Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 09/12/2024
Midlothian Council · 9 December 2024
Back to Planning Committee — 9 December 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Notice of Meeting and Agenda Planning Committee Venue: Council Chambers/Hybrid, Midlothian House, Dalkeith, EH22 1DN Date: Monday, 09 December 2024 Time: 13:30 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 112
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 Planning meeting of 29 Oct 2024 submitted for approval 3 - 14 5 Public Reports 5.1 24.00591.PAC - Land at Dalkeith Country Park Report and Plans 15 - 20 5.2 21.00958.PPP - Land At Junction of The A701 and Pentland Road, Loanhead Appeal Decision and Decision 21 - 36 5.3 24.00537.S36 - Salters Park, Dalkeith BESS Report and Plans 37 - 54 5.4 18.00082.S42 - Upper Dalhousie, Bonnyrigg Areas A & B Report and Plan 55 - 80 5.5 18.00081.DPP - Upper Dalhousie, Bonnyrigg Areas C Report and Plans 81 - 112 6 Private Reports No items for discussion 7 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 21 January 2025. Page 2 of 112
Page 3
Minute of Meeting Planning Committee Monday 9 December 2025 Item No: 4.1 Planning Committee Date Time Venue Tuesday 29 October 2024 13:00 Council Chambers, Midlothian House/Hybrid Present: Councillor Alexander (virtual) Councillor Bowen Councillor Cassidy Councillor Curran Councillor Imrie (Chair) Councillor McEwan Councillor McKenzie Councillor Pottinger (Virtual Councillor Smaill Councillor Virgo Councillor Winchester In Attendance: Peter Arnsdorf, Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Derek Oliver Chief Officer Place Maria Perez Democratic Services Officer Nicola Thorburn Democratic Services Officer Page 3 of 112
Page 4
1. Welcome, Introduction and Apologies The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Planning Committee. Apologies were received from Councillor McCall and Councillor McManus. 2. Order of Business Order of Business as per the agenda. 3. Declarations of interest None submitted. 4. Minutes of Previous Meetings 4.1 The Minute of the Planning Committee Meeting 10 September 2024 was submitted and approved as correct record. 5. Reports Agenda No Report Title Submitted by: 5.1 Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 Delivery Programme Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager presented the report. The purpose of the report is to present the Planning Committee with a copy of the draft Delivery Programme for the current adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) prior to it being reported to Council at its meeting of 12 November 2024 with a recommendation to secure authority to engage in a consultation exercise. The purpose of the Delivery Programme is to set up how the Local Development Plan’s Spatial Strategy and development allocations will and have been delivered. The relevant Acts and associated guidance require the plan to be subject to public consultation and subject to be approved by Council. The Scottish Government expectation is that the planning authorities have an adopted development program by March 2025. The Committee is asked to note and approve the contents of the report. Page 4 of 112
Page 5
The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager for the report and opened it up for questions. Members questioned the value of approving the Development Plan and putting it up for consultation without having seen the Capital Plan and noted that the two are intrinsically linked. Decisions on items of the report like Shawfair Primary and Secondary School provision, which have an estimated completion date 2027/28 pertain to decisions which are part the Capital Plan. Members asked if some aspects of the Capital Plan would be introduced during the discussion or whether the Committee is asked to approve the Delivery Programme without the link to the entirety of the Capital Plan. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager acknowledged the concerns but advised that the Capital Plan is progressed through a different Council body, and it would not be possible to present the plan at this Committee. Members advised that while they realise this, they are being asked to make decisions with an estimated completion date without the full Capital Plan. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager noted that the Scottish Government has a March 2025 deadline and prior to this it would be subject to a 6-week consultation period. If Members had reservations regarding the Delivery Programme it will still be possible to make changes. Members reiterated that presenting the Delivery Programme for a decision without seeing figures on the Capital Plan may result in making decisions that are not possible to deliver. Furthermore, decisions on schools are not possible to make without clarity on what the developer contributions are likely to be. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager advised that housing numbers are part of a building program that set the total number of units to be delivered within a time period. The report is presenting a picture of the project’s current status and progress made since 2017 rather than making assumptions of where it is going in the future or trying to force the Members into decisions. The report also identifies how developer contributions will be implemented and delivered. The Chair acknowledged Members’ reservations but reminded of the Elected Members’ duty to report to the public on the delivery of the 2017 Midlothian Development Plan. The Chair also reminded Members that the current discussion should focus on the delivery of the 2017 Development Plan, not any future plans, Members also highlighted matters relating to future infrastructure developments which were the following. • Green belts and coalescence - This is a sensitive matter that needs to be prioritised. Members referred to a section of the report concerning the success of the Newbattle Strategic Greenspace Safeguard and asked for information on it which could be considered by Members as it is relevant to other items on the agenda and other parts of the county. Page 5 of 112
Page 6
• Pupil number projections - Members noted that these are complex which has resulted in insufficient school provision when Hopefield was built, while other developments overestimated the number of children per household. Current data from England and Wales shows that the number of children per household is dropping drastically, and if this process is replicated in Midlothian, it may have implications on future school projections and on school projects. The Chair added that previous housing developments were dominated by 5-bedroom homes, but the demand has moved towards bungalows which are more attractive to retired people. Members agreed that local authorities should be stronger in their ability to demand infrastructures. • Members raised the importance of accessible housing in new private developments as the current offer is almost universally two-story homes. It is the Council’s responsibility to deliver housing suitable to other needs such as one-bedroom flats and accessible homes. The availability of accessible housing should be prioritised in future Development Plans. • Transport links within Midlothian – Members noted that while the plan to extend Edinburgh tram lines to Dalkeith will ensure it is well connected, Members were concerned of the possible result of bus companies cutting some bus lines to the detriment of residents. Members hoped that the Borders rail may eventually be extended to Penicuik. Members stressed the need to contact bus companies to ensure there are services linking new developments as it is more popular now for residents to choose homes which allow them not to be dependent on car travel. Unfortunately, new build estates have had issues with buses due to roads adoption. The Chief Officer Place assured Members that there are ongoing discussions with bus providers regarding access to new build estates. The Chief Officer Place explained that the proposed trams extension to Dalkeith, would be an intermodal passenger transport solution rather than being in competition to existing local bus routes. • Proposed future development of Sheriffhall Roundabout - It was confirmed that the Council Leader has sent a letter to the Transport Secretary to see if the matter can be resolved, and Members discussed the possible need for an alternative plan if the project does not go ahead. The funding ringfenced for this is Midlothian’s fund for its own infrastructure and it is important to ensure this does not get used by other Councils, as the Scottish Government funds are allocated specifically to improve Sheriffhall Roundabout. It will also be necessary to safeguard the Loanhead corridor as this will facilitate joined up transportation. • Proposed future infrastructure provision of South Mayfield Distributor Road - Members asked whether there were other easier delivery solutions as it is not possible to use this protected route. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager confirmed this road relates to a residential scheme, a safeguarded route was identified through the site, and permission was granted in principle without locking in the safeguarded route. Page 6 of 112
Page 7
The applicant had demonstrated that alternative arrangements could mitigate the impact on traffic. Members noted that Councillors from those wards had stressed the importance of resolving this matter and asked for the report to be updated to provide more information on this project. Members were content with the details provided and agreed to approve the report with amendments. The amended report will be presented to the December Council and reviewed by Elected Members before going to public consultation. Decision The Planning Committee approved the recommendations with the suggested amendments before submitting the report to the December Council meeting. Action Planning, Sustainable Development and Investment Manager. Agenda No Report Title Submitted by: 5.2 Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 Gate Check Outcome Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager presented the report. The purpose of the report is to provide Members with the following updates. • The outcome of the Scottish Government ‘Gate Check’ process of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 • The ‘Call for Ideas’ exercise for the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 • The next steps in the production of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 The evidence report was approved at Council on 25 June 2024 and submitted to the Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals Division for gate check and has cleared this process. This decision also validates the Council’s local housing land requirement for 8851 residential units for the 10 year period. During the summer, Council also carried out a Call for Ideas exercise to capture the views of local residents and other interested parties. The report also sets up the following steps of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2. Members are recommended to note the contents of the report. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager is happy to discuss the points raised regarding the green belt, coalescence and accessible housing during the meeting or after. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager also highlighted Page 7 of 112
Page 8
that the previous ceiling of 25% affordable housing has been lifted, there is also scope for the Elected Members to draft a policy to request that a certain percentage of new housing is reserved for bungalows. The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager for the report and opened it up for questions. Members noted the critical tone of the Reporter’s feedback and asked whether the action should be taken to address points made by the Reporter and respond with a timescale. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager noted that this is a new process, and Midlothian is the second Council to complete it. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager explained that the critical tone may be explained by the need for further work on the areas raised by the Reporter. Members asked whether there would be a penalty if the house building quotas are not met, and expressed surprise at finding out there had not been engagement with Sport Scotland as leisure facilities are a basic need for communities. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager responded that there is no financial penalty but that it is necessary to deliver targets as otherwise there is a risk of losing control of development and planning permission being ranted on appeal. The matter of engagement with Sport Scotland has also been addressed since the feedback from the Reporter was received. Members also asked whether there is a statutory duty to provide public conveniences. It was clarified that legislation requires the provision to be considered as part of the local plan preparation. Members highlighted the comments in the report regarding school projection rolls and asked if the projected figure of children per household is correct considering the volume of 5-bedroom houses. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager agreed with the need to carefully manage data and trends to ensure that school roll projections are correct and up to date. Members also asked for clarification on the role of Homes for Scotland within the process. The Planning, Sustainable Development and Investment Manager explained this is an umbrella group which represents the national house builders and their interests. Members asked for reassurance that Homes for Scotland is not lobbying for a relaxing of housing regulations. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager confirmed that they are a lobby group, and the Scottish Government also uses them to engage with the building industry. Members noted that there are no issues reported in connection with joined up infrastructure and public transport among the unresolved matters commented by the Reporter. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager explained that the report only covers those items identified by the Reporter and that the plan is at a very early stage. Page 8 of 112
Page 9
Members noted the recommendations set on the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2. Decision The Planning Committee noted the recommendations as set out in the report. Action Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Agenda No Report Title Submitted by: 5.3 Housing Land Audit 2024 Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager presented the report which presents the 2024 Housing Land Audit and updates the Committee on the state of the housing land supply position in Midlothian for the period between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024. An annual land audit is how a Local Authority can determine land supply, and it is used to form infrastructure providers like NHS and Scottish Water in sites and assist in planning facilities like schools and ensures good management while avoiding planning by appeal. The Housing Land Audit indicates how many houses are built per year and how much stock remains to be built from site allocations and planning permissions granted. The number of units built is agreed with Homes for Scotland and the report has identified 10,863 units as of 31 March 2024. The requirement for the next Midlothian Local Development Plan is for 8,851 houses over 10 years and the Housing Land Audit states this requirement should be met. It is recommended that the report is noted, and the Committee agrees to its publication. The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager for the report and opened it up for questions. Members noted mentions of NHS and Scottish Water in the report and highlighted previous issues engaging with the various bodies within NHS at an early stage of the gate check process. Members asked if there is anything that could be done to guarantee access to infrastructures in newly developed areas and ensure the services like NHS have a plan for delivery. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager advised that since going through the Gate Check process there has been a constructive working relationship developed with NHS providers on what information they require, and progress has been made in the right direction. Members noted that Scottish Power is another actor to consider as some sites can only be served by Scottish Power. Members asked whether all infrastructure Page 9 of 112
Page 10
providers can be approached with the expectation that they will deliver services to approved development sites and that this responsibility does not lie with the Council. Members also noted discrepancy in some figures on page 127 and asked for the report authors to review and confirm that this will not affect the delivery of social housing. Members also noted that the biggest concentration of social housing is in the Bilston and Roslin areas, asked whether these are well marketed and accessible to Midlothian people. The price of homes in Midlothian is seen as attractive compared to other areas but there were concerns if the new homes in Midlothian are affordable to the people who already live in the area. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager noted that the overall completion rates show that the number of houses coming up has reduced, but despite fluctuation the trend is up. Compared to other years, the proportion of affordable housing is the highest, but it is not clear whether this trend will be repeated in future years as it depends on the progression of the developers’ projects. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager also clarified that the location of the houses and their price is market driven and outwith the control of the Council. Members expressed concern that most of new builds are not affordable to first time buyers. Members noted that many sites are nearing full planning consent and completion dates, and that it is imperative to draw partners like NHS in when considering planning applications for sites and ask them to comment on proposed developments. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager acknowledged this is always a difficulty, as it is possible to consult bodies but not possible to control when they will respond. This puts the local authority in a difficult position as waiting for responses to make the best decisions will delay the next phase of the plan. Members reiterated the need for more diversified housing like bungalows and assisted living facilities and asked whether there is sufficient land to address this. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager stated the next draft of the policy will be amended to ensure it contains the right provision that meets the residents’ needs, i.e. affordable housing or accessible housing. The current report suggests there is a significant amount of housing supply in the district to meet the shortfall. Members noted a discrepancy in table 7 of the report and asked if tables are automatically updated. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager confirmed that tables are updated once a year and that there is a separate data for the employment sites which are not covered in the Housing Land Audit. The Committee noted the report and agreed on its publication on the Midlothian Council’s Website. Decision The Planning Committee noted the report and agreed on its publication on the Midlothian Council’s Website. Action The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Page 10 of 112
Page 11
Agenda No Report Title Submitted by: 5.4 Unit 9 Ramsay Colliery, Loanhead Appeal Decision (2200878DPP) Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager presented the report. The purpose of the report is to advise the Committee of a planning permission appeal decision regarding a part retrospective change of use from scrap yard to waste transfer site and contractors’ yard and associated groundworks and construction land at Unit 9, Ramsay Colliery, Engine Road, Loanhead. Planning application 22/00878/DPP was considered by the Committee at its meeting of 12 March 2024 and refused. The applicant submitted an appeal on 28 June 2024 and a Scottish Government Reporter was appointed to consider the appeal. After a site visit the appeal was upheld by the Reporter and planning permission granted on 20 September 2024. The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager and noted the contents of the report. Decision The Planning Committee noted that appeal concerning retrospective change of use of the site at Unit 9 Ramsay Colliery, Loanhead (Application 2200878DPP) was upheld and planning permission was granted on 20 September 2024. The contents of the report were noted. Action The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Agenda No Report Title Submitted by: 5.5 Land north of Crichton Village, Pathead (24/00411/DPP) Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager presented the report. The purpose of the report is to discuss a planning application for the erection of a dwellinghouse at land north of Crichton Village, Pathhead. The site is located within the Borthwick and Crichton Conservation Area and Special Landscape Area. A site visit was carried out by Elected Members on 28 October 2024. Page 11 of 112
Page 12
The proposed house is a 2-story dwelling, with a second floor in the roof space, a dormer window and roof lights letting light into the second floor. The building comprises of a pitched roof main structure with a porch main entrance. The building is of contemporary design covered in timber cladding and corrugated metal roof material. The proposed development also includes provision of additional shed and heat pump, landscaping and parking area. The application treads a fine line between restricting development in the countryside, especially in sites with limited access to public transport and supporting small side incremental housing development by allowing development of small villages hamlets and clusters of dwellings classed as being in the countryside. Crichton can support 3 additional residential units during the Local Development Plan period, but no new houses have been built under this principle yet. The project appears acceptable based on proximity to existing dwellings and relationship to landscape. A prior permission was granted for this site in 2018 but not implemented, and this shows the Council’s predisposition for a dwelling on this site. While the dwelling is of a contemporary style it references traditional styles and will add to the interest of Crichton Conservation Area. National policies allow the use of modern architectural styles to support the evolution of conservation areas. There have been six representations, five supporting, one objecting and two consultation responses. The recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to the conditions specified in the report. The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager for the report and opened it up for discussion. Some Members noted that the house is in a conservation area where there has not been a new build in 140 years, and that there was a prior planning application submitted for a far more impressive home which was described as wrong for the location when it was originally presented. This application has since been replaced by the current application for a more modest dwelling in a smaller site. Members highlighted that per the planning regulations, a new built dwelling must be close to local transport. The policies also note that the site should be contained unless it is on agricultural land, but the application is for a fenced house on agricultural land. Members were urged to act in a responsible way as it sets a worrying precedent particularly considering that in 2009 there was a total ban on any new buildings on Crichton. Members also highlighted the archaeological and heritage conservation aspects to be considered as the build is close to known archaeological sites, and Crichton Village is the location of one of the two works of the Victorian architect Sir Robert Rowand Anderson which remain in Midlothian. Members pointed out that in the materials for the proposed application it states that the home will have a corrugated metal roof which may stick out as the other buildings Page 12 of 112
Page 13
in Chrichton have a slate roof. Councillor Smaill proposed to make it a condition that the site should have a slate roof as there is precedent for corrugated metal roofs not being deemed appropriate for conservation areas. Some Elected Members expressed their support for the proposal that the application is amended to make it a condition that the roof is slated. Some members stated that while Crichton Village may be a conservation area Midlothian is not a museum, and that Crichton’s beauty will not be affected by this build particularly since the house is out of view. Besides there are other merits to this application such as bringing affordable housing to the area. The Chair asked whether it would be possible to make the application subject to the condition that the project is given a slated roof. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager stated that while there are some traditional elements, the house in fact has a very contemporary look and it may not be appropriate to put a slated roof on a modern design building. The Commitee was called to a vote on whether to grant planning permission on the application subject to the conditions specified in the original report as moved by Councillor McKenzie and seconded by Councillor Cassidy, or with the proposed amendment to change the roof material from corrugated metal to slate, as suggested by Councillor Smaill and seconded by Councillor Bowen. The Commitee voted by a 2:1 majority to grant planning permission subject to the conditions specified in the original report. Decision The Planning committee agreed to grant planning permission to application (24/00411/DPP) subject to the conditions specified in the report. Action The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager 6. Private Reports No items for discussion 7. Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 3 December 2024 at 1:00 pm. The meeting terminated at 14.33 pm. Page 13 of 112
Page 14
Page 14 of 112
Page 15
Planning Committee Monday 9 December 2024 Item No 5.1 PRE - APPLICATION REPORT REGARDING HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING COMMUNAL FACILITIES, FORMATION OF ACCESS, LANDSCAPINNG AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT LAND AT DALKEITH COUNTRY PARK, DALKEITH (24/00591/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 at 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 at Land at Dalkeith Country Park, Dalkeith was submitted on 18 September 2024. The applicant is MDS Estates Ltd. 2.3 As part of the pre-application consultation process, two public events have been held at The Loft, Dalkeith Country Park, Dalkeith. The first was held on Thursday 3 October 2024 and the second was on Wednesday 6 November 2024; these events were advertised via the Midlothian Advertiser (at least 7 days prior to each event). The applicant has also created a dedicated website which provides Page 15 of 112
Page 16
further information on the proposed development, a copy of the consultation boards used at the public events, a contact email address and phone number for members of the public who want to get in contact for further information or enquiries. Upon the conclusion of the public events/engagement 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 earliest date that the planning application for this proposal could be submitted is 11 December 2024. 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, an explanation of how the applicant took account of the views expressed and an explanation of how members of the public were given feedback on the applicant’s consideration of their views. 2.5 Copies of the pre application notices have been sent by the prospective applicant to the local elected members in Ward 3 - Dalkeith, the Dalkeith Community Council, the local MP and the local MSP(s). 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 It is noted that two representations (one objection and one neutral) were received via the planning portal for this proposal of application notice. These representations will be forwarded onto the applicant to be taken into consideration and included in their Pre-Application Consultation Report. 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. 3.2 The development plan is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan (2017). 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 a designed landscape, woodlands and farmlands associated with Dalkeith Palace. The application site is approximately 550m east and north-east of Dalkeith Palace and to the east and north of the 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 Page 16 of 112
Page 17
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 41.7 hectares and comprises of grassed fields to the immediate west of Salters Road and a sloping grass field situated on raised ground at a meander in the River South Esk. 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 north-east 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 defined by a high 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 a protected landscape, the Dalkeith Country Park and the green belt, however the Park is host to a number of visitor facilities and as such there is scope for tourist accommodation and associated development to be supported 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 its rural setting. 3.8 Detailed consideration will have to be given to design matters, in particular the developments relationship to the garden and designed landscape, the setting of listed buildings, the site layout, the siting, design and appearance of the holiday accommodation and other structures, the materials used, landscaping, impact on trees, parking provision and road safety, flood risk mitigation, biodiversity and sustainability in order to ensure compliance with sustainable place- making policies within the MLDP and NPF4. It will also be necessary Page 17 of 112
Page 18
to consider the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring residents and other land uses, the local road/transport infrastructure and active travel arrangements. 4 PROCEDURES 4.1 The Scottish Government’s Guidance on the Role of Councillors in Pre-Application Procedures provides for Councillors to express a ‘without prejudice’ view and to identify material considerations regarding a major application. 4.2 The Committee is invited to express a ‘without prejudice’ view and to raise any material considerations which they wish the applicant and/or officers to consider. Views and comments expressed by the Committee will be entered into the minutes of the meeting and relayed to the applicant for consideration. 4.3 The Scottish Government’s Guidance on the Role of Councillors in Pre-Application Procedures advises that Councillors 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 Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 22 November 2024 Application No: 24/00591/PAC Applicant: The MDS Estates Limited Agent: Andrew Munnis Validation Date: 19 September 2024 Contact Person: Whitney Lindsay Email: Whitney.Lindsay@midlothian.gov.uk Attached Plans: Location Plan and Indicative Layout Plan Page 18 of 112
