Agenda Document Pack - Local Review Body - 16/12/2024
Midlothian Council · 16 December 2024
Back to Local Review Body — 16 December 2024 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: Council Chambers/Hybrid, Midlothian House, Dalkeith, EH22 1DN Date: Monday, 16 December 2024 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 108
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 meeting of Local Review Body 13 November 2024 Submitted for Approval 3 - 6 5 Public Reports Notice of Reviews - Determination Reports by Chief Officer Place 5.1 24/00412/DPP - Land at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade (written submissions - no oral representations at the meeting) 7 - 108 6 Private Reports No items for discussion 7 Date of Next Meeting Plans and papers relating to the applications on this agenda can also be viewed at https://planning-applications.midlothian.gov.uk/OnlinePlanning/ The next meeting will be held on Monday 3 February 2025 at 1.00pm. Page 2 of 108
Page 3
Minute of Meeting Local Review Body Monday 16 December 2024 Item No 4.1 Local Review Body Date Time Venue Monday 13 November 2024 1.00pm Council Chambers/Hybrid Present: Councillor Imrie (Chair) Councillor Alexander (Virtual) Councillor Cassidy Councillor Drummond (Virtual) Councillor McEwan Councillor McKenzie (Substitute for Councillor Bowen) Councillor Milligan Councillor Smaill Councillor Virgo (Virtual) In Attendance: Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Derek Oliver Chief Officer Place Hannah Forbes Democratic Services Officer Nicola Thorburn Democratic Services Officer Page 3 of 108
Page 4
1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Local Review Body (LRB) and advised that due to an issue with the publication of the papers on the Council website the following business would be taken as urgent business. Apologises were received from Councillor Bowen but the Chair noted that Councillor McKenzie is attending as their substitute. 2 Order of Business The order of business was as outlined in the agenda. 3 Declarations of interest Councillor Smaill highlighted that they would recuse themselves during the agenda item 5.2 on the Melville Castle application. No other declarations of interest were intimated at this stage of the proceedings. 4 Minute of Previous Meeting The Minute of the Meeting of 23 September 2024 was submitted and approved as the correct record. 5 Reports Agenda No Report Title Presented by: 5.1 24/00346/DPP – 53 Chesters View, Bonnyrigg (Hearing) Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Outline of report and summary of discussion The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager presented the report which provides a framework for the LRB to consider a ‘Notice of Review’ for the erection of a 1.8m high fence to the side and rear (retrospective) at 53 Chesters View, Bonnyrigg. 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 Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager for the report and advised the applicant of the process that will follow. The Planning Officer spoke on behalf of the applicant and detailed their application. The Planning Officer highlighted that the new fence would remain the same height as Page 4 of 108
Page 5
the previous fence which was blown down due to high winds. The applicant is of pensioner age and the positioning of the house is on a safe walk to school route which has the potential to cause further damage to the property, for example walking over grass area. The fence will create a safety barrier to the property. The Planning Officer also advised the LRB of the colour of the fence and the placement of the house as the first house at the entrance of the cul-de-sac. The Chair thanked the Planning Officer for the report and opened the item for discussion and questions. Elected Members highlighted that there are houses in the area that currently have fencing at this height, and the aesthetic of the fence should be similar to the current fencing in the area. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager advised the Committee that the fence is not identical to the previous one. The height of the fence will remain the same, however the positioning of the fence has been brought out by 1.5 meters. The Chair asked the Planning Officer and the applicant to summarise their positions. The report was moved to grant planning permission by Councillor McEwan and seconded by Councillor Smaill. The Chair advised that the appeal has been upheld with subject to the conditions in the report. Decision The Local Review Body granted the planning application subject to the conditions in the report. Agenda No Report Title Presented by: 5.2 24/00206/S42 – Melville Castle, Lasswade Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Outline of report and summary of discussion Councillor Smaill left the meeting at 13:16. Due to not attending the site visit, Councillor Milligan recused themselves from the discussion. Councillor McKenzie noted for transparency that this item relates to their ward but assured that they had not shared their views regarding the matter. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager presented the report which provides a framework for the LRB to consider a ‘Notice of Review’ to vary condition 1 of planning permission 22/00444/S42 at Melville Castle, Lasswade. It is recommended that the LRB: Page 5 of 108
Page 6
a) determine the review; and b) the Planning Advisor draft and issue the decision of the LRB through the Chair. The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager for the report. The Chair made a statement highlighting that as the Chair of the Local Review Body, they would like to support the local business and therefore grant planning permission for the extension of time requested on the basis that any impact on the listed building is limited by the time extension. The Chair also noted that the Councils Environmental Health Officers have not objected to the planning application on noise grounds because of the mitigation measures put in place. The Chair recognised that there is a balancing act between supporting the business, protecting the setting of the listed building and protecting the amenity of local residents. The Chair encouraged the applicant, planning officers and other interested parties to work together to find a more permanent solution that gives the business certainty going forward. This was seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Decision The Local Review Body granted planning permission subject to conditions. 6. Private Reports No private business was discussed. 7. Date of Next Meeting The next meeting is scheduled for Monday 16 December 2024 at 13:00. The meeting terminated at 13:20. Page 6 of 108
Page 7
Local Review Body Monday 16 December 2024 Item No 5.1 Notice of Review: Land at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, 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 11 lodges and associated works at land at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade. 2 Background 2.1 Planning application 24/00412/DPP for the erection of 11 lodges and associated works at land at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade was refused planning permission on 11 October 2024; 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 11 October 2024 (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 7 of 108
Page 8
• 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 seven consultation responses, and four representations received (two objections and two neutral). As part of the review process the interested parties were notified of the review – four additional comments have been received (the Bonnyrigg and District Community Council, the Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council and the Coal Authority reaffirm their position as set out in the officers report and the neighbouring Melville Golf Centre states it agrees with the refusal of planning permission and confirm they have no interest in, or link too, the application). 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 conditions have 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. Page 8 of 108
Page 9
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 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. The intrusive site investigations and remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with authoritative UK guidance. 3. Prior to the occupation of the development, a validation report(s) shall be submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority confirming that the works referred to in Condition 2 have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved scheme. The validation report(s) shall confirm the completion of any remedial works and/or mitigation necessary to address the risks posed by past coal mining activity and that the site is, or has been made, safe and stable for the approved development. Reason for conditions 2 and 3: To ensure that any contamination and/ or previous mineral workings on the site are adequately identified and that appropriate decontamination/ mineral consolidation 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. 4. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawing no. 24012-P01H 1:500 Rev H, no approval is given for the proposed development to be accessed/ egressed from site access shown. Prior to the commencement of development, details of a revised site access shall be submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority. The submitted details shall demonstrate that the proposed access achieves visibility splays of 4.5mx120m and is clear of any obstruction. Page 9 of 108
Page 10
5. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the site access has been completed in accordance with the details approved under the terms of condition 4. Reason for conditions 4 and 5: The proposed development does not achieve the visibility required to accommodate the safe operation of a junction to serve 11 lodges which represents a significant highway safety issue. 6. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed water supply connection shall be submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority. No holiday lodge shall be occupied/ brought into use until the proposed water supply connection has been installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the lodges are provided with an adequate water supply prior to occupation. 7. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed drainage and treatment of surface water shall be submitted to the planning authority for approval in writing. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the planning authority, the surface water drainage strategy shall comply with the standards detailed in the SUDS Manual. No holiday lodge shall be occupied/brought into use until the proposed means of surface water drainage and treatment has been installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the site is provided with an adequate surface water drainage facility prior to occupation. 8. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed foul drainage strategy shall be submitted to the planning authority for approval in writing. This shall include confirmation that the existing septic tank shown on the approved drawing no. 24012- P01H 1:500 Rev H and which the proposed development is to connect into, has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Reason: To ensure that the site is provided with an adequate foul drainage facility prior to occupation. 9. Prior to the commencement of development, details and a sample of the external materials hereby approved shall be submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: To ensure the proposed materials are appropriate to site and surroundings. Page 10 of 108
Page 11
10. No development shall take place on the proposed site until the applicant has undertaken and reported upon a programme of archaeological work (field evaluation by trial trenching) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To protect the historic environment. 11. The development hereby approved shall be occupied solely as holiday accommodation and shall not be occupied as a sole or main place of residence or by any persons with no individual lodge occupied for periods of no more than 4 consecutive weeks by an individual occupier. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt this planning permission relates to visitor accommodation not the provision of dwelling houses. 12. Prior to the commencement of development, details of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i. existing and finished ground levels and floor levels for all buildings, open space and roads in relation to a fixed datum; ii. existing trees, landscaping features and vegetation to be retained, removed, protected during development and in the case of damage, restored; iii. proposed new planting including trees, shrubs, hedging and grassed areas; iv. schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density; v. programme for completion and subsequent maintenance of all soft and hard landscaping; vi. details of a scheme of biodiversity enhancements for the site, including provision of boxes for bats and birds, which have been informed by an ecological site survey(s); vii. details of a scheme of sustainability enhancements for the site; viii. location and design of any proposed walls, fences and gates, including those surrounding bin stores or any other ancillary structures; ix. details of proposed parking and hard surfacing; and x. details of proposed external lighting, specifying the location and details of any proposed lighting features including proposals for directional LED lighting, to minimise light spill and disturbance of wildlife. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the planning authority as the programme for completion and subsequent maintenance (v). Page 11 of 108
Page 12
Thereafter any trees or shrubs removed, dying, becoming seriously diseased or damaged within five years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees/shrubs of a similar species to those originally required. Reason: These details were not submitted in full as part of the application: to protect and enhance the visual amenity and landscaping of the area; to integrate the development into the area; to promote biodiversity. To ensure the development accords with the requirements of Policies DEV5, DEV6, DEV7, ENV6 and ENV7 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 1-3 of the National Planning Framework 4. 13. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until details of the provision and use of electric vehicle charging have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. No holiday lodge shall be occupied/brought into use until the electric charging points have been installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the development accords with the requirements of Policy TRAN5 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 14. Prior to the commencement of development, details of superfast fibre broadband shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The details shall include delivery of superfast fibre broadband prior to the occupation of the first lodge. The delivery of superfast fibre broadband shall be implemented as per the approved details. Reason: To ensure the development accords with the requirements of Policy IT1of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 5.2 If the LRB is minded to uphold the review and grant planning permission for the proposed development it shall be subject to a legal agreement to secure developer contributions towards the A7 urbanisation infrastructure project. The legal agreement shall be concluded prior to the issuing of the LRB decision. The legal agreement shall be concluded within 6 months of the resolution to grant planning permission, if the agreement is not concluded the review will be reported back to the LRB for reconsideration. 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 Page 12 of 108
Page 13
Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 5 December 2024 Report Contact: Eilidh Paul – Planning Officer eilidh.paul@midlothian.gov.uk Background Papers: Planning application 24/00412/DPP available for inspection online. Page 13 of 108
Page 14
N Midlothian Council Fairfield House 8 Lothian Road Dalkeith, EH22 3AA Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Crown copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Service Place Directorate Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2024) Erection of 11 lodges and associated works South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade, EH18 1AN File No. 24/00412/DPP Scale 1:1250 Appendix A Page 14 of 108
Page 15
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 100690425-001 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 RFA Development Richard Finc Cammo Grove 48 Home 07807027238 EH48EX Scotland Edinburgh rick.finc@rickfincassociates.com Appendix B Page 15 of 108
Page 16
Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Mr David Midlothian Council McMillan 12 Letham Mains 12 Letham Mains EH414NW South Melville Farm Paddock, Melville Dykes Road Scotland 666551 Haddington 331354 3 Walker Street Page 16 of 108
Page 17
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 11 Lodges and associated works at South Melville Farm Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade, EH181AN. See Statement of Review and Supporting Documents. Failure to agree with the Reasons for Refusal. Page 17 of 108
Page 18
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 1. Application Form Ref- 24/00412/DPP 2. Decision Notice Ref -24/00412/DPP 3. Report of Handling Ref -24/00412/DPP 4. Statement of Review - RFA Planning October 2024 5.MLLDP 2017 6. NPF4 2023 7. Design and Access Statement (QB Wood Architects) 8. Correspondence from Agent (10 August 2024) 9. Planning Statement (Application Ref 00412/DPP) (Premier Inn- Walshingham Planning) 10.Photographic Evidence (a; b and c) 11. Midlothian Standard Planning Conditions 24/00412/DPP 11/10/2024 By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates 26/06/2024 To assess and review the Green Belts status and Landscape / Townscape Character. To appreciate the development context and have regard for neighbouring uses. To assess the environmental and associated benefits of development. To satisfy that safe and convenient access can be achieved. Page 18 of 108
Page 19
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: Mr Richard Finc Declaration Date: 31/10/2024 Page 19 of 108
Page 20
Planning Policy Statement Premier Inn Edinburgh A7 (Dalkeith) hotel On behalf of Premier Inn Hotels Limited JULY 2024 Page 20 of 108
Page 21
CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 1 2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 2 3 PLANNING POLICY BACKGROUND ........................................ 3 4 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 4 5 SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 11 6 PLANNING BENEFITS................................................................ 13 7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 15 Page 21 of 108
Page 22
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Statement has been prepared by Walsingham Planning on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels
Limited ("the Applicant"). This Statement has been prepared to assist the Council in
considering the proposed development in principle, particularly concerning matters outlined
within the Development Plan and national policy regarding the principle of development.
1.2 The proposed development is the following:
“Extension to the existing hotel to provide additional bedrooms, together with alterations to
the car park and other associated works.”
1.3 The proposed development will deliver a public benefit in the form of a positive economic
impact. It will enhance a key element of the area's visitor accommodation and tourist offer. It
will improve the hotel's offer, addressing specific demands and operational requirements. The
proposal is a sustainable form of development, conforming with the overarching objectives of
the planning system and thus should be supported.
1.4 Premier Inn has identified a considerable demand for additional budget hotel accommodation
in this location. It is also acting to reconfigure the restaurant proposition to ensure it best fits
customers' needs in this location. This proposal for additional bedrooms and an adjusted
restaurant proposition would meet Premier Inn’s operational requirements at the location
and address the demand for its services.
