Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 29/04/2025
Midlothian Council · 29 April 2025
Back to Planning Committee — 29 April 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Notice of Meeting and Agenda Planning Committee Venue: Council Chambers/Hybrid, Midlothian House, Dalkeith, EH22 1DN Date: Tuesday, 29 April 2025 Time: 13:00 Executive Director : Place Contact: Clerk Name: Democratic Services Clerk Telephone: Clerk Email: democratic.services@midlothian.gov.uk Further Information: This is a meeting which is open to members of the public. Privacy notice: Please note that this meeting may be recorded. The recording may be publicly available following the meeting. If you would like to know how Midlothian Council collects, uses and shares your personal information, please visit our website: www.midlothian.gov.uk Page 1 of 157
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 additional Planning Committee of 24 March 2025 submitted for approval 3 - 7 5 Public Reports 5.1 Development Plan Scheme for Midlothian - Number 17 8 - 34 5.2 21.00148.DPP - Land at Former Petrol Filling Station, Hillend Appeal Decision 35 - 87 5.3 25.00142.PAC - Land between Braidlaw Farmhouse and A766, Penicuik - Pre application consultation 88 - 92 5.4 24.00338.DPP - Land 90m southwest of Asda, Loanhead - Report and plans 93 - 119 5.5 24.00598.DPP and 24.00599.LBC - Carrington Mains, Gorebridge - Report and plans 120 - 157 6 Private Reports No items for discussion 7 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 10 June 2025. Page 2 of 157
Page 3
INTERNAL USE ONLY DRAFT BY/DATE: REVIEW BY/DATE: 1-993 INTERNAL USE ONLY Draft by & date: Review by & date: Minute of Meeting Planning Committee Tuesday 29 April 2025 Item No 4.1 Planning Committee Date Time Venue Monday, 24 March 2025 14.00 Council Chambers and MSTeams Meeting Present: Councillor Imrie (Chair) Councillor Bowen Councillor Cassidy Councillor Drummond (Virtual) Councillor McCall (Virtual) Councillor McEwan Councillor McKenzie Councillor McManus Councillor Milligan Councillor Parry Councillor Pottinger (Virtual) Councillor Russell Councillor Scott (Virtual Councillor Virgo (Virtual) Councillor Winchester In attendance: Kevin Anderson, Executive Director Place Derek Oliver, Chief Officer Place Peter Arnsdorf, Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager / Chief Planning Officer William Venters, Principal Solicitor Hannah Forbes, Democratic Services Officer Maria Perez, Democratic Services Officer Nicola Thornburn, Democratic Services Officer Page 3 of 157
Page 4
1. Welcome and Apologies The Chair welcomed everyone to the additional meeting of the Planning Committee. Apologies were received from Councillor Alexander and Councillor Smaill. 2. Order of Business The Order of Business was as outlined in the agenda. 3. Declarations of Interest The Chair invited committee members to declare their interest at this point or during the discussion of the individual items. No declarations of interest were intimated as this stage of the proceedings. 4. Minutes of Previous Meeting No minutes were submitted for approval. 5. Reports and Items for Discussion Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.1 25/00079/DPP Mayfield Primary School Report and Plans Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager / Chief Planning Officer The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager / Chief Planning Officer presented the report for decision. The application is for the demolition of the existing school and the erection of the community campus comprising of primary school, nursery formation of sports pitches, parking and associated works at the site of the Mayfield Primary School. This is an amended scheme from the one presented to the Planning Committee in June 2024. The proposed development will replace the current school and nursery and provide accommodation for up to 701 pupils as well as additional supports, an early learning facilities and community facilities. The community campus will also include a grass seven a-side football pitch, a 3G football pitch, basketball courts as well as landscaping and tree planting. Page 4 of 157
Page 5
The proposed campus includes a two-storey building with single storey ends. Walls are to be finished in red brown brick and sections of bronze coloured profiled aluminium cladding. Windows and doors will be bronze coloured aluminium framed. The development will also include improved vehicular and pedestrian access from Stone Place and access to 43 parking spaces. Access from Stone Avenue will be retained and provide parking for 31 spaces. The proposal is a redevelopment of existing use with no material considerations presented to outweigh the benefits of the development. The proposed building design is compatible with its location a residential area and presents the best access solutions. There have been 2 representations received and 5 consultation responses. The recommendation of the report is that the Planning Committee grant planning permission subject to conditions specified in the report. The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager / Chief Planning Officer for the report and opened the report for discussion. Elected Members welcomed the application to replace the ageing school with a new, larger development, noting that as new housing is built it is necessary to provide schools. There were no oppositions raised by any member of the Planning Committee, who noted that this school has the support of the local community council. Councillor McKenzie moved to approve the proposed application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Scott. Decision The Planning Committee moved to grant planning permission to the Mayfield Primary School Campus subject to the conditions stated in the report. Report No. Report Title Presented by: 5.2 24/00415/DPP Beeslack High School Report and Plans Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager / Chief Planning Officer The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager presented the report for decision. The application is for the erection high school and Additional Support Needs facility, community facilities, swimming pool and veterinary clinic, sports pitches, car parking and associated works. The development contains 3 main buildings west of Seafield Moor Road. The main building will be a sport and teaching two storey block, another one-storey school block and a one-story veterinary clinic, all built in brick with metal Page 5 of 157
Page 6
cladding. The sports field area comprises two rugby pitches and a football pitch. The site is between a housing area and Midlothian Science Zone. The site has two separate vehicular accesses on Seafield Moor Road and Bush Farm Road. There will be 213 parking spaces for the school campus, as well as coach parking, and 42 spaces for the veterinary clinic. While development does not fully fall within stated allocations, the veterinary clinic can be considered as an appropriate use for the Midlothian Science Zone. The use is compatible with its location near a residential area and the location near the edge of the Midlothian Science Zone can offer potential for education links. There has been one representation received and 14 consultation responses. The recommendation of the report is to grant planning permission subject to the conditions specified in the report. The Chair thanked the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Development Manager for the report and opened it for discussion. The Elected Members expressed their delight to see the school project coming along, noting that it had been a long process but that it will be a welcome development for the community. A query was made in terms of the unisex toilets in the plan, and reassurance was sought that there are also designated male and female toilet elsewhere, as well as individual cubicles and accessible toilets. It was confirmed this is the case. A further discussion ensued concerning recent flooding events in Bilston and Roslin and Elected Members queried if there had been research into how many flooding events had been reported in the area in the past 10 years. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager responded that he did not have a figure, but it is understood that the flooding was one in a 200-year event. However, this flooding event influenced the layout of the development, as if this was to recur it is likely that it is only the pitches that would be affected rather than the buildings. Elected Members noted the traffic assessment included in the report, that notes the turning of the A701 into the A703 at the lights will operate to capacity. However, concerns were raised about the Penicuik traffic turning into Seafield Moor Road and if this was likely to cause a bottleneck at busy times. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager / Chief Planning Officer stated Traffic Scotland has been consulted for the completion of the report, and the arrangements proposed have been considered acceptable, particularly given that there is scope for the traffic lights at Seafield Moor Road to be adjusted. While the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager admitted he has not got firsthand experience of traffic trends at this junction he reassured the Elected Members that the application has been through the appropriate stages of consultation internally and through Traffic Scotland and no concerns were raised. Council Officers will keep this matter under review and if any problems arise, they will be addressed. Page 6 of 157
Page 7
Elected Members sought clarification on the matter of the veterinary clinic, asking whether Midlothian Council will fund the building and fitting of the building or if this will be the responsibility of the University of Edinburgh. The Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager noted that this is not a material consideration for the purposes of the application and can be determined once planning permission is granted. Councillor Parry moved to approve the proposed application and grant planning permission. The motion was seconded by Councillor Cassidy. The Planning Committee moved to grant planning permission subject to the conditions specified in the report. Decision The Planning Committee moved to grant planning permission to the Beeslack High School subject to the conditions stated in the report. 6. Private Reports No private items were submitted for discussion 7. Date of next meeting The next meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on Tuesday 29 April 2025. The meeting concluded at 14.15. Page 7 of 157
Page 8
Planning Committee Tuesday 29 April 2025 Item No 5.1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME FOR MIDLOTHIAN – NUMBER 17 Report By Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report seeks approval for the Development Plan Scheme for Midlothian No. 17 (DPS17). 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Preparation of the Development Plan Scheme (DPS) is a statutory requirement. Each year local planning authorities are required to prepare, publish and submit a DPS to Scottish Ministers setting out their intentions with respect to reviewing the local development plan for their area over the coming 12 months. 3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME FOR MIDLOTHIAN 3.1 The DPS contains the programme for the production of Midlothian Local Development Plan no. 2 (MLDP2) and a Participation Statement indicating the nature, extent and timing of public consultation that will be undertaken as part of its (MLDP2’s) production. 3.2 A requirement of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 is to carry out formal consultation on Participation Statements. Accordingly, a targeted public engagement exercise was carried out in February and March 2025 on a draft DPS17 and its Participation Statement. All Midlothian community councils and persons and organisations who have already registered an interest in MLDP2 were sent a consultation draft of DPS17. The draft DPS17 was also on the Council’s website and available in all Midlothian Council libraries. The engagement questions set out at the end of DPS17 will remain open throughout the calendar 2025 year. Any further comments received can be considered as part of the preparation of DPS18 in 2026. 3.3 The comments received, and the proposed responses in respect of each comment are set out in Appendix A of this report. A total of seven individuals and organisations (including the Midlothian Federation of Community Councils and Homes for Scotland) responded during the engagement. Twelve individuals responded during the past year on the approved DPS16. The majority of the Page 8 of 157
Page 9
comments received do not directly relate to the DPS, but to the wider MLDP2, its production and engagement in its production. 3.4 If Committee approves DPS17, the Council is required to publish it on its website, place a copy in Midlothian Council libraries and send it to Scottish Ministers (for their information only, not for approval). 3.5 Key elements of the DPS17 programme and Participation Statement include: • a revised timetable which reflects additional time taken to commence initial work on the formulation of the MLDP2 Proposed Plan following the July-October 2024 Call for Ideas exercise for MLDP2; • important future engagement opportunities: engagement during the preparation of the MLDP2 Proposed Plan during 2025 and a formal 12 week period (November 2025 - January 2026) to make representations on MLDP2 Proposed Plan when it is programmed for publication in November 2025; and • the timetabled adoption of MLDP2 prior to the May 2027 local government elections. 3.6 The system of development planning introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 envisages local development plans being updated every 10 years and that they are adopted within five years of approval of National Planning Framework no. 4 (NPF4) by Scottish Government. NPF4 was approved by Scottish Ministers in February 2023 and therefore MLDP2 should be adopted no later than February 2028. 3.7 A copy of DPS17 as recommended for approval by the Committee is attached to this report as Appendix B. 4 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 It is recommended that the Committee: (a) approves the Development Plan Scheme for Midlothian number 17 (appended of this report); (b) instructs the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager to arrange for publication of the Development Plan Scheme for Midlothian number 17 on the Council’s website, have copies placed in all Midlothian public libraries and have a copy submitted to Scottish Ministers for their information; (c) authorises the Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager to make any necessary non-material changes to documents prior to publishing. Page 9 of 157
Page 10
Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 18 April 2025 Contact Person: Colin Davidson, Planning Policy Officer colin.davidson2@midlothian.gov.uk Background Papers: a. Appendix A - Engagement Summary; and b. Appendix B - The Development Plan Scheme for Midlothian number 17. Page 10 of 157
Page 11
29 April 2025 Planning Committee: Development Plan Scheme for Midlothian - Number 17 Consultation Responses Received on the Draft Development Plan Scheme for Midlothian Number 17 (DPS17) Engagement Summary – Based on the structure of the consultation questions asked. Seven individuals and organisations responded to the consultation, raising multiple points which are summarised below. In addition, 12 other respondents made comments throughout the past year on the approved DPS16. Comment Source Comment Summary Midlothian Council Proposed Response / Action Question 1: Do you have any views on our proposed timetable for Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 (MLDP2)? Two members of the public State the MLDP2 production timetable appears realistic. No Change to Document. Comment noted. Midlothian Federation of Community Councils Express disappointment that they have received no information or progress information on preparation of the MLDP2 Proposed Plan, and in particular information on the sites received through the Call for Ideas exercise (undertaken July-October 2024). Highlights that five months of the November 2024-September 2025 period for producing MLDP2 Proposed Plan has passed and indicate this time could have been used for Community Councils to provide comments on possible development sites. State Community councils are finding out about development sites from developers. No Change to Document. Comments noted. As previously intimated, the Council will be engaging with the Community Councils after elected Midlothian Council Councillors have been informed of the content of the Call for Ideas exercise. Appendix A Page 11 of 157
Page 12
Comment Source Comment Summary Midlothian Council Proposed Response / Action Midlothian Federation of Community Councils Considers the timetable for consultation on the Proposed Plan (November 2025-Janaury 2026) allows insufficient time for Community Councils to review and comment on the document, and that this is exacerbated by the consultation period falling over the Christmas period. . No Change to Document. The Council considers that the timetable for consultation is reasonable and follows Scottish Government guidance on development planning. Midlothian Federation of Community Councils Notes the delay in the timetable for adoption of MLDP2 but is of the opinion that this should not increase the number of additional units that need to be allocated. No Change to Document. Comment noted. At the date of adoption MLDP2 will need to identify land for the Local Housing Land Requirement (LHLR) of 8,851 homes and MLDP2 will cover the 10 year period after its adoption. Member of the public Considers that there is limited time remaining between now and September when engagement is scheduled to take place. Considers that limited time window to carry out engagement across Midlothian. States the summer holiday period will have an effect on what engagement can be undertaken. No Change to Document. Comment noted. The Council considers the timetable is achievable and allows sufficient time to carry out engagement. Member of the public The period for representations on MLDP2 Proposed Plan is from November 2025 to January 2025, covering the Christmas holiday period. This limits the available for engagement/representations. No Change to Document. Comment noted. The twelve-week period to make representations on the plan is in accordance with the Scottish Government Circular on Development Plans. The Council will publicise the Proposed Plan in accordance Page 12 of 157
Page 13
Comment Source Comment Summary Midlothian Council Proposed Response / Action with its Participation Statement. This period is primarily for interested parties to read the plan and make representations. Homes for Scotland Considers it positive targeting an adoption date in advance of the Scottish Government 2028 target for adoption new local development plans following the approval of Scottish Government National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). However, state a Green Belt review should be carried out prior to the site selection process. No Change to Document. Comment noted. The Council considers that the timetable allows sufficient time to undertake a Green Belt review. Member of the public Requests the MLDP2 timetable in DPS17 to reference proposals they have submitted in connection with the Call for Ideas No Change to Document. Comment noted. The Council does not consider that the DPS17 timetable should make reference to specific development proposals. Question 2: Do you have any views on our proposed Participation Statement and engagement activities? Member of the public There should be opportunities for engagement and dialogue with communities at each of the stages of the timetable. No Change to Document. Comment noted. The Council considers that that the Participation Statement contains the correct and appropriate opportunities for engagement and dialogue. Midlothian Federation of Community Councils Request, even in summary form, information received through the Call for Ideas exercise be provided to Community Councils so that they can feed back to Midlothian Council elected Councillors. No Change to Document. Comment noted. As with the response to the point made on Call for Ideas material on Question 1 above, the Council will be engaging Page 13 of 157
Page 14
4 Comment Source Comment Summary Midlothian Council Proposed Response / Action with the Community Councils after elected Midlothian Council Councillors have been informed of the content of the Call for Ideas exercise. Midlothian Federation of Community Councils Wishes the plan to be explicit in its assurance that local place plans (LPPs) must be taken into account in preparing MLDP2. Change Document DPS17 explains the status of LPPs and that they must be taken into account I the preparation of local development plans. Further text has been added on this in DPS17. Homes for Scotland Wish further consultation/engagement be undertaken with the house building industry, specifically regarding the detail of promoted sites prior to finalising MLDP2 Proposed Plan. No Change to Document. Comment noted. The Council is assessing responses submitted to the Call for Ideas. The Council will contact people/bodies where it considers more information is needed. Homes for Scotland Referring to the Scottish Government Reporter’s statements in the Gate Check assessment report, wishes the Council to meet with Homes for Scotland to better understand market demand and whether more private market housing is required to meet demand. No Change to Document. The offer is noted and will be considered during MLDP2 Proposed Plan preparation. Member of the public Requests community engagement events be held at Loanhead Leisure Centre Lego Room, including at daytime hours, night-time and Saturday mornings. No Change to Document. Comment noted for consideration in arranging organisation of engagement events. Member of the public Expresses wish to participate in engagement activities. No Change to Document. Page 14 of 157
Page 15
Comment Source Comment Summary Midlothian Council Proposed Response / Action Comment noted. Question 3: Do you have any other views on draft Development Plan Scheme 17? Member of the public Requests early dissemination of identified site did not have an opportunity to s and locations for development (reference made to the localities of Loanhead, Straiton, Damhead, Bilston and Roslin. No Change to Document. Comment noted. The matter will be considered further after elected Midlothian Council Member workshops. Midlothian Federation of Community Councils Considers it lamentable that the Midlothian Federation of Community Councils were not, unlike developers, given the opportunity to comment on the site selection methodology (MC080) for the Evidence Report Gate Check. Provide comment on what should be built into the process to inform selection of future development sites in Midlothian. No Change to Document. Comments noted. Midlothian Federation of Community Councils Provides comments about the quantity of additional land that needs to be allocated and the different approaches to meeting this requirement. No Change to Document. Comments noted, but not directly relevant to the DPS17 document. Midlothian Federation of Community Councils Express concern that sites allocated in MLDP2 may be delayed by developers from being developed in favour of sites, if they are identified, in MLDP3. No Change to Document. Comments noted, but not directly relevant to the DPS17 document. Considerations on long- term growth is a matter to be set out in MLDP2. Homes for Scotland Requests that previous DPS’ are provided on the Council’s website in order that stakeholders can annual amendments to development plan production. No Change to Document. Comments noted. Consideration will be given to how this might be achieved and previous versions placed on the Council website. Under Page 15 of 157
Page 16
Comment Source Comment Summary Midlothian Council Proposed Response / Action new regulations changes to the development plan production timescales need to be explained in the DPS. Homes for Scotland Considers that the 8,851 Local Housing Land Requirement (LHLR) is an indicative figure only and should be referred to as such. States the LHLR is required to form part of the local development plan and not the Evidence Report. No Change to Document. Comments noted. The LHLR for MLDP2 has been established through the Evidence Report and the Gate Check process. This reflects the Council’s position on the LHLR and the outcome of the Reporter’s assessment through the Gate Check. Member of the public Considers there should be feedback to respondents explaining how their ideas have been incorporated into the plan and if not, an explanation given as to why their ideas were not incorporated. No Change to Document. Comments noted. When the MLDP2 Proposed Plan is published the Council will consider every representation and it will set its response to each. Member of the public Makes reference to Lasswade disabled club and wishes engagement with disabled clubs on what is happening with MLDP2. Change to Document. Comments noted. The Council has acknowledged in the Evidence Report that it needs to get better engagement with people with disabilities. Midlothian Council has engaged with the main representative disabled group (Forward Mid) in Page 16 of 157
Page 17
Comment Source Comment Summary Midlothian Council Proposed Response / Action preparing the Evidence Report. The Participation Statement reflects the Council’s intention to notify disabled people of the Publication of the Proposed Plan. Engagement with disabled people would also be valuable in preparing the LDP. A text change indicating that the Council will seek to engage with disabled representative bodies at this stage has been added to the DPS. Aside from changes to the Participation Statement, the Council will seek to follow up these contacts to further engagement with this community. Member of the public Requests the Council use Black Diamond FM to publicise MLDP2. No Change to Document. Comments noted. The Council may use Black Diamond FM, as it has in past engagement, but does not consider that a commitment to use a named radio station should be made in the DPS. Member of the public Requests introducing a sign language version of the engagement information for the Plan. No Change to Document. Comments noted. The Council cannot commit to release its planning documents in sign language form. Page 17 of 157
Page 18
Comment Source Comment Summary Midlothian Council Proposed Response / Action Member of the public Seeks assurances that both primary and secondary school age children are engaged with. No Change to Document. Comments noted. Both of these groups were engaged in the preparation of the Evidence Report. The Council expects to maintain this contact for future stages of plan preparation. Member of the public Wishes a Child Rights Impact Assessment to be held as part of the process. No Change to Document. Comments noted. An Integrated Assessment (which combines Equalities Impact Assessment, the Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment and Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment) will be carried out for MLDP2. Children and young people will be considered as part of this. The Council does not propose to carry out a further Child Rights Assessment. Scottish Coalmining Preservation Society Respondent wishes their proposals to be shared/ publicised, including in DPS17 No Change to Document. Comments noted. Sites and issues promoted to the council will not be published in the DPS. Making information submitted during the Call for Ideas exercise will be considered. Other points raised not directly related to DPS17 Member of the public Concern over ability of residents (particularly in rural areas) to access services due to poor public transport and broadband. Sport and leisure services are very difficult for some residents to access. No Change to Document. Comments noted. These are matters for consideration in the production of MLDP2 Proposed Plan. Page 18 of 157
Page 19
Comment Source Comment Summary Midlothian Council Proposed Response / Action Member of the public Wishes efforts to bring Edinburgh Festival into Midlothian, closer links to Brunton Theatre, establishment of local Web TV service, bus to take disabled people to activities. No Change to Document. Comments noted. These are not DPS17 matters but Economic Development colleagues will be informed. Member of the public In the context of growth of Rosewell, wishes the next MLDP to consider bus links to Roswell, including more direct, faster services. No Change to Document. Comments noted. These are not DPS17 matters but Transport colleagues will be informed. Member of the public States a need to stop building houses and concentrate on building better infrastructure first. No Change to Document. Comments noted. These are not DPS17 matters and are for MLDP2. Member of the public Considers that plans do not give enough thought to woods, rivers, open green areas. Density of development does not account for step slopes and leads to overdevelopment. No Change to Document. Comments noted. These are not DPS17 matters and are for MLDP2. Member of the public States support for new hotel development in Midlothian No Change to Document. Comments noted. These are not DPS17 matters and are for MLDP2. Member of the public States support for multiple railway re-openings, including Penicuik and Leadburn-Carstairs. No Change to Document. Comments noted. These are not DPS17 matters and are for MLDP2. Member of the public States support for disabled taxi card scheme. No Change to Document. Comments noted. These are not DPS17 matters. Page 19 of 157
Page 20
Development Plan Scheme 17 April 2025 Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 Appendix B Page 20 of 157
Page 21
Contents The styling of this document is based on the Scottish Government’s National Planning Framework 4. It is available here and was published under this licence. Contents What is a Development Plan Scheme? ............................................................................................. 1 What is the Midlothian Development Plan? ....................................................................................... 1 Changes in Timetable Since DPS16 ................................................................................................. 1 Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 Timetable ............................................................................... 3 What is involved at each stage of plan preparation?.......................................................................... 5 What has happened with MLDP2 over the last year? ........................................................................ 5 Programme for Impact Accessments to Support Preparation of MLDP2 ............................................ 6 Local Place Plans ............................................................................................................................ 7 Participation Statement.................................................................................................................... 8 Have Your Say .............................................................................................................................. 11 Contact Us .................................................................................................................................... 12 Page 21 of 157
Page 22
Page 1 Development Plan Scheme 17 Draft What is a Development Plan Scheme? 1. This is the Development Plan Scheme Number 17 (DPS17) for Midlothian. The DPS sets out Midlothian Council’s programme for preparing the next Midlothian Local Development Plan (MLDP2) to replace the current Midlothian Local Development Plan adopted in 2017. The DPS also includes a Participation Statement, which outlines future engagement on MLDP2. 2. The DPS was subject to consultation between February 14 and March 14. The Council is interested in receiving further comments and views on DPS17, particularly the Participation Statement and its planned engagement activities. See the 'HAVE YOUR SAY' section on page 10 for further information on how to get involved. Midlothian Council will review comments received and will use these to inform preparation of DPS18 in Spring 2026. Further Comments on DPS17 should be submitted to the Council by the end of 31 December 2025.. What is the Midlothian Development Plan? 3. The approved development plan for Midlothian is the National Planning Framework for Scotland 4 (NPF4) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP 2017). Copies of MLDP 2017 can also be viewed at any Midlothian Library. Development Plans allocate land for development, contain policies for assessing applications for planning permission and guide the future development of an area. 4. Approved Supplementary Guidance forms part of the Local Development Plan and is available to view here. Midlothian Council does not intend bringing forward further Supplementary Guidance to help inform implementation of MLDP 2017. The Council will reflect on how the existing guidance will be taken forward through MLDP2. Changes in Timetable Since DPS16 5. The Evidence Report was submitted as programmed in DPS16 July 2024, and passed Gate Check in September 2024. The Call for Ideas was also carried out as timetabled, and completed in October 2024. The level of participation in the Call for Ideas was very high, reflecting the level of interest from stakeholders in MLDP2. 6. The publication date for the MLDP2 Proposed Plan for public consultation is now programmed for November 2025, as opposed to July 2025 identified in DPS16. This has been done to allow further time to consider the outcome of the Evidence Report Gate Check and material received during the Call for Ideas exercise. This causes the submission of the Proposed Plan (and modification report, if required) to Scottish Ministers for Examination to be delayed until October 2026. This timescale for submission of the Proposed Plan to Scottish Ministers for Examination has been partially set to help provide for additional time to consider consultation responses on the Proposed Plan. If no or only very limited modifications are required, it may be possible to accelerate this part of the timetable for Page 22 of 157
Page 23
Page 2 Development Plan Scheme 17 Draft submission of the Proposed Plan to Scottish Ministers for Examination. The programme is to adopt MLDP2 by May 2027, before the local government elections. This extended time to prepare the Proposed Plan for publication results in the delated adoption of MLDP2, from the end of 2026 as set out in DPS16 to May 2027. Page 23 of 157
Page 24
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 3 Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 Timetable National Planning Framework 4 Approved by Scottish Parliament February 2023 MLDP2 – Evidence Report Submitted to Scottish Ministers July 2024 (Quarter 2 2024/2025) MLDP2 Evidence Report Gate Check Passed September 2024 (Quarter 2 2024/2025) Call for Ideas Carried out July – October 2024 (Quarters 2 and 3 2024/2025) Local Place Plans Interim Regional Spatial Strategy Preparation of Proposed Plan (including engagement) November 2024 – September 2025 (Quarter 3 2024/25 – Quarter 2 2025/26) Proposed MLDP2 published for consultation 12-week period to make representations November 2025– January 2026 (Quarters 3 and 4 2025/2026) Page 24 of 157
Page 25
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 4 Assessment of representations and preparation of modifications if necessary February 2026 - September 2026 (Q4 2025/2026 to Q2 2026/2027) Proposed Plan submitted to Scottish Ministers (including Modification Report if necessary) October 2026 (Quarter 3 2026/2027) Examination by Scottish Ministers October 2026 to March 2027 (Quarters 3 and 4 2026/2027) Report of Examination received March 2027 (Quarter 4 2026/2027) Midlothian Local Development Plan 2 Adopted May 2027 pre Local Government Elections (Quarter 1 2027/2028) Page 25 of 157
Page 26
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 5 What is involved at each stage of plan preparation? 7. Proposed Plan Preparation: The Proposed Plan will include a development strategy, planning policies, and identify allocations of land for development. It will differ in content and style from the adopted MLDP 2017. Reforms to the Planning system mean that MLDP2 should not replicate policies in NPF4 and focus more on local circumstances where appropriate. Supplementary Guidance can no longer be produced. Therefore, decisions will be required on what goes in MLDP2 itself, and what might go into planning guidance, which unlike Supplementary Guidance, will be non-statutory. MLDP2 will be a more visual and map-based document and contain greater information on what is likely to happen at particular sites and localities. 8. To prepare the Proposed Plan, information from the Evidence Report, Local Place Plans and the Call for Ideas will be used. The Council will use these to develop a spatial strategy and set out some key policy approaches. There will be further engagement on the spatial strategy and other emerging elements of the Proposed Plan, in advance of its publication for representations. This is detailed further in the Participation Statement. 9. Proposed Plan Publication: Approval will be sought from the full Council, to publish the Proposed Plan and to commence a 12-week public consultation period to lodge representations. This is identified in the timetable of this DPS. The Council will undertake wide publicity for this publication as well as notifying persons who have indicated an interest in MLDP2. 10.Potential Modification of Proposed Plan: On consideration of received representations, the Council may decide that there is a case for modifying the Proposed Plan. In this case a Modification Report will be prepared setting out modifications made and the reasons for making them. 11.Submission of Proposed Plan to Scottish Ministers: Where there are representations not resolved, the Council will request that the Ministers appoint a person to examine the Proposed Plan and these unresolved representations. 12.Examination: The Examination is the opportunity for independent consideration (by An appointed Scottish Government appointed DPEA (Planning and Environmental Appeals Division) Reporter) of any issues raised during the formal consultation on the Proposed Plan that have not been resolved through modifications. The format of the Examination is unknown. It may vary to that which was in place for MLDP 2017, which included a hearing session on one topic, with other matters considered through written submissions. As well as considering the contents of the Proposed Plan, the Reporter(s) will consider whether the requirements of the Participation Statement have been met. 13.Adoption of MLDP2: On receiving the Examination Report, the planning authority are to make modifications to the Proposed Plan as recommended by the appointed Scottish Government Reporter. There are limited grounds for declining to make a modification. A report on the modifications will be prepared and advertised, and Scottish Ministers informed. The plan will be adopted through report to a full Council meeting. What has happened with MLDP2 over the last year? 14.The Evidence Report has passed the Gate Check. This means that the DPEA has concluded that Midlothian Council has a sound evidence base to prepare MLDP2, and that the Local Housing Land Requirement of 8,851 homes for MLDP2 is appropriate. A Call for Ideas was carried out in Summer Page 26 of 157
