Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 09/03/2026
Midlothian Council · 9 March 2026
Back to Planning Committee — 9 March 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Notice of Meeting and Agenda Planning Committee Venue: Normandy Court/ Hybrid, Normandy Court, 20 Normandy Dr, Dalkeith, EH22 1JG Date: Monday, 09 March 2026 Time: 13:00 Executive Director : Place Contact: Clerk Name: Democratic Services Clerk Telephone: Clerk Email: democratic.services@midlothian.gov.uk Further Information: This is a meeting which is open to members of the public. Privacy notice: Please note that this meeting may be recorded. The recording may be publicly available following the meeting. If you would like to know how Midlothian Council collects, uses and shares your personal information, please visit our website: www.midlothian.gov.uk Page 1 of 94
Page 2
1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies 2 Order of Business Including notice of new business submitted as urgent for consideration at the end of the meeting. 3 Declaration of Interest Members should declare any financial and non-financial interests they have in the items of business for consideration, identifying the relevant agenda item and the nature of their interest. 4 Minute of Previous Meeting 4.1 Minute of the Meeting of Planning Committee of 20 January 2026 submitted for approval 3 - 12 4.2 Action Log 13 - 16 5 Public Reports 5.1 Planning Committee Site Visit Procedures, report by Chief Officer Place 17 - 18 5.2 Planning Enforcement Update, report by Chief Officer Place 19 - 26 5.3 Tree Preservation Order Confirmation Report – Pomathorn Mill, Penicuik, report by Chief Officer Place 27 - 66 5.4 25/00362/PPP – Former Arniston Gas Works, Gorebridge Appeal Decision, report by Chief Officer Place 67 - 88 5.5 25/00683/PAC – Land at Dalkeith Country Park, Dalkeith Pre Application Consultation, report by Chief Officer Place 89 - 94 6 Private Reports No items for discussion 7 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on 28 April 2026. Page 2 of 94
Page 3
INTERNAL USE ONLY DRAFT BY/DATE: REVIEW BY/DATE: 1-993 Minute of Meeting Planning Committee Monday 9 March 2026 Item No 4.1 Planning Committee Date Time Venue Tuesday 20 January 2026 13.00 Normandy Court / MS Teams Present: Councillor Imrie (Chair) Councillor Alexander Councillor Bowen (Virtual) Councillor Cassidy Councillor Drummond (Virtual) Councillor McEwan Councillor McKenzie Councillor McManus (Virtual) Councillor Milligan (Virtual) Councillor Parry (Virtual) Councillor Pottinger Councillor Scott Councillor Smaill Councillor Virgo Councillor Winchester In attendance: Kevin Anderson Executive Director Place Peter Arnsdorf Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer. Grace Cowan (Virtual) Head of Primary Care and Older People's Services Hannah Forbes Democratic Services Officer Maria Perez Democratic Services Officer Page 3 of 94
Page 4
1. Welcome and Apologies Councillor Imrie (Chair) welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Planning Committee. Apologies were received from Councillor McCall and Councillor Russell. 2. Order of Business The order of business is as per the agenda. 3. Declaration of Interest The Chair invited the Planning Committee Members to declare their interest on any items of the agenda and advised that declarations of interest and transparency statements can also be presented when any relevant items are discussed. Councillor Smaill, Councillor Scott and Councillor Virgo declared an interest in item 4.1 in the agenda and confirmed their intention to recuse from the meeting during the discussion of this item. Minutes of Previous Meeting The Minute of the Planning Committee meeting of 18 November 2025 was submitted for approval. Councillor Smaill referred to section 3 in the Minute of 18 November, which states “Councillor Smaill noted they would recuse themself from discussion of item 5.5” and asked whether the use of gender-neutral language in Minutes was agreed at the Standing Orders Working Group. Councillor Smaill stated his preferred pronouns were he/his and those of Councillor Winchester are she/her and requested the minutes are amended to show this preference. Councillor Smaill made a further request for the matter to be referred to the Standing Orders Working Group for a wider discussion. The Planning Committee unanimously approved the Minute of the Planning Committee meeting of 18 November 2025, with the amendment proposed by Councillor Smaill, as the correct record. The Action Log was noted and the Planning Committee agreed for items marked for closure to be removed. Councillor McEwan requested an update on action 1 in respect of implementing the provision of play equipment in new build estates in the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 (MLDP2). The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised that the implementation depends on the stage of development. In some cases, play equipment has been placed on the back of the built environment. In the case of new applications, provision of play equipment is now a requirement of the application process. Councillor Scott, Councillor Smaill and Councillor Virgo left the meeting at 13.06pm. Page 4 of 94
Page 5
4. Reports and Items for Discussion Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.1 Non-Compliance with the Requirement of an Enforcement Notice and Associated Prosecution Regarding Change of Use of Land to a Builder's Yard, Sitting of Shipping Containers and Associated Engineering Operations to Form Hardstanding at Land North of 6 Ashbank, Gorebridge Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer presented the report which provides the Planning Committee with an update on the prosecution action taken against planning offences relating to the change of use of vacant land and unauthorised works to form a hard standing at land North of 6 Ashbank, Gorebidge. An enforcement notice required the owner to remove all shipping containers, the unauthorised hardstanding area, return the site to a grass field and cease unauthorised use as a builder’s yard. Following the Local Review Body’s refusal of the retrospective application, an enforcement notice was served in June 2022 and was the subject of an appeal through the Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Government reporter upheld the decision of Midlothian Council and the enforcement notice. The compliance period for this enforcement notice expired on 6 January 2023 and due to the owner’s continued noncompliance and breach of planning control this was reported to the Planning Committee at its meeting of 28 February 2023. The decision of the Planning Committee was to instigate prosecution action which resulted in the owner being fined a total of £16,125, but the break of planning control remains in part. It is recommended that the Planning Committee note the fine issued by the court action and instruct Officers to refer the case back to the Crown Office of the Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) for further prosecution. The Chair thanked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer for the report and invited discussion from Planning Committee Members on the recommendation to prosecute further, noting that Elected Members drove past the site during a recent Local Review Body site visit and that it has not been restored. Councillor Cassidy moved to approve the recommendation to prosecute the owner further. Councillor McKenzie expressed his intention to second the motion but sought reassurance that the owner had been given sufficient time to comply with the requirements of the enforcement notice and that the Council did everything in their power to allow the owner to comply. The Chair noted a period of three years to comply is sufficiently lenient, but this is a valid question from the point of view of process and asked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer if there was anything else the Council could have done to encourage compliance. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised that the Planning Page 5 of 94
Page 6
Department had gone above and beyond by offering to help the individual to find alternative premises and tried to encourage compliance in an informal and formal way, to no avail. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer stated that if the fine set by the courts was not sufficient to persuade the owner to comply with the enforcement, it would be advisable to write to the owner before referring the matter to Court and advise of the Planning Committee’s decision to continue pursuing. It is hoped this may result in the owner realising the Council’s intention is to not let go of the matter and encourage him to comply. The Planning Committee Members asked if the fine had been paid. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised he would seek to confirm this. The Planning Committee Members also asked whether a second referral to the Courts could result in a larger fine. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised the maximum fine for an enforcement breach is set at £50,000 and if it is a second offence the prosecution action may result in a higher fine. Furthermore, the Court could determine the Council has powers to enter the site and restore it at the cost to the Council and later attempt to recover the costs of this work. This is the fallback position as the preference is that the individual responsible for the breach addresses the situation. Councillor McEwan noted that there are several other cases in which Midlothian Council agreed to refer instances of non-compliance with enforcement notices to the Courts and noted that a number of those referrals had not yet been carried out. Councillor McEwan asked if the Planning Department would be able to provide an update on the enforcement notices which were approved in past Planning Committee meetings and their progress status. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised that there is a significant backlog in the Court system which is causing a delay and advised an update would be brought to the next Planning Committee meeting. As there were no other views presented, the Chair advised that the Planning Committee agreed with the recommendation of the report. Decision The Planning Committee noted the outcome of the Court proceedings concerning the non-compliance with the enforcement notice issued to the land to the north of 6 Ashbank, Gorebridge. The Planning Committee instructed the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer to write to the individual and explain the Planning Committee’s decision to refer the case to the COPFS for consideration of prosecutorial action pursuant to section 136 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Action Provide a summary detailing any other cases recommended for prosecutorial action and the status of the legal process - Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer Confirm if fee issued by Court has been paid by owner - Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer Page 6 of 94
Page 7
Councillor Scott, Councillor Smaill and Councillor Virgo rejoined the meeting at 13.15pm. Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.2 25/00651/PAC Pre-Application Report Regarding the Erection of New Community Campus Comprising High School, Primary School, Nursery, Sports Facilities, Associated Parking and Playing Fields at Shawfair Site D, Newton, Danderhall Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer presented the report. The report contains a Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and corresponding preapplication consultation for the erection of a new community campus comprising a high school, primary school, nursery, sports facilities, associated parking and playing fields at Shawfair Site D, Newton, Danderhall. The proposal is on the site of the former Monktonhall Colliery site and forms part of the wider Shawfair development area. A previous application for an education campus, granted in 2019, was not implemented and lapsed in 2022. The purpose of the report is to allow Elected Members to express a provisional view on the proposed major development at an early stage of the planning process. The Applicants will engage in public consultation, including four public drop-in sessions. The report outlines a provisional planning consideration with regard to the development plan and material consideration. The Midlothian Local Development Plan (MLDP) identifies the site as being within the planned Shawfair new community area where there is presumption in favour of appropriate development. The provision of education and community facilities is a fundamental component of the planned new community, but it is worth noting this is based on indicative information available at present. A detailed assessment will be made if a plan and application is forthcoming. The applicant could submit a planning application once the public consultation has been concluded. It is recommended that the Planning Committee note the provisional planning position set out in the report, and any comments made by Elected Members will form part of the Minute of the Committee meeting. It was also noted that the expression of a provision view will not fetter the Committee in its consideration of any subsequent formal planning application. The Chair thanked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer for the report and invited discussion from the Planning Committee Members. Planning Committee Members noted that there had been concerns voiced about the site, as it is a former colliery, and asked for an update on what testing had been carried out to ensure the site is safe for its intended purpose. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised addressing potential risks is part of the planning considerations, and a plan for remediation works was approved in June 2024. The remediation work will include forming a platform onsite which will provide a stable and secure base for the buildings. The building warrant process will also ensure appropriate ground conditions and structural integrity of the site and the building so there is assurance that the Council is doing everything in their power to ensure safety. The Head of Placemaking and Page 7 of 94
Page 8
Chief Planning Officer agreed that, if and when a detailed planning application is submitted, a section will be included to go over the land issues and remediation work to allay those concerns. Planning Committee Members also noted the school is very conveniently placed next to the train station and wondered if this could result in parents misusing the facilities by leaving their car onsite while they take the commuter train into town, and if this is the case whether it may be advisable to make the car parking facility larger. Planning Committee Members requested assurance that the bus provision in the catchment area will be good. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer acknowledged the concerns about non-campus users parking on the campus spaces and advised this matter would be given consideration. In terms of bus provision, the Chair advised that once the final application is received it may be possible to make obtaining money for green transport one of the conditions of the planning permission. Planning Committee Members discussed the high running costs associated with swimming pools and asked whether it would be possible to review the plan and remove it as there are other swimming pools nearby. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised that developments change and, in the case, an original scheme does not align with the budget there is scope for going back to the Planning Committee for amended scheme. The Chair thanked the Planning Committee Members for the comments on the Pre-Application Notice. Decision The Planning Committee noted the Pre-Application Notice. Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.3 25/00306/DPP Application for Planning Permission for Formation of Access Road, Erection of Retaining Wall and Fence and Associated Works at Mavisbank Estate, Loanhead Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer presented the report for decision. The application concerns the formation of access road, erection of retaining wall and fence and associated works at Mavisbank Estate, Lasswade Road, Loanhead. The works are required to grant access to Mavisbank House to facilitate the rehabilitation work. The proposed access drive will extend approximately 850 metres running along southeast from an existing field access of Wadingburn Road along the line of an existing field boundary before continuing southwest and terminating at Mavisbank House. The access drive will be 3.5 metres wide and will have six passing points. It will be surfaced in a buff-coloured tarmac, and a field gate is to be installed within a 50-metre setback from the Wadingburn Road to restrict vehicle access. In terms of tree removal and landscaping, the proposals require the removal of approximately 86 trees of varying sizes but proposes the planting of 90 trees to Page 8 of 94