Page 22 of 108Page 23
2 BACKGROUND SITE AND ITS SURROUNDS 2.1 The application site measures 0.84 hectares in area. It is accessed from the access road to the Melville Golf Centre, which connects with Melville Dykes Road (the A768). The application site is adjacent to the A7 and close to the A720 City Bypass. 2.2 The application site neighbours the driving range of the Melville Golf Centre. The A768 runs adjacent to the application site, which provides a link to the A7. A major housing development (Eskbank Gardens) is near the site, within approx.—200 m (separated by the A7 and landscaping). PLANNING HISTORY 2.3 The existing hotel was finished by 2011 after being approved in April 2009 (08/00510/FUL). This permitted the erection of a hotel and restaurant/public house with associated access road, car parking, landscaping and the erection of a fence. Regarding the fence, planning permissions have been granted for the erection of 9m high fence (11/00246/DPP), 15m high fence (12/00131/DPP), and a 20m high fence (13/00725/DPP) in 2014. 2.4 In December of 2020, Full Planning Permission was granted for an extension to the existing hotel, alterations to the car park layout and associated works. The extension to the hotel would have increased the occupancy by 26 rooms. The extension, as approved, measures 27 metres long by a maximum of 17 metres wide and a height of 10 metres with a hipped roof, and it would deliver a significant uplift in built form (volume and footprint). Thus, the principle of guest accommodation and the expansion of the offering to suit customer expectations is established in the long-term character (and approvals) of the application site. Page 23 of 108
Page 24
3 PLANNING POLICY BACKGROUND 3.1 Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts require that when an application is made, it shall be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. 3.2 The Development Plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) & Midlothian Local Development Plan (2017). 3.3 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was adopted by the Scottish Ministers on 13 February 2023 and forms part of the Council's Development Plan. NPF4 policies supports the planning and delivery of Sustainable Places, Liveable Places and Productive Places and are the key policies against which proposals for development are assessed. 3.4 Having regard to the legal requirement of Section 24(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts, in the event of any policy incompatibility between National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) & the Midlothian Local Development Plan (2017), the newer policy shall prevail. 3.5 A series of Supplementary Guidance documents produced by the Council aid in the interpretation of the policies of the Development Plan. Page 24 of 108
Page 25
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 4 4 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 4.1 Beginning with the NPF4. Policy 9 of the NFP4 explains that it intends to encourage, promote, and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land, and empty buildings, as well as to help reduce the need for greenfield development. Policy 9 has four criteria to achieve this: a) to d). 4.2 Policy 9(a) is of most significant relevance as it explains that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land will be supported. The proposal represents the sustainable reuse of brownfield land, hence complying with the emphasis on utilising brownfield land over greenfield land within Policy 9 of the NPF4. 4.3 Policy 27 explains that it intends to encourage, promote, and facilitate development in city and town centres, recognising that they are a national asset. This will be achieved by applying the Town Centre First approach to help centres adapt positively to long-term economic, environmental, and societal changes and by encouraging town-centre living. 4.4 To achieve this, Policy 27 has a series of considerations outlined in (a) to (g). Policy 27(b) explains that development proposals must be consistent with the town centre-first approach. 4.5 It is recognised that the site is out with a centre. The proposed use will generate some footfall within the context of NPF4 Policy 27, although it is questionable if this in itself will be significant. Hence, it bears consideration as to whether the proposal could be implemented within a centre. In this instance, as the proposals relate to an existing well-performing site whereby sufficient demand has been identified to warrant an application seeking approval for additional rooms, it is not the case that the development proposed can be disaggregated from the existing hotel and the provision proposed to be in an alternative location. 4.6 Later in this Statement is a sequential assessment to establish if alternative sites exist. Noting the above and the assessment, it is concluded that there is no other suitable site for the development proposed, and accordingly, the proposal demonstrates that centre and edge-of- centre options are not available. 4.7 The scale of development cannot be reduced or altered to accommodate the proposal in a centre, as the proposal amounts to an extension that can not be disaggregated from the facilities and infrastructure on the existing site. Page 25 of 108
Page 26
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 5 4.8 Finally, there would be no significant adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the centres. The application site is within a key gateway location whereby the Council considers guest accommodation can be located to benefit the offering of centres. Accordingly, Policy 27(b)ii. is satisfied. 4.9 Policy 29 of the NPF4 encourages rural economic activity while 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. Policy 29(a) outlines a series of criteria to guide a decision-maker on what development in the rural area is acceptable. The proposal is for the diversification of an existing business and, hence, a form of development supported by Policy 29(a)ii. 4.10 Turning to Policy 29(b), explains that development proposals in rural areas need to be suitably scaled, sited, and designed as well as contribute toward local living and take account of transportation considerations. The proposal would support existing jobs and employment (hence, supporting individuals living in the rural area). The proposal is (as detailed in the submission documents from technical expertise) acceptable regarding transportation considerations and is, in the view of the Applicant, suitably scaled, sited and designed. Thus, the proposal complies with Policy 29(b). 4.11 Policy 29 (c) and (d) are not explicitly relevant to the proposal. The proposal complies with Policy 29 of the NPF4 (where applicable). 4.12 The proposal is for development that will support existing guest accommodation, and Policy 30 of the NPF4 relates to tourism; thus, it is applicable. 4.13 The proposal will satisfy the intent of Policy 30. The proposal will facilitate sustainable tourism and benefit local people. As a later section of this Statement will illustrate, the proposal is consistent with net zero commitments within NPF4. 4.14 Policy 30(a) explains that development proposals for extended tourist accommodation will be supported in locations identified by Local Planning Authorities. The proposal (as will be detailed later) is within such a location as illustrated by the MLDP, considering that the Council recognises the benefits of enhancing existing facilities in rural areas and that gateway locations are important to the tourism economy. 4.15 Policy 30(b) articulates 7 (i-vii) criteria that a decision maker will need to take into account when being tasked with determining proposals for tourism-related development. Page 26 of 108
Page 27
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 6 4.16 The proposed development will make a positive contribution to the local economy (i), the proposals are compatible with the surrounding area in terms of design (in the view of the Applicant) (ii), and the proposal will not detrimentally impact local communities (iii). The proposal has acceptable impacts in terms of transportation, the natural environment, and accessibility, and it takes advantage of the opportunities available to introduce measures to minimise carbon emissions (iiii, iv, v, vi and vii). The proposal thusly complies with Policy 30(b). 4.17 Policy 30 c), d), and e) are not explicitly relevant to the proposal. Overall, the proposal complies with Policy 30 of the NPF4 and the other aforementioned policies of the NPF4. 4.18 Turning to the MLDP (2017), the MLDP was adopted prior to the NPF4, while the SESplan was adopted and part of the Development Plan. The spatial strategy of the MLDP echoes that within the SESplan. Towns located along the A7 / A68 / Borders Rail and A701 Corridors comprising, amongst others the towns of Dalkeith and Bonnyrigg are considered to be the appropriate locations for new development. 4.19 Recognising that the application site is not within the defined settlement of either Dalkeith or Bonnyrigg or any smaller settlement, the proposal needs to be considered in the context of policies toward rural locations (the site is within the Green Belt, and considerations on this follow this section). 4.20 Policy RD1 pertains to development in the Countryside. This policy is designed to provide a balance between development and protecting the essential characteristics of the Countryside. In general, promoters of new development must evidence the need for a countryside location. The proposed development accords with the Council's Supplementary Guidance on Development in the Countryside and the Green Belt. The proposed development is in the view of the Applicant (RD 1(a)) of a scale and character appropriate to the rural area. The application site is appropriate in terms of transportation considerations (RD 1b.), the site is acceptable in terms of drainage (RD 1c.), and the proposal is accessible by means of public transportation (there are bus stops along Lasswade Road approx.. 0.5mile away from the site) (RD 1d.). 4.21 The proposed development will enhance the rural economy. The policy explains that development opportunities that will enhance rural economic development opportunities will be permitted provided that they accord with criteria a – d. As the proposal complies with a- d as demonstrated and generates rural economic development, it is, in the view of the Applicant, a form of development appropriate to the rural area. Page 27 of 108
Page 28
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 7 GREEN BELT 4.22 Turning to the Green Belt and beginning with the NPF4. The protection of the Green Belt is an important material consideration, and it is recognised as fundamental to the principle of development. 4.23 The NPF4 contains Policy 8, which pertains to the Green Belt. Policy 8 creates a series of factors that a decision maker needs to consider when considering whether development proposals within the Green Belt can be supported. The policy has two elements: the first outlines a series of acceptable development proposals; the second is a series of requirements that an appropriate form of development needs to achieve. 4.24 The proposed development is the intensification of established uses, including extensions to an existing building that is ancillary to the principal use. Thus, it now considers Policy 8(ii) and the five criteria expressed. Table 1 Breakdown of compliance with Policy 8(ii) of NPF4 Reasons are provided as to why a Green Belt location is essential and why it cannot be located on an alternative site out with the Green Belt; The proposed development is for ancillary development to support a rural business that will allow the Applicant to deliver an optimum offer to suit its customers' expectations. The Applicant has established a need for the proposals; hence, this submission. The proposed built form cannot be disaggregated from the hotel operation due to the need to use existing infrastructure. Therefore, it cannot be on an alternative site outside the Green Belt. The purpose of the Green Belt at that location is not undermined; The policy intent explained in Policy 8 of the NPF4 is to encourage, promote and facilitate compact urban growth and the use of land around our towns and cities sustainably. Green belts should support established settlement strategies expressed in Local Development Plans and restrict development around towns and cities. Page 28 of 108
Page 29
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 The proposal represents the reuse of previously developed land to support an existing rural business. This is expressly allowed in planning policy as a form of development that does not undermine the intention and purposes of the green belt. The proposed development does not undermine the intention to restrict development around towns and cities. The proposal does not facilitate urban growth, noting that the proposal re-utilises previously developed land and does not result in encroachment into the green belt. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding established Countryside and landscape character; In the wider landscape and Green Belt beyond the site – due to the design approach, the proposal will not be experienced in a manner detrimental to the established character and appearance of the area (in the view of the Applicant). The proposal has been designed to ensure it is of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance, and uses materials that minimise visual impact on the green belt as far as possible; and It is acknowledged that it will add significant additional volume and built form to the site; however, visually, this volume will be experienced within the context of the built form on site, and it will not appear alien or visually intrusive. The design approach evidenced in the submission makes it clear that the proposal is of an appropriate scale, massing, and external appearance, which minimises the visual impact on the green belt in the view of the Applicant. 8 Page 29 of 108
Page 30
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 9 There will be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the Green Belt. The proposal, as evidenced by the technical documents that accompany this application, is acceptable in terms of environmental impacts, notably in terms of surface water flooding, contaminated land, protection of arboricultural assets, and in terms of reducing the reliance on all forms of development upon non-sustainable forms of energy generation. The proposal accordingly would not compromise the environmental quality of the green belt. 4.25 As identified above, the proposal complies with the NPF4 regarding the Green Belt. 4.26 Turning to the MLDP, the Development Plan is designed to ensure the benefits of the Green Belt are safeguarded, and it explains that it is important that strong controls are maintained over the remaining designated areas. Therefore, only development which accords with the acceptable Green Belt uses, as set out in policy ENV1, will be supported. 4.27 Policy ENV 1 explains that development will not be permitted unless it satisfies one of the criteria in a. to e. The proposal meets an established need where no other site is available (e.) and is related to an existing use appropriate to the area's rural character (c.). The proposal also does not conflict with the overall objectives of the Green Belt, and accordingly, it complies with Policy ENV 1. 4.28 With regard to Green Belt considerations, the proposals comply with the requirements of the NPF4 and the MLDP. This fact, coupled with the fact that it complies with the Development Plan in terms of considerations of the Countryside and rural economic policies, results in the proposal to comply with the Development Plan. Visitor Accommodation 4.29 The Development Plan recognises that in addition to the provision for hotels within the built- up areas, where there are no suitable sites within the settlements, at key gateway locations in close proximity to the A720 City Bypass, applications for additional or new guest accommodation can be supported. 4.30 Policy VIS 2 explains that proposals for hotels at key gateway locations with ease of access to the major junctions on the A720 City Bypass may be supported where there are no suitable Page 30 of 108
Page 31
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 10 sites, and the proposal will not undermine the objectives of the Green Belt by detracting from the landscape setting of Edinburgh and its neighbouring towns, or lead to coalescence. 4.31 As established in the following sequential assessment, there are no suitable sites for the proposal, and in the view of the Applicant, the proposal will not undermine the objectives of the Green Belt by detracting from the landscape setting of Edinburgh and its neighbouring towns or lead to coalescence. Accordingly, the proposed development complies with Policy VIS 2 of the MLDP. Page 31 of 108
Page 32
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 11 5 SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT 5.1 The form of sequential assessment required for Policy VIS2 was not scoped out beforehand with the Council. However, the scope of sequential assessment undertaken in 2020 (Planning Statement for application 20/00145/DP written by Barton Willmore) is utilised as a starting point noting the similarities between proposals. 5.2 The scope of that assessment was as follows: “6.17 It was also agreed that the sequential assessment will be based on the ability for sites to accommodate the overall scale of a 66 bedroom hotel, along with associated dining facilities and parking / access / infrastructure. As such, sequential sites being sought will be of a size between 0.7ha and 1ha, which represents an approximate 15% degree of flexibility from the size of the existing site. This will include for any suitable and available buildings with potential for conversion. Scoping with the Council also suggested that it would be reasonable to expect a suitable alternative site to replicate the ‘key gateway’ characteristics of the proposed site. (Planning Statement, 2933/1, February 2020, page 16).” 5.3 The three sites identified in the previous application will be re-considered; any newly available sites will also be considered. Potentially sequential sites are assessed on their suitability for the type of development proposed (for the type and scale of development as defined above) and on their availability (or potential to become available within a reasonable time). 5.4 Beginning with the three sites considered in 2020. Salters Park Salters Road, Salters Park, Dalkeith EH22 2NJ The site is a large greenfield strategic development site on the eastern edge of Dalkeith. This site is subject to allocation E14 in the LDP for employment land (Class 4, 5 and 6). A Proposal of Application Notice was submitted in January 2019 for the potential use of the whole site for a new film studio complex. Another was submitted in 2021 (21/00238/PAC) for a mixed-use development of Class 4 (light industrial/office), Class 5 (general industry) and Class 6 (storage and distribution) (Land East of Salters Road Dalkeith). The Premier Inn Dalkeith is ready for increased capacity within the next couple of years. Contrary to the position at Salters Road, where the position remains, there is uncertainty as to whether a suitable site will become available within reasonable timeframes. Page 32 of 108
Page 33
