Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 06/10/2025
Midlothian Council · 6 October 2025
Back to Planning Committee — 6 October 2025 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 Planning Committee Venue: Normandy Court/ Hybrid, Normandy Court, 20 Normandy Dr, Dalkeith, EH22 1JG Date: Monday, 06 October 2025 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 46
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 Planning Committee Minute of 26 August 2025 submitted for approval 3 - 9 4.2 Action Log 10 - 10 5 Public Reports 5.1 25/00416/PAC - Pomathorn Mill, Penicuik - Report and Location Plan 11 - 16 5.2 25/00407/PAC - Land between Burghlee Farm and Park Avenue, Loanhead - Report and Location Plan 17 - 22 5.3 25/00362/PPP - Former Arniston Gas Works, Gorebridge - Report and Plans 23 - 46 6 Private Reports No items for discussion 7 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 18 November 2025. Page 2 of 46
Page 3
INTERNAL USE ONLY DRAFT BY/DATE: REVIEW BY/DATE: 1-993 Minute of Meeting Planning Committee Monday 6 October 2025 Item No 4.1 Planning Committee Date Time Venue Tuesday 26 August 2025 13.00 pm Normandy Court/ MS Teams Present: Councillor Imrie (Chair) Councillor Alexander (Virtual) Councillor Bowen (Virtual) Councillor Cassidy Stephen Curran (Virtual) Councillor Drummond (Virtual) Councillor McEwan Councillor McKenzie Councillor McManus Councillor Milligan Councillor Parry Councillor Pottinger (Virtual) Councillor Russell (Virtual) Councillor Scott Councillor Smaill Councillor Virgo Councillor Winchester In attendance: Kevin Anderson, Executive Director Place Derek Oliver, Chief Officer Place Peter Arnsdorf, Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer William Venters, Principal Solicitor Louise Middleton, Democratic Services Officer Maria Perez, Democratic Services Officer 1. Welcome and Apologies Councillor Imrie (Chair) welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Planning Committee. Apologies were received from Councillor McCall. Page 3 of 46
Page 4
2. Order of Business The order of business is as per the agenda. 3. Declarations of Interest The Chair invited the Planning Committee Members to declare their interest in items of the agenda. Declarations of interest and transparency statements can also be presented when any relevant items are discussed. Councillor Scott declared an interest in item 5.1 in the agenda and expressed their intention to recuse from that discussion. Councillor Smaill made a transparency statement disclosing prior knowledge of the application in item 5.1 due to their wife being a member of the local Community Council. Councillor Smaill advised that, as their wife has not commented on the matter, they did not feel they the need to recuse themselves from the discussion of item 5.1. 4. Minutes of Previous Meeting The Minute of the Planning Committee meeting of 10 June 2025 was submitted for approval and unanimously approved as the correct record. The Minute of the continued Planning Committee of 10 June 2025 held on 26 June 2025 was submitted for approval. Councillor Drummond advised page 7 of this minute reads “Councillor Drummond motioned to amend the report and remove St. Davids - Site reference SUB123 from the shortlist in Appendix 1 to the report” and should instead read “Councillor Drummond motioned to amend the report and remove the location occupied by the library in the St David’s site (site SUB123) from the shortlist” Councillor Drummond clarified there are two sites concerned in SUB123, and the request to remove from the shortlist just applies to the site occupied by the library, whereas the site occupied by the church hall has approved planning permission and can be included in the shortlist. The minutes, with this proposed amendment, were unanimously approved as the correct record. The Chair advised there is a matter arising from the minutes of the continued Planning Committee of 10 June 2025 held on 26 June 2025. During the private section of this meeting, the Planning Committee requested that the Executive Director Place explore the prospect of a Judicial Review on the Scottish Ministers’ decision concerning the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility and associated works at Salters Road, Dalkeith and seek an expert legal view on the matter. The Executive Director Place advised that, as requested by the Planning Committee, they obtained a King’s Counsel opinion which was supportive to Midlothian Council requesting a Judicial Review. Alternatively, a negotiated resolution may also be an option in the matter. The Executive Director Place added that the application for a Judicial Review was lodged with the Court of Session on 11 August 2025 and served on the Scottish Ministers and applicant. A response from the parties and a hearing date is expected in due course. The Executive Director Place advised this concludes the formal update on this matter for the public section of the meeting. A paper on the final position will be presented to the Planning Committee unless the Elected Members request a briefing session beforehand. Page 4 of 46
Page 5
The Planning Committee asked whether it would be possible to issue a press release to advise members of the public that the Council is seeking a judicial review of the Scottish Ministers’ decision as this would help put residents’ minds at ease. The Principal Solicitor advised that following the Executive Director Place’s statement confirming the Judicial Review is on the public domain, it would be possible to provide this information to members of the public by way of a press release. However, it was noted that as legal proceedings have been initiated there should be no further comment by the Council pending the outcome of the proceedings. The Chair advised that the Council’s Communications Department would be asked to issue a press release on the matter. 5. Reports and Items for Discussion Councillor Scott left the meeting at 13.06 pm. Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.1 24/00161/S42, 24/00162/S42 and 24/00163/S42 - Temple Quarry, North Middleton, Gorebridge Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer presented the report for determination. The report covers three section 42 applications to amend conditions of the original approved planning permission applications, granted in 2012. The original applications concerned temporary extraction and processing of sand and gravel and associated plant conveyor belt and settlement pods at Temple Quarry, North Middleton. The conditions to be amended involve modifying the duration of extraction and the deadline for the associated restoration on the temporary quarry. Proposed changes are explained in section 3 report, the changes seek to extend the ending for the period of extraction from 31 December 2025 to 31 December 2028, and to extend the completion date of restoration for the extraction areas to 31 December 2030. The site has support in the Local Development Plan and is identified as an area of extraction. National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) also supports sustainable extraction. Given the continued need for building materials, it would make sense to continue extraction for an existing operating side. There have been no representations received, and 8 consultation responses which are included in section 5 of the report. The recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions. The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning officer for the report and opened it up to discussion. The Planning Committee noted that the operator of the quarry has a good record of helping clean the roads affected by the industrial activities in the area, and wondered whether it would be possible to make it a condition that the applicant undertakes regular cleansing of the road surfaces if there is deposits caused by the extended extraction activities. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer noted the developer already cleans vehicles before they go into the public highway and does other clean up tasks, Page 5 of 46
Page 6
but it would be possible to add an additional condition to have a regular program of road cleaning. There being no objections to the application, the Planning Committee unanimously agreed to grant the extension to the planning permission subject to the conditions in the report and to the additional condition that the applicant is involved in regular cleaning of any road deposits caused by the site operation. Decision The Planning Committee unanimously agreed to grant planning permission extension subject to the conditions in the report and to the additional condition that the applicant is involved in regular cleaning of any road deposits caused by the site operation. Action The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer to notify the applicant of determination of report. Councillor Scott rejoined the meeting at 13.10 pm. Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.2 25/00134/DPP - 1A Clerk Street, Loanhead Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer presented the report for determination. The report concerns a planning application (retrospective) for the change of use from a building merchant to a car hire business at 1A Clerk Street, Loanhead. The car hire will lease a range of vehicles, operate within standard business hours and employ eight members of staff, two of which will be in the office and the remaining six will drive and collect leased vehicles. The application also includes provision for 44 designated parking spaces. There are no proposed changes to the onsite buildings. The site is a commercial yard located in the built- up area of Loanhead and in close proximity to the town centre where there is presumption in favour of appropriate economic development. The car hire business is expected to have a lesser impact to residential properties than the previous business to occupy the premises. There have been four consultation responses and one representation received, this is included in sections 5 and 6 of the report. The recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions specified in the report. The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer for the report and opened it up to discussion. The Planning Committee asked whether the operation of the business would require the use of car transporter lorries, and if so whether it would be possible to add conditions to restrict their use due to the access limitations. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer warned that Page 6 of 46