Page 9
replace those lost, as well as supplementary planting and landscaping along the access drive. The application site is located within the green belt special landscape area, the Mavisbank conservation area and the Mavisbank design landscape. These areas have restrictions in several policies to protect the character and appearance of the landscape and historical environment. However, as the works can be seen as an essential infrastructure to enable the repair of an A-listed building they are seen as acceptable. The short term and aspirations sit comfortably within current greenbelt policies which specifically provide support for rehabilitation of historical assets, so they are not seen as contrary to the development of the MLDP. The development will have a short-term impact on the landscape but will ease in time. There have been seven representations and seven consultation responses as outlined. The recommendation of the report is that the Planning Committee grant planning permission subject to conditions. The Chair thanked the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer for the report and invited discussion from the Planning Committee Members. Planning Committee Members raised attention objections noted in section 6.2 of the report and queried why one of the existing accesses to Mavisbank House could not be used, in lieu of this new proposed access. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised that there were issues connected to land ownership, and that other access sites were considered before setting on this one. Further discussion ensued on the road’s purpose to facilitate rehabilitation of Mavisbank House. Planning Committee Members asked whether the road is likely to remain a permanent access once the rehabilitation work has finalised. Planning Committee Members noted the area is popular with families and dog walkers and sought reassurance that there were plans in place to ensure pedestrian safety as well as mitigation strategies to minimise the impact of the project in the wildlife. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised it is not clear if the proposed development will be retained as a permanent access route once the works are completed, as the application is just for a new access which will become a pedestrian and active travel route. Once the rehabilitation works at Mavisbank House are completed, the permanent access will be subject to a separate planning application. In terms of pedestrian safety, the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Office noted there is a recommended condition on the report to manage construction traffic. While there is an expectation that there will be measures to manage construction traffic safely there have been no details issued as to how this would be achieved. Planning Committee Members noted it is incongruous to build a semi-permanent access and remove such a large number of trees when the road may become an unused feature following the end of the project. The Planning Committee Members queried the purpose of the retaining wall, and whether it would be retaining higher land or the road. It was noted that the area is very muddy and erecting a retaining wall in land which is not structurally sound would result in substantial effort. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Page 9 of 94
Page 10
Officer advised a small section of this wall is required to retain the road infrastructure. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer explained this access point was a compromise that needed twenty years to be reached, and it is unlikely that the other issues raised can be addressed unless land ownership changes. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer also clarified that the road is a permanent feature, but what may change in the future is whether this becomes a pedestrian or vehicle access point if future use of the site is changed. Further discussion ensued on the matter of the disagreement between the different landowners, and whether there have been sufficient efforts made to engage to solve the issue. The Chair advised many meetings had taken place, and the public is overwhelmingly supportive of the project. The source of disagreement that has caused this issue to be unresolved appears to be the access point. Councillor Milligan voiced serious concerns about the proposal, noting it would have a significant detrimental impact on the valley. While the issues posed by the land ownership have been a clear obstacle to building this access, there should have been more effort made to minimise disruption and avoid the destruction of 80 trees. Councillor Milligan shared the view that the project would effectively be destroying a beautiful landscape to preserve a beautiful building. Councillor Milligan asked what compulsory purchase powers were at the Council's disposal to secure a road and whether sufficient efforts have been made to find a compromise that allows access to the site while avoiding the damage to the landscape. The Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer advised this would require more time to assess. Councillor Milligan moved that the discussion is continued at the next meeting of the Planning Committee to allow the Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer to provide a supplemental addendum to the report with the information requested. The Chair asked whether Planning Committee Members would agree with the motion to continue this report for one Planning Committee cycle and attend a site visit to see the location. The Chair confirmed there was a unanimous decision to continue the report and arrange a site visit for Planning Committee Members to consider the issues. Decision Planning Committee determined to continue this application at the next meeting of the Planning Committee and undertake a site visit to assess the issues identified during the discussion. Action Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer to provide a supplementary addendum to the report Planning Committee Members to undertake a site visit to Mavisbank House and the site of the proposed access route. Page 10 of 94
Page 11
5. Private Reports No items for discussion. 6. Date of next meeting The meeting concluded at 13.45pm. The next meeting will be held on 9 March 2026 at 13.00pm. The Planning Site Visit will be held on 9 March 2026 at 10.00am. Page 11 of 94
Page 12
Page 12 of 94
Page 13
Planning Action Log Planning Committee Tuesday 9 March 2026 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 n/a Recommended for Closure Goal is to ensure all children have access to quality play facilities in their communities 2 20 January 2026 Non-Compliance with the Requirement of an Enforcement Notice and Associated Prosecution Regarding Change of Use of Land to a Builder's Yard, Planning Department to write to owner to explain the Planning Committee’s decision to refer the case to the COPFS for consideration of prosecutorial action pursuant to section 136 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Head of Placemaking / Chief Planning Officer n/a n/a n/a Page 13 of 94
Page 14
No Date of Meeting Item No and Title Action Action Owner Planning Paper Expected Date Council Paper Expected Date Comments Sitting of Shipping Containers and Associated Engineering Operations to Form Hardstanding at Land North of 6 Ashbank, Gorebridge Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer to inquire if fine has been paid or any other recovery actions are being considered and notify the Planning Committee n/a 3 20 January 2026 25/00306/DPP Application for planning permission for formation of access road, erection of retaining wall and fence and associated works at Mavisbank Estate, Loanhead Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer to provide a supplementary addendum to the report Planning Committee Members to undertake a site visit to Mavisbank House and the site of the proposed access route. Head of Placemaking and Chief Planning Officer Planning Committee Members 9 March 2026 n/a Addendum to explore other alternatives available to the proposal and whether enough has been done to find an appropriate solution to the issues Page 14 of 94
Page 15
Page 15 of 94
Page 16
Page 16 of 94
Page 17
Planning Committee Monday 9 March 2026 Item No 5.1 PLANNING COMMITTEE SITE VISIT PROCEDURES Report by Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with clarification regarding Planning Committee site visit procedures, in particular the need to attend a requested site visit to participate in the debate and determination of the associated planning application. 2 PROCEDURES Requesting a Site Visit 2.1 Members of the Planning Committee can request a formal site visit prior to the determination of a planning application which is scheduled for consideration by the Committee. 2.2 Following the publication of the Committee Agenda a member of the Committee can notify Democratic Services and/or the Head of Placemaking (the Council’s Chief Planning Officer) via email, copying in the Chair of the Committee, prior to 5:00pm on the Thursday before the Committee meeting requesting a site visit in relation to a particular planning application on the agenda. 2.3 A requested site visit will be scheduled for the Monday prior to the Committee meeting, which is usually held on a Tuesday. When the Committee meeting is scheduled for a Monday afternoon the site visit will take place on the morning prior to the meeting. Prior to a site visit taking place Democratic Services will notify elected members of the travel arrangements. Attendance at the Site Visit 2.4 With regard attendance at the requested site visit and participation in the subsequent Committee consideration of the associated planning application – it is proposed that only those elected members that attend the site visit can participate in the determination of the application. The Committee can be chaired by an elected member who does not attend the site visit if they don’t contribute to the planning application deliberation. Page 17 of 94
Page 18
2.5 The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, Part III Section 37 (2) – Determination of applications states: “In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.” 2.6 The planning application Committee report will set out the relevant planning policies and the known material considerations at the time of the officers assessment – the site visit may not raise or identify any new material considerations, but there is a risk that those elected members who attend the site visit either observe or hear (potentially in response to questions being raised) matters which are relevant to the applications determination and as such those Committee members who do not attend the site visit may be at a disadvantage and therefore should not take part in the determination of the associated planning application. 2.7 It is best practice that elected members who take part in the determination of applications do so on the basis of all the information available, including that obtained during a site visit. 2.8 Elected members who do not attend a site visit and therefore will not take part in the subsequent planning application consideration do not have to declare an interest and the leave the Committee meeting for the relevant item, but do not count towards the Committee quorum for the associated item on the agenda. 3 RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the Committee: a) note the procedures set out in this report; and b) agree that elected members must attend a scheduled site visit to participate in the determination of the associated planning application. Peter Arnsdorf Head of Placemaking Date: 25 February 2026 Contact Person: Peter Arnsdorf, Head of Placemaking peter.arnsdorf@midlothian.gov.uk Page 18 of 94
Page 19
Planning Committee Monday 9 March 2026 Item No 5.2 UPDATE REPORT ON PLANNING ENFORCEMENT CASES Report by Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with an update on those enforcement cases that have been reported to the Committee as requested by the Committee at its meeting of January 2026. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and associated regulations provide the legislative basis for the various forms of planning enforcement activity. Scottish Government guidance on the approach to be taken to enforcement work is contained in Circular 10/2009 – Planning Enforcement. Paragraphs 7- 10 of the Circular provides a good overall summary of the framework that local planning authorities are operating within in relation to planning enforcement matters. 2.2 Paragraphs 7-10 of Circular 10/2009 – Planning Enforcement are as follows: 7. Nothing in this guidance should be taken as condoning any breach of planning law. Planning authorities have a general discretion to take enforcement action against any breach of planning control if they consider such action to be expedient, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and any other material considerations. When they are considering whether any particular formal enforcement action is an expedient remedy for unauthorised development, planning authorities should be guided by the following considerations: planning authorities, under the provisions of the 1997 Act, have primary responsibility for taking whatever enforcement action may be necessary in the public interest, in their administrative area. Decisions in such cases, and any resulting action, should be taken without undue delay. Failure to do so could constitute grounds for a finding of maladministration by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. In considering any enforcement action, the planning authority, with regard to the development plan, should consider whether the breach of control would affect unacceptably either public Page 19 of 94
Page 20
amenity or the use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest. Enforcement action should always be commensurate with the breach of planning control to which it relates. For example, it is usually inappropriate to take formal enforcement action against a trivial or technical breach of planning control which has no material adverse planning implications (but see paragraph 8 below). However, planning authorities should be aware that failure to take enforcement action against a breach of planning control could be subject to a referral to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman 8. While it is the case that it may be possible to resolve a breach of planning control through informal negotiations, particularly where the breach is relatively minor and/or unintentional, where such an approach is initially unsuccessful, further negotiations should not be allowed to hamper or delay whatever formal enforcement action may be required to make the development acceptable on planning grounds, or to compel it to stop. Planning authorities should bear in mind the statutory time limits for taking enforcement action and, in particular, the possibility that a referral to the Procurator Fiscal to determine whether to initiate a criminal prosecution may need to be made promptly in those cases where breaches have to be prosecuted within 6 months of the date on which the offence was committed. This is not the date of the alleged breach of planning control but the last date of failure to comply with the Notice requiring the breach to be remedied. 9. The integrity of the development management process depends upon the planning authority's readiness to take effective enforcement action when necessary. Public respect for the development management system is undermined if unauthorised development, which is unacceptable on its planning merits, is allowed to proceed without any apparent attempt by the planning authority to intervene before serious harm to amenity results from the breach. 10. Planning authorities have a wide choice of available options for taking enforcement action, whenever they consider it appropriate. Authorities need to assess, in each case, which power (or mix of powers) is best suited to dealing with any particular suspected or actual breach of control to achieve a satisfactory, lasting and cost-effective remedy. Rapid initiation of enforcement action is usually vital to prevent a breach of planning control becoming well established and more difficult to remedy. 2.3 The time limits on taking enforcement action are identified at paragraphs 10-12 of the Circular: 10. Where a breach of planning control consists of the carrying out of any form of 'operational development' without planning permission, section 124(1) provides that enforcement action may only be taken within 4 years of the date on which the operations were 'substantially Page 20 of 94
Page 21