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 12 The Salters Park site requires major planning and masterplanning approval processes and considerable time remains before it progresses to a point where a site may become an option. As such, the site is considered to remain UNAVAILABLE. Eskdaill Court Junction of South St and Lothian Street, Dalkeith EH22 1AG Retrospective planning permission was obtained in 2020 for use as a community hub facility. This was approved via 20/00086/DPP. Eskdaill Court has evidence of activity in the form of a community hub operated by One Dalkeith, a charitable organisation. https://onedalkeith.info/facilities/ This site remains unavailable. 83 High St, Bonnyrigg 83 High St, Bonnyrigg The application site is a cleared plot at the northern edge of Bonnyrigg town centre. The site was formerly occupied by a 2-storey retail building dating from the 1960s. The building was demolished in 2019. Full Planning permission was obtained in September of 2022 for the erection of 20 flats, office space, bin store and substation, formation of access and car parking and associated works. The scheme permitted the subject of this application is coming forward; hence, the site is unavailable. 5.5 Turning to new sites that were previously not considered. 5.6 The Dalkeith Hotel, 152 High Street, was on offer at the time of writing this Statement. The property is not suitable. The site is not large enough to fit the agreed criteria. It would also be inappropriate from an operational perspective as ground floor units are leased to another operator in the long term. Advertisements for the property confirm that The Restaurant (Slumdog) is leased on an FRI lease until 22nd December 2040. 5.7 No other sites are available from searching various sites, including a review of agent and marketing websites, which was also undertaken. 5.8 The proposed development represents the redevelopment of an existing and successful hotel designed to offer tourist accommodation at a key gateway location. Accordingly, it is considered to be the most appropriate location to expand and enhance Premier Inn’s accommodation offer. Page 33 of 108
Page 34
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 13 6 PLANNING BENEFITS Table 2: Planning Benefits Economic The Development Plan recognises tourism's importance to Midlothian's economic prosperity. The Development Plan acknowledges that one of the strengths of the Midlothian economy is tourism and that it will be a source of employment opportunities now and in the future. The Development Plan recognises a range of hotels, guest houses, and other accommodation that attract visitors and encourage them to stay and benefit the economy of Midlothian. Thus, there is a need to promote hotel accommodation of all types. The proposal, by supporting an existing tourism offer, will facilitate economic activity from guests, benefiting the borough's daytime and nighttime economies and benefit the borough's tourism offer. This is a significant planning benefit. Beyond the benefit of facilitating economic activity and supporting tourism, the proposal supports employment opportunities that contribute to the economic productivity and prosperity of the residents of the borough. The applicant's investment in the site will safeguard existing employment positions; these are significant planning benefits. The NPF4 highlights the strategic importance of supporting existing rural businesses. This is expressed in NPF4 Policy 29. The proposals will facilitate the success of the approach advocated in the NPF4, facilitating economic activity and economic generation through existing rural businesses. The proposal will support an established rural business's long- term viability, which is a significant planning benefit. Sustainability The NPF4 and local planning policies commit to encouraging, promoting, and facilitating development that minimises emissions and adapts to climate change's current and future impacts. The proposal utilises air source heat pumps as well as high-quality fabric to achieve significant reductions in emissions and create a sustainable form of development that takes advantage of renewable means of energy generation. The proposal thusly achieves a significant planning benefit by being a beneficial development that contributes to the net zero target. Page 34 of 108
Page 35
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 14 Sustainable development National and local planning policies commit to sustainable development, and the NPF4 outlines 17 sustainable development goals. Several are relevant to the development proposed, and as has been established in this Statement, each of the relevant goals has been achieved. The proposal brings significant planning benefits and would deliver these in a manner that both local and national policy advocates as sustainable development. The proposal can only, therefore, be concluded to be sustainable development. Page 35 of 108
Page 36
Premier Inn Hotel, Dalkeith Walsingham Planning, Brandon House, King Street, Knutsford, WA16 6DX KN0069-234 / PI Edinburgh A7 Dalkeith / July 2024 15 7 CONCLUSION 7.1 This proposed development is as follows: "Extension to the existing hotel to provide additional bedrooms, together with alterations to the car park and other associated works." 7.2 We have considered the application scheme's implications and all relevant planning policies, and we have arrived at the following conclusions: • The proposed development is sustainable development. The proposal represents the efficient use of previously developed land that will bring sustainable economic benefits and address an existing demand for guest accommodation. The proposed offer will significantly contribute to the borough's overall offer. • In the view of the Applicant, the proposal will harmonise with the local context, topography, and views both to and from the site. The proposal will be acceptable in the context of the setting of historic assets being inappreciable in key views and vistas, in the view of Applicant. • In the view of the Applicant, the proposal is acceptale in terms of the material considerations (details in the submission documents that accompany this submission) and that a robust submission have been provided to demonstrate this; hence, there is no material consideration which can be a reason to resist development. 7.3 This Planning Statement demonstrates a clear, strong, and justifiable case for the proposed development based on compliance with the Development Plan. The proposed development complies with the relevant Government guidance and planning policies in the Development Plan. Accordingly, per, Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts require that when an application is made, it shall be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. This application must be supported, and permission must be issued as soon as possible. Page 36 of 108
Page 37
Midlothian Council Local Review Board -Notice of Review Local Review on the Refusal of Full Planning Permission for the Erection of 11 Lodges and Associated Works at South MelvilleFarm, MelvilleDykes Road, Midlothian EH18 1AN. PlanningApplication Reference 24/00412/DPP. Section 43A (8) of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 (As Amended) in respect of decisions on Local Developments. The Town and Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. October 2024 RFA Development Planning Page 37 of 108
Page 38
Contents 1. Introductionand Background 2. Site and Development Proposed 3. The Development Plan 4. Rebuttal and Grounds for Review 5. Material Considerations 6. Conclusion and Recommendation Appendices A. CoreDocuments B. Example of Standard Planning Conditions Page 38 of 108
Page 39
1.Introductionand Background Context This Local Review Statement hasbeen prepared on behalf of MrDavid McMillan insupport of a Local Review,against thedecision of theMidlothian Council torefuse Full PlanningPermission for11 Golf lodges at South Melville Farm,Lasswade. MrMcMillan is a well-establishedand experienced local developer who haspreviouslysuccessfullypromoted conservation and development throughout theLothians. A FPA was submitted to the Council on the24 June 2024 by QB Wood Architects (Dalmeny). The application was determined on the 11October2024under delegated powers.During this period the Architectsas, professional agents sought to furnish the Council withall necessary information as requested by the planning authority. By virtue of its nature and scaletheapplication is a Local Development under the Town and CountryPlanning (Hierarchy of Developments), (Scotland),Regulations 2009. A full suite of supporting documentation was submitted and is available on theMidlothian Planning and Building Standards Online Service.This Statement should be read in conjunction withplans,drawings and documentssubmitted as part of the planningapplication. Acoredocument referencelist relatingto thisReview is submittedas part of Appendix A. Planning Application 24/00412/DPPcomprises of the following documents/drawings: - Location Plan 24012-E01 1:2500 (26.06.2024). - Proposed Site Plan 24012-P01H 1:500 Rev H (20.08.2024). - Existing Site Plan 24012-E02A 1:500 Rev A (26.08.2024). - Context Plan 24012-P02B Rev B 1:500 (26.06.2024). - Proposed Floor Plan 24012-P03B 1:100 Rev B (26.06.2024). - Proposed Elevations 24012-P04A 1:100 Rev A (26.06.2024). - Visualisation 24012-P05A Rev A (26.06.2024). - Visualisations of Site 1 24012-P06A Rev A (26.06.2024). - Visualisations of Site 2 24012-P07A Rev A (26.06.2024). - Visualisations of Site 3 24012-P08A Rev A (26.06.2024). - Landscaping plan 24012-P09 (26.06.2024). - Design and Access Statement (26.06.2024). - Response to Planners Comments (17.07.2024). - Coal Mining Risk Assessment (26.09.2024). A full chronology of correspondence reports submitted to the Council was set out by the applicant’sagent in correspondence with the case officer dated the 20 August 2024. The appointed caseofficer recommended that theapplication be refused fora range of overlappingreasons(some of which are not planningpolicyrelated).The applicant believes this decision is flawed, inconsistent and subject to conjecture rather than any clear evidenceof deficiency.In particular,referencesto demand and business viability together with sustainability are not justified given the history of the site. Development proposed essentially complies with the Development Plan provisions and will bring a desirable leisure/ tourism use into the area. It is compatible with existing leisure uses Page 39 of 108
Page 40
and will enhance the economic potential of tourism in Midlothian in accordance with growth plans. The Applicant is unclear as to why the Council would refuse the application when similar developments are being encouraged by planning authorities throughout Scotland during a period of recovering tourism accommodation demand. This, risks losing a valuableinvestment and economic benefit to neighbouring areas. The proposed development dovetails with the Council’s A7 urbanisation process. It is capable of successful delivery and implementation usingplanning conditions and a S75 Agreement (Planning Obligations) as suggested in the Report of Handling. Scottish Government Circular 5/2013 Schemes of Delegation and Local Reviews confirms that where applications for local development proposals are determined by an officer, the applicant has a right of appeal to the Council’s Local Review Body. Structure of theReview Statement The purpose of this Statement is to assist Midlothian Council LRB in its decision making. It requests that a more pragmatic and realistic view of the site development is taken in accordance with the history and current uses in the area. This Local Review Statement has the following structure: - Introduction - Context &Background - Development Plan - Reasons for Refusal and Rebuttal - Material Considerations - Summaryand Recommendations It should also be noted that an application for additional accommodation has been submitted by Premier Inns Ltd on theadjacent site to the East of the site (Ref 24 /00486/DPP),and is currently being determined by the Council. The proposed development would have no impact on this application, or the operational activities undertaken in relation to the Golf Centre, adjoiningbusinesses, or the amenity of nearby residents. Page 40 of 108
Page 41
2. Site Context and Description of Development The application boundary and sitecharacteristicsareaslargely asdescribed within the Council’s Report of Handling. It outlines the site boundaries and proximity to adjoining dwellings and uses including the Melville Golf Centre and Premier Inn Hotel with an adjoining pub restaurant. The area is signposted with a brown tourist sign from the A7 and fronts onto MelvilleDykes Road (A768),which forms the southern boundary. The red line boundary is set out in Fig 1 Location Plan within the DAS.Extensive photographic evidence as to the condition and brownfield nature of the site is provided with this Review. Midlothian Council confirm that the site is currently vacant. The Council’s Report does not advise that the site is effectively surrounded by adjoining development; it was partially brownfield (kennels and outhouses) and currently forms a vacant, disused and unmaintained paddock which together with the golf and leisure use was formerly part of an agricultural holding prior toBovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE/ Mad CowDisease). The site itself comprises of a paddock of unmaintained grassland (bare ground), extending to approximately 0.55ha. It containsthe remains of a former stone wall which has now been replaced by perimeter timber fencing for safety reasons. The intention is that the rubble wall and roadside edge can be reinstated by means of a planningconsent. The description of development being applied for is for ‘the erection of 11 lodges and associated works’.In effect the development would comprise of the complete restoration and enhancement of a previously vacant and underused site within the curtilageof a former steading.The proposed development is set out in the applicant’s Design and Access Statement (DAS)as well as the plans and drawings submitted as part of the application. For the avoidance of doubt the lodges would be let by the applicant’s management company and made available for letting periods without any sale or subletting of the properties. They would be holiday lets and the use as permanent residences would be precluded by agreement or planning condition. This is entirely in accordance with the Council’s own tourism and economic growth plans which identify the need for this type of accommodation but havebeen disregarded by the planning case officer. Reference to planning history of the site demonstrates that three previous approvals have been granted for residential development on the site. Existing consents permit the development of a replacement farmhouse dwelling (23/00241/DPP) andthe formation of an access road into the heart of the site 22/00908/DPP. The Council’s site description classifies the site as Greenbelt and part of the North Esk and Melville CastleLandscapeAreas. It fails to recognisethe unique characteristics of the application site which are demonstrably different in nature to the surrounding landscape and enveloped by adjoining development and remnants of previous uses. Recently completed housing adjacent to the A7 Melville Dykes Roundabout is also not referenced. Please refer to the Site Context Plan within the submitted DAS. Page 41 of 108
Page 42
As a result, the Council has taken a very rigid and impractical approach to the development proposed rather than acknowledging that it can be integrated with existing uses in the vicinity. As previously intimated an adjoining application forahotel extension adjacent to the site is currently under consideration by Midlothian Council and is seen as an entirely compatible use. Integration with the golf facilities as a viable ongoing business is discussed later in this Statement and would be a normal progression given its proximity and attraction to golf orientated visitors. Page 42 of 108
Page 43
3. The Development Plan Statutory Requirement This section of theStatement assesses compliance with the Development Plan. In this casethe Development Plan comprisesof the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan (MLLDP) 2017, and National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 2023. Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), states that: ‘where in making any determination under thePlanning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’. In the context of Section 25 of the Act referred to above, reference should be made to the House of Lord’s Judgement on the case of the City of Edinburgh Council v the Secretary of State for Scotland 1998(SLT120). It sets out the necessarylegal approach to deciding an application under the Planning Acts to identify and interpret any relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and fully consider these to assess whether they warrant a departure from the development plan. In this case, we would submit and will demonstrate that the Council has misinterpreted the weight and balance of policy within theDevelopment Plan and compounded this by failing to fully take relevant material considerations into account. The Reasons for Refusal aretherefore flawedand unreasonable,and do not bear scrutiny in relation to the evidence or the statutory provisions within the Development Management Regulations and Procedures. National Planning Framework 4 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was adopted by Scottish Ministers on 13th February 2023 and contains 33 no. policies against which applications for development proposals now require to be assessed. As intimated it is considerably more up to date than the MLLDPwith which there are also policy differences. Section 24(3) (i) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) 1997 Act states that ‘in the event of any incompatibility between a provision of the National Planning Framework and a provision of a local development plan, whichever of them is the later in date is to prevail.’ This means that if there is anything in the MLLDP that is deemed to be incompatible with a comparable provision in NPF4, it is the provision in NPF4 that is to be taken into consideration by the Council in its decision-making, with the LDP policy in question being treated as having been effectively superseded. In a letter dated 8th February 2023 dealing with the transitional arrangements for NPF4, the Minister for Planning and the Chief Planner of Scotland gave the following advice to decision- makers in relation to the application of NPF4. ‘Section 25 of the 1997 Act requires that decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Application of planning judgement to the circumstances of an individual situation remains essential to alldecision making, informed by principles of proportionality and reasonableness. It is important to bear in mind NPF4 must be read and applied as a whole. The intent of each of the 33 policies is set out in NPF4 and can be used to guide decision-making. Page 43 of 108
Page 44
Conflicts between policies are to be expected. Factors for and against development will be weighed up in the balance of planning judgement.’ The applicant considers that this hasnot beenproperly undertaken and that the balance of judgement is therefore invalid. We would ask the LRB to reconsider in accordance with the above principles and take into account relevant material considerations. Midlothian Local Development Plan The MLLDP was adopted by Midlothian Council in November 2017which makes it significantly out of date in respect to relevant policies and in relation to moreprogressive policieswithin NPF 4which lend support to the proposed development.It is also now significantly out of line with the Council’s approach to tourism growth and economic development. The MLLDP vision recognises its responsibilities to both existing and new residents, and the Council will work with its communities and partners to ensure that prosperity, quality of life and wider sustainable development principles are central to its planning decisions. Core aims of the plan are identified as follows: • To implement the requirements of the Strategic Development Plan for Southeast Scotland (SESplan). • To contribute to the delivery of successive Midlothian Single Outcome Agreements. • To support the development of a vibrant, competitive,and sustainable local economy. • To safeguard and enhance Midlothian's natural and built heritage, which sustains the quality of life of itscommunities. • To respond robustly to the challenges of mitigating climate change and adapting to its impacts. • To provide positively for development which secures long-term social, economic,and environmental benefits for existing and new residents, and not just short-term gain. • To identify and implement a Green Network for Midlothian consistent with national and regional green network projects; and • To help ensure that Midlothian is a welcoming and enriching place to live, work and visit. Whilst elements of theMLLDPare out of date the above factors form underpin the policy intent within the LDP and form the basis of material considerations which re-enforce the policy argument in favour of the proposals before the LRB. Land identified for development is not designated as green or open public space. The Local Development Plan Proposals Map identifies the application site within an area which is not zoned for any particular purposebut could be classed as being related to existing enclosed urban development (white land)where the principle of development may be acceptablesubject tomitigation and compliance with other policies in theDevelopment Plan. In this case the environmental and economic benefits associated with the proposed development outweigh any perceived adverse landscape or townscape impact in respect of the Green Belt or designated landscape areas. Resistance to the application would place Midlothian and its local businesses at a competitive disadvantage and allow investment to be diverted to other parts of theLothians where similar developments aredeemed to be more acceptable. Page 44 of 108
