Therefore the proposed development complies with the aims of policy 1 of NPF4. In principle the erection of a porch at the front of the house does not conflict with development plan policy. Extensions to the fronts of houses are generally approved if they are small and sympathetically designed; in these cases the existing character of the individual house and of the street scene is retained. The majority of such extensions are front porches, a main purpose of which is to give added protection to the entrance door to the house, and usually these do not project more than 2 metres from the front wall of the original house. At 2.6m deep and 5m wide the proposed extension will be a very prominent bulky addition attached to the front of the house. The porch extension will appear over- dominant on the public front elevation and would be very prominent in the street scene detracting from both the appearance of the application property and the street scene. E-mail sent to agent requesting that in order to reduce the massing of the porch and its impact on the character of the existing building and its prominence in the street scene it should be reduced to 2m in depth as measured externally. Compromise of a reduction in the depth to 2.3m suggested to the agent. The agent has responded that both he and the applicant consider that this proposal is not out of character for the locality as there is a very similar front porch/extension opposite. Also, the applicant is not wanting to reduce the proposal in size as it will not allow them to achieve what they need for future proofing ground floor sanitary requirements and a suitable disabled / accessible entrance to the property. The agent states that a reduction in the depth of the porch would not suit the requirements of the applicant and that the current scheme is the arrangement that they would need to make it worthwhile constructing. The porch referred to by the agent is at 58 Dundas Street. The approved scheme for this property is for a 4.85m wide and 1.85m deep porch. Taking into account the width of the proposed porch at the application site it appears that it would still be possible to accommodate both the widened internal access and a wc at a reduced depth. There are no material considerations which would justify approval of the current scheme which would both detract from the character of the existing building and the visual amenity of the area. The porch will not have a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Recommendation: Refuse planning permission Page 20 of 62
Page 21
Page 21 of 62
Page 22
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 22 of 62
Page 23
SGN Informative Note: There are several risks created by built over gas mains and services; these are: • Pipework loading – pipes are at risk from loads applied by the new structure and are more susceptible to interference damage. • Gas entry into buildings – pipework proximity increases risk of gas entry in buildings. Leaks arising from previous external pipework able to track directly into main building from unsealed entry. • Occupier safety – lack or no fire resistance of pipework, fittings, or meter installation. Means of escape could be impeded by an enclosed meter. Please note therefore, if you plan to dig, or carry out building work to a property, site, or public highway within our gas network, you must: 1. Check your proposals against the information held at https://www.linesearchbeforeudig.co.uk/ to assess any risk associated with your development 2. (Intermediate Pressure and below) If there is an issue with LSBUD, you can contact our Plant Protection team to let them know. Plant location enquiries must be made via email, but you can phone us with general plant protection queries. See our contact details below: Phone 0800 912 1722 / Email plantlocation@sgn.co.uk 3. (High Pressure Only) directly contact our plant protection team where it is known that the development is in proximity to High Pressure Pipeline(s) plantprotectionandpipelinesnorth@sgn.co.uk In the event of an overbuild on our gas network, the pipework must be altered, you may be temporarily disconnected, and your insurance may be invalidated. Further information on safe digging practices can be found here: • Our free Damage Prevention e-Learning only takes 10-15 minutes to complete and highlights the importance of working safely near gas pipelines, giving clear guidance on what to do and who to contact before starting any work https://www.sgn.co.uk/damage- prevention • Further information can also be found here https://www.sgn.co.uk/help-and- advice/digging-safely SGN personnel will contact you accordingly. Page 23 of 62
Page 24
Appendix E Page 24 of 62
Page 25
Page 25 of 62
Page 26
Page 26 of 62
Page 27
Local Review Body Monday 21 September 2026 Item No 5.2 Notice of Review: Land West of Springfield House, Lasswade 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 erection of 15 holiday lodges and office building; formation of access road, parking, landscaping and associated works at land west of Springfield House, Lasswade. 2 Background 2.1 Planning application 25/00666/DPP for the erection of 15 holiday lodges and office building; formation of access road, parking, landscaping and associated works at land west of Springfield House, Lasswade was refused planning permission on 20 March 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); • A copy of the decision notice, excluding the standard advisory notes, issued on 20 March 2026 (Appendix D); and • A copy of the key plans/drawings (Appendix E). 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 27 of 62
Page 28
• 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 five consultation responses (including an objection from the Bonnyrigg and District Community Council) and two representations (objections). As part of the review process the interested parties were notified of the review – two additional comments have been received reinforcing their objections. 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 28 of 62
Page 29
2. Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with any contamination of the site and/or previous mineral workings has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. The scheme shall contain details of the proposals to deal with any contamination and/or previous mineral workings and include: i. the nature, extent and types of contamination and/or previous mineral workings on the site; ii. measures to treat or remove contamination and/or previous mineral workings to ensure that the site is fit for the uses hereby approved, and that there is no risk to the wider environment from contamination and/or previous mineral workings originating within the site; iii. measures to deal with contamination and/or previous mineral workings encountered during construction work; and iv. the condition of the site on completion of the specified decontamination measures. Before any part of the site is occupied for holiday accommodation purposes, the measures to decontaminate the site shall be fully implemented as approved by the planning authority. 