Page 7
if car transporters were prevented from accessing the premises they would need to park elsewhere. Nevertheless, the business model is slightly different to other car hire companies as leased cars will be picked up by staff rather than being delivered by transporter lorry. As the risk of this becoming an issue for local residents is low the Planning Committee indicated they would not pursue making it an additional condition. The Planning Committee also wondered whether there was a potential for the business owners to use the local area as overflow car park in the event all 44 parking spaces are already in use. This is not desirable as traffic in the area is already congested. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer advised the business model is described in section 3 of the report, and this section indicates there is sufficient parking to accommodate the number of spaces needed for business needs. However, as it is a busy area it would be possible to monitor the parking demands and take action if any overspill parking is noticed. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer noted condition 1 in the report already looks to avoid overspill parking, so it is not necessary to put any additional conditions. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer also added that parking will not be proactively policed by the Local Authority but if any complaints are received the matter will be investigated reactively. The Planning Committee queried the proposed hours of operation and asked for reassurance that these are going to be adhered to, as many car hire companies operate every day of the week. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer advised that the hours specified by the applicants in the report seem acceptable and there can be reassurance that these hours are unlikely to cause disturbance to local residents. It was also confirmed that the business model does not include customers dropping vehicles outside the opening hours of operation and parking these returned vehicles on the public highway. The Planning Committee sought clarification on parking enforcements as condition 1 in the report states that “no vehicles associated with the use hereby approved (including vehicles for hire, employee vehicles, delivery vehicles) shall be parked on any street within 300 metres of the application site”. The Planning Committee asked whether the Local Authority would have redress through planning. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer advised that it is not uncommon for the Local Authority to request developers to provide sufficient parking provision onsite and this is the case, but given local sensitivities this additional condition was put as a safeguard. The Planning Committee unanimously agreed to planning permission subject to the conditions in the report. Decision The Planning Committee unanimously agreed to planning permission subject to the conditions in the report. Action Page 7 of 46
Page 8
The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager/Chief Planning Officer to notify the applicant of determination of report. 6. Any Other Business No other business was discussed during this meeting. 7. Date of next meeting The meeting concluded at 13.20pm. The next meeting will be held on Monday 6 October 2025. Page 8 of 46
Page 9
Page 9 of 46
Page 10
Planning Action Log Planning Committee Monday 6 October 2025 Item No 4.2 No Date of Meeting Item No and Title Action Action Owner Planning Paper Expected Date Council Paper Expected Date Comments 1. 9 September 2025 (Council) Midlothian Play Strategy & Action Plan 2025-2028 Planning Committee to discuss criteria for play areas in new developments and evaluate existing play areas in the different wards to determine if any upgrades are needed – this will be picked up through the planning application process and Committee reports. Planning Chair N/A Goal is to ensure all children have access to quality play facilities in their communities Page 10 of 46
Page 11
Planning Committee Monday 6 October 2025 Item No. 5.1 PRE-APPLICATION REPORT REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND LANDSCAPING AT POMATHORN MILL, POMATHORN ROAD, PENICUIK (25/00416/PAC). Report by Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of the submission of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and corresponding pre- application consultation for residential development, associated infrastructure and landscaping at Pomathorn Mill, Pomathorn Road, Penicuik. 1.2 The pre-application consultation is reported to Committee to enable Councillors to express a provisional view on the proposed major development. The report outlines the proposal, identifies the key development plan policies and material considerations and states a provisional, without prejudice, planning view regarding the principle of development. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Guidance on the role of Councillors in the pre-application process published by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, was reported to the Committee at its meeting of 30 August 2022. The guidance clarifies the position regarding Councillors stating a provisional view on proposals at pre-application stage. 2.2 A pre-application consultation for residential development, associated infrastructure and landscaping at Pomathorn Mill, Pomathorn Road, Penicuik was submitted 31 July 2025. The applicant is Eldridge (EDI) Ltd/Cala Management Ltd. 2.3 As part of the pre-application process, two public events have been scheduled. The first event took place on 28 August 2025 at Penicuik Town Hall. The second event is scheduled to take place on 2 October 2025 at the same venue. 2.4 An applicant must wait 12 weeks from the date of submission of a PAN before submitting a planning application. The 12-week period will expire on 23 October 2025. The subsequent planning application must Page 11 of 46
Page 12
be accompanied by a Pre-Application Consultation Report detailing the consultation undertaken, a summary of written responses and views expressed at the public events, and an explanation of how the applicant took account of the views expressed and an explanation of how members of the public were given feedback on the applicant’s consideration of their views. 2.5 A copy of the pre application notice has been sent by the applicant to the Penicuik and District Community Council. 2.6 It is reasonable for an Elected Member to attend one of the events without a Council planning officer present, but the Member should (in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidance reported to the Committee at its meeting in August 2022) not offer views, as the forum for doing so will be at meetings of the Planning Committee. 3 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 In assessing any subsequent planning application the main planning issue to be considered in determining the application is whether the proposed development complies with development plan policies unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The views of consultees and representors will be material considerations in the assessment of an application for the proposed development. 3.2 The development plan is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP). Section 24(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that where there is an incompatibility between the provisions of the National Planning Framework and the provisions of a local development plan whichever of them is the later in date is to prevail. At present this means that where there is an incompatibility NPF4 takes precedence, this will change when a new local development plan is adopted. 3.3 The application site measures approximately 3 hectares and is situated to the southeast of Penicuik. The site consists of Pomathorn Mill, a former papermaking mill which now hosts a mix of businesses, and the field to the northwest. Pomathorn Road is to the south of the site where an existing access to the site is taken. The site of the mill is flat with the adjacent field descending northwest towards Penicuik. The site is partially within the Protected River Valley and Local Biodiversity Site for the River North Esk to the northwest and an area of Ancient Woodland to the south, east and north. Beyond, there is agricultural land to the north, east and south. 3.4 The relevant policies of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) are: • Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crisis • Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation Page 12 of 46
Page 13
• Policy 3 Biodiversity • Policy 4 Natural Places • Policy 5 Soils • Policy 6 Forestry, Woodland and Trees • Policy 9 Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings • Policy 11 Energy • Policy 12 Zero Waste • Policy 13 Sustainable Transport • Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place • Policy 15 Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods • Policy 16 Quality Homes • Policy 17 Rural Homes • Policy 18 Infrastructure First • Policy 19 Heating and Cooling • Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure • Policy 21 Play, recreation and sport • Policy 22 Flood risk and water management • Policy 23 Health and Safety 3.5 The relevant policies of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) are: • STRAT4 Additional Housing Development Opportunities • DEV3 Affordable and Specialist Housing • DEV5 Sustainability in New Development • DEV6 Layout and Design of New Development • DEV7 Landscaping in New Development • TRAN1 Sustainable Transport • TRAN5 Electric Vehicle Charging • IT1 Digital Infrastructure • RD1 Development in the Countryside • ENV6 Special Landscape Areas • ENV7 Landscape Character • ENV9 Flooding • ENV10 Water Environment • ENV11 Woodland, Trees and Hedges • ENV 14 Regionally and Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites • ENV16 Vacant, Derelict and Contaminated Land • ENV25 Site Assessment, Evaluation and Recording • NRG3 Energy Use and Low & Zero-Carbon Generating Technology • NRG4 Interpretation of Policy NRG3 • NRG5 Heat Supply Sources and Development with High Heat Demand • WAST 5 Waste Minimisation and Recycling in New Developments Page 13 of 46