Page 45
Summary The Council has identified the relevant policy considerations in respect of both the NPF4 and MLLDP and these are assessed below relativeto the proposed development. With regard to the seven Reasons for Refusal nine policy areas are identified as being relevant: Table 1 Policies Relating to MLC Reasons forRefusal NPF4 2023 MLLDP 2017 Policy 1Nature and Climate Crises ENV1 Protection of Green Belt Policy 3 Biodiversity ENV7 Landscape Character Policy 8 Green Belt ENV20 Important Gardens and Landscapes Policy 14 Design Quality and Place VIS 2 Tourism Accommodation Policy 30 Tourism Each of thepolicy interpretationscited by the Council aboveare disputed and subject to detailed rebuttal in Section 4 of this LRB Statement. The decision to refuse the application, because of any perceived conflict with the policies as interpreted in Table 1 above, would not be warranted or in the best interests of the proper planning of the area as they are subjective and imprecise. Furthermore, the Council’s assessment takes no account of the planning history, status,or material considerations in terms of potential economic,environmental,or social benefits. When applying the principles of ‘proportionality and reasonableness’ and weighting factors for and against the development proposed in the balance of planning judgement, as required by the Chief Planner with reference to transitional arrangements for NPF4,the application proposal gains substantial support from other relevant policies both within theMLLDP and NPF4.By any reasonable assessment given the dubiety of thereasons given,it should therefore be granted planning permission by theCouncil as the decisionmaker. Setting aside the disputed policies and their rebuttal the following policies within NPF4 and MLLDP areconsidered tobeweighted in favour of the proposed development. Table 2 Relevant Development Plan Policies NPF4 MLLDP NPF4 Natural Places Dev1 Community Identity NPF5 Soils Dev5 Sustainability NPF6 ForestryWoodland Dev7 landscaping New Development NPF9 Brownfield Vacant and Derelict Land Tran1 Sustainable Travel NPF12 Zero Waste RD1 Development inthe Countryside NPF20 Blue Green Infrastructure Env2 Green Network NPF21 Play recreation and Sport Env4 Prime Agricultural Land NPF22Flood Risk and Water Management Env 8 Protecting River Valleys NPF23Health and Safety Env11 Woodland Trees and Hedges NPF24Digital Infrastructure Env15 Species and habitat Protection NPF25 Community Wealth Building Env16 Vacant and Derelict Land NPF26Business and Industry Env25 Assessment Evaluation and Recording NPF29 Rural Development NRG3 Energy and Zero Carbon Imp 1 New Development Imp3Water and Drainage Page 45 of 108
Page 46
As with the LDP policies the Council as decision maker needs to take a balanced and reasonable approach to its planning judgement based on sustainability and proportionality when considering NPF 4 Policies. This is acknowledged in the Council’sReport of Handlingbut not impartially applied. On further analysis it would appearthat by definition the applicant can draw on further support fromNPF4 and MLLDP policiesthat were not used as Reasons for Refusal. This may be as an oversight or alternatively because the policy grounds were not deemed to be strong enough to warrant refusal. In relation to NPF Policies the following areconsidered to be relevant by the applicant: • NPF4 Natural Places-The Council do not regard the site as a natural place. • NPF 5 Soils-Development on agricultural land issupported in favour of asmall-scale development directly related to a rural business. • NPF6 Forestry Woodland and Trees-Development proposals that enhance,expand, and improve woodland and tree cover will be supported. • NPF 9 Brownfield Vacant and Derelict Land-‘Development that will result in the sustainable re-use of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings whether permanent or temporary will besupported’. • NPF12 Zero Waste-Development proposals will be supported where they re-use existing buildings and infrastructure, minimise demolition and salvage materials for reuse. • NPF20 Blue Green Infrastructure-‘Development proposals incorporating new or enhanced blue/green infrastructure will be supported’. • Policy 21 Play Recreation and Sport-Development Proposals that include new streets and public realm maximising theopportunities for informal and incidental play in the neighbourhood are supported. • NPF Policy 22 Flood Risk and Water Management-Development proposals will be supported if they can connect to the public water mains. • NPF Policy 23 Health and Safety-Development proposals that will have positive effects on health for exampleopportunities for exercise will be supported. • Policy 24 Digital Infrastructure • Policy 25 Community Wealth Building-Proposals which contribute to local or regional community wealth building strategies and are consistent with local economic priorities will be supported (local job creation and the creation of new local firms). • Policy 26 Business and Industry-Development proposals for micro businesses will be supported where compatible and withno unacceptable impacts on amenity or neighbouring uses. • Policy 29 Rural Development-see below. NPF Policy 29 Rural Development isworth quoting given that the development technicallyfalls within a countryside/ rural area outwith urban boundaries. a) Development proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and local rural economy will be supported, including: Page 46 of 108
Page 47
i. Farms, crofts, woodlandcrofts,or other land use businesses, where use of good quality land for development is minimised and business viability is not adversely affected. ii. Diversification of existing businesses. iii. Production and processing facilities for local produce and materials, for example sawmills, or local food production. iv. Essential community services. v. Essential infrastructure. vi. Reuse of a redundant or unused building. vii. Appropriate use of a historic environment asset or is appropriate enabling development to secure the future of historic environment assets. viii. Reuse of brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. ix. Small scale developments that support new ways of working such as remote working, homeworking,and community hubs; or x. Improvement or restoration of the natural environment. b) Development proposals in rural areas should be suitably scaled, sited,and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. They should also consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location. The policy intent is to respond to the rural location and support local employment at a scale that would be environmentally acceptable. In reviewing the Council’s rationale and evidencethe applicant does not accept that the development is contrary to the Development Plan when taken as a whole. There may beminor discrepancies in detailed interpretation which require to be mitigated. However, when the weighted balance is applied in relation to specific policies Table 2 demonstrates that there are further NPF4and MLLDPpolicies that are in the applicant’s favour in this case.This constitutes more than just a quantitative assessment as the application also clearly meets qualitative planning standards. The Council also suggests that no material considerations apply to this application which is remarkable and fully considered in the next section of this review. Page 47 of 108
Page 48
4. Reasons for Refusal and Grounds of Appeal In accordance withthe established principles of planning legislation Reasons forRefusal must bespecific and reasonable in terms of their nature and content in accordance with thePlanning Acts, the relevant Development Management Regulations and Circulars.They must be legally defensible in terms of theDevelopment Plan and Development Management Procedures (Circular3/2022). Given the ReasonsforRefusal a strong rebuttal can be mounted against the Council’s decision. No weight has been given to the planning history or principle of development forcing the Council to take a contradictory stanceon the acceptability of development on site. Section 3 of the Statement (above)demonstrates how the Reasonsfor Refusal aremisaligned withstatutory policies within the Development Plan. The following sections provide an initial rebuttal to the Council’s Reasons for Refusal. Rebuttal –Reasons for Refusal Reasons are unfair unreasonable not evidence or fact based and not properly interpreted. We are surprised and disappointed that the Council officials have taken such a negative stance to this small-scale tourist development which provides a range of social economic and environmental benefits. The reason(s) for the Council's decision are set out below: 1. The proposed development is contrarytoPolicy ENV1 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 8 of the National Planning Framework 4 in that it to fails to accord with the purpose and objectives of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore unacceptable in principle and contrary tothe Development Plan. The site is Green Belt in name only and the applicant would urge the LRB to undertake a site visit in order that it can conduct a realistic assessment of the location and appreciate the surrounding built and landscape context. The applicant would point the LRB to the wider context plan and assessment. This Reason for Refusal is disputed by the applicant in that it is not a fair or reasonable interpretation of Green Belt Policy in this location and has been the subject of discussion and correspondence with the Council throughout the determination process. The site is Green Belt in name only and currently does not contribute to any of the principal objectives (leisure, landscape biodiversity or coalescence),and until recently acquired by the applicant was completely vacant and unmanaged. The actual history of the site can be traced prior to the LDP when it was declared surplus to agricultural requirements followingBSEdiseaseand devoted to visitor and recreational use by the Department of Agriculture. Due to the nature of the use proposed a Green Belt location is essential and compatible with the surrounding countryside as the visual impact is minimal and there is no detriment to environmental quality. There would be no impact in terms of coalescence orurban sprawl. Page 48 of 108
Page 49
Notwithstanding this the Development Plan and NPF4 clearly supports ‘the provision of outdoor recreation, play and sport or leisure and tourist uses; and development that provided opportunities for access to the open countryside’. This effectively supersedes the MLLDP Policy ENV1 which is now out of date and overly restrictive, being inconsistent with economic and tourist strategies for Midlothian. Even so Policy ENV1 permits development in the Green Belt which;’ 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’. In spatial terms given that there is not an alternative site within the vicinity, the proposals direct development to the most appropriate location, supports regeneration and would not encourage coalescence. As the Report of Handling points out tourist accommodation is not specifically excluded from thistype of accommodation in NPF4, and this will clearlybe operated as a tourist use. It also constitutes an intensification of existing uses in the area and is clearly linked to these by virtue of location, which will inevitably lead to a business relationship in due coursetherefore negating this Reason for Refusal. The Report of Handling goes on to suggest that the area is not a gateway location which appears to be bizarre given the characteristics and accessibility of the site close to the City Bypass A702 / A7. 2. The proposed development is contrarytoPolicy VIS2 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 30 of the National Planning Framework 4 in that it to fails to demonstrate that it is a suitable location for visitor accommodation in terms of scale, landscape impact, impact on the roadnetwork, and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that it is for the furtherance of a viable long-term business. The proposal is therefore unacceptable in principle and contrary to the Development Plan. It is evident that the MLLDP 2017 and subsequent more recent MidlothianTourism and Economic Growth plans wish to promote the economic benefits of tourism development in Midlothian. This has been narrowly interpreted as being only adjacent to the A720 City Bypass contrary to VIS 1 and VIS 2 (pg. 34-35 of the LDP). South Melville is an established signposted tourism visitor and golf destination and can be described as a gateway location close to the A720. Reference within the MLLDP is specifically made to previous consents in proximity to the A7. Policy VIS1 in the MLLDP supports the establishment of new, or expansion of existing, tourism- related development where it improves the quality of visitor facilities or extends the tourism offering within Midlothian, subject to environmental or amenity impacts and having regard for the net economic benefit of the proposed development. ThePolicy VIS 1 Tourist Attractions is re-produced below: The establishment of new, or expansion of existing, tourism-related development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that it improves the quality of visitor facilities or extends the tourism offering within Midlothian, subject to the Council being satisfied that there are no significant negative environmental or amenity impacts and that the proposal accords with all other policies in the plan. When assessing proposals for tourism-related development due weight will be given to the net economic benefit of the proposed development. Page 49 of 108
Page 50
Policy VIS1 forms no part of the Council’s reasoning on the determination of this application. Regarding Self Catering Tourist Provision Policy VIS 2 Proposals for self-catering tourist accommodation will be supported, provided that the proposal: a. is in scale and in keeping with the character of the local area. b. is sited and designed to respect its setting and is located in an unobtrusive manner within the rural landscape (where applicable). c. is well located in terms of the strategic road network and maximises public transport access. The proposed development complies with each of these matters and is in accordance with the following requirement, ‘Proposals for self-catering tourist accommodation, including touring caravan/ camping sites, will be permitted where: the proposal is not in 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’. As demonstrated through the application process the development is clearly linked to ‘some related existing development’ given the proximity of the golf facilities hotel and restaurant. There is also a requirement that the proposal is ‘for the furtherance of a viable long-term business’ although there is no specific guidance as to what this actually means in practice. This requirement is not of planning relevance and does not accord with the more recent provisions of NPF4. Nonetheless the applicant has argued that both of these requirements would be met even without any formal business collaboration, which in this case would be difficult without prior planning approval. It would appear obvious that golfing parties would use each of the neighbouring facilities (hotel, restaurant, and golf),given their facilities and proximity to the proposed lodge development. NPF Policy 30 which transitionally supersedes the MLLDP in the event of any conflict is absolutely clear that ‘Development Proposals for new or extended tourist facilities or accommodation identified in the LDP will be supported’. This is unequivocal subject to a series of related planning factors in NPF 30(b) including economic development; compatibility and scale; accessibility; carbon emissions and access to the natural environment. Despite providing the Council with economic justification on estimated tourist numbers and spend in addition to a developer (Section 75) contribution of almost £50,000 to the Councils A7 Urbanisation Project. This demonstrates that the site falls within the sphere of development in proximity to the A7 contrary to what is contained in other parts of the Report of Handling. Also, remarkably the Report of Handling suggests that the location is not identified in the MLLDP. It does not agree that the specific requirements and criteria are met and suggests that there is no ‘linkage’ to the Melville Golf Centre. It goes on to suggest that due to a land ownership division, the proposed development cannot contribute to local diversification of the existing golf business or specifically targeted at their users which is quite incorrect. A new test of being ‘explicitly linked’ is then arbitrarily introduced which does not relate to policy. A clear management/ operational proposal was outlined to the Council based on short term lets used solely as holiday lets controlled by an appropriate planning condition. Despite the acknowledged need for accommodation emphasised in the Midlothian Tourism Strategy and Page 50 of 108
Page 51
Midlothian Economic Growth Plans the Report of Handling casts doubt over the level of demand in the area, suggesting that there is an oversupply of bedspaces. The Applicant doesnot accept that the development is contrary to Policy VIS2 and would contend that material considerations in respect of the Growth Strategy and Economic/ Tourism Development in the area are overriding factors. There will be a significant contribution to tourism visitor spend and employment as a result of the development with attendant employment and business locally which would otherwise be lost to Midlothian. It should also be noted that an adjacent planning application has been lodged for additional bedrooms. This is supported by apositiveDemand Assessment. 3.The scale, layout and design of the proposed development is not appropriate to its setting and will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape and local area. The proposed layout would result in an overdevelopment of the site, and it has not been demonstrated that the proposal development can be successfully integrated into the landscape. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policies VIS2, ENV1 and ENV7 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 8 of the National Planning Framework. This contention is strongly disputed by the applicant and has not previously been raised by the case officer during determination, despite contact with the architect. It is highly subjective and unduly uses multiple policies to re-enforce the officer’s opinion. Given current site conditions and the small scale of development proposed, the environmental impact on the character and appearance of the landscape and local area is not adversely affected. NPF4Policy 8 states that the proposal needs to be of an ‘appropriate scale massing and external appearance and minimises visual impact on the Green Belt as far as possible’. Reference to supporting documentation and plans confirms that the site can be fully integrated into the landscape, townscape and infrastructure which includes new housing development at the adjacent roundabout to the east and an extension to the neighbouring hotel. Policy VIS 2 states that Proposals for the development of hotels or self-catering tourist accommodation will be supported, provided that the proposal; a. is in scale and in keeping with the character of the local area; b. is sited and designed to respect its setting and is located in an unobtrusive manner within the rural landscape (where applicable); c. is well located in terms of the strategic road network and maximises public transport access. Regarding Self Catering Accommodation proposals in the Green Belt are not specifically precludedprovidingthat the proposal is of a character and scale in keeping with the rural setting. There would therefore appear to be no justification for this Reason for Refusal. In relation to Policy ENV1Protection of the Green Belt; as discussed above development is permissible given that it provides opportunities for access to the open countryside, outdoor sport or outdoor recreation which reduce the need to travel further afield and is clearly related to other uses appropriate to the rural character of the area. No other site is available, and development would not conflict with the objectives of the Green Belt. It would protect and enhance the character, landscape setting and identity Bonnyrigg and Eskbank by clearly identifying their physical boundaries and preventing coalescence. Regarding Policy ENV 7 LandscapeCharacter; Development would not have an unacceptable effect on local landscape character given the existence of the current leisure and golf facilities. There would appear to be a clear locational demand and need for accommodation. The Page 51 of 108