3. On completion of the decontamination/ remediation works required in condition 2 and prior to the lodges and office being occupied on site, a validation report or reports shall be submitted to the planning authority confirming that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. No part of the development shall be occupied until this report has been approved by the planning authority. Reason for conditions 2 and 3: To ensure that any contamination on the site/ground conditions is adequately identified and that appropriate decontamination measures/ground mitigation measures are undertaken to mitigate the identified risk to site users and construction workers, built development on the site, landscaped areas, and the wider environment; to ensure the remediation works are undertaken. 4. No development shall be undertaken until details of the proposed water supply have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. If the lodges and office are to connect to the public water supply, details of the connection shall be submitted. If the lodges and office are to connect to a private water supply, details of the proposed supply, including capacity of the water storage tank, confirmation that the source and storage facilities are sufficient and that the supply is adequate both in terms of sufficiency and wholesomeness to service the lodges and off shall be submitted. Before the lodges and office are occupied the installation of the water supply hereby approved shall be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Page 29 of 62
Page 30
Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate water supply facilities prior to occupation; to comply with Policy 22 of National Planning Framework 4. 5. Development shall not begin on site until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority: a) Details and samples of all external finishing materials for the proposed lodges, office and any other structures; b) Details of the proposed materials of the areas of hardstanding; c) Details of the design, position, dimensions, materials and finish of all proposed walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure; d) Details of the proposed solar panels; e) Details of a sustainability/biodiversity scheme for the site; f) Details of the proposed drainage system for the proposal; g) Details of the proposed surface water management scheme; and h) A landscape plan, including details of a scheme of landscaping for the site. Details shall include the position, number, size and species of all trees and shrubs proposed, as well as identifying all trees on site which are proposed to be removed and retained. Thereafter, the development hereby approved shall accord with the details agreed in terms of this condition. Reason: These details were not submitted as part of the application: to ensure the development is finished in high quality materials; to protect the visual amenity of the surrounding area; to ensure the lodges and office are provided with adequate amenity; to help integrate the proposal into the surrounding area; to ensure there is adequate drainage; to comply with policies RD1, DEV5, DEV6, DEV7, ENV6, ENV7 and ENV11 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 3, 6, 13, 14, 17 and 22 of National Planning Framework 4. 6. The areas of hardstanding agreed in terms of condition 5b) shall be surfaced in a porous material. 7. The means of drainage treatment and disposal approved in relation to conditions 5f) and 5g) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority before the holiday accommodation is brought into use. Reason for conditions 6 and 7: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate drainage facilities prior to occupation; to ensure that the site is adequately drained in the interests of the amenity of the area; to comply with policy ENV9 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 22 of National Planning Framework 4. Page 30 of 62
Page 31
8. The scheme of landscaping hereby approved in condition 5h) shall be carried out and completed within six months of the office or first lodge either being completed or brought into use, whichever is the earlier date. Any trees removed, dying, severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees of a size and species similar to those originally required. Reason: To ensure the landscaping is carried out and becomes successfully established; to comply with policy ENV11 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 3 and 6 of National Planning Framework 4. 9. Unless otherwise approved in writing, prior to the occupation of the office or lodges, hereby approved, this shall be provided with full fibre broadband connection. Reason: To encourage, promote and facilitate the roll-out of digital infrastructure. 10. The works hereby approved shall not be carried out during the months of March to August inclusive, unless approved in writing by the planning authority after a check for nesting birds is completed by a suitably competent person within 48 hours of works commencing and, in the event an active nest is found, an appropriate protection zone to the satisfaction of the planning authority is in place within which there can be no works until the related chicks have fledged. 11. The works hereby approved shall comply with the recommendations in section 5 in the approved Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated 22 January 2026. Reason for conditions 10 and 11: To demonstrate that protected species would not be adversely affected by the proposed works; to comply with policy ENV15 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 3 and 4 of National Planning Framework 4. 12. The lodges hereby approved shall be occupied solely as holiday accommodation for periods of no more than 4 consecutive weeks and shall not be used as a sole or main residence. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt; policy support is for the creation of holiday accommodation but not dwellinghouses in this location; to comply with policy RD1 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 29 of National Planning Framework 4. Page 31 of 62
Page 32
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: 8 September 2026 Report Contact: Mhairi-Anne Cowie, Planning Officer Background Papers: Planning application 25/00666/DPP available for inspection online. Page 32 of 62
Page 33
Page 33 of 62
Page 34
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 100758713-001 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 acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Sir Frank Mears Associates Ltd Suzanne McIntosh Bath Street 45C EH15 1HB United Kingdom Edinburgh Portobello Appendix B Page 34 of 62
Page 35
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Site Address Details Mr JOHN LESSEL'S LANDSCAPING John Midlothian Council Lessels SPRINGFIELD Polton POLTON Springfield BONNYRIGG LASSWADE EH18 1EB Scotland 664508 Lasswade 329002 BonnyriggWM Inverkeithing Ltd Page 35 of 62
Page 36
Page 3 of 5 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. 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) ERECTION OF 15 HOLIDAY LODGES, OFFICE BUILDING, FORMATION OF ACCESS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS See Separate Statement Page 36 of 62