Page 27
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 6 2024, which generated nearly 180 site specific proposals as well as other policy ideas. In June 2024 the Council has also validated and registered eight local place plans, prepared by local communities. Midlothian Council assisted bodies in their production of the local place plans (LPPs). This assistance was by way of provision of an LPP ‘starter pack’ setting out information on LPPs, answering queries and requests, and attending meetings with community bodies on LPPs. 15.Midlothian Council has maintained a list of individuals seeking self-build housing. This is housing where a person commissions or is personally involved in the design and construction of a dwelling that is intended to be the individual’s main residence. The Self-Build Housing Register may be found the Council’s website and accessed through the following link. https://www.midlothian.gov.uk/info/205/planning_policy/775/self-build_housing_register Programme for Impact Assessments to Support Preparation of MLDP2 16.A number of different assessments must be undertaken to support the preparation of MLDP2. These are: • Strategic Environmental Assessment. • Habitats Regulations Appraisal. • Equalities Impact Assessment. • Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment; and • Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment. 17.The Strategic Environmental Assessment (or SEA) of MLDP2 will look at policies or programmes and will seek to identify whether or not the policy or programme is likely to have significant environmental effects. The aim of the SEA process is to help avoid significant negative effects and maximise beneficial effects of the MLDP2. 18.A SEA scoping report and baseline environmental information accompanied the Evidence Report. The Scoping Report was prepared in conjunction with the relevant Statutory Authorities, the SEA Gateway (SEPA, NatureScot and Historic Environment Scotland). 19.An Environmental Report (ER) will be prepared at MLDP2 Proposed Plan stage to review the policies and allocations of the Proposed Plan (including an assessment of reasonable alternatives to any proposed policies and allocations in the Proposed Plan). The ER will be published alongside the Proposed Plan for consultation. If the Council decide to make modifications to the Proposed Plan, the ER will be reviewed to assess the impact of the changes on the environment. The ER will be submitted to the DPEA alongside other relevant documents for any Examination into unresolved objections to the Proposed Plan. If modifications to the Proposed Plan are required, the ER will be revised. Work has commenced on site assessment, and the information recorded will also inform the SEA process. 20.A Habitats Regulations Assessment will be carried out at Proposed Plan stage once any development site allocations and policies are identified. This will involve screening to determine whether the Proposed Plan is likely to have significant effects on the defined habitat sites (i.e. identified protected European nature conservation sites). Where the potential for such effects cannot be excluded, an appropriate assessment of the implications will be carried out. This assessment will be revised if required depending on the nature of any modifications made to the plan. Page 27 of 157
Page 28
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 7 21.The Equalities Impact Assessment, Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment and Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment will be considered by Midlothian Council under an approach known as Integrated Impact Assessment. 22.Scoping for the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) took place at Evidence Report stage. The assessment will be undertaken at the MLDP2 Proposed Plan stage when policies and allocations are known. The IIA will be revised to take into account any changes resulting from modifications to the Proposed Plan before and after the Examination of the Proposed Plan. Local Place Plans 23.Local Place Plans are community-led plans setting out proposals for the development and use of land. Once completed and then registered by the planning authority, they are to be taken into account in the preparation of the relevant local development plan. In June 2024 Midlothian Council registered eight LPPs. They are all from Midlothian community councils and are listed below: • Bonnyrigg and District Community Council • Damhead and District Community Council • Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council • Gorebridge Community Council • Mayfield and Easthouses Community Council • Newtongrange Community Council • Rosewell and District Community Council • Roslin and Bilston Community Council 24.The LPPs were helpful for informing production of the Evidence Report, and must be, as indicatd above, taken into account when preparing the LDP. Two further draft LPPs were received (from Penicuik and District and Loanhead and District Community Councils). In addition, Tynewater and Moorfoot Community Councils carried out community engagement on the matter. The Council will seek to ensure that communities that do not have an LPP are fully engaged in the process. Page 28 of 157
Page 29
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 8 Participation Statement 25.A Participation Statement sets out how, when and with whom the Council will consult and engage on when preparing its local development plan. Prior to adoption of MLDP2, at the Examination stage of plan production, Reporters from the Scottish Government’s DPEA (Planning and Environmental Appeals Division), appointed by Scottish Ministers, will review the Council's engagement activities to see that they match what the Council said it would do in the Participation Statement. 26.Engagement is at its most effective at the early stages of plan preparation. Within the framework of the new planning system, the Council will seek to maintain open channels of communication so that a wide range of ideas on policy can be exchanged in advance of publication of the Proposed Plan. Interested parties are and will continue to be encouraged to register an interest with the Council so they can be updated as the plan is developed. 27.As DPS17 was being prepared, the Council was assessing responses received in the Call for Ideas. The next steps of MLDP2 preparation and how engagement will occur are listed below and further details are provided in the table. • Engagement for preparation of Proposed Plan. • Publication of Proposed Plan. • Modification of Proposed Plan (if required). • Examination into unresolved objections (if required); and • Adoption of MLDP2 by Midlothian Council. Page 29 of 157
Page 30
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 9 Table 1 Activity What engagement activities do we plan? Timescale Engagement for preparation of Proposed Plan Using the Evidence Report, Local Place Plans and information from the Call for Ideas, the Planning Service will prepare a spatial strategy and other early outlines of its Proposed Plan. This may also include reasonable alternatives as the content of the plan will still be emerging at this stage. Notification of the engagement activities will be sent to registered interested parties. Engagement will occur with Children and Young People. The Planning Service will notify schools, youth councils and youth parliament representatives and seek access to schools, colleges and youth clubs to discuss the emerging proposals in the Proposed Plan. The Council will seek to engage with disabled representative bodies. The Planning Service will hold engagement events in the main communities in Midlothian. The Planning Service will seek to engage with identified communities of interest (for example the business community) and those identified in Planning legislation. The Planning Service will seek to engage with Midlothian Community Councils on the emerging Proposed Plan. November 2024 to September 2025 (Quarter 3 2024/2025 – Quarter 2 2025/2026) Publication of Proposed Plan This will be a minimum 12-week period in which to lodge formal representations on the published Proposed Plan. This will be an opportunity to respond formally to the content of the Proposed Plan and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report. The Proposed Plan will be published on the Council’s website, placed in Council libraries, the Council’s main office, and publicised through Council social media channels. An advertisement will be placed in the local paper, the Midlothian Advertiser. Notification will be sent to registered interested parties, all Midlothian Community Councils and to Scottish Government identified Key Agencies, Scottish Ministers, November 2025 to January 2026 (Quarters 3 and Quarter 4 2025/26) Page 30 of 157
Page 31
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 10 adjoining planning authorities to the plan area, and the Green Action Trust. The Planning Service will notify neighbours that may be significantly affected by development allocation proposals. The Planning Service will notify children and young people and representative organisations. The Planning Service will also seek to notify further and higher education establishments, parents and carers, and families with young children; disabled persons; and Gypsies & Travellers. Modification of Proposed Plan (if required) Following the 12-week consultation period on the Proposed Plan, the Planning Service may modify the plan. This would be done through a Modification Report. There may be some degree of direct liaison with respondents to identify satisfactory changes and modifications that could be made to resolve their objections to the Proposed Plan. The Council will consider the degree of further engagement required depending on the scale of any modifications. If modifications are made, a Modification Report will be published setting out the modifications and the reasons for making them. There is no opportunity for engagement or comment on the Modification Report once it is produced. February 2026 to September 2026 (Quarter 4 2025/2026 to Quarter 2 2026/2027) Examination into unresolved objections to Proposed Plan The form of the Examination will be led by the appointed DPEA Reporter(s) but may include a hearing session. The Planning Service will advertise the Examination in a local newspaper, the Midlothian Advertiser, in Council libraries, and notification will be sent to registered interested parties who made representations to the Proposed Plan. The Reporter will publish an Examination Report, including recommendations for modifications to the proposed Local Development Plan (the Proposed Plan). This will inform those who have made representations of how these have been addressed at Examination and about the recommended further modifications to the Proposed Plan. October 2026 to March 2027 (Quarters 3 and 4 2026/2027) Page 31 of 157
Page 32
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 11 A Modification Report will be issued by the Council to inform communities and interested parties of the modifications made in response to representations made on the Proposed Plan, or a Direction from Scottish Ministers on the content of the Proposed Plan. The Council has considered the potential role of mediation, as required by Development Planning Guidance and Circular 2/2021. Midlothian Council is unlikely to use mediation due to the challenging timescales for preparation of MLDP2. There is potential for the Council to make modifications in response to comments received on the Proposed Plan before submitting the plan to Scottish Ministers, and the Examination offers an independent process for the resolution of disputes. Adoption of MLDP2 The Planning Service will publish MLDP2 and associated documents, and place them on the Council’s website, at libraries and at the Council’s main office. It will be publicised through all Council social media channels and through an advertisement in the local paper, the Midlothian Advertiser. May 2027 pre Local Government Elections (Quarter 1 2027/2028) Have Your Say 28. Midlothian Council wishes to receive your comments and views on DPS17. A. Do you have any views on the timetable for MLDP2? B. Do you have any views on the Participation Statement and engagement activities? C. Do you have any other views on Development Plan Scheme 17? Comments submitted to the Council by the end of 31 December 2025 will be considered by the Council before preparation of the next DPS (number 18) in Spring 2026. This can be done: Online by completing our survey INSERT LINK By email to ldp@midlothian.gov.uk Or by writing to Midlothian Council, Planning Sustainable Growth and Investment Service, Fairfield House, 8 Lothian Road, Dalkeith, EH22 3AA. Page 32 of 157
Page 33
Midlothian Development Plan Scheme 17 Page 12 Contact Us 29.If you have any questions about the Local Development Plan or this Development Plan Scheme, please get in touch. by email to ldp@midlothian.gov.uk or by writing to Midlothian Council, Planning Sustainable Growth and Investment Service, Fairfield House, 8 Lothian Road, Dalkeith, EH22 3AA. Please provide us with an email contact address if you wish to be informed of future events and progress with Midlothian Local Development Plan 2. Page 33 of 157
Page 34
Page 34 of 157
Page 35
Planning Committee Tuesday 29 April 2025 Item No 5.2 SCOTTISH MINISTERS CALL-IN DECISION WITH REGARD A PLANNING APPLICATION 21/00148/PPP FOR THE ERECTION OF NINE TERRACED COTTAGES, FORMATION OF CAR PARKING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT THE FORMER PETROL FILLING STATION, BIGGAR ROAD, HILLEND, DAMHEAD Report by Chief Officer Place 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee of a Scottish Ministers call-in decision with regard a planning application (21/00148/PPP) for the erection of nine dwellinghouses; formation of car parking and associated works at land at the former petrol filling station, Biggar Road, Hillend, Damhead. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Planning application 21/00148/DPP was refused planning permission for the following reasons: 1. It has not been demonstrated that the dwellings are required for the furtherance of an established Green Belt activity. No alternative acceptable justification has been provided for the proposed development in the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV1 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and the adopted Supplementary Guidance: Housing Development in the Countryside and Green Belt. 2. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority or Transport Scotland that the development proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact upon pedestrian and road safety at this busy trunk road. In addition, the proposal includes an inadequate off-street parking spaces, contrary to Midlothian Council's Parking Standards, which will result in a significant adverse impact on road safety. There are road safety concerns which are a material consideration that warrant refusal of the application. 3. The design of the dwellings are not of sufficient good quality for this sensitive area, being neither of a traditional design nor of a Page 35 of 157
Page 36
high quality contemporary design. The siting, scale, density and design of the development fails to adequately reflect the surrounding characteristics of the area and fails to complement or enhance the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV1 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and the adopted Supplementary Guidance: Housing Development in the Countryside and Green Belt. 4. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the proposed dwellings will be afforded an adequate level of residential amenity and therefore does not comply with policy DEV6 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 5. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the surface water drainage from the development proposal will adequately be addressed. 2.2 The decision notice was issued on 6 August 2021. In response the applicant exercised their right of appeal and submitted a notice of review which was considered by Midlothian Council’s Local Review Body (LRB) at its meeting of December 2021. The LRB determined to uphold the review and grant planning permission subject to notifying Scottish Ministers (because of an objection from Transport Scotland); the prior signing and registration of a planning obligation to secure developer contributions; and conditions. 2.3 The planning application was subject to an objection from Transport Scotland as a statutory consultee. Under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009, applications where a planning authority proposes to grant planning permission contrary to an objection from a government agency must notify Scottish Ministers in advance of issuing the decision. The Scottish Ministers were notified on the LRB decision on 23 December 2021. 2.4 In response to the notification the application was called in by Scottish Ministers for determination on 10 March 2022. It was considered by means of written submissions and an unaccompanied site inspection took place on 19 April 2022 by a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers. The Reporter’s recommendation was issued to the Scottish Ministers on 26 August 2022 - a copy of the report is attached to this report as Appendix A. 2.5 On 26 January 2023 the Scottish Ministers issued a procedure notice which sought comments from the applicant and the planning authority in relation to the implications of the Revised Draft National Planning Framework 4 on the determination of the application – comments were provided in response to the request. On 21 July 2023 the applicant Page 36 of 157
Page 37
and planning authority were invited to provide comments on the relevance of the Scottish Ministers’ appeal decision relating to a residential development at Mossend, West Calder. The parties were also invited to comment on how the Midlothian Housing Land Audit affected the case. On 2 July 2024, the applicant and planning authority were invited to give further comments, this time on the relevance of the court’s opinion on the Mossend legal challenge and the subsequent Chief Planner letter (dated 27 June 2024) on planning for housing. The Mossend court decision and Chief Planner’s letter reaffirm the Scottish Government’s position regarding windfall/unallocated housing sites and the status of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). 2.6 The Reporter recommended that planning permission be granted - the Scottish Ministers agreed with the reporter’s recommendation and are minded to grant planning permission for the proposed development subject to a planning obligation to secure developer contributions and conditions. A copy of the appeal decision is attached to this report as Appendix B. 3 THE DECISION 3.1 In considering the appeal the Reporter reached the following conclusions: 3.2 “This case must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Having regard to the provisions of the development plan, the main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal upon: • control of development in the green belt; • road and pedestrian safety; • design; • living conditions; • surface water drainage, and • housing land supply.” Control of Development in the Green Belt 3.3 “The proposal is one for open market housing and is not required for the furtherance of an established green belt activity (i.e. agriculture, horticulture or forestry). It plainly would not, therefore, accord with MLDP Policy ENV 1, when viewed in isolation. However, I have found that there is currently a moderate shortfall in housing land supply within Midlothian. SESplan Policy 7, with which I have found the proposal would accord, therefore over-rides MLDP Policy ENV 1. On this basis, the proposal would, I find, be both necessary and acceptable development within the green belt.” It is worth noting that this stated position on housing supply has been superseded by NPF4. Page 37 of 157
Page 38
Road and Pedestrian Safety 3.4 “The conditions that Transport Scotland stipulated in 09/00588/DPP were met and planning permission was duly granted for a 23-bedroom hotel on the site. The prohibition of a right hand turn into the site remains in force and it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that drivers would obey the Highway Code and not, as the council suggests, make an illegal manoeuvre from the A702 into the site. Accident data from the past six years does not support a conclusion that road conditions are currently unsafe and the proposed use would be likely to involve fewer vehicle movements than the permitted hotel scheme would have.” 3.5 “Transport Scotland and the applicant’s expert disagree about this matter. It is not uncommon for professionals to come to different conclusions based upon the same evidence. My first procedure notice asked Transport Scotland to explain how and why road conditions now are materially different to what they were when it was last consulted about them in relation to 09/00588/DPP. In its response, it stated: “…several elements that need to be considered, when assessing the effects of a proposed development, may have changed in the intervening period”. This is clearly true. I therefore undertook my own observations of traffic volumes and composition. The results of these observations are detailed in Chapter 5 above. In the absence of any evidence of equal authority provided by Transport Scotland, or any other party, I am entitled to draw conclusions from my own observations.” 3.6 “In relation to the question of why the discharge of the two principal conditions sought by Transport Scotland in 09/00588/DPP (i.e. no right turn into the site and the creation of a single vehicular access) are no longer sufficient to satisfy its concerns, Transport Scotland responded: “conditions relevant previously are not necessarily directly transferable to today”. Hence, I issued a third procedure notice seeking Transport Scotland’s views on the wording of a suspensive condition that would satisfy its concerns.” 3.7 “Returning to the facts of the case, I disagree that the intensity of the proposed use (i.e. 18 bedrooms and 14 car parking spaces) in comparison with the approved hotel use (i.e. 23 bedrooms and 23 car parking spaces) would give rise to concerns so serious that they could not be satisfactorily addressed by condition.” Design 3.8 “The council has not provided any detailed critique of the proposed design. I have expressed my own view of the proposed design and find that it would respond well to the topography of the site and that the overall approach is cohesive and takes inspiration from a common form of steading development; an older example of which is evident Page 38 of 157
Page 39
relatively close to the site. The council would have an opportunity to control the appearance of external materials of construction by condition. I have based my finding on a comparison of the permitted hotel scheme with what is now proposed. When comparing the two, the current scheme would be less intensive and would also be more likely to represent the sustainable development of a site that has evidently blighted the area for many years. Thus, all relevant material considerations concerning design suggest that the proposal would be acceptable.” Living Conditions 3.9 “The proposed houses would deliver an acceptable standard of accommodation internally. Although the amount of useable private outdoor living space would be limited by the topography of the site, all of the proposed houses would have two bedrooms and are unlikely to be occupied by families with more than one child. The provision of private balconies for houses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would compensate for the steeply sloping rear gardens and the gardens are not so steeply sloping that they would be unsafe. Moreover, as this is a proposal for open market housing, it would principally be a matter for potential owners to decide whether the gardens would be suitable for them and for the final developer to decide whether the commercial risk of building the houses to this design is acceptable. MLDP Policy DEV 6 criterion H expects open space to be provided for different age groups, whereas criterion K requires private open space to be provided on a scale appropriate to dwelling type. The proposed accommodation would generally accord with these criteria for the reasons I have given above. However, houses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would be sited across the contours of the slope at the rear of the site. For this reason, the proposal would not accord with criterion G of MLDP Policy DEV 6.” 3.10 “Bedroom 2 in house 7 would appear rather gloomy and the aspect of the dining rooms of houses 5 and 9 would not be as good as other rooms with a twin aspect. However, it is unlikely that the gable ends of houses 3 and 4 would appear overbearing in outlook from the affected dining rooms. The other issue raised by the council, namely protection from road noise could be adequately addressed by condition.” 3.11 “I find that the proposal would generally accord with the relevant provisions of MLDP Policy DEV 6. Where there is a lack of accordance with this policy, this needs to be balanced against the desirability of preserving the character of the surrounding green belt landscape by resisting the creation of a raised platform of earth upon which to provide level gardens for houses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.” Surface Water Drainage 3.12 “The information provided by the applicant in its phase 1 drainage impact assessment needs to be updated. However, there is likely to be Page 39 of 157
Page 40
no substantive difference between the findings of the submitted assessment and those of an updated assessment. This is because the intensity of the proposed use (nine dwellings) is lower than that for which the submitted assessment was produced (16 dwellings). Thus, the provision of an updated assessment and technical details of the resultant drainage scheme could both be addressed by condition.” Overall Planning Balance 3.13 “Given that I have identified a moderate shortfall in housing land supply, SESplan Policy 7 over-rides the proposal’s lack of accordance with MLDP Policy ENV1. There are also minor policy conflicts with other parts of the adopted development plan. Nevertheless, I find that, despite these concerns, the proposal would be effective and would generally accord with the development plan as a whole. Any serious deficiencies could be addressed by condition.” 3.14 “Even if I were to find that the proposal would fail to accord overall with the development plan, there are a number of material considerations that pull very strongly in the opposite direction.” 3.15 “First amongst these is the fact that SESplan is out of date. SPP paragraph 33 is therefore engaged, which states: “the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration”. Helping to address a housing shortfall is of itself a contribution to sustainable development. So, the question to ponder is whether the deficiencies in the proposal are so serious that they significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in SPP and the adopted development plan.” 3.16 “Another significant material consideration is the approval of 09/00588/DPP during which the conditions required by Transport Scotland were satisfactorily met and either remain in force or are still a part of the proposed layout.” 3.17 “I am satisfied that the deficiencies in the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits associated with helping to meet the moderate shortfall in housing land supply in Midlothian. The proposal would, therefore, be sustainable overall.” It is worth noting that following the adoption of NPF4 in February 2023 it cannot be argued that Midlothian has a shortfall in its housing land supply – the Reporters comments were made in August 2022 pre NPF4. Conclusion 3.18 “The proposal would accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan. Even if Ministers were to disagree with my finding in this regard, I conclude that this lack of accordance is outweighed by Page 40 of 157
Page 41
material considerations such that the development plan should be set aside in this instance.” 3.19 The Scottish Ministers agreed with the Reporter’s recommendation and are minded to grant planning permission for the proposed development subject to a planning obligation to secure developer contributions and conditions. 4 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 It is recommended that the Committee notes the planning permission appeal decision with regard the erection of nine dwellinghouses; formation of car parking and associated works at land at the former petrol filling station, Biggar Road, Hillend, Damhead. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 18 April 2025 Contact Person: Whitney Lindsay, Planning Officer whitney.lindsay@midlothian.gov.uk Page 41 of 157
Page 42
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 Midlothian Council Licence No. 100023416 (2021) Midlothian Council Fairfield House 8 Lothian Road Dalkeith EH22 3AA Planning Service Place Directorate Erection of 9 dwellinghouses; formation of car parking and associated works at Land At Former Filling Station, Biggar Road, Hillend, File No: 21/00148/DPP Scale:1:1,000 ± Location Plan Page 42 of 157
Page 43
Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR Report to the Scottish Ministers TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 Report by Philip Barton, a reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers • Case reference: NA-290-001 • Site Address: former filling station, Biggar Road, Hillend, Damhead, EH10 7DU • Application by C M Roofing and Building Limited • Application for planning permission, ref. 21/00148/DPP dated 2 March 2021, called-in by notice dated 10 March 2022 • The development proposed: erection of 9 terraced cottages, formation of car parking and associated works • Date of site visit: 19 April 2022 Date of this report and recommendation: 26 August 2022 Appendix A Page 43 of 157
Page 44
NA-290-001 Report 1 CONTENTS Page Summary Report 2 Preamble 5 Abbreviations used in the report 1 Chapters 1. BACKGROUND 6 2. POLICY CONTEXT 9 3. MOST RELEVANT MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 14 4. REASON FOR REFUSAL 1 – GREEN BELT 15 5. REASON FOR REFUSAL 2 – ROAD AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 17 6. REASON FOR REFUSAL 3 – DESIGN 20 7. REASON FOR REFUSAL 4 – LIVING CONDITIONS 21 8. REASON FOR REFUSAL 5 – SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE 23 9. REASONED CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 24 Appendix Appendix 1: Recommended Conditions Abbreviations DPEA Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals Division HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HNDA Housing Need and Demand Assessment HLR Housing Land Requirement HST Housing Supply Target LRB Local Review Body MLDP Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 MLP Midlothian Local Plan 2008 NPF4 Scotland 2045: Our Fourth National Planning Framework SESplan The Strategic Development Plan for Edinburgh and South East Scotland SG1 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Developer Contributions SG2 Housing Development in the Countryside and Green Belt Supplementary Guidance SPP Scottish Planning Policy TRICS Trip Rate Information Computer System TRO Traffic Regulation Order Page 44 of 157
Page 45
NA-290-001 Report 2 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Summary of Report into Called-In Planning Application Erection of 9 terraced cottages, formation of car parking and associated works • Case reference NA-290-001 • Case type Notified application • Reporter Philip Barton • Applicant CM Roofing and Building Limited • Planning authority Midlothian Council • Other parties Transport Scotland • Date of application 2 March 2021 • Date case received by DPEA 11 March 2022 • Method of consideration and date Written submissions and unaccompanied site inspection on 19 April 2022 • Date of report 26 August 2022 • Reporter’s recommendation Grant planning permission with conditions Proposal 1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the construction of nine two-bedroom dwellings on a previously developed site in the Green Belt. It would be laid out to resemble the residential conversion of a traditional steading. This case must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Main Issues 1.2 These are the effect of the proposal upon: • control of development in the green belt; • road and pedestrian safety; • design; • living conditions; • surface water drainage, and • housing land supply. Material Considerations 1.3 The principal material considerations in this case are: • SESplan is out of date; • SPP paragraph 33 is engaged; • previous planning permissions; Page 45 of 157
Page 46
NA-290-001 Report 3 • existing traffic regulation order; • road traffic accident data, and • reasonable to assume that drivers will obey the rules of the road. Findings Green Belt 1.4 The proposal could not accord with MLDP Policy ENV 1 Protection of the Green Belt when this policy is considered in isolation. However, given that I have found there to be a moderate shortfall in housing land supply, SESplan Policy 7 over-rides this consideration. Road and Pedestrian Safety 1.5 In comparison with what has previously been permitted, there would be fewer traffic movements. Observed road conditions; the prohibition of a right hand turn into the site and the creation of a new single vehicular access indicate that the sustained objection to the proposal by Transport Scotland has not been objectively justified. Moreover, it is unreasonable to approach a matter such as road safety on the basis that drivers will generally act unlawfully. This is another material consideration that weighs in favour of granting planning permission. Design 1.6 In comparison with what has previously been permitted, the overall design concept is an improvement, and the council would retain control over the external appearance of the building by condition. The current scheme would be less intensive than what has previously been permitted and would also be more likely to represent the sustainable development of a site that has evidently blighted the area for many years. Thus, all relevant material considerations concerning design suggest that the proposal would be acceptable. It would, therefore, accord with relevant criteria of MLDP Policy DEV 6 Layout and Design of New Development. Living Conditions 1.7 The proposal would generally accord with relevant criteria of MLDP Policy DEV 6. Where there is a lack of accordance with this policy, this may be made more acceptable by condition. Any remaining deficiencies would need to be balanced against the desirability of preserving the character of the surrounding green belt landscape by resisting the creation of a raised platform of earth upon which to provide level gardens. Surface Water Drainage 1.8 This is a matter that could adequately be addressed by condition and is a neutral factor. Housing Land Supply 1.9 SESplan is out of date and its housing land supply calculations expire in 2024. Consequently, a procedure notice was issued, asking the council to explain how it was able to demonstrate that it currently has a robust at least five year effective housing land supply. It is unable to demonstrate this successfully and I have found there to be a moderate shortfall in housing land supply in Midlothian. The delivery of housing to meet an identified shortfall in supply contributes to sustainable development objectives. This is a material Page 46 of 157
Page 47
NA-290-001 Report 4 consideration that potentially outweighs any lack of accordance with the adopted development plan. Overall Planning Balance 1.10 Given the housing land supply position in Midlothian, the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of the adopted development plan as a whole. Even if there were found to be some lack of accordance that could not otherwise be overcome, the combined strength of pull of the significant material considerations identified above is sufficient to indicate that the development plan should be set aside in this instance and that planning permission should be granted, with conditions. Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed at Appendix 1. Page 47 of 157
Page 48
NA-290-001 Report 5 Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Hadrian House Callendar Business Park Callendar Road Falkirk FK1 1XR DPEA case reference: NA-290-001 The Scottish Ministers Edinburgh Ministers On 19 April 2022 I conducted an unaccompanied site inspection of the site, addressed former filling station, Biggar Road, Hillend, Damhead, EH10 7DU, and its environs. A report is required because the Midlothian Council LRB indicated its intent to allow an appeal against the refusal of planning permission by Midlothian Council for the erection of nine dwellinghouses on the site. The Town and Country Planning (Reference of Application) (Midlothian Council) (Erection of 9 terraced cottages, formation of car parking and associated works, at former filling station, Biggar Road, Hillend) Direction 2022 is dated 10 March 2021. The Direction was given “in view of Transport Scotland’s objection to the proposed development and the potential for significant adverse impact upon road safety”. My report is arranged on a topic basis, with a separate chapter discussing each of the original reasons for refusal given by the council. Although, following the decision of the LRB, these reasons no longer reflect the council’s position, they nevertheless continue to represent the key issues for Ministers to consider when determining the application. The report takes account of the content of all substantive written representations made in connection with the proposal and what I saw during my site inspection, as well as all responses to the three procedure notices that I issued. Page 48 of 157
Page 49
NA-290-001 Report 6 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND Site Location and Description 1.1 The application site is owned by CM Roofing and Building Limited and extends to about 2,730 square metres (according to site layout plan, ref: 1450-00-007), being located on the easterly side of the A702, about 70 metres north of its junction with the A703 and Old Pentland Road. In the immediate vicinity of the site (a radius of 500 metres), there are small groups of buildings and isolated rural enterprises and dwellinghouses scattered throughout the countryside to the north, south and west of the site. To the east there is only undulating open land, most of which appears to be under arable cultivation or used for grazing. The site is within a green belt allocation of the MLDP. 1.2 The A702 is a busy trunk road linking Edinburgh with the A74(M) at Abington. The Lothianburn Junction of The City of Edinburgh By-Pass is about one kilometre away from the site. The junctions with the A703 and Old Pentland Road are uncontrolled and there is a significant change in levels between Old Pentland Road and the A702. Close to these junctions, there are two opposing bends in the A702 and the road rises gently from the appeal site to the crest of a hill, where it then changes bearing from roughly north/south to roughly north east/south west. Road centre-line markings and a no-right-turn sign prevent the site being lawfully accessed by road from the Edinburgh-bound carriageway. 1.3 The site is served by two vehicle crossovers and was originally used as a motor vehicle fuel filling station. It was subsequently used for the occasional retail sale of Christmas trees; by Scottish Water as a compound for works carried out on a new water supply pipe, and as a temporary car wash. It is bounded on three sides by mature deciduous trees and other vegetation. There are no permanent buildings on site but temporary buildings, likely to have been associated with the former use as a car wash, remain in place. There was no activity on site at the time of my site inspection and the site was secured with temporary metal fencing. Description of Proposal 1.4 The applicant proposes to erect nine two-bedroom dwellinghouses on the site. Five would be terraced two-storey cottages. The remaining four would be two pairs of semi- detached dormer bungalows. The associated parking and bin storage would be accommodated at the front of the site, adjacent to the A702. Access from the A702 would be by a single crossover, whereas there are currently two crossovers to the site. 1.5 The applicant has taken advantage of the steeply sloping land furthest from the A702 to reduce the visual impact of the two-storey dwellings on public views from the west. To the east, the topography between the site and The City of Edinburgh By-Pass is undulating and there are no significant public viewpoints from which the development could readily be seen. 1.6 The submitted plans and the design and access statement indicate that a number of trees and shrubs would be planted around the site boundary. These would provide further screening of the site. Planning History 1.7 The site has been the object of a number of development proposals over the years. Proposals for which planning permission was refused between 1982 and 2008 include: • erection of single dwellinghouse; Page 49 of 157