Page 19
N Midlothian Council Fairfield House 8 Lothian Road Dalkeith, EH22 3AA Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Crown copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Service Place Directorate Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2024) 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. 24/00591/PAC Scale 1:7000Page 19 of 112
Page 20
gate welcome building 51 Lodges 49 Lodges 14 Lodges 5 Lodges 5 Lodges 7 Lodges 14 Lodges 13 Lodges 15 Lodges 15 Lodges 5 Lodges 6 Lodges Main Entrance AREA IN ABEYANCE 2000 3700 5500 - Proposed Two Way Road - Fire Tender Access - Proposed Footpath Key - Proposed Bin Store - Proposed SuDs feature - Parking Space (331 No.) - Proposed Swale Network (surface tbc by Lanarca) (surface tbc by Lanarca) (surface tbc by Lanarca) (surface tbc by Lanarca) - Existing Road - Existing Planting/Trees - Proposed Planting/Trees - Existing Structures Removed - Electrical Sub Station (tbc by Wallace Whittle) SUB STATION - Proposed Fire Extinguisher Point (tbc by Wallace Whittle) FP - Proposed Low Level Light Bollards (tbc by Wallace Whittle) - Proposed Lodge Path (surface tbc by Lanarca)1200 - River South Esk - Proposed 1.2m Retention Wall - Twin Pitch Lodges Lodge Types 6100 12200 4300 13000 - Center Loaded Lodges Project Code - Originator - Functional Breakdown - Spatial Breakdown - Form - Discipline - Number Status Title Project T +44 (0) 20 7287 0735 www.holdermathias.com London Cardiff Munich Please consider the environment before printing this document Refer to dimensions where provided - do not scale from this drawing ISO 14001 : 2015 ISO 9001 : 2015 RIBA Chartered Practice Job No RevisionScale at Rev. Status Date Check Description A0 Classification S0As indicated4681 DKCP-HMA-ZZ-ZZ-D-A-00111 Site Plan Dalkeith Country Park Dalkeith Buccleuch Estates Ltd P09PM-xx-xx-xx P01 S0 26.07.24 JH First Issue P02 S0 30.07.24 JH Drawing Number Amended P03 S0 01.08.24 JH Layout Development Based on Consultants Input and Tree Survey P04 S0 28.08.24 JH Layout Updated P05 S0 09.09.24 JH Layout Updated P06 S0 18.09.24 JH Connection to roundabout added P07 S0 08.11.24 JH Layout Development Based on Consultants Input P08 S0 11.11.24 JH General Amendments P09 S0 14.11.24 SR Draft Issue for Planning 1 : 1000 Site Plan1 Maintenance & Housekeeping Buildings Welcome Building with 12 guest parking spaces Low point SUDS SUDS Low point Waste Collection Area 0 SCALE 1: 504030201010 m1000 N DRAFT Lodge Numbers Type Count Center Loaded 120 Twin Pitch 80 Grand total 200 Parking Schedule Use Count Entrance Parking 12 Lodge Parking 316 Grand total 328 Page 20 of 112
Page 21
Planning Committee Monday 9 December 2024 Item No 5.2 PLANNING PERMISSION APPEAL DECISION WITH REGARD TO APPLICATION 21/00958/PPP FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING CLASS 2 (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES), CLASS 8 (RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS), CLASS 9 (RESIDENTIAL), CLASS 10 (NON-RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS), SUI GENERIS (MIXED USE OF RETIREMENT FLATS AND ASSISTED LIVING/EXTRA CARE FLATS), AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT LAND AT THE JUNCTION OF THE A701 AND PENTLAND ROAD, OLD PENTLAND, LOANHEAD. Report by Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of a planning permission in principle appeal decision with regard to an application for planning permission in principle for a mixed-use development comprising Class 2 (professional services), Class 8 (residential institutions), Class 9 (residential), Class 10 (non-residential institutions), Sui Generis (mixed use of retirement flats and assisted living/extra care flats), affordable housing and associated works at land at the junction of the A701 and Pentland Road, Old Pentland, Loanhead. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Planning application 21/00958/DPP was considered by the Committee at its meeting of 30 August 2022. The application was refused for the following reasons: 1. The majority of the application site is designated as countryside in the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. The proposed development is not for the furtherance of an established rural use and will not be of a rural scale and character. The proposal is contrary to policy RD1 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 2. The indicative allocation of uses and floorspace for the land within the built-up area of Loanhead will create a scale and density of development that will have a significant detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area and the residential amenity of the residential park homes in Pentland Park. The Page 21 of 112
Page 22
proposal is contrary to policies DEV2 and DEV4 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 3. Development of an unallocated site that is adjacent to the undeveloped allocated site (Ec3 - West Straiton) will delay the early implementation of the allocated development site. The proposal is contrary to policy STRAT5 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 4. The development does not accord with policies DEV3, IMP1 and IMP2 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 as it does not commit to deliver the required provision of affordable housing and developer contribution requirements towards infrastructure for new development. 2.2 The decision notice was issued on 1 September 2022 and the applicant submitted an appeal on 28 November 2022. A Scottish Government Reporter was appointed to determine the appeal and following a site visit and procedural delays (see paragraph 2.3 below) the appeal was refused on 16 October 2024. A copy of the appeal decision is attached to this report as Appendix A. 2.3 Following the adoption, by Scottish Ministers, of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) in February 2023 the Reporter requested further submissions from the applicant, the Council and other interested parties. After the NPF4 submissions the appeal was twice put on hold to allow for the Scottish Ministers and then the Court of Session to assess an application in West Lothian, which had implications for the interpretation of windfall housing policies in NPF4. 3 THE DECISION 3.1 In considering the appeal the Reporter concluded that the proposal was contrary to the following NPF4 and Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) policies: NPF4 Policy 5 Soils NPF4 Policy 14 Design, quality and place NPF4 Policy 15 Local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 Quality homes NPF4 Policy 17 Rural homes MLDP Policy DEV2 Protecting Amenity within the Built-Up Area MLDP Policy RD1 Development in the Countryside MLDP ENV4 Prime Agricultural Land 3.2 In considering the principle of development the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “The proposed uses are a veterinary practice (class 2 at the time of the application, but now class 1A), community use building (class 10), Page 22 of 112
Page 23
affordable housing (class 9), public green space, SuDS and landscaping. I do not find that any of these elements, particularly the built aspects, would be for the furtherance of an established countryside activity. The proposed public green space is intended to replace existing open spaces for users of Pentland Park and hence I do not consider its purpose is for countryside recreation.” “The area of land is relatively small (0.4 ha) and may not have been actively farmed for some time. Nevertheless, it currently contributes to the agricultural land bank and its potential use for agriculture would be lost as a result of the proposals. I therefore conclude that it fails to satisfy the provisions of policy ENV4 of MLDP or policy 5 of NPF4.” “The affordable housing, which lies outwith the built-up area also requires to be considered in relation to policy 17 – Rural homes of NPF4. The proposal is not on a site allocated for housing within the LDP, does not represent reuse of a brownfield site or redundant building, is not necessary to support management of a viable rural business, nor is it for a single home or for the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling or reinstatement of a former dwelling house. I have also concluded above that the proposals would not be particularly well placed to contribute towards local living. I therefore conclude that it would fail to satisfy the requirements of policy 17 of NPF4.” 3.3 In considering whether the proposal is supported by policies relating to windfall housing the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “Given that much of the proposed housing is specifically targeted at older populations or those requiring assisted living, I find that the proposals are not well-located to accord with the intent of this policy. Thus, the proposals do not satisfy the requirements of policy 15 or meet the exceptions set out in part f) (ii) of policy 16.” “I consider that these would not meet the definition of a smaller scale opportunity. Parts of the proposal fall outwith the settlement boundary, and these are not consistent with the policy on rural homes. Whilst I recognise that the proposal is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes, these are not part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan. I therefore conclude that the proposals fail to meet the exceptions set out in part f) (iii). Overall, they fail to meet any of the locational requirements set out in policy 16.” “I conclude that the proposals gain support from part c) and to a lesser extent, part e) of policy 16, but fail to satisfy parts a) or f). Policy 16 does not explicitly identify parts c) and e) as additional circumstances to those set out in part f) where new homes on unallocated land may be acceptable. Nevertheless, they indicate the importance placed on provision of these types of housing. I do not, however, accept the appellant’s view that the nature of the proposed housing means that I can disregard the locational criteria set out in parts a) and f). The Page 23 of 112
Page 24
intent of policy 16 is “to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes, in the right locations, providing choice across tenures that meet the diverse housing needs of people and communities across Scotland”. Thus, whilst the policy seeks high quality and affordable homes, these must be “in the right locations”, maintaining a locational element to the assessment. It may be that there would be occasions where the weight given to the types of housing under parts c) and/or e) was considered sufficient to overcome any conflict with part f) and allow a conclusion of overall compliance with policy 16. However, I am not persuaded that such a conclusion would be valid in this case. The site is not particularly well positioned to promote local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods. There is also no evidence as to why the proposals could not be accommodated in other locations, including land adjacent to the proposal site, which is allocated within the MLDP for mixed-use development.” “In reaching a conclusion on this matter, I have considered the terms of The Chief Planner’s letter (26 June 2024), which was published to provide clarification on the application of NPF4. This indicates that the different parts of policy 16 “should be weighed up as relevant to the proposal; there is no hierarchy and no one part of policy should always outweigh others. A balanced planning judgement should be reached in each case.” I have considered both the locational aspects of the proposal (parts a) and f)) and the relevant criteria relating to the types of housing (parts c) and e)). I conclude, that whilst the proposals gain some support from parts c) and e) of policy 16, this support is tempered when considered within the context of policy 16 as a whole and is not sufficient for me to conclude that the proposal accords overall with policy 16.” 3.4 In considering the effect of the proposals on the character and amenity (including residential amenity) of the surrounding area the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “I conclude that the cumulative scale and density of development at the southern end of the site would be detrimental to the character of the area and residential amenity of Pentland Park and hence would be inconsistent with policy DEV2 of the MLDP. For similar reasons, I find it would also fail to be consistent with policy 14 of NPF4.” 3.5 In considering whether the proposal would satisfy requirements for contributions to affordable housing and infrastructure the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “Had I been minded to allow the appeal I am satisfied that there would have been a strong likelihood of reaching an agreement on these matters.” Page 24 of 112
Page 25
3.6 In considering whether development on an unallocated site would delay early implementation of an adjacent allocated site the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “Development at Ec3 is dependent on the construction of the A701 Relief Road. The council has confirmed its continuing commitment to the proposals, and I note the recent initiatives to progress the wider scheme. I accept that delivery of proposals for this site may therefore be delayed until the road is implemented. Nevertheless, I do not see this as justification for development on an adjoining, unallocated site.” 3.7 In assessing other considerations, the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “The appellant has referred to information relating to housing land supply contained in the Evidence Report for the review of the MLDP, suggesting that supply may need to be increased and that there is a heightened need and demand within the affordable and specialist housing sectors. I note that these figures have been collected to inform an updated version of the MLDP, including allocation of suitable sites, rather than to guide development management decisions. Nevertheless, the council has indicated that through its Evidence Report, it has agreed a Local Housing Land Requirement of 8,851 homes. This exceeds the MATHLR, albeit by a single unit. I therefore conclude that the current supply of housing land exceeds the MATHLR.” “I have also considered the Scottish Government’s declaration of a housing emergency, as an important material consideration. The declaration makes specific reference to affordable housing. As the proposals include 10 affordable homes, the proposals gain some support from this. However, it does not appear to me that a shortage of housing land has been identified as an important contributory factor to the emergency. In any case, based on the figures above, it appears that adequate housing land has been allocated within Midlothian and there are policies within the MLDP, which provide for affordable homes as part of development proposals. Furthermore, I am not aware of any ministerial statement or instruction requiring departure from development plans in the light of the housing emergency. Therefore, I find that the declaration of the housing emergency does not justify a departure from the development plan in this instance.” “In summary, the proposals would make a small, but valuable contribution to the supply of affordable housing in Midlothian, for which there is a recognised demand. However, there are existing mechanisms to provide for affordable housing on the already allocated sites, there appear to be sufficient allocated sites, and there is no indication that such windfall sites are necessary to meet the demand – even when considered within the context of a declared national housing emergency and need for affordable housing. As such, I Page 25 of 112
Page 26
conclude that any benefits in terms of the types of homes provided by the proposals would not be sufficient to overcome the policy tensions identified above.” “I have considered the economic benefits of the scheme. However, I am not persuaded that these benefits are sufficient reason to consent commercial development on an unallocated site, particularly given the proximity of an already allocated and undeveloped site on the opposite side of Pentland Road.” 3.8 In reaching her decision the Reporter reached the following conclusions: “I conclude 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 permission in principle appeal decision with regard to an application for planning permission in principle for a mixed-use development comprising Class 2 (professional services), Class 8 (residential institutions), Class 9 (residential), Class 10 (non-residential institutions), Sui Generis (mixed use of retirement flats and assisted living/extra care flats), affordable housing and associated works at land at the junction of the A701 and Pentland Road, Old Pentland, Loanhead. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 22 November 2024 Contact Person: Graeme King graeme.king@midlothian.gov.uk Page 26 of 112
Page 27
Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR E: dpea@gov.scot T: 0300 244 6668 Appeal Decision Notice Decision I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission in principle. Preliminary matters By letter dated 22 April 2021 the council issued an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening opinion for the proposal. It noted that the proposed development falls within an ‘urban development project’ under terms of 10(b) of Schedule 2 (Column 1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. It exceeded the threshold of 0.5 hectares and hence was considered to be ‘Schedule 2’ development. Having considered the interaction between the characteristics of the development and its location and potential impact, the council concluded that the proposal was not anticipated to have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts and that an EIA was not required. Having reviewed the information provided, including supporting environmental information, I concur with that opinion. On 31 March 2023 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development and Use Classes) (Scotland) Miscellaneous Amendment Order 2023 came into effect. As a result, class 1 (shops) and class 2 (financial, professional and other services) were combined to form class 1A (shops and financial, professional and other services). Prior to determination, Scottish Ministers adopted National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) on 13 February 2023. This appeal was subsequently put on hold to allow Scottish Ministers to determine another housing case, which raised questions about the way in which policy within NPF4 should be interpreted and applied (the ‘Mossend decision, DPEA reference PPA-400-2147). This appeal remained on hold until the conclusion of the subsequent appeal against that decision. Decision by Sue Bell, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers • Planning appeal reference: PPA-290-2067 • Site address: land at Junction of Pentland Road and the A701, New Pentland, Midlothian, EH20 9NY • Appeal by Pentland Park Marine Ltd against the decision by Midlothian Council • Application for planning permission in principle 21/00958/PPP dated 25 November 2021 refused by notice dated 1 September 2022 • The development proposed: proposed mixed-use development comprising Class 2 (professional services), Class 8 (residential institutions), Class 9 (residential), Class 10 (non-residential institutions), Sui Generis (mixed use of retirement flats and assisted living/extra care flats), affordable housing and associated works at land at junction of the A701 and Pentland Road, Old Pentland, Edinburgh • Date of site visit by Reporter: 23 March 2023 Date of appeal decision: 16 October 2024 Appendix A Page 27 of 112
Page 28
PPA-290-2067 The appellant, council and community councils have been given an opportunity to comment on the implications of the Mossend decision, the court’s opinion on that decision (dated 2 May 2024) and a letter from the Chief Planner relating to planning for housing (dated 26 June 2024). Given the time that has elapsed since the application was first considered, parties were also invited to provide details of any material changes that had occurred whilst the appeal was on hold. The appellant provided drone footage of recent development in the area. I am content that this provided me with an adequate understanding of changes to the area, without the need for a second site inspection. Reasoning 1. I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This comprises the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP). 2. Having regard to the provisions of the development plan and the reasons for refusal, I find the main issues in this appeal are: • the principle of development; • the effect of the proposals on the character and amenity (including residential amenity) of the surrounding area; • whether the proposals would satisfy requirements for contributions to affordable housing and infrastructure; • the effect of the proposals on delivery of other allocated sites; and • whether there are material reasons, notably a change in context of the site, that would justify approval of the proposal. The principle of development 3. The proposal site sits to the south of Pentland Road and extends to the northern edge of the built-up area of Loanhead. Various spatial policies within the MLDP apply to different parts of the site. 4. The bulk of the northern section of the site is identified as countryside within the MLDP, subject to policy RD1 – Development in the Countryside. This policy protects countryside areas from development unless it meets certain criteria. In broad terms, development will only be permitted if it is required for the furtherance of a rural economic activity including countryside recreation; or it accords with policies in respect of low-density rural housing (policy RD2), surface mineral extraction (policy MIN1), renewable and low carbon energy projects (policy NRG1), or wind energy (policy NRG2); or it accords with the council’s supplementary guidance on “Development in the Countryside and Green Belt.” 5. The proposed uses are a veterinary practice (class 2 at the time of the application, but now class 1A), community use building (class 10), affordable housing (class 9), public green space, SuDS and landscaping. I do not find that any of these elements, particularly the built aspects, would be for the furtherance of an established countryside activity. The proposed public green space is intended to replace existing open spaces for users of Pentland Park and hence I do not consider its purpose is for countryside recreation. 6. The north-western part of the proposal site is classified as prime agricultural land. Policy ENV4 of MLDP and part b) of policy 5 of NPF4 establish criteria for when development of this is acceptable. Policy ENV4 states that development which leads to the permanent loss of prime agricultural land will not be permitted unless the site is allocated as Page 28 of 112
Page 29
PPA-290-2067 part of the development strategy; it is necessary to meet an established need (such as essential infrastructure), where there is no alternative site available and where the need for that development outweighs the environmental or economic interests in retaining the farmland for productive use; or it is a small-scale development directly linked to an existing rural business. Notwithstanding the appellant’s view that the types of housing proposed are to address a known need (which I consider further below), I do not find that the proposals would satisfy these criteria. 7. Similar criteria are identified within part b) of policy 5 of NPF4, which also identifies additional exceptions to the presumption against development on prime agricultural land. These are that it is for the development of production and processing facilities associated with land produce where no other local site is suitable or for the generation of energy from renewable sources or the extraction of minerals. None of these circumstances are satisfied by the current proposals. 8. The area of land is relatively small (0.4 ha) and may not have been actively farmed for some time. Nevertheless, it currently contributes to the agricultural land bank and its potential use for agriculture would be lost as a result of the proposals. I therefore conclude that it fails to satisfy the provisions of policy ENV4 of MLDP or policy 5 of NPF4. 9. The southern-most part of the proposal site lies within the built-up area of Loanhead, where policy DEV2 - Protecting Amenity within the Built-Up Area and policy STRAT2 – Windfall Housing Sites apply. It is also subject to the provisions of policy DEV4 – Residential Park Homes. 10. Policy DEV2 provides support for development within the built-up area, unless it is likely to detract materially from the existing character or amenity of the area. Policy STRAT2 is supportive of windfall housing on non-allocated sites within the built-up area, subject to it not leading to the loss or damage of valuable public or private open space; it does not conflict with the established land use of the area; it has regard to the character of the area in terms of scale, form, design and materials; it meets traffic and parking requirements; and it accords with other relevant policies and proposals including those relating to infrastructure, design and contributions towards affordable housing. 11. Policy DEV4 - Residential Park Homes safeguards the continued use of Pentland Park for the siting and management of residential park homes. The proposals would occupy an area that lies adjacent to the existing dwellings, but would not alter the use of the site itself. The area currently used for recreation by park users would be lost. The proposals include for alternative landscaped public space to the north of the site. However, I saw that this area already received informal use. 12. As the proposals include elements of housing, policy 16 Quality Homes of NPF4 also requires consideration. The policy includes eight parts, some of which deal with the location of housing and others to the types of homes proposed. I consider these below. 13. Part d) of policy 16 relates to development proposals for Gypsy/Travellers and showpeople, whilst Parts g) and h) relate to householder proposals. These do not have any relevance for the current proposal. 14. Part a) of policy 16 provides support for new homes on land allocated for housing in local development plans (LDPs). The proposed site is not allocated for housing within the MLDP. Page 29 of 112
Page 30
PPA-290-2067 15. Part b) places a requirement that all proposals for 50 or more homes should be accompanied by a Statement of Community Benefit. The current proposal exceeds this threshold, but no Statement has been provided. However, I note that the application was submitted prior to the adoption of NPF4, which introduced this requirement. 16. The key elements of policy 16 of NPF4 are parts c) and e), which relate to the types of home and part f), which relates to the spatial location of housing. Dealing first with part f), in respect of location, as already noted, part a) supports housing developments on allocated sites. For all other locations, part f) is engaged, regardless of the type(s) of housing being proposed. 17. Part f) sets out the circumstances when development proposals for new homes on unallocated land may be acceptable. These include at point (ii) that the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods. The proposed affordable housing lies within the countryside and hence is not consistent with the spatial strategy. 18. Local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods is also addressed through policy 15 of NPF4. The policy seeks to encourage and promote neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. The proposal site would be close to a number of the facilities required to fulfil daily needs, such as food shops. The appellant has provided a plan (Appendix 1 to response to further information request dated 16 February 2023) to illustrate accessibility to facilities (e.g. health and social care facilities, sports facilities and schools). Whilst many of these facilities are shown as being within approximately a 20-minute walk from the proposal site, I note that this has been assessed in terms of time in a single direction and has been calculated ‘as the crow flies’ rather than being related to the footpath network. The plan includes bus routes, but no indication of the frequency of service. Furthermore, the facilities do not appear particularly well-related to the proposal site, with the medical facilities appearing to be located towards the eastern extent of the walk time. Given that much of the proposed housing is specifically targeted at older populations or those requiring assisted living, I find that the proposals are not well-located to accord with the intent of this policy. Thus, the proposals do not satisfy the requirements of policy 15 or meet the exceptions set out in part f) (ii) of policy 16. 19. Turning to part f) (iii) of policy 16, notwithstanding that deliverable housing land pipelines have yet to be produced, there is no suggestion that housing sites are being delivered more rapidly than envisaged, creating a shortage of sites. The elements of the proposal which fall within the settlement boundary comprise 42 extra care/ assisted living flats and an 80 room care home. I consider that these would not meet the definition of a smaller scale opportunity. Parts of the proposal fall outwith the settlement boundary, and these are not consistent with the policy on rural homes. Whilst I recognise that the proposal is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes, these are not part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan. I therefore conclude that the proposals fail to meet the exceptions set out in part f) (iii). Overall, they fail to meet any of the locational requirements set out in policy 16. 20. I have also considered the types of housing proposed against the criteria set out in parts c) and e) of policy 16 of NPF4. Part c) provides support for development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address identified gaps in provision. Examples of the type of housing included within this description include: ii – accessible, adaptable and wheelchair accessible homes; iv – affordable homes; and vi – homes for older people, including Page 30 of 112
Page 31