Page 14
3.6 Part of the site is identified in the MLDP as an Additional Housing Development Opportunity, site AHs1 and as such there is a presumption in favour of residential development, if the proposal complies with development plan policies and the details of the scheme mitigate any infrastructure requirements arising from the development. Additional Housing Development Opportunity sites are seen as potential housing sites, but because of identified challenges to delivery they are not relied upon to meet the Council’s housing targets in the same way that an ‘allocated housing site’ is. 3.7 Access to the site will be via Pomathorn Road; however, this is not suitable for a major increase in traffic in its current form, and some improvement will be needed to accommodate a housing redevelopment. The site is prominent in the landscape, being located high above the valley, and is in the countryside. There will be a need for substantial peripheral planting to provide adequate screening. Existing vegetation along all boundaries should be maintained and enhanced. The trees along the north-western boundary are especially important due to the prominent location of the site - SUDS and open space could be in this area of the site. The south-eastern boundary should be planted up with a 10-15m wide hedgerow with trees. A path link across the site to the former railway is also desirable. Developer contributions will likely be sought for education, which is likely to be for additional capacity at Cuiken and/or Cornbank St James Primary Schools. The site is susceptible to flooding from an existing surface water flood risk and so a flood risk assessment will be required. 3.8 The other part of the site, located to the northwest, southwest and northeast of the site known as Ahs4, is located within the countryside, as defined in the MLDP. There is no presumption in favour of development in this location. 4 PROCEDURES 4.1 The Scottish Government’s Guidance on the Role of Councillors in Pre-Application Procedures provides for Councillors to express a ‘without prejudice’ view and to identify material considerations regarding a major application. 4.2 The Committee is invited to express a ‘without prejudice’ view and to raise any material considerations which they wish the applicant and/or officers to consider. Views and comments expressed by the Committee will be entered into the minutes of the meeting and relayed to the applicant for consideration. 4.3 The Scottish Government’s Guidance on the Role of Councillors in Pre-Application Procedures advises that Councillors be expected to approach their decision-making with an open mind in that they must Page 14 of 46
Page 15
have regard to all material considerations and be prepared to change their views that they are minded towards if persuaded that they should. 5 RECOMMENDATION 5.1 It is recommended that the Committee notes: a) the provisional planning position set out in this report; b) that any comments made by Members will form part of the minute of the Committee meeting; and c) that the expression of a provisional view does not fetter the Committee in its consideration of any subsequent formal planning application. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 26 September 2025 Application No: 17/00740/DPP Applicant: Eldridge (EDI) Ltd / Cala Management Ltd Agent: None Validation Date: 31 July 2025 Contact Person: Jack Wilson Email: Jack.Wilson2@midlothian.gov.uk Attached Plans: Location Plan Page 15 of 46
Page 16
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 Site AHs4 Boundary 25/00416/PAC Boundary Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2025) Proposal of application notice for residential development, associated infrastructure and landscaping Pomathorn Mill, Pomathorn Road, Penicuik, Midlothian, EH26 8PJ File No. 25/00416/PAC Scale 1:3000Page 16 of 46
Page 17
Planning Committee Monday 6 October 2025 Item No. 5.2 PRE - APPLICATION REPORT REGARDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE AT LAND BETWEEN BURGHLEE FARM AND PARK AVENUE, LOANHEAD (25/00407/PAC). Report by Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of a submission of a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and corresponding pre- application consultation for residential development, associated car parking, open space landscaping and drainage at land between Burghlee Farm and Park Avenue, Loanhead. 1.2 The pre-application consultation is reported to Committee to enable Councillors to express a provisional view on the proposed major development. The report outlines the proposal, identifies the key development plan policies and material considerations and states a provisional, without prejudice, planning view regarding the principle of development. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Guidance on the role of Councillors in the pre-application process published by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, was reported to the Committee at its meeting of 30 August 2022. The guidance clarifies the position regarding Councillors stating a provisional view on proposals at pre-application stage. 2.2 A pre-application consultation for residential development, associated car parking, open space landscaping and drainage at Land between Burghlee Farm and Park Avenue, Loanhead was submitted 24 July 2025. The applicant is Bridgette McCafferty, Andrew McCafferty Associates. 2.3 As part of the pre-application process, two public events have been scheduled. The first event took place on 3 September 2025 at Loanhead Leisure Centre. The second event is scheduled to take place on 8 October 2025 at the same venue. Page 17 of 46
Page 18
2.4 An applicant must wait 12 weeks from the date of submission of a PAN before submitting a planning application. The 12-week period will expire on 16 October 2025. The subsequent planning application must be accompanied by a Pre-Application Consultation Report detailing the consultation undertaken, a summary of written responses and views expressed at the public events, and an explanation of how the applicant took account of the views expressed and an explanation of how members of the public were given feedback on the applicant’s consideration of their views. 2.5 A copy of the pre application notice has been sent by the applicant to the Loanhead and District Community Council. 2.6 It is reasonable for an Elected Member to attend one of the events without a Council planning officer present, but the Member should (in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidance reported to the Committee at its meeting in August 2022) not offer views, as the forum for doing so will be at meetings of the Planning Committee. 3 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 In assessing any subsequent planning application the main planning issue to be considered in determining the application is whether the proposed development complies with development plan policies unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The views of consultees and representors will be material considerations in the assessment of an application for the proposed development. 3.2 The development plan is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP). Section 24(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that where there is an incompatibility between the provisions of the National Planning Framework and the provisions of a local development plan whichever of them is the later in date is to prevail. At present this means that where there is an incompatibility NPF4 takes precedence, this will change when a new local development plan is adopted. 3.3 The application site measures approximately 14.5 hectares and is situated in the south of Loanhead. The site consists primarily of open fields associated with Burghlee Farm. Park Avenue runs north to south from the A768 (Herd Terrace and Lawrie Terrace), located in the west of the site. The site also includes the junction of Park Avenue, the A768 and Dryden Terrace, as well as 12 Herd Terrace, 44 Lawrie Terrace and 1B Park Avenue. Herd Terrace, Bilston Glen and part of the Bilston Burn Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is to the west of the site, the remainder of the SSSI being to the south and east of the site. There is farmland associated with Linghill Farm to the south. To the east of the site are residential dwellings and core path MID/11/1 which runs to the A-Listed Bilston Glen Viaduct. To the north is Page 18 of 46
Page 19
Burghlee Park with residential dwellings beyond. The site sits at a lower level from Burghlee Park, Bilston Glen Industrial Estate to the west, generally slopes southwards into the valley of Bilston Glen. The site itself is situated partly within the green belt in the south, with a section of the site in the north being part of designated open space as defined in the Midlothian Local Development Plan. Bilston Burn to the south and west has a plethora of environmental and historic designations including: • Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) • Ancient Woodland (of semi-natural origin) • North Esk Special Landscape Area • Battle of Roslin – Inventory Battlefield • Roslin Glen And Hawthornden Castle - Garden and Designed Landscape 3.4 The relevant policies of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) are: • Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crisis • Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation • Policy 3 Biodiversity • Policy 4 Natural Places • Policy 5 Soils • Policy 6 Forestry, Woodland and Trees • Policy 7 Historic Assets and Places • Policy 8 Green Belts • Policy 11 Energy • Policy 12 Zero Waste • Policy 13 Sustainable Transport • Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place • Policy 15 Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods • Policy 16 Quality Homes • Policy 18 Infrastructure First • Policy 19 Heating and Cooling • Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure • Policy 21 Play, recreation and sport • Policy 22 Flood risk and water management • Policy 23 Health and Safety 3.5 The relevant policies of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) are: • STRAT4 Additional Housing Development Opportunities • DEV2 Protecting Amenity within the Built-Up Area • DEV3 Affordable and Specialist Housing • DEV5 Sustainability in New Development • DEV6 Layout and Design of New Development • DEV7 Landscaping in New Development • DEV8 Open Spaces • TRAN1 Sustainable Transport Page 19 of 46