Page 50
NA-290-001 Report 7 • poultry run; • hotel; • garden centre; • retail sale of Christmas trees (28 days per year); • car wash/valeting station; • storage yard; • erection of four dwellinghouses, and • erection of 16 dwellings. 1.8 Planning permission has been granted for the following proposals: • 09/00588/DPP – hotel; • 10/00529/DPP – hotel (amendment to 09/00588/DPP) on appeal to LRB; • 11/00168/DPP – car wash/valeting station (temporary for 3 years); • 12/00126/DPP – amendment/deletion of conditions attached to 11/00168/DPP, and • 13/00726/DPP – extension of time limit imposed by 11/00168/DPP. Delegated Case Decision Maker’s Reasons for Refusal 1.9 The council has consistently refused applications on the grounds of green belt harm, road and pedestrian safety and design. The original reasons for refusal of the proposal now before Ministers for a decision (21/00148/DPP) are copied below from the decision notice issued by the council and dated 6 August 2021: 1. It has not been demonstrated that the dwellings are required for the furtherance of an established Green Belt activity. No alternative acceptable justification has been provided for the proposed development in the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV1 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and the adopted Supplementary Guidance: Housing Development in the Countryside and Green Belt. 2. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority or Transport Scotland that the development proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact upon pedestrian and road safety at this busy trunk road. In addition the proposal includes an [sic] inadequate off-street parking spaces, contrary to Midlothian Council's Parking Standards, which will result in a significant adverse impact on road safety. There are road safety concerns which are a material consideration that warrant refusal of the application. 3. The design of the dwellings are [sic] not of sufficient good quality for this sensitive area, being neither of a traditional design nor of a high quality contemporary design. The siting, scale, density and design of the development fails to adequately reflect the surrounding characteristics of the area, and fails to complement or enhance the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV1 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and the adopted Supplementary Guidance: Housing Development in the Countryside and Green Belt. 4. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the proposed dwellings will be afforded an adequate level of residential amenity and therefore does not comply with policy DEV6 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. Page 50 of 157
Page 51
NA-290-001 Report 8 5. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the surface water drainage from the development proposal will adequately be addressed. Page 51 of 157
Page 52
NA-290-001 Report 9 CHAPTER 2: POLICY CONTEXT Housing Land Supply 2.1 The development plan for the area comprises SESplan, approved 2013, and MLDP, adopted 7 November 2017. SESplan is out of date and its housing land supply calculations expire in 2024. Consequently, I issued a procedure notice asking the council to explain how it is able to demonstrate that it currently has a robust at least five year effective housing land supply. The applicant responded with its own calculations. 2.2 The council’s calculations in response to my procedure notice are based upon meeting the HST. As the applicant points out, paragraph 62 of the judgement in Mactaggart Mickel et al. v Inverclyde [2020] CSIH44 states: “SPP is phrased in a manner whereby it is not the housing supply target which is to be met but the HLR”. However, the applicant also refers to the examination report for the West Lothian Local Development Plan, which states: “the housing land requirement’ set by the [SESplan] supplementary guidance should most logically be regarded as equating to the housing supply target for the purpose of the examination”. 2.3 Consequently, it is not necessarily fatal to the council’s position that it bases its arguments, not upon the HLR but upon meeting the HST because they are an equivalence as far as SESplan is concerned. 2.4 I must first establish whether there is a shortfall in housing land supply. If there is, I must then go on to establish its scale. The most recent housing land audit identifies sufficient land for 11,938 new homes and covers the period up to 31 March 2021. The five year supply of effective housing land for the period 2021 to 2026 equates to 4,500 homes. The applicant does not dispute this figure. 2.5 There is currently no universally agreed method of determining an up-to-date HLR. The applicant has used a methodology that takes into account completions (a residual method), whereas the council has used an average method based upon figures for the five- year period from 2019 to 2024. It has also presented a number of other scenarios, leading to results ranging from 2.7 years (SESplan 2019-2024 plus shortfall from previous plan period plus 20% generosity allowance) to 10.9 years (HNDA for rejected SESplan 2 lowest growth scenario). However, great caution needs to be exercised when using documents such as more recent HNDAs or housing land audits to calculate an up-to-date HLR. This is a task more properly undertaken during the plan-making process. Consequently, I have not entertained the calculations suggested by the council that rely upon various updated HNDA scenarios. 2.6 As all methods have their benefits and drawbacks, it is not unreasonable for the council and the applicant to favour the method which best supports the arguments they wish to make. I am intellectually drawn to the residual method because it seems reasonable to me to take into account actual completions from previous years when assessing current land supply. In paragraph 25 of her notice of intention, the Reporter for PPA-400-2118 concluded that a residual method should be employed to decide whether there is a shortfall in housing land supply in West Lothian. Given that West Lothian is also in the SESplan area, I see no good reason for me to conclude differently in the case of Midlothian. 2.7 SPP paragraph 110 expects planning authorities to maintain at least a five year supply of effective housing land at all times. The relevant five-year period in this case is, therefore, 2022 to 2027. Both the council and the applicant agree that there is a putative supply of land for 4,500 homes for the period 2021 to 2026. Given that SESplan Page 52 of 157
Page 53
NA-290-001 Report 10 calculations expire in 2024, I have no more reliable figures before me upon which to base an assessment of supply after 2024 than those derived from the most up-to-date housing land audit and I am mindful that both the council and the applicant agree on this. 2.8 I further note the findings of the Reporter in relation to housing demand, set out in paragraph 24 of PPA-400-2118, to wit: “if I accept that demand is static during the period of the plan which I do, it would be unreasonable and inconsistent to ignore the historic backlog in completions”. I have no evidence before me to suggest that I should come to a different conclusion about demand in Midlothian between 2025 and 2027. Consequently, I accept that it is reasonable for both the council and the applicant to base their calculations upon a supply of land sufficient for 4,500 homes. 2.9 The council’s third calculation takes into account the shortfall from the previous plan period and, on this basis, finds that there was a sufficient supply of housing land for 3.3 years for the period 2019 to 2024. The applicant’s equivalent calculation comes up with a figure of 3.82 years for the same period. Given that the housing land supply position for the period 2025 to 2027 is unknowable, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the council is unable to demonstrate that it currently has a robust at least five year effective housing land supply. I consider a shortfall of between 1.18 and 1.7 years to be moderate. 2.10 The more favourable calculations of supply referred to by the council are based upon the rejected SESplan2; the HNDA scenarios associated with it and the draft NPF4. I have already explained why I am unable to entertain calculations based upon the more recent HNDA figures. Moreover, in relation to substantially the same arguments put to her by West Lothian Council, in paragraphs 22 and 23 of her notice of intention for PPA-400-2118, the Reporter found: “…SESplan 2, in respect of which the housing needs and demand assessment was undertaken, was rejected by the Scottish Ministers and has not been proceeded with. In any event these figures are not housing supply targets or housing land requirements. The housing land requirement remains as set out in SESplan and in my view the Housing Needs and Demands Assessment 2 has little relevance to this appeal. Separately I recognise that new housing land requirements will be introduced in the fourth National Planning Framework in due course…However the preparation and adoption of the National Planning Framework is at such as [sic] early stage, I consider that it has little bearing on this appeal.” 2.11 The notice of intention for PPA-400-2118 was issued on 24 November 2021 and, although it relates to another SESplan constituent authority, there has been no material change in circumstances to indicate that I should adopt a contrary position in this report. 2.12 SPP paragraph 33 states that, where a development plan is more than five years old, the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration. Helping to address a housing shortfall is of itself a contribution to sustainable development and, in this case, no preliminary test therefore needs to be passed as to whether the proposal is development that contributes to sustainable development. 2.13 As the presumption in SPP paragraph 33 is engaged, the likelihood that there will be an insufficient supply of housing land for the period up to 2024 is a material consideration that points towards approval of the application. Other material considerations also point to approval. Where there is a demonstrable lack of accordance with the development plan, the so-called ‘tilted balance’ indicates that planning permission should nevertheless be granted. 2.14 There remains the question as to whether the site would be effective. The permitted hotel scheme was not implemented and all other applications for residential development Page 53 of 157
Page 54
NA-290-001 Report 11 have been refused. Housing is likely to be more commercially viable than hotel development and the failure to implement the hotel permission cannot, therefore, be taken as an indication that the site would be ineffective for housing. The applicant owns the site and has shown interest in developing it for residential use over a period of many years. I am satisfied that the site would be effective. I also note in this respect the reference made by the applicant to pages five and six of the judgement in British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others [1993] WL 963747 in relation to granting planning permission in cases where there may be impediments to implementation. 2.15 Consequently, if I were to recommend that planning permission should be refused, I would need to show that the adverse impacts of any harms identified in this case would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal in relation to the contribution that it would make to sustainable development through housing delivery in an area that cannot demonstrate that it currently has an adequate supply of housing land. Hence, against this background, the unknowable nature of the housing land supply position from 2025 to 2027 would be unlikely to tip the balance towards refusal of the application and the proposal should be considered sustainable overall. Other Policy Considerations 2.16 Turning to MLDP policies, Policy ENV 1 Protection of the Green Belt states: 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 if 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 are to: • Direct development to the most appropriate locations and support regeneration; • Protect and enhance the character, landscape setting and identity of the City and Midlothian towns by clearly identifying their physical boundaries and preventing coalescence; and • Protect and provide access to open space. Housing Housing will normally only be permissible where it is required for the furtherance of an established Green Belt activity (see criterion A above). The applicant will be required to show the need for the new dwelling is permanent; cannot be met within an existing settlement; and that the occupier will be employed full-time in the associated countryside activity. A planning condition limiting the occupancy of the house is likely to be attached in the event of approval. 2.17 MLDP Policy DEV 6 Layout and Design of New Development states: Page 54 of 157
Page 55
NA-290-001 Report 12 The Council will require good design and a high quality of architecture, in both the overall layout of development proposals and their constituent parts. The layout and design of development proposals should meet the following criteria: A. the layout of development proposals should complement or enhance the character of any adjoining or nearby urban area; include attractive street frontages; provide outlook onto communal open space; and integrate the siting of buildings, landscaping, open space, boundary treatment, and pedestrian/ cycle/ vehicular routes; B. any locally prominent landscape feature or historic building should be reflected in the layout and local landmarks and viewpoints should be incorporated into the streetscape to provide a welcoming atmosphere and assist with navigation; C. good quality materials should be used in the design; D. existing pedestrian routes, including desire lines, should be taken into account and the layout should be convenient for pedestrians and cyclists, with special attention to the provision of footpaths and cycleways which create links between key destinations; E. a high standard of passive energy gain should be achieved and overshadowing of buildings should be avoided; F. pedestrian routes, open space, sustainable urban drainage features or roads should be overlooked by front or side windows of buildings and doors should face onto streets or active frontages; G. buildings should be laid along contours to avoid excessive changes in levels and underbuilding in the street scene; H. open space for different age groups should be designed and sited to minimise disturbance and protect residential amenity; I. adequate spacing between housing should be provided to ensure privacy and amenity*1; J. where there is a recognised need for new open space in the area (see policy DEV9: Open Space Standards), this should complement and/or contribute to existing open space provision and the proposed green network*2; K. private open space should be provided on a scale appropriate to the relevant dwelling type*1; L. where the proposed development is of a scale and in a location which makes the provision of bus services a realistic prospect, roads providing access through the site must be of a width and design sufficient to allow the passage of buses, with lay-bys provided to allow them to stop without obstructing other traffic; M. any roads, lighting and parking must satisfy the Council's standards; and N. cycle parking and bin stores shall be incorporated into the layout of developments. Page 55 of 157
Page 56
NA-290-001 Report 13 Exceptions to the above criteria may be considered where the proposed development is of a very high standard. *1 Reference should be made to the Supplementary Guidance on Quality of Place for further detailed requirements. *2 Where new open space is provided, arrangements for its long-term maintenance (typically 15 years) shall be agreed with the Council prior to any consent being issued. Such arrangements will include long-term funding for the maintenance of open space, landscaping and equipment. 2.18 MLDP Policy IMP 2 Essential Infrastructure Required to Enable New Development to Take Place sets out Midlothian Council policy with regard to developer contributions and the LRB stated that, if planning permission were to be granted, it would be subject to a legal agreement to secure developer contributions towards primary and secondary school education provision and school transport provision. The precise justification for these contributions is not explicitly set out. 2.19 SG1 was adopted on 6 March 2012 but refers to superseded MLP policies. Neither does it provide any clarity about which proposals are exempt from liability for developer contributions. Nor is any reference made within it to contributions for school transport. In my second procedure notice, I asked the council to explain the policy basis for requiring developer contributions in this case. 2.20 SG1 is not a part of the adopted development plan (i.e. the MLDP). I have no reason to doubt that it was part of the adopted MLP but the MLP has been superseded. As a result, all supplementary guidance associated with the MLP must be treated as having expired unless consulted upon and adopted afresh as a part of the MLDP. I have been pointed to no evidence to show that SG1 was consulted upon as part of the examination of the current local development plan or at any other time since the MLDP was adopted. 2.21 I find, therefore, that there is no statutory link between MLDP policies and the advice in SG1. Consequently, although MLDP policies IMP 1 New Development and STRAT 2 Windfall Housing Sites refer either directly or indirectly to the need for developer contributions, the crucial detail about how these should be calculated is missing from the MLDP. In the absence of a clear and lawful policy context for requiring developer contributions, I cannot recommend that the LRB requirement to secure developer contributions towards primary and secondary school education provision and school transport provision be endorsed. 2.22 Similarly, footnote 1 to MLDP Policy DEV 6 refers developers to “the Supplementary Guidance on Quality of Place for further detailed requirements”. A copy of this guidance has not been provided to me and, according to what I have seen, it has not yet been drafted. Instead, the council relies upon MLP Policy DP2 Development Guidelines. As the MLP has been superseded, I consider the continued use of its policies for development control purposes to be unlawful and that they cannot supplant MLDP policies and its associated guidance. 2.23 A copy of SG2 was not provided and it appeared to be available only in draft form. In response to my second procedure notice, the council explained that this was due to a technical issue with the link to the document on the council’s website. An electronic copy was subsequently provided to me and I am satisfied that SG2 forms a part of the adopted development plan for the area. Page 56 of 157
Page 57
NA-290-001 Report 14 CHAPTER 3: MOST RELEVANT MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The previous permissions for a hotel (i.e. 09/00588/DPP and 10/00529/DPP) on the site are relevant, as are the existing road markings and signage that prohibit the lawful execution of a right hand turn into the site. 3.2 The submitted transport assessment includes raw data from 1) Crashmap and 2) Personal Injury Accident Statistics from the Transport Scotland Accident Manager Database. 3.3 It is reasonable to assume that all drivers would observe the Highway Code and otherwise drive within the law. 3.4 As I discuss above, in Chapter 2: Policy Considerations, I have identified a moderate shortfall in housing land supply in Midlothian and SPP paragraph 33 is therefore engaged. Page 57 of 157
Page 58
NA-290-001 Report 15 CHAPTER 4: REASON FOR REFUSAL 1 – GREEN BELT 4.1 The first reason for refusal was: 1. It has not been demonstrated that the dwellings are required for the furtherance of an established Green Belt activity. No alternative acceptable justification has been provided for the proposed development in the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV1 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and the adopted Supplementary Guidance: Housing Development in the Countryside and Green Belt. 4.2 SG2 paragraph 6.2 makes it clear that the exception relating to groups of five dwellings in the countryside does not apply in the green belt. 4.3 As far as MLDP Policy ENV 1 is concerned, the original reason for refusal relates to the second part of the policy, which states: “Housing will normally only be permissible where it is required for the furtherance of an established Green Belt activity” (i.e. agriculture, horticulture or forestry) and indicates that occupation should be controlled accordingly by condition. 4.4 The use of the word “normally” in the policy allows room for exceptions. Again, the need to address the moderate shortfall in housing land supply that I have identified may constitute the exceptional circumstances required to justify granting planning permission in this case. Moreover, MLDP paragraph 2.3.10 states: “where there is an identified deficit in the five year effective housing land supply there will be a requirement to ensure the continued delivery of housing to meet the housing land requirement. Therefore, housing proposals on greenfield/green belt locations may be acceptable where it is demonstrated that they will augment the 5-year housing land supply following the provisions of SESplan Policy 7”. 4.5 SESplan Policy 7: Maintaining a five year housing land supply states: “Sites for greenfield housing development proposals either within or outwith the identified Strategic Development Areas may be allocated in Local Development Plans or granted planning permission to maintain a five years’ effective housing land supply, subject to satisfying each of the following criteria: a. The development will be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area; b. The development will not undermine green belt objectives; and c. Any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either committed or to be funded by the developer.” 4.6 So, as far as SESplan Policy 7 is concerned, if houses are to be built on green belt to address a shortfall in housing land supply, green belt objectives must not be undermined. SPP paragraph 49 indicates that the objectives of identifying green belts are: • directing development to the most appropriate locations and supporting regeneration; • protecting and enhancing the character, landscape setting and identity of the settlement; and • protecting and providing access to open space. The site is brownfield (previously developed) land and has, according to the evidence before me, detracted from the general character and appearance of the area for many years. Hence, although it is located in the countryside, the proposal would not undermine the first SPP objective. Page 58 of 157
Page 59
NA-290-001 Report 16 4.7 Turning to the second SPP objective, given my findings about design and layout, as well as the generally dispersed character of development in the vicinity of the site, I am satisfied that the proposal would not undermine this second objective. 4.8 As far as the third SPP objective is concerned, the land is currently privately owned and there are no public paths crossing it. Development would increase public access to the site and provide some public open space in the form of landscaping. So, neither would the proposal undermine this third objective. On this basis, the proposal would accord with SESplan Policy 7 criterion b. 4.9 Criterion a. of SESplan Policy 7 is satisfied because the general pattern of development proposed would be consistent with the established character of land use in the area, which consists of scattered dwellings, some in small groups. So, the proposed scheme would generally accord with the pattern of development in the locality. 4.10 Criterion c. of SESplan Policy 7 is also satisfied because the TRO required by Transport Scotland in 09/00588/DPP, as well as the proposed changes to vehicular access to the site have been or would be funded by the applicant or the final developer. 4.11 The site may therefore be treated as a windfall site, to which MLDP STRAT 2 would apply, if it were located in a built-up area. However, the site is in the countryside and MLDP paragraph 2.3.5 states: “outwith the built-up areas, there is a general presumption against housing development unless a deficit in the 5 year effective housing land supply emerges”. There is a moderate shortfall in housing land supply and the proposal accords with SESplan Policy 7. Consequently, MLDP Policy ENV 1 is over-ridden in this case. 4.12 Even if there were to be disagreement on this point, in the light of the body of case law that has developed since SESplan was approved, there would be a need to go on to consider whether material considerations outweigh any lack of accordance with the development plan when all other relevant factors are taken into account and weighed in the balance. 4.13 So, in balancing all of the relevant policy factors against the moderate shortfall in housing land supply that I have identified, I find that the proposed development would accord with the totality of what the adopted development plan has to say about residential development on green belt land. Thus, in the unique circumstances of this case, the proposal would be appropriate development in the green belt. Page 59 of 157
Page 60
NA-290-001 Report 17 CHAPTER 5: REASON FOR REFUSAL 2 – ROAD AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 5.1 The second reason for refusal is: 2. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority or Transport Scotland that the development proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact upon pedestrian and road safety at this busy trunk road. In addition, the proposal includes an [sic] inadequate off-street parking spaces, contrary to Midlothian Council's Parking Standards, which will result in a significant adverse impact on road safety. There are road safety concerns which are a material consideration that warrant refusal of the application. 5.2 In the opinion of Transport Scotland, the transport statement submitted by the applicant, dated 1 March 2021, does not adequately address the issue of road and pedestrian safety. However, there are other material considerations that need to be taken into account in addition to this information. 5.3 Significantly, Transport Scotland has not explained in what ways the submitted transport statement is deficient. As I am not qualified to criticise either Transport Scotland or the applicant’s consultant on these technical matters, I shall comment only upon raw data and my own observations during my site inspection to advise Ministers. 5.4 Appendix D of the submitted transport assessment sets out objective accident data. Two sources are used: 1) Crashmap and 2) Personal Injury Accident Statistics from the Transport Scotland Accident Manager Database. Transport Scotland data is provided by Police Scotland, which records only incidents involving injury. 5.5 Between 1 January 2015 and 30 October 2020, the Transport Scotland data indicates that there were 23 incidents, all of which involved “slight” injury. There is a cluster of incidents around the junction of the A702 with Old Pentland Road and the A703. However, I can see nothing in the raw data which suggests that movements on and off the site played any part in these accidents. Indeed, despite a change from 1 July 2019 in the way accidents are recorded and categorised by Police Scotland, I can see no evidence to suggest that there has been a significant change in the frequency or severity of incidents in the period 2015 to 2020. The average number of incidents per year has been 3.8, with one incident in 2019 and three in 2020. In my assessment, the raw data does not support the view held by Transport Scotland and objectors that the proposed site access would, in principle, be prejudicial to road and pedestrian safety. 5.6 Turning to my own observations, I placed myself at the location of the proposed site access and noted traffic and road conditions for a period of 20 minutes (09:50 to 10:10 on a weekday). In the vicinity of the site, the maximum speed for the road is 40 miles per hour. Visibility for drivers is unobstructed for about 50 metres in a southerly direction (towards the junction of the A702 with Old Pentland Road and the A703) and for about 200 metres in a northerly direction (towards Edinburgh). No parking, waiting or loading is permitted for a distance of about 135 metres in the vicinity of the site on the southerly bound carriageway. From the northerly edge of the site, no overtaking is permitted on either side of the A702 for a distance of about 477 metres. Located at 55°53’17.84” N, 3°11’57.83” W is a road sign prohibiting a right hand turn into the site from the northerly-bound carriageway. 5.7 The A702 is a busy road, with most drivers travelling close to the maximum speed for the road. However, drivers travelling in a southerly direction were observed to slow down as they approached the junction with the A703 and Old Pentland Road. Similarly, there were frequent gaps in northerly bound traffic as queues formed behind drivers turning right from the A702 into Old Pentland Road or the A703. Page 60 of 157
Page 61
NA-290-001 Report 18 5.8 I observed the following vehicle profile, ordered by vulnerability (least vulnerable first). The frequency per minute calculation was arrived at by multiplying the observed number by three and dividing the product by 60: • HGV 23 (1.20 per minute equivalent) • Coach 1 (0.05 per minute equivalent) • Bus 4 (0.20 per minute equivalent) • Van 71 (3.60 per minute equivalent) • Car 317 (15.90 per minute equivalent) • Motorcycle 3 (0.20 per minute equivalent) • Cyclist 0 • Pedestrian 1 (0.05 per minute equivalent) 5.9 The number of vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) observed was very low. In addition, there are dedicated cycle lanes on both sides of the A702 and there are pavements on both sides of this road. There are no controlled crossing points over the A702 in the vicinity of the site but there is a crossing point, with tactile paving and dropped kerbs, about 87 metres away from the location of the proposed site access. At this point visibility for pedestrians is unobstructed for about 110 metres in a southerly direction and about 120 metres in a northerly direction. There are bus stops on both sides of the A703, about 150 metres away from the site. However, the crossing point of Old Pentland Road is sub-standard and difficult, even hazardous, to negotiate for people with mobility difficulties, especially wheelchair-users. 5.10 The traffic counts above put the number of incidents involving injury into context. Although incidents that did not involve injury (such as minor collisions) are not recorded, I conclude that a total of 23 slight injuries over a period of six years (fewer than four per annum) on such a busy road should not give rise to concern when vehicle movements related to the occupation of nine dwellings are added to the traffic count. The TRICS data appended to the submitted transport assessment indicates that the number of vehicles that would be added to southerly flows on the A702 at peak times would be negligible. 5.11 It is reasonable to assume that all drivers would observe the Highway Code and otherwise drive within the law. Drivers leaving the site and heading for Edinburgh may choose to make a right turn across the southerly-bound carriageway, which would involve some risk of vehicle conflict. However, from what I observed, there are sufficient gaps in traffic flow from the south to allow drivers time to safely make this manoeuvre. Moreover, some drivers may find it easier to turn left out of the site, turn off the A702 almost immediately onto Old Pentland Road, then turn left onto the A701, before joining The City of Edinburgh Bypass (A720) at Straiton Junction. This would be likely to take only a couple of minutes longer than waiting for a gap in the traffic approaching from the south and joining the bypass at Lothianburn Junction. So, I consider it unlikely that all drivers would invariably choose to turn right out of the site. 5.12 For vehicles turning left into the site from the A702, other drivers would have plenty of time to slow down once the driver indicated their intention to turn left. From what I observed, drivers intending to turn left down Old Pentland Road or the A703 were already indicating their intention to do so by the time they passed the site. Given the proximity of the junction, prohibition of overtaking and impending rise in the road and right hand bend, most drivers start to slow down in the vicinity of the site. So, I conclude that turning left into the site would not increase the risk of vehicle conflict in any material way. Page 61 of 157
Page 62
NA-290-001 Report 19 5.13 I also conclude that reducing the number of access points from two to one would improve visibility for drivers and make it easier for pedestrians to avoid conflict with vehicles. 5.14 A further material consideration is the approval of 09/00588/DPP, for a 23-bedroom hotel. In relation to this application, Transport Scotland was satisfied that its concerns would be met if three steps were taken, namely: A. The agreement reached would include the provision of a Layout 3 access as detailed on the revised drawings forward by Gilberts, E-mail of the 29th April 2010. [i.e. a single vehicular access to the site] B. The applicant has also confirmed that they would be willing to undertake mitigating measures to the A702 as detailed in the BEAR Report 'Accident Investigation and Prevention Study, A702 Hillend to Lothianburn', Draft Report dated April 2010. C. Additionally the applicant is willing to promote a Traffic Regulation Order banning right turning traffic from the Trunk Road to the site accompanied by the appropriate routing signage for north bound traffic via lothainburn [sic] roundabout and access the site from the south bound A702. 5.15 All three conditions were met. The approved access would have replaced the existing two vehicle access points with one, as is proposed with the current proposal, and the TRO banning right turning traffic from the A702 is now in place. The current proposal would have a total of 18 bedrooms and 14 parking spaces. The approved hotel would have had 23 bedrooms and 23 parking spaces. Transport Scotland was evidently satisfied that a hotel use, which would be likely to generate more vehicle movements than nine dwellings would, could be permitted with conditions. Two of those conditions have already been met. I am not persuaded that the adverse impacts upon road and pedestrian safety caused by the current proposal would be any greater than those associated with the previously permitted hotel scheme. 5.16 Thus, notwithstanding the error in the transport statement methodology (i.e. vehicle movements related to eight dwellings, not nine), I conclude on this issue that, on the balance of probability, the evidence submitted, when considered in the light of all other material considerations relating to road conditions, markings and signage, as well as previous planning permissions, indicate that the proposed development would not increase the risk of vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian conflict to such an extent that road and/or pedestrian safety would be harmfully prejudiced. 5.17 Deficiencies in the car park layout could be addressed by condition and LRB suggested condition 6 does this. Page 62 of 157
Page 63
NA-290-001 Report 20 CHAPTER 6: REASON FOR REFUSAL 3 – DESIGN 6.1 The third reason for refusal is: 3. The design of the dwellings are [sic] not of sufficient good quality for this sensitive area, being neither of a traditional design nor of a high quality contemporary design. The siting, scale, density and design of the development fails to adequately reflect the surrounding characteristics of the area, and fails to complement or enhance the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV1 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and the adopted Supplementary Guidance: Housing Development in the Countryside and Green Belt. 6.2 This reason for refusal is redundant because the design considerations that are applicable to proposals for infill residential development within existing housing groups in the countryside do not apply in the Green Belt (see SG2 paragraph 6.2). Neither would this proposal involve the conversion of redundant farm or other non-residential buildings. 6.3 The most relevant design consideration, therefore, would appear to relate to how the proposed design compares with the design of the permitted hotel scheme, which is a material consideration in this case. Both schemes respond well to the topography of the site. This allows the perceived height of the buildings when viewed from the A702 to be single storey. 6.4 Many steadings have a distinctive wide “U” shape, with a long, low stable/barn block flanked by shorter, gabled barns. Sometimes, a farmhouse sits on one corner of the steading but in many cases a steading has no living space associated with it. Almost invariably, the open part of the “U” faces a road or farm track. Sometimes the open part of the “U” is walled off, with a small entranceway in the centre. It is not uncommon for steadings to be converted to residential use, with access from the closest highway through the open part of the “U”. This is the layout proposed here. 6.5 Both the hotel scheme and the proposed houses have been designed to give the appearance of a steading conversion. Indeed, I consider that the current scheme accomplishes this better than the hotel scheme does because of the separation between the buildings and the orientation of the gables of the houses closest to the A702 towards the road, which leads the eye into what resembles the closed part of the “U”. 6.6 There is an original steading about 280 metres away from the site, on the A702, called Hillend House Barn, which is evidently used as holiday lets. It provides useful design cues for the proposed dwellings and details of external materials of construction of the proposed houses could be controlled by condition. LRB suggested condition 2 does this. Page 63 of 157