PPA-290-2067 supported accommodation, care homes and sheltered housing. Subject to demonstration that there are identified gaps in provision, I accept that the different elements of proposed accommodation would each meet one of these descriptions. Hence the proposals would gain support from this part of policy 16. 21. Part e) provides support for new homes where they make provision for affordable homes to meet an identified need. It sets an expectation that at least 25% of the total number of homes should be affordable, although a higher contribution may be justified by evidence of need. Lower contributions may also be justified, for example to incentivise particular types of homes needed to diversify supply. The current proposals include for 10 affordable homes and 42 flats. Thus, the numbers of affordable homes fall just short of the 25% level. 22. I conclude that the proposals gain support from part c) and to a lesser extent, part e) of policy 16, but fail to satisfy parts a) or f). Policy 16 does not explicitly identify parts c) and e) as additional circumstances to those set out in part f) where new homes on unallocated land may be acceptable. Nevertheless, they indicate the importance placed on provision of these types of housing. I do not, however, accept the appellant’s view that the nature of the proposed housing means that I can disregard the locational criteria set out in parts a) and f). The intent of policy 16 is “to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes, in the right locations, providing choice across tenures that meet the diverse housing needs of people and communities across Scotland”. Thus, whilst the policy seeks high quality and affordable homes, these must be “in the right locations”, maintaining a locational element to the assessment. It may be that there would be occasions where the weight given to the types of housing under parts c) and/or e) was considered sufficient to overcome any conflict with part f) and allow a conclusion of overall compliance with policy 16. However, I am not persuaded that such a conclusion would be valid in this case. The site is not particularly well positioned to promote local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods. There is also no evidence as to why the proposals could not be accommodated in other locations, including land adjacent to the proposal site, which is allocated within the MLDP for mixed-use development. 23. In reaching a conclusion on this matter, I have considered the terms of The Chief Planner’s letter (26 June 2024), which was published to provide clarification on the application of NPF4. This indicates that the different parts of policy 16 “should be weighed up as relevant to the proposal; there is no hierarchy and no one part of policy should always outweigh others. A balanced planning judgement should be reached in each case.” I have considered both the locational aspects of the proposal (parts a) and f)) and the relevant criteria relating to the types of housing (parts c) and e)). I conclude, that whilst the proposals gain some support from parts c) and e) of policy 16, this support is tempered when considered within the context of policy 16 as a whole and is not sufficient for me to conclude that the proposal accords overall with policy 16. 24. The affordable housing, which lies outwith the built-up area also requires to be considered in relation to policy 17 – Rural homes of NPF4. The proposal is not on a site allocated for housing within the LDP, does not represent reuse of a brownfield site or redundant building, is not necessary to support management of a viable rural business, nor is it for a single home or for the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling or reinstatement of a former dwelling house. I have also concluded above that the proposals would not be particularly well placed to contribute towards local living. I therefore conclude that it would fail to satisfy the requirements of policy 17 of NPF4. Page 31 of 112
Page 32
PPA-290-2067 25. In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, and subject to my comments in relation to the effects of the proposals on character and amenity below, I conclude that the principle of the proposed development does not accord overall with the development plan. Effect of the proposals on the character and amenity (including residential amenity) of the surrounding area 26. Policy DEV2 of MLDP seeks to protect amenity within the built-up area, whilst policy 14 – design, quality and place of NPF4 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development. I saw that the proposal site currently comprises areas of open green space, partially sub-divided by fences and a hedge. The residential properties of Pentland Park are situated adjacent to much of the western and southern boundaries of the appeal site. The north of the site is bordered by Pentland Road. The A701 lies to the east of the site, but lies beyond much of the eastern boundary of the site, which is provided by four residential properties. The appellant reports that three of these operate as commercial businesses, but there was no obvious noise or disturbance associated with these uses at the time of my visit. 27. The character of the wider area is mixed. When driving along the A701, I saw a clear distinction between the retail outlets that lie on the eastern side of the road and the areas of undeveloped land and smaller residential properties on the western side of the road. These large-scale retail developments are clearly separate from the appeal site and are sufficiently distant so as not to dominate the dwellings within Pentland Park. 28. The development of the food store with its associated parking, spine road and the proposed new access off Pentland Road adjacent to the north-east of the site has extended commercial development across the A701, bringing it closer to the residential properties within Pentland Park. Nevertheless, the appeal site continues to provide a buffer of green open space between Pentland Park and the commercial uses. It also continues to provide a green corridor to open land to the west and north of the site. 29. The indicative plan shows most of the proposed built development, including all the housing and residential units, would be located within the south of the appeal site, between the existing residential areas of Pentland Park and the dwellings adjacent to the A701. In broad terms, I find that the proposed mix of accommodation may be compatible with the existing residential use. However, I am aware that the nature and level of servicing associated with extra care/ assisted living and a care home may be of a different nature and pattern to that of private residential dwellings, leading to greater noise and disturbance. It would also lead to a loss of the existing adjoining green space for those properties to the south and west of the proposals. 30. The appellant has interpreted character and amenity in terms of “landscape and urban design character with general and visual amenity considerations.” It suggests that there would be potential benefits to amenity arising from better access to quality green/open spaces, an increase in the area of open space available to residents of Pentland Park, walking routes and children’s play facilities and better access through the site. I am not convinced that any benefits to open space provision would be as substantial as the appellant suggests. Overall, there would be a loss of some of the existing open space, including the area that is in closest proximity (and hence most accessible) to the park dwellings. The appellant states that there is no public access to much of this existing open space, but that did not accord with my observations. I saw that whilst there is a formal area for public access at the south of the site, there are no obvious physical barriers preventing access to the wider site. Indeed, I saw several individuals walking throughout Page 32 of 112
Page 33
PPA-290-2067 this area. Even in the absence of physical access to this land, I saw that it provides some visual separation between the eastern boundary of Pentland Park and the more commercial developments along the A701. 31. I conclude that the cumulative scale and density of development at the southern end of the site would be detrimental to the character of the area and residential amenity of Pentland Park and hence would be inconsistent with policy DEV2 of the MLDP. For similar reasons, I find it would also fail to be consistent with policy 14 of NPF4. Whether the proposal would satisfy requirements for contributions to affordable housing and infrastructure 32. Without prejudice to the outcome of the application, the council sent draft Heads of Terms for a legal agreement to the appellant. These related to contributions towards the A901 Relief Road and the A702 Link Road; for primary and secondary education provision; affordable housing; and maintenance of open space including children’s play areas/ open space and SuDS. No agreement on some of these matters (e.g. affordable housing) had been reached by the time that the application was determined. Had I been minded to allow the appeal I am satisfied that there would have been a strong likelihood of reaching an agreement on these matters. Whether development on an unallocated site would delay early implementation of an adjacent allocated site 33. Land to the north of Pentland Road is allocated for mixed-use development (Ec3 West Straiton) including retail, hotel, office, commercial leisure and housing. The southern part of Ec3 is also identified as part of an allocation for a film studio (MX1). However, the council has indicated that this is now unlikely to proceed. Whilst I accept that some of the proposed uses for the appeal site are not specifically identified for Ec3, given its allocation for mixed-use development, I can see no barrier to the uses proposed as part of this application being located there. 34. Development at Ec3 is dependent on the construction of the A701 Relief Road. The council has confirmed its continuing commitment to the proposals, and I note the recent initiatives to progress the wider scheme. I accept that delivery of proposals for this site may therefore be delayed until the road is implemented. Nevertheless, I do not see this as justification for development on an adjoining, unallocated site. Other considerations 35. The appellant considers that great weight should be placed on the proposals delivering housing for which there is an identified need. The appellant has identified this need through discussions with Midlothian Council’s Housing Department; from the council’s Local Housing Strategy and the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) 21/22-24/25 and 2022/23 – 2026/27 which identified the Loanhead area as having a high demand for social housing. In addition, the appellant refers to their own experiences of a demand for age-appropriate housing in this area, the declaration of a national housing emergency in Scotland and primary research for Homes for Scotland relating to the extent of housing need across Scotland. 36. Accepting that there is a demand for the proposed forms of housing, there appears to be no suggestion that this demand within Midlothian is related to any shortfall in the allocation of housing land or could not be accommodated on allocated sites. Page 33 of 112
Page 34
PPA-290-2067 37. NPF4 sets out a Minimum All Tenure Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR) for each local authority area. This is the minimum amount of land, (defined in terms of number of housing units), to be provided for a 10-year period. The MATHLR for Midlothian is 8,850, which equates to a requirement of 4,425 homes over a 5-year period. This falls within the stated supply included within the MLDP of 4,500 homes. The council has provided housing land supply figures included within the approved 2023 Housing Land Audit, which covers the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. These identify a housing land supply of 11,799 homes, of which 11,052 were effective. These figures exceed the MATHLR figure. 38. The appellant has referred to information relating to housing land supply contained in the Evidence Report for the review of the MLDP, suggesting that supply may need to be increased and that there is a heightened need and demand within the affordable and specialist housing sectors. I note that these figures have been collected to inform an updated version of the MLDP, including allocation of suitable sites, rather than to guide development management decisions. Nevertheless, the council has indicated that through its Evidence Report, it has agreed a Local Housing Land Requirement of 8,851 homes. This exceeds the MATHLR, albeit by a single unit. I therefore conclude that the current supply of housing land exceeds the MATHLR. 39. I have also considered the Scottish Government’s declaration of a housing emergency, as an important material consideration. The declaration makes specific reference to affordable housing. As the proposals include 10 affordable homes, the proposals gain some support from this. However, it does not appear to me that a shortage of housing land has been identified as an important contributory factor to the emergency. In any case, based on the figures above, it appears that adequate housing land has been allocated within Midlothian and there are policies within the MLDP, which provide for affordable homes as part of development proposals. Furthermore, I am not aware of any ministerial statement or instruction requiring departure from development plans in the light of the housing emergency. Therefore, I find that the declaration of the housing emergency does not justify a departure from the development plan in this instance. 40. The appellant has also directed me to research undertaken by The Diffley Partnership and Rettie & Co. on behalf of Homes for Scotland and suggested that this should be a factor in my decision-making process. This research has explored existing housing need in Scotland and concluded that the Scottish Government’s Housing Need and Demand Assessment tool underestimates housing demand. I find the report to contain findings, which could help to influence discussions as to how best to measure housing need and demand both locally and nationally. However, the approach has not been verified and at this point has no particular status. The report appears to have been commissioned to assist with the preparation of evidence reports to support local development plans and does not appear to be intended to guide individual development management decisions. As noted above, there are up-to-date figures for housing land requirements available through the Evidence report submitted as part of the review of the MLDP. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the Diffley & Rettie report provides sufficient justification to permit development on an unallocated site. 41. In summary, the proposals would make a small, but valuable contribution to the supply of affordable housing in Midlothian, for which there is a recognised demand. However, there are existing mechanisms to provide for affordable housing on the already allocated sites, there appear to be sufficient allocated sites, and there is no indication that such windfall sites are necessary to meet the demand – even when considered within the Page 34 of 112
Page 35
PPA-290-2067 context of a declared national housing emergency and need for affordable housing. As such, I conclude that any benefits in terms of the types of homes provided by the proposals would not be sufficient to overcome the policy tensions identified above. 42. The appellant maintains that the context of the site has changed since the application was considered and that the grant of permission for the food store and associated spine road and access, is a material consideration of significant weight. The appellant has suggested that in granting permission for the food store, the council has determined that the land does not require protection as countryside through policy RD1. Reference is also made to land to the west of the appeal site, which is safeguarded within the MLDP for a proposed film studio development (Allocation MX1), as further justification that land to the west of the food store will, inevitably, be developed. I am not persuaded by this view. Each proposal must be considered on its own merits. The food store was consented prior to the adoption of NPF4, and I am not aware of the full range of any material considerations taken into account by the council in reaching its decision to grant consent. Whilst the actual visual effects of the food store can now be seen from the photographs and drone footage submitted by the appellant, the predicted effects of this development were included as part of the council’s assessment of the appealed scheme. 43. In terms of the film studio, I note that whilst Scottish Ministers were minded to grant approval for the scheme (subject to a legal agreement), there has been a subsequent Scottish Land Court decision, which means there is little realistic prospect of the film studio gaining title to the land, and the applicant has subsequently identified an alternative site. The MLDP states that the designations of Green Belt/ Countryside/ Prime Agricultural Land would remain until that part of the site is fully developed (for the film studio). Thus, there is no certainty that the land to the west of the appeal site would be developed. It may be that the council would conclude that boundaries of site allocations may require to change. However, any such changes are best addressed as part of the review of the MLDP. 44. The appellant has referred to a masterplan for the New Pentland Development. This includes the previously consented (and now under construction) food store. Whilst the appellant may have aspirations for the land as a whole, I do not believe that the ‘masterplan’ has any formal planning status. The supermarket does not form part of this application, and the council has indicated that the application for the food store was submitted (and considered) as a standalone application. There is no indication that the current application is reliant on the food store for its viability (although I note that it would use the vehicle access consented as part of that scheme). Thus, I have not given this masterplan any particular importance in reaching my decision. 45. I note the objections to the proposals based around effects on transport and traffic. I accept that the site is served by public transport. A transport assessment has been produced, the findings of which been assessed by Transport Scotland and the council’s Policy and Road Safety Manager, neither of whom have objected. I am therefore satisfied that these matters have been adequately assessed and that the road network could accommodate the estimated volumes of traffic generated by the proposal. 46. I have considered the representations in respect of biodiversity. A preliminary ecological appraisal has been submitted and been assessed as acceptable by the council. Whilst the information on which that assessment is based is now older than generally considered appropriate, updated assessments could be required to support detailed proposals. Page 35 of 112
Page 36
PPA-290-2067 47. The council has suggested that two further policies within NPF4, policy 27 - city, town, local and commercial centres and policy 28 - retail are relevant. Policy 27 deals with the town centre first principle. The council considers that the proposed class 2, class 8 and class 10 are all footfall generating uses that could potentially be located within or at the edge of existing town centres. Despite this, I note that in reaching its decision, the council did not refer to similar policies within the MLDP. Nor were concerns about proposed footfall identified as being determinative or a reason for refusal of the application. 48. The council suggests that policy 28 has become engaged following a change in the Land Use Classes that took place on 31 March 2023. As a result of this change, class 1 (shops) and class 2 (financial, professional and other services) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended) have been combined into a single use class 1A (shops and financial, professional and other services). Retail proposals are also to be consistent with the town centre first principle. I do not accept the appellant’s view that the grant of permission for the adjacent food store negates the need for a Town Centre First Assessment. Nevertheless, these changes have not been a determining factor in my decision-making. 49. I acknowledge the various points raised in objections from the Damhead and District Community Council and the Loanhead and District Community Council. I have already addressed concerns in relation to compliance with allocations within the MLDP, alternative locations, effects on the amenity of residents of Pentland Park, transport and biodiversity. In terms of the consultation process I am satisfied that this met statutory guidance set out by Midlothian Council and that adequate information has been provided to enable a sufficient understanding of the nature of the proposals. 50. I have considered the economic benefits of the scheme. However, I am not persuaded that these benefits are sufficient reason to consent commercial development on an unallocated site, particularly given the proximity of an already allocated and undeveloped site on the opposite side of Pentland Road. Conclusions 51. For the reasons set out above, I conclude 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. Sue Bell Reporter Page 36 of 112
Page 37
Planning Committee Monday 9 December 2024 Item No 5.3 SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR FORMATION OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) (200MW) FACILITY, COMPRISING THE ERECTION OF BATTERY STORAGE UNITS, AREAS OF HARDSTANDING, SECURITY FENCING AND ANCILLARY BUILDINGS; FORMATION OF ACCESS, INCLUDING ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ACCESS; DRAINAGE WORKS INCLUDING THE FORMATION OF SUDS POND; LANDSCAPING WORKS INCLUDING BUNDING, HABITAT CREATION AND TREE PLANTING; AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT SALTER'S PARK EXTENSION (SITE EC2), SALTER'S ROAD, DALKEITH Report by Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of a consultation request from the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU). The consultation relates to an application under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for consent to construct and operate an electricity generating station, specifically a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with a capacity of 200MW. 2 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site comprises an 11.95 hectare agricultural field and a 380 metre long access track. The site is situated to the north of Dalkeith with the A68 adjacent to the northeastern boundary and the Dalkeith to Whitecraig cycleway adjacent to the western boundary. Vehicular access to the site is via an access track that starts at an existing field access junction on Salter’s Road (A6094), traverses a field of scrub vegetation and finishes at the cycleway. A high-pressure gas pipeline passes through the site from southeast to northwest. 2.2 The field slopes downhill from east to west with a fall across the site of between 6.5 metres and 8 metres. The ground cover is scrub grassland and the field is not in active agricultural use. The site comprises made ground and fill material associated with open cast coal extraction that formed part of the groundworks for the construction of the A68. The land immediately to the south and east is in use as an arable field. 2.3 The closest residential properties are the properties at Smeatonhead Farm Cottages which are situated 155m to the west of the field and Page 37 of 112
Page 38
105 metres to the south of the access track. The Dalkeith Schools Campus is situated 70 metres south of the southern edge of the field. Dalkeith Country Park is situated 330 metres west of the field. 2.4 The majority of the field is identified in the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 as forming part of a strategic employment land allocation (Ec2 Salter’s Park Extension) which is identified for Business (Class 4) and General Industry (Class 5) purposes – the site however also extends into the green belt beyond the allocated employment site. The access track forms part of a previous, but still undeveloped, employment land allocation (e14 Salter’s Park) which is identified for Business (Class 4), General Industry (Class 5) and Storage or Distribution (Class 6) purposes. 3 PROPOSAL 3.1 It is proposed to construct and operate a battery energy storage system (BESS) with a capacity of circa 200 megawatts. The scheme will comprise 168 storage containers spread across 4 compounds. The containers will be used to house Lithium-ion batteries. The compounds will be hard surfaced and enclosed with 3 metres high palisade fencing. In addition to the containers each compound will include 10 power conversion units which convert low voltage direct current from the battery units to high voltage alternating current for grid transmission, the conversion units can also be used to switch the current when the batteries are charging from the grid. The final component in each compound will be a fire water tank. 3.2 In addition to the BESS compounds the site will also include modular buildings for the site operator and grid operator, grid transformer sets and a grid operator switchyard. It is anticipated that grid connection will be via buried high voltage cables linking to existing Scottish Power infrastructure to the north of the A68. 3.3 The existing access track will be upgraded to accommodate vehicle movements during site construction. Surface water drainage will be collected in an attenuation pond at the southwestern corner of the field. The pond will provide back-up fire fighting capacity. Landscape planting and biodiversity enhancement will be carried out round the perimeters of the site. The proposed layout shows development sited to maintain stand-off distances to the gas pipeline. 3.4 The application is supported by the following reports: • Biodiversity Enhancement Plan • Ecological Impact Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment & Conceptual Drainage Strategy • Land Capability for Agricultural Assessment • Landscape & Ecological Management Plan • Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment Page 38 of 112
Page 39
• Noise Impact Assessment • Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan • Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment & Coal Mining Risk Assessment • Planning Support Statement • Statement of Community Engagement • Transport Statement 3.5 The application, supporting information and consultation responses are available for public view on both the ECU public access system and the Council’s planning portal. 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 Proposals to build, operate or modify onshore electricity generating stations with a capacity exceeding 50 megawatts require consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. In Scotland the Scottish Ministers are responsible for assessing Section 36 applications and this function is carried out by the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU). If the ECU grants consent under Section 36, this engages Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). Subsection 2 provides that Scottish ministers may give a direction for planning permission to be deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction. 4.2 The Scottish Government’s Chief Planner confirmed, in a letter published on 27 August 2020, that the Scottish Government considered battery installation storage schemes should be treated as a generating station. Consequently, such schemes require Section 36 consent. 4.3 In advance of the submission of the Section 36 application the applicant sought an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion from the ECU. The Screening Opinion was adopted on 23 May 2024 when the ECU confirmed that the proposal does not constitute EIA development and therefore no EIA Report was required. 4.4 The current application was submitted to the ECU on 21 August 2024. The planning authority is a statutory consultee on the application and has until 21 December 2024 to provide comments to the ECU. If the planning authority objects to a Section 36 application a public inquiry must be held and responsibility for the application will pass from the ECU to the Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA). 4.5 The land to the west of the cycleway was used as a works compound during the construction of the A68 Dalkeith bypass in the late 2000s. The land to the east was used in association with open cast coal extraction that formed part of the groundworks for the construction of Page 39 of 112
Page 40
the A68. After the opening of the A68 the application site has been the subject of three different development proposals. 4.6 The earliest proposal was for planning permission in principle for residential development (up to 400 units) and employment uses; formation of access roads and associated works. In advance of the application a proposal of application notice (reference 14/00833/PAC), two EIA screening opinion requests (references 15/00026/SCR and 15/00543/SCR) and an EIA scoping opinion request (reference 16/00724/SCO) were submitted. Planning application 16/00893/PPP was registered on 20 December 2016 and refused by the Committee at its meeting of 27 June 2018. 4.7 A proposal of application notice for a mixed-use development comprising film and TV studios including workshops/offices; reception/commissary; gatehouse; backlot; trailer park; film academy and associated student accommodation; and associated access, parking and infrastructure was submitted on 9 January 2019. The proposal did not proceed to a formal planning application. 4.8 A mixed-use development comprising Class 4 (light industrial/office), Class 5 (general industry) and Class 6 (storage or distribution) was the subject of a withdrawn proposal of application notice (reference 21/00338/PAC), a consented notice (reference 21/00512/PAC) and an EIA scoping opinion request (reference 21/00584/SCO). The proposal did not proceed any further. 5 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The planning authority is one of various consultees that have been consulted by the ECU. The planning authority has sent consultations to internal Council consultees but, to avoid duplication, consultations have not been sent to external agencies. The following consultees were consulted by the planning authority. 5.2 The Council’s Archaeological Advisor does not object to the application subject to conditions being used to secure a programme of archaeological work, to include initially a desk-based assessment of the proposed development area (and immediate environs), followed by a trial trench evaluation, and possibly monitoring along the access route/across the railway. Further stages of archaeology work may be required depending on results. 5.3 The Council’s Biodiversity Advisor (The Wildlife Information Centre) confirmed that Section 36 consultations are outwith the scope of their service agreement with the planning authority. 5.4 The Council’s Education Executive Business Manager (including school staff) does not object to the application, however raise the following concerns: Page 40 of 112