Page 52
character of the lodge development proposed is compatible in terms of scale, siting and design and maintains the diversity and distinctiveness of the local landscape without adversely affecting outdoor recreational access opportunities or impact on the landscape. 4.The proposed development will have an adverse impact on landscape designations (North Esk Special Landscape Area and the Melville Castle Designed Landscape). Thereby the proposed development is contrary to Policies ENV6, ENV7 and ENV20 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. The Report of Handling acknowledges that there is potential to contribute to the wider landscape setting of the area. The Applicant istherefore unclear of how the case official has come to this conclusion.The proposed development site to the north of Melville Dykes Road has its own characteristics and is generally separate and distinct to the designated areas to the south of the proposed site. It is contended that there would be a neutral impact on the North Esk Special Landscape Area and the Melville Castle Designated Landscape.The Applicant refersthe LRB to visual representations of how the site would look if approved. MLLDP Policy ENV 6 relating to Special Landscape Areas permits development proposals where they incorporate high standards of siting and design. It does not preclude development. Given its location and separation the submitted application will clearly not have an unacceptable impact on the special landscape qualities of the area. Policy ENV7 in respect of Landscape Character precludes development that would have an unacceptable effect on local landscape character. Development respects character and would be compatible in terms of scale, siting, and design. The new development incorporates open space and landscape proposals to maintain the diversity and distinctiveness of the local landscape. Policy ENV 20 only precludes development which would harm the character, appearance and / or setting of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes. This proposed development would enhance the character, appearance and amenity of the area and not have any adverse impact on historic or designed assets. 5.The proposed design and layout of the development fails to improve the quality of the area and does not accord withthe six qualities of successful places as required by NPF4 Policy 14. This is again a subjective value judgement by the case officer, which does not take account of the poor environmental quality of the areain terms of baseline conditions and visual amenity. The owner is currently seeking to improve the appearance, amenity and setting of the South Melville Paddock. The Applicant has submitted photographic evidence to verify the poor quality of the previously vacant,derelict,and dangerous built environment on site. The reason given does not specify which specific qualities of successful place are not met and in which way. Rather it relies on a generic and subjective value judgement which is not substantiated by the plans and elevations associated with the development. Again, there is a failure to fullyconsider policy intent as a whole as opposed to a partial opinion. Page 52 of 108
Page 53
This reason as given, also contradicts the Report of Handling and suggests that the development proposals would not improve the quality of the location ‘irrespective of scale.’ It is adaptable and the six qualities of successful places are clearly met in terms of NPF 14 Design Quality and Place. The qualities of successful places (Healthy; Pleasant; Connected; Distinctive; Sustainable and Adaptable), are described in the applicant’s Design and Access Statement. Each of these characteristics would be achieved as part of a sustainable development acknowledged by the Report of Handling. The Applicant therefore doesnot accept the Reason for Refusal and contend that detailed design aspects can be effectively controlled by planning condition as suggested in the Report of Handling. In particular, the proposed development is sustainable by virtue of its location,accessibility, and pattern of proposed usage. It ispotentiallya pleasant development in that it supports both natural and built spaces and isdistinctive reflecting local architectural styleand reinforcing local identity. It is connected and not reliant on car dependency as suggested given the proximity of local facilitiesand operation of the lodges (see below). By providing opportunities for sports participation and recreation, the development will contribute to safety and physical/ mental health outcomes as required by NPF4. 6.It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the proposed development will achieve a safe access for traffic movements associated with 11 holiday lodges. It is clear and acknowledged that the access onto Melville Dykes Road has recently been granted by the Council through 22/00908/DPP without restriction. This fully considered road design standards (Design Manual Roads and Bridges),and road impact safety matters on the adjoining network which satisfied all visibility requirements. It also acknowledged the accessibility of the location including proximity to public transport and local facilities. A Traffic Assessment was not required by the Council due to the small scale of the site and proposed development. Given the scale of development and the level of transport expected it is not accepted that trafficwill significantly impact on the network. There is no policy justification given for this reason and it does not accord with Policy NPF13 Sustainable Transport which supersedesMLLDPpolicyprovisions. The Report of Handling states that ‘the proposed layout is car led and the majority of trips to and from the site are likely to be done by private car.’ This is a complete misunderstanding and over exaggeration of how transport would operate. In assessing related trips and movements the Council has not fully appreciated that the development would be used by groups of golfers/ visitors using the location as a base or utilising group travel either independently or through a third-party operator. Thenumber and frequency of trips is therefore over estimated. Furthermore, parking provision on site is not considered as excessive and believed to be consistent with standards used by the Council itself on its own developments (Hillend Ski Centre). In addition, these would be off peak and not at times of heavy demand or usage on Melville Dykes Road. There would be no discernible impact or risk to road safety. Management and Page 53 of 108
Page 54
maintenance visits to the site would also be negligible and off peak. Contrary to this the development will improve safety and facilitate crossing and pedestrian movement by establishing a footpath along Melville Dykes Road. This would reduce the number and speed of vehiclesin the vicinity of the site. NPF4 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport supports developments such as this where developments provide pedestrian and cycle networks, incorporates safety measures low and zero emission charging points. There is convenient public transport, and the operator could implement a Travel Plan if conditioned. 7.It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the impact on biodiversity and the nature crisis have been considered and addressed. This is contrary to the overarching aims of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 1 and 3 specifically. Biodiversity on site is currently poor with areas of ground needing to be reclaimed and treated prior to achieving landscape and habitat enhancement. Walk over surveys demonstrate that there is no evidence of protected species habitats on site. Regarding the Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA), no such request was made to the client during the determination process,and no regard has been taken of the PEA submitted by the same applicant / owner for the adjacent approved development site. Biodiversity enhancement through a detailed landscape scheme, SUDs and biodiversity measures is a given outcomeand agreed with the case officer during determination of the application. As suggested within the Handling Report this matter could be practically dealt with by a planning condition and the Reason for Refusal is therefore unnecessary. There has been obvious consideration of the climate and nature crises which underpins the proposals and re-uses available underused vacant land adjacent to neighbouring development. Sustainability and accessibility are key factors and there is full adaption to future climate change by retrofitting an appropriate and compatible use into the area which will avoid the need for alternative development and minimisecarbon (CO2)emissions. This is evident in terms of sustainability and information provided within the Design and Access Statement in respect of energy consumption and efficiency to minimise CO2 emissions from the proposed lodges. This is entirely in line with the focus of NPF4 and therefore it isnot correct tosuggest that the nature crisis has not been considered as intimated. In relation to NPF Policy 3 a recent PEA provided on adjoining land demonstrates that the site has little or no ecological value due to previous uses and potential contamination. Development would clearlycontribute to biodiversity and reinstatement or restoration of degraded land and includes nature-based solutions and networks contribution to green-blue infrastructure. It is acknowledged that the site provides an opportunity for green nature network connections. No trees are affected, and the canopy cover would be maintained and indeed enhanced by replacement planting. Significant biodiversity enhancements would be established through the detailed Landscape Framework including nature and habitat networks with resilient local community benefits. There are no adverse impacts on the natural environment and biodiversity loss would be reversed. Page 54 of 108
Page 55
5.Material Considerations In additionto planningpolicies withinthe development plan, it is also necessary to assess other material considerations for and against the proposal.These considerations have been outlined above in relation to the core aims and objectives of theMLLDPin the city. Material considerations are defined inAppendixAof the Development Management Regulations3/2022.No material considerations have been identified by the Council to suggest that this Review shouldnot be allowed. Inadequate weight has been given to the Principle of Development given the planning history of the siteand previousapprovals. The site is adjacent to the A7 ‘UrbanArea’and has been approved previously for development as intimated in the planning history above. ThisStatement of Review has demonstrated that the proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan and keypolicy tests. Refusal is thereforeinconsistent withtourism-leisureaspirations and doesnot acknowledge therealisticstatus of the landproposed for development. Report of Handling On balance development complies with the Development Plan. In overall terms contrary to the Report of Handling the proposal complies with NPF4 and MLLDP policies contained in Table 1 above and cited as the Council’s Reasons for Refusal.Furthermore, despite these disputed Reasons,the proposal takes support from a range of other associated NPF4 and MLLDP policies as identified in Table 2 above. The principle of development is acceptable, the planning historyand the approvals granted on Green Belt land areimportant material considerations. The summary and overall conclusionswithin the Report of Handling appear to be inconsistent, contradictory, and unjustified given the level of compliance with the majorityof planning policy requirements. Policy assessment undertaken by the Council has been partial and selective with therecommendation for refusal unnecessarily compounded by misinterpretation particularly in relation toprevious useand cartraffic.A balanced proportional and weighted view has therefore not been taken. We reserve the right to respond to any further submissions made by the Council which expand upon or elaborate on its reason for refusing the application. Midlothian Economic Growth Strategy The Midlothian Economic Development Strategysets out the economic development vision and key priorities for Midlothian for the period 2020-2025. The Midlothian Tourism Strategy and Action Plan seeks to capitalise on Midlothian’s strengths and opportunities and encourage more visitors through the Midlothian and Borders Tourism Action Group (MBTAG) and Midlothian Tourism Forum. Working with Visit Scotland and Scottish Tourism Alliance on Scotland’s Tourism Strategy ‘People, Place, Businesses and Experiences’ it seeks to grow value and increase tourism benefits Visit Scotland. It has established a marketing and promotion strategy for the future capitalising on the Borders Railwayand creatingnew Page 55 of 108
Page 56
places to visit as well asmaximising opportunitiesfor employment, business tourism and leisure. Page 18 of the Growth Strategy states that ‘Tourism is one of our key industries and captures a significant amount of local activity. It is fast paced and responsive to market demand, and together with the industry, Visit Scotland and the Midlothian Tourism Forum, we will continue to build on the opportunities for Midlothian following the reopening of the Borders Railway and Midlothian and Borders Tourism Action Group’s (MBTAG) development work in events projects, travel trade development and training. Newdigital avenues have been explored and successfully implemented through MBTAG, including a ‘Scotland Starts Here’ mobile app that harnessed over 1,500 points of interest, 650 tourism businesses, 20 hours of audio and more than 89 routes. Through phase two of the MBTAG project, we will work with the industry to embrace the focus to digital marketing and development of a destination marketing strategy, as well as a consumer facing website ‘Scotland Starts Here’ and continue to educate the travel trade on Midlothian’s tourism product and offer. All of which will ensure our unique visitor offer is clearly on the map and grow the tourism economy through increased day spend and overnight stays.’ Midlothian Tourism and Action Plan The Midlothian Tourism and Action Plan 2016 is an important material consideration in terms of planning decisions on tourism projects. It is currently under review, but the extract below provides an indication of policy intent and priorities for investment. Page 56 of 108
Page 57
The strategy highlights the need for additional tourism provision and communication within the County of Midlothian. Consultations A full range of consultations was undertaken by the Council and can be summarised as follows: • Economic Development-no comment. • Coal Authority-no objection subject to condition. • Protective Services-no objection subject to a condition on contamination and a SEPA Licence for the septic tank. • Scottish water–no objection to the provision of water (Roseberry WTW) or for foul water disposal (Edinburgh PFI WWTW). • Archaeology Service-no objection subject to a programme of Archaeological Works and a Written Scheme of Investigation and Data Structure Report • Neighbourhood Services Roads –object based on junction visibility sight lines and design standards necessary to service 11 lodges. • Neighbourhood Services (Flood Risk)–no comment. Page 57 of 108
Page 58
• Planning Obligations Officer-Financial Contribution to A7 Infrastructure. Third Party Representations As stated in the Report of Handling only 4 representations were made of which two were objections and two were neutral. Many of the objections recorded werenon-material in nature and not relevant to land use planning mattersorarecapable of being addressed by consultations. Bonnyrigg Community Council made an objection/ representation which was received by the Council on the 26 August and duly accepted. It raised road safety issues and other matters water supply, management, demand for golf),that were subsequently clarified with the case officer in correspondence.The Applicant’s agent has offered to meet the Community Council in order tofully brief them on these matters. It is relevant to note that Eskbank and District Community Council were neutral in their response. McFarlane Farming Ltd (Morton Fraser MacRoberts)as the nearest adjoininglandowner submitteda neutral response with useful and practical suggestions in respect of operations management on the siteincluding security, site management and road traffic management. Another neighbour has objected largely on amenity grounds and again the offer of a meeting has been extended without reply. Planning Conditions Planning permission is capable of being granted subject to the imposition of relevant conditions. Given the nature of the issues raised by the Council it would be entirely reasonable to condition a consent to deal with the Reason for Refusal. Planning Conditions would be in accordance with Circular toaccord with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The conditions(Appendix B)would deal with detailed aspects relatingto: I. Landscape and Visual Impact. II. Details, Materialsand Finishes. III. Traffic Management Measures -Travel Plan. IV. Biodiversity Enhancement. V. Archaeological Works/ Scheme of Written Investigations. An example of standard planning conditions issued by the Council in respect of a previous Local Review is provided in Appendix B. Developer Contributions The applicant is agreeable to the proposed level of developer contributions suggested by the Council amounting to £47,658.27 (Q2 2024 BCIS Prices Factor 2)in respect of the A7 Urbanisation Project. This would be through a S75 Legal Agreement. Page 58 of 108
Page 59