Page 64
NA-290-001 Report 21 CHAPTER 7: REASON FOR REFUSAL 4 – LIVING CONDITIONS 7.1 The fourth reason for refusal is: 4. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the proposed dwellings will be afforded an adequate level of residential amenity and therefore does not comply with policy DEV6 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 7.2 The council is concerned about the amount of useable private outdoor living space (i.e. rear gardens), the degree of separation between gables and front elevations and the effect of road noise upon living conditions. 7.3 The topography of the site makes it impossible for the proposed layout to fully accord with MLDP Policy DEV 6 criterion G. Hence, there are significant changes in level where houses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are concerned, with the main entrance of each being reached by means of a raised walkway (see drawing number 1450-00-007, dated 2 March 2021). There are windows in the front elevations of these houses at ‘garden’ (basement) level. These look out onto a retaining wall and the spaces beneath the raised walkways are not practicably useable. However, with the exception of bedroom 2 in house 7, these windows are not the sole source of light to the rooms they serve. I therefore conclude that the changes in level across the site would not lead to unacceptably poor living conditions inside the proposed dwellings. 7.4 As to the amount of private outdoor living space, MLDP Policy DEV 6 criteria H and K must be read together. Criterion H expects open space to be provided for different age groups, whereas criterion K requires private open space to be provided on a scale appropriate to dwelling type. All of the proposed dwellings would have 2 bedrooms, so it is likely that families with one child would occupy some of them. Houses 1, 2, 3 and 4 would be provided with 54.52, 40.03, 77.46 and 64.50 square metres of private outdoor living space respectively. I consider that gardens of such sizes would be big enough to provide sufficient space for a single child to play in, for outdoor entertainment (e.g. barbecuing) and for the drying of clothes. 7.5 Houses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would each be provided with a rear balcony at ground floor level. These would all be private because every one would be shielded from overlooking by the protruding stairwell of the neighbouring house. With the exception of bedroom 2 in house 7, at garden level French windows would allow occupants of the bedrooms direct access to a private rear garden. Beyond the immediate curtilage of the building, the land drops from about 157.3 metres above datum to about 154.3 metres above datum – a change in level of about 3 metres across about 9 metres of ground. The gradient would therefore be about -18.4° or -33.3% from the rear elevation of the building to the rear boundary of the site. This is steep, but not dangerously precipitous. As the houses would be for sale on the open market, I consider that it would primarily be a matter for potential purchasers to decide whether a steeply sloping garden would be suitable for them to manage and for the final developer to decide whether the commercial risk was acceptable. 7.6 The alternative would be to substantially raise land levels in order to provide a more level platform for the gardens. This would inevitably make the site appear far more prominent in the green belt. I consider that the steeply sloping gardens represent an acceptable trade-off against landscape considerations. 7.7 In relation to the juxtaposition of elevations (i.e. the gable ends of houses 3 and 4 and the front elevations of houses 5, 6, 8 and 9) only the dining rooms of houses 5 and 9 would have a single aspect to the gable end of houses 3 and 4 respectively. As a dining Page 64 of 157
Page 65
NA-290-001 Report 22 room (or possibly as a home office), I consider that outlook from them is not as crucial to good living conditions as it would be from a room used by all family members throughout the day. 7.8 I consider that any further investigations relating to road noise and the details of acoustic insulation and performance could adequately be secured by condition and note that LRB suggested conditions 3 and 4 seek to address these matters. 7.9 The other criteria of MLDP Policy DEV 6 do not relate directly to living conditions. Moreover, the council has not referred to this policy in its third reason for refusal, which relates to design. Nevertheless, I consider that the efforts made to limit the visual impact of the proposal by responding positively to the existing topography of the site and the attempt to replicate the form and scale of a steading conversion would allow the proposal to accord with criteria A and B of this policy. Page 65 of 157
Page 66
NA-290-001 Report 23 CHAPTER 8: REASON FOR REFUSAL 5 – SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE 8.1 The fifth reason for refusal is: 5. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the surface water drainage from the development proposal will adequately be addressed. 8.2 The submitted phase 1 drainage impact assessment was not produced for the current proposal because it refers to a previous (refused) application for 14 flats and two houses. Nevertheless, as the proposed nine houses would be likely to have no greater impact upon surface water drainage than this previous proposal would have, I find that its conclusions may still be relied upon. 8.3 The council is concerned only about surface water drainage. The impact assessment finds that a soakaway solution with on-site attenuation to cope with a 1 in 200 year critical storm event would be a suitable solution. Details of the proposed soakaway could be secured by condition, and I note that LRB suggested condition 11 deals with this. Page 66 of 157
Page 67
NA-290-001 Report 24 CHAPTER 9: REASONED CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 9.1 This case must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Having regard to the provisions of the development plan, the main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal upon: • control of development in the green belt; • road and pedestrian safety; • design; • living conditions; • surface water drainage, and • housing land supply. 9.2 The policy context for the appeal is set out in Chapter 2 above. Control of Development in the Green Belt 9.3 The proposal is one for open market housing and is not required for the furtherance of an established green belt activity (i.e. agriculture, horticulture or forestry). It plainly would not, therefore, accord with MLDP Policy ENV 1, when viewed in isolation. However, I have found that there is currently a moderate shortfall in housing land supply within Midlothian. SESplan Policy 7, with which I have found the proposal would accord, therefore over-rides MLDP Policy ENV 1. On this basis, the proposal would, I find, be both necessary and acceptable development within the green belt. Road and Pedestrian Safety 9.4 The conditions that Transport Scotland stipulated in 09/00588/DPP were met and planning permission was duly granted for a 23-bedroom hotel on the site. The prohibition of a right hand turn into the site remains in force and it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that drivers would obey the Highway Code and not, as the council suggests, make an illegal manoeuvre from the A702 into the site. Accident data from the past six years does not support a conclusion that road conditions are currently unsafe and the proposed use would be likely to involve fewer vehicle movements than the permitted hotel scheme would have. 9.5 Transport Scotland and the applicant’s expert disagree about this matter. It is not uncommon for professionals to come to different conclusions based upon the same evidence. My first procedure notice asked Transport Scotland to explain how and why road conditions now are materially different to what they were when it was last consulted about them in relation to 09/00588/DPP. In its response, it stated: “…several elements that need to be considered, when assessing the effects of a proposed development, may have changed in the intervening period”. This is clearly true. I therefore undertook my own observations of traffic volumes and composition. The results of these observations are detailed in Chapter 5 above. In the absence of any evidence of equal authority provided by Transport Scotland, or any other party, I am entitled to draw conclusions from my own observations. 9.6 In relation to the question of why the discharge of the two principal conditions sought by Transport Scotland in 09/00588/DPP (i.e. no right turn into the site and the creation of a single vehicular access) are no longer sufficient to satisfy its concerns, Transport Scotland responded: “conditions relevant previously are not necessarily directly transferable to today”. Hence, I issued a third procedure notice seeking Transport Scotland’s views on the wording of a suspensive condition that would satisfy its concerns. Page 67 of 157
Page 68
NA-290-001 Report 25 9.7 Returning to the facts of the case, I disagree that the intensity of the proposed use (i.e. 18 bedrooms and 14 car parking spaces) in comparison with the approved hotel use (i.e. 23 bedrooms and 23 car parking spaces) would give rise to concerns so serious that they could not be satisfactorily addressed by condition. All of the evidence discussed in Chapter 5 above points to a conclusion that the sustained objection by Transport Scotland has not been objectively justified. Design 9.8 The council has not provided any detailed critique of the proposed design. In Chapter 6 above I have expressed my own view of the proposed design and find that it would respond well to the topography of the site and that the overall approach is cohesive and takes inspiration from a common form of steading development; an older example of which is evident relatively close to the site. The council would have an opportunity to control the appearance of external materials of construction by condition. I have based my finding on a comparison of the permitted hotel scheme with what is now proposed. When comparing the two, the current scheme would be less intensive and would also be more likely to represent the sustainable development of a site that has evidently blighted the area for many years. Thus, all relevant material considerations concerning design suggest that the proposal would be acceptable. Living Conditions 9.9 The proposed houses would deliver an acceptable standard of accommodation internally. Although the amount of useable private outdoor living space would be limited by the topography of the site, all of the proposed houses would have two bedrooms and are unlikely to be occupied by families with more than one child. The provision of private balconies for houses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would compensate for the steeply sloping rear gardens and the gardens are not so steeply sloping that they would be unsafe. Moreover, as this is a proposal for open market housing, it would principally be a matter for potential owners to decide whether the gardens would be suitable for them and for the final developer to decide whether the commercial risk of building the houses to this design is acceptable. MLDP Policy DEV 6 criterion H expects open space to be provided for different age groups, whereas criterion K requires private open space to be provided on a scale appropriate to dwelling type. The proposed accommodation would generally accord with these criteria for the reasons I have given above. However, houses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 would be sited across the contours of the slope at the rear of the site. For this reason, the proposal would not accord with criterion G of MLDP Policy DEV 6. 9.10 Bedroom 2 in house 7 would appear rather gloomy and the aspect of the dining rooms of houses 5 and 9 would not be as good as other rooms with a twin aspect. However, it is unlikely that the gable ends of houses 3 and 4 would appear overbearing in outlook from the affected dining rooms. The other issue raised by the council, namely protection from road noise could be adequately addressed by condition. 9.11 I find that the proposal would generally accord with the relevant provisions of MLDP Policy DEV 6. Where there is a lack of accordance with this policy, this needs to be balanced against the desirability of preserving the character of the surrounding green belt landscape by resisting the creation of a raised platform of earth upon which to provide level gardens for houses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Surface Water Drainage 9.12 The information provided by the applicant in its phase 1 drainage impact assessment needs to be updated. However, there is likely to be no substantive difference between the Page 68 of 157
Page 69
NA-290-001 Report 26 findings of the submitted assessment and those of an updated assessment. This is because the intensity of the proposed use (nine dwellings) is lower than that for which the submitted assessment was produced (16 dwellings). Thus, the provision of an updated assessment and technical details of the resultant drainage scheme could both be addressed by condition. Overall Planning Balance 9.13 Given that I have identified a moderate shortfall in housing land supply, SESplan Policy 7 over-rides the proposal’s lack of accordance with MLDP Policy ENV1. There are also minor policy conflicts with other parts of the adopted development plan. Nevertheless, I find that, despite these concerns, the proposal would be effective and would generally accord with the development plan as a whole. Any serious deficiencies could be addressed by condition. 9.14 Even if I were to find that the proposal would fail to accord overall with the development plan, there are a number of material considerations that pull very strongly in the opposite direction. 9.15 First amongst these is the fact that SESplan is out of date. SPP paragraph 33 is therefore engaged, which states: “the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration”. Helping to address a housing shortfall is of itself a contribution to sustainable development. So, the question to ponder is whether the deficiencies in the proposal are so serious that they significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in SPP and the adopted development plan. 9.16 Another significant material consideration is the approval of 09/00588/DPP during which the conditions required by Transport Scotland were satisfactorily met and either remain in force or are still a part of the proposed layout. 9.17 I am satisfied that the deficiencies in the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits associated with helping to meet the moderate shortfall in housing land supply in Midlothian. The proposal would, therefore, be sustainable overall. Conclusion 9.18 The proposal would accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan. Even if Ministers were to disagree with my finding in this regard, I conclude that this lack of accordance is outweighed by material considerations such that the development plan should be set aside in this instance. Recommendation 9.19 I recommend that planning permission is granted with conditions. Conditions 9.20 I must also consider whether planning conditions are capable of addressing deficiencies that would otherwise require planning permission to be refused. The LRB suggested conditions address these and I discuss below whether they meet the six tests. 9.21 The LRB has suggested 12 conditions. My recommended conditions are detailed in Appendix 1 below. Page 69 of 157
Page 70
NA-290-001 Report 27 9.22 Suggested condition 1 is a standard landscaping condition. Given the site’s green belt location, it is important that both hard and soft landscaping is well-designed and maintained. The suggested condition would achieve this. However, the requirement to provide details of surface water drainage in suggested condition 11 is duplicated here. It is also important that the approved scheme is completed before first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted. I have recommended that suggested condition 1 be amended accordingly. 9.23 Suggested condition 2 fails the test of precision and also duplicates the requirement in suggested condition 1 to provide details of hard surfacing materials. I consider it important for samples of the proposed materials of construction to be approved because the council will need to satisfy itself that the texture and colour of these materials are appropriate for the building and its setting. I have recommended that suggested condition 2 be amended accordingly. 9.24 Suggested condition 3 seeks to ensure that road noise would not disturb future occupants of the houses. During my site visit I noted that there is a high level of road noise and I agree that this condition is necessary. I have recommended some minor changes to the suggested condition to aid clarity. 9.25 Suggested condition 4 requires acoustic glazing to be installed to all windows facing the A702. I agree that this is necessary. However, the requirement for the design of the windows themselves to be subject to separate approval is unnecessary because suggested condition 2 requires all external materials of construction, which would include windows, to be approved in writing prior to development commencing. I have recommended that this clause of the suggested condition be deleted. 9.26 Suggested condition 5 would achieve a biodiversity gain for the site and I agree that it meets the six tests. I have recommended some minor changes in the interests of consistency and clarity. 9.27 I consider suggested condition 6 to be unnecessary and unreasonable. The parking area is not part of the public road and there would be good intervisibility between drivers and pedestrians. Drivers of smaller cars would likely have little difficulty manoeuvring in and out of spaces 5 and 14 and there is adequate space to turn a smaller car around without requiring a long reversing manoeuvre. I have recommended that suggested condition 6 be deleted. 9.28 Suggested condition 7 would aid toward meeting the Scottish Government’s nett zero targets. I agree that it meets the six tests but have recommended some minor changes in the interests of consistency and clarity. 9.29 Suggested condition 8 would support the delivery of digital infrastructure and would accord with the six tests. I have recommended some minor changes in the interests of consistency and clarity. 9.30 I have seen no evidence to suggest that there have ever been mineral workings at the site. However, it was a fuel filling station and it is likely that the ground is contaminated with hydrocarbons. Consequently, suggested condition 9 is necessary but I have recommended that all references to mineral workings are deleted. I also consider that suggested condition 10 could reasonably be included within suggested condition 9. I have recommended that suggested conditions 9 and 10 be revised accordingly. 9.31 Suggested condition 11 is necessary because the submitted phase 1 drainage impact assessment was produced for a different proposal. It is also necessary because the Page 70 of 157
Page 71
NA-290-001 Report 28 submitted plans do not show drainage measures in sufficient detail. I have recommended some minor changes in the interests of consistency and clarity. 9.32 Suggested condition 12 meets the six tests because the presence of at least one invasive plant species has been identified on the site. I have recommended some minor changes in the interests of consistency and clarity. 9.33 In addition to these conditions, I consider it both necessary and reasonable to attach a suspensive condition requiring the applicant to address general issues of road safety raised by Transport Scotland. I issued a procedure notice requesting the views of Transport Scotland and the applicant on the necessity for and wording of any such condition(s). Transport Scotland responded with seven suggested conditions. 9.34 Paragraph 5.4 of Circular 3/2013 – Development Management Procedures states: “It is not the intention that a notice of initiation of development be taken as a declaration that suspensive conditions have been met. However it does, insofar as it sets out a date on which development is intended to commence, provide to a planning authority an indication of the date by which suspensive conditions should be met. It would be for the planning authority on receipt of such a notice to consider whether any suspensive conditions were attached to the development and whether compliance with such conditions should be confirmed”. Consequently, I agree with the applicant that it is unnecessary to refer in any suggested condition to arrangements for that condition to be discharged. 9.35 The first suggested condition would require the specification of the proposed access and reinstated footways to be approved by the council, in consultation with Transport Scotland, as trunk roads authority. Transport Scotland is a statutory consultee in the planning process. This means that Midlothian Council must consult Transport Scotland before granting planning permission for developments which are likely to have an impact on the trunk road network. 9.36 The A702 is a trunk road and so Transport Scotland would need to be consulted during determination of any application for the approval of matters specified in a condition that relate to vehicular access to or from this road if the council were to consider such application to be necessary. It would therefore be redundant to refer to these matters in any of the suggested conditions. In addition, there is no need to specify compliance with a particular technical standard in the condition because this would more properly be a matter for the council and the applicant to agree upon. 9.37 I also consider it more appropriate for reference to any amendments to the design required as a result of the Road Safety Audit required by suggested condition two to be incorporated into this condition. 9.38 The third suggested condition would require the new access to be completed prior to any other development taking place on the site. I have found that road conditions are not currently unsafe and, given the need for plant and machinery to be moved on and off the site during development, it may aid the safe operation of the site for the existing two accesses to remain in operation until development is substantially complete. Keeping the existing accesses open would not necessarily preclude the new access from being created as soon as possible but I am not convinced that their closure is either necessary or reasonable as a condition of any further development taking place on site. 9.39 I agree that the location and design of external lighting should be controlled. However, this is most efficiently done by adding this element to criterion iv) of recommended condition 1) (hard and soft landscaping). Page 71 of 157
Page 72
NA-290-001 Report 29 9.40 Suggested conditions five and six may be amalgamated but I see no need for the design of such a facility to be subject to separate control because its operation would essentially be a management issue. I do consider it necessary, however, to specify that a clean zone is maintained between the end of the facility and the A702. 9.41 Suggested condition 7 may be incorporated into recommended condition 9) (surface water drainage). Planning Obligation 9.42 The LRB considers that developer contributions should be made towards primary and secondary school education provision and school transport provision. However, I can see nothing in MLDP Policy IMP 1 or IMP 2 to indicate how contributions should be calculated. 9.43 Although SG1 paragraph 93 explains how pupil ratios will be used to determine the level of contributions, this guidance was part of the superseded MLP and it mentions nothing about contributions towards school transport. Neither is the issue of developer contributions raised anywhere in the report of handling for the application. 9.44 On the basis of the evidence presented, I consider that the LRB requirement for developer contributions to be made towards primary and secondary school places and school transport is not well justified and recommend that no liability for developer contributions should fall upon the applicant. Philip Barton Reporter Page 72 of 157
Page 73
NA-290-001 Report 30 Appendix 1: Recommended Conditions 1) No development shall take place until details of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include: i) existing and finished ground levels and floor levels for all buildings, garden ground and roads in relation to a fixed datum; ii) existing trees, landscaping features and vegetation to be retained, removed or protected during development and in the case of damage, restored; iii) proposed new planting in communal areas, rain gardens, and open space, including trees, shrubs, hedging, wildflowers and grassed areas as well as root protection measures; iv) location and design of any proposed external lighting, walls, fences and gates, including retaining walls and those surrounding bin stores or any other ancillary structures; v) schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers and/or density; vi) programme of maintenance for all soft and hard landscaping; vii) proposed car park configuration and surfacing; and viii) proposed footpaths and cycle paths (designed to be unsuitable for motorcycle use). All hard and soft landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and shall subsequently be managed in accordance with the approved programme of maintenance. Any tree or shrub removed, dying, becoming seriously diseased or damaged within five years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by specimens of a similar species to those originally approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To enhance the character and appearance of the area; to respect the site’s Green Belt location and to accord with Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) Policies ENV 1, DEV 6 and DEV 7. 2) No development shall take place until samples of all materials to be used on external surfaces of the buildings; boundary walls; retaining walls; means of enclosure and ancillary structures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Development shall take place using the approved materials unless any variation is agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To enhance the character and appearance of the area and to accord with MLDP Policies ENV 1 and DEV 6. 3) No development shall take place until a Road Traffic Noise Assessment has been undertaken and submitted to the planning authority for its written approval. Any noise mitigation measures identified within the approved Road Traffic Noise Assessment Report shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved where mitigation measures are required. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved mitigation measures and those measures shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development unless the planning authority gives its written approval for their removal or variation. Page 73 of 157
Page 74
NA-290-001 Report 31 Reason: To protect the living conditions of future occupants of the houses and to accord with MLDP Policy DEV 6. 4) No development shall take place until details of the specification of acoustic glazing to be fitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved acoustic glazing shall be fitted to all window openings fronting onto or facing the A702 prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings thereby identified and shall subsequently be retained for the lifetime of the development unless the planning authority gives its written approval for their removal or replacement. Reason: To protect the living conditions of future occupants of the houses and to accord with MLDP Policy DEV 6. 5) No development shall take place until details of a scheme for biodiversity gain have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include the provision of house bricks and boxes for bats and swifts throughout the development. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained as approved for the lifetime of the development unless the planning authority gives its written approval for their removal or replacement. Reason: To achieve a biodiversity gain for the area and to accord with MLDP Policy DEV 5. 6) No development shall take place until details of the specification and siting of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained as approved for the lifetime of the development unless the planning authority gives its written approval for their removal or replacement. Reason: To accord with MLDP Policy TRAN 5. 7) No development shall take place until details of the provision of high speed fibre broadband to each house hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include a timetable for implementation to ensure that high speed fibre broadband is delivered prior to the first occupation of each dwelling hereby permitted. The delivery of high speed fibre broadband shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To deliver appropriate digital infrastructure in accordance with MLDP Policy IT1. 8) No development shall take place until details of a decontamination and remediation scheme to deal with any contamination of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include: i) the nature, extent and type(s) of contamination on the site; ii) measures to treat or remove contamination to ensure that the site is fit for the residential use hereby approved, and that there is no risk to the wider environment from contamination originating within the site; iii) measures to deal with contamination encountered during construction work; and Page 74 of 157
Page 75
NA-290-001 Report 32 iv) the condition of the site on completion of the specified decontamination and remediation measures. On completion of the works described in the approved decontamination and remediation scheme, a validation report shall be submitted to the planning authority confirming that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure that any contamination on the site is adequately identified and that appropriate decontamination measures are undertaken to mitigate the identified risk to site users and construction workers, built development on the site, landscaped areas, and the wider environment. 9) No development shall take place until details of a Surface Water Management Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. There shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved Surface Water Management Plan unless the planning authority gives its written approval to any variation. Reason: To ensure that there is suitable drainage of the site. 10) No development shall take place until an invasive species survey has been carried out and details of a scheme to eliminate any invasive species therein identified have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to development commencing unless the planning authority gives its written approval to any variation. Reason: To ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place to deal with any invasive species. 11) No development shall take place until a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Road Safety Audit has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety 12) No development shall take place until detailed drawings of the proposed vehicular access to the site from the A702 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include a specification for the reinstatement of the public footway across the two existing vehicular accesses and shall take into account any amendments required as a consequence of the Road Safety Audit conducted in compliance with condition 11) above. The approved new access and reinstated public footway shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety. 13) Any vehicle transporting excavated material onto or off the site shall be sheeted and must be treated by a wheel washing facility prior to it re-joining the public road network. This facility must remain operative at all times during earth moving operations. A ‘clean zone’ shall be maintained between the end of the facility and the A702. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Page 75 of 157
Page 76
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α Director General Economy Planning, Architecture and Regeneration Directorate Planning Decisions E-mail: Planning.Decisions@gov.scot Mr G Gilbert Gilberts Sent by email Our ref: NA-290-001 Planning Authority ref:21/00148/DPP 30 January 2025 Dear Mr Gilbert NOTICE OF INTENTION TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 ERECTION OF 9 TERRACED COTTAGES, FORMATION OF CAR PARKING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS, AT FORMER FILLING STATION, BIGGAR ROAD, HILLEND, DAMHEAD EH10 7DU (‘the proposed development’) 1. This letter contains the Scottish Ministers’ proposed decision on the above planning application submitted to Midlothian Council by Gilberts on behalf of C M Roofing and Building Limited on 2 March 2021 (council reference: 21/00148/DPP). 2. The application was called in for the Scottish Ministers’ determination on 10 March 2022. It was considered by means of written submissions and an unaccompanied site inspection which took place on 19 April 2022 by a reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers for that purpose. 3. The final report with the reporter’s recommendation was issued to the Scottish Ministers on 26 August 2022. A copy of the reporter’s report (‘the report’) is enclosed. All references to paragraph and chapter numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to those in the report. 4. On 26 January 2023, the Scottish Ministers issued a procedure notice which sought comments from the applicant and the planning authority in relation to the implications of Revised Draft National Planning 4 for the determination of the application. On 21 July 2023, the applicant and planning authority were invited to provide comments on the relevance of the Scottish Ministers’ decision on a recalled appeal for residential development at Mossend, West Calder. The parties were also invited to comment on how the Midlothian Housing Land Audit affected their case. The parties were given an opportunity to comment on each other’s responses. On 2 July 2024, the applicant and planning authority were invited to give comments on the relevance of the court’s opinion on the Mossend legal challenge and the subsequent Chief Planner letter (dated 27 June 2024) on planning for housing. The parties were also given an opportunity to comment on each other’s responses. Appendix B Page 76 of 157
Page 77
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α Reporter’s Recommendation and the Scottish Ministers’ Decision 5. The reporter has recommended that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions. The Scottish Ministers have carefully considered all of the evidence presented and the reporter’s findings and conclusions in their report. The Scottish Ministers agree with the reporter’s recommendation, as is explained in this decision letter, and are minded to grant planning permission for the proposed development subject to conditions and a planning obligation. The development plan and national policy context 6. Under the terms of section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (‘the Planning Act’) the application must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 7. On 13 February 2023, National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was adopted by the Scottish Ministers and replaced National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy. On the same date, SESPlan and its associated supplementary guidance ceased to have effect. The statutory development plan covering the application site now consists of NPF4 and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) and associated supplementary guidance. The Scottish Ministers have therefore not taken the reporter’s findings and conclusions with regard to Scottish Planning Policy in paragraphs 2.13-2.15 into account in determining this application. 8. The Scottish Ministers agree with the Reporter’s summary of relevant policies of the MLDP including Policy ENV1 ‘Protection of the Green Belt’; Policy DEV 6 ‘Layout and Design of New Development’; and IMP2 ‘Essential Infrastructure Required to Enable New Development to Take Place’, set out in paragraphs 2.16 - 2.18. Other relevant MLDP policies include Policies DEV 5 on sustainability in new development, DEV 7 on landscaping in new development; NR 3 and NR 4 regarding energy use and low and zero-generating technology; IMP 1 on new development, IMP 3 on water and drainage. 9. The Scottish Ministers agree with the Reporter that the Council’s Supplementary Guidance SG2 (Housing Development in the Countryside and Green Belt Supplementary Guidance) forms part of the statutory development plan. 10. The Scottish Ministers agree with the reporter that the main issues are: • control of development in the green belt; • road and pedestrian safety; • design; • living conditions; • surface water drainage, and • housing land supply. Policies on green belt, rural development and brownfield land 11. The Scottish Ministers agree with the reporter that the proposed development would not accord with MLDP Policy ENV1 ‘Protection of the Green Belt’ (paragraph 9.3). However, given that SESPlan has ceased to have effect, the Scottish Ministers disagree with the reporter that SESPlan Policy 7 over-rides that MLDP policy. Page 77 of 157
Page 78
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α 12. Contrary to the reporter’s findings in paragraph 4.4, the Scottish Ministers do not consider that any shortfall in housing land supply constitutes an exceptional circumstance to justify granting planning permission in this case. The Scottish Ministers acknowledge that MLDP paragraph 2.3.10 states that ‘housing proposals on greenfield/green belt locations may be acceptable where it is demonstrated that they will augment the 5-year housing land supply following the provisions of SESplan Policy 7’ (emphasis added). However, SESPlan no longer has any effect. In addition, the provisions of the MLDP regarding a ‘shortfall’ or ‘deficit’ in the five year effective housing land supply are incompatible with, and therefore prevailed over by, NPF4 Policy 16(f). This is because these provisions cover the same subject matter but would have a different effect. 13. National policy in relation to green belts is set out in Policy 8 of NPF4. The applicant notes that the current green belt identified in the adopted MLDP has not been drawn on the basis set out in the ‘Local Development Plans’ section of the green belt policy topic, so questions whether NPF4 Policy 8 is directly applicable to the current green belt. However, the Scottish Ministers consider that Policy 8 is applicable and is a consideration in determining this application. The policy states that development proposals within a green belt designated within the LDP will only be supported if they are for a prescribed type of development or use, set out in part (i) of the policy. The proposed development does not fall within any of those specified circumstances, and as such the Scottish Ministers consider it to be contrary to Policy 8. 14. NPF4 Policy 9 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) states (in summary) that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land will be supported. That policy therefore provides support for the development of the site. The policy also states its intent is to help reduce the need for greenfield development. The applicant has acknowledged that ‘this support conflicts with [NPF4] Policy 8 on green belts and considers the decision maker will have to weigh up the conflicting policy provisions, as well as taking account of all policy matters and material considerations.’ 15. The Scottish Ministers consider that NPF4 Policy 17 ‘Rural homes’ is relevant to this case. The applicant considers the locality is ‘semi-urban’ and notes that NPF4 does not contain a definition of ‘rural’ yet considers that the proposed development gains support from clause a(ii) of the policy because it reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. The applicant also considers the proposal should be supported in respect of local living. The council on the other hand expresses concern about the design of the proposed development, arguing it would not complement or enhance the character of the area and that it would not fully comply with Policy 17. 16. The Scottish Ministers consider that the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the area (for the reasons set out by the reporter in paragraphs 6.4 to 6.6) and gains support from NPF4 Policy 17. The proposed development also gains support from NPF4 Policy 29 on Rural development which provides support to development proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and the local rural economy. The proposed development gains support from NPF4 Policy 9 and Scottish ministers consider it does not undermine the stated policy outcomes for green belts. Sustainable transport and road and pedestrian safety Page 78 of 157