completed'. This provision extends to building, engineering, mining and other operations in, on, over or under the land. 11. Where a breach of planning control consists of a change of use of any building (which, for the purposes of the 1997 Act, includes part of a building) to 'use as a single dwellinghouse', section 124(2) provides that enforcement action may only be taken within 4 years of the date of the breach. This time limit applies both where the change to use as a single dwellinghouse involves development without planning permission, and where it involves a failure to comply with a condition or limitation to which a planning permission is subject. 12. Where there is any other breach of planning control - i.e. a breach involving any material change in the use of land (other than a change to use as a single dwellinghouse) either without planning permission, or in breach of a condition or limitation to which a planning permission is subject - section 124(3) provides for the 10 year time limit on enforcement action to apply. 2.4 It should be noted that there are no time limits for taking enforcement action in relation to unauthorised works to listed buildings. 2.5 In Midlothian all valid planning enforcement complaints received are investigated. Investigations will take different time period depending on the nature of the issue involved and the complexity of the case. Typically an enforcement complaint will we closed for one of the following five reasons: • Investigations identify that there is no breach of planning control; • There is a breach of planning control but it is considered to be a minor/technical breach and not harmful and therefore not expedient to take further action; • The breach has been resolved informally; • Retrospective planning permission has been granted for the previously unauthorised development; or • Formal enforcement action has been taken and the notice served has been complied with. 2.6 The details of the different enforcement powers open to the Council are set out in the Council’s Planning Enforcement Charter which was approved by the Committee at its meeting of October 2022. Page 21 of 94
Page 22
3 ENFORCEMENT UPDATE 3.1 The below table sets out the position regarding those cases reported to the Committee since May 2022. Table 1: Enforcement Cases Reported to Planning Committee Site Breach of Planning Control Date Reported to Committee Current Position 1 Land to the north of 6 Ashbank, Gorebridge Unauthorised change of use of vacant land to a builder’s yard (sui generis); siting of shipping containers and associated engineering operations to form a hardstanding. 22 November 2022 – reporting outcome of appeal decision (appeal dismissed enforcement notice upheld) 28 February 2023 – seeking authority to refer case to COPFS 20 January 2026 – reporting outcome of court case and seeking authority to refer back to the COPFS Enforcement Notice issued 30 June 2022 Enforcement Notice appeal dismissed Site owner fined £16,125 at Sheriff Court Case to be referred to COPFS for a second time Breach remains in part – hardstanding and one shipping container remain on site. Unauthorised use continues. 2 South Church Hall, West Street, Penicuik Installation of replacement windows and doors in the north facing elevation of a listed building 12 March 2024 – reporting outcome of appeal decision (appeal dismissed enforcement notice upheld) Listed Building Enforcement Notice issued 6 October 2023 Enforcement Notice appeal dismissed Windows and doors replaced – notice complied with 3 41 High Street, Dalkeith Erection of a fascia sign on frontage of a listed building 23 January 2024 - seeking authority to refer case to COPFS Listed Building Enforcement Notice issued 31 May 2023 Unauthorised fascia sign removed prior to referral to COPFS – notice complied with 4 130 High Street, Dalkeith Installation of uPVC windows in listed building 18 March 2023 – reporting outcome of appeal decision (appeal dismissed enforcement notice upheld) Listed Building Enforcement Notice issued 8 November 2022 Enforcement Notice appeal dismissed. Page 22 of 94
Page 23
23 January 2024 - seeking authority to refer case to COPFS Planning permission and listed building consent granted for new replacement timber windows. All windows in the front elevation have been removed and replaced. Monitoring replacement window works to the rear elevation. 5 118 High Street, Dalkeith Erection of a fascia sign, installation of vinyl graphics and change of colour of shop frontage on a listed building 28 November 2023 - reporting outcome of appeal decision (appeal dismissed enforcement notice upheld) Listed Building Enforcement Notice issued 16 August 2023 Unauthorised fascia signage panel and vinyl graphics removed and shop front repainted – notice complied with. 6 Land adjacent to Old Golf House, Eskbank, Dalkeith Felling and wilful destruction of trees within a conservation area, unauthorised engineering operations and non- compliance with the requirements of Planning Contravention Notices 28 November 2023 - seeking authority to refer case to COPFS Temporary Stop Notice and Planning Contravention Notices issued with regard the engineering works 27 and 29 September 2023 Engineering works permanently ceased. Parties undertaking illegal tree works reported to COPFS. Trial set for May 2026. 7 Land adjoining A68 Slip Road/A720 City Bypass Display of an unauthorised hoarding advertisement 12 September 2023 - seeking authority to refer case to COPFS 31 October 2023 – seeking authority not to refer case to COPFS Unauthorised hoarding advertisement removed following Committee’s decision of 12 September 2023 8 10 Kirkhill Terrace, Gorebridge Erection of unauthorised dwellinghouse 12 September 2023 - seeking authority to refer case to COPFS Planning application refused and review dismissed by the LRB at its meeting of 27 October 2020 Amended house design approved in December Page 23 of 94
Page 24
2021 but not implemented Enforcement Notice issued 18 November 2022 Case referred to COPFS. Awaiting a hearing date. 9 1 Laurel Bank Road, Mayfield Erection of unauthorised garage and sunroom 28 March 2023 - seeking authority to refer case to COPFS Planning application refused and review dismissed by the LRB at its meeting of 18 February 2020 Enforcement Notice issued 17 February 2022 Enforcement Notice appeal dismissed Case referred to COPFS. Awaiting a hearing date. 10 2 Conifer Road, Mayfield Erection of unauthorised outbuilding 28 February 2023 – reporting outcome of appeal decision (appeal dismissed enforcement notice upheld) Enforcement Notice issued 13 September 2022 Enforcement Notice appeal dismissed Notice complied with – unauthorised building removed 11 Land west of Lugton Brae (Former Lugton Inn site), Old Dalkeith Road, Dalkeith Unkempt state of the site – debris and waste deposited on the site and heras fencing collapsed/ damaged 22 November 2022 - seeking authority to carry out ‘Direct Action’ to clear the debris and secure the site fencing S179 (Amenity) Notice issued 31 March 2022 Notice not complied with. ‘Direct Action’ taken – debris removed and fencing secured. 12 9A Ancrum Bank, Dalkeith Non-compliance with High Hedge Notice requiring a hedge to be reduced in height 11 October 2022 - seeking authority to carry out ‘Direct Action’ to reduce the height of the hedge High Hedge Notice issued 7 August 2020 Works substantially complete – not expedient to pursue outstanding works. *COPFS – Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Page 24 of 94
Page 25
4 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY 4.1 The below table sets out the number of enforcement complaints received and closed for the period 2021-2026. Table 1- Enforcement Complaints Received and Closed 2021-2026 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26* Complaints received 71 103 108 92 62 Cases closed 172 155 93 48 45 *Q3 2025/2026 – 1 April - 31 December 2025 4.2 Since 2022 the Council has issued 134 notices on landowners and developers, 11 of which remain extant. The 11 extant notices and are outlined in the Council’s Enforcement Register which is published on the Council’s website. A breakdown of the notices is as follows: Table 2: Types and Number of Notices Served Since 1 January 2022. Type of Notice Purpose of the Notice Number of Notices Issued Enforcement Notice Used against unauthorised changes of use and development 27 Listed Building Enforcement Notice Used against unauthorised works a listed building 5 Advertisement Enforcement Notice Used against unauthorised advertisements 2 Temporary Stop Notice Requires unauthorised works to cease for a temporary period 2 Listed Building Repairs Notice Used to require essential repairs to listed buildings 3 Breach of Condition Notice Used to secure compliance with a condition on a planning permission 3 Fixed Penalty Notice Issuing a fine for non-compliance with an enforcement notice 4 Section 179 (Amenity) Notice Issued to address an unkempt state of the land impacting on public amenity 1 Section 33A Notice Formal request to submit a planning application for works already undertaken 29 Planning Contravention Notice A formal request for information 52 Section 272 Notice A formal request for information 6 Page 25 of 94
Page 26
5 RECOMMENDATION 5.1 It is recommended that the Committee note the Planning Enforcement update. Peter Arnsdorf Head of Placemaking Date: 25 February 2026 Contact Person: peter arnsdorf@midlothian.gov.uk peter.arnsdorf@midlothian.gov.uk Background: Enforcement Charter approved by the Committee at its meeting of October 2022 Page 26 of 94
Page 27
Planning Committee Monday 9 March 2026 Item No 5.3 TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (1 of 2025) REGARDING LAND AT POMATHORN MILL, PENICUIK Report by Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report seeks the Committee’s approval to confirm a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 1 of 2025 issued on 27 October 2025 regarding an area of woodland at land at Pomathorn Mill, Penicuik. 2 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The woodland covered by TPO 1 of 2025 is located southeast of Penicuik, immediately to the north of Pomathorn Road (the B6372) which leads steeply uphill from Penicuik towards the B7026 and Howgate. 2.2 The TPO covers an area of riparian (alongside a watercourse) and shelterbelt woodland and covers all the trees on the site known as land at Pomathorn Mill. The protected trees are collectively referred to as Woodland 1 (W1) and comprises broadleaf woodland including willow, birch, oak, hazel, ash, and sycamore. 2.3 The woodland is visible from the B6372 and from the west and north owing to its elevated position on a visually prominent area of land to the southeast of Penicuik. 2.4 The woodland wraps around the central part of the site which houses Pomathorn Mill, a former mill building currently in light industrial/business uses surrounded by an area of hardstanding. There is also a residential dwelling known as Marasgal in this central area. To the west of the mill building, separated by shelterbelt woodland, lies a more open field area which to the north and west slopes down steeply to the wooded banks of two un-named burns which form tributaries to the River North Esk. Woodland defines the north, southeast, and west boundaries of the TPO site. The northwest edge of the site is further defined by the River North Esk. The B6372 forms the southern site boundary and to the north and east of the site land is more open, comprising agricultural fields currently grazed by sheep. A track (former rail line) and embankment define the site’s southeastern edge. Page 27 of 94
Page 28
3 BACKGROUND 3.1 Part of the site is allocated in the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 as an additional housing opportunity site (Ahs4 Pomathorn Mill). The settlement statement references the importance of existing trees and woodland on this site for the local landscape character: - ” The site is prominent in the landscape, being located high above the valley, and is located 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.” 3.2 Should this site be considered for development the woodland may be at risk of either indirect or direct harm, either through tree removal or pruning prior to the start of any construction works, due to construction damage to the trees or their root protection areas, or in future due to perceived or actual conflict with a future land use (for example due to partial shading leading to pressure for tree removal or pruning). 3.3 Without the confirmation of the TPO 1 of 2025, protection of the woodland would lapse. In this case the only limitations on tree felling on site would be those imposed by the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018. This would mean that tree felling of up to five cubic metres per calendar quarter could take place without a Felling Permission, which could incrementally lead to the removal of the woodland. 3.4 W1 suffered some felling in March 2025, involving clear-felling of some of the woodland on the site’s southeastern and southern edges, leading to the subsequent preparation and serving of the tree preservation order, TPO 1 of 2025, the subject of this report. 3.5 The felling was considered as unauthorised by Scottish Forestry as Felling Permission was not in place. A restocking order has since been placed on the site by Scottish Forestry, requiring the areas of felled woodland to be restocked with replacement woodland planting. 3.6 The site of the TPO is not the subject of a planning application. 3.7 The TPO came into effect on 27 October 2025 and continues in force for six months (until 27 April 2026) or until the Order is ‘confirmed’, which is the process of making the TPO permanent (until it is removed). 3.8 Following the service of the TPO the landowners were given the opportunity to make a representation. Furthermore, in accordance with the Regulations, notification of issuing the TPO was published in the Midlothian Advertiser and on the Council’s website. In addition, the Penicuik and Howgate Community Councils and Scottish Forestry were also notified of the decision to issue the TPO and invited to make a representation. Page 28 of 94
Page 29
3.9 Interested parties were given an opportunity to make representations. Legislation requires that a period of at least 28 days is made available for representations to be submitted to the Council following a decision to make a TPO. Two representations from interested parties were received. 4 PROCEDURES 4.1 The provision for issuing a Tree Preservation Order is set out in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order and Trees in Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2010. A planning authority may make a TPO if it appears to them to be “expedient in the interest of amenity and/or that the trees, groups of trees or woodlands are of cultural or historic significance” (Scottish Government Planning Circular 1/2011: Tree Preservation Orders). 4.2 Following the service of a TPO the owner of the land and other interested parties can make representation. However, there is no right of appeal against a TPO once it is designated by the planning authority. 4.3 The TPO shall be in effect for six months, during which time representations from the owner of the land and other interested parties will be considered. If the local planning authority wishes the TPO to stay in effect beyond the six months, it must ‘confirm’ the order. 5 PLANNING ISSUES 5.1 The TPO was made in response to tree felling activity on site and to protect local amenity and the character of the area. The reasons for issuing the TPO on the woodland were as follows: • For its contribution to the landscape amenity of the local area and the wider landscape setting when viewed from the west and south especially. • For its contribution to the landscape character of the River North Esk corridor, its tributaries, and the countryside southwest of Penicuik. • For its importance in providing visual screening of the site’s current industrial buildings and hardstanding and to provide screening for any future land use. • For its importance for biodiversity and green network connections. The TPO site is partially covered by the Penicuik Mill Lade and the River Esk to Esk Bridge Local Biodiversity Site within which semi natural broadleaved woodland and broadleaved plantation are highlighted as notable habitats, and is listed as ancient woodland (recorded in the Ancient Woodland Inventory mapping (NatureScot) as predominantly Ancient of semi-natural origin and a smaller area of long established plantation origin), and partially as native woodland (Native Woodland Survey of Scotland (NWSS). Page 29 of 94
Page 30
