FINALISED MIDLOTHIAN LOCAL PLAN Council... · Finalised Midlothian Local Plan Statement of Decisions by Midlothian Council on the Report of the Inquiry June 2008 Planning Unit Strategic

Finalised Midlothian Local Plan

Statement of Decisions by Midlothian Council on the Report of the Inquiry

June 2008

Planning Unit

Strategic Services Division

Midlothian Council

AP

PE

ND

IX 1

2

FINALISED MIDLOTHIAN LOCAL PLAN

REPORT OF THE INQUIRY

STATEMENT OF DECISIONS BY MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL

PART A Decisions required where Reporter proposes some change to the Finalised Midlothian Local Plan or Pre-Inquiry Changes to the Plan as advertised

and taken into consideration by the Reporter

HOUSING STRATEGY

Report

Ref.

Recommendations/ Conclusions Accept/ Not

Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 3

Pg. 22

Housing Strategy

The Reporter recommends that :

The MLP should include appropriate references to the content of

paragraphs 64 and 67 of SPP 3, and in addition refer to policy

HOU 10 of the ELSP and the requirement to bring forward

additional land if required.

For information purposes, a table should be included showing

how the MLP meets both the strategic housing land

requirements set out in policy HOU 3 of the ELSP, and the

requirement to maintain an effective 5- year land supply in

policy HOU 10 of the ELSP, at the time of adoption of the MLP.

Accept

Accept

The Reporter‟s recommendation is accepted as

clarifying the Council‟s approach and providing

additional context.


clarifying the Council‟s approach and providing

additional context.

PIM 9(i),

PIM 9(ii)

PIM 9(ii)

S. 6

Pg. 64

Strategic Housing Land Proposal HOUS1

The Reporter recommends that the heading of the third column

of the table under proposal HOUS1 should be altered from

“house numbers” to “indicative capacity”.

Accept


clarifying that house numbers in proposal HOUS1

are indicative and some variation in site capacity

can be expected through the preparation of

development briefs and the planning application

process.

PIM 10(i)

3

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 8

Pg. 68

Affordable Housing – Policies HOUS4 and HOUS5

The Reporter recommends that the 2nd

sentence of paragraph

3.2.42 should be modified in similar terms to the following:

“Affordable housing can be provided as shared equity or low

cost market housing by private sector developers, although it is

expected that a proportion of the affordable housing provision in

each community will be for social rented housing”.

The last sentence of paragraph 3.2.42 should be modified from

what is proposed in PIC number 14 in similar terms to the

following: “Supplementary planning guidance will be prepared

within 1 year of the adoption of the Plan, taking account of the

provisions of PAN 74, and will include advice on the

requirements for, and delivery of, affordable housing. Full

consultation will take place with Homes for Scotland and other

stakeholders with an interest in affordable housing before the

supplementary guidance is adopted by the Council”.

(Refer to Part B below also for related recommendations)

Accept

Accept

It is appropriate to refer to other forms of affordable

housing and this clarifies the Council‟s intentions.


confirmation of the urgency which the Council

attaches to the preparation of SPG to provide more

information on issues including tenure split,

delivery mechanisms, scope for commuted sums,

and other relevant matters, and to clarify the

Council‟s intent to consult with stakeholders during

the preparation of the SPG.

PIM 19(i)

PIM 19(i)

LOW DENSITY RURAL HOUSING

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 9

Pg. 77

Low Density Rural Housing – Policy HOUS6

The Reporter recommends that a new paragraph should be added

to the supporting text in similar terms to the following:

“Policy HOUS6 will be reviewed in the next review of the Local

Plan. The success or otherwise of the policy in providing

appropriate housing in the countryside which enhances the

landscape framework of the area and its biodiversity value will

Accept

The amendment is helpful, in terms of recognising

that policy HOUS6 is a significant change from

previous policy, and should be regarded as a pilot,

with potential to amend, extend or withdraw the

policy in future reviews of the MLP, depending on

the success or otherwise of the policy.

PIM 20(xiv)

4

determine whether or not the policy may be extended to other

areas in the future. This process will ensure that no undesirable

precedent for housing in the countryside is set”.