6. Summary and Conclusions Having considered theapplication proposals against the terms of the development plan and all other material considerations as required under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the Applicant is firmly of the view that the application has significant support from the Development Plan, and that there are no material considerations which would preclude the grant of planning permission for a lodge development. The Review Statement has addressed theproposalsagainst the relevant policies of the prevailing Development Plan,as a rebuttal to the Reasonsfor Refusal given by Council officers. There is a lack of justification and thereasonsgiven arenot warranted,nor dotheymeet normal planning tests in terms of reasonableness.The recommendedrefusal out of proportion with the evidence presented by theApplicant. This Local Review disputesMidlothian CouncilsReason forRefusal of Application Ref forEleven (11)Lodges at Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade.Given the material planning history of the site andprinciple of development it is considered that theReasonsfor Refusal given by the Council is unreasonable and disproportionate. It does not properly interpret the Development Plan, LDP or NPF 4 interms of carefully assessing planning policy and coming to a balanced decision based on good planning judgement. Indeed,the decisionisdisproportionate to therelatively fewobjections tothe proposal and the Reasons for Refusal bolstered by the Lead Officer (Local Developments). - The site is Green Belt in name only and does not meet the purpose or objectives for this designation. - It is an eminently sensible location for visitor location and already benefits from associated facilities signposted brown from theA7. - It meets an acknowledged and established demand and can only re-enforce the viability of surrounding and other local businessuses. - The layout and siting of lodges integrates with the surrounding landscape and does not constituteoverdevelopment. - It can only improve the character and appearance of the wider area and road corridor through the proposed gateway and reconstruction of thestone boundarywall. - There is no impact on the North Esk Landscape Area or Melville Castle Designated Landscape. - It will definitely improve the quality of the area and promote the creation of a successful place. - There is an approved access and junction arrangement which together with pedestrian and cycle connections will provide a safer environment. - The site has little or no biodiversity value at present and proposals will result in a net gain which can be secured through landscape and associated conditions. Consultations are generally favourable. Furthermore, the applicant did not have the opportunity to respond to thetransport consultationwhich formed part of therefusal. As indicated refusal would sterilisesustainableand availableland within theareafor no good planning reason without anyenvironmental or economic benefit. As acknowledged in the Report of Handling (up to the conclusion) mitigation is possible and can be compensated. Page 59 of 108
Page 60
Information provided for the original application and as part of this Local Review demonstrates that the proposal is not contrary to MLLDP ENV Policies 1;7 and 20 or NPF 4 Policies 1; 38;14 and 30. Indeed to the contrary when considered comprehensively in the round it does in fact complywith the Development Plan. Havingassessed and considered the proposed development against the terms of both the Development Plan and other material considerations as required under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), the Applicant hasconclusively demonstrated that the appeal should be upheld, and planning permission granted.It is not clear howany other conclusion could be reached given the weight of planning evidence and taking all relevant policy considerations into account. There are clearlyno adverseimpacts whichsignificantly and demonstrablyoutweigh the benefits of the appeal proposal. Reference to theunderlying objectives of NPF 4 and theLDP aims suggest that material economic and businessbenefits will result from thetourism development if approved.Notwithstanding the policy arguments no material considerations considered by the Council indicate that the appeal should be refused. We respectfullyreserve the right to respond to any submissions on the Local Review from the Appointed Officer, Consultees or Third Parties prior to its determination. In view of the considerations outlined it is respectfully suggested that this Review be upheld, and that planning permission is granted for the proposal as applied for. Rick Finc MRTPI MIED RFA Development Planning October 2024 Page 60 of 108
Page 61
APPENDIX A SOUTH MELVILLE FARM REF 24/00412/DPP CORE DOCUMENTATION 1. Application Form Ref-24/00412/DPP 2. Decision Notice Ref -24/00412/DPP 3. Report of Handling Ref -24/00412/DPP 4. Statement of Review -RFA Planning October 2024 5. Midlothian Council Local Development Plan (MLLDP 2017) 6. National Planning Framework (NPF4 2023) 7. Design and Access Statement (QB Wood Architects) 8. Correspondence from Agent (10 August 2024) 9. Planning Statement (Application Ref 00412/DPP) (Premier Inn-Walshingham Planning) 10.Photographic Evidence (a; b and c) 11. Midlothian Standard Planning Conditions Page 61 of 108
Page 62
APPENDIX B SOUTH MELVILLE FARM REF 24/00412/DPP EXAMPLE OF MIDLOTHIAN STANDARD PLANNING CONDITIONS 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.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. ii. iii. iv. the nature, extent and types of contamination and/or previous mineral, workings on the site; measures to treat or remove contamination and/or previous mineral workings to ensure that thesite 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; measures to deal with contamination and/or previous mineral workings encountered during construction work; and the condition of the site on completion of the specified decontamination measures. 3.Before any part of the site is occupied for residential purposes, the measures to decontaminate the site shall be fully implemented as approved by the planning authority. On completion of the decontamination/remediation works required in condition 2 and prior to the unit 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 houses are to connect to the public water supply, details of the connection shall be submitted. If the houses are to connect to a private water supply detail 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 proposed houses shall be submitted. Before the new houses are occupied the installation of the water supply hereby approved shall be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the houses are provided with adequate water supply facilities prior to occupation. Page 62 of 108
Page 63
5. Prior to the commencement of development, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) A proposed topographical plan showing the levels of all houses, buildings, open space and roads in relating to a fixed datum; Details and samples of all external finishing materials for the houses and garage; Details of the proposed materials of the areas of hardstanding; Details of the design, position, dimensions, materials and finish of all proposed walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure; Details of the proposal bin storage and collection arrangements; Details of the proposed ground source heat pumps; Details of the proposed solar panels; Details of the provision of superfast broadband connections for the houses; Details of the proposed electric vehicle charging point for each house; An updated phasing plan detailing the timescales and order for the development to be carried out; Details of the proposed areas of public access; and 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 houses are finished in high quality materials; to protect the visual amenity of the surrounding area; to ensure the houses are provided with adequate amenity; to help integrate the proposal into the surrounding rural area. 6. The external materials agreed in writing by the planning authority in terms of condition 5b) shall be natural slate roofs and either det dash or smooth render walls. Reason: To ensure the materials are high quality, natural, traditional and appropriatefor the surrounding rural area. 7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority the area of hardstanding agreed in terms of condition 5c) shall be surfaced in a porous material. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained in the interests of the amenity of the area. The scheme of landscaping and landscaping plan required in terms of condition 5l) shall include the following to be prepared by a qualified arboricultural consultant: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) 8.A landscape plan including tree protection measures clearly indicating the construction exclusion zone in accordance with BS5837 and the separation distance zone around the high pressure gas pipeline, as well as tree protection and tree protection details to be submitted. This plan shall also indicate the accurate crown spread of the trees; Tree protection measures in accordance with BS5837; An Arboricultural Method Statement to ensure the construction works can be carried out while protecting root protection areas during construction; A tree survey of all existing trees within and adjacent to the site. This shall include all root protection areas; An Arboricultural Impact Assessment; A planting plan identifying all tree and hedge planting locations, as well as a planting schedule detailing all plant numbers, species, sizes and root condition and details of flowering lawn mix and sowing rate; Details of tree planting interspersed with native hedge planting along the boundaries of the house plots; A planting schedule; Detailed planting specification notes including ground preparation for all planting types, planting medium quality and quantity (topsoil and mulch source and depth), planting (tree pits, hedge planting) and plant protection against browsing and all landscape maintenance activities including watering; A maintenance schedule indicating the frequency of visits and activities to take place such as pruning of hedges and watering. This shall include inspection and maintenance where necessary of the existing trees on site; The landscape plan shall investigate the use of water harvesting measures and rain gardens to allow for infiltration of rainwater, such as from roofs and hard surfaces. If this is not possible, details of why shall be Page 63 of 108
Page 64
provided for approval; and l) A woodland management plan. Reason: To ensure that on site contractors are fully aware of the tree protection area and prohibited activities in order to ensure trees are protected fully; to protect the trees and canopy cover in the site and wider area; to protect the rural character of the area and integrate the development into the surrounding rural area; to increase canopy cover at the site; to promote biodiversity. 9. The tree protection measures required and approved in condition 8b) shall be put in place before any works begin on site and shall be retained as approved until development on site is completed. The protective fencing shall be in accordance with BS5837and shall include signage indicating prohibited activities within this Construction Exclusion Zone. Evidence of the signage shall also be supplied to the council. Proof of these protection measures and signage being in place shall be submitted to the Planning Authority before works begin. Reason: To ensure that any trees affected by the proposal are protected during development; to protect the trees and canopy cover in the site and wider area. 10. The separation distance zone required in condition 8b) shall be as identified in the objection letter from National Gas Transmission dated 30th May 2024. Reason: To ensure that any proposed planting does not have an adverse impact on the high-pressuregas pipeline which runs through the site. 11. Within six months of the first house either being completed or occupied, whichever is the earlier date, the landscape scheme approved under the terms of condition 5l) above shall be carried out; thereafter, any trees or shrubs removed, dying, becomingseriously diseased or being severely damaged shall be replaced during the next available planting season with others of a similar size and species. Reason: To protect and enhance the landscaping of the area; to ensure that planting on the site is carried out as early as possible and has an adequate opportunity to become established. 12. No development shall take place on site until the applicants, or their successors have undertaken and reported upon a programme of archaeological (Monitored Soil Strip) work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a proper archaeological evaluation of the site, which is within an area of potential archaeological interest, and that adequate measures are in place to record any archaeological finds. 13. Before the new houses are occupied the installation of the means of drainage treatment and disposal hereby approved shall be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the houses are provided with adequate drainage facilities prior to occupation. 14. Before the new houses are occupied the biodiversity measures within the house plots in the approved Biodiversity Enhancement Plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the houses are provided with adequate drainage facilities prior to occupation. 15. 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. Page 64 of 108
Page 65
16. The works hereby approved shall comply with the recommendations in the approved Ecology Survey dated 12 February 2024. Reason for conditions 1 and 14: To protect and enhance the local biodiversity of the site; there is potential for the disturbance of breeding birds at the site during bird breeding season; in order to ensure protected species are considered and not adversely affected. Page 65 of 108
Page 66
Page 66 of 108
Page 67
Page 67 of 108
Page 68
Page 68 of 108
Page 69
Page 69 of 108
Page 70
Page 70 of 108
Page 71
Page 71 of 108
Page 72
Page 72 of 108
Page 73
Page 73 of 108
Page 74
Page 74 of 108
Page 75
Page 75 of 108
Page 76
Page 76 of 108
Page 77
Page 77 of 108
Page 78
Page 78 of 108
Page 79
Page 79 of 108
Page 80
MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING APPLICATION DELEGATED WORKSHEET: Planning Application Reference: 24/00412/DPP Site Address: South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade, EH18 1AN Site Description: The application site relates to a plot of land located to the south of Melville Dykes Road, to the west of Dalkeith. It does not contain any structures or buildings at present and comprises a grassed area with an earth and stone rubble mound along the northern boundary where a traditional stone wall was previously located. The site is bound by timber fencing along its perimeter. To the east of the site there are buildings at South Melville Farm. Beyond this, there is a residential cottage, the access to the Melville Golf Centre and a Premier Inn hotel and pub/ restaurant. The adjacent land to the west of the site has planning permission for the erection of a single dwelling (23/00241/DPP). This will replace the existing stone-built former farmhouse on this site which is due to be demolished. To the south, the site is bound by a group of trees, beyond which there is a golf course. To the north, the site fronts onto Melville Dykes Road (A768). On the opposite side of Melville Dykes Road is an area of woodland at the edge of a golf course. The land on the north side of the road forms part of the Melville Castle Designed Landscape and the North Esk Special Landscape Area. Proposed Development: Erection of 11 lodges and associated works Proposed Development Details: It is proposed to erect 11 lodges for use as visitor accommodation at the site. The proposed lodges measure 14m long x 6.5m wide and are 6.5m in height. Each lodge has a pitched roof which has been designed in order to accommodate a second storey. The lodges each contain 3-bedrooms with kitchen and living/ dining area. Timber composite decking and a hot tub is provided to the rear of each lodge with a timber screen fence to maintain privacy. The lodges are to be finished in mix of timber cladding and white render. Timber cladding is to be used for the front and rear elevations, with white render for the sides. The fenestration is proposed to take a contemporary approach with use of full height windows to the rear, and angled windows to the front Each lodge also contains roof lights to maximise solar gain and natural lighting. Roof-mounted PV panels are included on each lodge. The site is to be accessed from Melville Dykes Road to the north via an access track approved by application ref. 22/00908/DPP at the eastern corner. Each lodge is to Appendix C Page 80 of 108
Page 81
be provided with private parking for two vehicles from the internal access road running through the site. 7kw EV charging is provided at each plot. The first 6m of the access road would be finished in a different material to the internal access road. This would have an asphalt finish to prevent any loose material spreading onto the road network. Currently a timber fence is in place around the perimeter of the application site. Along the northern boundary, the applicant has confirmed that this is to be replaced through the reinstatement of a stone wall along Melville Dykes Road. 2m timber fencing is proposed to the west and eastern boundaries. It is understood that the original stone wall collapsed during previous works adjacent to the site to create an access track. Since the collapse of the wall, materials have been retained on site and have been stored as a mound of stone and rubble along the road frontage. This has created an untidy appearance to the front of the site as it is viewed from Melville Dykes Road. Tree and shrub planting is proposed along the northern boundary as well as within the site, along the central access road. A wildflower area is located adjacent to the eastern boundary. An amenity space with soakaway for surface water drainage is located to the south of the existing dwelling to the north. A bin storage area is located to the front of the site. Background (Previous Applications, Supporting Documents, Development Briefs): History sheet checked. 24/00112/DPP- Erection of dwellinghouse and garage; and associated works at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade. 23/00518/DPP- Erection of dwellinghouse and garage; and associated works (withdrawn) 23/00241/DPP- Erection of dwellinghouse at Land at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade. 23/00032/PNDEM- Prior Notification for demolition of dwellinghouse at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade. 22/00908/DPP- Formation of additional access to classified road at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade. 22/00496/DPP- Extension to dwellinghouse; formation of pitched roof over existing flat roofed garage, dormer window, steps, ramp, retaining walls and areas of hardstanding; installation of gate post and replacement gates; alterations to existing garage doors; widening of existing access and increase height of existing boundary wall at Belmont, 20 Broomieknowe, Lasswade. Page 81 of 108
Page 82
22/00473/DPP- Erection of garage at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade. 22/00205/DPP- Formation of access to classified road at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade. Consultations: The Coal Authority: The Coal Authority initially objected to the application on the basis that a Coal Mining Risk Assessment had not been submitted. The applicant provided a Coal Mining Risk Assessment and The Coal Authority were reconsulted. This confirmed that The Coal Authority have no objection to the planning application subject to their suggested conditions being attached to the decision notice if the application is approved. The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services: Confirmed that if the application were to be approved, planning conditions would be required to address any contamination and/ or previous mineral workings. If a septic tank is to be used, a sufficient capacity tank should be provided and registered with SEPA. If approval were to be granted, a short-term let licence would need to have been applied for and issued prior to occupation. Scottish Water: Offered no objection to the proposal and confirmed there is sufficient capacity from the Roseberry Water Treatment Works to provide water supply to the development and at Edinburgh PFI Waste Water Treatment Works for foul connection. The Council’s Archaeology Service: Confirmed that the development site lies in an area of archaeological potential and as such, recommended that if the application were to be approved that a Programme of Archaeological Works (Evaluation) should be conditioned to mitigate impacts upon the historic environment. This would include the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) prior to any archaeological investigation commencing, and a field evaluation by trial trenching reported on through a Data Structure Report. Should the results of the initial investigations indicate that further work is required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, these would need to be carried out prior to the commencement of development. The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads): Confirmed that the proposed development would not achieve the required visibility to accommodate the safe operation of the proposed junction in the location shown. Melville Dykes is a high-speed road and greater visibility and sight lines (4.5m x 120m and clear of any obstructions as per Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)) are needed to service the level of traffic movements anticipated with the introduction of 11 holiday lodges. Bonnyrigg and District Community Council: Object to the proposed development on grounds of that the development represents an overdevelopment for the small area, entry and access present potential danger to road users and occupants, and Page 82 of 108