Page 79
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α 17. NPF4 Policy 13 ‘Sustainable transport’ is relevant to this case. Part (b) of the policy states that development proposals will be supported where it can be demonstrated that the transport requirements generated have been considered in line with the sustainable travel and investment hierarchies and where appropriate they (amongst other things): (i) Provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks before occupation; (ii) Will be accessible by public transport, ideally supporting the use of existing services; (iii) Provide low or zero-emission vehicle and cycle charging points in safe and convenient locations, in alignment with building standards; (iv) Have taken into account, at the earliest stage of design, the transport needs of diverse groups including users with protected characteristics to ensure the safety, ease and needs of all users. 18. The Scottish Ministers consider that, subject to compliance with conditions, the proposed development would satisfy the above requirements (i) to (iii) as appropriate for the scale and location of the development. The Scottish Ministers consider that further information would have been required in order to satisfy point (iv). This is particularly in view of the reporter’s observation at paragraph 5.9 that whilst there are bus stops on both sides of the A703, about 150 metres away from the site, the crossing to Old Pentland Road (which would likely need to be crossed in order to access those bus stops) is sub-standard and difficult, even hazardous, to negotiate for people with mobility difficulties, especially wheelchair users. 19. Part (g) of NPF4 Policy 13 states (amongst other things) that development proposals that have the potential to affect the operation and safety of the Strategic Transport Network will be fully assessed to determine their impact. 20. The Scottish Ministers note the reporter’s findings set out in paragraphs 5.5 to 5.17 regarding road and pedestrian safety. The Scottish Ministers give limited weight to the previous grants of planning permission for a hotel on the site as a material consideration. This is because those permissions were granted prior to the adoption of the current Midlothian LDP and prior to the publication of NPF4 and was not implemented. The reporter has included suspensive conditions that require the applicant to address Transport Scotland’s concerns. They prohibit development until a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Road Safety Audit (RSA), and details of the proposed vehicular safety access (informed by the RSA), have been submitted and approved by the council and Transport Scotland, which would satisfy NPF4 Policy 13(g). Design, quality and place and amenity 21. The reporter deals with ‘design’ and ‘living conditions’ in separate chapters of his report (reflecting the distinct original reasons for refusal of the planning application). The Scottish Ministers however consider these matters together as they both relate to design, quality and place (the subject of NPF4 Policy 14) and MLDP Policy DEV6 ‘Layout and Design of New Development’. 22. The Scottish Ministers agree with the reporter’s findings set out in paragraphs 6.3 to 6.6 with regard to the design of the development, except his finding that the most relevant design consideration relates to how the proposed design compares with the design of the permitted hotel scheme. The Scottish Ministers consider that the most relevant design consideration is the extent to which the proposed development satisfies the relevant criteria set out in MLDP Policy DEV6 and NPF4 Policy 14. Page 79 of 157
Page 80
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α 23. MLDP Policy DEV6 states that the council will require good design and a high quality of architecture, in both the overall layout of development proposals and their constituent parts. It states that the layout and design of development proposals should meet specific criteria, including: A. the layout of development proposals should complement or enhance the character of any adjoining or nearby urban area; include attractive street frontages; provide outlook onto communal open space; and integrate the siting of buildings, landscaping, open space, boundary treatment, and pedestrian/ cycle/ vehicular routes; G. buildings should be laid along contours to avoid excessive changes in levels and underbuilding in the street scene; H. open space for different age groups should be designed and sited to minimise disturbance and protect residential amenity; I. adequate spacing between housing should be provided to ensure privacy and amenity; and K. private open space should be provided on a scale appropriate to the relevant dwelling type. 24. NPF4 Policy 14 states that (a) development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. It also states that (b) development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable, and adaptable. 25. The Scottish Ministers note the reporter’s comment (paragraph 7.3) that the topography of the site makes it impossible for the proposed layout to fully accord with criterion G of MLDP DEV8 above. However, the Scottish Ministers consider that this is partly the result of the number of houses proposed by the application. 26. The Scottish Ministers agree with the reporter that the changes in level across the site would not lead to ‘unacceptably poor living conditions. However, the Scottish Ministers note that: • the only window of a bedroom in house 7 would face on to a retaining wall and would be “rather gloomy” (paragraph 9.10); • the rear gardens of houses 5-9 would be steep at around -18.4° or -33.3% (paragraph 7.5), and • the rear garden of each of the houses 6-8 would potentially only be accessible by going through the house (potentially making garden maintenance or improvements difficult) or through one or more rear gardens of the neighbouring houses (leading to loss of privacy). 27. The Scottish Ministers agree with the reporter in paragraph 4.6 that the site is a brownfield site that has detracted from the character and general appearance of the area for many years. The Scottish Ministers consider that the proposal is broadly in line Page 80 of 157
Page 81
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α with the six qualities of successful places and agree with the reporter’s view in paragraph 9.6 that the design responds well to the topography of the site and that the overall approach is cohesive and takes inspiration from a common form of steading development; an older example of which is evident relatively close to the site. Other relevant issues 28. As the proposed development is not allocated for housing in the LDP it is not supported by part (a) of NPF4 Policy 16 (Quality Homes). 29. Housing development proposals on land that has not been allocated for such development (such as in this instance) are required to be assessed against part (f) of Policy 16. The applicant argues that Policy 16 (f) is not a relevant policy for the purposes of this application and that it cannot be applied until such a time as a new Local Development Plan has been adopted in the relevant area and a ‘deliverable housing land pipeline’ established. The Scottish Ministers note the court’s opinion in the case of Miller Homes vs. Scottish Ministers that there is nothing to suggest that the operation of any parts of Policy 16 be postponed until new-style LDPs are in place. 30. In order to gain support from criterion (i) of Policy 16 (f), the proposed development must be supported by an agreed timescale for build out. This has not been provided by the applicant. However, if the proposed development could be supported by criterion (i), it must also comply with criterion (ii) which requires proposals to be otherwise consistent with the plan’s spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods. As covered in paragraph 33 below, although the Scottish Ministers consider that the proposed development makes a reasonable contribution to local living it is not consistent with NPF4 and LDP policies on green belts. The Scottish Ministers consider that the proposed development does satisfy bullet point 2 of criterion (iii) namely being consistent with policy on rural homes, specifically NPF4 Policy 17. The Scottish Ministers do not consider that the proposal is for a smaller scale opportunity within an existing settlement boundary or is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes as part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan and therefore, does not satisfy bullet points 3 and 4 of criterion (iii). Consequently, the Scottish Ministers find that the proposed development is overall, contrary to Policy 16 (f). 31. The Scottish Ministers agree with the reporter that further investigations relating to road noise and the details of acoustic insulation and performance, and the matter of surface water drainage, could adequately be addressed by way of conditions in this case (paragraphs 7.8 and 9.12). 32. NPF4 Policy 15 (Local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods) intends to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. It states that development proposals will contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20-minute neighbourhoods. The Scottish Ministers consider that the proposed development would make a reasonable contribution to local living. The submitted transport assessment confirms that the site is well placed for bus services into Edinburgh city (the nearest bus stops being around 200 metres walk from the development); there are footways on both sides of the road; the majority of Edinburgh city is within a 20–40-minute cycle. A snowsports centre, public house and restaurant and a service station are within a ten-minute walk of the site. Page 81 of 157
Page 82
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α 33. NPF4 Policy 1 states that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. NPF4 Policy 2 sets out an exception that development proposals will be sited and designed both to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. The planning authority states it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will result in zero carbon and provide a nature positive place. The applicant on the other hand states that Policy 1 does not require all individual developments to be zero carbon and is intended to be an overarching policy to be considered in terms of compliance or otherwise with the policies that follow. The applicant highlights that the site is on the edge of the Edinburgh urban area and is very well located in terms of public transport, and that the new homes would be built in accordance with up-to-date building regulations, ensuring that lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are minimised. 34. The applicant also states that in order to comply with current building regulations, the design would need to be amended to incorporate air-source heat pumps and that they can be introduced without any significant visual impact. and could be addressed by a non-material variation to any permission or a condition. The Scottish Ministers consider it would be inappropriate to attach this as a condition in this notice of intention letter as Circular 4/1998 makes it clear that conditions must be attached for planning reasons and in this instance, the condition would be to ensure that building standard regulations are met. 35. Overall, the Scottish Ministers consider that given the nature and relatively small scale of the proposed development, the significant weight to be applied under Policy 1 does not tip the balance in either direction in this case, and that any non-compliance with Policy 2 regarding the proposals current lack of renewable energy sources would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission. 36. The Scottish Ministers consider that the site is of limited biodiversity value. A condition has been imposed requiring details of a scheme for biodiversity gain to comply with NPF4 Policy 3. Planning obligation 37. The Scottish Minsters disagree with the reporter (paragraph 9.44) that no liability for developer contributions should fall upon the applicant. The Scottish Ministers acknowledge that whilst Supplementary Planning Guidance: Developer Contributions 2012 no longer forms a statutory part of the current development plan. LDP Policy IMP1 (New Development) clearly sets out the policy basis for seeking developer contributions and that where appropriate, developer contributions will be sought where new development gives rise to a need; that appropriate provision is made for essential infrastructure, including education provision. 38. The Scottish Ministers advocate a plan led system, where levels (or methods of calculation) of contributions to be sought, are set out to provide greater clarity and certainty for users of the planning system. However, the absence of this detail, as part of an adopted plan or supplementary guidance does not remove the ability to secure such contributions, reflecting the impacts of the development. Therefore, in this case, the Scottish Ministers consider that a planning obligation should be completed to secure payment of a financial contribution towards primary education, secondary education and school transport as per the provision of LDP Policy IMP1 (New Development). Page 82 of 157
Page 83
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α Conclusions 39. Whilst the reporter concluded that SESplan over-rode the proposal’s lack of accordance with MLDP Policy ENV 1, this can no longer be the case as SESplan has ceased to have effect. In addition, the Scottish Planning Policy ‘presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development’ no longer exists following the replacement of SPP with NPF4. 40. The Scottish Ministers conclude that the proposed development gains support from some policies of the development plan, in particular NPF4 Policies 17 ‘Rural Homes’, 29 ‘Rural Development’ and 9 ‘Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings’. It does not conflict with several other policies. However, it is contrary to MLDP Policy ENV 1 and NPF4 Policy 8 a (i) regarding development proposals within the green belt, and is not fully supported by NPF4 Policy 16. 41. The proposed development is located on a brownfield site within the green belt just outwith the Edinburgh boundary and is well located in terms of accessibility and local services. While the proposed development conflicts with the criteria of part (i) of NPF4 Policy 8 (green belt), the Scottish Ministers consider it does not undermine the achievement of the stated policy outcomes for green belts. 42. On balance, the Scottish Ministers consider that the benefits of the proposed development, including the provision of 9 homes that reasonably contribute to local living and the redevelopment of brownfield land within an accessible location near local services, outweighs its departure from the development plan in this instance and that the balance is in favour of granting planning permission subject to conditions and the conclusion of a planning obligation towards education provision. Formal Decision 43. Accordingly, the Scottish Ministers hereby defer their formal decision on the planning application, in the first instance for a period of 4 months, to enable the relevant planning obligations, or other suitable agreement, to be completed and registered to the Scottish Ministers’ satisfaction. Page 83 of 157
Page 84
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α Appendix 1: Proposed conditions and planning obligation Planning Obligation A planning obligation should commit the developer to make a financial contribution towards primary education, secondary education and school transport as per the provision of LDP Policy IMP1 (New Development). Planning Conditions 1) No development shall take place until details of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include: i) existing and finished ground levels and floor levels for all buildings, garden ground and roads in relation to a fixed datum; ii) existing trees, landscaping features and vegetation to be retained, removed or protected during development and in the case of damage, restored; iii) proposed new planting in communal areas, rain gardens, and open space, including trees, shrubs, hedging, wildflowers and grassed areas as well as root protection measures; iv) location and design of any proposed external lighting, walls, fences and gates, including retaining walls and those surrounding bin stores or any other ancillary structures; v) schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers and/or density; vi) programme of maintenance for all soft and hard landscaping; vii) proposed car park configuration and surfacing; and viii) proposed footpaths and cycle paths (designed to be unsuitable for motorcycle use). All hard and soft landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and shall subsequently be managed in accordance with the approved programme of maintenance. Any tree or shrub removed, dying, becoming seriously diseased or damaged within five years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by specimens of a similar species to those originally approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To enhance the character and appearance of the area and to respect the site’s Green Belt location. 2) No development shall take place until samples of all materials to be used on external surfaces of the buildings; boundary walls; retaining walls; means of enclosure and ancillary structures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Development shall take place using the approved materials unless any variation is agreed in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To enhance the character and appearance of the area. 3) No development shall take place until a Road Traffic Noise Assessment has been undertaken and submitted to the planning authority for its written approval. Any noise mitigation measures identified within the approved Road Traffic Noise Assessment Page 84 of 157
Page 85
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α Report shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved where mitigation measures are required. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved mitigation measures and those measures shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development unless the planning authority gives its written approval for their removal or variation. Reason: To protect the living conditions of future occupants of the houses. 4) No development shall take place until details of the specification of acoustic glazing to be fitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved acoustic glazing shall be fitted to all window openings fronting onto or facing the A702 prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings thereby identified and shall subsequently be retained for the lifetime of the development unless the planning authority gives its written approval for their removal or replacement. Reason: To protect the living conditions of future occupants of the houses. 5) No development shall take place until details of a scheme for biodiversity gain have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include the provision of house bricks and boxes for bats and swifts throughout the development. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained as approved for the lifetime of the development unless the planning authority gives its written approval for their removal or replacement. Reason: To achieve a biodiversity gain for the area. 6) No development shall take place until details of the specification and siting of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained as approved for the lifetime of the development unless the planning authority gives its written approval for their removal or replacement. Reason: To accord with Transport policies. 7) No development shall take place until details of the provision of high speed fibre broadband to each house hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include a timetable for implementation to ensure that high speed fibre broadband is delivered prior to the first occupation of each dwelling hereby permitted. The delivery of high speed fibre broadband shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To deliver appropriate digital infrastructure. 8) No development shall take place until details of a decontamination and remediation scheme to deal with any contamination of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include: i) the nature, extent and type(s) of contamination on the site; Page 85 of 157
Page 86
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α ii) measures to treat or remove contamination to ensure that the site is fit for the residential use hereby approved, and that there is no risk to the wider environment from contamination originating within the site; iii) measures to deal with contamination encountered during construction work; and iv) the condition of the site on completion of the specified decontamination and remediation measures. On completion of the works described in the approved decontamination and remediation scheme, a validation report shall be submitted to the planning authority confirming that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure that any contamination on the site is adequately identified and that appropriate decontamination measures are undertaken to mitigate the identified risk to site users and construction workers, built development on the site, landscaped areas, and the wider environment. 9) No development shall take place until details of a Surface Water Management Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. There shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system. Development shall take place in accordance with the approved Surface Water Management Plan unless the planning authority gives its written approval to any variation. Reason: To ensure that there is suitable drainage of the site. 10) No development shall take place until an invasive species survey has been carried out and details of a scheme to eliminate any invasive species therein identified have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to development commencing unless the planning authority gives its written approval to any variation. Reason: To ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place to deal with any invasive species. 11) No development shall take place until a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Road Safety Audit has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety 12) No development shall take place until detailed drawings of the proposed vehicular access to the site from the A702 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The approved details shall include a specification for the reinstatement of the public footway across the two existing vehicular accesses and shall take into account any amendments required as a consequence of the Road Safety Audit conducted in compliance with condition 11) above. The approved new access and reinstated public footway shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety. 13) Any vehicle transporting excavated material onto or off the site shall be sheeted and must be treated by a wheel washing facility prior to it re-joining the public road network. Page 86 of 157
Page 87
Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ www.scotland.gov.uk ϕ αβχδε αβχ α This facility must remain operative at all times during earth moving operations. A ‘clean zone’ shall be maintained between the end of the facility and the A702. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Yours sincerely Paul Lawson PAUL LAWSON Page 87 of 157
Page 88
Planning Committee Tuesday 29 April 2025 Item No 5.3 PRE - APPLICATION REPORT REGARDING SITING OF FIVE HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATON UNITS AT LAND BETWEEN BRAIDLAW FARMHOUSE AND THE A766, PENICUIK (25/00142/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 five holiday accommodation units on land between Braidlaw Farmhouse and the A766, Penicuik. 1.2 The pre-application consultation is reported to Committee to enable Councillors to express a provisional view on the proposed major development. The report outlines the proposal, identifies the key development plan policies and material considerations and states a provisional, without prejudice, planning view regarding the principle of development. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Guidance on the role of Councillors in the pre-application process published by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, was reported to the Committee at its meeting of 30 August 2022. The guidance clarifies the position regarding Councillors stating a provisional view on proposals at pre-application stage. 2.2 A pre-application consultation for five holiday accommodation units on land between Braidlaw Farmhouse and the A766 was submitted on 11 March 2025. The applicant is Euan Pearson, Pearson Planning. 2.3 As part of the pre-application consultation process, two public events have been scheduled. The first event is scheduled to take place on 11 June 2025 at Ladywood Leisure Centre, Penicuik. The second event is scheduled for 25 June 2025 at the same venue. 2.4 An applicant must wait 12 weeks from the date of submission of a PAN before submitting a planning application. The 12-week period will expire on 4 June 2025, however as the public events are scheduled for after that date the earliest date that a planning application for the proposal could be submitted is 26 June 2025. The subsequent Page 88 of 157
Page 89
planning application must be accompanied by a Pre-Application Consultation Report detailing the consultation undertaken, a summary of written responses and views expressed at the public events, and an explanation of how the applicant took account of the views expressed and an explanation of how members of the public were given feedback on the applicant’s consideration of their views. 2.5 A copy of the pre application notice has been sent by the applicant to the Penicuik and District Community Council. 2.6 It is reasonable for an Elected Member to attend one of the events without a Council planning officer present, but the Member should (in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidance reported to the Committee at its meeting in August 2022) not offer views, as the forum for doing so will be at meetings of the Planning Committee. 3 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 In assessing any subsequent planning application the main planning issue to be considered in determining the application is whether the proposed development complies with development plan policies unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The views of consultees and representors will be material considerations in the assessment of an application for the proposed development. 3.2 The development plan is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP). Section 24(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that where there is an incompatibility between the provisions of the National Planning Framework and the provisions of a local development plan whichever of them is the later in date is to prevail. At present this means that where there is an incompatibility NPF4 takes precedence, this will change when a new local development plan is adopted. 3.3 The application site measures approximately 8.2 hectares and is situated to the southwest of Penicuik and consists of open fields associated with Braidlaw Farmhouse and associated livery to the north. The A766 runs along the southern boundary of the site and access from the A766 to the farmhouse and livery runs from south to north through the site. The site sits at an elevated level from the A766 and is within the countryside and a special landscape area. There is a high-pressure gas pipeline running through the western part of the site. Braidwood Steading is to the north, beyond the farmhouse and livery. There is a woodland to the east and partial along the southern boundary, with open fields to all other boundaries. 3.4 The relevant policies of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) are: • Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crisis • Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation Page 89 of 157
Page 90
• Policy 3 Biodiversity • Policy 13 Sustainable transport • Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure • Policy 22 Flood risk and water management • Policy 24 Digital infrastructure • Policy 29 Rural development • Policy 30 Tourism 3.5 The relevant policies of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) are: • RD1 Development in the Countryside • VIS2 Tourist Accommodation • ENV6 Special Landscape Areas • ENV7 Landscape Character • DEV5 Sustainability in New Development • DEV6 Layout and Design of New Development • DEV7 Landscaping in New Development • TRAN5 Electric Vehicle Charging • IT1 Digital Infrastructure 3.6 The site is designated as countryside. However, the development plan is generally supportive of holiday accommodation proposals in principle to support the Council’s ambition to improve the range of tourism accommodation in the county, provided the units meet design and environmental criteria as set out in policy. While the principle of holiday accommodation is generally accepted, detailed consideration will need to be given to the design matters. In particular, the site’s relationship to the surrounding rural area and the impact on the landscape character of the area, as well as the layout, siting, scale, design and materials of the proposed accommodation and any other associated works. There must also be an important emphasis placed on the sustainability of the development and its impact on the climate crisis. The impact of the proposed development on the high-pressure gas pipeline running through the site must also be considered with the relevant statutory consultees being consulted. 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. Page 90 of 157
Page 91
4.3 The Scottish Government’s Guidance on the Role of Councillors in Pre-Application Procedures advises that Councillors be expected to approach their decision-making with an open mind in that they must have regard to all material considerations and be prepared to change their views that they are minded towards if persuaded that they should. 5 RECOMMENDATION 5.1 It is recommended that the Committee notes: a) the provisional planning position set out in this report; b) that any comments made by Members will form part of the minute of the Committee meeting; and c) that the expression of a provisional view does not fetter the Committee in its consideration of any subsequent formal planning application. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 18 April 2025 Application No: 25/00142/PAC Applicant: Euan FS Pearson, Pearson Planning Agent: None Validation Date: 11 March 2025 Contact Person: Mhairi-Anne Cowie Email: mhairi-anne.cowie@midlothian.gov.uk Attached Plan: Location Plan Page 91 of 157
Page 92
N Midlothian Council Fairfield House 8 Lothian Road Dalkeith, EH22 3AA Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Crown copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Service Place Directorate Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2025) Proposal of application notice for holiday accommodation development Land between Braidlaw Farmhouse and The A766 Penicuik File No. 25/00142/PAC Scale 1:4000Page 92 of 157
Page 93
Planning Committee Tuesday 29 April 2025 Item No 5.4 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION (24/00338/DPP) FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING CLASS 1A (SHOPS, FINANCIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER SERVICES), CLASS 11 (ASSEMBLY AND LEISURE), AND CLASS 4 (BUSINESS), AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE, CAR PARKING, SERVICING, ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING AT LAND 90M SOUTHWEST OF ASDA PETROL FILLING STATION, STRAITON, LOANHEAD Report by Chief Officer Place 1 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDED DECISION 1.1 The application is in detail for a mixed-use development including Class 1A (shops, financial, professional and other services), Class 11 (assembly and leisure), and Class 4 (business), and associated infrastructure, car parking, servicing, access arrangements and landscaping at land 90m southwest of Asda Petrol Filling Station, Straiton, Loanhead. 1.2 There have been three representations and consultation responses from Scottish Water, the Coal Authority, Scottish Power Energy Networks, Transport Scotland, the Council’s Ecological Advisor, the Council’s Archaeology Advisor, the Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads), the Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services (Environmental Health) and the Loanhead and District Community Council. 1.3 The relevant development plan policies are policies 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 28 of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and policies STRAT1, DEV2, DEV5, DEV6, DEV7, ECON4, TRAN1, TRAN2, TRAN5, TCR2, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, ENV15, ENV16, ENV17, ENV18, ENV25, IMP1, IMP2 and IMP3 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP). 1.4 The recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the applicant entering into a planning obligation to secure contributions towards necessary infrastructure. 2 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site measures 3.77 hectares and is situated at the western side of Loanhead and comprises open ground and a tarred roadway. The Page 93 of 157
Page 94
northern part of the site was used as a site compound during the construction of the neighbouring Asda supermarket. To the northeast the site is bounded by the Asda petrol filling station. To the northwest the site is bounded by the A701, with Pentland Park residential mobile home site on the opposite side of the road. The site is bounded to the south by the Western Nissan car dealership and by Niven’s Knowe Road. To the east the site bounds a private house with five self- catering apartments (Aaron Glen) and Pentland Industrial Estate. There is a vehicular access to the site from the north via the access road to the Asda car park and another access to the south from Niven’s Knowe Road. 3 PROPOSAL 3.1 The proposed development comprises two buildings situated towards the eastern side of the site with a service yard to the rear and car parking in front of the buildings. The northern building will be the larger of the two buildings. It will comprise two retail units and will have a footprint of 4017 sqm. A 1115 sqm open air garden centre/storage yard will be attached to the south end of the building. 3.2 The southern building will be situated 26.1m south of the other building and 2.5m south of the fence surrounding the yard. The building will comprise five roller shutter units and will have a footprint of 2035 sqm. Both buildings will be clad with modern cladding panels and will utilise different profiles and different shades of grey to create variety on the elevations. 3.3 The car park area to the west of the buildings will provide 278 spaces. There will be vehicular and pedestrian access to the site from both the north, via the existing roundabout at the east end of the Asda access road, and from the south, via Swinton Place and its junction with Niven’s Knowe Road. There will be pedestrian only access direct from the A701, at the northwest corner of the site, and improvements to the pedestrian crossing functions at the signalised A701/Asda junction. The existing hedgerow along the A701 edge of the site will be retained and enhanced. Further landscaping will take place along the edges of the site. 3.4 Surface water run-off will be conveyed via swales, filter drains and permeable paving to underground cellular storage attenuation beneath the northern area of the main car park. Discharge from the attenuation will be restricted to greenfield run-off rates and will discharge into the existing sewer network that runs through the site. 3.5 The application is accompanied by the following supporting statements. Unless otherwise stated the documents were submitted with the original submission documents on 21 May 2024: Page 94 of 157
Page 95
• Cultural Heritage Desk-Based Assessment (Final associated correspondence 6 December 2024) • Design and Access Statement (Final submission 5 March 2025) • Flood Risk Assessment • Noise Impact Assessment • Phase 1 Desk Study Report and Mining Risk Assessment (Final submission 2 October 2024) • Planning Statement (Final submission 27 May 2024) • Pre-Application Consultation Report • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal • Replies to various consultation responses (Final submission 2 October 2024) • Retail Impact Assessment • Site Investigation Report (Final submission 13 November 2024) • Strategic Biodiversity Management Plan • Surface Water Management Plan (Final submission 27 May 2024) • Transport Assessment (Final submission 2 October 2024) • Tree Survey 4 BACKGROUND Application Site 4.1 A Notice of Intention to Develop (reference 0641/98/NID) for the realignment of the A701 was issued in 2000. The route of the realigned road passed through the southern half of the application site. The realigned route was safeguarded in subsequent local plans, up to and including the Midlothian Local Plan 2008. The safeguarding was removed with the adoption of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 which identified an alternative route for the realignment. 4.2 Planning permission 05/00433/FUL granted consent for the erection of a visitor centre and office blocks with associated access, parking, service yard and landscaping on land at the northern end of the current application site. The applicant was Edinburgh Crystal. The permission was not implemented. The consent was varied via planning permission 06/00783/FUL and that permission was also not implemented. 4.3 Planning permission 11/00474/DPP granted retrospective consent for the infilling of land and relocation of utilities (water and electricity) and associated landscaping. The permission relates to the infilling of a former water pipe cutting at the southeastern corner of the current application site. 4.4 Planning permission 14/00290/DPP granted consent for the erection of a non-food retail building and formation of associated car parking and service yard on land at the northern end of the current application site. The permission was not implemented. Page 95 of 157