Page 37
Page 4 of 5 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? * 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) 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 If there are reasons why you think the local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here. (Max 500 characters) all application documents plus the Notice of review Statement 25/00666/DPP 20/03/2026 By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates Access can be easily arranged 22/01/2026 The existing state of the buildings on site and their contribution to the setting and landscape are material considerations that the LRB will want to familiarise themselves with. They will also wish to see the site and surrounding and access into the site. Page 37 of 62
Page 38
Page 5 of 5 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. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mrs Suzanne McIntosh Declaration Date: 16/06/2026 Payment Details Pay Direct Created: 16/06/2026 08:09 Page 38 of 62
Page 39
REQUEST FOR REVIEW MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION 25/00666/DPP LAND WEST OF SPRINGFIELD HOUSE, LASSWADE ERECTION OF 15 HOLIDAY LODGES, OFFICE BUILDING, FORMATION OF ACCESS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS MR LESSELS WM INVERKEITHING LTD SIR FRANK MEARS ASSOCIATES LTD Page 39 of 62
Page 40
SUMMARY Planning permission was refused on 20.3.26. Each of the reasons for refusal is set out below with the applicant’s response on each for ease of reference. The Local Review Body is respectfully requested to consider the points made by the applicant below and in all the supporting submissions provided for the application and overturn the officer’s decision based on the arguments on balance. There is an overriding need for appropriately located visitor accommodation in Midlothian. The applicant’s sizeable commercial site has previously been refused for residential use in 2015 (15/0994/DPP). In seeking to provide an appropriate re-use of the site with impacts capable of being mitigated visitor accommodation was chosen. The LRB will note that the site has a certificate of lawfulness for the commercial use as a landscape business yard, office, machinery and plant storage – this is a material consideration in the review. The benefits of attracting visitors to Midlothian and providing quality short stay accommodation brings significant benefits to the area through local employment, local services, supporting food and drinks establishments, museum, theatre and events venues and of course fiscal benefits to the local authority through licensing, planning et al. Each of these issues has been carefully thought out by the applicant in formulating their business plan and it is hoped that the elected members of Midlothian see the benefit in these too. The applicant in addition to his longstanding landscape business also operates serviced apartments/ hotel accommodation in Fife so knows the holiday accommodation market. We are happy to answer any questions the LRB may have and facilitate a visit to the site. We will also gratefully receive any comments or changes the LRB may wish to suggest to the scheme and would encourage the LRB to look to conditioning a planning permission rather than refusing it. Page 40 of 62
Page 41
REASONS FOR REFUSAL AND REBUTTALS 1. It has not been demonstrated that the holiday accommodation use is linked to a related existing development in the Green Belt and so the proposal does not comply with policy VIS2 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. Applicant’s response: In reason 1 Midlothian LDP policy VIS2 is irrelevant and outdated. It does not relate to the current Scottish policy stance as set out in NPF4. The relevant policy criteria set out in NPF4 is Policy 30 Tourism which takes precedence over the outdated Midlothian LDP 2017 as the most up to date policy relating to Tourism. The LRB must therefore discount reason for refusal 1 and consider the proposal in terms of NPF4. 2. Due to the lack of existing landscaping and inadequate proposed landscaping, the proposed development would be highly visible and prominent in the surrounding rural landscape, special landscape area and at the edge of a river valley. The proposed development would not be integrated into but would have a significant adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of this sensitive area. Applicant’s response: The applicant’s lifelong business has been Landscaping Services. He has served Midlothian well as an employer and local business. Many of the superb landscapes on the extensive Midlothian housing developments that you pass daily have been undertaken and implemented by his firm John Lessels Landscapes. The applicant has been proactive in identifying early the works that were required to poor condition, self-sown trees/ saplings, scrub and bushes around the application site. When the case officer visited he was not given the chance to explain his rationale. He sought to remove and replace the self-sown, densely packed saplings that had become trees by default with appropriate screening and landscaping – none of which requires the benefit of planning permission. He found he was berated by the case officer for taking this initiative. No matter what happens on this site – he needed to be proactive in removing unsuitable self-sown planting and replacing it with good quality, purposeful trees that will provide a richer level of biodiversity and more appropriate visual screen over time. The LRB must therefore discount reason 2 as irrelevant given the landscaping around the site is a work in Page 41 of 62
Page 42
progress and will happen regardless of this decision. A positive decision will however benefit from the new boundary planting. 3. The proposed layout is very dense with a suburban design and character which does not respect, reflect or enhance the surrounding rural area or special landscape area. Applicant’s comments: The site is and will continue to be secluded and enclosed. It is a dense pattern of dilapidated buildings at present that impacts negatively on the landscape setting. The layout proposed is driven by the market demand for this type of visitor accommodation and is entirely suitable in that regard and appropriate in this context. The LRB will be familiar with this type of offer as exists elsewhere in the Lothians and is popular with families, particularly where people have mobility issues. The LRB must discount reason number 3 as irrelevant. 4. Dated For the above reasons, the proposal is contrary to policies VIS2, DEV6, DEV7, ENV1, ENV6, ENV7 and ENV11 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 6, 8, 14, 29 and 30 of the National Planning Framework 4. Applicant’s response: For the reasons stated in number 1 above the policies of the current, outdated Midlothian LDP from 2017 are irrelevant in the context of the NPF4 policies. NPF4, as confirmed by the Scottish Government Chief Planner takes precedence in the consideration of this review. NPF4 policy 6, 8, 14, 29 and 30 are identified by the officer as relevant. The applicant’s supporting Planning Statement goes through the relevant NPF4 policies in detail. The LRB must set aside the outdated policies of the Midlothian LDP and consider the proposal in the light of the NPF4 policies. NPF4 Policy 6 Forrest/ Woodland/ Trees – the applicant has stated in the supporting statement and in relation to reason 2 above the position relating to trees. The proposal complies with Policy 6 as set out in the Supporting Planning Statement (para 5.7). If the LRB wish to condition a detailed landscape plan then it is within it’s power to do so. The extent of the land ownership of the applicant is shown in blue on the submissions. MPF4 Policy 8 Green Belts – the re-use of this commercial, brownfield site (as confirmed by the certificate of lawfulness issued in 2005) within the greenbelt for an appropriate use that meets a Midlothian demand must be considered. The proposal complies with Policy 8 as set out in the Supporting Planning Statement (para 5.9). Page 42 of 62