• Based on the recent site history of tree removal, the woodland is potentially at risk of further felling or deforestation. • The woodland is assessed to be of reasonable condition with a retention period of over forty years. 5.2 The following points are also considered relevant when considering the amenity, cultural and historic value of TPO 1 of 2025: • Long and Medium Distance Views: The site is in an elevated location, which is widely visible from longer distance views from across Penicuik, especially from elevated parts of northwest Penicuik, from where the woodland setting of the site and its function in screening the current and any future land uses can be clearly appreciated. • Short Distance Views: The woodland is visible from surrounding land areas including from within the Penicuik Conservation Area (e.g. Lower Valleyfield View), from Core Path 2-42 on the River North Esk corridor and from the Pomathorn Road (Quiet Road Link 10-16) and to the south. The function of W1 in screening the central part of the site is clearly appreciated from these locations (See photographs), especially in screening views into the site from Pomathorn Road. Glimpses into the site are possible from the site entrance but these are also filtered by younger woodland on the southeastern site boundary near the site entrance, that filters views towards the old mill buildings. • Penicuik Conservation Area: The woodland is important for the setting of the Penicuik Conservation Area which is located immediately adjacent to W1 on the site’s northern boundary adjacent to the River North Esk. • Uttershill Castle: W1 serves to screen views of Pomathorn Mill industrial buildings from Uttershill Castle (Scheduled Ancient Monument). • Landscape Character Type: The site landscape components closely match the typical landscape characteristics of the wider area as defined in LCT270 Lowland River Valleys: Lothians, produced as part of the 2019 Landscape Character Type map and associated Landscape Character Type Descriptions NatureScot Landscape Character Assessment of Scotland. Shelterbelt and riparian woodland on steep and rolling slopes is a typical landscape feature of this part of Midlothian, defining the river valley of the River North Esk and its tributaries. • Historic Significance of Woodland: W1 encompasses a range of woodland types, which is historically significant as it demonstrates the history and development of the town of Penicuik and the wider area. The areas of semi natural ancient woodland and native woodland show on old mapping (source: National Library of Scotland) dating from the 1800s and is little changed in area. These riparian woodlands connect to shelterbelt woodland within the wider rural environment, forming an Page 30 of 94
Page 31
important habitat network across Midlothian, but equally form an important cultural and historical link to the area’s farming history, indicating its former historic value as shelter for agricultural land and pasture and as a timber resource. The younger woodland on site also has a key historic significance, indicating the changes that Penicuik experienced through the coming of the railways and the industrial revolution with major role that papermaking played in the town’s history. The young woodland on the site’s southeastern edge defines the edge of the embankment of what was formerly the Peebles railway line, immediately to the site’s southeastern edge. Mapping from the 1800s clearly shows the railway line and siding, which opened in 1855 and closed in 1962 and a station with platforms; Pomathorn Halt, close to the site entrance. The station house still stands, as a dwelling just to the south of the site entrance. The Pomathorn Paper Mill was built later, in the 1950s, but operated for only fifteen years, closing in 1975. It is likely therefore that the younger woodland on the embankment at the site’s southeastern edge marks this period, from the point that both the mill and the railways closed, and the land began to revegetate, eventually colonising as woodland. The varied woodland reflects the changing fortunes of the Penicuik area and its ongoing role as green network for amenity and biodiversity represents the positive future that towns such as Penicuik may have despite climate change, if they embrace and protect their natural amenity resources. • Ancient Woodland Inventory: Parts of the woodland is recorded in the Ancient Woodland Inventory mapping (Naturescot) as predominantly ancient of semi-natural origin and a smaller area of long-established plantation origin, and part of the woodland is recorded as native woodland by the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland (NWSS). This highlights its landscape, historic and cultural importance as well as its biodiversity importance. The following text from NatureScot highlights the key characteristics of ancient woodland: “In Scotland, Ancient Woodland is defined as land that is currently wooded and has been continually wooded, at least since 1750. Ancient Woods are important because: • They include all remnants of Scotland’s original woodland; their flora and fauna may preserve elements of the natural composition of the original Atlantic forests. • They usually have much richer wildlife than that of more recent woods. • They preserve the integrity of soil ecological processes and associated biodiversity. • Some have been managed by traditional methods for centuries and demonstrate an enduring relationship between people and nature. • Woods and veteran trees are ancient monuments whose value to the local community and historians may be as great as that of the older buildings in a parish. • Once destroyed, they cannot be recreated. Page 31 of 94
Page 32
Although there is no legislation specifically protecting ancient woodland, Scottish Planning Policy on Ancient Woodland considers that: Ancient semi-natural woodland is an irreplaceable resource and, along with other woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees, especially veteran trees of high nature conservation and landscape value, should be protected from adverse impacts resulting from development. The Scottish Government’s policy on control of woodland removal states that there is a strong presumption against removing ancient semi-natural woodland or Plantations on ancient woodland sites, amongst other types of woodland. Other woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees, especially veteran trees, may also have significant biodiversity value and make a significant contribution to landscape character and quality, so should be protected from adverse impacts resulting from development. If a development would result in the severing or impairment of connectivity between important woodland habitats, workable mitigation measures should be identified and implemented, potentially linked to the creation of green networks.” • Cultural and Amenity Value of Green Networks and Nature Networks: The TPO also contributes to wider green network and nature network connections across the wider area, creating links between the River North Esk and land to the southeast including woodland shelterbelts around Howgate and shelterbelt and riparian woodland along the Leadburn to the west. This role is also considered to contribute to the TPO’s cultural and amenity value; with the amenity qualities of woodland on site and the variations in the woodland type and age adding to the TPO’s cultural and amenity interest along with the species of wildlife it supports, all of which offer a rich cultural and amenity woodland landscape for the people of Penicuik to enjoy for the future. 5.3 The confirming of the TPO will be an important tool in perpetuating tree canopy cover in the area to help address the climate emergency, protecting the trees for their amenity and place functions/value, and preserving local biodiversity and habitat connectivity. 6 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The Council received two representations objecting to the issuing of the TPO – the issues raised in the representations are summarised below along with an officer response. Page 32 of 94
Page 33
6.2 Representation 1: This representation was submitted on behalf of the landowner of part of the site. The representation is a formal objection to the making of the TPO. The objection only relates to the land that is within the ownership of the Pomathorn Mills site and therefore only relates to two areas of the TPO woodland. The objection states that the landowner’s position is that: “The Order has been made inappropriately because the vegetation in question comprises regenerating scrub which is of limited amenity value and does not meet the statutory test for TPO designation…. We therefore respectfully request that the Council does not confirm the Order. “ 6.3 Representation 2: This representation was submitted on behalf of a company operating from Pomathorn Mill. “a legal position… in the form of missives to acquire the former Pomathorn Paper Mill to the extent of which is identified under the Title reference MID46464” The representor sets out in their email that the objection relates only to land within the ownership of the Pomathorn Mill. They also comment that: “Our objection is based on advice which we have been given to the effect that the order has been made inappropriately given that the vegetation in question within the site comprises regenerating scrub of limited amenity value and does not meet the statutory test for TPO designation.” The representor includes an attachment with further details, including a plan showing the area of interest, title MID46464. This encompasses the mill building, hard standing area and parts of the TPO on the site’s southeast boundary and on the northwest slope which separates the mill building from the more open field area to the northwest. The key areas of objection raised are as follows: 1. “The vegetation does not constitute trees of amenity value” the objection states that “the area covered by the Order comprises self-seeded early successional scrub dominated by birch and goat willow interspersed with rough grassland and other ephemeral vegetation” 2. “Ecological or Environmental Functions Are Not Independent Grounds for a TPO” - the objection notes that the Order refers to habitat value, biodiversity, and environmental benefits as reasons for designation, and states the opinion that they are not legally sufficient grounds for a TPO. 3. “Misapplication of the TPO Mechanism”: The objection states that “the purpose of a Tree Preservation Order is to protect established trees that make a recognisable and positive contribution to the Page 33 of 94
Page 34
visual character or amenity of an area…applying a blanket Order to regenerating scrub on derelict land undermines that purpose and introduces unnecessary procedural constraints without achieving meaningful public benefit”. 6.4 Response to Representations: The comments relate only to the two areas of woodland within the land ownership of the Pomarthorn Mill site that both objectors are referring to (within title deeds MID46464). These are the areas of woodland located on two banks either side of the former mill building. One is located on the site’s southeast boundary, and the other is located northwest of the mill building. 6.5 Response to Representation 1: “The vegetation in question comprises regenerating scrub of limited amenity value and does not meet the statutory test for TPO designation.” The younger woodland areas in question can be described as woodland rather than scrub. Under the National Vegetation Classification, one of the main recognized habitat survey recording methods, scrub vegetation is categorised as a range of communities of shrubs, each classed based on the shrub species it contains, such as gorse-bramble scrub, blackthorn-bramble, and is generally considered to be vegetation below 5 metres in height. Under-scrub can also be present in wooded areas, and, based on the NVC guidance (NVC Field Guide to Woodland), woodland does not always have to have a closed canopy. Based on the NVC classification and the tree species seen on this part of the site, the woodland on the southeastern boundary relates more closely to woodland type W2 Salix cinerea (Grey Willow) and Betula pubsecens (Downy Birch), than to scrub, although in this case the representor identifies Salix caprea (Goat Willow). The ground on site also corresponds with this woodland type, being poorly drained ground. The southeastern part of the TPO has a more open appearance in places (especially close to the site entrance) which may have influenced the description as ‘scrub’, due to the unlawful felling that took place in March 2025. The more northerly part of this area was spared felling and so still demonstrates a denser canopy. Dense linear canopy is also seen in aerial photographs taken before the felling occurred. The felling led to the serving of a stop notice and a restocking order by Scottish Forestry, who confirmed to the Council that they consider this area to be part of the wider woodland. The felling also led subsequently to the serving of the TPO. The restocking order, served by Scottish Forestry requires that the felled areas be restored through replacement woodland planting, meaning that the area will require to be returned to its former wooded character. Further evidence supporting the Council’s view that the woodland is of amenity value. Page 34 of 94
Page 35
6.6 Response to Representation 2: “The vegetation does not constitute trees of amenity value.” Representor 2 describing the trees as “self-seeded early successional scrub dominated by birch and goat willow”. The term “self-seeded” is often used incorrectly to suggest trees or woodland or lower value. Woodland is a naturally occurring entity that propagates through self-seeding. There is not a requirement through the TPO legislation to prove that a woodland or trees were planted intentionally to be eligible for protection. The areas of W1 in question contain a range of tree species including willow and birch some of which are estimated to be around fifty years old. There is no wording within the TPO legislation that precludes the making of a TPO for particular species and no indication that pioneer species are not suitable for protection. “Ecological or Environmental Functions Are Not Independent Grounds for a TPO” TPO 1 of 2025 was made for reasons of amenity, culture, and history. The woodland is considered of value and worthy of confirmation of the TPO. The grounds for serving the TPO are contained in section 5 of this report. Whilst ecological and environmental functions of the woodland are of value in this context, they are not considered as an independent reason, rather they add to the cultural and amenity value and appreciation of the woodland. Additional information is also set out in section 5 describing how the varied age and species structure of the woodland also serves to add to its historic and cultural value, telling as it does the story of the site and the Penicuik area’s farming, railway and papermill history. “Misapplication of the TPO Mechanism” The TPO has been applied correctly, to protect woodland of varied age structure and of high amenity, cultural and historic value, and to allow for the integration of the site (and any future uses), into the local landscape and the wider landscape around Penicuik. The TPO will protect the woodland for the future whilst the statutory Work to Tree process allows for landowners or agents to apply to the Council for permission to carry out any desired tree works. This process is operated efficiently by the Council, allowing any future tree works proposals to be considered and approved where appropriate, whilst allowing for replacement planting to be required, and to be refused where the application is considered inappropriate. The process is not seen to introduce unnecessary delay or procedure, bearing in mind that, had this woodland not been protected by a TPO, the owner or agent would have been required to go through a similar process via Scottish Forestry to seek Felling Permission. Page 35 of 94
Page 36
7 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that Committee: a) Confirm the Tree Preservation Order (1 of 2025) for an area of woodland at Pomathorn Mill, Penicuik; and b) Instruct the Head of Placemaking to carry out the necessary procedures, following confirmation and endorsement of a tree preservation order, which are required by the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order and Trees in Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2010. Peter Arnsdorf Head of Placemaking Date: 25 February 2026 Contact Person: Grant Ballantine grant.ballantine@midlothian.gov.uk Attached Papers: Site Location Plan, Site Photographs and Aerial Photographs and Historical Plans Page 36 of 94
Page 37
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 W1 Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2025) Land at Pomathorn Mill, Penicuik File No. TPO 1 of 2025 Scale 1:2500 Location Plan Page 37 of 94
Page 38
TPO 1 of 2025 Land at Pomathorn Mill Site Photos 25/03/2025 Site Visit: Showing felling that took place in March 2025: all areas shown with tree felling in the photos below will be required to replanted as woodland. Above: View of felled timber within Woodland 1, adjacent to Pomathorn Road Site Photographs Page 38 of 94
Page 39
Above: Woodland 1 showing partial felling of area alongside Pomathorn Road as viewed from within the site looking south Above: View from within site by Pomathorn Mill, looking southeast toward site entrance showing some of the felling within Woodland 1 Page 39 of 94