The second sentence of policy HOUS6 should be modified in

similar terms to the following: “To ensure that no unacceptable

cumulative impact occurs within the identified low density

housing areas and to avoid an excessive number of houses on

any one individual site, no more than 8 units in total will be

permitted during the plan period across the 4 sites, and no more

than 2 units will be allowed on any one individual site”.

Appropriate revisions to paragraph 3.2.50 of the supporting text

should be made to explain these changes.

Criterion B should be modified by the addition of the words

“and in particular PAN 72” at the end.

The paragraph relating to small scale rural business should be

modified in similar terms to the following: “Small-scale rural

business, such as the growing of local crops in so far as this may

require the permission of the Council, or craft industries, in

association with the low density housing, may be acceptable

subject to proposals satisfying policy ECON8”.

The paragraph on supplementary guidance should be modified in

similar terms to the following: “Supplementary guidance will be

prepared to provide advice where only a single dwelling for a

particular site is considered appropriate, and on unit size,

planting provision and management, public access, suitable

associated business uses, the location, layout and design of the

house(s), and other implementation matters and longer term

management issues. Sustainable building designs shall be

required”.

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

This would assist in meeting the objectives of the

policy and is not substantially different to the

current policy intentions.


providing useful context in the SPG in terms of

Scottish Government guidance relevant to this

matter as set out in PAN 72.


clarification that the continuation of agricultural

uses is an acceptable form of rural business.


clarification that there may be potential for one unit

only at some sites and that the location, layout and

design of the houses is a matter for the SPG to

address.

PIM 20(xi),

PIM 20(xvi)

PIM 20(xvii)

PIM 20(xviii)

PIM 20(xix),

PIM 20 (xx),

PIM 20 (xii)

5

The Reporter recommends that the sites referred to as North

Middleton and Middleton should be deleted from policy HOUS6

and the Proposals Map.

In relation to the site at The Beeches, Leadburn, introduced prior

to the Inquiry as a proposed Post-Inquiry Modification and

considered by the Reporter as such, the Reporter confirms that

the site should be allocated under policy HOUS6.

Accept

Accept

The characteristics of the Middleton sites are

different from the sites in the A701 Corridor and

the Council accepts the Reporter‟s reasons for

concluding that this makes them unsuitable for the

application of this policy.

This supports the Councils pre-Inquiry position as

set out in the Cabinet report of 20 Feb. 2007 and

taken into consideration at the Inquiry.

PIM 20(v),

PIM 20(viii),

PIM 20(ix),

PIM 20(xxiii),

PIM 20(xv)

PIM 20(v),

PIM 20(vi),

PIM 20(vii),

PIM 20(viii),

PIM 20(xxiv),

PIM 20(xv)

STRATEGIC HOUSING ALLOCATIONS – A7/A68/WAVERLEY LINE CORRIDOR

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 14

Pg. 139

Housing Sites A7/A68 Corridor (Proposal HOUS1):

Dykeneuk, Mayfield

The Reporter recommends that the site at Dykeneuk, Mayfield

should be included for housing development under proposal

HOUS1, with an indicative capacity of 100 houses, and should

be shown on the Proposals Map. An appropriate reference to the

inclusion of the site should be incorporated into the supporting

text.

Accept in

part

The Council accepts that, on balance, the Reporter‟s

recommendation on the Dykeneuk site should be

included in the strategic housing land allocations

but, bearing in mind remaining concerns about

coalescence which are reflective of long-standing

community views, the capacity of the site should be

limited to 50 units located towards the northern

part of the site and integrated with committed sites

h35 and h38,with the remainder being utilised for

community woodland, with public open space and

footpaths linked where possible to the local access

and wider core paths network. Given that additional

pressure will be placed on the local roads network,

the planned improvements to the B6482 Bryans

Road to Gowkshill and the new link to Bogwood

PIM 11(i),

PIM11(ii),

PIM 11(iii),

PIM 11(iv),

Note also

PIM 27

6

Road will have added importance. Appropriate

contributions towards the provision of educational

infrastructure to accommodate the additional

housing would require to be made.