Page 43
NPF4 Policy 14 Design Quality – the proposal is of a suitable location, quality and layout required for a visitor accommodation site. The sustainable materials and proposed enclosed setting are all positive benefits when compared to the site at present as the LRB will witness when it visits the site. The use for visitor accommodation is far less intrusive that other uses that could be proposed under the certificate of lawfulness. The case officer does not appear to have considered that in the weighting of their consideration in the report of handling. The proposal complies with Policy 14 as set out in the Supporting Planning Statement (para 5.16). NPF4 Policy 29 Rural Development – Supporting Planning Statement (para 5.19) sets out the benefits of this rural development in scale, location, layout, design and benefits to the rural economy. It concludes the proposal complies with Policy 29. NPF4 Policy 30 Tourism - Supporting Planning Statement (para 5.20) concludes that the proposal will provide an appropriate use and facility to service a need in Midlothian that will bring benefits to the local economy and visitor experience. The LRB are asked to consider the arguments put forward in the Supporting Planning Statement and conclude that the proposal complies with Policy 30. 5. The application site lies within the River North Esk river valley protection area and it has not been demonstrated that there is a locational need for the proposed development. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policy ENV8 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. Applicant’s response: Locational need is not a current, up to date planning policy requirement required by the overriding policy stance set out in NPF4 but one set out in this outdated policy that has been superseded. Locational need and the river valley protection area are two distinct issues that have been rolled into one as though they relate to each other in this reason for refusal. The relevance of the LDP policy is superseded by the more forward looking, broader policies in NPF4. The LRB must set aside this reason for refusal as outdated. 6. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development can be provided with an acceptable water supply. It has also not been demonstrated that that the proposal cannot connect to the public water supply and drainage infrastructure which is available in the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 22 of the National Planning Framework 4. Page 43 of 62
Page 44
Applicant’s response: Water supply provision and quality can be a condition of a planning permission. The LRB must note that the site and adjacent house are served by a clean water supply. There is no reason why the site may not be. The LRB are asked to condition the water supply details as a suspensive condition if they see fit. However the LRB must question why NPF4 Policy 22 is included in reason no 6 as it does not relate to water supply but to Flood risk and water management. The LRB must therefore discount reason for refusal 6 as irrelevant. We are unsure why the issue of water supply provision and suitability has been conflated with Policy 22’s parameters which relate to flood risk and water management. Stating this is an issue isn’t correct. The LRB will be able to see the details of the treatment of surface water run off and drainage provision in the scheme and as set out in para 5.17 of the Supporting Planning Statement and satisfy themselves through the use of suspensive conditions on this issue. GENERAL POINTS The LRB must also note that no comments on the scheme were provided by the case officer to the applicant to give them the opportunity to address any of these issues before they took their decision. There is a compelling argument why the proposal in principle is acceptable as the reuse of this commercial site. If the LRB wish to amend the scheme to render it acceptable to them, then that can be considered. We look forward to the LRB visiting the site and know that they will give their full consideration to each of these points. Suzanne C McIntosh MRTPI HonFRIAS FRSA 12.6.26 Page 44 of 62
Page 45
MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING APPLICATION DELEGATED WORKSHEET: Planning Application Reference: 25/00666/DPP Site Address: Land West of Springfield House, Lasswade. Site Description: The application site comprises buildings and a yard in use as an established landscape business. The site is relatively flat, with an existing access to the field to the southwest which is at a higher level than the rest of the site. There is a retaining wall between this and the rest of the site. The buildings are single storey with brick, render and blockwork walls and sheet roofs. There is a house to the east which is under the control of the applicant, as is the land to the north, east and southeast, which is used for grazing horses, and the access road from Polton Road West. The land to the northwest slopes down to the River North Esk. There is a field to the west separated from the site by a core path, The Cast. There was a tree belt along the west and northwest boundaries but this has recently been felled. The site is within the Green Belt and a special landscape area. This is adjacent to the Mavisbank Conservation Area to the north and northwest and the Roslin Glen and Hawthornden Castle Garden and Designed Landscape to the west and south. Proposed Development: Erection of 15 holiday lodges and office building; formation of access road, parking, landscaping and associated works. Proposed Development Details: The existing buildings will be demolished and 15 holiday lodges and one office building erected. The lodges are 10.7 metres long by 3.7 metres wide and 3.5 metres high with a pitched roof. These have brown aluminium cladding walls, dark grey roofs, window frames and doors. The office building is 16 metres long by 5.9 metres wide and 3.5 to 3.9 metres including the underbuild. This has reclaimed brick finished in smooth off white render or light grey timber cladding walls with a brick basecourse, a green roof and solar panels. There is a small open porch. This building contains an office, reception, shop and laundry. Thirty-six parking spaces are proposed, four with electric vehicle charging points. Hardstanding is porous block paving, grids on grass, gravel and tarmac. A play area at the north of the site will have a rubber surface. Ground mounted solar lights are proposed along the access to the lodges. Private drainage is proposed, namely a treatment plant and soakaway/ecosystem pond. The application form states there will be a private water supply. Healthy mature trees will be retained, with diseased or dead trees removed and the tree belt interplanted with new small and medium trees. Bat and swift boxes and bee bricks are proposed. The existing post and wire fence and fences are to be made good. A refuse area and compost store for garden waste are proposed. The existing retaining wall and access to the field to the southwest are retained. Appendix C Page 45 of 62