Page 96
4.5 Planning permission 15/00610/DPP granted consent for the formation of temporary car park and erection of fence on the existing tarmac roadway within the current application site. The permission was not implemented. 4.6 Prior to the submission of the current application the site was the subject of a Proposal of Application Notice (reference 24/00119/PAC) which was submitted in February 2024 and reported to Committee on 23 April 2024. 4.7 An EIA Screening Opinion Request for mixed use development including Class 1A (shops, financial, professional and other services), Class 3 (food and drink), Class 11 (assembly and leisure) and Class 4 (business); and associated infrastructure, car parking, servicing, access arrangements and landscaping was submitted on 23 April 2024. The screening opinion confirmed that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required and was issued on 13 May 2024. Asda 4.8 Application 09/00362/FUL granted consent for the erection of retail building and petrol filling station, formation of associated car parking, landscaping and access to A701 at the Former Dansco Dairy, New Pentland. Western Nissan 4.9 Planning permission 99/00746/FUL granted consent for the erection of a car showroom, workshops and associated car parking and roads. The permission was issued on 23 November 2000. 4.10 The curtilage of the dealership was expanded in 2017 when the site was extended to incorporate a grassed area to the south of the dealership that had previously been part of the A701 realignment safeguarding. Planning permission 17/00212/DPP granted consent for a change of use from public open space to car sales and formation of hard standing. Aaron Glen 4.11 The neighbouring house at the southeast corner of the application site was in use as a guest house in the early 1990s and continued to be used as a guest house until the 2020s. The property was extended in the early 2000s (reference 01/00790/FUL) to provide domestic accommodation. 4.12 Retrospective planning permission was granted in 2003 for the erection of two self-catering units (reference 02/00498/FUL) to the rear of the guest house building. In 2021 consent (reference 21/00691/DPP) was Page 96 of 157
Page 97
granted for the change of use from guest house bedrooms to 3 self- catering apartments; and external alterations including infilling of door opening, formation of window and door openings. The business now operates on a solely self-catering basis and offers a choice of five self- catering apartments. 4.13 Due to the floorspace and the site area the application constitutes a Major Development, as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, and therefore it requires to be determined by the Committee. 4.14 The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 categorises different land uses into different classes to enable planning practitioners and decision makes to determine if a change of use of land or buildings is proposed or has occurred – Classes 1A, 4 and 11 have been referenced in this report. The classes relate to the following uses: Class 1A – This class relates to use as shops, and financial, professional and other services. Class 4 – This class relates to business uses including uses as an office, research and development facility or for industrial processes. All such uses must be capable of being carried on in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. Class 11 – This class relates to assembly and leisure uses including use as a cinema, concert hall, bingo hall or casino, dance hall or discotheque or sports uses. 4.15 In defining if a material change of use between one class and another has occurred it enables planning authorities to assess the impact of different uses and enables decisions to be made with regard the right development in the right location. Different uses within the same class are seen to have similar impacts and characteristic and are therefore interchangeable in land use planning terms. 5 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Scottish Water does not object to the application. The water supply will be fed from Glencorse Water Treatment Works. The foul water drainage will be dealt with by the Edinburgh Waste Water Treatment Works. Both have sufficient capacity at present; however, it is not possible to reserve capacity for future developments. This will be subject to a separate regulatory process between the applicant and Scottish Water. Page 97 of 157
Page 98
5.2 For reasons of sustainability and to protect Scottish Water customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into the combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where we would allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical and technical challenges. 5.3 To avoid costs and delays where a surface water discharge to the combined sewer system is anticipated, the developer should refer to Scottish Water guidance on network connections. Evidence to support the intended drainage plan should be submitted at the technical application stage. The evidence will be assessed in a robust manner and any decision will reflect the best option from environmental and customer perspectives. For reasons of sustainability, and to protect from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will typically require surface water to be eliminated from any new discharges of trade effluent. 5.4 The Coal Authority does not object to the application. The Coal Authority is satisfied that the content and conclusions of the Phase 1 Desk Study Report and Mining Risk Assessment, as supplemented by those of the subsequent Report on Site Investigations, are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development. The Coal Authority recommends the use of an Informative Note on any decision notice but does not consider any conditions to be necessary. 5.5 Scottish Power (SP) Energy Networks does not object to the application. SP Distribution has a high voltage overhead line and underground cables within the vicinity of the proposals. SP Distribution reserves the right to protect and/or deviate their cable/apparatus at the applicant’s expense – this is a matter between the applicant and SP Distribution rather than the planning authority. 5.6 Transport Scotland does not object to the application, subject to any grant of planning permission including a condition to secure a Travel Plan to reduce dependency on the private car. The response includes comments on the contents of the Transport Assessment (TA) and confirms that, based on the figures in the TA, detailed assessments of the A720(T)/A701 Straiton junction and the A702(T)/A703/Old Pentland Road junction will not be necessary. 5.7 The Council’s Ecological Advisor – The Wildlife Information Centre (TWIC) does not object to the application. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) advises that there are no signs of protected species on the site; that other than a breeding bird survey, no protected species survey is required; there are no habitats of conservation Page 98 of 157
Page 99
interest on the site; and no Invasive Non-Native Species were noted on the site. 5.8 The Council’s Archaeology Advisor does not object to the application. The consultee originally recommended a programme of archaeological evaluation works, however after examination of site investigation borehole data the consultee confirmed that evaluation work would not be required due to the amount of previous ground disturbance. It is recommended that a milestone marker within the site is retained and protected. 5.9 The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Flood Risk and Transportation) does not object to the application. The response notes certain details that should be secured via condition. The consultee originally advised that access to the site should only be from the A701, following consideration of further information submitted by the applicant the consultee confirmed that the proposed access arrangements were acceptable. The consultee originally advised that a footway should be provided along the A701 frontage of the site, following consideration of further information submitted by the agent the consultee confirmed that a footway along the A701 was not required because of the development. 5.10 The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services (Environmental Health) does not object to the application. Conditions relating to noise emissions from plant and machinery, noise assessment procedures and light emissions are recommended. The Phase 1 Desk Study Report and Mining Risk Assessment and Site Investigation Report have been subject to four rounds of external peer review, further submissions will be required to address matters associated with potential ground contamination. 5.11 Loanhead and District Community Council objects to the proposal. The Community Council has submitted three separate sets of comments. The first response was received on 21 June 2024. The grounds for objection are as follows: • There is an existing over-proliferation of convenience, general and bulky comparison goods retailers within the Straiton area. • The proposal will not address facilities deficiencies identified by the local community. • Any new development should comply with the ethos of 20- minute neighbourhoods. • The trees on the site should be retained. • The Milestone on the east verge of the A701 should be protected and preserved. • The site requires further intrusive site investigations to identify risks associated with historic coalmining in the area. • The development will promote car dependence and will exacerbate congestion in the surrounding area. Page 99 of 157
Page 100
• The proposal is contrary to policies 1, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18, 23 and 27 of NPF4. 5.12 The second response was received on 6 November 2024 and raised the following points: • Niven’s Knowe Road is a dangerous road, with a high volume of fast-moving traffic. The proposal will add to existing tailbacks. • The proposed junction with Niven’s Knowe Road should only be used as an exit for service vehicles. • A new footway should be provided along the A701 frontage. • The proposed car park should not be privately owned and operated. • This location could fulfil a demonstrated need for Class 4 Small Business units and Class 11 Leisure facilities, which would significantly reduce the number of private cars that this current retail planning application will attract to this area, is a much better proposition for this land. 5.13 The third response was received on 25 March 2025 and raised the following points: • There is a demand for Class 4 and Class 11 units. The community council would support Class 4 Business • The community council would support a DIY store with garden centre. • Electric vehicle charging points should be fully installed rather than providing only cabling for future installation. • All cycle spaces should be covered. • A footway along the A701 frontage should be provided. • The Niven’s Knowe Road junction should only be used for egress of service vehicles. • The Milestone on the east verge of the A701 should be protected and preserved. 5.14 The consultation responses are available to view in full on the online application case files. 6 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The application has received three neutral representations which can be viewed in full on the online application case files. The points raised in the representations are as follows: • A footway should be provided within the application site parallel to the A701 to link existing footways in the area and improve active travel provision. • There should be controls on delivery times to the units to safeguard residential amenity. Page 100 of 157
Page 101
• Any acoustic fencing should be erected at an early stage to provide mitigation during construction. • The existing A701/Asda junction is busy and subject to queuing. An alternative entrance should be used. 7 PLANNING POLICY 7.1 The is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 7.2 The following policies are relevant to the proposal: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 7.3 Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crisis; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis. 7.4 Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. 7.5 Policy 3 Biodiversity; sets out to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. 7.6 Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees; sets out to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. 7.7 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. 7.8 Policy 12 Zero Waste; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy. 7.9 Policy 13 Sustainable transport; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. 7.10 Policy 14 Design, quality and place; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. 7.11 Policy 15 Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of Page 101 of 157
Page 102
their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. 7.12 Policy 18 Infrastructure first; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. 7.13 Policy 19 Heating and Cooling sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that supports decarbonised solutions to heat and cooling demand and ensure adaptation to more extreme temperatures. 7.14 Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure; sets out to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. 7.15 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. 7.16 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. 7.17 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. 7.18 Policy 27 City, town, local and commercial centres; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development in our city and town centres, recognising they are a national asset. This will be achieved by applying the Town Centre First approach to help centres adapt positively to long-term economic, environmental and societal changes, and by encouraging town centre living. 7.19 Policy 28 Retail; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate retail investment to the most sustainable locations that are most accessible by a range of sustainable transport modes. Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) 7.20 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. 7.21 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. Page 102 of 157
Page 103
7.22 Policy DEV5: Sustainability in New Development sets out the requirements for development with regards to sustainability principles. 7.23 Policy DEV6: Layout and Design of New Development states that good design and a high quality of architecture will be required in the overall layout of development proposals. This also provides guidance on design principles for development, materials, access, and passive energy gain, positioning of buildings, open and private amenity space provision and parking. 7.24 Policy DEV7: Landscaping in New Development requires development proposals to be accompanied by a comprehensive scheme of landscaping. The design of the scheme is to be informed by the results of an appropriately detailed landscape assessment. 7.25 Policy ECON4: Economic Development Outwith Established Business and Industrial Sites states that business and industrial proposals (class 4 and 5) within the defined urban area but outwith existing or allocated business and industrial sites will be supported if: a. it is demonstrated that there is no suitable alternative site available within established economic sites; b. the site is not identified for alternative use; c. the proposed development would be compatible with surrounding uses and there would be no adverse impact on local and, in particular, residential amenity as a result of development; d. the layout and design of buildings would be appropriate to the character of the site and surrounding area; and e. the transport impact of the proposal would be acceptable. The Council will give support to proposals that reuse brownfield or vacant of derelict land as opposed to greenfield locations. 7.26 Policy TRAN1: Sustainable Travel aims to encourage sustainable modes of travel. 7.27 Policy TRAN2: Transport Network Interventions highlights the various transport interventions required across the Council area, including the A701 Relief Road and A702 Link, and A702/Bush Loan junction improvements. 7.28 Policy TRAN5: Electric Vehicle Charging seeks to support and promote the development of a network of electric vehicle charging stations by requiring provision to be considered as an integral part of any new development or redevelopment proposals. 7.29 Policy TCR2: Location of New Retail and Commercial Leisure Facilities states that the Council will apply a sequential town centre first approach to the assessment of applications. This directs retail developments to the following areas in order: Page 103 of 157
Page 104
• Town Centre - Bonnyrigg, Dalkeith, Gorebridge, Loanhead, Mayfield, Newtongrange, Penicuik, Shawfair • Commercial centre – Straiton Commercial Centre • Potential out of centre location - Main corridor from Gorebridge/Redheugh to Newtongrange • Local Centres - Danderhall, Bonnyrigg/Hopefield, Bonnyrigg/Poltonhall, Dalkeith/Thornybank, Dalkeith/Wester Cowden, Dalkeith/Woodburn, Eskbank Toll, Gorebridge/Hunterfield Road, Bilston, Penicuik/Edinburgh Road, Roslin and Pathhead 7.30 Regarding Development at Straiton Commercial Hub policy TCR2 states that proposals for new retail and commercial leisure development will be supported in principle provided that: A. There are no alternative sites in or on the edge of Edinburgh City Centre (where the proposed development has an anticipated catchment from across the city region); or there are no alternative sites in, or on the edge of, Dalkeith town centre (where the proposed development has an anticipated catchment wholly or predominantly within Midlothian); B. They address a quantitative or qualitative deficiency within that catchment; C. They do not, either individually or cumulatively with other developments, undermine the vitality and viability of regional, strategic or other town centres, within the expected catchment of the proposed development; and D. They are accompanied by measures to improve the environmental quality of the commercial hub and its accessibility by public transport, walking or cycling. 7.31 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. 7.32 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. 7.33 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 Page 104 of 157
Page 105
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. 7.34 Policy ENV15: Species and Habitat Protection and Enhancement presumes against development that would affect a species protected by European or UK law. 7.35 Policy ENV16: Vacant, Derelict and Contaminated Land supports the redevelopment of vacant and derelict land for uses compatible with their location. Developments will be required to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed new use in terms of the risk posed by contamination and instability from historic uses. 7.36 Policy ENV17: 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. 7.37 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. 7.38 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. 7.39 Policy IMP1: New Development ensures that appropriate provision is made for a need which arises from new development. Of relevance in this case are education provision, transport infrastructure; contributions towards making good facility deficiencies; affordable housing; landscaping; public transport connections, including bus stops and shelters; parking in accordance with approved standards; cycling access and facilities; pedestrian access; acceptable alternative access routes, access for people with mobility issues; traffic and environmental management issues; protection/management/compensation for natural and conservation interests affected; archaeological provision and ‘percent for art’ provision. 7.40 Policy IMP2: Essential Infrastructure Required to Enable New Development to Take Place states that new development will not take place until provision has been made for essential infrastructure and environmental and community facility related to the scale and impact of the proposal. Planning conditions will be applied and where appropriate, developer contributions and other legal agreements will be Page 105 of 157
Page 106
used to secure the appropriate developer funding and ensure the proper phasing of development. 7.41 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 representations and consultation responses received are material considerations. Principle of development 8.2 Most of the site is identified in the MLDP as forming part of the Straiton Commercial Hub where MLDP policy TCR2 supports retail and commercial leisure development, subject to complying with the conditions detailed in paragraph 7.30 above. A strip of land, measuring approximately 28m wide, along the western side of the site is not included within the TCR2 boundary, however the land is within the built-up area of Loanhead where there is a presumption in favour of development. The strip of land appears to have been incorporated into the application site prior to the adoption of the MLDP. Considering the strip of land as part of the wider TCR2 site makes for a logical boundary and would avoid the potential for the land falling into disrepair. 8.3 The scale of the development means that the proposal will have a catchment predominantly within Midlothian. There are no sites of a similar size in or on the edge of Dalkeith town centre. The retail and commercial leisure elements of the proposal comply with condition A of MLDP policy TCR2. The commercial leisure elements of the proposal comply with NPF4 policy 27. 8.4 The original allocation of the site as part of the Straiton Commercial Hub was intended to address high leakage rates within the comparison goods sector in Midlothian, which was resulting in custom leaving Midlothian for other locations in East Central Scotland. Whilst the retail market has seen significant changes since the allocation of the site, it is still reasonable to assume that retail or commercial leisure development of a scale that can’t be accommodated within Midlothian’s town centres is meeting a deficiency within the Midlothian market. The retail and commercial leisure elements of the proposal comply with condition B of MLDP policy TCR2. 8.5 The Retail Impact Assessment submitted in support of the application considers the scale of any anticipated trade diversion, and the existing vitality and viability of Bonnyrigg, Dalkeith, Loanhead, Gorebridge, Newtongrange, Mayfield and Straiton Commercial Hub. The Page 106 of 157
Page 107
Assessment concludes that in all cases the retail impacts will be modest and that there will be no significant impact on the vitality and viability of the centres. The assessment has been prepared by experienced consultants using appropriate methodologies. The conclusions are justified and robust. The retail and commercial leisure elements of the proposal comply with condition C of MLDP policy TCR2. 8.6 The application site is a longstanding vacant and derelict site whose appearance detracts from the approach to Straiton Commercial Hub from the south. Development of the site will remove an area of derelict land and improve the environmental quality of both Straiton and Loanhead. The development will provide improved pedestrian links from Niven’s Knowe Road, and Loanhead, into the southern end of the Straiton Commercial Hub. The retail and commercial leisure elements of the proposal comply with condition D of MLDP policy TCR2. 8.7 NPF4 policy 28 states that development proposals for retail will be supported in existing city, town and local centres. Proposals will also be supported in edge of centre areas or commercial hubs if they are allocated as sites suitable for retail development in a local development plan. The site is identified in the MLDP and forms part of the Straiton Commercial Hub allocation where proposals for retail and commercial leisure will be supported. The retail element of the proposal complies with NPF4 policy 28. 8.8 In addition to the class 1A and 11 uses considered in the paragraphs above, the application also proposes incorporating class 4 uses. Both Bilston Glen and Pentland Industrial Estates include premises operating as class 4 uses and the demand for class 4 premises remains strong in Midlothian. The success of Bilston Glen and Pentland Industrial Estates means that demand is particularly strong in the Loanhead area. Both the Bilston Glen and Pentland Industrial Estate are near capacity and neither has room for significant expansion. 8.9 The applicant seeks to include class 4 uses within the development to maximise tenant interest in the site amidst a volatile retail property market. The supporting information submitted with the application states that the applicant envisages the development as being focussed on retail uses with the commercial leisure and business uses being secondary to the main retail use. A maximum of 2000sqm of commercial leisure space and 1000sqm of business space is proposed in the supporting statement. NPF4 policy 26 supports business uses outwith areas identified for those uses in the local development plans where it is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives in the local development plan, and the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area. Delivery of a limited amount of class 4 space as part of the development will address a local demand and provide business space in an area of Midlothian that has proven popular with businesses. The scale and nature of the use will be Page 107 of 157
Page 108
compatible with both existing and proposed uses in the surrounding area. The class 4 element of the proposal complies with NPF4 policy 26. Transportation matters 8.10 Both Midlothian Council, as local roads authority, and Transport Scotland, as roads authority for the A720 Edinburgh City Bypass and the A702, have indicated that they are satisfied that their respective roads networks can accommodate traffic from the proposed development without the need for significant additional works. The applicant has confirmed that works to aid pedestrian access at the two junctions serving the site will be provided as per the recommendations from the Council’s transportation consultee. 8.11 At present there is no pedestrian footway along the A701 frontage of the site and the applicant’s title stops short of the road edge. There is a hedgerow verge of between 2 and 2.5 metres between the road edge and the applicant’s site. There is a pedestrian footway along the majority, but not all, of the A701 frontage of the Western Nissan site. To the south of the A702 Niven’s Knowe Road signalised junction an initial section of footway on the east side of the A701 terminates after approximately 55 metres. 8.12 Whilst planning applications can be a means to address issues associated with the proposed development, they are not a means to address existing deficiencies that are unrelated to the application. The site will be accessible by pedestrians from both the north and south junctions. Pedestrians accessing the site from the west of the A701 will be able to cross at the Niven’s Know Road and Asda signalised junctions on the A701 and access the site entrance closest to each crossing. The relationship between the crossings and the site access points means that the proposed development will not generate significant demand for a pedestrian footway on the A701. Whilst such a footway may contribute to wider active travel aspirations within the A701 corridor it would not be addressing an issue created or exacerbated by the proposed development. The applicant will be required to make proportionate developer contributions towards the A701 realignment, and that project also includes active travel improvements to the existing A701. 8.13 The plans submitted with the application show ducting provision for 42 parking spaces for electric vehicle (EV) charging, this equates to 15% of the parking provision. The applicant has advised that providing charging stations for all the bays would require the installation of a new sub-station and that typical visit times are anticipated to be less than 30 minutes which makes charging stations impractical. Whilst it can be appropriate to provide some future provision via ducting, particularly on sites with a large parking provision, the planning authority does not consider that all of the EV charging provision can be delivered solely Page 108 of 157
Page 109
via ducting. The final scheme will need to be a mix of charging stations and future proofed ducting provision, and consideration will need to be given to vehicles associated with class 4 uses and for staff parking. Finalised details can be secured via condition on any grant of planning permission. Design and landscape 8.14 The scale and design of the units will be in keeping with the character and appearance of the wider Straiton Commercial Hub and the class 4 units at Bilston Glen and Pentland Industrial Estates. The proposed landscaping layout will retain 44 existing trees and 18 will be removed to facilitate the development. Replacement tree planting will be provided at a 3:1 ratio. Existing hedgerow and shrub planting along the west and east boundaries of the site will be retained. Finalised landscaping details can be secured via condition on any grant of planning permission. Developer contributions 8.15 Scottish Government advice on the use of Section 75 Planning Agreements is set out in Circular 03/2012: Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements. The Circular advises that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: • Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms (paragraph 15. • Serve a planning purpose (paragraph 16) and, where it is possible to identify infrastructure provision requirements in advance, should relate to development plans. • Relate to the proposed development either as a direct consequence of the development or arising from the cumulative impact of development in the area (paragraphs 17-19). • Fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the proposed development (paragraphs 20-23). • Be reasonable in all other respects. 8.16 In relation to Midlothian Council, policies relevant to the use of Section 75 agreements are set out in the MLDP and Midlothian Council’s Developer Contributions Guidelines (Supplementary Planning Guidance). 8.17 This proposed development, of which the principal element is the provision of a mixed-use development comprising Class 1A, Class 4 and Class 11 uses, has been assessed in relation to the above guidance and it is considered that a planning obligation (Section 75 agreement) is required in respect of the following matters: Page 109 of 157
Page 110
• A701 Relief Road, including A702 link and A701 public transport, walking and cycling improvements on existing route – Straiton roundabout to A701/ A703 junction 9 RECOMMENDATION 9.1 That planning permission be granted for the following reason: The proposed development is situated within the allocated area of the Straiton Commercial Hub and will be in keeping with the scale, character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal complies with the relevant policies of National Planning Framework 4 and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. Subject to: a. the prior signing and registration of a planning obligation to secure developer contributions towards the A701 Relief Road; and b. the following conditions: 1. The development to which this permission relates shall commence no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 2. The development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with any contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. The scheme shall contain details of the proposals to deal with any contamination and include: i. the nature, extent and types of contamination on the site; ii. measures to treat or remove contamination to ensure that the site is fit for the uses hereby approved, and that there is no risk to the wider environment from contamination originating within the site; iii. measures to deal with contamination encountered during construction work; and iv. the condition of the site on completion of the specified decontamination measures. 3. On completion of any required decontamination/ remediation works, referred to in Condition 2, and prior to any part of the building being occupied for its approved use, a validation report shall be submitted to the planning authority confirming that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. No part of the Page 110 of 157
Page 111
building shall be occupied unless or until the planning authority have approved the required validation. Reason for conditions 2 and 3: To ensure that any contamination on the site is adequately identified and that appropriate decontamination measures are undertaken to mitigate the identified risk to site users and construction workers, built development on the site, landscaped areas, and the wider environment. 4. Development shall not begin until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i existing and finished ground levels and floor levels for all buildings, roads, parking areas and paths in relation to a fixed datum; ii existing trees, landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; removed, protected during development and, in the case of damage, restored; iii an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) setting out the specifications and methodologies for the implementation of tree protection measures, and methodology for any proposed works that either encroach within the Root Protection Areas (RPAs) of retained trees and/or that have the potential to result in loss or damage to those trees; iv proposed new planting (with a 3:1 compensatory planting ratio for any trees removed) including trees, shrubs, hedging and grassed areas; v location and design of any proposed walls, fences and gates, including those surrounding bin stores or any other ancillary structures; vi schedule of plants to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/density; vii programme for completion and subsequent maintenance of all soft and hard landscaping. The landscaping shall be completed prior to the development being occupied. Any tree felling or vegetation removal proposed as part of the landscaping scheme shall take place out with the bird breeding season (March- August); unless a suitably qualified ecologist has carried out a walkover survey of the felling/removal area in the 48 hours prior to the commencement of felling/removal, and confirmed in writing that no breeding birds will be affected; viii proposed car park configuration and surfacing; ix proposed cycle parking facilities; and x details of a scheme to record, preserve and relocate the milestone marker (MEL 12989). All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved in writing by the planning authority as the programme for completion and subsequent maintenance (vii). Page 111 of 157
Page 112
Thereafter any trees or shrubs removed, dying, becoming seriously diseased or damaged within five years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees/shrubs of a similar species to those originally required. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate landscape mitigation and biodiversity habitat enhancements. 5. Development shall not begin until details and, if requested, samples of materials to be used on external surfaces of the buildings; hard ground cover surfaces; means of enclosure and ancillary structures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is enhanced by the use of quality materials to reflect its setting. 6. Development shall not begin until details of the site access, roads, footpaths, cycle ways and transportation movements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Details of the scheme shall include: i existing and finished ground levels for all roads, parking areas and footways in relation to a fixed datum; ii proposed vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access; iii proposed roads (including turning facilities) and footpaths within the site; iv a signalised pedestrian crossing phase for the southern arm of the A701/Asda junction; v proposed car parking arrangements, including details of the provision, specification and use of electric vehicle charging stations; vi an Auto Track demonstrating how vehicles using the site, including service vehicles, will safely enter, exit and circulate around the site and its parking, pick-up/drop-off and service areas; vii measures to ensure that the service yard for the buildings operates a one way system; and vii a programme for completion for the construction of access, roads, footpaths. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details, or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: To ensure the future users of the buildings, existing local residents and those visiting the development site during the Page 112 of 157
Page 113
construction process have safe and convenient access to and from the site. 7. No part of the development shall be occupied until a comprehensive Travel Plan that sets out proposals for reducing dependency on the private car has been submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland. This Travel Plan shall identify measures to be implemented, the system of management, monitoring, review, reporting and the duration of the plan. Reason: To be consistent with the requirements of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and PAN 75 Planning for Transport. 8. Development shall comply with the approved Surface Water Management Plan. The buildings hereby approved shall not be occupied until such time as the approved surface drainage infrastructure has been installed and is operational. Reason: To ensure that surface water drainage is dealt with in a safe and sustainable manner. 9. Development shall comply with the mitigation and enhancement measures details in the approved Strategic Biodiversity Management Plan. The buildings hereby approved shall not be occupied until such time as the approved enhancement measures have been installed and are operational. Reason: To protect, conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. 10. Development shall not begin until details, including a timetable of implementation, of 'Percent for Art' have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The 'Percent for Art' shall be implemented as per the approved details. Reason: To ensure the quality of the development is enhanced by the use of art to reflect its setting. 11. Development shall not begin until an application for approval of matters specified in conditions for a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The CEMP shall include: i details of construction access routes; ii signage for construction traffic, pedestrians and other users of the site; iii controls on the arrival and departure times for construction vehicles, delivery vehicles and for site workers (to avoid school arrival/departure times); iv. details of piling methods (if employed); Page 113 of 157
Page 114