Page 83
there are no management facilities onsite. In addition, concerns were raised regarding the use of the units as ‘golf lodges’ on the basis that they can be let to anyone regardless of intent to play golf and that the adjacent 9-hole golf course is not of such standing to attract large numbers of tourists. The Council’s Economic Development Manager: No comment on the proposal. The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Flood Risk and Drainage): No comment on the proposal. The Council’s Planning Obligations Officer (Section 75): Confirmed that based on the policy framework and assessment that the proposal would be required to make a financial contribution towards infrastructure to mitigate its cumulative impact. Representations: Four representations to the application were received: two objecting to the proposal and two neutral representations neither supporting nor objecting to the proposal. One of the neutral representations was made by Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council. As the application site does not sit within the boundary of Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council these comments are not considered to be consultation response but rather as a representation from a neighbouring Community Council. The comments received objecting to the application comprised the following: • Concern over capacity of private water supply and septic tank to cater for proposed development. • Concern over demand for accommodation at 9-hole golf course and lack of other facilities nearby. • Concern over additional traffic generation and impact on road network. • Concern over number of accesses onto Melville Dykes Road. • Concern over potential for sub-letting and occupancy as permanent residential accommodation. • Concern over site security and as to whether acceptable level of amenity in terms of noise could be achieved. • Concern over the development of Grade 2 Prime Agricultural Land. • Concern over waste collection within the site boundary inclusive of safe turning circle, and concern for fly tipping if adequate facilities not provided. • Concern over building over surface coal seams. The comments received neither in support nor objecting to the application comprised the following: • Concern over the volume of new traffic generated by the proposal and impact on the road network. • Concern over lack of active travel routes from the site. • Concern over noise impact on existing uses such as the Golf Centre. Page 83 of 108
Page 84
• Concern over occupancy and request for conditions to prevent the use of the lodges as permanent residential accommodation and to provide adequate protection for the local environment e.g. due to proximity to habitats to allow seasonal breeding or winter feeding. • Request for further detail on septic tank and SUDS. • Request for further detail on access for service and maintenance vehicles, and for information on maintenance and management of the lodges themselves. • Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council put forward comments that access should be taken from the existing access via the driving range so that only one road is maintained for the hotel, driving range and proposed lodges. • Comments were also made from Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council that consideration should be given to a reduction in the number of lodges as well as building line that is further from the main road and provides green spaces/ trees. Relevant Planning Policies: The Development Plan comprises the National Planning Framework 4 adopted February 2023 and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. The relevant policies of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) are: 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 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 7 Historic assets and places; sets out to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. 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. Page 84 of 108
Page 85
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 20 Blue and green infrastructure; sets out to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. 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. 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; Policy DEV5: Sustainability in New Development sets out the requirements for development with regards to sustainability principles. Policy DEV6: Layout and Design of New Development states that good design and a high quality of architecture will be required in the overall layout of development proposals. This also provides guidance on design principles for development, materials, access, and passive energy gain, positioning of buildings, open and private amenity space provision and parking. Policy 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. Policy 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. Policy IT1: Digital Infrastructure supports the incorporation of high speed broadband connections and other digital technologies into new homes, business properties and redevelopment proposals. Policy VIS2: Tourist Accommodation supports the development of hotels or self- catering tourist accommodation provided the proposal is in scale and in keeping with the character of the local area, is sited and designed to respect its setting and is located in an unobtrusive manner within the rural landscape (where applicable) and Page 85 of 108
Page 86
is well located in terms of the strategic road network and maximises public transport access. Self-catering tourist accommodation including touring caravan/ camping sites, will be permitted where the proposal is not in 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. Policy RD1: Development in the Countryside sets out where appropriate development would be acceptable in the countryside subject to defined criteria. The policy states that proposals for development will be of an appropriate scale and character appropriate to the rural area and well integrated to the rural landscape. Policy ENV1: Protection of the Green Belt advises that development will not be permitted in the Green Belt except for proposals that; A. are necessary to agriculture, horticulture or forestry; or B. provide opportunities for access to the open countryside, outdoor sport or outdoor recreation which reduce the need to travel further afield; or C. are related to other uses appropriate to the rural character of the area; or D. provide for essential infrastructure; or E. form development that meets a national requirement or established need of no other site is available. Any development proposal will be required to show that it does not conflict with the overall objectives of the Green Belt which is to maintain the identity and landscape setting of Edinburgh and Midlothian towns by clearly identifying their physical boundaries and preventing coalescence. Policy ENV4: Prime Agricultural Land does not permit development that would lead to the permanent loss of prime agricultural land unless there is appropriate justification to do so. Policy ENV6: Special Landscape Areas states that development proposals will only be permitted where they incorporate high standards of siting and design and where they will not have significant adverse effect on the special landscape qualities of the area. Policy 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. Policy ENV16: Vacant, Derelict and Contaminated Land supports the redevelopment of vacant and derelict land for uses compatible with their location. Developments will be required to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the Page 86 of 108
Page 87
proposed new use in terms of the risk posed by contamination and instability from historic uses. Policy ENV18: Noise requires that where new noise sensitive uses are proposed in the locality of existing noisy uses, the Council will seek to ensure that the function of established operations is not adversely affected. Policy ENV20: Nationally Important Gardens and Designed Landscapes states development should protect, and where appropriate enhance, gardens and designed landscapes. Development will not be permitted which would harm the character, appearance and/or setting of a garden or designed landscape as identified in the Inventory of historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes. Policy ENV24: Other Important Archaeological or Historic Sites seeks to prevent development that would adversely affect regionally or locally important archaeological or historic sites, or their setting. Policy ENV25: Site Assessment, Evaluation and Recording requires that where development could affect an identified site of archaeological importance, the applicant will be required to provide an assessment of the archaeological value of the site and of the likely impact of the proposal on the archaeological resource. Policies IMP1: New Development and IMP2: Essential Infrastructure Required to Enable New Development to Take Place require the developer to deliver, or contribute to, the required infrastructure to mitigate the impact of the development. Policy IMP3: Water and Drainage require sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) to be incorporated into new development. 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. Principle of Development The site is located in the Green Belt where development is limited to certain uses, and where it is demonstrated that they do not conflict with the overall objectives and purpose of the Green Belt. Policy 8 of NPF4 and Policy ENV1 of the MLDP set out types of development which could be supported in Green Belt locations as well as the further criteria that all proposals for these listed uses would need to demonstrate that they meet. NPF4 is clear that it should be read as a whole. Accordingly, in assessing the principle of development a range of policies should be considered including those in relation to Green Belt development as well as those relating specifically to visitor accommodation. Page 87 of 108
Page 88
Policy 8 of NPF4 and Policy ENV1 of the MLDP establish that development in the Green Belt will be supported where it is associated with agriculture, forestry, horticulture, provides for essential infrastructure, provides access to the open countryside, is for outdoor recreation, play and sport or leisure and tourism uses. Support is also given to residential accommodation where it is required and designed for a key worker within the immediate vicinity of their place of employment. Of most relevance to this proposal, is ‘outdoor recreation, play and sport or leisure and tourism uses’ as set out in Policy 8 of NPF4. NPF4 does not define ‘tourism uses’ and does not clarify whether this would extend to include tourist accommodation. The only form of overnight accommodation that NPF4 is clear that could be supported in the Green Belt is residential accommodation designed for a key worker in a primary industry and one-for-one replacements of existing permanent homes. In addition, NPF4 states that the intensification of established uses could also be supported. The proposal does not fall within any of these specific accommodation-based uses. In any case, where development meets one of the exceptions set out in Policy 8 of NPF4 and Policy ENV1 of the MLDP, it is also required to demonstrate that it does not conflict with the overall objectives and purpose of the Green Belt. Reasons as to why a Green Belt location is essential should be provided, as well as a demonstration that it is compatible with the surrounding established countryside and landscape character, that it prevents coalescence, that it has been designed to ensure it’s of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance that minimises visual impact, and that there will be no significant effects on environmental quality of the Green Belt. The site is located along Melville Dykes Road which is located beyond settlement boundaries and forms an area of countryside between the built-up areas of Eskbank and Lasswade. The immediate surroundings comprise former and existing agricultural buildings, open space, golf courses, and a small number dwellings. While a hotel and restaurant are located to the east, it should be noted that the MLDP provides specific support to hotel development in ‘gateway’ locations (considered in terms of ease of access to major junctions on A720) subject to meeting specific criteria. The proposed scale and density of the development, combined with the size and massing of the lodges is not appropriate for its location. The proposed layout takes a largely urban form and character with 11no. lodges measuring 6.5m in height positioned in linear rows along a central access road. This is not in keeping with the sites setting and as a result of the proposed scale and density, insufficient space has been left to provide meaningful landscaping planting and an appropriate buffer. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and does not minimise visual impact on the Green Belt or local landscape character. The site is located directly adjacent to the North Esk Special Landscape Area and the Melville Castle Designed Landscape. The site provides short to medium distance views over trees and open land to the south, which are important due to the site’s location immediately adjacent the above landscape designations. The development will result in adverse landscape impacts on the setting of both these designations Page 88 of 108
Page 89
due to the scale and density of the proposed lodges, lack of a significant buffer planting and proposed small size of tree stock. This contrary to Policies ENV6, ENV7 and ENV20 of the MLDP. The development will adversely affect the integrity of the Green Belt through the infilling of this area of remaining open land along Melville Dykes Road. The development of this site could impact on the separation of Lasswade and Eskbank in the long term when travelling along Melville Dykes Road; the existing Premier Inn hotel, golf course and surrounding built development create an almost continuously developed edge from the A7 roundabout for the first 500 metres of the road when heading in a westerly direction toward Lasswade, with the proposal site representing the only break in this developed frontage. The proposed development is therefore in conflict with the overall objectives of the Green Belt to protect and enhance landscape character and open space and prevent coalescence of towns. The development will result in an adverse local landscape and visual impact which is contrary to Policy 8 of NPF4 and Policy ENV1 of the MLDP. It has also not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the site is the most appropriate location for the proposed development and that it could not be located elsewhere, in a non-Green Belt location. Policy 30 of NPF4 focuses specifically on tourism. This states that development proposals for new tourist facilities or accommodation, in locations identified in the Local Development Plan (LDP), will be supported. The site has not been identified within the MLDP for tourist accommodation. Policy VIS2 of the MLDP states that proposals for visitor accommodation will be supported provided it is in scale and in keeping with the character of the local area, is sited and designed to respect its setting and is located in an unobtrusive manner within the rural landscape, is well located in terms of the strategic road network and maximises public transport access, and is in accordance with specific criteria relating to the type of accommodation proposed. For self-catering tourist accommodation, this includes where the proposal is not in the Green Belt unless linked to some related existing development and where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal is for the furtherance of a viable long-term business. The applicant’s agent has submitted a Statement and letter with further information regarding the proposal. This states that the proposal is linked to the adjoining golf course and makes provision for the use of existing sports facilities in the area. This comprises Melville Golf Centre which includes a 9-hole golf course, driving range and practice putting green and pitch and putt area. The site is not located within the grounds or ownership of the adjacent golf centre and confirmation has not been received from representatives of the golf centre that the proposals form part of their future business model or indeed a formal diversification of the centre. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that the ‘target market is aimed at golf groups but could also attract off peak visitors (individuals/ family visitors)’. The occupation of the lodges cannot be formally linked or restricted to the adjacent golf centre/ users of the adjacent golf course and would be able to be let by any members of the public. As such, the proposals are not considered to be explicitly linked to an existing development. Page 89 of 108
Page 90
The submitted Design and Access Statement references ‘home ownership’ of the lodges with the ability to sub-let by third parties. The applicant’s agent has since clarified that a company has been formed and that this would take control of the ownership of the lodges to manage the development for individual short term lets. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that the company does not have any proposals to sell any lodges for holiday home ownership or allow subletting. This proposition referenced in the Design and Access Statement was based on a flexible model adapted from elsewhere. It should be noted that if the proposed development were to be approved, planning conditions would be used to ensure that the lodges could be used as holiday lets only and could not form main or sole residences. Evidence has not been provided that there is demand for the accommodation in order to justify the scale of the proposed development which comprises 11x 3-bed lodges (33 bedrooms and potential for 66 occupants), both in the general context of the viability of visitor accommodation in this location, taking into consideration proximity to existing hotel accommodation to the east, but also in terms of demand and need to specifically to be located adjacent to the golf centre. This is not in accordance with the requirements of Policy VIS2 which requires applicants to demonstrate that self-catering proposals are for the furtherance of a viable long-term business. Taking the above into consideration, the proposal is not supported by Policy VIS2 of the MLDP. It is also consequently not in accordance with part a of NPF4 Policy 30 as is not in a location identified or supported for tourist accommodation in the MLDP. Policy 30 also states that proposals for tourism related development will take into account the contribution made to the local economy and compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors. The applicant has set out benefits of the proposed development including an estimated total of 16,800 visitors to Midlothian annually with a spend of £1.78 million. This will have resulting local employment and economic benefits. Policy 30, part b is clear that the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area must also be taken into account in terms of the nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors. The landscape and visual impacts have been assessed above and it is concluded that the proposal will result in an adverse impact. Other impacts include those on the local road network, on the amenity of existing uses and on local drainage infrastructure. The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads) has assessed the proposal in terms of road impacts and road safety. The development proposes to take access through an access onto Melville Dykes Road granted through application 22/00908/DPP. This was for the creation of a new vehicular access to the site in connection with an existing residential dwelling to the west. The proposed use of this access has been assessed in the context of use as access and egress for 11x 3-bed holiday lodges. This has confirmed that the proposed development would not achieve the required visibility to accommodate the safe operation of the junction for the proposed use in the location shown. Melville Dykes is a high-speed road and greater visibility and sight lines (4.5m x 120m and clear of any obstructions as per Page 90 of 108