Page 46
A planning and design statement, transport statement and preliminary ecological assessment have been submitted. These provide a rationale for the application and confirm the existing landscape business is relocating elsewhere in Midlothian. Background (Previous Applications, Supporting Documents, Development Briefs): Application site 05/00694/CL Application for certificate of Lawfulness of existing use as yard and ancillary office. Approved. Application site, house to east and access road 15/00994/DPP Erection of 5 dwellinghouses; formation of access road and associated works. Refused – contrary to countryside and Green Belt policies; adverse impact on landscape character of the area and AGLV; not demonstrated there is a locational need for the development in a river valley. Appealed to LRB and dismissed for the same reasons; 14/00939/DPP Erection of five dwellinghouses; formation of access road and associated parking area. Withdrawn. Consultations: The Bonnyrigg and District Community Council object stating: • The proposal is contrary to policies ENV1, ENV6, ENV8 and ENV11 and similar policies in NPF4; • This is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. While it is stated the site is brownfield, the proposal is for a permanent tourism and leisure use that conflicts with the fundamental objectives of Green Belt policy; • The proposal is a material urbanising effect within a designated landscape; • Tourism development must respect rural character within site boundaries and its wider landscape context. The site is within a SLA and protection of river valleys area meaning the wider valley landscape is of significant visual and environmental importance. The proposal erodes the undeveloped character of the valley setting. Even low-profile structures contribute to cumulative landscape change when located within sensitive valley environments; • Potential impact on protected species, through both development and increased human activity in ecologically sensitive areas. There is also potential for habitat disturbance, pressure for future tree works and incremental infrastructure or lighting impacts; • Developments bordering woodland frequently introduce long-term environmental pressures beyond the initial construction phase; and • Holiday accommodation developments introduce transient occupancy patterns, vehicle movements, and activity levels which may conflict with the established rural character and relative tranquillity of the valley setting. The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads) has some concerns. The access onto Polton Road West is narrow and cannot accommodate two-way traffic. Due to the nature of the proposal, the main users of the access will likely be unfamiliar with the area. The application is similar to two previous applications at the site and although the proposal is different, the access arrangements have not changed. The access road to the site is private and on non- Page 46 of 62
Page 47
adoptable roads. The trip generation provided within the transport statement is less vehicle traffic than the previous application. Signage may help with access concerns. The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services has no objection subject to conditions being attached to any grant of planning permission relating to ground contamination remediation works. The proposal would need a short term let licence, which is a different process to the current planning application. The Council’s Biodiversity Consultant has considered the submitted Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA). They confirm protected species have been considered and make some minor comments on the report including inaccuracies and recommendations for particular points to be included/referred to in the report. Scottish Water has no objection. They confirm there is public water supply infrastructure and foul only waste water capacity serving the area. They will not accept any surface water connections to the combined sewer. Representations: Two letters of objection have been received on the following grounds: - The proposal is contrary to policy; - Adverse impact on the visual amenity and landscape of the area; - The layout is badly designed and packed in, not respecting the surroundings; - The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site; - The site would be better returned to countryside; - Many trees around the site have been felled, despite the planning statement stating these will be retained. A very significant level of replanting will be required to replace the habitat already removed; - Lack of privacy between lodges; - Loss of privacy to existing properties; - Noise pollution from the lodges; - Security concerns; - Road safety concerns over the access that is used by 6 dwellings, the livery, 2 landowners accessing the site daily and pedestrians going to The Cast; - Queries over the number of vehicle trips stated in the Transport Statement; - The livery business referred to in the submissions is not run by Springfield Farm but is on Springfield House land; - The Transport Statement refers to ‘the farm’ instead of Springfield House on a number of occasions. These are different properties; - The Cast is a track mainly used by horses, is not maintained, is steep and rutted, where run-off from the fields flow. This is not an attractive proposition for walkers, with limited use by locals because of this; - There is no reference to electric vehicle charging points; - The reasons for previously refusing 5 houses are applicable in this proposal; - Query over the need for the proposal given the number of holiday accommodation units in the area; - While the applicant lives in the adjacent house and is responsible for running the proposed lodges, they could sell and move at any time; and - Query why there are two businesses involved in the application. Relevant Planning Policies: The development plan is comprised of National Page 47 of 62
Page 48
Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. The following policies are relevant to the proposal: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) - Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crises; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis. - Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. - Policy 3 Biodiversity; sets out to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. - Policy 4 Natural Places; sets out to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. - Policy 5 Soils; sets out to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development. The policy also sets out acceptable scenarios for development on prime agricultural land. - Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees; sets out to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. - Policy 8 Green belts; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate compact urban growth and use the land around our towns and cities sustainably. - Policy 9 Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. - Policy 13 Sustainable Transport; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. - Policy 14 Design, quality and place; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. - Policy 15 Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. - Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure; sets out to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. - Policy 22 Flood risk and water management; sets out to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. - Policy 24 Digital Infrastructure; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the rollout of digital infrastructure across Scotland to unlock the potential of all our places and the economy. - Policy 29 Rural development; sets out to encourage rural economic activity, innovation and diversification whilst ensuring that the distinctive character of the rural area and the service function of small towns, natural assets and cultural heritage are safeguarded and enhanced. Page 48 of 62
Page 49
- Policy 30 Tourism; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with our net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. The relevant policies of the 2017 Midlothian Local Development Plan (MLDP) are; DEV5 Sustainability in New Development sets out the requirements for development with regards to sustainability principles; DEV6 Layout and Design of New Development requires good design and a high quality of architecture, in both the overall layout of developments and their constituent parts. The layout and design of developments are to meet listed criteria; DEV7 Landscaping in New Development requires development proposals to be accompanied by a comprehensive scheme of landscaping. The design of the scheme is to be informed by the results of an appropriately detailed landscape assessment; TRAN5 Electric Vehicle Charging seeks to support and promote the development of a network of electric vehicle charging stations by requiring provision to be considered as an integral part of any new development or redevelopment proposals; IT1 Digital Infrastructure supports the incorporation of high speed broadband connections and other digital technologies into new homes, business properties and redevelopment proposals; VIS2 Tourist Accommodation states proposals for the development of hotels or self- catering tourist accommodation will be supported, provided the proposal: is in a scale and in keeping with the character or the local area; is sited and designed to respect its setting and is located in an unobstructed manner within the rural landscape; is well located in terms of the strategic road network and maximises public transport access; and is accordance with the following. Proposals for self-catering tourist accommodation will be permitted where: the proposal is not within the Green Belt unless linked to some related existing development; the proposal is of a character and scale in keeping with the rural setting and can be located in an unobtrusive manner; and the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal is for the furtherance of a viable long-term business; ENV1 Protection of the Green Belt states development will not be permitted in the Green Belt except for proposals that: are necessary to agriculture, horticulture or forestry; or provide opportunities for access to the open countryside, outdoor sport or outdoor recreation which reduce the need to travel further afield; or are related to other uses appropriate to the rural character of the area; or provide for essential infrastructure; or form development that meets a national requirement or established need if no other site is available. Any development proposal will be required to show that it does not conflict with the overall objective of the Green Belt which is to maintain the identity and landscape setting of the City and Midlothian towns by clearly identifying their physical boundaries and preventing coalescence. This policy states that housing will normally only be permissible where it is required for the furtherance of an established Green Belt activity, as detailed above. The applicant will be required to show the need for the new dwelling is permanent; cannot be met within an existing settlement; and that the occupier will be employed full-time in the associated countryside activity; ENV6 Special Landscape Areas states development proposals in such areas will only be permitted where they incorporate high standards of siting and design and where they will not have a significant adverse effect on the special landscape qualities of the area; Page 49 of 62
Page 50
ENV7 Landscape Character states that development will not be permitted where it significantly and adversely affects local landscape character. Where development is acceptable, it should respect such character and be compatible in terms of scale, siting and design. New development will normally be required to incorporate proposals to maintain the diversity and distinctiveness of the local landscapes and to enhance landscape characteristics where they have been weakened; ENV8 Protection of River Valleys states development within the river valley protection areas of the Rivers North Esk, South Esk and Tyne will not be permitted unless there is a specific locational need for the development, and where this is established, development must demonstrate that it will not have an adverse impact either on the landscape and conservation value of the valleys or impede potential public access opportunities; ENV11 Woodland, Trees and Hedges states that development will not be permitted where it could lead directly or indirectly to the loss of, or damage to, woodland, groups of trees and hedges (including trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order, areas defined as ancient or semi-natural woodland, veteran trees or areas forming part of any designated landscape) which have particular amenity, nature conservation, biodiversity, recreation, landscape, shelter or historical value or are other importance; and ENV15 Species and Habitat Protection and Enhancement states that development that would affect a species protected by European or UK law will not be permitted unless: there is an overriding public need and there is no satisfactory alternative; a species protection plan has been submitted, which is based on survey results and includes details of the status of protected species on site and possible adverse impact of development; suitable mitigation is proposed and agreed; and the development is not detrimental to the maintenance of European protected species at a favourable conservation status. 