Page 40
Above: View from site entrance looking north, showing some of the felling within Woodland 1 alongside Pomathorn Road Above: Partially felled areas and former weighbridge, and remaining trees separating the site from Pomathorn Road. Page 40 of 94
Page 41
Above: View of partially felled area on southeast boundary; area that was saved from felling by the stop order is visible next to the red containers. Conifers on the skyline are out-with the TPO. Above: Felled trees on southeast site edge within Woodland 1. Page 41 of 94
Page 42
Above: Felled trees on southeast part of site, close to site entrance Above: Felled trees on southeast boundary Page 42 of 94
Page 43
Above: Partially felled woodland close to mill buildings Above: Partially felled woodland close to mill buildings Page 43 of 94
Page 44
Above: Partially felled woodland close to mill buildings Above: Partially felled woodland close to mill buildings Page 44 of 94
Page 45
03/09/2025 Site Visit Photos Showing all areas of Woodland 1 Above: Edge of Woodland 1 alongside Pomathorn Road, on left side of photo. Uttershill Castle Scheduled Ancient Monument is within 75 metres on the opposite side. Page 45 of 94
Page 46
Above: Edge of Woodland 1: alongside Pomathorn Road Above: Woodland 1 shown on the left side of the picture, alongside Pomathorn Road showing the amenity and screening effects of the woodland from the road. Page 46 of 94
Page 47
Above: View of the site’s southern boundary along Pomathorn Road, with Woodland 1 seen on the right side of the picture, indicating its amenity and screening value. Above: View from entrance looking northwest into the site. Weighbridge building in the foreground and the part of Woodland 1 (adjacent to Pomathorn Road) to the left. Some woodland was felled in this area in March 2025 and is subject to a restocking order so will require to be replanted as woodland. Page 47 of 94
Page 48
Above: View from hardstanding immediately next to the mill building, showing partially felled woodland that defines the site’s southeastern boundary. The felled areas (foreground) are subject to a restocking order from Scottish Forestry so will require to be replanted as woodland. Above: Woodland 1 by Pomathorn Road and the small weighbridge building, seen from within the site looking southeast Page 48 of 94
Page 49
Above: View within the site adjacent to Pomathorn Mill, looking northwest. Part of Woodland 1 is seen in the background. This screens views from the north. Above: View within the site adjacent to Pomathorn Mill, looking southeast, with the part of Woodland 1 that lies between the mill buildings and Pomathorn Road shown on the right side of the photo. Page 49 of 94
Page 50
Page 50 of 94
Page 51
Above: View from within field on site, looking northeast towards the part of Woodland 1 that runs along tributaries to the River North Esk on the site’s northern edge. View of woodland on banking in central part of site, located between mill buildings and field to the west. Page 51 of 94
Page 52
View from within field area looking south towards the part of Woodland 1 that runs alongside Pomathorn Road (B6372) demonstrating the important screening the woodland provides from the road View from within field area on site looking southeast towards Pomathorn Mill, with part of W1 in the midground, demonstrating its importance for filtering and screening views into the site when viewed from parts of Penicuik and the northwest Page 52 of 94
Page 53
View from within field area on site looking south towards Marasgal property and Pomathorn mill, with part of W1 in the midground, demonstrating its importance for filtering and screening views into the site View from field edge within the site looking northeast along the edge of Woodland 1 Page 53 of 94
Page 54
View from within site at field edge, with Woodland 1 in the midground, looking northwest towards Penicuik town centre, with the Pentlands visible in the distance View from edge of field area within site, looking north across Woodland 1 towards Penicuik Conservation Area and woodland and residential properties at Valleyfield and Kirkhill area. Remnants, believed to be part of old railway track, showing in foreground. Page 54 of 94
Page 55
View from northern field edge within the site, looking southwest across Woodland 1 with woodland along the Black Burn south of Uttershill Castle in the background. Page 55 of 94
Page 56
View looking northeast from Core Path 2-42 across the River North Esk into the site View looking southeast into the site from the Core Path 2-42 alongside the River North Esk View looking south towards the site from Lower Valleyfield View, Penicuik Conservation Area Page 56 of 94
Page 57
View looking east into the site edge from Pomathorn Bank adjacent to the site. Woodland 1 is seen in the mid-ground behind nos 2-6 Pomathorn Bank on the right of the photo Page 57 of 94
Page 58
Site Photos 12th February 2026 Above: Views of woodland belt along Pomathorn Road from site entrance looking west Above: Views of woodland belt along Pomathorn Road from site entrance looking west Page 58 of 94
Page 59
Above: Remaining trees on the edge of woodland 1 at the site entrance. These filter views of the site from Pomathorn Road, and the required restocking will increase this. Above: Views from access track (former railway line) to southeast edge of TPO, showing remaining trees and area that was felled (in foreground). This area of the site now has a restocking direction from Scottish Forestry requiring replacement woodland planting. The conifers to the righthand side of the photo are out-with the TPO boundary. Page 59 of 94
Page 60
Above: Remaining woodland belt on southeast edge looking north Above: View looking northwest into the site from the track (former railway line) on the southeast edge, showing TPO protected shelterbelt woodland on the southeast part of the site, which filters views into the site from the southeast Page 60 of 94
Page 61
Above: TPO protected woodland on site’s northeast corner, looking west from adjacent track (former railway line) out-with the site boundary (February 2026) Page 61 of 94
Page 62
Long Distance Site Photograph Taken from Cala Site, Mauricewood, January 2026 Above: Pomathorn Mill and Woodland 1 viewed from Silurian Drive, near Mauricewood. This photo indicates, even in winter, the prominent location of the site and the important screening and filtering function of the woodland which helps integrate it into the surrounding rural landscape. Page 62 of 94
Page 63
OFFICIAL Aerial Photographs and Historic Maps Showing the site of TPO1 of 2025: land at Pomathorn Mill Aerial photograph of TPO 1 of 2025 showing woodland canopy cover. The density of the woodland canopy on the southeast site boundary is indicated, showing as similar in density to the older areas of woodland on the site boundaries to the south, north and west. This aerial photograph was taken prior to the unauthorised felling in March 2025. The woodland cover has been reduced in some areas but is to remain as woodland due to the requirement for restocking. Aerial Photographs and Historical Maps Page 63 of 94
Page 64
OFFICIAL OS Six Inch, 1888-1915 showing the railway and station on TPO’s southeastern boundary, and woodland cover at that time. (National Libraries of Scotland) OS Six Inch, 1888-1915 This mapping shows the alignment of the Peebles railway which originally crossed the site, overlaid onto recent aerial photography showing the railway Page 64 of 94
Page 65
OFFICIAL embankment and sidings on and adjacent to the site; the embankment area is now highlighted by the younger parts of the TPO woodland which have established since the railway’s closure. (Source: National Libraries of Scotland) Page 65 of 94
Page 66
Page 66 of 94
Page 67
Planning Committee Monday 9 March 2026 Item No 5.4 PLANNING APPLICATION APPEAL DECISION WITH REGARD APPLICATION 25/00362/PPP FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE ERECTION OF 14 DWELLINGHOUSES AT THE FORMER ARNISTON GAS WORKS, GOREBRIDGE Report by Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of a planning application appeal decision with regard an application (25/00362/PPP) for planning permission in principle for the erection of 14 dwellinghouses at the Former Arniston Gas Works, Gorebridge. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Planning application 25/00362/PPP was considered by the Committee at its meeting of 6 October 2025. The application was 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 Page 67 of 94
Page 68
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 4The 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 Page 68 of 94
Page 69
Development Plan 2017 and Policy 23 of National Planning Framework 4. 10. 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. 2.2 The decision notice was issued on 13 October 2025 and the applicant submitted an appeal on 28 November 2025. A Scottish Government Reporter was appointed to determine the appeal and following a site visit the appeal was refused on 19 February 2026. A copy of the appeal decision is attached to this report as Appendix A. 3 THE DECISION 3.1 In considering the appeal the Reporter concluded that the proposal was contrary to the National Planning Framework No.4 (NPF4) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) – the primary material policies are: National Planning Framework No.4 • Policy 3 Biodiversity • Policy 4 Natural places • Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees • Policy 7 Historic assets and places • Policy 9 Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings • Policy 14 Design, quality and place • Policy 16 Quality homes • Policy 17 Rural homes • Policy 23 Health and safety Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 • DEV6 Layout and Design of New Development • RD1 Development in the Countryside • ENV6 Special Landscape Areas • ENV7 Landscape Character • ENV11 Woodland, Trees and Hedges • ENV14 Regionally and Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites • ENV15 Species and Habitat Protection and Enhancement • ENV16 Vacant, Derelict and Contaminated Land • ENV18 Noise • ENV19 Conservation Areas • ENV22 Listed Buildings 3.2 In considering the principle of development the Reporter reached the following conclusions: Page 69 of 94
Page 70
“I find the proposal to be inconsistent with the plan spatial strategy by proposing development outside a settlement boundary and also inconsistent with a large number of development plan policies” “The proposal does not meet any of the criteria set out in policy RD1 for housing in the countryside and the appellant has not advanced an argument for the proposal on any of these criteria. I therefore find that the proposal is not supported by LDP policy RD1 on rural homes.” “I am satisfied that approximately 25% of the appeal site was previously developed as a gas works, accommodating a gas holder station. This part of the site is capable of being considered as brownfield and therefore draws some support from NPF4 policy 17 part a) ii, subject to compliance with other relevant policies, including NPF4 Policy 9. However, the remaining 75% of the site shows no evidence of previous use. This part of the site is either undeveloped land or brownfield land that has returned to a natural state. As such, it can draw no support from part a) ii of policy 17.” “The council describes the site as ‘successfully returning to a natural state without intervention’. I agree that over three-quarters of the site has been naturalised, or has never previously been developed as described above, as it contains extensive areas of woodland and plant cover.” “I consider the proposal by its very nature would require the removal of a substantial amount of the existing biodiversity from the site. I noted a significant number of trees on and surrounding the site, which is verified by the preliminary ecological assessment (PEA). This assessment confirms the site includes ancient woodland, mixed woodland, broadleaved parkland and scattered trees. I noted on site that the trees are not located solely on the site boundaries, as suggested within the appeal documents, but rather that there are numerous trees of varying maturity throughout the site that would be affected by the proposed development. Whilst the appellant’s design and sustainability statement confirms their intention to retain trees to boundary areas, I agree with the council that in reality the retention of the majority of trees across the site would be incompatible with developing 14 dwellings and associated infrastructure. In the absence of an arboricultural report or a plan showing the locations of the existing trees to be removed or the root protection zones of those to be retained, I consider there is a high probability that a significant number of trees, including some that are categorised as ancient woodland, would need to be removed. The appellant has not provided any evidence to convince me otherwise.” “Whilst the PEA provides information on what is existing on site, I have limited information regarding the extent of the biodiversity that would be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposal. Having consideration for the likelihood that a significant number of trees and Page 70 of 94
Page 71
plants throughout the site would need to be removed to accommodate the development, together with likely indirect impacts on trees and the ecology of the area, I consider there is likely to be a significant adverse effect on biodiversity on the site. Whilst I consider that there would be some policy support in relation to the reuse of the small area (approximately one quarter of the site) of brownfield land that has not naturalised, in my view this does not outweigh the likely loss to the established biodiversity across a site that forms part of a recognised local biodiversity site.” “I am therefore not persuaded that the proposal would constitute a sustainable reuse of brownfield land. The proposed development would not gain policy support from NPF4 policy 9 in the circumstances of this case.” “In summary, I find the principle of the development would not be supported by NPF4 policy 16 on quality homes or by policy 17 on rural homes. Any potential support from policy 9 on account of the site’s brownfield status does not alter that position, given the impact this would have on the biodiversity of the majority of the site which is not previously developed or has naturalised.” 3.3 In considering the effect of the proposals on the surrounding conservation area and special landscape area (SLA) the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “…it was clear from my site inspection and from exploring this part of the conservation area that the mature trees and established woodland are a significant part of its character and appearance. The council highlights the site’s positive contribution to the landscape setting of the area. As outlined above, I have no evidence that the trees that are present throughout the site and along the boundaries could be retained if the site were developed for 14 homes. As such I consider that direct and indirect harm to the established trees in and around the site would be inevitable, which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to NPF4 policies 6 and 7 and LDP policy ENV19.” “I note the boundary of the SLA is the A7 road to the east, and therefore the site represents a small part of the designated area. Nevertheless, as set out in the Statement of Importance for the SLA, the main character of this part of the SLA is dense woodland with a high nature conservation interest. I therefore consider that the direct and indirect harm a development of this site for 14 homes would cause to the mature trees and woodland within and adjacent to the site, would adversely affect this special landscape quality of the SLA, contrary to LDP policy ENV6.” 3.4 In considering the effect of the proposals on biodiversity, woodlands and trees the Reporter reached the following conclusions: Page 71 of 94
Page 72