Page 41
• There should have been better public notification of the application and the sharing of information and knowledge promoted. Parents/carers, in particular the parent councils, should have been consultation. • Future infrastructure projects and connections to the network could potentially be affected. • Potential fire risk - with schools being within close proximity of the site, if a fire were to occur the worry is the site might have to be evacuated because of potential toxic fumes. There is the need for a point of contact in case of fire/hazard. • The volume of the batteries which will be stored in each container. • The site’s close proximity to the schools. • Increased traffic impacting on pedestrian safety. 5.5 The Midlothian Health and Social Care Partnership offered no comment on the proposal. 5.6 The Council’s Rights of Way consultee does not object to the application and provided the following comment: The development is directly adjacent to an important multi-user path which is also part of National Cycle Route 1. Therefore there must be no impacts that would affect the use of this path or its verges without permission from Midlothian Council's Land and Countryside Service. Any unauthorised blocking, obstruction or deterrent from using the route would be illegal under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. 5.7 The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Flood Risk and Transportation) does not object to the application and provided the following comments: The proposed access road for the development intersects National Cycle Network Route 1 (NCN 1). Cognisance of this active travel facility should be taken when developing the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), detailing any risks or safety measures taken to reduce vehicle – pedestrian conflict at this location. The finalised design should ensure clear sightlines for pedestrians and cyclists on the NCN 1, as well as for drivers of maintenance vehicles on the access road. 5.8 The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services (Contingency Planning and Environmental Health) does not object to the application subject to any consent including conditions to address concerns relating to fixed plant noise, contaminated land site investigations and light emissions. It is also noted that this type of development has been discussed at nationwide resilience networking groups - copies of a House of Commons briefing paper and guidance Page 41 of 112
Page 42
from the National Fire Chiefs Council was provided (the ECU will have access to these documents). 5.9 In addition to the consultations carried out by the planning authority the ECU has consulted and received responses form the following consultees: • Historic Environment Scotland • Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) • Naturescot • BT (telecoms provider) • Defence Infrastructure Organisation • Edinburgh Airport Limited • Health and Safety Executive • NATS (air traffic control operator) • Office for Nuclear Regulation • Scottish Gas Networks (gas distribution company) • Scottish Water • Coal Authority 5.10 The ECU has also consulted the following bodies from which no response has been received to date (at the time of drafting this report): • Transport Scotland • Joint Radio Company • RSPB Scotland • Scottish Fire and Rescue Service • SP Energy Networks • Scotways • Scottish Wildlife Trust • Visit Scotland • Whitecraig Community Council 6 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The planning authority has received two objections to the proposal. The objections have been made public on the planning portal and the representors have been advised that the planning authority is not the consenting authority for the application. Representors have been advised of the contact details for the ECU. The reasons for objection are as follows: • Concerns about the proximity of the facility to schools, houses and gas mains. • Lack of information on what the potential blast radius would be if the battery storage containers were to fail and explode. • There needs to be a proper risk assessment done to show what would happen in the unlikely event that there is a fire that causes an explosion. Page 42 of 112
Page 43
• The proposal would be better situated on the north side of the A68 on the former travellers’ site where access from the A68 slip road onto Salters Road already exists, appears to be of adequate size, and is in close proximity to the Smeaton Substation to allow for the necessary electrical connections. • It would be good to have the opinion of the electric network operator of where they consider a BESS should be fitted. • The cycleway is well-used, and closure would be a significant loss to the community. A public right of way on the cycleway should be retained throughout the construction process. • It needs to be demonstrated that the BESS site can be operated safely over its projected lifetime. • Any SUDS scheme should consider future possible industrial development, and an assessment should be made of the water discharged into the stream feeding into the River Esk. • Midlothian Council should seek reductions in their energy bills for their schools at the Dalkeith Campus in return for supporting the BESS. 7 PLANNING POLICY 7.1 The development is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. The following policies are relevant to the proposal: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 7.2 NPF4 is a National Spatial Strategy for Scotland 2045 and it sets out to plan provide a plan for future places using six overarching spatial principles: • Just transition. • Conserving and recycling assets. • Local living. • Compact urban growth. • Rebalanced development. • Rural revitalisation. 7.3 Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crisis; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis. 7.4 Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. 7.5 Policy 3 Biodiversity; sets out to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Page 43 of 112
Page 44
7.6 Policy 4 Natural Places; sets out to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. 7.7 Policy 5 Soils; sets out to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development. The policy also sets out acceptable scenarios for development on prime agricultural land. 7.8 Policy 7 Historic assets and places; sets out to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. 7.9 Policy 11 Energy; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development onshore and offshore. This includes energy generation, storage, new and replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure and emerging low-carbon and zero emissions technologies including hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS). 7.10 Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure; sets out to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. 7.11 Policy 22 Flood risk and water management; sets out to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. 7.12 Policy 23 Health and Safety; sets out to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. 7.13 Policy 26 Business and industry; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate business and industry uses and to enable alternative ways of working such as home working, live-work units and micro-businesses. Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) 7.14 Policy STRAT1: Committed Development seeks the early implementation of all committed development sites and related infrastructure, including sites in the established economic land supply. Committed development includes those sites allocated in previous development plans which are continued in the MLDP. 7.15 Policy STRAT5: Strategic Employment Land Allocations supports development for employment uses on sites identified as strategic employment land allocations. Page 44 of 112
Page 45
7.16 Policy DEV2: Protecting Amenity within the Built-Up Area states that development will not be permitted within existing and future built- up areas where it is likely to detract materially from the existing character or amenity of the area. 7.17 Policy ECON1: Existing Employment Locations seeks to safeguard those sites allocated for economic land uses against loss to non- business or industrial uses. Alternative uses for such sites will only be permitted if there is no net detriment to the overall supply of economic land. 7.18 Policy ENV1: Protection of the Green Belt advises that development will not be permitted in the Green Belt except for proposals that: A. are necessary to agriculture, horticulture or forestry; or B. provide opportunities for access to the open countryside, outdoor sport or outdoor recreation which reduce the need to travel further afield; or C. are related to other uses appropriate to the rural character of the area; or D. provide for essential infrastructure; or E. form development that meets a national requirement or established need of no other site is available. Any development proposal will be required to show that it does not conflict with the overall objectives of the Green Belt which is to maintain the identity and landscape setting of Edinburgh and Midlothian towns by clearly identifying their physical boundaries and preventing coalescence. 7.19 Policy ENV4: Prime Agricultural Land does not permit development that would lead to the permanent loss of prime agricultural land unless there is appropriate justification to do so. 7.20 Policy ENV9: Flooding presumes against development which would be at unacceptable risk of flooding or would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. It states that Flood Risk Assessments will be required for most forms of development in areas of medium to high risk, but may also be required at other locations depending on the circumstances of the proposed development. Furthermore it states that sustainable urban drainage systems will be required for most forms of development, so that surface water run-off rates are not greater than in the site’s pre-developed condition, and to avoid any deterioration of water quality. 7.21 Policy ENV10: Water Environment requires that new development pass surface water through a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) to mitigate against local flooding and to enhance biodiversity and the environment. Page 45 of 112
Page 46
7.22 Policy ENV11: Woodland, Trees and Hedges states that development will not be permitted where it could lead directly or indirectly to the loss of, or damage to, woodland, groups of trees (including trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order, areas defined as ancient or semi-natural woodland, veteran trees or areas forming part of any designated landscape) and hedges which have a particular amenity, nature conservation, biodiversity, recreation, landscape, shelter, cultural, or historical value or are of other importance. 7.23 Policy ENV15: Species and Habitat Protection and Enhancement presumes against development that would affect a species protected by European or UK law. 7.24 Policy ENV25: Site Assessment, Evaluation and Recording requires that where development could affect an identified site of archaeological importance, the applicant will be required to provide an assessment of the archaeological value of the site and of the likely impact of the proposal on the archaeological resource. 7.25 Policy NRG1: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Projects supports renewable and low carbon energy projects, including energy storage, subject to the following conditions being met: A. The proposal will not cause an unacceptable significant adverse effect upon the historic environment; B. The proposal will not cause an unacceptable significant adverse effect upon natural heritage; C. The proposal will not cause an unacceptable significant adverse effect upon Green Belt, the Pentland Hills Regional Park or its setting, or the Special Landscape Areas; D. The proposal will not cause an unacceptable significant adverse effect upon peat/carbon rich soils or prime agricultural farmland; E. The proposal will not have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of nearby communities or residential properties; F. The proposal will not cause or increase pollution or flood risk, or have an unacceptable effect on the water environment or water catchment areas; G. The proposal will not require infrastructure for access and/or power transmission which itself has a significantly unacceptable environmental impact; H. The proposal will not cause an unacceptable significant adverse effect upon landscape or visual impact; I. The proposal will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts; J. The proposal will not lead to the loss of public access routes and, if routes require diversion, alternative acceptable to the Council must be provided; K. The proposal will not compromise telecommunications and broadcasting installations, and transmission links; L. The proposal will not lead to unacceptable impacts on the road network including traffic generation and road safety; and/or Page 46 of 112
Page 47
M. The proposal will not demonstrably damage the local economy in terms of tourism or recreation. 8 PLANNING ISSUES 8.1 The main planning issue to be considered in determining this application is whether the proposal complies with development plan policies unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The representations and consultation responses received are material considerations and should be considered by the ECU. Principle of development 8.2 The majority of the proposed site forms part of an allocated economic land supply site (MLDP reference e14). The land to the west of the cycleway, which includes the route of the access to the BESS site, was allocated for Class 4 (Business) and Class 5 (General Industry) uses in the Midlothian Local Plan 2003. The adoption of the MLDP in 2017 expanded the range of uses to include Class 6 (Storage or Distribution) uses. The MLDP also created a new allocation (MLDP reference Ec2), to the east of the previous allocation, with the identified uses being Class 4 and Class 5. The principle of development, of an appropriate scale and character, on the allocated portions of the site has been established by virtue of the history of allocation. 8.3 The proposal site extends to the east of allocated site Ec2 and includes an area of ground identified as being prime agricultural land within the green belt. The data on Land Capability for Agriculture is based on maps published between 1984 and 1986. The land within the proposal site that is identified as being prime agricultural land was subject to groundworks associated with the construction of the A68, and it is now comprised of poor quality made ground. The land to the east and south of the made ground is in active agricultural use for arable crops, however the identified prime agricultural land within the proposal site has not been used for agricultural purposes since construction work started on the A68. Given the poor quality of the land, its proximity to the allocated land and the remaining usable agricultural land to the east the loss of the green belt would not undermine the aims of the green belt. 8.4 The proposed use does not comply with the allocated use classes, however, use as a BESS does not sit within any of the 11 use classes set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 and there are no allocated sites for use as a BESS. NPF4 is strongly supportive of development that will aid just transition and help tackle the climate crisis. Battery energy storage systems will help Scotland meet such targets by adding flexibility and resilience to the electricity supply network. Focussing such development on sites already allocated for development is a sustainable solution that is line with the overarching spatial principles of NPF4. Page 47 of 112
Page 48
Safety 8.5 Whilst BESS developments can be dangerous if they go on fire, the same can be said of lots of forms of development and they present no greater risk of fire than other forms of development. BESS schemes are designed to isolate fires and facilitate firefighting, thereby reducing the risk of fire spreading from one unit to another. Allocated Class 5 uses such as factories or waste transfer stations could also present fire risks. 8.6 Vehicles accessing the main part of the proposal site will need to cross the existing cycleway, however, once the construction phase is completed trip generation is forecast to be in the region of two to three trips per week. The allocated Class 4 or 5 uses would generate significantly greater daily vehicle movements across the cycleway. 8.7 The existing substation at Smeaton is only 170m from the site boundary and any risk associated with pupils gaining access to the proposal site is no greater than the risk at the substation. The BESS site will be enclosed with stock fencing and the BESS units will be sited within a compound enclosed by 3m high palisade fencing. The compounds will be monitored via CCTV. Loss of economic land 8.8 The original allocated economic land site, e14, has excellent access to the strategic road network, however, despite consistent marketing and three unsuccessful development proposals the site has remained undeveloped for over 20 years. The proposed development will result in improvements to the access track that passes through e14 and will create drainage infrastructure that could be expanded upon to facilitate development of e14. Furthermore, the BESS development has the potential to raise the profile of the site which could encourage further developments. Development of allocated economic land with a proposal that benefits the wider economy and aids just transition is a more sustainable approach to development than the alternative of an allocated site sitting vacant whilst an unallocated site is developed. Amenity 8.9 Disruption to the amenity of local residents and to the schools campus will be similar to the disruption that would be expected were the site to be developed for its allocated uses. It is common practice for developments of this scale to utilise a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) to control and mitigate impacts on amenity during the construction process. The application is accompanied by a draft CEMP and it is the standard practice of the ECU to condition the use of CEMPs. 8.10 Disruption to amenity during regular operations will be less than would be expected with the allocated Class 5 use. The proposed layout of Page 48 of 112
Page 49
the development will provide greater separation distance from the schools campus than a Class 4 or Class 5 use making full use of the allocated area. Visual appearance 8.11 The development will be of a utilitarian design with limited architectural merit; however, the scale of the containers will ensure that the development will be of a lower level than would be expected with Class 4 or Class 5 development. Groundworks associated with the development will create a 1.5m tall bund along the eastern side of the development plot and landscaping buffers will be formed along the northern, western and southern boundaries of the site. Once the landscape planting has established the visual impact of the development will be no greater than would be expected with the allocated uses. 9 RECOMMENDATION 9.1 The recommendation is that the planning authority confirm to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit that it does not object to the proposal subject to conditions on any grant of planning permission to address and regulate the following matters: 1. Implementation in accordance with approved layout and requirements of the section 36 consent. 2. Commencement of development – duration of permission. 3. Financial guarantee to secure site restoration if required. 4. Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). 5. Site decommissioning, restoration and aftercare details. 6. The requirement to remove any redundant equipment. 7. Proposed levels details. 8. Details of design. 9. The appointment of a monitoring officer/the setting of monitoring arrangements. 10. Landscape works. 11. Soil management plan. 12. Biodiversity enhancement plan. 13. Compliance with the mitigation measures detailed in the Ecological Impact Assessment Report. 14. Site access details. 15. Construction traffic controls. 16. Measures to ensure safe operation of National Cycle Network Route 1. 17. Surface water drainage. 18. Noise and vibration. 19. Lighting. 20. Archaeological investigation. 21. Measures to maintain the safety of the high-pressure gas pipeline Page 49 of 112
Page 50
22. Site investigation and, if required, remediation measures to identify and address any risks associated with historic coal mining. 23. Site investigation and, if required, remediation measures to identify and address any contaminated land on the site. 24. Invasive and non-native species survey and, if required, remediation plan. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 22 November 2024 Application No: 24/00537/S36 Applicant: Salters Battery Storage Limited Agent: RPS Validation Date: 21 August 2024 Contact Person: Graeme King, Planning Officer Email: graeme.king@midlothian.gov.uk Background Papers: 14/00833/PAC, 15/00026/SCR, 15/00543/SCR, 16/00724/SCO, 16/00893/PPP, 19/00012/PAC, 21/00238/PAC, 21/00512/PAC, 21/00584/SCO Attached Plans: Location Plan, Site/Landscape Plan, Elevations Page 50 of 112
Page 51
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 Application Site (24/00537/S36) e14 - Salter's Park Ec2 - Salter's Park Extension Greenbelt Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2024) Section 36 consultation for formation of Battery Energy Storage System facility with ancillary buildings and associated works. Salter's Park Extension (Site Ec2), Salter's Road Dalkeith. File No. 24/00537/S36 Scale 1:6000Page 51 of 112
Page 52
AUX BACK UP SUPPLY SPT BUILDING APPLICANTS BUILDING CONTAINER CONTAINER HARMONIC FILTER HARMONIC FILTER TX TX TX TX FIRE W ATER TANK FIRE W ATER TANK FIRE W ATER TANK FIRE W ATER TANK CAR PARKING Legend Existing vegetation outside of site boundary. Existing hedgerows to be retained Existing vegetation to be retained (within Site Boundary) and protected in accordance with BS5837 Proposed habitat area - scrub and scattered tree planting comprised of locally appropriate native species, including evergreen species. Proposed attenuation pond with a mix of marginal, submerged and floating aquatic plants Indicative location of underground Gas Pipeline (5m buffer indicated ) Soft Landscape Elements - habitat retention, enhancement and creation Proposed mounding (1.5m height) Proposed habitat area - wildflower grassland seeding areas. Proposed habitat area - grassland seeding areas, maintained as short sward grassland NOTES check amendments rev date 1. Verifying Dimensions. The contractor shall verify dimensions against such other drawings or site conditions as pertain to this part of the work. 2. Existing Services. Any information concerning the location of existing services indicated on this drawing is intended for general guidance only. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to determine and verify the exact horizontal and vertical alignment of all cables, pipes, etc. (both underground and overhead) before work commences. T +44 (0) 28 90 667914 F +44 (0) 28 90 668286 W www.rpsgroup.com/ireland E ireland@ rpsgroup.com Elmwood House 74 Boucher Road Belfast BT12 6RZ Drawing Number Project Number Sheet Size Client Revision Drawing Scale Project Title Status Approved By Drawn By Checked By Date Salters Battery Storage Limited Salters BESS (Container Layout) Landscape Mitigation Plan NI2828 A1 1:1250 2828.5.02 SA Planning E - - 20/01/2024 SA Updated Layout A Mar.'24 SA Updated Layout B April'24 SA Updated Layout C April'24 SA Updated Layout D May '24 SA Updated Red Line E July '24 Page 52 of 112
Page 53
Page 53 of 112
Page 54
Page 54 of 112
Page 55
Planning Committee Monday 9 December 2024 Item No 5.4 SECTION 42 APPLICATION (18/00082/S42) TO AMEND CONDITIONS 2 AND 3, TO EXTEND THE TIME TO COMPLETE THE RESTORATION OF QUARRY, IMPOSED ON A GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION (06/00689/FUL) FOR THE EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING OF SAND AT UPPER DALHOUSIE SAND QUARRY, BONNYRIGG. THE APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2011 Report by Chief Officer Place 1 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDED DECISION 1.1 In August 2009 planning permission 06/00689/FUL was granted for the extraction and processing of sand and the siting of associated plant and office at Upper Dalhousie, Bonnyrigg. This application seeks planning permission to amend conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission 06/00689/FUL to extend the restoration periods of the two extraction areas. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment Report which has been submitted in terms of the EIA (Scotland) (Regulations) 2011. 1.2 There have been no representations received. Consultation responses have been received from The Coal Authority, Historic Environment Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Water, NatureScot (previously Scottish Natural Heritage), Bonnyrigg and Lasswade Community Council, The Council’s Archaeology Advisor, The Council’s Ecological Advisor (TWIC), The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services, the Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Flood Risk and Transportation) and the Council’s Legal Services Manager. 1.3 The relevant development plan policies are policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 20, 22, 23 and 33 of National Planning Framework 4 and policies MIN1, MIN2, RD1, ENV2, ENV4, ENV7, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, ENV15, ENV17, ENV18, ENV22, ENV23, ENV24, ENV25, IMP1 and IMP3 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. Page 55 of 112
Page 56
1.4 At its meeting of 28 August 2018 the Committee approved the application subject to conditions and the developer demonstrating, to the written satisfaction of the Council, that they have sufficient bond provision/insurance in place to ensure that, in the event that the operator is not able to restore the site, financial provision is made to enable the site to be restored in accordance with an approved restoration plan. 1.5 This report provides an update on the bond provision and considers the impact of the adoption of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) on the assessment of the proposal. 1.6 The recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions. 2 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The Upper Dalhousie Sand Quarry is located to the southeast of Bonnyrigg and comprises two extraction areas separated by an area of woodland. Area A is situated to the southeast of the woodland and Area B is to the northwest. The existing processing area, site office and welfare facilities are located in the northern portion of Area A, close to the site access. The site is accessed from the B6392 distributor road to the south of the Hopefield residential development. The site measures approximately 18 hectares in area. 2.2 Extraction from Area A has been completed. Extraction from Area B commenced in 2016 and is ongoing. Area A has been partially restored, with the un-restored area being used for settlement ponds and to accommodate the processing plant and welfare facilities. 2.3 The site is bounded by agricultural land and areas of woodland with Whitehill House (and associated residential development) and Rosewell beyond to the west/southwest and Bonnyrigg beyond to the north. The closest dwellinghouses are Parkneuk, at approximately 200m to the west and the residential development at Whitehill House, at approximately 400m to the southwest. 2.4 Land to the northwest of Area B was previously quarried for sand and gravel in the 1950s. This area was subsequently utilised by the local authority for the disposal of domestic waste, principally ash, during the 1960s. The area between Area B and the private property at Parkneuk was also utilised by the local authority for the disposal of domestic wastes during the 1960s. 3 PROPOSAL 3.1 The application, made under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc. Page 56 of 112
Page 57
(Scotland) Act 2006 (hereafter referred to as the Act), is to extend the restoration periods for the Dalhousie Sand Quarry. 3.2 A Section 42 application is in itself a planning application - a particular kind of planning application for development without complying with a condition/s previously imposed on an earlier grant of planning permission. A grant of planning permission under Section 42 results in an entirely new planning permission which will supersede the original permission if implemented. Therefore, if planning permission is granted for this application, it will supersede planning consent 06/00689/DPP. 3.3 Although a Section 42 application is a new planning application in law the Act states “on such an application the planning authority shall consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted”. The principle, layout and form of development are not subject to assessment. 3.4 Condition 2 of planning application 06/00689/DPP, which relates to extraction Area A, states: “Permission for the extraction of sand from area A as indicated on the approved drawing ED20614/FIG3.2 'AREA A EXCAVATION' is granted for a period of 7 years from the date of commencement of operations on the site, such date to be notified to the Planning Authority by the applicants within one week of commencement; and shall be followed by the completion of the restoration of Area A to a condition suitable for agriculture, woodland, as per the details of the Environmental Statement chapter 3.6 to 3.8 as represented in ED20614/FIG4.1 'REVISED RESTORATION MASTERPLAN' and in accordance with the requirements of conditions 51 to 56 below.” 3.5 Condition 3 of planning application 06/00689/DPP, which relates to extraction Area B, states: “Permission for the extraction of sand from area B as indicated on the approved drawing ED20614/FIG3.3 'AREA B EXCAVATION' is granted for a period of 7 years starting from the date of the completion of the restoration of site A as required by conditions 51 to 56; and shall be followed by the completion of the restoration of Area B to a condition suitable for agriculture, woodland, as per the details of the Environmental Statement chapter 3.6 to 3.8 as represented in ED20614/FIG4.1 'REVISED RESTORATION MASTERPLAN' and in accordance with the requirements of conditions 51 to 56 below.” 3.6 The application seeks permission to: • extend the permitted period of time for the completion of the restoration of Area A by three years (condition 2 of planning permission 06/00689/FUL); Page 57 of 112