v. details of any earthworks; vi. control of emissions strategy; vii. a dust management plan strategy; viii. waste management and disposal of material strategy; ix. a community liaison representative will be identified to deal with the provision of information on the development to the local community and to deal with any complaints regarding construction on the site; x. prevention of mud/debris being deposited on the public highway; xi. material and hazardous material storage and removal; and xii. controls on construction, engineering or any other operations or the delivery of plant, machinery and materials (to take place between 0700 to 1900hrs Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300hrs on Saturdays). Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details, or such alternatives as may be approved in writing with the planning authority. Reason: In order to control the construction activity on the site, ensure environmental impact during the construction period is acceptable and to ensure appropriate mitigation is in place. 12. The design and installation of all plant, machinery and equipment shall be such that the combined noise level shall not exceed NR 30 daytime (07:00 to 23:00 hrs) or NR 25 if the noise is tonal and NR 25 night-time (23:00 to 07:00 hrs) or NR 20 if the noise is tonal as measured from within any living apartment in any neighbouring noise-sensitive premises. For the purposes of this condition the assessment position shall be as identified by BS 7445 in relation to internal noise measurements. 13. For an assessment position 3.5 meters from the facade of any residential property (1 m from the facade in the case of upper floors) the Rating Level of noise from the units shall not exceed the background noise level by more than 5 dB when rated in accordance with BS 4142. The background noise levels shall be LA90 and should be demonstrated as being representative of the background noise levels for the relevant assessment period of the day and night. 14. Development shall not begin until details of the location, length, height, specification and timetable for completion of an acoustic fence to safeguard the amenity of the residents of the neighbouring property known as Aaron Glen have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Development thereafter shall comply with the approved details. Page 114 of 157
Page 115
15. Any lighting associated with the development shall be designed and installed such that there is no direct illumination of any neighbouring sensitive property, and the lamp design shall be such that the actual lamps and inner surface of the reflectors will not be visible from the neighbouring sensitive receptors' properties. The design of the lighting should take account of the Guidance contained within the Scottish Government Guidance to Accompany the Statutory Nuisance Provisions of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008. Reason for conditions 12 to 15: To safeguard the amenity of future users of the site, and residential and business properties in the surrounding area. 16. Consent is hereby granted for a mixed-use development comprising uses within Class 1A, Class 4 and Class 11 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended). There shall be a maximum of 2000 square metres of floorspace (Gross External Area) allocated to Class 11 uses and a maximum of 1000 square metres of floorspace (Gross External Area) allocated to Class 4 uses. Reason: For the sake of clarity and to define the scope of the permission. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 18 April 2025 Application No: 24/00338/DPP Applicant: Lansdowne Investments Limited Agent: CDA Validation Date: 24 May 2024 Contact Person: Graeme King, Planning Officer Email: graeme.king@midlothian.gov.uk Background Papers: 14/00290/DPP, 22/00119/PAC, 24/000292/SCR Page 115 of 157
Page 116
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) Mixed use development including class 1A (shops, financial, profession and other services), class 11 (assembly and leisure) class 4 (business), and associated infrastructure. Land near Asda Petrol Filling Station, Loanhead. File No. 24/00338/DPP Scale 1:2500Page 116 of 157
Page 117
LANDSCAPING KEY PEDESTRIAN ROUTES PLANNING APPLICATION BOUNDARY PARENT & CHILD CAR PARKING SPACE ACCESSIBLE CAR PARKING SPACE TROLLEY PARKING PROPOSED FOOTPATHS KEY EXISTING LAMPOSTSLP EXISTING TREES RETAINED - 45no. PROPOSED NEW TREE PLANTING - 17no. EXISTING SHRUBS RETAINED MARKED WALKWAYS SUPLEMENTARY TREE PLANTING - 34no. 22 8 9 13262426262 67 1 8 8 3 SS1 SS2 10 STRAITON ROAD A701 NIVEN'S KNOWE ROAD ASDA PETROL STATION WESTERN NISSAN SERVICE YARD ASDA RECYCLE ASDA / PENTLAND INDUSTRIAL ESTATE FOOTPATH LINK UNIT 2 1,860 m2 20,000 ft2 UNIT 1 1,860 m2 20,000 ft22 NO. SUBSTATIONS ACOUSTIC FENCE ENTRANCE SIGNAGE BOARD ENTRANCE SIGNAGE BOARD OPEN GARDEN CENTRE YARD 465 m2 5,000 ft2 OPEN STORAGE YARD 650 m2 7,000 ft2 ENTRANCE SIGNAGE BOARD TIMBER SCREENING FENCE WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS COVERED CYCLE PARKING COVERED CYCLE PARKING LP LP EXISTING SITE ENTRANCE EXISTING SITE ENTRANCE CONTINUOUS LEVEL FOOTWAY PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS, DROPPED KERBS, AND TACTILE PAVING, AS PER ARUP'S DESIGN 2214 24 9 LP 10 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 7 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 6 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 5 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 4 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 3 FUTURE 42no. EV SPACES (DUCTING PROVISION ONLY) DROPPED KERB TO ACCESSIBLE SPACES 0 1:500 5 10 15 20m client project title date scale drawn by checked by Comprehensive Design Architects 16 Moray Place Edinburgh EH3 6DT T: 0131 225 1111 www.cda-group.co.uk Notes 1. Do not scale off this drawing 2. Drawing to be read in conjunction with the specification and all relevant drawing information 3. Contractor to check all dimensions on site Comprehensive Design Architects to be advised of any discrepancies between this drawing and site conditions immediately 4. Dimensions are in millimeters unless otherwise stated CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS 2015 This drawing is to be read in conjunction with CDA's Standard Hazard and Risk Assessment of architectural matters (CDM) series drawings. Works to be carried out in accordance with the Construction Phase plan prepared by the Principal Contractor. Registered Office: Comprehensive Design Architects Limited 16 Moray Place EDINBURGH EH3 6DT Registered in Scotland: SC311114 © Comprehensive Design Architects Ltd. All rights reserved status drawing title internal job no dwg no revision key plan status code P7 LANSDOWNE INVESTMENTS LTD New Pentland Straiton, Loanhead 23.11.23 LM GW Proposed Site Plan E23041 PLANNING 1:500@A1 S2 STR-CDA-01-00-DR-A-020003 N PARKING SPACE TOTAL: 278 ACCESSIBLE: 14 (5%) PARENT AND CHILD: 14 (5%) OVERSIZED: 253 (91%) EV PROVISION: 42 (15%) TROLLEY PARKING BAYS: 5 CYCLE PARKING TOTAL: 24 COVERED SPACES: 24 (STAFF CYCLE PARKING BASED ON 1.5 STAFF MEMBERS PER 1000ft2) MOTORCYCLE SPACES: 2 Rev Date Description drawn chkd P1 17.05.24 PLANNING ISSUE. LM GW P2 05.09.24 PARKING AND LANDSCAPE LAYOUT UPDATED. NOTES UPDATED. LM GW P3 08.01.25 SITE LAYOUT AMENDED. ADVANCED ISSUE FOR INFORMATION. LM GW P4 15.01.25 SITE LAYOUT AMENDED. LM GW P5 17.02.25 PROPOSED UNIT FOOTPRINTS AMENDED. PARKING LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPING ADJUSTED TO SUIT. LM GW P6 28.02.25 MINOR AMENDMENTS TO UNIT FOOTPRINTS. LM GW P7 04.03.25 REVISED PLANNING ISSUE. LM GW NOTE: The internal dividing walls between the units are indicative and maybe removed or repositioned to accommodate different unit sizes. Page 117 of 157
Page 118
STRAITON ROAD A701 NIVEN'S KNOWE ROAD ASDA PETROL STATION WESTERN NISSAN SERVICE YARD ASDA RECYCLE ASDA / PENTLAND INDUSTRIAL ESTATE FOOTPATH LINK UNIT 2 1,860 m2 20,000 ft2 UNIT 1 1,860 m2 20,000 ft22 NO. SUBSTATIONS ENTRANCE SIGNAGE BOARD DRY SWALE SWALE - APPROPRIATE SHRUBS AND PLANTING TO SWALE AREA. SWALE 2 9 10 1 2 7 6 6 5 4 ZONE 11 - ALL CAR PARK ISLANDS 3 ENTRANCE SIGNAGE BOARD ZONE 1: REPROFILING OF EXISTING BUNDING TO SUIT NEW LAYOUT AND EXISTING TREES. ZONE 10: EXISTING TREES AND GRASS. GRASS SEED AND CLIMBERS TO ANY EXPOSED EARTH AFTER ACOUSTIC FENCE IS ERECTED. EXISTING EXISTING 12 12 12 12 ACOUSTIC FENCE TIMBER SCREENING FENCE HEDGE 1 - EXISTING OVERGROWN HAWTHORN HEDGEROW. GAPS TO BE FILLED WITH NEW HEDGEROW PLANTING. COVERED CYCLE PARKING FUTURE 42no. EV SPACES (DUCTING PROVISION ONLY) PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS, DROPPED KERBS, AND TACTILE PAVING, AS PER ARUP'S DESIGN HEDGE 3 - EXISTING TREES / SHRUBS ALONG BOUNDARY FENCE. HEDGE 2 - EXISTING HEDGES ALONG BOUNDARY. WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS EXISTING ENTRANCE SIGNAGE BOARD ASDA BOUNDARY LP LP CONTINUOUS LEVEL FOOTWAY 8DECK SUDS CRATES 3no. PROPOSED 11KV SPEN CABLES ASDA'S LAND ASDA'S LAND 3no. EXISTING 11KV SPEN CABLES LP EXISTING MILESTONE MARKER (MEL 12989) TO BE RELOCATED 750mm SOUTH-EAST 22 8 9 13262426262 67 1 8 8 3 SS1 SS2 10 2214 24 9 10 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 7 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 6 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 5 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 4 370 m² 3,990 ft² UNIT 3 OPEN YARD 650 m2 7,000 ft2 GARDEN CENTRE 465 m2 5,000 ft2 COVERED CYCLE PARKING DROPPED KERB TO ACCESSIBLE SPACES 0 1:500 5 10 15 20m HEDGEROW MEADOW PLANTING WET MEADOW PLANTING SHRUB PLANTING SPECIES SPECIES SPECIESZONES ZONES ZONES Campanula latifolia Centaurea nigra Cruciata laevipes Digitalis purpurea* Geum urbanum Hypericum perforatum Knautia arvensis Leucanthemum vulgare Primula vulgaris Rhinanthus minor Scrophularia nodosa Silene dioica Silene flos-cuculi Stachys sylvatica Stellaria holostea Teucrium scorodinia Torilis japonica Vicia sepium Grasses Agrostis capillaris Cynosurus cristatus Festuca rubra ssp commutata Poa nemoralis Poa pratensis Agrostis Capillaris Alope Cirius Pratensis Festuca Rubric Ommutata Poa Pratensis Festuca Rubra Lolium Perenne Note: Or other substitute species also from Strategic Biodiversity Management Plan – Wet Meadow Table (Acorna April ‘24) including plug planting feature areas. Select shrubs from shrub table allowed on upper bank of swales, but planted min. 500mm from tarmac / concrete. Hebe Albicans Red Edge Vinca Minor Rubus Betty Ashburner Escallonia Donard Star Euonamus Alatus Compacta Cotoneaster Horizontalis Pieris Forest Flame Griselinia Littoralis Pittasporium tenuifolium Golf Ball Hebe Autumn Glory Rosa Caesia Rosa Arvensis 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 4, 3 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 8, 12 8, 12 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 1, 3, 4, 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 2, 4, 6 TREE PLANTING SPECIES Acer Campestre (Field Maple) Betula Pendula (Birch) Sorbus Aucuparia (Rowan) Sambucus Nigra (Elder) Euonymus Europaeus (Spindle) Sorbus Leptophylla (Welsh Whitebeam) Corylus Avellana (Hazel) Crataegus Monogyna (Hawthorn) Cornus Sanguinea (Dogwood) LANDSCAPINGPLANNING APPLICATION BOUNDARY LANDSCAPING ZONES SWALE AREAS EXISTING SHRUBS RETAINED KEY NOTE: TOTEM SIGNAGE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT. MIN. 8no. BIRD AND BAT BOXES TO BE PROVIDED. ANY LANDSCAPING PLANTED BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS AND HENCE AFFECTING SIGHTLINES (E.G LANDSCAPE AREAS 2 AND 11 ) SHALL BE SPECIFIED AND THEN MAINTAINED TO HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION BETWEEN 0.5-1.5M HEIGHT. ROOT PROTECTION ZONES EXISTING TREES RETAINED - 44no. PROPOSED NEW TREE PLANTING - 18no. PROPOSED FOOTPATHS KEY PEDESTRIAN ROUTES PARENT & CHILD CAR PARKING SPACE ACCESSIBLE CAR PARKING SPACE TROLLEY PARKING OWNERSHIP EXTENT FROM TITLE PLANS EXISTING LAMPOSTSLP SUPLEMENTARY TREE PLANTING - 36no. SUDS CRATES MARKED WALKWAYS POROUS PAVING EXISTING SPEN CABLES PROPOSED SPEN CABLES client project title date scale drawn by checked by Comprehensive Design Architects 16 Moray Place Edinburgh EH3 6DT T: 0131 225 1111 www.cda-group.co.uk Notes 1. Do not scale off this drawing 2. Drawing to be read in conjunction with the specification and all relevant drawing information 3. Contractor to check all dimensions on site Comprehensive Design Architects to be advised of any discrepancies between this drawing and site conditions immediately 4. Dimensions are in millimeters unless otherwise stated CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS 2015 This drawing is to be read in conjunction with CDA's Standard Hazard and Risk Assessment of architectural matters (CDM) series drawings. Works to be carried out in accordance with the Construction Phase plan prepared by the Principal Contractor. Registered Office: Comprehensive Design Architects Limited 16 Moray Place EDINBURGH EH3 6DT Registered in Scotland: SC311114 © Comprehensive Design Architects Ltd. All rights reserved status drawing title internal job no dwg no revision key plan status code 1 : 500@A1 P6 LANSDOWNE INVESTMENTS LTD New Pentland Straiton, Loanhead 17.05.24 LM GW Landscape Plan E23041 PLANNING S2 STR-CDA-01-00-DR-A-020009 N HEDGE 1: A701 BOUNDARY HEDGE 2: SERVICE YARD BOUNDARY HEDGE 3: NISSAN BOUNDARY EXISTING BOUNDARIES: Rev Date Description drawn chkd P1 17.05.24 PLANNING ISSUE. LM GW P2 05.09.24 PARKING AND LANDSCAPE LAYOUT UPDATED. EXISTING, REMOVED, AND PROPOSED TREES ADDED. NOTES UPDATED. LM GW P3 15.01.25 SITE LAYOUT AMENDED. SPEN CABLES, POROUS PAVING, AND SUDS ADDED. LM GW P4 17.02.25 PROPOSED UNIT FOOTPRINTS AMENDED. PARKING LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPING ADJUSTED TO SUIT. LM GW P5 28.02.25 MINOR AMENDMENTS TO UNIT FOOTPRINTS. LM GW P6 04.03.25 REVISED PLANNING ISSUE. LM GW Page 118 of 157
Page 119
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 7UNIT 6UNIT 5UNIT 4UNIT 3 FFL 0.250 m 00-Level 0 2450 6300 TENANT SIGNAGE ZONE 2800 200 500 2000 500 EXTERNAL GUTTERS AND DOWNPIPES UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 7 UNIT 6 UNIT 5 UNIT 4 UNIT 3 0 1:50 1 2m 0 1:250 5 10m Key Vertical Profiled cladding dark grey Vertical Profiled cladding light grey Horizontal microrib cladding mid grey (panels and piers) Curtain walling framing dark grey (clear glazing) Canopy cladding mid grey Security fencing 4.8m high mid grey Doors light grey Note: Signage zones are indicative and subject to separate Advertisement Application. client project title date scale drawn by checked by Comprehensive Design Architects 16 Moray Place Edinburgh EH3 6DT T: 0131 225 1111 www.cda-group.co.uk Notes 1. Do not scale off this drawing 2. Drawing to be read in conjunction with the specification and all relevant drawing information 3. Contractor to check all dimensions on site Comprehensive Design Architects to be advised of any discrepancies between this drawing and site conditions immediately 4. Dimensions are in millimeters unless otherwise stated CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS 2015 This drawing is to be read in conjunction with CDA's Standard Hazard and Risk Assessment of architectural matters (CDM) series drawings. Works to be carried out in accordance with the Construction Phase plan prepared by the Principal Contractor. Registered Office: Comprehensive Design Architects Limited 16 Moray Place EDINBURGH EH3 6DT Registered in Scotland: SC311114 © Comprehensive Design Architects Ltd. All rights reserved status drawing title internal job no dwg no revision key plan status code P3 LANSDOWNE INVESTMENTS LTD New Pentland Straiton, Loanhead 03.05.24 LM GW Proposed Elevations E23041 PLANNING 1:50/250@A1 S2 STR-CDA-01-00-DR-A-020006 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1 : 50 PROPOSED WEST PART- ELEVATION PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - BUILDING 1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION - BUILDING 2 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - BUILDING 1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - BUILDING 2 Rev Date Description drawn chkd P1 17.05.24 PLANNING ISSUE. LM GW P2 28.02.25 PROPOSED UNIT FOOTPRINTS AMENDED. ELEVATION TREATMENT RATIONALISED. PARKING LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPING ADJUSTED TO SUIT. LM GW P3 04.03.25 REVISED PLANNING ISSUE. LM GW Page 119 of 157
Page 120
Planning Committee Tuesday 29 April 2025 Item No 5.5 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION (24/00598/DPP) FOR THE CHANGE OF USE FROM FARM STORE TO CAFÉ (CLASS 3), FORMATION OF ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND DRAINAGE AND APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT (24/00599/LBC) FOR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHANGE OF USE FROM FARM STORE TO CAFÉ (CLASS 3) AT CARRINGTON MAINS, GOREBRIDGE Report by Chief Officer Place 1 SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDED DECISION 1.1 The applications involve the change of use of an existing vacant dilapidated farm building to a café and associated internal and external alterations, the formation of an associated car park and drainage at Carrington Mains, Gorebridge. 1.2 In relation to planning application 24/00598/DPP, there have been 27 representations and consultation responses from Scottish Water, Historic Environment Scotland, the Coal Authority, the Council’s Ecological Advisor and the Council’s Archaeology Advisor, the Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads), the Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services (Environmental Health) and the Moorfoot Community Council. 1.3 In relation to listed building application 24/00599/LBC, there have been 16 representations and consultation responses from Historic Environment Scotland, the Council’s Archaeology Advisor and the Moorfoot Community Council. 1.4 The relevant development plan policies are policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 29 and 30 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and policies DEV2, DEV5, DEV6, DEV7, TRAN5, IT1, VIS1, RD1, ENV4, ENV6, ENV7, ENV10, ENV11, ENV15, ENV19, ENV20, ENV22 and ENV25 of the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP). 1.5 Also material to the assessment of the applications is Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS), Sections 59 and 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 and Historic Environment Scotland’s Page 120 of 157
Page 121
Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes on Doorways, External Walls, Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Interiors, Micro-Renewables, Roofs and Settings. 1.6 The recommendation is to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to conditions. 2 LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The application site forms part of the Carrington Mains farm complex and associated land located at the southern edge of Carrington. The wider farm complex comprises a farmhouse, farm buildings and associated farmland and garden ground. The farm buildings are B listed and the farmhouse is C listed. The whole application site is within the Carrington Conservation Area. 2.2 The application site comprises one vacant farm building, part of a grazing field to the south and part of a field to the east. The site is bisected by a road connecting Carrington to the B6372 to the south. The site is relatively flat. 2.3 The farm building is within the built-up area of Carrington. The proposed drainage area is within the countryside, prime agricultural land and a special landscape area. The northern part of the car park is within the built-up area. The southern part is within the countryside, prime agricultural land, a special landscape area and the Arniston Designed Landscape. 2.4 There are fields to the south, west and east which are under the control of the applicant. There is an agricultural building to the south of the eastern part of the proposed car park, with single storey traditional cottages to the north. The remainder of the farm complex is to the north of the western area of the site, with the farmhouse to the west. 2.5 The built form of the area is largely single storey detached, semi- detached and terraced residential properties. These are generally finished in natural stone and render walls with slate, red tile or pantile roofs. The farm buildings are largely natural stone with either asbestos sheet, red pantile, slate or metal sheet roofs. The building within the site has natural stone walls with some areas of brick infill, white window units and red pantile roof. 3 PROPOSAL 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of an existing farm building to a café and associated alterations, the formation of a car park, drainage, external seating area and landscaping. Listed building consent is sought for the internal and external alterations to the farm building to enable the change of use. Page 121 of 157
Page 122
3.2 The existing vacant building will be changed to a café with a kitchen, stores, internal seating for up to 20 people and toilets. Operating hours are intended to be Thursdays to Sundays 8am to 6pm and five staff are proposed to be employed. The café will sell bread, pastries, soup and hot drinks using one oven with extractor. Anticipated sales would be 50% sit in and 50% takeaway. 3.3 An external seating area is adjacent to the café, along with cycle parking, open space, decking, paving and planters. The existing planting will be retained where appropriate and supplemented with new planting. 3.4 The car park is in part of the field on the opposite side of the road to the café. This provides 15 car parking spaces running parallel to the shared boundary with the houses to the north at 1 Carrington Mains Cottages and 31 Main Street. Native hedgerow will be planted along this boundary. The car park will share the existing farm entrance which currently provides an access to the agricultural building to the south. The car park will be finished in a permeable surface and be illuminated by bollards powered by solar photovoltaic panels. 3.5 Foul water from the café will run to the existing public drain on Main Street. Surface water drainage will be to a soakaway within a grazing field to the south of the café building. The drainage will run under the existing driveway to the farmhouse. 3.6 A number of internal alterations to the farm building are proposed, including the removal and erection of a number of internal walls and removal and replacement of concrete flooring. 3.7 A number of external alterations are proposed. The existing roof will be removed and replaced with matching materials. Five conservation style rooflights and nineteen solar panels will be installed into/onto the roof. There will be repairs to walls, including rebuilding, the replacement of stone, repointing in lime mortar and the removal of cement pointing where appropriate. Two partially infilled openings will be reopened with new light grey aluminium clad glazed screens and doors installed with new stone lintels. A new window unit will be installed in an existing opening, with another existing window unit refurbished. A new door opening is to be formed with another existing opening to be widened, both fitted with a partially glazed door. The existing gates are to be replaced like for like, as are existing doors, window shutters and rainwater goods. Materials being removed will be used elsewhere within the site where possible. 3.8 A footpath was originally proposed to connect the car park to the footpath on Main Street, however this has been removed from the proposals. Page 122 of 157
Page 123
3.9 The submissions state that the building is in a poor condition with water ingress and the proposed change of use is required to retain and protect the fabric of this listed building to prevent its loss. 3.10 The applications are accompanied by: • Design and Access Statement • Ecology reports (including Bat Survey) • Schedule of Works report • Structural Survey • Arboricultural Assessment • Coal Mining Risk Assessment. 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 The application site forms part of a wider farm complex where there have been previous applications. The following covers this wider area and includes the building within the current site boundary. 4.2 Planning application 15/00733/DPP, for the conversion and alterations to steading buildings to form dwellinghouse and four work units and formation of car park and access, and listed building application 15/00734/LBC, for the conversion and alterations to steading buildings to form dwellinghouse and four work units, were submitted in 2015. These applications were subsequently withdrawn. 4.3 Planning application 16/00521/DPP, for the conversion and alterations to steading buildings to form dwellinghouse and four work units and formation of car park and access, and listed building application 16/00522/LBC, for the conversion and alterations to steading building to form dwellinghouse and four work units, were submitted in 2016. These applications were approved with conditions and both permissions have been partially implemented. 4.4 The applications have been ‘called-in’ for determination by the Committee by Councillor Bowen. Councillor Bowen has called-in the applications in due to the volume of comments and concerns raised within the Carrington community. 5 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Scottish Water does not object to the applications. The water supply will be fed from Rosebery Water Treatment Works. The foul water drainage will be dealt with by the Carrington Waste Water Treatment Works. Both have sufficient capacity at present, however it is not possible to reserve capacity for future developments. This will be subject to a separate regulatory process between the applicant and Scottish Water. Page 123 of 157
Page 124
5.2 For reasons of sustainability and to protect Scottish Water customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into the combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where Scottish Water allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the developer taking account of various factors including legal, physical and technical challenges. 5.3 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) support the proposal, stating the alterations are an appropriate response to bring the building back into use and would secure the long-term future of the B listed building. Furthermore, HES does not object in relation to any potential impact on the Arniston Garden and Designed Landscape. 5.4 The Coal Authority does not object to the applications but recommends conditions be attached to any grant of planning permission/listed building consent to ensure coal mining history in the area has been fully mitigated and addressed. 5.5 The Council’s Ecological Advisor – The Wildlife Information Centre (TWIC) does not object to the applications and has confirmed that both the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and the updated Bat Survey are thorough and professional. No additional surveys are required, but the developer should comply with the recommendations in the reports. 5.6 The Council’s Archaeology Advisor does not object to the applications but states that a programme of archaeological works comprising historic building recording, monitored soil strip and watching brief is necessary. This can be secured by a condition on any grant of planning permission/listed building consent. 5.7 The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads) does not object to the applications. Adequate sightlines can be achieved from the car park egress without the full removal of existing landscaping adjacent the car park entrance/exit - the vegetation around the tree in the landscaped area should be removed and the hedgerow lowered to a maximum of 1 metre high. 5.8 The Council’s Senior Manager Protective Services does not object to the applications in terms of noise or smell and state Scottish Water should be consulted in relation to drainage. 5.9 The Moorfoot Community Council welcomes the renovation of the building and state some residents support the proposal, with others raising the following concerns: • The proposal would exacerbate existing drainage issues. If planning permission is approved a condition should be attached Page 124 of 157
Page 125
to ensure drainage is brought up to standard and future proofed to ensure there are no further problems in the village. • The impact of the car park on the adjacent properties, along with security issues when the car park is not in use. A locked barrier gate and CCTV should be installed to prevent use when the café is closed. Lighting should be provided for customers but minimise light pollution and not impact residents when the café is closed; • Road safety as the location of the car park on the opposite side of the road from the café. A crossing should be installed; • Road safety as there is poor visibility when exiting the car park; • The proposal pathway is not required as there is no public bus service; and • The proposed cycle parking is not appropriate. 5.10 The consultation responses are available to view in full on the online application case files. 6 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 There have been 27 representations received relating to the detailed planning application and 16 to the listed building application, which can be viewed in full on the online application case files. 6.2 For planning application 24/00598/DPP, 11 representors object, 13 support and three are neutral. A summary of the main points raised are as follows: Objections • The proposal would change the peaceful and quite character of the village and have a detrimental impact on residents; • The proposal would bring significant numbers of visitors to the area to the detriment of residents and would be better suited elsewhere; • People who live in Carrington are aware there are no amenities. This is clear from the limited turnover of properties; • Impact on the amenity, privacy and security of properties adjoining the car park, along with noise, light and air pollution from the car park; • The proposed hedge is not enough to provide wildlife habitat or provide privacy to neighbouring properties; • The proposal does not comply with MLDP policy RD1 due to impact on nearby residents, is not appropriate to the local area and is not accessible by public transport; • Impact on the landscape character of the area; • No details of the business plan or footfall have been provided; • Loss of wildlife habitat; Page 125 of 157
Page 126
• Road safety concerns due to an increase in traffic, pedestrians crossing the road between the café and car park and vehicle speeds in the area; • There is no public transport so visitors would come by car or bike; • If approved, the car park should be locked and only open when the café is open to prevent vehicles staying overnight and people gathering, which would create noise and nuisance; • Some concerns could be resolved by moving the car park beside the proposed soakaway or using the existing steading; • The proposal will result in additional vehicle movements when the Council is upgrading houses to meet eco requirements; • The proposal would exacerbate sewerage issues in the area; • The proposed drainage would need upgrading if the rest of the farm complex is developed which may result in additional disturbance. The drainage works should be futureproofed; • The building fabric will continue to deteriorate as only works to the one building is proposed; • Potential impact on the village hall which runs coffee mornings and events which benefits the community; • The proposal does not support rural employment or people but visiting people; • Planning permission was previously approved for a house at the site, along with 4 work units in the farm complex. This would be more welcome and less disruptive to the area; • The existing building could provide residential accommodation; • The farm buildings were originally intended for storage and should be retained as such rather than for commercial purposes. This would be beneficial for local residents; • No formal notification has been sent; • Litter from the proposed use; • Existing issues over litter, dog fouling, poor driving, fly tipping and animal road deaths will be exacerbated; • A large number of catering businesses fail within the first 18 months. If this happens, the village landscape will have been permanently disrupted to no avail; and • The need for a café is questionable. Supporting • The refurbishment of existing buildings to extend their use is welcome, especially as the building is prominent in the conservation area at the entrance to the village; • The car park is in an overgrown paddock which is an eyesore; • The car park should include electric vehicle charging points; • The proposal will bring diversification for the rural economy; • The café will provide five rural jobs in an area where it is impossible to use public transport to get to work; • Some activity is needed and the café would develop and better the village; Page 126 of 157
Page 127
• The café will not affect the village hall coffee mornings and activities but complement this and these could work together; • The proposed café will form part of an established bakery business; • Cyclists currently use the cycle route stop to rest in the village green and leave the area as found; • The café would allow local residents, community groups and visitors to meet and could be well used by the community; • The archaeology condition will allow an opportunity to find out more about the history of the site; and • A shop could be provided on site for basic goods and local produce that could benefit the community. 6.3 Some supporters raised similar concerns to objectors in relation to: public transport; impact on the amenity of local residents; road safety; the location of the car park; and drainage. Concerns were also raised over sewage sludge being stored in the area. Neutral • Support for the works to the dilapidated buildings; • Potential impact on listed buildings; • Security issues for the houses adjacent to the car park; • Insufficient information submitted to fully assess the café in relation to footfall and how customers may arrive. The impact on the area cannot be assessed; • Concern over the impact of the café on the adjacent properties; • Concern over the impact of the car park on the surrounding environment and wildlife; • Concerns the solar powered bollards will be insufficient during winter and if the lighting will be controlled to ensure no disturbance outwith the café opening hours; • Road safety concerns including potential increase in traffic, increase in road safety issues, queries if signage proposed to warn customers of large vehicles using the road, pedestrians crossing the road between the car park and café, poor visibility from the car park; • Comments over the proposed cycle parking provision; • Disabled access between the café and car park is unclear; • The parking area seems excessive for the size of café and is likely to attract non-café users; • Query over how the reduction in hedge height to achieve visibility splays will be maintained; • It is unclear how a café would benefit local residents, for example incorporating a small shop or tidying the areas around the farm buildings onto Main Street; • Litter from additional vehicles; • Potential impact on drainage in the area; • Queries if the soakaway is designed to take rainwater from the farm building; Page 127 of 157
Page 128
• Query if this part of a larger scheme for the farm buildings; and • It is a shame there has been no interaction between the operator of the café and the community about the proposal. 6.4 In relation to the listed building consent application, 24/00599/LBC, five representors object, 10 support and one is neutral. A summary of the main points raised are as follows: Objections Four submissions are the same as those to 24/00598/DPP. The remainder make the following comments; • Significant detrimental impact on the quiet, traditional rural village and creating noise, nuisance and will disrupt the lives of residents; • Road safety concerns, relating to increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic and the ability for existing roads to accommodate; • The car park would impact the privacy of adjacent houses; and • Visitors may park on roads and obstruct farm vehicles. Supporting Nine submissions are the same as those to 24/00598/DPP. The other submission did not include any comments. Neutral The neutral comment is the same submission made to 24/00598/DPP. 7 PLANNING POLICY 7.1 The development plan is comprised of National Planning Framework 4 (2023) and the Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017. 7.2 The following policies are relevant to the proposals: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 7.3 Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crises; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis. 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 128 of 157
Page 129
7.6 Policy 4 Natural Places; sets out to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. 7.7 Policy 5 Soils; sets out to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development. The policy also sets out acceptable scenarios for development on prime agricultural land. 7.8 Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees; sets out to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. 7.9 Policy 7 Historic assets and places; sets out to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. 7.10 Policy 9 Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. 7.11 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. 7.12 Policy 14 Design, quality and place; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle 7.13 Policy 15 Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. 7.14 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. 7.15 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. 7.16 Policy 24 Digital Infrastructure; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate the rollout of digital infrastructure across Scotland to unlock the potential of all our places and the economy. Page 129 of 157
Page 130
7.17 Policy 29 Rural development; sets out to encourage rural economic activity, innovation and diversification whilst ensuring that the distinctive character of the rural area and the service function of small towns, natural assets and cultural heritage are safeguarded and enhanced. 7.18 Policy 30 Tourism; sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with our net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 (MLDP) 7.19 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. 7.20 Policy DEV5: Sustainability in New Development sets out the requirements for development with regards to sustainability principles. 7.21 Policy DEV6: Layout and Design of New Development states that good design and a high quality of architecture will be required in the overall layout of development proposals. This also provides guidance on design principles for development, materials, access, and passive energy gain, positioning of buildings, open and private amenity space provision and parking. 7.22 Policy DEV7: Landscaping in New Development requires development proposals to be accompanied by a comprehensive scheme of landscaping. The design of the scheme is to be informed by the results of an appropriately detailed landscape assessment. 7.23 Policy TRAN5: Electric Vehicle Charging seeks to support and promote the development of a network of electric vehicle charging stations by requiring provision to be considered as an integral part of any new development or redevelopment proposals. 7.24 Policy IT1: Digital Infrastructure supports the incorporation of high speed broadband connections and other digital technologies into new homes, business properties and redevelopment proposals. 7.25 Policy VIS1: Tourist Attractions states the establishment of new, or expansion of existing, tourism-related development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that it improves the quality of visitor facilities or extends the tourism offering within Midlothian, subject to the Council being satisfied that there are no significant negative Page 130 of 157