“As I have no evidence to convince me that the proposal could be developed without harm to these important habitats, I do not consider that this is a matter that could be managed or mitigated through planning conditions, even if I had found the principle of development to be acceptable.” “… given this is an identified local biodiversity site where NPF4 and LDP policies expect the strengthening of nature networks, not harm, I consider more detail should have been provided with the application to demonstrate not only that there would not be unacceptable effects on biodiversity, but that biodiversity could be enhanced in accordance with this policy expectation.” “In summary, in the absence of evidence that the level of development that is proposed could be accommodated within the site without direct or indirect harm to the ancient woodland, trees and biodiversity on the site, I must rely upon the indicative layout that has been provided. From this, I conclude that the proposal would inevitably require significant tree loss and would cause harm to the local biodiversity site and biodiversity in general. Whilst there is some support from NPF4 policy 4, overall, the development would be contrary to NPF4 policies 3 and 6 and LDP policy ENV11 and ENV14.” 3.5 In considering the effects of the proposals on protected species the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “In terms of nesting birds and the badger movements I agree that these are not European protected species and these could be addressed through conditions. However, I consider it is necessary, at least in respect of bats, which are European protected species, for the mitigation measures to be submitted prior to determination and therefore do not agree that a condition would be appropriate. The absence of such measures means it is not possible to satisfy the policy 4 f) requirement that potential impacts are fully considered prior to the determination of any application. As such, the proposal conflicts with that policy.” 3.6 In considering the effects of the proposals on the setting of the adjacent listed building the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “In considering the effect of the proposal on the setting of the listed building, I acknowledge the appellant’s stated desire to retain the mature trees along their boundaries with the lodge. However, the indicative plan layout does not demonstrate this. The proposed dwelling on plot 14 would be positioned close to the rear of the lodge, detracting from the listed building’s sense of relative isolation from other buildings that is a consequence of its original design and purpose, and would not take account of the trees in this location, which also add to the listed building’s setting. Likewise, the rear Page 72 of 94
Page 73
garden of plot 13 would also appear to require the removal of mature trees close to the lodge. These matters could potentially have been resolved through a different layout had I found the principle of development to be acceptable, although I consider it improbable that 14 homes could be accommodated on the site without harm to the setting of the listed building.” 3.7 In considering the scale and density of the proposal the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “I agree with the council that the site is not suitable for the level of development that is proposed because the indicative layout does not demonstrate that 14 dwellings and associated infrastructure could be accommodated within the appeal site without significant harm to existing mature trees, biodiversity on site, the character and appearance of the conservation area, the appearance of the SLA, and the setting of the adjacent listed building. From the available evidence, I find the proposed quantum of development would result in an overdevelopment of the site. As such, I find the proposal to be contrary to NPF4 policy 14 and LDP policies ENV7 and ENV19.” 3.8 In considering the access and road safety issues of the proposal the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “The council cites concerns regarding the potentially sub-standard access and the harm it would cause to the landscape character of the area. I agree that the provision of a vehicular access to the required standard would increase the visual impact of the development proposal in a prominent location at the entrance to the town. With regard to the achievability of the required road safety standards, whilst the roads department has not objected, it is reasonable to consider whether the required visibility splays are achievable. The appellant confirms that the layby adjacent to the proposed entrance is controlled by a third party. However, a suitably worded suspensive condition might have resolved this issue had I been supportive of the principle of development.” 3.9 In considering contamination of the site the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “The appellant’s own study establishes the need for additional information to determine the extent of any contamination, and consequently the extent of works required to make the land safe. Therefore, the extent of site contamination is unknown. Due to this uncertainty regarding likely remediation works it is difficult for me to determine what impact those works in themselves would have on the site, in particular whether there would be any direct or indirect impact on the ancient woodland and mature trees within and on the boundaries of the site. I consider this information is needed in this instance prior to determination rather than through a condition. In the Page 73 of 94
Page 74
absence of details of the extent of the contamination and any required de-contamination works, I find the proposal would not comply with NPF4 policy 9 or LDP policy ENV16.” 3.10 In considering the effects of noise to the proposals the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “I agree with the council that such barriers would further detract from the character of the site’s countryside location, would be likely to have an indirect or direct impact on the mature trees along the boundaries and consequently would result in harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Whilst I appreciate the specific design of the barriers is unknown at this stage, I consider that any permanent solid barriers of the scale described would be harmful in this sensitive location.” “Whilst the proposal could be designed to satisfactorily mitigate against noise and meet the requirements of NPF4 policy 23 and LDP policy ENV18, I find the proposed mitigation measures would result in harm to the conservation area and the SLA, in conflict with NPF4 policy 7 and LDP policies ENV6 and ENV19. I ultimately agree with the council that the requirement for significant barriers to mitigate against noise issues further indicates the inappropriateness of this site for residential development.” 3.11 In assessing other considerations, the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “The appellant argues that the site is adjacent to a large allocated residential site, known as Redheugh, and suggests it could be considered a natural extension to the allocated housing site. I consider that the appeal site is materially different from the Redheugh site, as it has not been allocated through the plan-making process, is in designated countryside and also contains environmental designations (as discussed above). Whilst the site is not remote, under NPF4 policy 15 in relation to local living, I consider the proposal would result in an unplanned expansion on the edge of Gorebridge, in conflict with the development plan’s spatial strategy and the principle of housing delivery being plan-led.” “I agree with the appellant that the site would provide windfall housing. The council confirms that the last two years delivery of housing sites is under that it had anticipated. The introduction of NPF4 removed the policy trigger that previously offered in-principle support to a housing proposal where a shortfall in the housing land supply could be identified. The reference that NPF4 policy 16 f) iii makes to the rate of housing delivery is now that, housing development on land not identified for that purpose in the LDP might be acceptable where the delivery of sites is happening earlier rather than later than anticipated. As such, the contribution this proposal Page 74 of 94
Page 75
could make to the housing land supply can draw no support from policy 16. However, this site’s ability to deliver at least some housing within the short to medium term is, in the context of a housing emergency, a material consideration in its favour to which I must have regard.” “The appellant relies heavily on the, now expired, approval (15/00335/PPP) in April 2018 for planning permission in principle for 10 dwellings. Whilst recognising this decision is a material consideration, that decision was made prior to the adoption of NPF4 and the introduction of policy 16 which marked a significant change in direction to the approach to housing development proposals. As set out above, NPF4 policy 16 confirms that housing delivery should be plan-led.” “The appellant makes reference to the Scottish Government’s Chief Planner letters dated 2 and 30 September 2025. I agree these letters highlight the strong role that SME housebuilders play in developing new homes in rural locations and redeveloping brownfield sites. The letters require decision makers to read NPF4 as a whole and I do not consider that they contain any indication that there should be a change in housing policy.” “I likewise agree that the declaration of a housing emergency is also a material consideration as highlighted by the appellant. However, again, I do not accept that this in its own right provides any justification to allow housing on an unallocated site contrary to development plan policy.” “I also acknowledge the need for proportionality of information in the planning process in order that SMEs may deliver housing without an unnecessary administrative burden. I appreciate this is a planning permission in principle appeal, however as I have found above, there are some matters where details are required to be provided prior to the determination in order to assess whether the proposal is acceptable in principle. The onus is on an applicant for planning permission in principle to demonstrate how its proposal could be developed successfully and, consequently, why the principle of development should be supported by the decision maker.” “The appellant makes reference to other sites that were initially refused under delegated powers by the council and allowed by the local review body, including permissions where some of the matters raised above have been accepted as pre-commencement conditions. I have had regard to these, but each proposal must be considered on its own merits and circumstances. I have considered them carefully but find that none is such as to alter my judgement in the specific circumstances of this case.” Page 75 of 94
Page 76
“The appellant raises procedural matters and argues that they have not been given fair process by the council. This is not relevant to my assessment, and I have no remit to consider such matters. However, in submitting their appeal, the appellant has been able to set out their position and to make a case as to why they consider that planning permission should be granted. I have considered all of the evidence submitted which is material to the case and I am consequently satisfied that the procedural matters described by the appellant have not ultimately prejudiced their position.” 3.12 In reaching their decision the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “I recognise the positive aspects of the proposal, including the appellant’s commitment to using high quality materials and design, sedum roofs on the standalone garages, new specimen standard trees and the provision of a play park. I also recognise the contribution the development would make to the supply of homes and the employment and other socio-economic benefits that this proposed SME-built development could provide. Nevertheless, these positive aspects do not outweigh the harm that would arise from the proposal as a whole.” “I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would still justify granting planning permission.” “I have considered all the other matters raised, but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions.” 4 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 It is recommended that the Committee notes the planning application appeal decision with regard to an application for planning permission in principle for the erection of 14 dwellinghouses at the Former Arniston Gas Works, Gorebridge. Peter Arnsdorf Head of Placemaking Date: 25 February 2026 Contact Person: Mhairi-Anne Cowie mhairi-anne.cowie@midlothian.gov.uk Attached: Location Plan and Scottish Government Reporter’s Appeal Decision Page 76 of 94
Page 77
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 77 of 94
Page 78
Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR E: dpea@gov.scot T: 0300 244 6668 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Appeal Decision Notice Decision I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission in principle. Reasoning 1. I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan (the LDP) which was adopted in November 2017. 2. The site lies within the Temple and Arniston Conservation Area. I am therefore required, by section 64(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (the LBCA Act), to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Kirkhill Lodge adjacent to the site is category C listed and therefore I am also required by section 59 of the same Act to have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. 3. Having regard to the provisions of the development plan, I consider the main issue is the principle of housing development in this location. Other considerations include: the effect on the character or appearance of the conservation area and the special landscape area; the effect on biodiversity, woodlands and trees; the effect on protected species; the impact on the setting of the listed building; the scale and density of the proposal; land contamination; the safety of the access; and noise. Principle of residential development in this location 4. The appeal site is a 1.3 hectare plot of land that was a former gas works but is now unused and overgrown. It sits between the A7 road to the east and the Scottish Borders railway to the west. It is an irregular shaped parcel of land. Next to the road, just outside the site, is a small single storey gas plant. Kirkhill Lodge, to the northeast of the site, is the only residential dwelling to adjoin the plot and is category C listed. The northern boundary Decision by Susannah Moore, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers Planning appeal reference: PPA-290-2075 Site address: former Arniston Gas Works, Gorebridge, EH23 4LL Appeal by Mr J McHale against the decision by Midlothian Council Application for planning permission in principle 25/00362/PPP dated 3 July 2025 refused by notice dated 13 October 2025 The development proposed: the erection of 14 dwellinghouses Date of site visit by Reporter: 21 January 2026 Date of appeal decision: 19 February 2026 Appendix A Page 78 of 94
Page 79
PPA-290-2075 comprises woodland, some of which is identified as ancient woodland. To the south is Gore Glen which sits at a higher level than the site and is covered in mature trees. There are also many trees of differing maturity throughout the site. The site slopes gently downwards from the A7 road towards the Scottish Borders railway. 5. NPF4 policy 16 (Quality homes) provides locational criteria which apply to all housing proposals. The site has not been allocated for housing in the LDP and is adjacent to, but outside of, the settlement boundary of Gorebridge. Part f) of policy 16 describes the specific circumstances in which support would be afforded to development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP. These include where i. the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build out; and ii. the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods. 6. The appellant has not provided specific build out timescales but explains that they intend to develop the site over a number of years, releasing 3 to 4 houses at a time, resulting in a total housing stock of 14 dwellings. While that would not deliver the entire site in the short term, as a small/ medium enterprise (SME) housebuilder, I do not consider that an unreasonable approach or to conflict with the expectations of part f) i. However, for reasons I explain below, I find the proposal to be inconsistent with the plan spatial strategy by proposing development outside a settlement boundary and also inconsistent with a large number of development plan policies. Therefore, I find it does not meet part f) ii. of NPF4 policy 16. 7. Part f) iii of NPF4 policy 16 requires that proposals should align with one or more of four specific locational criteria. The only relevant criterion in this instance is that the proposal must be consistent with policy on rural homes as set out in NPF4 policy 17 and LDP policy RD1. 8. LDP policy RD1 (Development in the countryside) requires proposals to evidence the need for a countryside location. The proposal does not meet any of the criteria set out in policy RD1 for housing in the countryside and the appellant has not advanced an argument for the proposal on any of these criteria. I therefore find that the proposal is not supported by LDP policy RD1 on rural homes. 9. NPF4 policy 17 (Rural homes) supports suitably scaled, sited and designed new homes in limited circumstances. The most relevant consideration in this case would be as set out in part (a) ii. of the policy: where a proposal would gain support where it reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. 10. The site is an irregular shape with a narrow frontage to the A7. The road frontage is bounded by a short stretch of what appears to be industrial fencing and security gates. Apart from a small area of the site occupied by a dilapidated mobile cabin and some hardstanding associated with part of the site’s former industrial use, the majority of the site is covered by trees and plants. 11. I am satisfied that approximately 25% of the appeal site was previously developed as a gas works, accommodating a gas holder station. This part of the site is capable of being considered as brownfield and therefore draws some support from NPF4 policy 17 part a) ii, subject to compliance with other relevant policies, including NPF4 Policy 9. However, the remaining 75% of the site shows no evidence of previous use. This part of the site is either Page 79 of 94