Page 20
• TRAN5 Electric Vehicle Charging • IT1 Digital Infrastructure • ENV1 Protection of the Green Belt • ENV6 Special Landscape Areas • ENV7 Landscape Character • ENV9 Flooding • ENV10 Water Environment • ENV11 Woodland, Trees and Hedges • ENV13 Nationally Important Nature Conservation Sites • ENV18 Noise • ENV20 Nationally Important Gardens and Designed Landscapes • ENV21 Nationally Important Historic Battlefields • ENV22 Listed Buildings • ENV24 Other Important Archaeological or Historic Sites • ENV25 Site Assessment, Evaluation and Recording • NRG3 Energy Use and Low & Zero-Carbon Generating Technology • NRG4 Interpretation of Policy NRG3 • NRG5 Heat Supply Sources and Development with High Heat Demand • WAST 5 Waste Minimisation and Recycling in New Developments 3.6 The site is identified in the MLDP as an Additional Housing Development Opportunity, site AHs1 and as such there is a presumption in favour of residential development, if the proposal complies with development plan policies and the details of the scheme mitigate any infrastructure requirements arising from the development. Additional Housing Development Opportunity sites are seen as potential housing sites, but because of identified challenges to delivery they are not relied upon to meet the Council’s housing targets in the same way that an ‘allocated housing site’ is. 3. 7 The primary challenges include the issue of access which will need to be resolved, particularly by increasing the visibility splay at the A768. There are also issues relating to ground conditions and contamination that need to be clarified and resolved. Any successful housing proposal for this site must include safeguards for Burghlee Park. Extensive existing vegetation along its southern boundaries should largely be retained to provide a valuable transitional zone to the neighbouring countryside – however, SUDS could be in this part of the site. A 10-15m hedgerow boundary is required where the site abuts the railway path along the eastern edge. A hedge with trees is also needed where the site abuts the existing open space. Path links along the existing road and to link the park with the railway path are expected. SEPA will require enhanced SUDS and consideration given to watercourse restoration (de-culverting, if practicable). There will be a need to consider the possible impact on the setting of the Roslin historic battlefield site which adjoins the site to the south. Should Page 20 of 46
Page 21
development proceed on this site, it is expected that additional capacity will need to be provided for primary and secondary education, for which developer contributions will be sought. A 25% affordable housing provision will also be required. 4 PROCEDURES 4.1 The Scottish Government’s Guidance on the Role of Councillors in Pre-Application Procedures provides for Councillors to express a ‘without prejudice’ view and to identify material considerations regarding a major application. 4.2 The Committee is invited to express a ‘without prejudice’ view and to raise any material considerations which they wish the applicant and/or officers to consider. Views and comments expressed by the Committee will be entered into the minutes of the meeting and relayed to the applicant for consideration. 4.3 The Scottish Government’s Guidance on the Role of Councillors in Pre-Application Procedures advises that Councillors be expected to approach their decision-making with an open mind in that they must have regard to all material considerations and be prepared to change their views that they are minded towards if persuaded that they should. 5 RECOMMENDATION 5.1 It is recommended that the Committee notes: a) the provisional planning position set out in this report; b) that any comments made by Members will form part of the minute of the Committee meeting; and c) that the expression of a provisional view does not fetter the Committee in its consideration of any subsequent formal planning application. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 26 September 2025 Application No: 25/00407/PAC Applicant: Bridgette McCafferty, Andrew McCafferty Associates Agent: None Validation Date: 24 July 2025 Contact Person: Jack Wilson Email: Jack.Wilson2@midlothian.gov.uk Attached Plans: Location Plan Page 21 of 46
Page 22
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 (2025) Proposal of application notice for residential development, associated car parking, open space landscaping and drainage. Land between Burghlee Farm and Park Avenue, Loanhead. 25/00407/PAC Scale 1:4500Page 22 of 46
Page 23
Planning Committee Monday 6 October 2025 Item No. 5.3 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE 25/00362/PPP FOR THE ERECTION OF 14 DWELLINGHOUSES ON LAND AT THE FORMER ARNISTON GAS WORKS, GOREBRIDGE Report by Chief Officer Place 1 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDED DECISION 1.1 The planning application is for planning permission in principle for the erection of 14 dwellinghouses on land at the former Arniston Gas Works, Gorebridge. 1.2 There has been one representation and consultation responses from Scottish Water, Network Rail, Historic Environment Scotland, the Council’s Ecological Advisor (TWIC), the Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads) and the Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services (Environmental Health). 1.3 The relevant development plan policies are policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23 and 24 of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and policies DEV5, DEV6, DEV7, DEV8, TRAN5, IT1, RD1, ENV4, ENV6, ENV7, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, ENV14, ENV15, ENV18, ENV19, ENV20, IMP1, IMP2 and IMP3 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP). 1.4 The recommendation is to refuse planning permission. 2 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site measures approximately 1.3 hectares and comprises of a former gas works. There are no buildings on site but there is an area of hardstanding in the eastern part of the site. The site is enclosed by native woodland, with the trees along the northern boundary, which are listed in the Ancient Woodland Inventory. There are also numerous trees within the site. The land slopes down from east to west. 2.2 The Borders Railway line runs along the western boundary of the site. The A7 and a substation are to the east. The C listed Kirkhill Lodge residential dwellinghouse sits to the northeast corner of the site. There is an access track to the north which previously led to Carrington but is now bisected by the railway. Beyond this track is an area of open Page 23 of 46
Page 24
farmland which is an allocated housing site (Redheugh), as identified in the Midlothian Local Development Plan. To the south is Gore Glen which is largely covered in mature trees and sits at a higher level than the site. 2.3 The application site is within the Temple and Arniston Conservation Area, the designed landscape associated with Arniston House and a special landscape area. Most of the site is within the Gore Glen Local Biodiversity Site, except for the area of hardstanding to the east. The site is outwith the built-up area of Gorebridge and is, therefore located in an area, identified in the development plan as being countryside. 3 PROPOSAL 3.1 Planning permission in principle is sought for the erection of 14 dwellinghouses. As the application is for planning permission in principle there is no requirement for detailed plans to be submitted at this stage, however the application submissions include an indicative site plan, floor plans and elevations. 3.2 The indicative site plan shows the dwellinghouses positioned along a double headed cul-de-sac road arrangement with access taken from a new vehicular and pedestrian opening on the A7, to the south of the existing substation. A play area and SUDS pond are to be located centrally within the site and landscaped areas are to be sited adjacent to the entrance. There will be a pedestrian link to the access track to the north and the existing mature tree belt will be retained. The houses will connect to the public drainage network and water supply. 3.3 The indicative housetypes are proposed to be two storey detached dwellings with five or six bedrooms. Most of the houses are to have adjacent garages and four have detached garages. The proposed external finishing materials for the buildings include slate and sedum roofs, rendered walls with natural stone cills and brick basecourses and grey aluclad timber window frames. 3.4 Due to the proximity of the site to the A7 and the Borders Railway, noise mitigation measures are proposed, including a 2.5m and 3m high barrier to the east and west respectively. 3.5 The application is accompanied by the following reports: • Design and Sustainability Statement; • Noise Impact Assessment; and • Preliminary Ecological Assessment; 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 Planning permission 03/00341/FUL granted consent for the formation of a new vehicle access. Page 24 of 46
Page 25