Page 131
environmental or amenity impacts and that the proposal accords with all other policies in the plan. 7.26 Policy RD1: Development in the Countryside sets out where appropriate development would be acceptable in the countryside subject to defined criteria. The policy states that proposals for development will be of an appropriate scale and character appropriate to the rural area and well integrated to the rural landscape. 7.27 With regard to business in the countryside policy RD1 states that development opportunities that will enhance rural economic development opportunities will be permitted if: • They are of a scale and character appropriate to the rural area and well integrated into the rural landscape; and • They are capable of being serviced with an adequate and appropriate access; and • They are capable of being provided with drainage and a public water supply at reasonable cost, or an acceptable private water supply, unacceptable discharge to watercourses; and • They are accessible by public transport and services (where appropriate); and • They are not primarily of a retail nature; and • They do not harm the amenity of nearby residents through unacceptable levels of noise, light or traffic. 7.28 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. 7.29 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. 7.30 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. 7.31 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 131 of 157
Page 132
7.32 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. 7.33 Policy ENV15: Species and Habitat Protection and Enhancement presumes against development that would affect a species protected by European or UK law. 7.34 Policy ENV19: Conservation Areas states that development will not be permitted within or adjacent to conservation areas where it would have any adverse effect on its character or appearance. 7.35 Policy ENV20: Nationally Important Gardens and Designed Landscapes states development should protect, and where appropriate enhance, gardens and designed landscapes. Development will not be permitted which would harm the character, appearance and/or setting of a garden or designed landscape as identified in the Inventory of historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes. 7.36 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. 7.37 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. Other National Legislation and Policy 7.38 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 Section 59(1) places a duty on planning authorities when dealing with proposals to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 Section 14(2) places a duty on planning authorities when dealing with listed building applications to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 places a duty on planning Page 132 of 157
Page 133
authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 7.39 Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) seeks wherever possible to protect conserve or enhance the special characteristics and qualities of the historic environment. 7.40 Historic Environment Scotland Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes – Doorways states that doorways and associated features of a historic building form important elements in defining their character. This provides guidance on repairs and alterations to existing doors and the formation of new and blocking up existing doorways. 7.41 Historic Environment Scotland Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes – External Walls states that the external walls of a historic building are an important element in defining its character. This provides guidance on the maintenance and appropriate repair of walls, including replacement stone and repointing and formation of new openings. 7.42 Historic Environment Scotland Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes – Gardens and Designed Landscapes states that to ensure the most important gardens and designed landscapes survive, change should be managed to protect and, where appropriate, enhance the significant elements. Development should avoid significant adverse impact on such sites. Where this is not practical, impacts should be mitigated by careful design and avoid the more sensitive parts of an Inventory site. 7.43 Historic Environment Scotland - Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes – Interiors states that the interior of a historic building is important in defining its character and special interest and that room proportions are important to the integrity of a design. It also states that alterations must be carefully planned and located to best protect the interest of the internal spaces. 7.44 Historic Environment Scotland - Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes – Micro-renewables states the use of renewable energy technology in the historic environment is supported where the character of the historic building or place can be protected through careful siting and design. Micro-renewable installations should be planned carefully to minimise intervention affecting historic character while balancing the potential of available renewable energy sources. Where possible installations should avoid main and visible elevations and be on secondary parts of the building, adjacent outbuildings or on the ground nearby. Any intervention to historic fabric should be minimised and undertaken only after careful analysis and design of the system. It is usually desirable to mount solar panels over existing slates rather than replace historic fabric with look-alike Page 133 of 157
Page 134
materials. Installation of solar panels on the principal elevation of a historic building should be avoided. Solar systems on roofs can be heavy and an appropriate survey should be carried out to determine the structural impact and safety of such systems. 7.45 Historic Environment Scotland Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes – Roofs states that roofs and associated features form important elements in defining their character. Alterations and repairs to roofs and their associated features should protect the character of the historic building. 7.46 Historic Environment Scotland Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes – Settings states that the setting can be important to the way in which historic structures or places are understood, appreciated and experienced. It can often be integral to a historic asset’s cultural significance. 8 PLANNING ISSUES 8.1 For 24/00598/DPP, 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. 8.2 For 24/00599/LBC, Section 59 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Historic Environment Scotland Policy guidance state in assessing an application for listed building consent a duty is placed on planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. NPF4 and Sustainability 8.3 The primary focus of the NPF4 planning polices seek for developments to be sustainable and give consideration to the global climate and nature crises. In response to NPF4 the applicant’s agent has stated: • The proposal seeks to reuse an existing vacant listed building which is in poor condition; • The alterations will improve the insulation and fabric of the building to improve overall energy efficiency and achieve BS standards; • Any roof and wall materials will be reused on site where possible; • The site is within 1 mile of hourly bus service with a link to public transport, walking routes and the cycle network; • Solar panels will power the building and lighting in the car park; • Cycle parking is proposed; • New native planting is proposed, along with the retention and enhancement of existing planting; Page 134 of 157
Page 135
• The use of rain gardens, pergolas and living screens are being explored to encourage climbing plants and wildlife; and • Bat and bird boxes are proposed. 8.4. The application site is within the relatively remote countryside and is therefore not generally considered to be a sustainable location. The site is just outwith 1 mile from local services and a bus route, so the majority of trips to the site (not carried out by local residents) are likely to be done by private car, which is not in line with NPF4’s focus on sustainability. The use of zero and low carbon technology, native landscaping and the provision of bat and bird boxes would all be expected as standard in proposals and are not extra measures which help address the climate and nature crises. 8.5 However, the proposal would bring a redundant building back into use. NPF4 policy 9 states that development proposals which result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. There is landscaping and trees within the site along with potential for wildlife in the building and the surrounding area which could be improved and enhanced. The proposed external seating area by the café and the area around the car park could result in enhanced biodiversity through the planting of appropriate landscaping and the installation of wildlife enhancement features. 8.6 On balance, although the site is in a relatively remote location, it will result in the reuse of an existing redundant building and could improve the biodiversity value of the area. In this instance, the benefits of the proposal along with the context of the existing buildings in the area is acceptable in terms of sustainability. Principle of Development 8.7 The building has been vacant for some time and is in a poor condition. The building is category B listed and so its retention and repair is of high importance and a significant material consideration. The building is also within the built-up area where there is a presumption in favour of development where it would not detract materially from the existing character or amenity of the area. Therefore, the principle of the change of use is acceptable. 8.8 The majority of the car park (approximately 80%) is within the built-up area where there is a presumption in favour of development, with the remainder and the drainage infrastructure falling within the designated countryside. The limited nature of the works proposed in the countryside are compatible with its location, facilitate the reuse of a brownfield site and support a ‘rural’ business. Page 135 of 157
Page 136
8.9 This area which is within the countryside is also designated as prime agricultural land. This comprises part of a field not used for agricultural purposes but as an area of landscaping, hardstanding and an agricultural building, along with an area of grazing land. Due to the nature of the works, the proposal would not result in any loss of prime agricultural land as compared to the existing situation. Proposed Café 8.10 The café would reuse a vacant category B listed building in poor condition. This building, even if its current condition, has a significant positive contribution to the surrounding village, landscape character and historic interest of the area and its retention, repair and reuse is welcomed. 8.11 The café would open Thursdays to Sundays from 8am to 6pm with a maximum of five staff and internal seating for 20 people. This is relatively low scale and appropriate at this location within the built-up area of a rural village. 8.12 The closest residential building to the café, which would be most affected by the use, is the farmhouse, which is under the ownership of the applicant. Due to the distance to other residential properties, there would be limited, if any, impact on the amenity of these properties as a result of the café use. Alterations to Building and Area Around Cafe 8.13 The proposed alterations would address the poor condition of the building which has resulted from water ingress, repair and protect the fabric of the B listed building and prevent its permanent loss. The alterations are an appropriate response to bring the building back into use and secure the long-term future of the B listed building. The removal and replacement of the roof with materials to match existing, along with the retention of the existing materials for use elsewhere is welcomed. This will address the water ingress which is damaging the fabric of the building. 8.14 Five rooflights and 19 solar panels are proposed. The rooflights and seven of the solar panels are proposed on a prominent elevation visible from the B6372 to the south. The position, design and size of the conservation style rooflights are generally acceptable, with some in place of clear tiles on the existing roof. Four solar panels are set back from the road behind a projecting roof feature and so have a limited impact on the character and appearance of the listed building and surrounding conservation area. The remaining three solar panels are at prominent part of this elevation, close to the road and highly visible on approach from the south. These would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of this part of the B listed building and the surrounding conservation area and so should Page 136 of 157
Page 137
not be supported. The remaining 12 solar panels are on a secondary elevation facing the farmhouse and farm complex and have a limited impact on the character and historic interest of the listed building and surrounding conservation area. 8.15 The walls are to be repaired where necessary, with damaged or missing stones replaced or rebedded. Coping stones are to be replaced and cement pointing removed where appropriate. Any new stone is to match existing and any new pointing will be with a lime based mortar. 8.16 Existing openings are reused with existing window units being refurbished or replaced with timber units. Existing areas of brick infill will be removed and new glazed openings formed in the original openings. Any new or altered door openings are in keeping with the character and historic interest of the building. Existing shutters are to be repaired and repainted. All rainwater goods will either be repaired or replaced like for like. The existing pend gates are to be replaced like for like. 8.17 Internally some non-load bearing walls are to be removed, the concrete floor removed and replaced and new stud partition walls installed. There are no features of historic interest which would be lost or altered as a result of these works. 8.18 The external seating area is adjacent to the café and set within existing walling. This includes decking, paving, planters, cycle parking and bin storage/recycling, along with the retention of existing planting and new planting. These alterations are in keeping with the character of the listed building and would have a limited impact on the amenity of the surrounding conservation area, however details of the proposed materials of any hardstanding, cycle parking and landscaping are required to ensure these are appropriate. Car Park 8.19 The car park will share the existing access to the agricultural building to the south. This area will provide 15 parking spaces and have a will have a permeable surface. 8.20 The Council’s Senior Manager Neighbourhood Services (Roads) initially raised concerns over visibility splays and the impact of existing landscaping. After further consideration they confirmed adequate sightlines can be achieved without the full removal of existing landscaping. The vegetation around the tree to the north can be removed and the hedgerow to the south lowered to a maximum of 1 metre high. They have not raised any other road safety concerns. 8.21 The parking spaces are perpendicular to the shared boundary with 1 Carrington Mains Cottages and 31 Main Street. Native hedgerow is to Page 137 of 157
Page 138
be planted along this boundary. This will not only protect the privacy and amenity of the houses once established but also provide biodiversity value. 8.22 Low level LED bollard lighting will be powered by solar panels. This should be sufficient to provide adequate light to the car park and also ensure there is no adverse light impacts on the surrounding sensitive area or adjacent properties. Further details of the lighting and solar panels are required to ensure they acceptable. It would be reasonable for lighting to be controlled so that it is only on during café operating hours. 8.23 There is potential for the car park to be used outwith the hours of operation of the café which could result in noise, disturbance and detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding residents. It would be reasonable for the car park use to be restricted to being open only during the hours the café operates and details of a system to ensure this is the case, such as a lockable gate, could be conditioned. A pole mounted CCTV is proposed, details of which can be secured by a condition on any grant of planning permission. 8.24 The car park would be viewed alongside the existing agricultural building and the houses and so would have a limited impact on the character and appearance of the special landscape area and the Aniston Garden and Designed Landscape as compared to the existing situation. The retention of the trees to the south and new planting to the north would help soften and integrate the development into the sensitive area. 8.25 A litter bin is proposed in the car park area, details of which should be submitted for approval. The parking area should also include electric vehicle charging points which can be secured by a condition on a grant of planning permission. Due to the size of the car park, it is unlikely that it would create a significant amount of air pollution. Drainage 8.26 There is no foul drainage in the existing building but there is existing drainage within the wider farm complex site which is to be repaired. New foul drainage will run through the farm complex and under the farm buildings and connect to the public connection on Main Street. Scottish Water has no objection to this. Scottish Water have confirmed that there is currently capacity to accommodate additional foul drainage at the local treatment plant. 8.27 Surface water will be dealt with at a soakaway within a grazing field to the south of the building and farmhouse. The applicant’s agent confirmed the proposed soakaway will be underground and so the site can continue to be used for grazing as existing. The use of a pond Page 138 of 157
Page 139
instead of a soakaway was considered but discounted due to the disruption that would be caused to the site. 8.28 The proposed drainage area will have a limited impact on the surrounding countryside, prime agricultural land and special landscape area as compared to the existing situation. Landscaping 8.29 There are six trees which will be affected by the car park. This includes a large mature sycamore by the entrance which has significant high amenity value in the surrounding area. The submitted tree survey shows that this has a large wound and is in poor condition with a limited safe life expectancy of 10-20 years. The survey and plans do not state this is to be removed. As stated previously, there were initial concerns over the impact this tree would have on visibility splays exiting the car park, however these can be mitigated. 8.30 All six trees are to be retained. The car park construction and materials are such that there will be no damage to the trees. The loss of these trees as a result of development would not be acceptable as they have a significant positive landscape amenity value in this sensitive area, as well as integrating the car park into the surrounding area. 8.31 The works required to the hedgerow (reducing its height to 1m) to achieve the required visibility splays are acceptable as this will retain the hedgerow which also has significant landscape and biodiversity value. 8.32 Details of additional planting, as well as planting to be retained and means of protection, are required for the car park and external seating area. This is not only necessary to integrate and soften the works into the sensitive surrounding area but also to protect and improve the biodiversity value of the site. Impact on Protected Species and Biodiversity 8.33 The submitted ecology reports consider protected species. While there are moderate levels of activity in the surrounding area none would be affected by the proposed works. The lighting in the car park is at too low a level to affect bats and with less of an impact in this regard than the existing streetlights. Furthermore, the lighting will only be on during the opening hours of the café. No additional surveys are required but recommendations have been made which should be adhered to. 8.34 The ecology reports found there was limited ecological interest at the site at present, so a number of biodiversity enhancements are proposed to enhance this. This includes bird and bat boxes installed at the car park; appropriate native planting at the car park and the Page 139 of 157
Page 140
external seating area; the use of rain gardens, pergolas and living screens to encourage climbing plants and wildlife. Other Matters 8.35 While it is advisable that applicants discuss proposals with local residents before an application is submitted, there is no requirement for pre-application consultation for an application of this scale. 8.36 Neighbour notification was carried out correctly in line with the relevant regulations. Site notices were erected at the site and the applications were also advertised in the local press. 8.37 It is not clear how the proposal would adversely affect events taking place at the village hall. 8.38 The proposal could create employment opportunities for local people and benefit the local area economically. 8.39 The applicant proposes kerbside waste collection and recycling. Litter bins are also proposed within the car park. 8.40 The implementation of previous grants of planning permission is at the discretion of the applicant. The planning authority cannot insist on housing, or a shop/retail element being included in the applications. It is not clear if the proposed works relate to a wider scheme for the farm complex. 8.41 In relation to the representor who commented about sewage sludge being stored on site, it is not clear what this relates to, but this is likely to be connected to the use of the wider site as a working farm and not material to these applications. 9 RECOMMENDATION 9.1 That detailed planning permission (24/00598/DPP) be granted for the following reason: The proposed development will not have a detrimental impact on the character, appearance or historic fabric of the listed building or surrounding conservation area, special landscape area or designed landscape and so complies with policies DEV2, RD1, VIS1, ENV4, ENV6, ENV7, ENV11, ENV15, ENV19, ENV20 and ENV22 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 29 and 30 of National Planning Framework 4. Subject to the following conditions: Page 140 of 157
Page 141
1. The development to which this permission relates shall commence no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019). 2. Development shall not begin until a scheme of investigation and remediation to deal with previous mineral workings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. This shall include: a scheme of intrusive site investigations has been carried out to establish the risks posed to the development by past shallow coal mining activity; a report of findings arising from the intrusive site investigations and the results of any gas monitoring; and a scheme of remedial and/ or mitigation works to address land instability arising from coal mining legacy. 3. The investigation schemes and remediation/mitigation works shall be fully implemented as approved by the planning authority and the Coal Authority. Before the application site is brought into use, a verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the works hereby approved shall not be operational until this has been approved in writing by the planning authority. This document shall confirm the methods and findings of the intrusive site investigations and the completion of any remedial works and/or mitigation necessary to address the risks posed by past coal mining activity. Reason for conditions 2 and 3: To ensure that any risks posed by the coal mining history of the area are identified and addressed prior to development commencing. 4. Prior to the commencement of development, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority: a) Details of the colour of any new doors and screens; b) Details of the materials of any new doors and screens; c) Plans to a scale of 1:20 showing details of the design of the new window units, including dimensions and cross sections of the windows; d) Details of the materials of all areas of hardstanding; e) Details of the proposed decking; f) Details of the proposed rooflights; g) Details of the proposed extractor flue and any ventilation; h) Details of all proposed external lighting; i) Details of all proposed solar panels; j) Details of the electric vehicle charging equipment; k) Details of the proposed CCTV pole; Page 141 of 157
Page 142
l) Details of the proposed litter bin in the car park; m) Details of the means of securing and locking the car park; n) Details of the proposed cycle parking; o) Details of the provision of superfast broadband connections for the cafe; p) Details of all proposed drainage; q) Details of the position, design, materials, dimensions and finish of all walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure; r) Details of a scheme of landscaping for the site. Details shall include hard and soft landscape layouts, planting plans, planting schedules, landscape specification and landscape management plans and programmes and relevant construction details and details of tree protection; and s) Details of a sustainability/biodiversity scheme for the site, including the provision of house bricks and boxes for bats and swifts and small mammal passage points in any fencing. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: These details were not submitted as part of the application: to ensure the development is finished in high quality materials; to protect the listed building and visual amenity of the surrounding area; to ensure the development is provided with adequate amenity; to help integrate the proposal into the surrounding area; to address policies DEV2, DEV6, TRAN5, IT1, RD1, VIS1, ENV4, ENV6, ENV7, ENV11, ENV15, ENV19, ENV20 and ENV22 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 6, 7, 14, 22 and 24 of National Planning Framework 4. 5. The areas of hardstanding agreed in terms of condition 4d) shall be surfaced in a porous material. Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained; in the interests of the amenity of the area; to address Policy 22 of National Planning Framework 4. 6. Any stone to be used in the repairs and rebuilding of the external walls shall match the colour, type, size, coursing and tooling of the stone on the existing building. Reason: To ensure the materials and finish are of high quality to reflect and respect the existing listed building and surrounding conservation area; to address policies DEV2, DEV6, ENV19 and ENV22 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 7 and 14 of National Planning Framework 4. Page 142 of 157
Page 143
7. The details of the window required by condition 4c) shall include genuine timber astragals, which are not to be inserted between or planted on the panes of glass unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. 8. The rooflights hereby approved shall be conservation style rooflights, installed in a manner which ensures that their upper surface is as near flush as possible with the upper surface of the roof into which they are to be installed and with minimal flashing. A detailed section drawing or manufacturer brochure showing this shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the planning authority. 9. The three solar panels to the righthand side of the south elevation, serving the hall and store, as shown on approved drawings 2110- 9_PR_001 and 2110-9_PL_101 A are not approved. Reason for conditions 7 to 9: To protect the character and appearance of the listed building and surrounding area; to address policies DEV2, DEV6, ENV19 and ENV22 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 7 and 14 of National Planning Framework 4. 10. Before the café is occupied or completed, whichever is first, the drainage system agreed in condition 4p) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate drainage facilities prior to occupation; to address Policy 22 of National Planning Framework 4. 11. The café use hereby approved shall not commence until the approved car park is complete and operational. Reason: To ensure that adequate parking is in place before the café comes into use; in the interests of road safety. 12. The car park hereby approved shall not come into use until the vegetation around the tree to the north of the car park entrance has been cut back and the hedgerow to the south of the entrance has been cut down to a height not exceeding 1 metre for a distance of 50 metres. This clearing and hedgerow height shall be maintained while the car park is in use. Reason: In the interests of road safety; to provide adequate visibility for vehicles exiting the car park. 13. The car park hereby approved shall not be used or illuminated outwith the operating hours of the café hereby approved and shall be secured through the measures approved in condition 4m). Page 143 of 157
Page 144
14. The hedgerow along the boundary of the car park and 1 Carrington Mains Cottages and 31 Main Street approved in condition 4r) shall be in plant before the car park comes into use. Reason for conditions 13 and 14: To control the use of the car park hereby approved to ensure there is no adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents; to address policy DEV2 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4. 15. The scheme of landscaping approved in accordance with condition 4r) shall include the following details: a) climbing plants, native shrubs, small trees and mixed native hedgerow with a minimum of four native species, bulbs, wildflowers and herbaceous perennials; b) the use of a rain garden within the external seating area, and if this is not possible details of why shall be submitted; c) an Arboricultural Method Statement that details the means of tree protection for all trees within and adjacent to the site boundary as well as specific working methods, materials, and construction details where work is required within root protection areas of these trees; d) details of management recommendations for the mature sycamore tree by the entrance to the car park, including safety surveys to assess whether this tree can be retained safely, and whether any pruning work, reduction, or felling is required at some stage in the future to ensure its safe retention. Should this tree require felling or reduction in future, the timber shall be retained on site for habitat value; and e) areas of future replacement hedgerow planting to the north of the car park entrance, outwith the visibility splays. Reason: To protect the rural character of the area and integrate the development into the surrounding rural area; to increase canopy cover at the site; to promote biodiversity; to address policies ENV6, ENV7 and ENV11 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policies 6 and 14 of National Planning Framework 4. 16. The plant protection measures required in terms of condition 4r) shall be put in place before any works begin on site and shall be retained as approved until development on site is completed. The protective fencing shall be in accordance with BS5837 and include signage indicating prohibited activities within this Construction Exclusion Zone. Evidence of the signage shall also be supplied to the planning authority. Proof of these protection measures and signage being in place shall be submitted to the planning authority before works begin. Page 144 of 157
Page 145
Reason: To ensure that any landscaping affected by the proposal are protected during development; to protect the trees and canopy cover in the site and wider area; to address policy ENV11 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 6 of National Planning Framework 4. 17. The scheme of landscaping approved in accordance with condition 4r) shall be carried out and completed within six months of the car park either being completed or brought into use, whichever is the earlier date. Any trees or hedgerow removed, dying, severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees or hedge planting of a size and species similar to those originally required. Reason: To ensure the landscaping is carried out and becomes successfully established; to address policy ENV11 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 6 of National Planning Framework 4. 18. The works hereby approved, including vegetation and site clearance works shall not be carried out during the months of March to August inclusive, unless approved in writing by the planning authority after a check for nesting birds is completed by a suitably competent person within 48 hours of works commencing and, in the event an active nest is found, an appropriate protection zone to the satisfaction of the planning authority is in place within which there can be no works until the related chicks have fledged. 19. The works hereby approved shall comply with the recommendations in the approved Ecology Surveys dated 5 November 2024 and 6 March 2025 Reason for conditions 18 and 19: To protect and enhance the local biodiversity of the site; there is potential for the disturbance of breeding birds at the site during bird breeding season; in order to ensure protected species are considered and not adversely affected; to comply with policy ENV15 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 4 of National Planning Framework 4. 20. The café hereby approved shall only open between the hours of 8am to 6pm Thursdays to Sundays and no other time. There shall be no deliveries to the café outwith these approved hours. Reason: In the interests of clarity; the application has only been assessed on these hours and any longer opening hours would require further assessment; to address policy DEV2 of the adopted Page 145 of 157
Page 146
Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4. 21. No development shall take place on site until the applicants or their successors have undertaken and reported upon a programme of archaeological (historic building recording, monitored soil strip and watching brief) work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure a proper archaeological evaluation of the site, which is within an area of potential archaeological interest, and that adequate measures are in place to record any archaeological finds; to comply with policy ENV25 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 7 of National Planning Framework 4. 9.2 That listed building application (24/00599/LBC) be granted for the following reason: The development will not have an adverse impact on the special characteristics of the listed building and therefore complies with section 14(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) and the Historic Environment Scotland policy and guidance. Subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the commencement of development, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority: a) Details of the colour of any new doors and screens; b) Details of the materials of any new doors and screens; c) Plans to a scale of 1:20 showing details of the design of the new window units, including dimensions and cross sections of the windows; d) Details of the materials of all areas of hardstanding; e) Details of the proposed decking; f) Details of the proposed rooflights; g) Details of the proposed extractor flue and any ventilation; h) Details of all proposed external lighting; i) Details of all proposed solar panels; j) Details of all proposed drainage; and k) Details of the position, design, materials, dimensions and finish of all walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the planning authority. Page 146 of 157
Page 147
Reason: These details were not submitted as part of the application: to ensure the development is finished in high quality materials; to protect the listed building; to comply with policy ENV22 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan and Policy 7 of the National Planning Framework and Historic Environment Scotland policy and guidance. 2. Any stone to be used in the repairs and rebuilding of the external walls shall match the colour, type, size, coursing and tooling of the stone on the existing building. Reason: To ensure the materials and finish are of high quality to reflect and respect the existing listed building; to comply with policy ENV22 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan and Policy 7 of the National Planning Framework and Historic Environment Scotland policy and guidance. 3. The details of the window required by condition 1c) shall include genuine timber astragals, which are not to be inserted between or planted on the panes of glass unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority. 4. The rooflights hereby approved shall be conservation style rooflights, installed in a manner which ensures that their upper surface is as near flush as possible with the upper surface of the roof into which they are to be installed and with minimal flashing. A detailed section drawing or manufacturer brochure showing this shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the planning authority. 5. The three solar panels to the righthand side of the south elevation, serving the hall and store, as shown on approved drawings 2110- 9_PR_001 and 2110-9_PL_101 A are not approved. Reason for conditions 3 to 5: To protect the character and appearance of the listed building; to comply with policy ENV22 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan and Policy 7 of the National Planning Framework and Historic Environment Scotland policy and guidance. 6. No development shall take place on site until the applicants or their successors have undertaken and reported upon a programme of archaeological (historic building recording, monitored soil strip and watching brief) work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: To ensure a proper archaeological evaluation of the site, which is within an area of potential archaeological interest, and that Page 147 of 157
Page 148
adequate measures are in place to record any archaeological finds; to comply with policy ENV25 of the adopted Midlothian Local Development Plan 2017 and Policy 7 of National Planning Framework 4. Peter Arnsdorf Planning, Sustainable Growth and Investment Manager Date: 18 April 2025 Application No: 24/00598/DPP and 24/00599/LBC Applicant: Rosebery Estates Agent: Steve Rahr, Galbraith Validation Date: 30 and 24 September 2024 respectively Contact Person: Mhairi-Anne Cowie, Planning Officer Email: mhairi-anne.cowie@midlothian.gov.uk Attached Plans: Site plans, floor plans and elevations Page 148 of 157
Page 149
N Midlothian Council Fairfield House 8 Lothian Road Dalkeith, EH22 3AA Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Crown copyright reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Service Place Directorate Midlothian Council Licence No. AC0000811376 (2025) 24/00598/DPP - Change of use from dilapidated farm store to café (Class 3), associated car parking, footpath and drainage. 24/00599/LBC - Internal and external alterations associated with the change of use from dilapidated farm store to café (Class 3). Carrington Mains, Gorebridge, EH23 4LU. File Nos. 24/00598/DPP and 24/00599/LBC Scale 1:1000Page 149 of 157
Page 150
Page 150 of 157
Page 151
Page 151 of 157
Page 152
Page 152 of 157
Page 153
Page 153 of 157
Page 154
Page 154 of 157
Page 155
Page 155 of 157
Page 156
Page 156 of 157
Page 157
Page 157 of 157