S. 16

Pg. 155


Robertson’s Bank, Gorebridge

The Reporter recommends that the site at Robertson‟s Bank,

Gorebridge should be included for housing development in the

MLP under proposal HOUS1, with an indicative capacity of 56

units, subject to the proviso that concerns outlined by the

Reporter can be dealt with satisfactorily through the

development brief and planning application.

Accept in

part

The Council accepts that, on balance, the

Robertson‟s Bank site should be included in the

strategic housing land allocations with an indicative

capacity for 55 units (56 units being too specific to

be „indicative‟) but with the proviso that the

concerns outlined by the Reporter can be

satisfactorily dealt with both through the

development brief and planning application. If

necessary, the capacity of the site may need to be

adjusted to ensure that a development sensitive to

the wooded environment can be achieved, taking

into account the steep slope of the site and

proximity of the Gore Water / any potential flood

risk. Appropriate contributions towards the

Waverley rail line, and the provision of educational

infrastructure to accommodate the additional

housing would require to be made and contributions

should also be sought towards a community/leisure

facility and town centre improvements. These

requirements are consistent with the contributions

sought from the committed development sites in

Gorebridge as well as with legal opinion regarding

the responsibility and apportionment of education

contributions. This would also be the position if the

site was being considered as a windfall site.

PIM 12(i),

PIM 12(ii),

PIM 12(iii),

PIM 27(iii)

S. 19

Pg. 172


Site H2 Larkfield North, Eskbank (Lasswade Rd)

7

The Reporter recommends that site H2 Larkfield North,

Eskbank, should be deleted from proposal HOUS1 and from the

Proposals Map, and should be retained as Green Belt under

policy RP2. Reference to the site should be deleted from the

supporting text. However, the Reporter also concludes that, in

terms of the housing strategy, the site could be retained in the

MLP to provide for flexibility in the housing land supply, if

required, and that, if the site were to be retained, its indicative

capacity should be reduced to 50 units.

Accept in

part

The Reporter has clearly left an option open to the

Council to consider retaining this site in the

strategic land allocations if required to bolster the

housing land supply and has given a balanced

assessment of points in favour and against

inclusion of this site. His recommendation for

deletion relates to the fact that there are alternative

sites brought through the objections which can

meet ELSP requirements and are not currently in

the Green Belt. The Council considers that, on

balance, site H2 should be retained in proposal

HOUS1 as a strategic housing land allocation for

50 units, the reduced capacity allowing for

adequate structural landscaping to mitigate the

landscape impact on Eskbank and take account of

Green Belt objectives.

PIM 13(i),

PIM 13(ii)

S. 21

Pg. 180


Land at Dalhousie Road, Eskbank (south of former Jewel &

Esk Valley College)

The Reporter recommends that the site should not be included

for housing development under proposal HOUS1. However, the

site should be deleted from designation under policy RP1

(Protection of the Countryside) and should be included on the

Proposals Map within the settlement boundary for Eskbank

under the terms of policy RP20 (Development within the Built-

Up Area). The Reporter concludes that the site does not have

capacity for 15 units as suggested but may be able to

accommodate a smaller-scale development (say, 10 units).

Accept

The Council accepts that the site should be included

within the settlement boundary for Eskbank but has

remaining concerns about the nature of any

development proposals that might emerge for the

site, given its importance on the approach to

Eskbank from the south. Any future development

proposals will be required to (a) address the terms

of other policies and proposals in the Local Plan,

including policy RP30 for the protection of open

space in towns and villages, (b) incorporate

acceptable landscaping provision to ameliorate

landscape impact, )c) take account of the need to

protect the adjoining mature woodland and (d)

relate satisfactorily to the layout, form and design

of development proposed on the larger sites to the

PIM 31

8

north and west.

S. 25

Pg. 204


Site H10 Rosewell Road, Rosewell

The Reporter recommends that site H10 Rosewell Road,

Rosewell should be deleted from proposal HOUS1 and from the

Proposals Map, and should be retained under policy RP1

(Protection of the Countryside). Reference to the site should be

deleted from the supporting text. The reasons given relate

principally to concerns about integration with the built form of

the village and landscape impact.