4.2 Planning permission 08/00164/FUL for the erection of 10 houses was refused because it was an unjustified development in the countryside; resulted in the loss of trees and woodland; had a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area; was of an inappropriate design and use of materials; and provided a substandard access. 4.3 Planning application 12/00073/PPP for planning permission in principle for the erection of 6 dwellinghouses and a wind turbine was refused because it was considered to be an unjustified development in the countryside; resulted in the loss of trees and woodland; had a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area; was of an inappropriate design and use of materials; and provided a substandard access. 4.4 Planning application 15/00335/DPP for planning permission in principle for the erection of 10 dwellinghouses, formation of access and associated works was refused because it was considered to be an unjustified development in the countryside; resulted in the loss of trees and woodland; had a detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area; was of an inappropriate design and use of materials; and provided a substandard access. The applicant submitted a notice of review and planning permission was subsequently granted by the Council’s Local Review Body. 4.5 Planning application 21/00764/PPP for planning permission in principle for the erection of 10 dwellinghouses and associated works is currently pending consideration (awaiting information from the applicant). 4.6 On 2 September 2025 the Scottish Government introduced a new Direction to planning authorities whereby the receipt and decision of planning applications for 10 or more proposed new dwellings on non- allocated sites are to be notified to the Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Government advise that this notification Direction will “enable evidence- led monitoring of how NPF4 Policy 16 ‘Quality Homes’ is being applied”. In this regard the decision on the planning application must clearly state whether the development is in accordance with the development plan together with an explanation of why the Planning Committee has reached that view. The planning authority will arrange for the Scottish Ministers to be advised of the outcome of this planning application upon a decision being reached by the Planning Committee. 4.7 The application has been ‘called-in’ for determination by the Planning Committee by Councillor Scott. Councillor Scott has called in the application for further discussion given the history of the site and any potential impact on future residents due to the sites previous use. 5 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Scottish Water does not object to the application. The water supply will be fed from Rosebery Water Treatment Works. The foul water Page 25 of 46
Page 26
drainage will be dealt with by the Edinburgh Waste Water Treatment Works. Both have sufficient capacity at present, however it is not possible to reserve capacity for future developments. 5.2 For reasons of sustainability and to protect Scottish Water customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water state that they will not accept any surface water connections into the combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where they would allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical and technical challenges. 5.3 To avoid costs and delays where a surface water discharge to the combined sewer system is anticipated, the developer should contact Scottish Water at the earliest opportunity with strong evidence to support the intended drainage plan prior to making a connection request (this is separate regulatory process between the applicant and Scottish Water). 5.4 Network Rail does not object to the application, but recommends conditions be attached to any grant of planning permission relating to: suitable fencing between the site and the boundary to the railway line; the submission of a construction method statement, which includes plant details, locations and lifting plans; and details of surface and foul drainage, that there be no SUDs within 10 metres of the railway boundary and that these be designed with long-term maintenance plans. They also request conditions relating to hard and soft landscaping, including boundary treatment, details of planting and a programme for these works. Where trees/shrubs are planted adjacent to the railway boundary these should be positioned at a minimum distance from the boundary which is greater than their predicted mature height. Finally, they advise no part of any plant shall encroach or be able to fall within 4 metres of any of their infrastructure. They provide details of what should be done if works cannot be carried out in a ‘fail-safe’ manner. 5.5 The Councils Ecological Advisor - The Wildlife Information Centre (TWIC) considered the submitted Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) and concluded it is lacking detailed information, submissions and consideration of the site and relevant data. It does not make reference to the site being within a local biodiversity site and is also missing key details and references. There are also concerns over the impact on ancient woodland as a result of the proposal. 5.6 The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads) does not object to the application but sets out the standards required in terms of visibility splays for the access and also raises concerns regarding the location of the proposed SUDS pond and the traffic calming proposals. Page 26 of 46
Page 27
5.7 The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services (Environmental Health) has significant concerns due to the potentially contaminative historic site uses and the potential impact of contamination to affect the development site. The previous site uses are the former gas works, shallow mine workings, coal bing and flytipping. On the basis of these comments and that it is likely that contamination is present on site at such levels that it would pose a very high risk to the health of any future residents they recommend the proposal be refused. 5.8 They also make comment on the submitted Noise Impact Assessment and have no objection from a noise perspective provided the recommend mitigation measures of noise control barriers and suitable glazing and ventilation standards be implemented. They also recommend conditions be attached to any grant of planning permission regulating noise limits for the proposed air source heat pumps. 5.9 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) was consulted on the application but has not provided any comment. 5.10 Scottish Forestry was consulted on the application but has not provided any comment. 5.11 The Midlothian Health and Social Care Partnership was consulted but has not provided comment. They did provide comment on the 2021 application stating that there was capacity and scope to absorb the population increase from the proposed housing. However, they are mindful of the cumulative impact of housebuilding already approved along with the current and future planning applications in the area. 5.12 The Council’s Education Resource Manager was consulted on the application but has not provided any comment. 6 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 There has been one representation received objecting to the application on the following grounds: • The application site encroaches onto land not under the ownership or control of the applicant. 7 PLANNING POLICY 7.1 Planning policy currently comprises of National Planning Framework 4 and the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 7.2 The following policies are relevant to the proposal: Page 27 of 46
Page 28
National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 7.3 Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crisis; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis. 7.4 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. 7.5 Policy 3 Biodiversity; sets out to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. 7.6 Policy 4 Natural Places; sets out to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. 7.7 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. 7.8 Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees; sets out to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. 7.9 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. 7.10 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. 7.11 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. 7.12 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. 7.13 Policy 15 Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. Page 28 of 46
Page 29
7.14 Policy 16 Quality homes; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes, in the right locations, providing choice across tenures that meet the diverse housing needs of people and communities across Scotland. 7.15 Policy 17 Rural Homes; supports development proposals or new homes in rural areas where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development, and meets set conditions including where the site is allocated for housing within the local development plan. Development proposals for new homes in rural areas shall consider how the development will contribute towards local living. 7.16 Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure; sets out to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. 7.17 Policy 21 Play, recreation and sport; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport. 7.18 Policy 22 Flood risk and water management; sets out to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. 7.19 Policy 23 Health and safety; sets out to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. 7.20 Policy 24 Digital Infrastructure; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the rollout of digital infrastructure across Scotland to unlock the potential of all our places and the economy. Other National Policy 7.21 Designing Places, A Policy Statement for Scotland sets out the six key qualities which are at the heart of good design namely identity, safe and pleasant environment, ease of movement, a sense of welcome, adaptability and good use of resources. 7.22 The Scottish Government’s Policy on Architecture for Scotland sets out a commitment to raising the quality of architecture and design. 7.23 Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 places a duty on planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 7.24 Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) 2019 offers guidance on the protection and management of the historic Page 29 of 46