Page 58
• extend the permitted period of time for the completion of the working/extraction of sand and the restoration of Area B by six years (condition 3 of planning permission 06/00689/FUL); • work below the water table in Area B to extract additional sand reserves (details covered by the plans approved by condition 3 of planning permission 06/00689/FUL); and, • update the restoration plans for Area A and Area B (conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission 06/00689/FUL). In brief this will see the site works and restoration being completed by 31 December 2030. 3.7 The original application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement complying with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (the 2011 Regulations). Whilst the application was submitted after The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the 2017 Regulations) had come into force, a transitional provision within the 2017 Regulations allows for applications to be assessed under the 2011 Regulations where the Scoping Opinion was issued under the 2011 Regulations. The Environmental Statement includes the following reports as appendices: • Pre-Application Consultation Report; • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; and • Bat Activity Assessment; 3.8 The application was updated in 2024 with the submission of the following reports and plans: • NPF4 Policy Update; • Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; • Bat Activity Report; and • Updated restoration details. 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 Planning application 06/00689/FUL for the extraction and processing of sand and the erection of the associated plant and office provision at Upper Dalhousie was granted permission in August 2009. This consent has been implemented and work continues on the site. 4.2 Planning application 13/00064/DPP for the installation of sand processing plant and a conveyor at the quarry was granted permission in March 2013. 4.3 An environmental impact assessment (EIA) scoping request (17/00380/SCO) for the extension of operations was submitted in May 2017. The applicant was advised what matters need to be covered by Page 58 of 112
Page 59
an EIA which need to be submitted under schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations. 4.4 A related planning application (18/00081/DPP) for the extension of the quarry is subject to assessment and is also presented on the Committee agenda. The application is related to this proposal in that the extension area (Area C) will provide additional material for the restoration of Area B. 4.5 The current application and application 18/00081/DPP were both reported to the Committee at its meeting of 28 August 2018. The Committee approved both applications subject to conditions and to the developer demonstrating, to the written satisfaction of the Council, that they have sufficient bond provision/insurance in place to ensure that, in the event that the operator is not able to restore the site, financial provision is made to enable the site is restored in accordance with an approved restoration plan. 5 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The Coal Authority confirms that the application site falls within a defined Development High Risk Area. However, the conditions subject to review are not material to coal mining issues and therefore, The Coal Authority has no comments. 5.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) do not have any comments to make on the proposals – however, the application should still be determined in accordance with national and local policies and guidance with regard the historic environment. 5.3 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) does not object to the application as it is an amendment of conditions which do not materially change the operation of the quarry. 5.4 Scottish Water does not object to the application. 5.5 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (now known as NatureScot) does not object to the application subject to conditions securing the conclusions set out in the Environmental Statement regarding ecological receptors (ancient woodland and protected species). The new Restoration Masterplan for the site appears to be dependent on securing consent for extraction in Area C (subject of a separate planning application). 5.6 The Bonnyrigg and Lasswade Community Council (the community council merged with Poltonhall and Hopefield Community Council in 2022 to create Bonnyrigg and District Community Council) advise that they engaged their local community regarding the existing and potential future impacts of the quarrying activity, in particularly the traffic implications, the result of which was that no concerns were Page 59 of 112
Page 60
raised and as such the Community Council does not object to the application. However, the Community Council expect Midlothian Council to secure a bond to ensure the site’s restoration. 5.7 The Council’s Archaeology Advisor had no comments to make on the application. 5.8 The Council’s Ecological Advisor – The Wildlife Information Centre (TWIC) has confirmed that both the updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and the updated Bat Activity Report are thorough and professional. Further protected species surveys will be required prior to restoration works commencing. 5.9 The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services (Contingency Planning and Environmental Health) advises that the site is currently well managed and operates without giving rise to noise or dust nuisance complaints, officers are of the opinion that no additional mitigation measures are required subject to conditions to control noise and dust emissions arising from the operation of the site. 5.10 The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Flood Risk and Transportation) does not object to the application. 5.11 The Council’s Legal Services have advised that as the landowner is Crown Estates Scotland the risk to the Council of the landowner and applicant not restoring the land is low, so if the Council are satisfied with the terms of the bond, we do not need to be a party to it, it shall be between the applicant and landowner. 6 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 No representations have been received. 7 PLANNING POLICY 7.1 The development is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. The following policies are relevant to the proposal: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 7.2 NPF4 is a National Spatial Strategy for Scotland until 2045 and sets out a vision for future places using six overarching spatial principles: • Just transition. • Conserving and recycling assets. • Local living. • Compact urban growth. • Rebalanced development. • Rural revitalisation. Page 60 of 112
Page 61
7.3 Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crisis; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis. 7.4 Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. 7.5 Policy 3 Biodiversity; sets out to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. 7.6 Policy 4 Natural Places; sets out to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. 7.7 Policy 5 Soils; sets out to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development. The policy also sets out acceptable scenarios for development on prime agricultural land. 7.8 Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees; sets out to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. 7.9 Policy 7 Historic assets and places; sets out to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. 7.10 Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure; sets out to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. 7.11 Policy 22 Flood risk and water management; sets out to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. 7.12 Policy 23 Health and Safety; sets out to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. 7.13 Policy 33 Minerals; sets out to support the sustainable management of resources and minimise the impacts of extraction of minerals on communities and the environment. Part d - development proposals for the sustainable extraction of minerals will only be supported where they: i. Will not result in significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, geodiversity and the natural environment, sensitive habitats and Page 61 of 112
Page 62
the historic environment, as well as landscape and visual impacts; ii. provide an adequate buffer zone between sites and settlements taking account of the specific circumstances of individual proposals, including size, duration, location, method of working, topography, and the characteristics of the various environmental effects likely to arise; iii. can demonstrate that there are no significant adverse impacts (including cumulative impact) on any nearby homes, local communities and known sensitive receptors and designations; iv. demonstrate acceptable levels (including cumulative impact) of noise, dust, vibration and potential pollution of land, air and water; v. minimise transport impacts through the number and length of lorry trips and by using rail or water transport wherever practical; vi. have appropriate mitigation plans in place for any adverse impacts; vii. include schemes for a high standard of restoration and aftercare and commitment that such work is undertaken at the earliest opportunity. As a further safeguard a range of financial guarantee options are available, and the most effective solution should be considered and agreed on a site-by-site basis. Solutions should provide assurance and clarity over the amount and period of the guarantee and in particular, where it is a bond, the risks covered (including operator failure) and the triggers for calling in a bond, including payment terms. 7.14 NPF4 states that Local Development Plans should support a landbank of construction aggregates of at least 10-years at all times in the relevant market areas, whilst promoting sustainable resource management, safeguarding important workable mineral resources, which are of economic or conservation value, and take steps to ensure these are not sterilised by other types of development. Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 7.15 Policy MIN1: Areas of Search for Surface Extraction identifies Upper Dalhousie as being an area for the extraction of sand and gravel where surface mineral extraction may be acceptable in principle. The policy states that the identification of an area of search does not indicate the Council’s acceptance of any particular proposal for the winning and working of a surface mineral resource within any or all of that area of search. Outwith the areas of search there is a presumption against surface mineral extraction. In addition the policy safeguards mineral resources from sterilisation, in specific circumstances. 7.16 Policy MIN2: Surface Mineral Extraction requires proposals for mineral extraction to meet the criteria set out in the Supplementary Guidance on Resource Extraction. They will not be permitted where they would have a significant adverse effect on communities, sensitive Page 62 of 112
Page 63
uses or the environment and will only be supported if the Council is satisfied that they are acceptable in relation to the following matters: • effect on the health and amenity of settlements, communities and housing groups or other sensitive uses; • effect on the landscape, in particular that of the Green Belt, Pentland Hills Regional Park, and Special Landscape Area; • effect on soils, in particular prime agricultural land, and peatland; • effect on the water environment; • effect on nature conservation and biodiversity, in particular sites of international, national or local nature conservation value; • effect on the historic environment, in particular: Conservation areas, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, historic gardens and designed landscapes, historic battlefields, significant archaeological sites (and, where relevant, the settings of the aforementioned designated areas or buildings); • effect on the road network, particularly local roads; • cumulative effects of the proposal when combined with other consented or operational mineral extraction or landfill activities; • effect on the local economy in terms of tourism, leisure or recreation; and, • robustness and suitability of proposals for restoration and aftercare. 7.17 The extraction of a secondary material (for example, fireclay from a coal extraction site) is supported provided that its removal does not detract from high quality restoration or have unacceptable environmental effects (including from cumulative vehicle movements). In order that the supply and demand for aggregates can be monitored, operators of new aggregates sites will be required to supply annual statements of production and remaining reserves. 7.18 Policy RD1: Development in the Countryside sets out where appropriate development would be acceptable in the countryside subject to defined criteria. One acceptable use is resource extraction in compliance with Policy MIN1. All such development requires being of a scale or character appropriate to the rural area and landscape, capable of being appropriately accessed and serviced, have acceptable drainage provision and water supply and be accessible by public transport and services, where appropriate. 7.19 Policy ENV2 Midlothian Green Networks supports development proposals brought forward in line with the provisions of the Plan that help to deliver the green network opportunities identified in the Supplementary Guidance on the Midlothian Green Network. 7.20 Policy ENV4: Prime Agricultural Land does not permit development that would lead to the permanent loss of prime agricultural land unless there is appropriate justification to do so. Page 63 of 112
Page 64
7.21 Policy ENV7: Landscape Character states that development will not be permitted where it significantly and adversely affects local landscape character. Where development is acceptable, it should respect such character and be compatible in terms of scale, siting and design. New development will normally be required to incorporate proposals to maintain the diversity and distinctiveness of the local landscapes and to enhance landscape characteristics where they have been weakened. 7.22 Policy ENV9: Flooding presumes against development which would be at unacceptable risk of flooding or would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. It states that Flood Risk Assessments will be required for most forms of development in areas of medium to high risk, but may also be required at other locations depending on the circumstances of the proposed development. Furthermore it states that sustainable urban drainage systems will be required for most forms of development, so that surface water run-off rates are not greater than in the site’s pre-developed condition, and to avoid any deterioration of water quality. 7.23 Policy ENV10: Water Environment requires that new development pass surface water through a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) to mitigate against local flooding and to enhance biodiversity and the environment. 7.24 Policy ENV11: Woodland, Trees and Hedges states that development will not be permitted where it could lead directly or indirectly to the loss of, or damage to, woodland, groups of trees (including trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order, areas defined as ancient or semi-natural woodland, veteran trees or areas forming part of any designated landscape) and hedges which have a particular amenity, nature conservation, biodiversity, recreation, landscape, shelter, cultural, or historical value or are of other importance. 7.25 Policy ENV15: Species and Habitat Protection and Enhancement presumes against development that would affect a species protected by European or UK law. 7.26 Policy ENV 17 Air Quality states that the Council may require further assessments to identify air quality impacts where considered requisite. It will refuse planning permission, or seek effective mitigation, where development proposals cause unacceptable air quality or dust impacts. 7.27 Policy ENV18: Noise requires that where new noise sensitive uses are proposed in the locality of existing noisy uses, the Council will seek to ensure that the function of established operations is not adversely affected. Page 64 of 112
Page 65
7.28 Policy ENV22: Listed buildings does not permit development which would adversely affect the character or appearance of a listed building, its setting or any feature of special architectural or historic interest. 7.29 Policy ENV23: Scheduled Monuments states that development which could have an adverse effect on a scheduled monument, or the integrity of its setting, will not be permitted. 7.30 Policy ENV24: Other Important Archaeological or Historic Sites seeks to prevent development that would adversely affect regionally or locally important archaeological or historic sites, or their setting 7.31 Policy ENV25: Site Assessment, Evaluation and Recording requires that where development could affect an identified site of archaeological importance, the applicant will be required to provide an assessment of the archaeological value of the site and of the likely impact of the proposal on the archaeological resource. 7.32 Policy IMP1: New Development gives the planning authority the policy basis to impose appropriate planning conditions and controls to mitigate the impact of the development. 7.33 Policy IMP3: Water and Drainage require sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) to be incorporated into new development. 8 PLANNING ISSUES 8.1 The main planning issue to be considered in determining this application is whether the proposal complies with development plan policies unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The consultation responses received are material considerations. Principle of development 8.2 Planning permission for the extraction and processing of sand and associated works was granted in 2009. The site was then given continued support in the MLDP and identified as an area of search for mineral extraction. This application, to extend the period of extraction and restoration, does not change this presumption in favour of development. 8.3 NPF4 was adopted in February 2023. Policy 33 supports the sustainable extraction of minerals. The application relates to existing areas of extraction and processing which are operating in compliance with points i to vii of Policy 33 d). The adoption of NPF4 has not changed the presumption in favour of ongoing development. Page 65 of 112
Page 66
Amendments to Conditions 2 and 3 8.4 The application seeks to extend the restoration period of Area A by three years and to extend the extraction and restoration period of Area B by six years. This is to allow the continued extraction of the resource; including the extraction of sand from below the water table in Area B. This proposal is seen as part of a wider strategy to maximise the onsite resource which includes extending the extraction area into Area C (subject to planning application 18/00081/DPP). It is not uncommon to adjust the operational time periods of resource extraction sites in response to fluctuating demands for materials which influences the rates of extraction, the ability to extract more material than originally expected and to ensure the best possible restoration programme. 8.5 Extraction from Area A is completed. Restoration of this part of the site is underway; but behind schedule, in part due to significant level changes which need to be addressed (up to a 10m variance in places) and the siting of water settling ponds on this part of the site. Additional ground works and tree/woodland planting is still required in accordance with the restoration masterplan and as such it is considered necessary to extend the operation period of the site for an additional three years. The small area occupied by the site office and welfare building will be restored once site operations across the whole site are complete. 8.6 Extraction and restoration of Area B is to take place over an additional six-year period. The restoration of Area B is proposed to be completed by 31 December 2030. The restoration masterplan shows the levels dropping around the southwestern, northwestern and southeastern boundaries of the site. The maximum drop in levels amounts to 16m. These areas will be planted with woodland planting, this will integrate the level change into the landscape. The central, fairly level, area of the site is to be restored to agricultural grassland. Considering the potential to extract further material and undertake the required restoration it is considered reasonable and necessary to extend the operation period of the site to 31 December 2030. 8.7 Area C is the subject of a separate planning application (18/00081/DPP); however it is worth noting that the proposed restoration profiles of Areas A and B will tie into this extended extraction area and that some of the material from the proposed extension will be used to restore Area B. The proposed restoration masterplan includes additional informal footpaths, a sand face for nesting sand martins and a pond. The potential biodiversity and wildlife benefits of the restoration proposals are a positive benefit of the development. 8.8 The consequence of the extending extraction in Area B and the delayed restoration of Areas A and B is that the environmental impacts of the development will be extended over a longer period. However, Page 66 of 112
Page 67
the existing quarry has not generated any significant complaints and appears to be effectively managed. Restoration bond 8.9 The applicant’s agent has confirmed that there is an agreement in place between the applicant and the landowner, Crown Estate Scotland. Funds for restoration are secured via a bank guarantee. The restoration costs have been prepared by suitably qualified professionals utilising a comprehensive database of comparable costs and the landowner is satisfied that the costings are sufficient. Environmental Statement 8.10 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application sets out the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment process carried out by the applicant under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. The process identifies the likely significant environmental effects of the development and suggests ways in which any significant negative environmental effects can be mitigated. The statement considers the following issues: • Landscape and visual impact; • Ecology; • Water resources; and • Noise 8.11 The environmental statement identifies that there are no long-term detrimental consequences of the proposed development. The proposal does present an opportunity for potential longer term environmental benefits subject to the restoration programme, which, if undertaken in a sensitive manner, could enhance the environment for the benefit of wildlife, the local landscape, drainage, pollution prevention and future recreational and agricultural uses. 8.12 The EIA process requires that alternative options to the proposed scheme are considered, and a justification is given for the preferred option chosen. The options considered were: 1) do nothing with the site; 2) reduce the extraction area; 3) extract from an alternative site; and 4) work above the water table only. The preferred development option (continued working of the current site) is considered the best option for a number of reasons. Firstly, the area is identified as an area of search in the MLDP for the extraction of construction aggregate to supply the local area. Secondly, not continuing with the ongoing extraction would have a detrimental impact on the provision of construction sand to meet demand in the region. Thirdly, reducing the extraction area (by not fully exploiting the resource in Area B) would risk sterilising existing available reserves. Fourthly, the current site has minimal detrimental impact on local communities. Finally, identifying Page 67 of 112
Page 68
an alternative site would present a significant challenge in terms of the development plan process and the time taken to reach a point where material could be extracted. 9 RECOMMENDATION 9.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the following reason: The proposed development site is identified as a mineral extraction site within the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017; as such there is a presumption in favour of the proposed development. This presumption in favour of development is not outweighed by any other material considerations. The proposed amendments to conditions 2 and 3 are considered not to undermine this policy position or have long term detrimental environmental impact. The proposal complies with the relevant policies of National Planning Framework 4 and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 9.2 Subject to the following conditions: Duration of the Permission 1. The development to which this permission relates has commenced and this permission extends the duration of the consent for extraction and restoration. Permission for the extraction of sand from areas A and B (as indicated on the approved drawings Figures 3.1 to 3.7 Proposed Extraction in the approved Environmental Statement showing the 7 proposed phases of extraction) is granted until the end of 31 December 2026. With the exception of the soil stockpile area, conveyor route, processing plant, site office and welfare facilities (as indicated on Drawing No. ED11578 - Figure 1.3 Proposed Site Plan Showing Proposed Levels) restoration of Areas A and B (as per the details of the Environmental Statement chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.4.1 to 3.4.3) as indicatively represented in the Restoration Masterplan (drawing no ED 13814-001) and in accordance with the requirements of the conditions on this permission) shall be completed by the end of 31 December 2030. Should extraction of Area C (as indicated on Drawing No. ED11578 - Figure 1.3 Proposed Site Plan Showing Proposed Levels) not commence within 3 years of the date of this consent the said soil stockpile area, conveyor route, processing plant, site office and welfare facilities shall be restored (as per the above restoration details) by the end of 31 December 2030. 2. Within six months of the date of this permission a phasing plan detailing the timeline for the restoration of Area A, and the extraction and restoration of Area B shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. An updated timeline shall be submitted to the Planning Authority on an annual basis (on the anniversary of this permission). Development shall comply with the approved phasing Page 68 of 112
Page 69
plan, or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control over the progress of operations and the restoration of the site. 3. Within six months from the date of this permission detailed proposals for the restoration of the whole site (Areas A and B), in order to achieve the indicative restoration identified in the Restoration Masterplan (drawing no ED 13814-001), shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. These proposals shall include: (a) A detailed landscape restoration plan giving full details including a planting schedule showing species, planting densities, sizes, protection measures, and specification notes for all ground preparation, soil, planting, any hard landscape. The plan shall identify the areas of advanced planting. Local provenance stock shall be used where possible and any seed and woodland planting mixes shall be designed with ecological input to ensure they provide maximum foraging and habitat benefit for species as identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal issued August 2024 (Job number: ED13814, Report Number: 0001, Version: V0.1, Status: Final); (b) A soil plan setting out the depths of soil in all planted parts of the site ensuring the soil depth is adequate for the restoration planting proposed; (c) A Site Biodiversity Action Plan demonstrating how restoration will protect and enhance biodiversity, and strengthen nature networks; (d) the detailed specification, together with the necessary drawings, for the re-instatement of the agricultural pastures within the site, including details profiles and gradients, and all planting to be undertaken alongside the boundaries with a detailed schedule of species to be planted; (e) the detailed specification for the preparation and planting of all woodland areas, including the numbers, sizes, species and planting densities of all trees and hedgerows to be planted; (f) the location and details of all new fences and walls to be erected or repaired, within or around the boundaries of the site; (g) a series of cross sections (length and width) bisecting the two extraction areas and the adjoining ancient woodland and adjacent trees to illustrate the relation between the existing planting and the proposed site restoration levels and planting; Page 69 of 112
Page 70
(h) details of footpath construction; and (i) a restoration phase landscape and ecological management plan to cover a period of five years from the completion of the restoration landscape works Restoration shall comply with the details approved via the discharge of this condition, or such alternatives as may be approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the restoration of the site is carried out to a high standard in order to reinstate and, wherever possible, enhance biological habitats and diversity within the site. Protection of water resources 4. The existing surface water and groundwater monitoring strategy in use at the site shall continue to be implemented for the duration of the operations hereby approved. Sampling of surface water and groundwater within and downstream from the site shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed strategy, and the results shall be supplied to SEPA and the Planning Authority. Thereafter, at periodic intervals throughout the duration of the operations, as agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA, further sampling shall be carried out, and the results shall be submitted to SEPA, with copies to the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to monitor the impact of the operations on the quality and flow of surface water and groundwater, so that any remedial action can be taken if problems are identified. 5. The method statement detailing the procedure for the identification, isolation and treatment of any iron-rich substrate, and a contingency plan for the treatment of any ferruginous discharges that may appear after restoration of the site, which has been approved for the existing site, shall in the event of the appearance of any ferruginous discharges following the restoration of the site, the applicants, or their successors, carry out all necessary measures, as identified in the approved contingency plan. Reason: To protect against any ferruginous contamination of water resources that may result from the rebound of groundwater within the site, following its restoration. 6. Before any soil stripping is carried out on any new phase of the Area B, a perimeter drainage system shall be constructed around the whole of that phase, any existing drainage ditches shall be diverted, and the appropriate water treatment area shall be constructed and brought into use, all in accordance with the approved plans and the requirements of SEPA. The prohibition on the prior stripping of soils does not apply to Page 70 of 112