Page 80
PPA-290-2075 undeveloped land or brownfield land that has returned to a natural state. As such, it can draw no support from part a) ii of policy 17. 12. NPF4 policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and help reduce the need for greenfield development. Part a) of NPF4 policy 9 supports proposals that would result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land. However, it recognises that brownfield land that has naturalised may have biodiversity value that could be affected by the land’s redevelopment. To establish whether the proposed reuse would be sustainable, I must take account of the biodiversity value of the brownfield land which has naturalised. The council describes the site as ‘successfully returning to a natural state without intervention’. I agree that over three-quarters of the site has been naturalised, or has never previously been developed as described above, as it contains extensive areas of woodland and plant cover. 13. I consider the proposal by its very nature would require the removal of a substantial amount of the existing biodiversity from the site. I noted a significant number of trees on and surrounding the site, which is verified by the preliminary ecological assessment (PEA). This assessment confirms the site includes ancient woodland, mixed woodland, broadleaved parkland and scattered trees. I noted on site that the trees are not located solely on the site boundaries, as suggested within the appeal documents, but rather that there are numerous trees of varying maturity throughout the site that would be affected by the proposed development. Whilst the appellant’s design and sustainability statement confirms their intention to retain trees to boundary areas, I agree with the council that in reality the retention of the majority of trees across the site would be incompatible with developing 14 dwellings and associated infrastructure. In the absence of an arboricultural report or a plan showing the locations of the existing trees to be removed or the root protection zones of those to be retained, I consider there is a high probability that a significant number of trees, including some that are categorised as ancient woodland, would need to be removed. The appellant has not provided any evidence to convince me otherwise. 14. Whilst the PEA provides information on what is existing on site, I have limited information regarding the extent of the biodiversity that would be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposal. Having consideration for the likelihood that a significant number of trees and plants throughout the site would need to be removed to accommodate the development, together with likely indirect impacts on trees and the ecology of the area, I consider there is likely to be a significant adverse effect on biodiversity on the site. Whilst I consider that there would be some policy support in relation to the reuse of the small area (approximately one quarter of the site) of brownfield land that has not naturalised, in my view this does not outweigh the likely loss to the established biodiversity across a site that forms part of a recognised local biodiversity site. 15. I am therefore not persuaded that the proposal would constitute a sustainable reuse of brownfield land. The proposed development would not gain policy support from NPF4 policy 9 in the circumstances of this case. 16. In summary, I find the principle of the development would not be supported by NPF4 policy 16 on quality homes or by policy 17 on rural homes. Any potential support from policy 9 on account of the site’s brownfield status does not alter that position, given the impact this would have on the biodiversity of the majority of the site which is not previously developed or has naturalised. I also discuss that issue below, when I consider the potential impacts of the development in more detail. Page 80 of 94
Page 81
PPA-290-2075 17. Accordingly, I find the principle of residential development in this countryside location is contrary to the development plan. Effects on Temple and Arniston Conservation Area and the SLA 18. The proposed development would be situated within the northern edge of the Temple and Arniston Conservation Area, within a designated special landscape area (SLA) (the South Esk Valley and Carrington SLA) and within the Gore Glen Local Biodiversity Site (GGLBS). The site is also within the designed landscape of Arniston House. All these designations indicate to me that the site falls within a sensitive location. 19. NPF4 policy 7 part e) requires development proposals in conservation areas to ensure that natural and built features which contribute to the character of the conservation area, including trees and hedges, are retained. LDP policy ENV19 does not support development which would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of a conservation area. Acknowledging there is no conservation area character appraisal, it was clear from my site inspection and from exploring this part of the conservation area that the mature trees and established woodland are a significant part of its character and appearance. The council highlights the site’s positive contribution to the landscape setting of the area. As outlined above, I have no evidence that the trees that are present throughout the site and along the boundaries could be retained if the site were developed for 14 homes. As such I consider that direct and indirect harm to the established trees in and around the site would be inevitable, which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to NPF4 policies 6 and 7 and LDP policy ENV19. 20. With respect to the impact of the proposal on the South Esk Valley and Carrington Farmland SLA, LDP policy ENV6 requires development proposals to only be permitted where they would not have an adverse effect on the special landscape qualities of the area. I note the boundary of the SLA is the A7 road to the east, and therefore the site represents a small part of the designated area. Nevertheless, as set out in the Statement of Importance for the SLA, the main character of this part of the SLA is dense woodland with a high nature conservation interest. I therefore consider that the direct and indirect harm a development of this site for 14 homes would cause to the mature trees and woodland within and adjacent to the site, would adversely affect this special landscape quality of the SLA, contrary to LDP policy ENV6. Effects on biodiversity, woodlands and trees 21. NPF4 policy 6 does not support development that would result in the loss of ancient woodlands, which are irreplaceable habitats, and does not support proposals that would result in an adverse impact on native woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees of high biodiversity value. LDP policy ENV11 sets out a presumption against development where it could lead directly or indirectly to the loss of, or damage to, woodland, groups of trees and hedges due to their amenity, nature conservation and biodiversity amongst other things. As I have no evidence to convince me that the proposal could be developed without harm to these important habitats, I do not consider that this is a matter that could be managed or mitigated through planning conditions, even if I had found the principle of development to be acceptable. 22. Most of the site is within Gore Glen Local Biodiversity Site, an important local nature conservation site. NPF4 policy 4 part d) only supports developments in such locations which would not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the area or the qualities Page 81 of 94
Page 82
PPA-290-2075 for which it has been identified; or where any significant adverse effects on the integrity are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. LDP policy ENV14 is similarly worded in relation to locally important nature conservation sites. 23. The council contends this site forms an important habitat for local wildlife species and contributes to the local green network, linking the adjoining belt of ancient woodland to the north and the woodland habitat at GGLBS to the south. I agree the site plays an important role in the local green network; however, I have no evidence this would result in a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the site. I also consider there are clear social and economic benefits of at least local importance from the construction of 14 dwellings by a SME housebuilder and as such I consider the requirements of NPF4 policy 4 part d) and LDP policy ENV14 are met. 24. NPF4 policy 3 part a) supports development proposals that contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity including strengthening nature networks and connections between them. The appellant proposes measures to increase biodiversity, such as boundary hedges, hedgehogs’ highways and sedum roofs on the garages. Whilst this might provide some benefit, no detailed evidence has been submitted in relation to the measures to conserve the existing biodiversity on the site and so it cannot be determined whether the appellant’s proposals would mitigate or compensate for any loss of existing biodiversity let alone provide enhancement. I accept this is a planning permission in principle appeal where some of the details could be managed through a condition. Nevertheless, given this is an identified local biodiversity site where NPF4 and LDP policies expect the strengthening of nature networks, not harm, I consider more detail should have been provided with the application to demonstrate not only that there would not be unacceptable effects on biodiversity, but that biodiversity could be enhanced in accordance with this policy expectation. 25. In summary, in the absence of evidence that the level of development that is proposed could be accommodated within the site without direct or indirect harm to the ancient woodland, trees and biodiversity on the site, I must rely upon the indicative layout that has been provided. From this, I conclude that the proposal would inevitably require significant tree loss and would cause harm to the local biodiversity site and biodiversity in general. Whilst there is some support from NPF4 policy 4, overall, the development would be contrary to NPF4 policies 3 and 6 and LDP policy ENV11 and ENV14. Protected species 26. Where there is reasonable evidence to suggest that a protected species is present on a prospective development site or may be affected by a proposed development, NPF4 policy 4 part f) requires that steps are taken to establish its presence. It continues by requiring the design of development and potential impacts to be fully considered prior to determination of any application. LDP policy ENV15 refers to species, habitat protection and enhancement and establishes the approach with respect to species protected by European and UK law. This includes the need to provide appropriate and effective mitigation measures. 27. The appellant’s preliminary ecological assessment (PEA) confirms there is reasonable evidence to suggest that badgers are present in the local area, there are trees on site suitable for nesting birds and three trees were identified as potential roost features for bats. In the absence of details as to whether any of these trees supporting roosts or Page 82 of 94
Page 83
PPA-290-2075 areas highlighted will be affected by the proposal, any necessary mitigation measures are difficult to predict. 28. The appellant considers the matter could be dealt with through a suitably worded condition. In terms of nesting birds and the badger movements I agree that these are not European protected species and these could be addressed through conditions. However, I consider it is necessary, at least in respect of bats, which are European protected species, for the mitigation measures to be submitted prior to determination and therefore do not agree that a condition would be appropriate. The absence of such measures means it is not possible to satisfy the policy 4 f) requirement that potential impacts are fully considered prior to the determination of any application. As such, the proposal conflicts with that policy. Effect on setting of listed building 29. Kirkhill Lodge, adjacent to the site, is a category C listed building. NPF4 policy 7 requires development proposals to be informed by national policy and guidance on managing change in the historic environment, whilst LDP policy ENV22 does not support proposals which would adversely affect the setting of a listed building. 30. At my site inspection I noted the single storey lodge building is set back from the road behind prominent gate piers, railings and walls. The lodge was originally located to mark the entrance to the Kirkhill House estate and therefore was intended to stand alone from other buildings. It is a building that provides a local landmark in a rural location, and a visitor’s understanding, appreciation and experience of the building is derived from how the lodge building relates to the road, the former driveway and its immediate surroundings, which include the substantial mature tree coverage that extends along the former driveway to the rear. 31. In considering the effect of the proposal on the setting of the listed building, I acknowledge the appellant’s stated desire to retain the mature trees along their boundaries with the lodge. However, the indicative plan layout does not demonstrate this. The proposed dwelling on plot 14 would be positioned close to the rear of the lodge, detracting from the listed building’s sense of relative isolation from other buildings that is a consequence of its original design and purpose, and would not take account of the trees in this location, which also add to the listed building’s setting. Likewise, the rear garden of plot 13 would also appear to require the removal of mature trees close to the lodge. These matters could potentially have been resolved through a different layout had I found the principle of development to be acceptable, although I consider it improbable that 14 homes could be accommodated on the site without harm to the setting of the listed building. Scale and density 32. NPF4 policy 14 promotes well designed development proposals. It requires proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area. LDP policy DEV6 sets out the council’s requirements for the layout and design of new development. 33. The appellant maintains that as this is a planning permission in principle application, development density is not relevant. It also contends that the density would be similar to the allocated site to the north. However, the appellant’s stipulation of a specific quantum of development makes the appropriateness of the proposed development density a matter for my consideration, and the appropriateness of that density requires a site-specific assessment. Page 83 of 94
Page 84