Page 30
environment and Conservation Areas and areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Their designation provides the basis for the positive management of an area. The Policy Statement also indicated that the planning authority should consider the design, materials, scale and sitting of any development, and its impact on the character of the historic environment. 7.25 Historic Environment Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment document on Gardens and Design Landscapes states that to ensure the most important gardens and designed landscapes survive, change should be managed to protect and, where appropriate, enhance the significant elements. Development should avoid significant adverse impact on such sites. Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) 7.26 Policy DEV5: Sustainability in New Development sets out the requirements for development with regards to sustainability principles. 7.27 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. 7.28 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. 7.29 Policy DEV8: Open Spaces states that the Council will seek to protect and enhance the open spaces identified on the Proposals Map. Development will not be permitted in these areas that would: A. Result in a permanent loss of the open space; and/or B. Adversely affect the accessibility of the open space; and/or C. Diminish the quality, amenity or biodiversity of the open space; and/or D. Otherwise undermine the value of the open space as part of the Midlothian Green Network or the potential for the enhancement of the open space for this purpose. 7.30 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. Page 30 of 46
Page 31
7.31 Policy IT1: Digital Infrastructure supports the incorporation of high- speed broadband connections and other digital technologies into new homes, business properties and redevelopment proposals. 7.32 Policy RD1: Development in the Countryside states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if it is required for the furtherance of agriculture, including farm related diversification, horticulture, forestry, countryside recreation or tourism; it accords with policies RD2, MIN1, NRG1 or NRG2; or it accords with the Council’s Supplementary Guidance on Development in the Countryside and Green Belt. For housing, this is limited to homes required to support an established countryside activity. 7.33 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. 7.34 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. 7.35 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. 7.36 Policy ENV9: Flooding presumes against development which would be at unacceptable risk of flooding or would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. It states that Flood Risk Assessments will be required for most forms of development in areas of medium to high risk but may also be required at other locations depending on the circumstances of the proposed development. Furthermore, it states that sustainable urban drainage systems will be required for most forms of development, so that surface water run-off rates are not greater than in the site’s pre-developed condition, and to avoid any deterioration of water quality. 7.37 Policy ENV10: Water Environment requires that new development pass surface water through a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) to mitigate against local flooding and to enhance biodiversity and the environment. 7.38 Policy ENV11: Woodland, Trees and Hedges states that development will not be permitted where it could lead directly or indirectly to the loss of, or damage to, woodland, groups of trees Page 31 of 46
Page 32
(including trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order, areas defined as ancient or semi-natural woodland, veteran trees or areas forming part of any designated landscape) and hedges which have a particular amenity, nature conservation, biodiversity, recreation, landscape, shelter, cultural, or historical value or are of other importance. 7.39 Policy ENV14: Regionally and Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites states that development will not be permitted where it could adversely affect the nature conservation interest of such sites, unless it can be demonstrated that appropriate mitigation measures are in place. 7.40 Policy ENV15: Species and Habitat Protection and Enhancement presumes against development that would affect a species protected by European or UK law. 7.41 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. 7.42 Policy ENV19: Conservation Areas states that development will not be permitted within or adjacent to conservation areas where it would have any adverse effect on its character or appearance. 7.43 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. 7.44 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. 7.45 Policy IMP3: Water and Drainage require sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) to be incorporated into new development. 8 PLANNING ISSUES 8.1 The main issue to be determined is whether the proposal accords with the development plan (which includes the policies set out in NPF4) unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The representation and consultation responses received are material considerations. Page 32 of 46
Page 33
8.2 In this instance the planning history, namely the Local Review Body (LRB) decision in 2017, is potentially a material consideration in the assessment of the current application. However, this permission was not implemented and has expired. Furthermore, the decision was taken prior to the adoption of the MLDP and NPF4. As a result, the current planning application must be assessed afresh, particularly given that a new national policy document has been implemented in the intervening years. NPF4 and Sustainability 8.3 The primary focus of NPF4 is to ensure developments are sustainable and consider the global climate and nature crises. In response to NPF4 the applicant’s agent has stated: • The site is close to a public transport connections; • The site is close to local amenities; • The proposal includes solar panels, air source heat pumps and electric vehicle charging points; • The construction of the houses will include minimum standards building fabric and high efficiency windows and doors; • Biodiversity enhancement measures are proposed, including wildlife attracting planting, hedgehog highways, bee and bug homes, bird boxes, wildlife friendly lighting, sedum roofs on garages and a SUDS pond. 8.4 With regard to NPF4, while the site is within the countryside it is adjacent to the A7 and the built-up area of Gorebridge. The application site is within 1 mile of a bus route with a frequency of one bus per hour. Despite this the development is likely to be heavily car reliant. The use of zero and low carbon technology, landscape planting and rainwater recycling is welcomed but expected as standard in development proposals. The proposals do not go beyond what is currently expected of developments. The overall sustainability of the site will be addressed later in this report, in relation to the loss of trees and potential impact on wildlife. Principle of development 8.5 Planning is concerned with delivering the correct development in the correct location. As a result, development is plan-led, instructed by the adopted and approved development plan. This strategic approach ensures that development occurs in areas where infrastructure can accommodate it and does not occur where constraints cannot or should not be overcome. The planning authority has restrictive planning policies with regards to new housing proposals within the countryside. These restrictions aim to prevent the creeping suburbanisation of the countryside which is under significant pressure due to the convenient commuting distance to Edinburgh. However, there are enabling policies within the Midlothian Local Development Plan and NPF4 which Page 33 of 46
Page 34
support residential developments within the countryside in some instances, subject to specific criteria. Policies 16 and 17 of NPF4 and policy RD1 of the MLDP and the related local supplementary guidance include several sections where houses in the countryside could be supported in planning terms. 8.6 NPF4 policy 16f sets out that residential developments on non- allocated sites will only be supported in limited circumstances (those circumstances are addressed in this paragraph). The applicant has not supported the application with any documentation setting out the timescale for building-out the site. The proposed development does not align with the Council’s adopted special strategy, particularly in respect to its environmental objectives (addressed later in this report). Over the last two years delivery of housing sites is under that programmed in housing land audits. Whether the proposal is consistent with rural homes policy is addressed below. The proposal is not for a smaller scale opportunity (under ten units) within a settlement boundary. The proposal is not for a local authority supported affordable housing plan. As a result, the current proposal does not comply with any of the identified limited circumstances and, as such, does not comply with policy 16f of NPF4. 8.7 NPF4 policy 17 supports the development proposals for new homes in limited circumstances. The only one of those limited circumstances that could potentially provide some support in this case is where the development reuses a brownfield site where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. In addition, policy 9 of NPF4 states that development proposals that result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be considered. While it is acknowledged that part of the site, namely the area of hardstanding to the east, has poor biodiversity value at present, the remainder of the site has either been rewilded or contains significant mature woodland cover, which is classified as native woodland and some areas as ancient woodland, which is irreplaceable habitat under NPF4. The site has been successfully returning to a natural state without intervention and along with the proposal’s lack of compliance with the terms of policies 16 and 9 of NPF4 means that it is unacceptable in relation to those policies specifically and NPF4 in general. 8.8 In relation to policy RD1 of the MLDP, the proposed development is not required for the furtherance of an established countryside activity, nor is it a replacement house or for the conversion or redevelopment of existing redundant farm buildings or other non-residential buildings. The proposal does not relate to an existing housing group. This is not an enabling development where it is clearly shown that this is the only means of preventing the loss of a heritage asset and securing its long- term future. The site is not allocated for housing within MLDP. This is Page 34 of 46