Page 71
those soils which are required to be removed in the formation of new ditches and water treatment areas. Reason: To ensure that facilities for the diversion of surface water entering the site, and for the reception and treatment of contaminated water are available from the earliest stages of the development. 7. All contaminated water shall be treated in appropriate water treatment areas prior to discharge into any watercourse. The water treatment facilities shall be of an adequate capacity to cater for the likely maximum volume of contaminated water, and to control the discharge flow into any watercourse in accordance with the requirements of SEPA. They must be capable of being cleaned without interruption of the treatment process, and shall be maintained in good working order throughout the duration of the operations. The direct discharge of oil, chemicals or other pollutants into the water treatment facilities, or into any watercourse within or adjoining the site, shall not be permitted. 8. Except where stored in double skinned tanks any oil, fuel, lubricant, paint or solvent stored within the site shall be provided with a suitable bund or other means of containment for 110% of the storage capacity, and with no passive means of drainage. Reason for conditions 7 & 8: To prevent the contamination of surface or ground water resources, or of soil resources. Protection of Soil Resources 9. Apart from the work required in accordance with condition 6 above, no work shall be carried out on any undisturbed part of the site until all topsoil has been stripped to an average depth of 300mm from the initial excavation area, all associated working areas, the site service and sand processing area, haul roads, subsoil and overburden storage areas; following which, subsoil shall be stripped to an average depth of 600mm from the same areas, with the exception of the subsoil storage areas. 10. No work shall be commenced on any subsequent phases of Area B until the topsoil and subsoil have been removed from these areas; such soils shall be either used directly for the progressive restoration of earlier phases of the operations at Upper Dalhousie, or stored in accordance with the requirements of condition 13 below. 11. Throughout the period of the extraction and restoration operations, all parts of the site from which topsoil has not been stripped, or on which topsoil has been respread, shall be protected from all working areas and access routes. Work routines for stripping operations, shall be designed to minimise vehicle traffic on unstripped land, and at all times the mechanical handling and compaction of topsoil shall be minimised. Page 71 of 112
Page 72
No vehicle, other than those involved in soil stripping or spreading or agricultural operations, shall be permitted on any unstripped land. 12. The stripping of topsoil and subsoil shall only be carried out when ground conditions are such that no undue damage is done to topsoil and subsoil (normally in Spring and Summer months, although this may be extended into dry Autumn periods). Such operations shall be suspended during adverse weather conditions. 13. Topsoil and subsoil shall be carefully stored in separate mounds wholly within the site boundary, and shall be prevented from mixing. Topsoil mounds shall not exceed 5 metres in height, and subsoil mounds shall not exceed 6 metres in height. 14. All soil storage mounds shall be evenly graded, shaped and drained to prevent water ponding on or around them; thereafter, they shall be seeded with an appropriate grass seeds mixture as soon as practically possible to ensure a reasonable prospect of successful sowing. 15. No turf, topsoil or subsoil shall at any time be removed from the site. Reason for conditions 9 -15: To protect the existing soil resources of the site, in order to ensure its successful restoration to agricultural or other appropriate uses, following the completion of sand extraction. Overburden Storage 16. Any overburden not used immediately for the back-filling of previous cuts, shall be stored in a location to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, wholly within the application boundary, and the mound shall not exceed 15m in height; the sides and top of the overburden mound shall be evenly graded and shaped, and they shall be seeded with a suitable low-maintenance grass seeds mix. Reason: To ensure that the storage of overburden is stable and not unduly obtrusive. Protection of Agricultural Interests 17. Except where otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the applicants shall make the site stock-proof and maintain as such until restoration of the site is complete. All the existing perimeter hedges, fences and walls, shall be maintained to protect the site from damage. Where the site boundary does not coincide with an existing hedge, fence or wall, then the applicants shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, provide and maintain stock-proof fencing, with gates or cattle grids at every opening, until the restoration is completed. Undisturbed hedgerows not affording screening for the proposed development, within or bounding the site, shall be carefully maintained, in accordance with good agricultural practice, and be cut Page 72 of 112
Page 73
and trimmed at the proper season throughout the period of working and restoration of the site. 18. All invasive weeds on the site, including particularly those on the topsoil and subsoil storage mounds, shall be treated as often as necessary and as determined by the Planning Authority throughout the life of the site, at an early stage of growth, in order to prevent spreading within the site or onto adjoining agricultural land. 19. All types of vermin shall be controlled in a manner approved by the Planning Authority to prevent them spreading to adjoining agricultural land. Reason for conditions 17-19: To protect the continued efficient operation of adjoining farmland. Adjacent Site Drainage 20. The works on site shall be designed and implemented to ensure that they do not negatively impact on the drainage of either the site as restored or the surrounding agricultural land. During the aftercare period the applicant shall ensure both the site and the surrounding agricultural land has field drainage that is functioning appropriately to allow productive agricultural activities to continue. This will include: (a) ensuring field drainage for the finally restored land is functioning appropriately; (b) protecting and maintaining any ditch, stream, watercourse or culvert passing though the site which provides drainage for adjoining land; (c) make provision for the installation of the field drainage system on the site to commence after one full growing season has elapsed from the time of the final stage of topsoil restoration; and, (d) make provision for the field drainage system to be completed within two years of topsoil restoration. Should there be any complaints received by the Planning Authority regarding the drainage at the site, which the Planning Authority consider merit investigation, the applicant shall take all reasonable steps to address any drainage issues with the site or the surrounding land, which can reasonably be considered to have resulted from the works on the site. Reason: To ensure the continued adequate drainage of the site, and adjoining land, in the interests of its continued productive agricultural use. Page 73 of 112
Page 74
21. No refuse, soil or waste material from outside the site shall be deposited within the site for any purpose without the prior written permission of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that site restoration is achieved using existing on- site materials only. 22. Any public utilities crossing or adjacent to the site shall be protected or diverted, as necessary, in accordance with the requirements of the relevant authorities. Reason: To safeguard existing public utilities in the area. 23. At all times that the site is in operation, a wheel washing facility for vehicles exiting the site shall be in use and shall be regularly cleaned and recharged with clean water, and the sections of public road between the site access and the A7 shall be kept clear of mud or dirt. Reason: To prevent mud and dirt from the site being spread onto the public road, where it may constitute a hazard or nuisance to road users. Biodiversity 24. Prior to the commencement of any new restoration works an Ecological Impact Assessment (complying with CIEEM guidance) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Restoration thereafter shall comply with any mitigation measures identified in the Ecological Impact Assessment. Reason: To ensure that the impact of restoration works on the biodiversity of the site is assessed and minimised. 25. Prior to the commencement of any new restoration works a biodiversity metric should be used to calculate in full the capacity of the proposed layout and proposed habitats to deliver biodiversity enhancement. The results of the metric shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of any new restoration works. Reason: To ensure that the development protects biodiversity, reverses biodiversity loss, delivers positive biodiversity effects and strengthens nature networks. 26. The mitigation measures identified in Chapter 4 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal issued August 2024 (Job number: ED13814, Report Number: 0001, Version: V0.1, Status: Final) shall be implemented throughout the duration of the extraction operations on Page 74 of 112
Page 75
the site, unless alternative mitigation measures are approved via condition 24. Reason: To minimise the adverse impact of the development on wildlife within and adjoining the site. Hours of Working 27. No operations shall take place outwith the hours of 07:00 to 18:00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 07:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. Operations shall include excavation, extraction and restoration, initial preparation of the site including the formation and removal of perimeter soil bunds, and the movement of lorries entering or leaving the site. No work shall be carried out on Sundays or on public holidays except for emergency or routine maintenance work. Reason: To minimise the effect the impact of the development on the amenity of residents living in the vicinity of the site and as a consequence of the Environmental assessment considering slightly shorter hours than the existing planning consent. Noise Control 28. Noise levels, as measured at 3.5 metres from any façade of any noise- sensitive dwelling, from all site operations other than soil stripping but including bund formation and restoration, shall not exceed a one hour LAeq of 45db. 29. Noise levels, as measured in accordance with condition 27, from soil stripping shall not exceed 60 dB(A) LAeq1h during the approved operating hours. 30. The surface of all haul roads and the track between the Hopefield Distributor Road and the sites shall be maintained in an evenly-graded condition, without bumps or pot-holes, at all times throughout the duration of operations at the site. The speed limit of 15mph shall be enforced along this section of road/track. 31. The routes of vehicles within the site shall be designed to minimise the need for lorries to reverse, thereby activating any reversing alarms with which they may be installed. 32. All vehicles exiting the site shall turn right and continue to the A7 via the B6392. 33. Throughout the duration of the operations at this site, the applicants, or their successors, shall implement in full the noise mitigation measures, identified in Section 9 of the Environmental Statement, including those relating to site operation and general environmental management. In particular, a programme of regular noise monitoring shall be Page 75 of 112
Page 76
undertaken, at locations to be agreed beforehand with the Planning Authority, and the results shall be made available to the Authority on request. Reason for conditions 28-33: To ensure that noise generated by the operations on the site is minimised, in order to protect the amenity of those residents living in the vicinity of the site and as recommended in PAN 50 Annex A: The control of noise at surface mineral workings. Dust Control 34. Whenever necessary, all roads and other un-vegetated surfaces within the site, including sand stockpiles, shall be damped down to prevent the spread of windblown dust from the site; particular care shall be taken in the vicinity of residential properties, and moisture screens shall be installed within the site, if necessary. 35. Throughout the duration of operations, the surface of the site access roads shall be kept in good repair, and shall be regularly graded to remove loose material. 36. All mobile plant used within the site shall be fitted with upward facing exhausts. 37. All laden vehicles leaving the site shall be effectively sheeted or enclosed. 38. All vehicles moving within the site, and along the access road to the Hopefield Distributor Road shall be subject to a speed limit, not exceeding 15mph. 39. Throughout the duration of the operations at this site, the applicants, or their successors, shall implement in full the dust control measures, identified in Section 12 of the Environmental Statement attached to the previous planning permission, reference number 06/00689/FUL, including those relating to site operation and general environmental management. In particular, a programme of dust monitoring shall be undertaken, in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to operations commencing on the site, and the results of the monitoring shall be submitted to the Authority at the agreed intervals. The dust monitoring programme shall include details of the air quality standards to be achieved at agreed locations on the perimeter of the site, and the remedial measures to be adopted in the event of those standards not being achieved, including, in extreme adverse conditions, the temporary cessation of all operations on the site. Reason for conditions 34-39: To minimise the impact of the development on the environment of the surrounding area, through the generation of dust from the operations. Page 76 of 112
Page 77
Landscaping Restoration and Aftercare 40. The site shall be completely restored, in compliance with conditions 3 and 40 to 47, within one year of the expiry of the time limit placed on the operation of the site. 41. The site shall be restored progressively in accordance with the details provided in terms of condition 3 of this permission. 42. The site shall be restored to the contours approved in accordance with the details approved in terms of condition 3, or such other revised contours as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and the surface levels shall be so graded as to ensure the final surface merges smoothly with the adjoining land. 43. Within six months of the completion of sand extraction operations, all buildings and fixed or moveable plant shall be removed from the site and all site access roads shall be removed or reverted back to farm access tracks, unless required for the restoration of the site, or otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority; and all such areas shall be subject to the full restoration treatment, as detailed below. Any access roads required for the restoration work shall be retained until the end of the restoration period and then removed or reverted back to farm access tracks. 44. All operations to remove topsoil and subsoil from the storage mounds and to re-spread them shall be carried out when the ground and storage mounds are in a suitable dry condition, as agreed with the Planning Authority. Earth-moving machinery shall travel to and from the soil mounds along clearly defined routes, and these routes shall be ripped before being covered with the next layer of subsoil or topsoil. When the vehicle is emptied after spreading subsoil or topsoil, it must immediately turn off on to overburden or subsoil areas respectively. On sloping land, the direction of travel of machines should, as far as is possible, be parallel to the contours, in order to minimise erosion. All operations following the replacement of topsoil shall be carried out by suitable agricultural machinery. 45. On all areas that are to be restored to agricultural use, after replacement of topsoil, chemical analyses of the soils shall be carried out by an approved agency to assess the fertiliser, lime and other major and minor nutrients required to promote the establishment and growth of appropriate plants for the agreed land use. The land shall then be cultivated using normal agricultural machinery to prepare a seed bed suitable for the sowing of grass seeds, during which process any stones larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a size of 100mm shall be removed, together with other obstructions to future cultivation. Lime, fertilisers and other plant nutrients shall be applied in accordance with the recommendations of the approved Page 77 of 112
Page 78
agency carrying out the soil chemical analyses so that the soil is sufficiently fertile to permit the chosen programme of restoration. The land shall then be sown with a short term grass seed mixture, based on perennial rye grass and white clove, or such other species as may be approved. 46. The site shall be restored only in accordance with the restoration plans and specifications approved under the terms of condition 3, and restoration works shall not be considered to be completed until all watercourses, ditches, fences, walls, hedges, field accesses trees and other planting have been installed or carried out in accordance with those plans and specifications agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason for conditions 40-46: To ensure that all parts of the site are properly restored to agriculture or other approved after-use. 47. Any trees or shrubs planted as part of the restoration proposals that die, are removed, become seriously diseased or are severely damaged within five years of planting shall be replaced during the next available planting season with others of similar size and species. Reason: To ensure that all new planting has an adequate opportunity to become successfully established. 48. At least three months before the completion of the restoration of Area A and at least three months before the completion of the restoration of Area B, aftercare schemes for each Area, in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out, as approved or modified by the Authority, for a period of five years from the date when the restoration of the site has been completed in accordance with the terms of condition 49. 49. The aftercare measures to be taken shall be such as to bring the land to the required standard for use for agriculture, to enable the establishment of the woodland planting and for amenity purposed specifically new habitat creation with appropriate footpath access. Reason for conditions 48 & 49: To ensure that all the restored land is properly managed for a sufficient period to ensure its effective establishment to the approved after-use. Monitoring 50. Throughout the duration of this development, the applicants or their successors shall, if and when required to do so by the Planning Authority, submit such information as may be necessary, including any relevant plans, to enable the Authority to determine the progress of the operations. Page 78 of 112
Page 79
Reason: To ensure effective monitoring of the development. 51. The proposed development of the site shall progress in accordance with the Phasing Plan – Extraction and Restoration, submitted as part of the planning consent. Reason: To ensure the phasing of the extraction and restoration of Areas A, B, and C allow for the appropriate phases development of the site and to ensure the restoration proposals for the three areas are achieved. 52. The developer shall ensure that the approved bond or other financial provision is maintained through the duration of the permission and that the bond provides sufficient funds to cover restoration of the site to the restoration plans approved in terms of condition 3 of this permission. Reason: To ensure that there are sufficient funds available throughout the life of the development to carry out the full restoration of the site. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 22 November 2024 Application No: 18/00082/S42 Applicant: Tillicoutry Quarries Agent: Wardell Armstrong LLP Validation Date: 5 February 2018 Contact Person: Graeme King, Planning Officer Email: graeme.king@midlothian.gov.uk Background Papers: 06/00689/FUL, 13/00064/DPP, 16/00816/SCO, 17/00380/SCO, 17/00565/PAC, 18/00081/DPP Attached Plan: Location Plan Page 79 of 112
Page 80
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 Area A Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2024) Section 42 application to amend condition 2 and 3 of 06/00689/FUL to extend the time for completion of restoration of area A by a further 3 years and area B by a further 6 years. Upper Dalhousie Sand Quarry, Bonnyrigg. Area B File No. 18/00082/S42 Scale 1:9000Page 80 of 112
Page 81
Planning Committee Monday 9 December 2024 Item No 5.5 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18/00081/DPP FOR THE EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING OF SAND ON LAND TO THE SOUTH/SOUTHWEST OF THE UPPER DALHOUSIE SAND QUARRY, BONNYRIGG. THE APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2011 Report by Chief Officer Place 1 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDED DECISION 1.1 In August 2009 planning permission 06/00689/FUL was granted for the extraction and processing of sand and the siting of associated plant and office at Upper Dalhousie, Bonnyrigg. This application seeks planning permission to extend the area of extraction and processing onto land to the south/southwest of the existing operational area. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment Report which has been submitted in terms of the EIA (Scotland) (Regulations) 2011. 1.2 There have been no representations received. Consultation responses have been received from The Coal Authority, Historic Environment Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish Water, NatureScot (previously Scottish Natural Heritage), Bonnyrigg and Lasswade Community Council, The Council’s Archaeology Advisor, The Council’s Ecological Advisor (TWIC), The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services, the Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Flood Risk and Transportation) and the Council’s Legal Services Manager. 1.3 The relevant development plan policies are policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 20, 22, 23 and 33 of National Planning Framework 4 and policies MIN1, MIN2, RD1, ENV2, ENV4, ENV6, ENV7, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, ENV14, ENV15, ENV17, ENV18, ENV22, ENV23, ENV24, ENV25, IMP1, and IMP3 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 1.4 The application was reported to Planning Committee on 28 August 2018 and the Committee approved the application subject to conditions and to the developer demonstrating, to the written satisfaction of the Council, that they have sufficient bond Page 81 of 112
Page 82
provision/insurance in place to ensure that, in the event that the operator is not able to restore the site, financial provision is made to enable the site to be restored in accordance with an approved restoration plan. 1.5 This report provides an update on the bond provision and considers the impact of the adoption of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) on the assessment of the proposal. 1.6 The recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions. 2 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The Upper Dalhousie Sand Quarry is located to the southeast of Bonnyrigg and comprises two extraction areas separated by an area of woodland. Area A is situated to the southeast of the woodland and Area B is to the northwest. The existing processing area, site office and welfare facilities are located in the northern portion of Area A, close to the site access. The site is accessed from the B6392 distributor road to the south of the Hopefield residential development. The site measures approximately 18 hectares in area. 2.2 The extension site (Area C) extends to some 15.8 hectares and is irregular in shape and includes part of Area A of the existing quarry, as the intention is to use the existing onsite processing plant, welfare facilities and site office. The additional sand extraction area is approximately 11.4 hectares. Conveyor belts move the extracted sand from the extraction operations to the processing area. Extraction from Area A has been completed and this area has been partially restored. Extraction from Area B commenced in 2016 and is ongoing. 2.3 As is noted above, the application site includes part of the existing quarry (the overlap with Area A). The remaining land within the application site is either woodland or is in agricultural use, the latter being the main use of the site. The site is bounded by agricultural land, areas of woodland and sand extraction Area A, with Whitehill House (and associated residential development) and Rosewell beyond to the west/southwest and Bonnyrigg beyond to the north. The closest dwellinghouses are Parkneuk, at approximately 300m to the northwest and the residential development at Whitehill House, at approximately 200m to the southwest. 2.4 The southern end of the site adjoins the Shiel Burn Wood Local Biodiversity Site (situated to the southwest of the application site) and the South Esk and Carrington Farmland Special Landscape Area (situated to the south of the application site). 2.5 There is a public footpath link (Core Path 3-6) immediately to the west of extraction Area C. Other footpaths are located to the south and east Page 82 of 112
Page 83
of the site. The applicant proposes to link into the footpath network as part of the restoration scheme for the site. 3 PROPOSAL 3.1 It is proposed to extract approximately 1.6 million tonnes of sand over a ten-year period. This is based on the current extraction rate of around 150,000 tonnes a year, of which 120,000 tonnes is removed from the site. Extraction rates may differ year on year depending on market demand. Area C would be worked both above and below the water table. The proposed phasing of the proposal is that extraction is to commence in 2026 and continue until 2035. The rolling restoration programme will start in 2029 and be completed in 2036. 3.2 Excavations will take place in three phases; the first phase being the central area adjacent to Area A and the northwest of the site, the second phase will be the main central part of the site, and the third phase will be the southwestern part of the site. 3.3 It is proposed to continue the existing working hours of the quarry which are 7.00am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 7.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. No work is carried out on Sundays or public holidays except for emergency work or routine maintenance. 3.4 The operator, Tillicoultry Quarries, is a family-owned Scottish firm that was established in 1931. The firm currently operates hard rock quarries, sand and gravel quarries, roadstone coating plants and concrete plants at 31 sites in Scotland and England. The firm operates eight sand and gravel quarries, and five hard rock quarries in Scotland. Three grades of sand are extracted from the site, sand for asphalt, building sand and ducting sands. Asphalt sand accounts for 60% of the extractions and is used at the applicant’s production plant at Newtongrange. 3.5 The maximum depth of extraction will be 23 metres with extraction taking place on a series of benches measuring 5 metres in height and width. Where dry working methods are used the sand will be extracted using a front-loading excavator. Wet working methods will be used for extraction below the water table and in such areas a tracked hydraulic excavator will be used. The sand will be transported by conveyer belt to the processing plant which is in Area A. 3.6 The typical daily HGV movements (a single movement = one inward journey and one outward journey) are estimated to be 36 movements. This is comparable to the average daily HGV movements form the existing extraction operations of 35 per day. 3.7 The site is to be progressively restored with restoration commencing in 2029 and completion in 2036, one year after the completion of the extraction process. Restoration would be achieved using silt material Page 83 of 112
Page 84
arising during the processing operations along with topsoil stored in bunds at the site. It is anticipated that silt material from Area C will be used in the restoration of Area B as well as the application site, Area C. 3.8 The restoration of Area C has been designed so that the majority of the site can return to agricultural use integrating with the surrounding topography, including merging with the restoration profile of Area A to create a natural appearing landform. Area C will take the form of a valley which will slope down to the south-east, towards the Dalhousie Burn. The restored site will include a natural water feature within the northeastern corner of the site. This wetland habitat will provide an opportunity to enhance local biodiversity and ecology. A wet woodland will be planted at the southern end of the site, this woodland will provide compensatory planting to replace an area of plantation woodland at the north end of the site which is to be felled to facilitate extraction. 3.9 The restored areas will be seeded and planted and then be subject to a programme of aftercare to facilitate the return to productive agricultural use and woodland planting. All plant and welfare facilities will be removed from the site and the land in these areas will be returned to an agricultural use. 3.10 A path network will be introduced/reinstated as part of the proposed site restoration. The paths will include a link from the Core Path, around the proposed water feature, and then northwards into area A. Restoration works associated with Areas A and B will create path networks round those sites and linking to existing paths in the surrounding area. 3.11 The original application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement complying with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (the 2011 Regulations). Whilst the application was submitted after The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the 2017 Regulations) had come into force, a transitional provision within the 2017 Regulations allows for applications to be assessed under the 2011 Regulations where the Scoping Opinion was issued under the 2011 Regulations. The Environmental Statement includes the following reports as appendices: • Coal Mining Risk Assessment; • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; • Bat Activity Assessment; • Floor Risk Assessment; • Archaeological Desk Based Assessment; and • Dust Management Plan. 3.12 In addition to the Environmental Statement and its appendices the application was also accompanied by the following reports: Page 84 of 112