PPA-290-2075 34. I agree with the council that the site is not suitable for the level of development that is proposed because the indicative layout does not demonstrate that 14 dwellings and associated infrastructure could be accommodated within the appeal site without significant harm to existing mature trees, biodiversity on site, the character and appearance of the conservation area, the appearance of the SLA, and the setting of the adjacent listed building. From the available evidence, I find the proposed quantum of development would result in an overdevelopment of the site. As such, I find the proposal to be contrary to NPF4 policy 14 and LDP policies ENV7 and ENV19. Access and road safety 35. The council cites concerns regarding the potentially sub-standard access and the harm it would cause to the landscape character of the area. I agree that the provision of a vehicular access to the required standard would increase the visual impact of the development proposal in a prominent location at the entrance to the town. With regard to the achievability of the required road safety standards, whilst the roads department has not objected, it is reasonable to consider whether the required visibility splays are achievable. The appellant confirms that the layby adjacent to the proposed entrance is controlled by a third party. However, a suitably worded suspensive condition might have resolved this issue had I been supportive of the principle of development. Land contamination 36. Both the council and the appellant agree that part of the site’s previous use raises the matter of contamination on the site. Whilst a preliminary risk assessment (phase 1 desk study) was not submitted with the application, this has now been submitted to address the reason for refusal. I do not consider this is a new matter, as suggested by the council and I am satisfied that the council has had an opportunity to respond to the contents of the document. 37. NPF4 policy 9 part c) requires proposals relating to land where it is known or suspected to be contaminated, to demonstrate that the land is, or can be made safe and suitable for the proposed new use. LDP policy ENV16 likewise requires development on contaminated land to be made safe to any potential risks from prior contamination. 38. The desk-based study provided by the appellant concludes there is a low geotechnical risk, but notwithstanding the low risk, recommends that a programme of intrusive ground investigation and related in situ and laboratory testing is carried out. It also recommends a series of combined gas and groundwater monitoring works. A phase 2 ground investigation report is concluded as being necessary. The appellant considers this requirement should be attached as a condition. 39. The appellant’s own study establishes the need for additional information to determine the extent of any contamination, and consequently the extent of works required to make the land safe. Therefore, the extent of site contamination is unknown. Due to this uncertainty regarding likely remediation works it is difficult for me to determine what impact those works in themselves would have on the site, in particular whether there would be any direct or indirect impact on the ancient woodland and mature trees within and on the boundaries of the site. I consider this information is needed in this instance prior to determination rather than through a condition. In the absence of details of the extent of the contamination and any required de-contamination works, I find the proposal would not comply with NPF4 policy 9 or LDP policy ENV16. Page 84 of 94
Page 85
PPA-290-2075 Noise 40. With respect to noise, NPF4 policy 23 requires a noise impact assessment to be submitted where the nature of the proposal or its location suggests that significant effects are likely. LDP policy ENV18 has similar requirements. The appellant acknowledges the sensitivity of the site due to noise sources from the A7 road to the east and the Scottish Borders railway to the west and has submitted a noise impact assessment. 41. The noise assessment confirms that the occupiers of the proposed houses would be significantly adversely affected by noise without mitigation measures. The assessment recommends mitigation within the houses such as acoustic glazing and ventilation measures but also proposes external barriers surrounding the site in both directions. The assessment recommends that any barriers to mitigate against the noise would need to be sizeable: 2.5 metres minimum height to the east and 3 metres in height to the west (facing the railway). 42. I agree with the council that such barriers would further detract from the character of the site’s countryside location, would be likely to have an indirect or direct impact on the mature trees along the boundaries and consequently would result in harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Whilst I appreciate the specific design of the barriers is unknown at this stage, I consider that any permanent solid barriers of the scale described would be harmful in this sensitive location. 43. Whilst the proposal could be designed to satisfactorily mitigate against noise and meet the requirements of NPF4 policy 23 and LDP policy ENV18, I find the proposed mitigation measures would result in harm to the conservation area and the SLA, in conflict with NPF4 policy 7 and LDP policies ENV6 and ENV19. I ultimately agree with the council that the requirement for significant barriers to mitigate against noise issues further indicates the inappropriateness of this site for residential development. Other material considerations 44. The appellant argues that the site is adjacent to a large allocated residential site, known as Redheugh, and suggests it could be considered a natural extension to the allocated housing site. I consider that the appeal site is materially different from the Redheugh site, as it has not been allocated through the plan-making process, is in designated countryside and also contains environmental designations (as discussed above). Whilst the site is not remote, under NPF4 policy 15 in relation to local living, I consider the proposal would result in an unplanned expansion on the edge of Gorebridge, in conflict with the development plan’s spatial strategy and the principle of housing delivery being plan-led. 45. I agree with the appellant that the site would provide windfall housing. The council confirms that the last two years delivery of housing sites is under that it had anticipated. The introduction of NPF4 removed the policy trigger that previously offered in-principle support to a housing proposal where a shortfall in the housing land supply could be identified. The reference that NPF4 policy 16 f) iii makes to the rate of housing delivery is now that, housing development on land not identified for that purpose in the LDP might be acceptable where the delivery of sites is happening earlier rather than later than anticipated. As such, the contribution this proposal could make to the housing land supply can draw no support from policy 16. However, this site’s ability to deliver at least some housing within the short to medium term is, in the context of a housing emergency, a material consideration in its favour to which I must have regard. Page 85 of 94
Page 86
PPA-290-2075 46. The appellant relies heavily on the, now expired, approval (15/00335/PPP) in April 2018 for planning permission in principle for 10 dwellings. Whilst recognising this decision is a material consideration, that decision was made prior to the adoption of NPF4 and the introduction of policy 16 which marked a significant change in direction to the approach to housing development proposals. As set out above, NPF4 policy 16 confirms that housing delivery should be plan-led. 47. The appellant makes reference to the Scottish Government’s Chief Planner letters dated 2 and 30 September 2025. I agree these letters highlight the strong role that SME housebuilders play in developing new homes in rural locations and redeveloping brownfield sites. The letters require decision makers to read NPF4 as a whole and I do not consider that they contain any indication that there should be a change in housing policy. 48. I likewise agree that the declaration of a housing emergency is also a material consideration as highlighted by the appellant. However, again, I do not accept that this in its own right provides any justification to allow housing on an unallocated site contrary to development plan policy. 49. I also acknowledge the need for proportionality of information in the planning process in order that SMEs may deliver housing without an unnecessary administrative burden. I appreciate this is a planning permission in principle appeal, however as I have found above, there are some matters where details are required to be provided prior to the determination in order to assess whether the proposal is acceptable in principle. The onus is on an applicant for planning permission in principle to demonstrate how its proposal could be developed successfully and, consequently, why the principle of development should be supported by the decision maker. 50. The appellant makes reference to other sites that were initially refused under delegated powers by the council and allowed by the local review body, including permissions where some of the matters raised above have been accepted as pre-commencement conditions. I have had regard to these, but each proposal must be considered on its own merits and circumstances. I have considered them carefully but find that none is such as to alter my judgement in the specific circumstances of this case. 51. The appellant raises procedural matters and argues that they have not been given fair process by the council. This is not relevant to my assessment, and I have no remit to consider such matters. However, in submitting their appeal, the appellant has been able to set out their position and to make a case as to why they consider that planning permission should be granted. I have considered all of the evidence submitted which is material to the case and I am consequently satisfied that the procedural matters described by the appellant have not ultimately prejudiced their position. Conclusion 52. I recognise the positive aspects of the proposal, including the appellant’s commitment to using high quality materials and design, sedum roofs on the standalone garages, new specimen standard trees and the provision of a play park. I also recognise the contribution the development would make to the supply of homes and the employment and other socio-economic benefits that this proposed SME-built development could provide. Nevertheless, these positive aspects do not outweigh the harm that would arise from the proposal as a whole. Page 86 of 94
Page 87
PPA-290-2075 53. I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would still justify granting planning permission. 54. I have considered all the other matters raised, but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions. Susannah Moore Reporter Page 87 of 94
Page 88
Page 88 of 94
Page 89
Planning Committee Monday 9 March 2026 Item No 5.5 PRE - APPLICATION REPORT REGARDING HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING COMMUNAL FACILITIES, FORMATION OF ACCESS, LANDSCAPINNG AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT LAND AT DALKEITH COUNTRY PARK, DALKEITH (24/00683/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 holiday accommodation development including communal facilities, formation of access, landscaping and associated works on land at Dalkeith Country Park, Dalkeith. 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 holiday accommodation development, including communal facilities, formation of access, landscaping and associated works, on land at Dalkeith Country Park, Dalkeith was submitted on 22 December 2025. The applicant is MDS Estates Ltd. 2.3 As part of the pre-application consultation process, two public events are proposed. Details of the location, date and time of the events are yet to be confirmed. A minimum period of 14 days must occur between the first and final consultation events and the events must be advertised within a local newspaper at least 7 days prior to them taking place. Upon the conclusion of the public events the applicant could submit a planning application for the proposal. 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 March 2026. However, all the consultation requirements Page 89 of 94
Page 90
must have been concluded before the submission of the planning application. 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 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 Copies of the pre application notices have been sent by the prospective applicant to the local elected members in Ward 3 - Dalkeith, Dalkeith Community Council Community Council, Colin Beattie MSP and Kirsty McNeill MSP. 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. 2.7 A previous pre-application consultation (24/00591/PAC) for a comparable development, but over a larger area (41.7 hectares) of the Country Park, was reported to Committee at its meeting of December 2024. This pre-application consultation as ‘expired’ as a planning application was not submitted within 18 months of the consultation. 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 is situated within Dalkeith Country Park, an 800- hectare estate situated at the northern edge of Dalkeith. The Country Park comprises the designed landscape, woodlands and farmlands associated with Dalkeith Palace. The application site is approximately 550m east and north-east of Dalkeith Palace. The site is to the east and north of Restoration Yard (a shop, cafe, restaurant and wellness clinic situated within the converted and extended category A listed former stables), Fort Douglas (a children’s adventure playground situated within an area of woodland) and Go Ape (a high ropes adventure course in woodland to the north of Fort Douglas). 3.4 The application site measures approximately 12.6 hectares and Page 90 of 94
Page 91
comprises grassed fields to the west of Salters Road and a sloping grass field situated on raised ground at a meander in the River South Esk. The western area of the site is bounded to the north, west and south by steeply sloping wooded banks of the river. There is an additional area of woodland to the northeast of the site. There is a tarmacadam access road from the restoration yard to the south that runs through the site. The eastern boundary of the site is undefined as is cuts through the grassed field, beyond this is a natural stone wall and Salters Road. The rest of the boundaries of the site are defined by a combination of stock fencing and hedgerows. 3.5 The relevant policies of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) are RD4 - Country Parks; VIS2 - Tourist Accommodation; DEV5 - Sustainability in New Development; DEV6 – Layout and Design of New Development; DEV7 – Landscaping in New Development; DEV9 Open Space Standards; TRAN5 – Electric Vehicle Charging; IT1 – Digital Infrastructure; ENV1 - Protection of the Green Belt; ENV4 - Prime Agricultural Land; ENV7 – Landscape Character; ENV8: Protection of River Valleys; ENV9 – Flooding, ENV10 – Water Environment; ENV14 - Regionally and Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites; ENV15 – Species and Habitat Protection and Enhancement; ENV20 - Nationally Important Gardens and Designed Landscapes and ENV22 – Listed Buildings. 3.6 The relevant policies of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) are Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises; Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation; Policy 3 – Biodiversity; Policy 6 - Forestry, woodland and trees, Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places, Policy 8 - Green belts, Policy 14 - Design, quality and place; Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management; Policy 29 - Rural development; and Policy 30 – Tourism. 3.7 The views of consultees and representors will be material considerations in the assessment of an application for the proposed development. The site is within the Dalkeith Country Park and the green belt which is host to a number of visitor facilities and as such there is there is scope for tourist accommodation and associated development to be supported within the greenbelt as long as it is related to an existing development, is for the furtherance of a viable long-term business and is of a character and scale that is in- keeping with the rural setting. 3.8 While there is some general, in principle, planning policy support for tourism accommodation development in this location detailed consideration will have to be given to design matters, in particular the impact on the designed landscape, setting of listed building, site layout, the siting, design and appearance of the holiday accommodation and other structures, the materials used, landscaping, impact on trees, open space, parking and access, flood risk, biodiversity and sustainability, in order to ensure compliance with sustainable place-making policies within the MLDP and NPF4. It will also be necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring residents and uses, as well as transport and active travel arrangements. Page 91 of 94
Page 92
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 with regard to 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 are 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 which 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 Head of Placemaking Date: 25 February 2026 Application No: 25/00683/PAC Applicant: The MDS Estates Limited Agent: Andrew Munnis Validation Date: 22 December 2024 Contact Person: Whitney Lindsay Email: Whitney.Lindsay@midlothian.gov.uk Attached Plans: Location Plan and Overview of the Dalkeith Country Park Page 92 of 94
Page 93
N Midlothian Council Fairfield House 8 Lothian Road Dalkeith, EH22 3AA Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Crown copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Service Place Directorate Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2026) Proposal of application notice for holiday accommodation development including communal facilities, formation of access, landscaping and associated works. Land at Dalkeith Country Park, Dalkeith. File No. 25/00683/PAC Scale 1:5000Page 93 of 94
Page 94
Page 94 of 94