Page 35
not a single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding, nor is this the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling. The proposal does not reinstate a former dwelling house nor is it a one- for-one replacement of an existing permanent house. There is no scope for supporting the proposed development in terms of MLDP policy RD1. 8.9 The applicant’s agent has argued that the site is adjacent to a proposed large residential development. The residential development referred to is Redheugh, which is a site that was allocated through the local plan process. The application site has not been allocated through the plan-making process and is in the designated countryside. To allow residential development here would be to support unplanned expansion on the edges of towns and villages, which is not in compliance with development plan policy. Ground contamination 8.10 There are significant concerns over contamination of the site due to the contaminative historic uses of the site and the potential impact of contamination to affect the proposed development. The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services (SMPS) refers to the former gas works, shallow mine workings, coal bing and flytipping, and the potential impact of contamination to affect the development site. 8.11 The SMPS considers that it is likely that contamination is present at this site at such levels that it would pose a very high risk to the health of any future residents that it could prevent the development proceeding. It is not clear if the contamination can be adequately addressed to allow any development at the site. Therefore, the SMPS cannot support the principle of development without a site investigation report. 8.12 In this instance, the application has been assessed on the basis of the submissions and the applicant’s agent was not specifically asked to submit a site investigation report given the amount of other concerns the planning authority held over the proposed development (the planning authority tries to avoid causing applicants unnecessary costs and a site investigation report would be a costly piece of work to instruct where it would not alter the planning authority’s overall assessment as to the acceptability of the proposal). Also, this information was requested in relation to the application submitted in 2021 and the applicant was aware of these concerns, so the application submissions should have included the requested site investigation report at the outset. The site investigation report was not submitted in relation to the 2021 planning application. It is critical for a site such as this that ground conditions are surveyed and reports submitted for assessment. It is unsafe to grant planning permission without this information. Page 35 of 46
Page 36
Impact on the woodland and the surrounding area 8.13 The site is covered by significant mature woodland which is classified as native woodland. Woodland to the north of the site and on the northern boundary is also listed in the Ancient Woodland Inventory (Long Established Plantation Origin). This is irreplaceable habitat under NPF4, is of very high value and should be retained and protected, in accordance with Midlothian Council and Scottish Government policy on trees and deforestation. This includes NPF4 and the Midlothian Council Climate Change Strategy. 8.14 Based on the most recent best practice, both in terms of woodland and protected species, there should be a minimum of 30 metre offset from ancient woodland and 15 metre minimum offset from other woodland to any development. Should the woodland buffers outlined above be implemented at this site it would result in the loss, or significant loss, of all but two of the housing plots on the indicative site layout. 8.15 Despite the site being with a conservation area and special landscape area no Tree Survey or Arboricultural Impact Assessment have been submitted which would clearly set out the impact of the proposed works on existing trees and the likely extent of tree removal or works that would cause impacts. There is a significant extent of mature woodland tree canopy on and immediately adjacent to the site which would be significantly adversely affected by the proposals. This would be directly due to the requirement to remove trees to develop the plots and infrastructure and the potential for damage during construction. The submissions state the existing tree belt to the north is to be maintained, however plots 9 to 14 lie within this area so it is not possible for this to be retained. In addition, where houses are in close proximity to mature trees will result in a potential area of conflict where residents put pressure on the removal of trees due to overhanging branches, leaf litter and overshadowing. As the area is considered to be a woodland any proposed development would therefore lead to the permanent deforestation of woodland and could be considered contrary to the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. 8.16 The proposal would have an adverse impact on the landscape character and appearance of the surrounding rural area, including the Arniston and Temple Conservation Area and special landscape area. The development will not only have a local impact around the site but also more widely including from the A7 corridor, the Borders Rail line and adjacent parts of the Gore Glen Local Biodiversity Site (GGLBS). The site forms an important habitat for local wildlife species and contributes to the local green network, linking with the adjoining belt of Ancient Woodland to the north and woodland habitat at GGLBS to the south. These also screen views into the site A7. These have a positive contribution to the landscape setting of the area, as well as biodiversity value and integration of the site into the surrounding area. Page 36 of 46
Page 37
8.17 The loss of the existing woodland would be a significant concern and be contrary to the aims of NPF4 which seeks to protect and enhance established trees. In proposals where the loss of existing vegetation is accepted, replacement planting is required to mitigate against any proposed tree loss. This is to perpetuate canopy cover in the area and to respond to the ongoing climate emergency and there is an expectation of a minimum of 21% canopy coverage of sites. Development is also expected to provide quantifiable biodiversity enhancements. The site would be highly unlikely to be able to provide quantifiable biodiversity enhancements and would be likely to result in the loss of irreplaceable habitat. An overall net loss in habitat would be expected due to the extent of the proposed development, there will be a direct loss of habitat, an impact on the condition of the remaining habitat and a lack of space to create new habitats. 8.18 A large part of the site was covered by established woodland and tree canopy cover, however this was recently partially cleared/felled. The felling was carried out without the submission of a work to tree application, which was required as the site is within the Temple and Arniston Conservation Area, and, as a result, was unauthorised. No valid exceptions were found to apply to justify this removal without the necessary permissions. Scale and character of the proposed development and amenity for occupants 8.19 While an indicative site plan has been submitted showing 14 plots, a SUDS pond, play area and landscaped areas, the actual developable area of the site, should the principle of housing be accepted, is far too small to accommodate this scale of development. There is insufficient space to accommodate the houses, amenity space, parking, drainage, existing and proposed landscaping, including replacement and enhanced planting both at the site boundaries and to provide relief within the site, as well as create an integrated green network to optimise biodiversity and opportunities for wildlife to move within the area. Also, Network Rail restrict how close development and planting can be located adjacent to railways. This would significantly restrict the size of, and the amenity offered to the occupants of plots 5 to 9 on the indicative site plan. 8.20 It is acknowledged that the submitted information is indicative only, however this has been submitted for consideration in an attempt to justify the development of the site. The result is a very suburban development dominated by a high number of houses which are hard up to the site boundaries, with limited room for existing and proposed landscaping to integrate the development into the sensitive surrounding area. This results in a very dense layout which is not appropriate for the rural setting. Also, the proposed housetypes are generic and suburban in design, more appropriate to a built-up area rather than a site in the countryside, a conservation area and special landscape Page 37 of 46
Page 38