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 primary focus of the NPF4 planning policies seek for developments to be sustainable and give consideration to the global climate and nature crises. In response to NPF4 the agent has stated: - The site is close to amenities, public transport, cycle and walking routes; - The proposal is the redevelopment of brownfield land; - Consideration was given to reusing the existing buildings but this is not possible as these are in such poor condition; - The demolished buildings materials will be reused in either the office building or material for the bases of the lodges where possible, with the rest sent to a Midlothian waste transfer station; - The lodges are made from sustainably source timber buildings; - The lodges are well insulated to provide heat retention and minimise energy consumption; - The office building will have a green roof; - Porous surfaces are proposed; - Additional and replacement planting is proposed; Page 50 of 62
Page 51
- The proposal considers biodiversity, integrating nature based solutions; - The proposals will enhance the area compared to the existing situation; and - There is support for the proposed sustainable tourism and economic development in rural areas. With regards to NPF4, this site is 0.3 miles from the public road and due to the nature of the proposed use it is unlikely to be accessed by foot. However, it is within 1 mile of a bus route with a frequency of 1 bus per hour. Despite this the development is likely to be car reliant. The measures listed above are welcomed but are generally expected as standard in development proposals. The proposals do not go beyond what is currently expected of developments. The development plan (NPF4 and MLDP) is generally supportive of self-catering development proposals, with a view to improving the range of tourist accommodation available in the Council area provided this meets a number of criteria. The application site is within the Green Belt. The MLDP states that self-catering tourist accommodation in the Green Belt will only be supported where it is linked to some related existing development. While there is an existing landscaping business on site at present, the submissions are clear that this is moving to another site within Midlothian leaving the land vacant, rather than the proposal being linked to this existing use. Also, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal is for the furtherance or diversification of a viable long-term business. Given this, there is no policy support in principle for the proposed lodge accommodation. Policy 9 of NPF4 states that development proposals that result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be considered. In this case, the site appears to still be in use as a yard, albeit to a lesser extent than in the past. This is not naturalised brownfield land. It is acknowledged that the site has poor biodiversity value at present and the proposal could improve this through appropriate planting and means to encourage wildlife, as well as addressing any historic contamination of the site. However, it does not follow that any development would be acceptable here. While the principle of holiday accommodation is not supported, the details of the proposal need to be considered. Policy requires proposals in rural and Green Belt areas to be suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with and appropriate to the character of the area. These should be sited and designed to respect the setting and located in an unobtrusive manner within the rural landscape, well integrated into this. New developments will be required to incorporate proposals to maintain the diversity and distinctiveness of local landscapes and to enhance landscape characteristics where they have been weakened. The site is located within an undulating landscape on the slopes of a river valley. Until recently there were treebelts along the northwest and southwest boundaries of the site. These formed important screens for views in and out of the site from the Page 51 of 62
Page 52
south, west and northwest. While some trees were within the application site, the majority were outwith the application site on land under the control of the applicant. The submissions state the site is screened to a great degree and the additional planting will enhance this. The trees around the site are mature, poor quality and self seeded that need maintenance and thinning. The mature trees are to be retained, with the diseased or dead trees removed and the tree belt interplanted with new small and medium trees. The proposed site plan shows the tree belts remaining along these boundaries. This also provides some initial details of landscape proposals, comprising individual tree planting of small and medium sized trees mainly located at the northern part of the site, reference to gapping up of existing hedgerows with native species and scattered seeding of wildflower seeding patches amongst the proposed cabins. The majority of the tree belts were felled in February. As these trees were sited outwith the conservation area and not covered by a Tree Preservation Order, no permission was required from the planning authority for their removal. The removal of these trees was extremely unfortunate. Due to the volume of trees being felled, a felling licence would have been required from Scottish Forestry. This was not sought, meaning these trees were felled without the appropriate permission. No tree survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment or adequate details of replacement planting were submitted to consider the condition of the trees or the proposed planting within the tree belts. The limited planting information does not include any significant buffer planting on the site edges. Based on the submissions, it appears that the expectation was that most of the tree belt would be retained. The site is visible across the valley, however the tree belts provided some containment of this. The felling of these means the site and therefore the proposal will be highly visible from views within and across the valley with no landscaping to integrate or soften this into the surroundings. The proposal will have a significant adverse landscape and visual impact on the surrounding rural area, the Green Belt and the North Esk Special Landscape Area which is immediately adjacent to the Mavisbank Conservation Area. The loss of the trees on the site edge means that the visual impact of the proposal would be exacerbated, as any screening or filtering that would have been offered by the tree line has now been removed. Also any replacement planting, including that referred to in the submissions, would not be fully established to provide effective screening in the lifetime of the development. The proposed layout of the lodges is very dense, with 15 lodges, an office building, 36 parking spaces, an access road, drainage and play area in a relatively small area of land. While the plans show some new planting to the northeast and southwest, there is no planting proposed between the lodges or other works to break up the site or provide privacy to the occupants of the lodges. The design of the lodges are relatively standard, appearing as large shed. Such lodges would generally be finished in timber and so the proposed use of aluminium cladding for the wall materials is unusual. The overall layout resulting in a suburban appearance with limited room to accommodate any landscaping which may help to alleviate this. The works would be highly visible in a prominent and sensitive location in the Green Belt. Page 52 of 62