Page 91
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)) are needed to service the level of traffic movements anticipated with the introduction of 11 holiday lodges. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that the proposed development would connect to the public water supply. Scottish Water have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity to service the site. Originally, private water supply arrangements were proposed however the applicant’s agent confirmed that this was no longer the case during the determination of the application. The applicant has submitted a plan to confirm that no built development is proposed over an existing private water pipe which crosses the site. The proposed development will have private drainage arrangements, namely connection to an existing septic tank on the northern side of Melville Dykes Road. This is not in application boundary but is within the applicant’s control and ownership. Connection into the existing private foul drainage system will be made to the north through land within the applicant’s ownership (site of approved replacement dwelling house ref. 23/00241/DPP). Surface water drainage is to be provided by a soakaway provided within the site boundary. The provision of SUDS is in accordance with Policy IMP3. Further details of the proposed foul and surface water drainage systems would be required by condition if the proposed development were to be approved. This would include confirming adequate capacity to deal with drainage across the site to fully demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that an acceptable foul and surface water drainage strategy can be delivered. It should be noted that if any development works outside of the red line boundary would be required to deliver an acceptable drainage strategy, that this may require planning permission. New development should not result in adverse impacts in terms of amenity on existing neighbouring uses. Representations were received to the application concerning potential noise impacts and potential for fly tipping due to a lack of waste storage. The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services have assessed the proposal and did not raise any concerns regarding impacts on amenity. The applicant has confirmed that a bin storage area will be located to the front of the site to service the development. Taking into account both the economic benefits and compatibility of the proposals with the surrounding area, it is considered that the proposal cannot be supported in terms of Policy 30 part b. Overall, the proposal is not in accordance with Policies ENV1 and VIS2 of the MLDP, and Policies 8 and 30 of NPF4 and principle of development thereby is not acceptable. For completeness, the other aspects of the proposal are considered below. Ground Conditions and Prime Agricultural Land The Council’s Environmental Health Team and The Coal Authority have been consulted on the application and advised that if the application were to be approved, Page 91 of 108
Page 92
planning conditions would be required to deal with any contamination and/ or previous mineral workings prior to any development commencing on the site. Policy ENV4 of the MLDP and Policy 5 of NPF4 establishes that development will not be permitted which leads to the permanent loss of prime agricultural land unless it meets certain criteria. This includes where there is a specific locational need, it forms part of an allocated site or it is linked to a rural business and essential workers. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal complies with the relevant criteria to allow for the loss of prime agricultural land however, the applicant’s agent has confirmed that there has not been farming activity on the land for several years and that no cropping records exist for the site. Taking the above into consideration with the site size, it is not considered that the loss of prime agricultural land warrants a reason for refusal in this case. If the applicant wishes for this classification to be removed, they should submit comments in relation to the preparation of MLDP2 for this to be considered. The applicant’s Design and Access Statement suggests that the site comprises brownfield land. Policy 9 of NPF4 supports the sustainable reuse of brownfield land. The available planning history for the site does not indicate that it has previously had planning permission for any alternative uses and there are no existing structures on the site. As such, it is not considered that the proposal comprises the reuse of brownfield land. Landscape The landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development have been considered above. The site plan confirms that tree and shrub planting is proposed, as well as an area of wildflower seeding. The applicant’s Design and Access Statement confirms that bug hotels and hedgehog homes would also be provided. The landscape proposal information submitted is limited; the planting proposed is not fully identified on the plan and tree sizes specified are extremely small, being specified as bare root specimens, and with some inconsistency on density as they are shown as individually planted on the site plan but specified as to be planted at 2 per square metre in the schedule. Bare root planting of this size and nature would normally relate to a woodland planting, whereas the individual locations shown on the plan would normally relate to larger specimen tree planting of standard, extra heavy standard, or semi mature size. The applicant’s Design and Access Statement confirms that they are happy for further landscaping detail would be provided by condition. For clarity, if the proposed development were to be approved, the landscaping information submitted would not be approved and details would indeed need to be dealt with by condition, as would biodiversity enhancement requirements. It would be expected that full landscape details would be submitted including planting plans, hard and soft landscape details, landscape specification and landscape maintenance schedules This would be required to reflect ecological surveys and the site baseline in order to ensure that biodiversity enhancements can be achieved. It is anticipated that significant buffer planting would be required alongside the inclusion of more dense planting such as Page 92 of 108
Page 93
hedgerows, woodland and woodland edge planting. Additionally, a measurement of the projected tree and woodland canopy cover to be achieved on site at Year 5 following completion should be submitted to demonstrated whether the proposal can achieve suitable canopy cover increases in accordance with Scottish Government targets and Midlothian Council’s Climate Change Strategy. Sustainability and Biodiversity The primary focus of the NPF4 planning polices is for developments to be sustainable and give consideration to the global climate and nature crisis. The applicant’s Design and Access Statement has confirmed that the lodges are designed to be highly insulated in order to minimise energy consumption. The proposed lodges will feature double-glazing, high-performance windows, insulated walls, ceilings, and floors, and perform above minimum requirements set by Scottish Building Standards. EV charging points are provided at each lodge and energy will be supplied by air source heat pumps and roof mounted PV panels. While the above measures are considered to be in largely in accordance with the aims of NPF4 Policies 1 and 2 with regard to energy use and consumption, the proposed layout is car-lead and the majority of trips to and from the site are likely to be done by private car. This is not in line with NPF4’s focus on sustainability. It is noted that the submitted plans contain wood burning stoves and an associated chimney. It is noted that the New Build Heat Standard does not permit new wood burning stoves in new non-domestic buildings (review taking place for domestic properties) where a building warrant is applied for from 1 April 2024. As such, if the application were to be approved these elements would need to be amended. This could be secured by condition. The site is located less than 300 metres from the Melville Castle Estate Local Biodiversity Area, including the North Esk riparian wooded river valley. To the south of the site is a golf course which includes a significant area of tree canopy cover, whilst to the north land is comprised of the wooded setting of a golf course and 300m north the wooded North Esk River valley. The surrounding land uses mean that there is a significant amount of existing tree canopy cover, and the proposal site presents the potential for a green network and nature network connection between the north and south, part of a more strategic ecological link between the River North Esk River South Esk riparian woodland river corridors. The proposed development has not included a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, related protected species surveys or Biodiversity Enhancement Proposals indicating in a quantifiable way the extent and nature of biodiversity enhancements, the reasons for the habitats retained, created or enhanced and how these can be ensured for the long-term in accordance with NPF4 Policy 3. Similarly, there is a lack of sufficient quantity and quality of proposed landscape and habitat enhancements to deliver a development that would be appropriate in this context. These details would be required by condition should the application be approved. Page 93 of 108
Page 94
It has not been demonstrated that the above issues and climate and nature crisis have been considered in the development of the proposal. This is contrary to the aims of Policies 1 and 3 of NPF4. Design and Layout The proposed lodges measure 14m long x 6.5m wide and are 6.5m in height. Each lodge has a pitched roof which has been designed in order to accommodate a second storey. The lodges each contain 3-bedrooms with kitchen and living/ dining area. As described above, the massing of the lodges combined with the scale of the proposed development is not in keeping with the character of the area and will result in an adverse visual impact. The proposed layout is centred around an internal access road and all lodges are to be uniform in form and design. The proposed layout lacks interest and represents an overdevelopment of the site which has an adverse local landscape and visual impact. A reduction in scale would be required to break up the continuous linear row of uniform lodges across the site and reduce visual impact. In addition, further landscape planting would contribute to providing relief from the proposed built form within the site and contribute towards creating a more natural and attractive space that can be located in an unobtrusive manner. The proposed development is highly car-lead and the majority of trips to and from the site are likely to be done by private car which is not in line with NPF4’s focus on sustainability and NPF4 Policy 14. The proposed development does not improve the quality of the area and is not accordance with the six qualities of successful places as set out in Policy 14 and aims of Policy Dev 6 of the MLDP. The proposed lodges are of a contemporary design. The chosen materials are to tie in with approved dwellinghouse located to the north of the site. This includes timber cladding with white render and glazed full height gable windows to the rear. Full material details have not been provided. If planning permission were to be approved, a condition would be attached requiring samples of all proposed materials to be submitted to the planning authority for prior written approval. The chosen materials should be sympathetic to the sites character and setting. The proposed development proposes to reinstate the stone wall along the road frontage where there is currently a timber fence in place. This is welcomed as the timber fence currently in situ is not in keeping with the character of the site. If the application were to be approved final details of boundary treatments should be submitted to the Planning Authority for prior written approval. It is noted that the timber fence which has been constructed in place of the stone wall appears to exceed 1m in height at points along the boundary and as it is within 20m of a road, it does not comprise permitted development under Class 7 Part 2 Schedule 1 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992. As such, the Planning Authority may be required to take enforcement action to ensure an appropriate boundary treatment is in place at this location. Page 94 of 108
Page 95
Drainage Drainage and water supply has been assessed above. Access Vehicle access to the site has been assessed above. EV charging is proposed for each pod accordance with Policy TRAN5. Infrastructure In accordance with Policy IT1, high speed broadband connection should be provided for the new development if the application were to be approved. This could be secured via planning condition should the application be approved. Archaeology The Council’s Archaeology Service has confirmed that the development site lies in an area of archaeological potential and as such, recommended that if the application were to be approved that a Programme of Archaeological Works (Evaluation) should be conditioned to mitigate impacts upon the historic environment in accordance with Policies ENV24 and ENV25 of the MLDP and Policy 7 of NPF4. This would include the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) prior to any archaeological investigation commencing, and a field evaluation by trial trenching reported on through a Data Structure Report. Should the results of the initial investigations indicate that further work is required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development, these would need to be carried out prior to the commencement of development. These works could be secured via planning condition should the application be approved. Developer Contributions The Council’s Planning Obligations Officer (Section 75) has assessed the proposal and confirmed that the proposal would be required to make a financial contribution towards infrastructure to mitigate its cumulative impact. The site is located adjacent to the A7 where there is a development plan requirement to improve public transport and active travel infrastructure, known as the A7 Urbanisation Project. The proposed development is therefore expected to make a proportionate contribution towards the cost of this project. This contribution would be £1444.99 per bed room (33 x £1,444.99 = £47,658.27) (Q2 2024 BCIS Prices, factor 392). The contribution would be subject to indexation uplifted to the latest price at the time of payment. The required contribution would be secured via Section 75 Agreement should the application be approved. Recommendation: Refuse planning permission. Page 95 of 108
Page 96
Refusal of Planning Permission Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Reg. No. 24/00412/DPP QB Wood Architects Station Masters Office South Queensferry Edinburgh EH30 9JP Midlothian Council, as Planning Authority, having considered the application by Mr David McMillan, 12 Letham Mains Holdings, Haddington, EH41 4NW, which was registered on 26 June 2024 in pursuance of their powers under the above Acts, hereby refuse permission to carry out the following proposed development: Erection of 11 lodges and associated works at South Melville Farm, Melville Dykes Road, Lasswade, EH18 1AN in accordance with the application and the following documents/drawings: Document/Drawing. Drawing No/Scale Dated Location Plan 24012-E01 1:2500 26.06.2024 Proposed Site Plan 24012-P01H 1:500 Rev H 20.08.2024 Existing Site Plan 24012-E02A 1:500 Rev A 26.08.2024 Context Plan 24012-P02B Rev B 1:500 26.06.2024 Proposed Floor Plan 24012-P03B 1:100 Rev B 26.06.2024 Proposed Elevations 24012-P04A 1:100 Rev A 26.06.2024 Visualisation 24012-P05A Rev A 26.06.2024 Visualisations of Site 1 24012-P06A Rev A 26.06.2024 Visualisations of Site 2 24012-P07A Rev A 26.06.2024 Visualisations of Site 3 24012-P08A Rev A 26.06.2024 Landscaping plan 24012-P09 26.06.2024 Design and Access Statement 26.06.2024 Response to Planners Comments 17.07.2024 Coal Mining Risk Assessment 26.09.2024 The reason(s) for the Council's decision are set out below: 1. The proposed development is contrary Policy ENV1 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 8 of the National Planning Framework 4 in that it to fails to accord with the purpose and objectives of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore unacceptable in principle and contrary to the Development Plan. 2. The proposed development is contrary Policy VIS2 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 30 of the National Planning Framework 4 in that it to fails to demonstrate that it is a suitable location for visitor accommodation in terms of scale, landscape impact, impact on the road network, and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that it is for the Appendix D Page 96 of 108
Page 97
furtherance of a viable long-term business. The proposal is therefore unacceptable in principle and contrary to the Development Plan. 3. The scale, layout and design of the proposed development is not appropriate to its setting and will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape and local area. The proposed layout would result in an overdevelopment of the site and it has not been demonstrated that the proposal development can be successfully integrated into the landscape. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policies VIS2, ENV1 and ENV7 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 8 of the National Planning Framework 4. 4. The proposed development will have an adverse impact on landscape designations (North Esk Special Landscape Area and the Melville Castle Designed Landscape). Thereby the proposed development is contrary to Policies ENV6, ENV7 and ENV20 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 5. The proposed design and layout of the development fails to improve the quality of the area and does not accord with the six qualities of successful places as required by NPF4 Policy 14. 6. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the proposed development will achieve a safe access for traffic movements associated with 11 holiday lodges. 7. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the impact on biodiversity and the nature crisis have been considered and addressed. This is contrary to the overarching aims of the National Planning Framework 4 and Policies 1 and 3 specifically. Dated 11 / 10 / 2024 …………………………….. Duncan Robertson Lead Officer – Local Developments Fairfield House, 8 Lothian Road, Dalkeith, EH22 3ZN Page 97 of 108
Page 98
Any Planning Enquiries should be directed to: Planning and Local Authority Liaison Direct Telephone: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries) Email: planningconsultation@coal.gov.uk Website: www.gov.uk/coalauthority INFORMATIVE NOTE The proposed development lies within an area that has been defined by the Coal 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 Coal 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 that a suitable engineering design which takes into account all the relevant safety and environmental risk factors, including mine gas and mine-water. Your attention is drawn to the Coal Authority Policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at: 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 Coal 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. Failure to obtain a Coal Authority Permit for such activities is trespass, with the potential for court action. If any coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848. Further information is available on the Coal Authority website at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority Informative Note valid from 1st January 2023 until 31st December 2024 Page 98 of 108
Page 99
Appendix E Page 99 of 108
Page 100
Page 100 of 108
Page 101
Page 101 of 108
Page 102
Page 102 of 108
Page 103
Page 103 of 108
Page 104
Page 104 of 108
Page 105
Page 105 of 108
Page 106
Page 106 of 108
Page 107
Page 107 of 108
Page 108
Page 108 of 108