area. There is also a risk that the proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the privacy and amenity of the existing neighbouring listed lodge house. 8.21 From the indicative plans submitted it has not been demonstrated that the site could accommodate the proposed 14 houses and all necessary infrastructure. The proposed layout appears to be an overdevelopment of the site. 8.22 The site is positioned between the A7 to the east and the Borders Railway to the west. The submitted Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) states that houses here would be significantly adversely affected by noise from these without mitigation measures. Such measures include acoustic glazing and ventilation for the houses closest to the road and railway, as well as acoustic barriers along the boundaries to these areas. The barriers could take the form of bunds, walls, fences or a combination of these. The barrier to the A7 would require to be a minimum of 2.5 metres in height and be located along the site frontage to the A7, part of the southern boundary to plot 1, the north and east boundary of plot 14 and the northern boundaries of plots 12 and 13. The barrier to the railway would need to be a minimum of 3 metres high and extend along the southern boundary of plot 4 and the west boundaries of plots 5 to 9. 8.23 While such barriers may result in acceptable noise levels for future occupants, these are substantial features which would have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area, special landscape area and landscape character of the area. These could also have a significant adverse impact on the existing trees. The requirement for such significant barriers to ensure that the houses would not be adversely affected by noise from the A7 and the railway demonstrates that the site is not appropriate for residential use. Access 8.24 The proposed vehicular access to the site would be onto a 60mph section of the A7, requiring a minimum visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 215 metres. It has not been demonstrated that the applicant has control over the land required for the visibility splay. There is a risk that the access would be unsafe, potentially resulting in accidents. Drainage and water supply 8.25 The application form states that the development will connect to the public water supply. Scottish Water has not raised any concerns over this or the impact a further connection would have on the supply to the area. Page 38 of 46
Page 39
8.26 A SUDS pond has been shown on the indicative site plan. As the SUDS pond is proposed to be located more than 10m away from the railway boundary this is in line with Network Rail’s requirements. However, there are no further details to confirm where surface water will be drained to. It is unclear if surface water at the site can be appropriately dealt with. It is also questionable whether the SUDS pond has been proposed in an appropriate location and can be relied upon, given the lack of information on site topography and where the outflow will be directed. While the applicant has stated that the site is capable of being connected into the existing water and drainage networks this has not been evidenced, and connections are not noted on site plans. While the planning application is in principle, given the rural location of the site it would be expected that drainage and water supply connectivity be evidenced. Impact on protected species 8.27 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) has been submitted which identifies that protected species may be affected by the proposal. The PEA is missing key considerations, references, historic data and details. Also, it does not reference that the site is within the GGLBS. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that protected species have been considered and would not be adversely affected by the proposal. Other matters 8.28 The Midlothian Health and Social Care Partnership (MHSCP) have expressed both a general concern over the scale of housing/population growth in Midlothian and its resulting impact on health provision services, and a concern at a local level over the impact of the proposal on the nearby General Practice surgery. The Council, as the local planning authority, has to balance the need and demand for housing against the well documented pressure on all health care services. In this case the pressure on services are outwith the control and influence of the planning authority or the applicant and cannot be used as a reason to refuse planning permission, as it is considered not to be a material planning consideration. The Planning System can help to identify sites and secure infrastructure through the development plan process if a facility deficiency is identified and evidenced. 8.29 While the application site is covered by policy ENV4, which relates to prime agricultural land, historically, this area has not been used as agricultural land and so any development here would not conflict with this policy. 8.30 Also, while the site is covered by policy DEV8, which relates to open spaces, this largely relates to the Gore Glen area to the south and west of the site. Historically this site has not formed part of any accessible open space and so any development here would not conflict with this policy. Page 39 of 46
Page 40
8.31 In response to the representor’s comments, the application submissions state that the applicant owns the whole application site. The application site boundary matches previous submissions where the applicant states they own the whole site. The application submissions satisfy the requirements of the relevant Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. 8.33 Should planning permission be supported, developer contributions would be required. The contributions would be towards education provision and the Borders Rail (public transport). 8.33 Despite being an application for planning permission in principle it is seriously deficient in terms of the information submitted, particularly in relation to ground contamination and protected species, and does not comply with development plan policies. In addition, the site has been subject of unauthorised felling of trees in an important woodland. The principle of development of this site cannot be safely supported. 9 RECOMMENDATION 9.1 That planning permission in principle be refused for the following reasons: 1. The proposed ‘windfall’ housing development is not supported by one of the limited circumstances identified in policy 16f of National Planning Framework 4 and is, therefore, contrary to that policy. 2. The proposal has not demonstrated that the houses are required for the furtherance of an established countryside activity or will reuse brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention, nor that there are material planning considerations to otherwise justify approval of the proposal contrary to policy RD1 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 8, 16 and 17 of the National Planning Framework 4. 3. The proposed development would result in the direct and indirect loss of mature trees and ancient woodland within a conservation area and special landscape area to the significant detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 4. The loss of trees would also have a significant detrimental impact the Gore Glen Local Biodiversity Site and green networks in the area. 5. For the above reasons (3 and 4), the proposal is contrary to policies ENV6, ENV7, ENV11, ENV14 and ENV19 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 2, 3, 4, 6, 14 and 17 of the National Planning Framework 4. Page 40 of 46
Page 41
6. The indicative layout demonstrates that the application site is not of a sufficient size to accommodate the level of proposed development. It has not been demonstrated that the site could accommodate the existing and proposed landscaping, dwellinghouses, necessary levels of private outdoor space, parking, a scheme to deal with surface water drainage, adequate drainage provision and the necessary Network Rail requirements. The proposal would result in a significant overdevelopment of the site and is therefore contrary to policies RD1 and DEV6 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 14 of the National Planning Framework 4. 7. The indicative layout and housetypes are of suburban design and character which does not respect, reflect or enhance the surrounding countryside, conservation area or special landscape area. The proposal is therefore contrary to polices RD1, ENV6, ENV7 and ENV19 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 7, 14 and 17 of the National Planning Framework 4. 8. The access to the proposed development is potentially sub- standard. The applicant has not demonstrated that an acceptable access could be created to serve this development without adversely impacting on the landscape character of the aera. The use of the proposed access would potentially cause a hazard to the safety and free flow of traffic. 9. It has not been demonstrated through the submission of site investigation works that the contamination of the site from historic uses can be addressed, mitigated and remediation works be carried out to an acceptable level to allow the site to be developed. The proposal is contrary to Policy 9 of National Planning Framework 4. 10. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that suitable and appropriate noise mitigation measures can be installed at the site which do not have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The amenity of occupants of housing at this site would be significantly detrimentally impacted by noise from the A7 or adjacent railway line. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to policy ENV18 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 23 of National Planning Framework 4. 11. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on protected species. The proposal does not comply with policy ENV15 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 4 of National Planning Framework 4. Page 41 of 46
Page 42
Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 26 September 2025 Application No: 25/00362/PPP Applicant: Mr J McHale Agent: Kenneth Reid, Kenneth Reid Architects Validation Date: 14/07/2025 Contact Person: Mhairi-Anne Cowie, Planning Officer Email: Mhairi-Anne.Cowie@midlothian.gov.uk Background Papers: Previous planning applications identified in section 4 of the report Attached Plans: Location Plan, Site Plan and Elevations Page 42 of 46
Page 43
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 (2025) Application for planning permission in principle for the erection of 14 dwellinghouses Former Arniston Gas Works, Gorebridge File No. 25/00362/PPP Scale 1:1750Page 43 of 46
Page 44
Page 44 of 46
Page 45
Page 45 of 46
Page 46
Page 46 of 46