Page 85
• Pre-Application Consultation Report; • Transport Statement; and • Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints Report. 3.13 The application has been updated in 2024 with the submission of the following reports and plans: • NPF4 Policy Update; • Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; • Bat Activity Report; and • Updated restoration details. 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 Planning application 06/00689/FUL for the extraction and processing of sand and the erection of the associated plant and office provision at Upper Dalhousie was granted permission in August 2009. This consent has been implemented and work continues on the site. 4.2 Planning application 13/00064/DPP for the installation of sand processing plant and a conveyor at the quarry was granted permission in March 2013. 4.3 An environmental impact assessment (EIA) scoping request (16/00816/SCO) for the extension of operations was submitted in November 2016. The applicant was advised what matters need to be covered by an EIA which need to be submitted under schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations. 4.4 Pre-Application Consultation 17/00565/PAC regarding the extension of the quarry on land to the southwest of the existing Dalhousie Sand Quarry, Bonnyrigg was reported to the Planning Committee at its meeting in August 2017. 4.5 A related planning application (18/00082/S42) for an extension of time to conclude the extraction and restoration of the existing quarry is subject to assessment and is elsewhere on the Committee agenda 4.6 The current application and application 18/00082/S42 were both reported to the Planning Committee on 28 August 2018. The Committee approved both applications subject to conditions and to the developer demonstrating, to the written satisfaction of the Council, that they have sufficient bond provision/insurance in place to ensure that, in the event that the operator is not able to restore the site, financial provision is made to enable the site is restored in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Page 85 of 112
Page 86
5 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 The Coal Authority consider that the content and conclusions of the Coal Mining Risk Assessment submitted with the application demonstrate that the site is safe and stable to enable the proposed development to be undertaken. The Coal Authority does not object to the application. 5.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) does not object to the application. HES were consulted at the scoping stage of the EIA process in 2016, which identified a potential impact on the setting of Whitehill House, a category A listed building. However, they are satisfied that the impact is a temporary one which can be mitigated by planting along the boundary of the site. 5.3 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) does not object to the application. The site is at a medium to high risk of flooding (0.5% annual probability or a 1 in 200-year event) from the Shiel Burn/Dalhousie Burn. It is however acknowledged that the proposed use of the land is a temporary one and as such there is no long-term risk. The applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) sets out an onsite drainage strategy and confirms that operation works will not result in discharge into local watercourses (the Shiel Burn and Dalhousie Burn). In relation to air quality SEPA state that the environmental statement (non-technical) reports that a negligible impact on air quality is predicted. 5.4 Scottish Water does not object to the application. 5.5 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (now known as NatureScot) does not object to the application subject to securing a bond to ensure effective site restoration, effective landscaping, the reinstatement of active travel routes and securing the conclusions set out in the Environmental Statement regarding ecological receptors (ancient woodland and protected species). 5.6 The Bonnyrigg and Lasswade Community Council (the community council merged with Poltonhall and Hopefield Community Council in 2022 to create Bonnyrigg and District Community Council) advise that they engaged their local community regarding the existing and potential future impacts of the quarrying activity, in particularly the traffic implications, the result of which was that no concerns were raised and as such the Community Council does not object to the application. However, the Community Council expect Midlothian Council to secure a bond to ensure the site’s restoration. 5.7 The Council’s Archaeology Advisor is satisfied that the Environmental Impact Assessment considers the possible historic environment implications of the proposed development and that a programme of archaeological works comprising a monitored soil strip Page 86 of 112
Page 87
(equivalent to a watching brief) is necessary. This can be secured by a planning condition. 5.8 The Council’s Ecological Advisor – The Wildlife Information Centre (TWIC) has confirmed that both the updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and the updated Bat Activity Report are thorough and professional. Further protected species surveys will be required prior to restoration works commencing. 5.9 The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services (Contingency Planning and Environmental Health) advises that the existing site is currently well managed and operates without giving rise to noise or dust nuisance complaints. Officers are of the opinion that extending the site can also be operated in way in which environmental impacts are mitigated subject to conditions to control noise and dust emissions arising from the operation of the site. The processing plant will remain in its existing location which will not give rise to an increase in noise levels. The noise impact assessment accompanying the application demonstrates that the predicted noise levels at the three noise sensitive receptors studied would be below the 45 db 1 hour LAeq guideline value. Dust mitigation measures which are the conveyor system, sprinkler system and wheel wash and management plan appear adequate to prevent nuisance arising. The operating hours will be as existing 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 7.00am to 1.00pm Saturday. The following matters should be addressed by conditions: • roads and un-vegetated surfaces shall be dampened down to prevent windblown dust; • site access roads shall be kept in good repair and regularly graded; • all laden vehicles must be sheeted prior to leaving the quarry; • a speed limit of 15mph shall be enforced along the site access road; • the dust management plan dated January 2018 shall be enforced, and a programme of dust monitoring results will be periodically sent to the local authority; and • noise levels from soil stripping, bund formation, removal and restoration operations at nearby noise sensitive dwellings must not exceed a one hour LAeq of 45db as recommended in PAN 50 Annex A: The control of noise at surface mineral workings. 5.10 The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Flood Risk and Transportation) does not object to the application. 5.11 The Council’s Legal Services have advised that as the landowner is Crown Estate Scotland the risk to the Council of the landowner and applicant not restoring the land is low, so if the Council are satisfied with the terms of the bond, we do not need to be a party to it, it shall be between the applicant and landowner. Page 87 of 112
Page 88
6 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 No representations have been received. 7 PLANNING POLICY 7.1 The development is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. The following policies are relevant to the proposal: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 7.2 NPF4 is a National Spatial Strategy for Scotland until 2045 and sets out a vision for future places using six overarching spatial principles: • Just transition. • Conserving and recycling assets. • Local living. • Compact urban growth. • Rebalanced development. • Rural revitalisation. 7.3 Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crisis; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis. 7.4 Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. 7.5 Policy 3 Biodiversity; sets out to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. 7.6 Policy 4 Natural Places; sets out to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. 7.7 Policy 5 Soils; sets out to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development. The policy also sets out acceptable scenarios for development on prime agricultural land. 7.8 Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees; sets out to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. 7.9 Policy 7 Historic assets and places; sets out to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Page 88 of 112
Page 89
7.10 Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure; sets out to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. 7.11 Policy 22 Flood risk and water management; sets out to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. 7.12 Policy 23 Health and Safety; sets out to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. 7.13 Policy 33 Minerals; sets out to support the sustainable management of resources and minimise the impacts of extraction of minerals on communities and the environment. Part d - development proposals for the sustainable extraction of minerals will only be supported where they: i. Will not result in significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, geodiversity and the natural environment, sensitive habitats and the historic environment, as well as landscape and visual impacts; ii. provide an adequate buffer zone between sites and settlements taking account of the specific circumstances of individual proposals, including size, duration, location, method of working, topography, and the characteristics of the various environmental effects likely to arise; iii. can demonstrate that there are no significant adverse impacts (including cumulative impact) on any nearby homes, local communities and known sensitive receptors and designations; iv. demonstrate acceptable levels (including cumulative impact) of noise, dust, vibration and potential pollution of land, air and water; v. minimise transport impacts through the number and length of lorry trips and by using rail or water transport wherever practical; vi. have appropriate mitigation plans in place for any adverse impacts; vii. include schemes for a high standard of restoration and aftercare and commitment that such work is undertaken at the earliest opportunity. As a further safeguard a range of financial guarantee options are available, and the most effective solution should be considered and agreed on a site-by-site basis. Solutions should provide assurance and clarity over the amount and period of the guarantee and in particular, where it is a bond, the risks covered (including operator failure) and the triggers for calling in a bond, including payment terms. Page 89 of 112
Page 90
7.14 NPF4 states that Local Development Plans should support a landbank of construction aggregates of at least 10-years at all times in the relevant market areas, whilst promoting sustainable resource management, safeguarding important workable mineral resources, which are of economic or conservation value, and take steps to ensure these are not sterilised by other types of development. Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 7.15 Policy MIN1: Areas of Search for Surface Extraction identifies Upper Dalhousie as being an area for the extraction of sand and gravel where surface mineral extraction may be acceptable in principle. The policy states that the identification of an area of search does not indicate the Council’s acceptance of any particular proposal for the winning and working of a surface mineral resource within any or all of that area of search. Outwith the areas of search there is a presumption against surface mineral extraction. In addition the policy safeguards mineral resources from sterilisation, in specific circumstances. 7.16 Policy MIN2: Surface Mineral Extraction requires proposals for mineral extraction to meet the criteria set out in the Supplementary Guidance on Resource Extraction. They will not be permitted where they would have a significant adverse effect on communities, sensitive uses or the environment and will only be supported if the Council is satisfied that they are acceptable in relation to the following matters: • effect on the health and amenity of settlements, communities and housing groups or other sensitive uses; • effect on the landscape, in particular that of the Green Belt, Pentland Hills Regional Park, and Special Landscape Area; • effect on soils, in particular prime agricultural land, and peatland; • effect on the water environment; • effect on nature conservation and biodiversity, in particular sites of international, national or local nature conservation value; • effect on the historic environment, in particular: Conservation areas, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, historic gardens and designed landscapes, historic battlefields, significant archaeological sites (and, where relevant, the settings of the aforementioned designated areas or buildings); • effect on the road network, particularly local roads; • cumulative effects of the proposal when combined with other consented or operational mineral extraction or landfill activities; • effect on the local economy in terms of tourism, leisure or recreation; and, • robustness and suitability of proposals for restoration and aftercare. 7.17 The extraction of a secondary material (for example, fireclay from a coal extraction site) is supported provided that its removal does not Page 90 of 112
Page 91
detract from high quality restoration or have unacceptable environmental effects (including from cumulative vehicle movements). In order that the supply and demand for aggregates can be monitored, operators of new aggregates sites will be required to supply annual statements of production and remaining reserves. 7.18 Policy RD1: Development in the Countryside sets out where appropriate development would be acceptable in the countryside subject to defined criteria. One acceptable use is resource extraction in compliance with Policy MIN1. All such development requires being of a scale or character appropriate to the rural area and landscape, capable of being appropriately accessed and serviced, have acceptable drainage provision and water supply and be accessible by public transport and services, where appropriate. 7.19 Policy ENV2 Midlothian Green Networks supports development proposals brought forward in line with the provisions of the Plan that help to deliver the green network opportunities identified in the Supplementary Guidance on the Midlothian Green Network. 7.20 Policy ENV4: Prime Agricultural Land does not permit development that would lead to the permanent loss of prime agricultural land unless there is appropriate justification to do so. 7.21 Policy ENV6: Special Landscape Areas states that development proposals will only be permitted where they incorporate high standards of siting and design and where they will not have significant adverse effect on the special landscape qualities of the area. 7.22 Policy ENV7: Landscape Character states that development will not be permitted where it significantly and adversely affects local landscape character. Where development is acceptable, it should respect such character and be compatible in terms of scale, siting and design. New development will normally be required to incorporate proposals to maintain the diversity and distinctiveness of the local landscapes and to enhance landscape characteristics where they have been weakened. 7.23 Policy ENV9: Flooding presumes against development which would be at unacceptable risk of flooding or would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. It states that Flood Risk Assessments will be required for most forms of development in areas of medium to high risk but may also be required at other locations depending on the circumstances of the proposed development. Furthermore, it states that sustainable urban drainage systems will be required for most forms of development, so that surface water run-off rates are not greater than in the site’s pre-developed condition, and to avoid any deterioration of water quality. Page 91 of 112
Page 92
7.24 Policy ENV10: Water Environment requires that new development pass surface water through a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) to mitigate against local flooding and to enhance biodiversity and the environment. 7.25 Policy ENV11: Woodland, Trees and Hedges states that development will not be permitted where it could lead directly or indirectly to the loss of, or damage to, woodland, groups of trees (including trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order, areas defined as ancient or semi-natural woodland, veteran trees or areas forming part of any designated landscape) and hedges which have a particular amenity, nature conservation, biodiversity, recreation, landscape, shelter, cultural, or historical value or are of other importance. 7.26 Policy ENV14: Regionally and Locally Important Nature Conservation Sites states that development will not be permitted where it could adversely affect the nature conservation interest of such sites, unless it can be demonstrated that appropriate mitigation measures are in place. 7.27 Policy ENV15: Species and Habitat Protection and Enhancement presumes against development that would affect a species protected by European or UK law. 7.28 Policy ENV 17 Air Quality states that the Council may require further assessments to identify air quality impacts where considered requisite. It will refuse planning permission, or seek effective mitigation, where development proposals cause unacceptable air quality or dust impacts. 7.29 Policy ENV18: Noise requires that where new noise sensitive uses are proposed in the locality of existing noisy uses, the Council will seek to ensure that the function of established operations is not adversely affected. 7.30 Policy ENV22: Listed buildings does not permit development which would adversely affect the character or appearance of a listed building, its setting or any feature of special architectural or historic interest. 7.31 Policy ENV23: Scheduled Monuments states that development which could have an adverse effect on a scheduled monument, or the integrity of its setting, will not be permitted. 7.32 Policy ENV24: Other Important Archaeological or Historic Sites seeks to prevent development that would adversely affect regionally or locally important archaeological or historic sites, or their setting 7.33 Policy ENV25: Site Assessment, Evaluation and Recording requires that where development could affect an identified site of archaeological importance, the applicant will be required to provide an assessment of Page 92 of 112
Page 93
the archaeological value of the site and of the likely impact of the proposal on the archaeological resource. 7.34 Policy IMP1: New Development gives the planning authority the policy basis to impose appropriate planning conditions and controls to mitigate the impact of the development. 7.35 Policy IMP3: Water and Drainage require sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) to be incorporated into new development. 8 PLANNING ISSUES 8.1 The main planning issue to be considered in determining this application is whether the proposal complies with development plan policies unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The consultation responses received are material considerations. Principle of development 8.2 Planning permission for the extraction and processing of sand and associated works at Areas A and B was granted in 2009. The principle of sand and gravel extraction at Upper Dalhousie was then given further support in the MLDP which identified Upper Dalhousie as an area of search for mineral extraction. The area of search includes the existing sites at Areas A and B as well as the current application site Area C. The principle of sand and gravel extraction at the application site accords with the MLDP and there are no material considerations which outweigh this presumption in favour of development. 8.3 NPF4 was adopted in February 2023. Policy 33 supports the sustainable extraction of minerals. The application relates to existing areas of extraction and processing which are operating in compliance with points i to vii of Policy 33 d). The adoption of NPF4 has not changed the presumption in favour of new development. Landscape and visual impact 8.4 The proposed operations will have a detrimental impact on the landscape during the extraction process as the topsoil is stripped back and sand is removed from the ground. However, the detrimental impact caused by this ‘opening up’ of the site is mitigated by the fact that the operation is temporary (from 2026 to 2036) and the phased extraction and rolling programme of restoration will mean that not all of the site will be operational at any one time. The separation distance from any settlements and the established woodland areas adjoining the site provide further mitigation against the visual impact of the proposal. To provide further mitigation a landscape buffer will be planted along the site’s south/southwestern boundary in advance of operations commencing. The landscape buffer will comprise enhancing the existing hedge, which runs along the Core Path adjoining the site, with Page 93 of 112
Page 94
an additional 5 metres of planting along the adjoining length of the Core Path. This will reduce the visual impact on the landscape and soften distance views for residents of the Whitehill House residential development some 200 metres further to the southwest. 8.5 Additional landscaping, including a new area of wet woodland, is also proposed along the southeastern boundary of the site which abuts the South Esk and Carrington Farmlands Special Landscape Area. In this sensitive area it will be important to agree a landscaping scheme which complements the existing planting. The details of any additional areas of planting can be secured by conditions on a grant of planning permission. 8.6 A restoration masterplan has been submitted as part of the planning application. The plan identifies; key proposed landscape features, new restoration ground levels, the formation of a ‘natural’ water feature to enhance biodiversity and the end land uses as agriculture and woodland. This is acceptable in principle subject to the final details being agreed by condition. 8.7 There is currently a variation in the levels across the site of approximately 20 metres dropping from the northwest to southeast. After the extraction and restoration processes have been completed the proposed height variation across the site will be approximately 23 metres. The main areas of change will be along the south/southwest boundary and in the north/northwest of the site. The level changes in these areas will be softened into the landscape by woodland planting. By incorporating a steeper level change on the edge of the site it is possible to create a level area centrally within the site which can be used for agriculture. The proposed restoration masterplan includes additional informal footpaths, a sand bank for nesting sand martins and a pond. The potential biodiversity and wildlife benefits of the restoration proposals are a positive benefit of the development. The final restoration details will be secured by condition and protected by the provision of a financial bond. Loss of woodland 8.8 The application site includes an area of Sitka Spruce plantation, measuring approximately 1.05 hectares in area, on a north facing slope at the northern edge of the site. The plantation will be removed via commercial forestry operations. The restoration plans submitted in 2018 did not include compensatory planting. Following the adoption of NPF4 the applicant has agreed to plant a 1.58 hectares woodland on a south facing slope at the southern end of the site. The woodland will be a native mixed broadleaved woodland with alder, rowan, cherry, birch, hazel, carb apple and some Scots pine. The planting will take place in advance of extraction starting. Finalised details will be secured via condition. Page 94 of 112
Page 95
Biodiversity 8.9 The adoption of NPF4 means that application proposals must now contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity. The majority of land cover within the extraction area of the application site is temporary grass and clover leys. There are further areas of modified grassland and neutral grassland. As is noted above there is an area of Sitka Spruce plantation. There are also areas of hedgerow. The majority of the habitats within the proposed extraction area are of limited biodiversity value. The broadleaved woodland will provide increased biodiversity and the restored agricultural land will be of similar biodiversity value to the existing land. To ensure that the restoration provides an adequate level of enhancement it would be reasonable to condition that an assessment of biodiversity net gain is provided as part of the restoration plans. Noise 8.10 The nature of the operation means that there will be some noise from the extraction and processing procedures and from the topsoil stripping process. These noise levels will be comparable to existing levels within Areas A and B. The existing operations have not been the subject of complaints and comply with the guidance enforced by the Council’s Environmental Health Service. The existing noise conditions have successfully protected amenity in the surrounding area, consequently it would be reasonable and prudent to attach similar conditions to any new consent. Noise levels during the temporary soil stripping process, which will take a period of up to 8 weeks, will represent a higher risk of noise disturbance; however, as the impact will be temporary it will not have a significant effect. Transportation matters 8.11 The transportation statement submitted in support of the application considers the traffic and transportation effects of the proposal. It concludes that the traffic generation will be comparable to that from the existing operations. The existing site access arrangements are not subject to change. As with the current operations, a number of mitigation measures will be put in place including: • instructions to drivers and suppliers to follow the agreed route to and from the site; and • the implementation of good site management practice including wheel washing, vehicle sheeting and road cleaning. 8.12 An average of 36 trucks/heavy goods vehicles per day will enter and leave the site via the existing access road, this is comparable to the existing volume of vehicular movements (35). A further 18 non heavy goods vehicles will enter and leave the site – this will be the 6 staff arriving for and leaving work, deliveries and visitors. The non-HGV Page 95 of 112
Page 96
vehicle movements will be similar to the current operations. Extraction and processing have taken place at Upper Dalhousie since 2009 without significant detrimental impact on the surrounding road network, given the similarity in the scale of operations between the existing and proposed activities there is no reason to conclude that this situation will change. Restoration bond 8.13 The applicant’s agent has confirmed that there is an existing agreement in place between the applicant and the landowner, Crown Estate Scotland, to secure restoration funds for Areas A and B. Funds for restoration are secured via a bank guarantee. A similar agreement will be used to secure the restoration funds for Area C. The restoration costs have been prepared by suitably qualified professionals utilising a comprehensive database of comparable costs and the landowner is satisfied that the costings are sufficient. Environmental Statement 8.14 The Environmental Statement submitted with the application sets out the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment process carried out by the applicant under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. The process identifies the likely significant environmental effects of the development and suggests ways in which any significant negative environmental effects can be mitigated. The statement considers the following issues: • geology; • landscape and visual impact; • ecology; • soils and agriculture; • water resources, including hydrology and hydrogeology; • cultural heritage including archaeology and historic environment; • noise; • air quality; and • access and recreation. 8.15 The environmental statement identifies that there are no long-term detrimental consequences of the proposed development. The proposal does present an opportunity for potential longer term environmental benefits subject to the restoration programme, which, if undertaken in a sensitive manner, could enhance the environment for the benefit of wildlife, the local landscape, drainage, pollution prevention and future recreational and agricultural uses. 8.16 The EIA process requires that alternative options to the proposed scheme are considered, and a justification is given for the preferred option chosen. The options considered were: 1) do nothing with the Page 96 of 112
Page 97