Page 53
The proposal would and would adversely affect the landscape character of the area and is unacceptable on landscape grounds. The removal of the tree belts has also adversely impacted the green network connection along The Cast, which linked semi-ancient woodland to the site to the south west to woodland at Midfield House and linear shelterbelt trees along Polton Road West. There have been a number of objections regarding the existing access. The Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads) had some concerns over the proposal but overall has no formal objection. The existing access onto Polton Road West does not comply with current road safety requirements. Any improvements to this are restricted by the two lodge houses on either side of the access. The existing access currently appears to be operating adequately and given that the likely reduction in traffic generated from the proposed use it is considered acceptable for the proposed development. The site is located within the river valley protection area of the River North Esk and is, therefore, covered by policy ENV8. This policy states that there should be a locational need for the development in the river valley protection area. There is no specific locational need for the development at this site and so the proposal is contrary to policy RP9. A Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) was submitted which satisfactorily considered protected species as a result of the proposed works. However it should be highlighted that the PEA stated the site has limited biodiversity value other than the trees on the boundary. While the proposed works in the application may not have an adverse impact on protected species, the felling of the trees may have. The application proposed private drainage arrangements and water supply to the site. Scottish Water has confirmed that there is public water supply infrastructure and foul only waste water capacity in the area. Policy requires that proposals connect to the public water mains and if this is not feasible the applicant will need to demonstrate that water for drinking water will be sourced from a sustainable water source that is resilient to periods of water scarcity. Also the Councill’s Protective Services team will generally require details of the supply to ensure this is adequate. The site is within an area serviced by Scottish Water in respect to water supply and drainage infrastructure and so the proposal should connect to these existing provisions. No information has been provided stating why private arrangements are proposed or that these are acceptable. With regards to the construction at the site, mitigation measures regarding ground conditions and contamination and/or previous mineral workings must be considered. Conditions to protect future occupants and neighbouring land from the potential impact of contaminated land could be attached if the proposal was supported. The following section addresses representor comments not already covered. Page 53 of 62
Page 54
Due to the distance from the site to the nearest houses not occupied by the applicant, it is unlikely that noise or impact on privacy would have a significant adverse impact on existing occupants. The impact on security is not a material planning consideration, nor is the involvement of two businesses in the application, or the need for more holiday accommodation units when there are others in the area. The planning authority can only assess the application submitted, not alternative uses of the site such as a return to countryside. It is acknowledged that the applicant could move from the adjacent house and no longer be responsible for running the lodges. However, the acceptability of the proposal does not rely on this connection. Recommendation: Refuse planning permission. Page 54 of 62
Page 55
Refusal of Planning Permission Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Reg. No. 25/00666/DPP David Paton Building Consultancy 13 High Street Loanhead EH20 9RH Midlothian Council, as Planning Authority, having considered the application by WM Inverkeithing Ltd, Springfield, Polton, Bonnyrigg, Lasswade, EH18 1EB, which was registered on 22 January 2026 in pursuance of their powers under the above Acts, hereby refuse permission to carry out the following proposed development: Erection of 15 holiday lodges and office building; formation of access road, parking, landscaping and associated works at Land West of Springfield House, Lasswade in accordance with the application and the following documents/drawings: Document/Drawing. Drawing No/Scale Dated Location Plan Pn1 A 1:5000 1:1250 22.01.2026 Site Plan Pn3 1:200 22.01.2026 Site Plan Pn4 1:200 22.01.2026 Proposed Cross Section Pn5 A 1:200 22.01.2026 Site Plan, Elevations Pn6 A 1:1000 1:200 1:50 22.01.2026 Ecology/Wildlife Report/Survey Preliminary Ecological Assessment 22.01.2026 The reasons for the Council's decision are set out below: 1. It has not been demonstrated that the holiday accommodation use is linked to a related existing development in the Green Belt and so the proposal does not comply with policy VIS2 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 2. Due to the lack of existing landscaping and inadequate proposed landscaping, the proposed development would be highly visible and prominent in the surrounding rural landscape, special landscape area and at the edge of a river valley. The proposed development would not be integrated into but would have a significant adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of this sensitive area. 3. The proposed layout is very dense with a suburban design and character which does not respect, reflect or enhance the surrounding rural area or special landscape area. Appendix D Page 55 of 62
Page 56
Page 56 of 62
Page 57
Development Low Risk Area- STANDING ADVICE The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Mining Remediation Authority on 0345 762 6846 or if a hazard is encountered on site call the emergency line 0800 288 4242. Further information is also available on the Mining Remediation Authority website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/mining-remediation-authority Standing Advice valid from 1st January 2025 until 31st December 2026 Page 57 of 62
Page 58
Appendix E Page 58 of 62
Page 59
Page 59 of 62
Page 60
Page 60 of 62
Page 61
Page 61 of 62
Page 62
Page 62 of 62