site; 2) reduce the extraction area; 3) extract from an alternative site; and 4) work above the water table only. The preferred development option (continued working of the current site) is considered the best option for a number of reasons. Firstly, the area is identified as an area of search in the MLDP for the extraction of construction aggregate to supply the local area. Secondly, not continuing with the ongoing extraction would have a detrimental impact on the provision of construction sand to meet demand in the region. Thirdly, reducing the extraction area (by not fully exploiting the resource in Area B) would risk sterilising existing available reserves. Fourthly, the current site has minimal detrimental impact on local communities. Finally, identifying an alternative site would present a significant challenge in terms of the development plan process and the time taken to reach a point where material could be extracted. 9 RECOMMENDATION 9.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the following reason: The proposed development site is identified as a mineral extraction site within the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017; as such there is a presumption in favour of the proposed development. This presumption in favour of development is not outweighed by any other material considerations. The proposal complies with the relevant policies of National Planning Framework 4 and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. Subject to the following conditions: Duration of the Permission 1. The development to which this permission relates shall commence not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Permission for the extraction of sand from area C (as indicated on the approved drawings ES Fig 3.3 Area C Phase 1 Proposed Excavation, ES Fig 3.4 Area C Phase 2 Proposed Excavation and ES Fig 3.5 Area C Phase 3 Proposed Excavation) and the storage of soil, conveyor route, processing plant, site office and welfare facilities (as indicated on ES Fig 1.3 Proposed Site Plan Showing Proposed Levels) is granted until the end of 31 December 2035. Restoration, as per the details of the Environmental Statement chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.6.1 to 3.6.6) as represented in the Restoration Masterplan (drawing no ED 13814-001) and in accordance with the requirements of the conditions on this permission, shall be completed by the end of 31 December 2036. 2. Within six months of the date of this permission a phasing plan detailing the timeline for the advanced planting, the restoration of Area A, and the extraction and restoration of Area C shall be submitted to Page 97 of 112
Page 98
and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. An updated timeline shall be submitted to the Planning Authority on an annual basis (on the anniversary of this permission). Development shall comply with the approved phasing plan, or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason for Conditions 1 & 2: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control over the progress of operations and the restoration of the site. 3. Within six months from the date of this permission detailed proposals for the restoration of the whole site, in order to achieve the indicative restoration identified in the Restoration Masterplan (drawing no ED 13814-001), shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. These proposals shall include: (a) A detailed landscape restoration plan giving full details including a planting schedule showing species, planting densities, sizes, protection measures, and specification notes for all ground preparation, soil, planting, any hard landscape. The plan shall identify the areas of advanced planting. Local provenance stock shall be used where possible and any seed and woodland planting mixes shall be designed with ecological input to ensure they provide maximum foraging and habitat benefit for species as identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal issued August 2024 (Job number: ED13814, Report Number: 0002, Version: V0.1, Status: Final); (b) A soil plan setting out the depths of soil in all planted parts of the site ensuring the soil depth is adequate for the restoration planting proposed; (c) A Site Biodiversity Action Plan demonstrating how restoration will protect and enhance biodiversity, and strengthen nature networks; (d) The detailed specification, together with the necessary drawings, for the re-instatement of the agricultural pastures within the site, including details profiles and gradients, and all planting to be undertaken alongside the boundaries with a detailed schedule of species to be planted. For the avoidance of doubt the advanced hedgerow planting identified on Restoration Masterplan (drawing no ED 13814-001) shall be planted in advance of any soil stripping or extraction taking place and shall include hedgerow and a 5 metres wide strip of planting; (e) The detailed specification for the preparation and planting of all woodland areas, including the numbers, sizes, species and planting densities of all trees and hedgerows to be planted. For the avoidance of doubt the wet woodland identified on Page 98 of 112
Page 99
Restoration Masterplan (drawing no ED 13814-001) and outlined in the Tree Planting Plan shall be planted in advance of any soil stripping or extraction taking place; (f) the location and details of all new fences and walls to be erected or repaired, within or around the boundaries of the site; (g) a series of cross sections (length and width) bisecting the extraction area, the adjoining ancient woodland, the adjacent trees and the restored areas of Area A to illustrate the relation between the existing planting and the proposed site restoration levels and planting; (h) cross sections showing proposed levels for water feature; (i) details of footpath construction; and (j) a restoration phase landscape and ecological management plan to cover a period of five years from the completion of the restoration landscape works Restoration shall comply with the details approved via the discharge of this condition, or such alternatives as may be approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the restoration of the site is carried out to a high standard in order to reinstate and, wherever possible, enhance biological habitats and diversity within the site. Protection of water resources 4. Prior to any operations which are the subject of this permission commencing on the site, a surface water and groundwater monitoring strategy shall be submitted to and agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Sampling of surface water and groundwater within and downstream from the site shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed strategy, and the results shall be supplied to SEPA and the Planning Authority. Thereafter, at periodic intervals throughout the duration of the operations, to be agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA, further sampling shall be carried out, and the results shall be submitted to SEPA, with copies to the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to monitor the impact of the operations on the quality and flow of surface water and groundwater, so that any remedial action can be taken if problems are identified. 5. Prior to the replacement of any overburden, a method statement detailing the procedure for the identification, isolation and treatment of any iron-rich substrate, and a contingency plan for the treatment of any Page 99 of 112
Page 100
ferruginous discharges that may appear after restoration of the site, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SEPA. In the event of the appearance of any ferruginous discharges following the restoration of the site, the applicants, or their successors, shall carry out all necessary measures, as identified in the approved contingency plan. Reason: To protect against any ferruginous contamination of water resources that may result from the rebound of groundwater within the site, following its restoration. 6. Before any soil stripping is carried out on any phase of the site, a perimeter drainage system shall be constructed around the whole of that phase, any existing drainage ditches shall be diverted, and the appropriate water treatment area shall be constructed and brought into use, all in accordance with the approved plans and the requirements of SEPA. The prohibition on the prior stripping of soils does not apply to those soils which are required to be removed in the formation of new ditches and water treatment areas. Reason: To ensure that facilities for the diversion of surface water entering the site, and for the reception and treatment of contaminated water are available from the earliest stages of the development. 7. All contaminated water shall be treated in appropriate water treatment areas prior to discharge into any watercourse. The water treatment facilities shall be of an adequate capacity to cater for the likely maximum volume of contaminated water, and to control the discharge flow into any watercourse in accordance with the requirements of SEPA. They must be capable of being cleaned without interruption of the treatment process and shall be maintained in good working order throughout the duration of the operations. The direct discharge of oil, chemicals or other pollutants into the water treatment facilities, or into any watercourse within or adjoining the site, shall not be permitted. 8. Except where stored in double skinned tanks any oil, fuel, lubricant, paint or solvent stored within the site shall be provided with a suitable bund or other means of containment for 110% of the storage capacity, and with no passive means of drainage. Reason for conditions 7 & 8: To prevent the contamination of surface or ground water resources, or of soil resources. Protection of Soil Resources 9. Apart from the work required in accordance with condition 6 above, no work shall be carried out on any undisturbed part of the site until all topsoil has been stripped to an average depth of 300mm from the initial excavation area. Page 100 of 112
Page 101
10. After the initial excavations have taken place, no work shall be commenced on any subsequent phases until the topsoil and subsoil have been removed from these areas; such soils shall be either used directly for the progressive restoration of earlier phases of the operations at Upper Dalhousie or stored in accordance with the requirements of condition 13 below. 11. Throughout the period of the extraction and restoration operations, all parts of the site from which topsoil has not been stripped, or on which topsoil has been respread, shall be protected from all working areas and access routes. Work routines for stripping operations, shall be designed to minimise vehicle traffic on unstripped land, and at all times the mechanical handling and compaction of topsoil shall be minimised. No vehicle, other than those involved in soil stripping or spreading or agricultural operations, shall be permitted on any unstripped land. 12. The stripping of topsoil and subsoil shall only be carried out when ground conditions are such that no undue damage is done to topsoil and subsoil (normally in Spring and Summer months, although this may be extended into dry Autumn periods). Such operations shall be suspended during adverse weather conditions. 13. Topsoil and subsoil shall be carefully stored in separate mounds wholly within the site boundary and shall be prevented from mixing. Topsoil mounds shall not exceed 5 metres in height, and subsoil mounds shall not exceed 6 metres in height. 14. All soil storage mounds shall be evenly graded, shaped and drained to prevent water ponding on or around them; thereafter, they shall be seeded with an appropriate grass seeds mixture as soon as practically possible to ensure a reasonable prospect of successful sowing. 15. No turf, topsoil or subsoil shall at any time be removed from the site. Reason for conditions 9 -15: To protect the existing soil resources of the site, in order to ensure its successful restoration to agricultural or other appropriate uses, following the completion of sand extraction. Overburden Storage 16. Any overburden not used immediately for the backfilling of previous cuts, shall be stored in a location to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, wholly within the application boundary, and the mound shall not exceed 15m in height; the sides and top of the overburden mound shall be evenly graded and shaped, and they shall be seeded with a suitable low-maintenance grass seeds mix. Reason: To ensure that the storage of overburden is stable and not unduly obtrusive. Page 101 of 112
Page 102
Protection of Agricultural Interests 17. Except where otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the applicants shall make the site stock-proof and maintained as such until restoration of the site is complete. All the existing perimeter hedges, fences and walls, shall be maintained to protect the site from damage. Where the site boundary does not coincide with an existing hedge, fence or wall, then the applicants shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, provide and maintain stock-proof fencing, with gates or cattle grids at every opening, until the restoration is completed. Undisturbed hedgerows not affording screening for the proposed development, within or bounding the site, shall be carefully maintained, in accordance with good agricultural practice, and be cut and trimmed at the proper season throughout the period of working and restoration of the site. 18. All invasive weeds on the site, including particularly those on the topsoil and subsoil storage mounds, shall be treated as often as necessary and as determined by the Planning Authority throughout the life of the site, at an early stage of growth, in order to prevent spreading within the site or onto adjoining agricultural land. 19. All types of vermin shall be controlled in a manner approved by the Planning Authority to prevent them spreading to adjoining agricultural land. Reason for conditions 17-19: To protect the continued efficient operation of adjoining farmland. Adjacent Site Drainage 20. The works on site shall be designed and implemented to ensure that they do not negatively impact on the drainage of either the site as restored or the surrounding agricultural land. During the aftercare period the applicant shall ensure both the site, and the surrounding agricultural land has field drainage that is functioning appropriately to allow productive agricultural activities to continue. This will include: (a) ensuring field drainage for the finally restored land is functioning appropriately; (b) protecting and maintaining any ditch, stream, watercourse or culvert passing though the site which provides drainage for adjoining land; (c) make provision for the installation of the field drainage system on the site to commence after one full growing season has elapsed from the time of the final stage of topsoil restoration; and, Page 102 of 112
Page 103
(d) make provision for the field drainage system to be completed within two years of topsoil restoration. Should there be any complaints received by the Planning Authority regarding the drainage at the site, which the Planning Authority consider merit investigation, the applicant shall take all reasonable steps to address any drainage issues with the site or the surrounding land, which can reasonably be considered to have resulted from the works on the site. Reason: To ensure the continued adequate drainage of the site, and adjoining land, in the interests of its continued productive agricultural use. 21. No refuse, soil or waste material from outside the site shall be deposited within the site for any purpose without the prior written permission of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that site restoration is achieved using existing on- site materials only. 22. Any public utilities crossing or adjacent to the site shall be protected or diverted, as necessary, in accordance with the requirements of the relevant authorities. Reason: To safeguard existing public utilities in the area. 23. At all times that the site is in operation, a wheel washing facility for vehicles exiting the site shall be in use and shall be regularly cleaned and recharged with clean water, and the sections of public road between the site access and the A7 shall be kept clear of mud or dirt. Reason: To prevent mud and dirt from the site being spread onto the public road, where it may constitute a hazard or nuisance to road users. Archaeology 24. Development shall not begin until the applicant has undertaken and reported upon a programme of archaeological (Monitored Soil Strip) work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant (or their agent) and approved by the planning authority. Biodiversity 25. Prior to the commencement of development an Ecological Impact Assessment (complying with CIEEM guidance) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Development and Page 103 of 112
Page 104
restoration thereafter shall comply with any mitigation measures identified in the Ecological Impact Assessment. Reason: To ensure that the impact of restoration works on the biodiversity of the site is assessed and minimised. 26. Prior to the commencement of development, a biodiversity metric should be used to calculate in full the capacity of the proposed layout and proposed habitats to deliver biodiversity enhancement. The results of the metric shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of any new restoration works. Reason: To ensure that the development protects biodiversity, reverses biodiversity loss, delivers positive biodiversity effects and strengthens nature networks. 27. The mitigation measures identified in Chapter 4 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal issued August 2024 (Job number: ED13814, Report Number: 0001, Version: V0.1, Status: Final) shall be implemented throughout the duration of the extraction operations on the site, unless alternative mitigation measures are approved via condition 24. Reason: To minimise the adverse impact of the development on wildlife within and adjoining the site. 28. No soil stripping or extraction works shall take place within 15 metres of the ancient woodland at Galladean Plantation, Young Bog Wood or Dalhousie Burn Plantation. Reason: To safeguard the biodiversity value of the areas of ancient woodland. Hours of Working 29. No operations shall take place outwith the hours of 07.00 to 19.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 07.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. Operations shall include excavation, extraction and restoration, initial preparation of the site including the formation and removal of perimeter soil bunds, and the movement of lorries entering or leaving the site. No work shall be carried out on Sundays or on public holidays except for emergency or routine maintenance work. Reason: To minimise the effect the impact of the development on the amenity of residents living in the vicinity of the site and as a consequence of the Environmental assessment considering slightly shorter hours than the existing planning consent. Page 104 of 112
Page 105
Noise Control 30. Noise levels, as measured at 3.5 metres from any façade of any noise- sensitive dwelling, from all site operations other than soil stripping but including bund formation and restoration, shall not exceed a one-hour LAeq of 45db. 31. Noise levels, as measured in accordance with condition 31, from soil stripping shall not exceed 60 dB(A) LAeq1h during the approved operating hours. 32. The surface of all haul roads and the track between the Hopefield Distributor Road and the sites shall be maintained in an evenly graded condition, without bumps or potholes, at all times throughout the duration of operations at the site. The speed limit of 15mph shall be enforced along this section of road/track. 33. The routes of vehicles within the site shall be designed to minimise the need for lorries to reverse, thereby activating any reversing alarms with which they may be installed. 34. All vehicles exiting the site shall turn right and continue to the A7 via the B6392. 35. Throughout the duration of the operations at this site, the applicants, or their successors, shall implement in full the noise mitigation measures, identified in Section 9 of the Environmental Statement, including those relating to site operation and general environmental management. In particular, a programme of regular noise monitoring shall be undertaken, at locations to be agreed beforehand with the Planning Authority, and the results shall be made available to the Authority on request. Reason for conditions 30-35: To ensure that noise generated by the operations on the site is minimised, in order to protect the amenity of those residents living in the vicinity of the site and as recommended in PAN 50 Annex A: The control of noise at surface mineral workings. Dust Control 36. Whenever necessary, all roads and other un-vegetated surfaces within the site, including sand stockpiles, shall be damped down to prevent the spread of windblown dust from the site; particular care shall be taken in the vicinity of residential properties, and moisture screens shall be installed within the site, if necessary. 37. Throughout the duration of operations, the surface of the site access roads shall be kept in good repair and shall be regularly graded to remove loose material. Page 105 of 112
Page 106
38. All mobile plant used within the site shall be fitted with upward facing exhausts. 39. All laden vehicles leaving the site shall be effectively sheeted or enclosed. 40. All vehicles moving within the site, and along the access road to the Hopefield Distributor Road shall be subject to a speed limit, not exceeding 15mph. 41. Throughout the duration of the operations at this site, the applicants, or their successors, shall implement in full the dust control measures, identified in the Dust Management Plan issued January 2018 (Job number: ED11578, Report Number: 0001, Version 1), including those relating to site operation and general environmental management. In particular, a programme of dust monitoring shall be undertaken, in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to operations commencing on the site, and the results of the monitoring shall be submitted to the Authority at the agreed intervals. The dust monitoring programme shall include details of the air quality standards to be achieved at agreed locations on the perimeter of the site, and the remedial measures to be adopted in the event of those standards not being achieved, including, in extreme adverse conditions, the temporary cessation of all operations on the site. Reason for conditions 36-41: To minimise the impact of the development on the environment of the surrounding area, through the generation of dust from the operations. Landscaping Restoration and Aftercare 42. The site shall be completely restored, in compliance with conditions 3 and 43 to 50, within one year of the expiry of the time limit placed on the operation of the site. 43. The site shall be restored progressively in accordance with the details provided in terms of condition 3 of this permission. 44. The site shall be restored to the contours approved in accordance with the details approved in terms of condition 3, or such other revised contours as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and the surface levels shall be so graded as to ensure the final surface merges smoothly with the adjoining land. 45. Within six months of the completion of sand extraction operations, all buildings and fixed or moveable plant shall be removed from the site and all site access roads shall be removed or reverted back to farm access tracks, unless required for the restoration of the site, or otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority; and all such areas shall be Page 106 of 112
Page 107
subject to the full restoration treatment, as detailed below. Any access roads required for the restoration work shall be retained until the end of the restoration period and then removed or reverted back to farm access tracks. 46. All operations to remove topsoil and subsoil from the storage mounds and to re-spread them shall be carried out when the ground and storage mounds are in a suitable dry condition, as agreed with the Planning Authority. Earth-moving machinery shall travel to and from the soil mounds along clearly defined routes, and these routes shall be ripped before being covered with the next layer of subsoil or topsoil. When the vehicle is emptied after spreading subsoil or topsoil, it must immediately turn off on to overburden or subsoil areas respectively. On sloping land, the direction of travel of machines should, as far as is possible, be parallel to the contours, in order to minimise erosion. All operations following the replacement of topsoil shall be carried out by suitable agricultural machinery. 47. On all areas that are to be restored to agricultural use, after replacement of topsoil, chemical analyses of the soils shall be carried out by an approved agency to assess the fertiliser, lime and other major and minor nutrients required to promote the establishment and growth of appropriate plants for the agreed land use. The land shall then be cultivated using normal agricultural machinery to prepare a seed bed suitable for the sowing of grass seeds, during which process any stones larger than would pass through a wire screen mesh with a size of 100mm shall be removed, together with other obstructions to future cultivation. Lime, fertilisers and other plant nutrients shall be applied in accordance with the recommendations of the approved agency carrying out the soil chemical analyses so that the soil is sufficiently fertile to permit the chosen programme of restoration. The land shall then be sown with a short-term grass seed mixture, based on perennial rye grass and white clove, or such other species as may be approved. 48. The site shall be restored only in accordance with the restoration plans and specifications approved under the terms of condition 3, and restoration works shall not be considered to be completed until all watercourses, ditches, fences, walls, hedges, field accesses trees and other planting have been installed or carried out in accordance with those plans and specifications agreed with the Planning Authority. Reason for conditions 42-48: To ensure that all parts of the site are properly restored to agriculture or other approved after-use. 49. Any trees or shrubs planted as part of the restoration proposals that die, are removed, become seriously diseased or are severely damaged within five years of planting shall be replaced during the next available planting season with others of similar size and species. Page 107 of 112
Page 108
Reason: To ensure that all new planting has an adequate opportunity to become successfully established. 50. At least three months before the completion of the restoration of the application site an aftercare scheme, in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out, as approved or modified by the Authority, for a period of five years from the date when the restoration of the site has been completed in accordance with the terms of condition 49. 51. The aftercare measures to be taken shall be such as to bring the land to the required standard for use for agriculture, to enable the establishment of the woodland planting and for amenity purposed specifically new habitat creation with appropriate footpath access. Reason for conditions 50 & 51: To ensure that all the restored land is properly managed for a sufficient period to ensure its effective establishment to the approved after-use. Monitoring 52. Throughout the duration of this development, the applicants or their successors shall, if and when required to do so by the Planning Authority, submit such information as may be necessary, including any relevant plans, to enable the Authority to determine the progress of the operations. Reason: To ensure effective monitoring of the development. 53. The proposed development of the site shall progress in accordance with the Phasing Plan – Extraction and Restoration, submitted as part of the planning consent. Reason: To ensure the phasing of the extraction and restoration of Areas A, B, and C allow for the appropriate phases development of the site and to ensure the restoration proposals for the three areas are achieved. 54. The developer shall ensure that an approved bond or other financial provision is maintained through the duration of the permission and that the bond provides sufficient funds to cover restoration of the site to the restoration plans approved in terms of condition 3 of this permission. Reason: To ensure that there are sufficient funds available throughout the life of the development to carry out the full restoration of the site. 53. All of the mitigation measures identified in Tables 15.1 to 15.9 of the approved Environmental Statement shall be implemented in full. Page 108 of 112
Page 109
Reason: To ensure the mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Statement are implemented, to minimise possible environmental impacts and to ensure the development is carried out in the manner described in the Statement. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 22 November 2024 Application No: 18/00082/S42 Applicant: Tillicoutry Quarries Agent: Wardell Armstrong LLP Validation Date: 5 February 2018 Contact Person: Graeme King, Planning Officer Email: graeme.king@midlothian.gov.uk Background Papers: 06/00689/FUL, 13/00064/DPP, 16/00816/SCO, 17/00380/SCO, 17/00565/PAC, 18/00082/S42 Attached Plans: Location Plan and Restoration Plan Page 109 of 112
Page 110
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 Area A Application Site (18/0081/DPP) Existing Site (18/00082/S42) Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2024) Extension to existing sand quarry Land south west of Upper Dalhousie Sand Quarry, Rosewell Area B Area C File No. 18/00081/DPP Scale 1:7000Page 110 of 112
Page 111
Iss Drain Drain Issues Drain Drain Sinks Drain DrainDrain Burn Shiel Drain Drain Issues Sinks Issues Sinks Issues 140 140 135 140 110 115 120 120 120 120 120 120 145 135 135 135130 130 130 130 130 130 125 125 125 125 125 125 135 125 125 125 125 115 Upper Dalhousie Parkneuk Existing wall retained Advanced hedgerow planting with trees to screen operations in Area C Advanced gapping-up of existing hedgerow to screen operations in Area C Advanced hedgerow planting with trees to screen operations in Area C Ecological enhancements to create wet woodland Ecological enhancements to water feature, including retention of a sand face for nesting sand martins Existing wall retained Area B Area A Area C Galladean Plantation Dalhousie Burn Plantation W orkings dis W eirs Track Track Young Bog W ood Track Track 0 120 240 metres Copyright Reserved c DRAW N BY CHECKED BY CLIENT PROJECT DRAW ING TITLE A1 ED13814-001 - 1:2,000 17.05.2024 AB SCALE DATE APPROVED BY DRG No. DRG SIZE REV SUIT. CODE Upper Dalhousie Sand Quarry Restoration Masterplan Tillicoultry Quarries N:\ED\ED13814 - DALHOUSIE QUARRY EXTENSION\03 - DESIGN\AUTOCAD\ED13814-001 RESTORATION M ASTERPLAN.DW G Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Maps Ó Crown Copyright All Rights Reserved Licence No. 0100031673 APP'D CHK'D REVISION DETAILS DATE DRAW N KEY Existing quarry W oodland Trees Hedgerows Core Paths Existing features Other Paths Informal paths identified by the local community W oodland Hedgerow trees Hedgerows Species rich grassland field margins Proposed features Agricultural grassland W ater feature Informal path to provide link between existing paths Grassland W etland margins to water feature Proposed extension to quarry W oodland edge/scrub W et woodland Page 111 of 112
Page 112
Page 112 of 112