Accept

On balance, the Council accepts the Reporter‟s

findings regarding site H10 as his concerns

regarding the site‟s relationship to the existing built

form of the village are difficult to overcome, at

least in the short term. The village is currently

experiencing very significant expansion, including

a substantial windfall development at nearby

Whitehill House, and deletion of this site from the

MLP would not raise an issue as regards achieving

a spread of development sites across the

communities within the Core Development Area.

PIM 14(i),

PIM 14(ii),

PIM 14 (iii),

PIM 14 (iv)

STRATEGIC HOUSING ALLOCATIONS – A701 CORRIDOR

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 28

Pg. 222

Housing Sites A701 Corridor (Proposal HOUS1):

Site H12 Seafield Moor Road, Bilston

The Reporter recommends that site H12 Seafield Moor Road,

Bilston should be deleted from proposal HOUS1and from the

Proposals Map, and should be retained as Green Belt under

policy RP2. Reference to the site should be deleted from the

supporting text.

Not Accept

Given that the Reporter‟s arguments for and against

this site and the alternative site at Seafield Road

East, Bilston (see Ref. 29 below) are finely

balanced, the Council has accepted that both sites

are allocated in the MLP, but with capacities

reduced to 150 units on each site to take account of

the factors requiring consideration. This would take

account of the Reporter‟s concerns to a significant

degree as, even though site H12 would be retained

in the MLP, there would be scope for substantial

mitigation of landscape impact and scope to

accommodate the additional space requirements for

PIM 16(ii),

PIM 16(v),

PIM 16(vi),

PIM 16(vii),

PIM 16(ix),

PIM 27(iv),

PIM 34

9

the new primary school. This approach would have

the additional benefit of supporting the provision of

a new primary school for this community.

Appropriate contributions towards the provision of

educational infrastructure would require to be made

and contributions should also be sought towards

improved community facilities (perhaps in

association with the new primary school), given the

scale of village expansion and the Reporter‟s

findings in this respect.

S. 29

Pg. 230


Seafield Road and Pentland Mains Farm, Bilston

The Reporter recommends that the site at Seafield Road East,

Bilston (part of the above site) should be included for housing

development under proposal HOUS1, with an indicative

capacity of 180 houses, and shown on the Proposals Map. An

appropriate reference to the inclusion of the site should be

incorporated into the supporting text. The remainder of the site

at Pentland Mains Farm (including Seafield Road West) should

not be included for housing development in the FMLP.

Accept in

part

Given that the Reporter‟s arguments for and against

the site at Seafield Road East, Bilston and site H12

(see Ref. 28 above) are finely balanced, the

Council has accepted that both sites are allocated in

the MLP, but with capacities reduced to 150 units

on each site to take account of the factors requiring

consideration. This would take account of the

Reporter‟s and the Council‟s concerns to a

significant degree. This would allow for adequate

open space and structural landscaping in the narrow

gap between Bilston and Loanhead and offers

potential to deal effectively with concerns

ovebetween communities. It would also allow

substantial structural planting to create a defensible

Green Belt boundary along the northern edge of the

site. It would have the additional benefit of

supporting the provision of a new primary school

for this community. Appropriate contributions

towards the provision of educational infrastructure

would require to be made and contributions should

also be sought towards improved community

facilities (perhaps in association with the new

PIM 16(i),

PIM 16(iii),

PIM 16(iv),

PIM 16 (v),

PIM 16(vi),

PIM 16(viii),

PIM 16(ix),

PIM 16(x),

PIM 27(iv),

PIM 34

10

primary school), given the scale of village

expansion and the Reporter‟s findings in this

respect. The Reporter has confirmed the Council‟s

stance on the remainder of this large site.

S. 32

Pg. 258


Specific reference in proposal HOUS1 to 150 Council houses

at site H14 North West Penicuik

The Reporter recommends that the reference “to include 150

Council houses” should be deleted from the house numbers

column in proposal HOUS1.


Accept

The Council accepts that that there is insufficient

evidence to support the requirement for 150

Council houses at site H14 as a special case and

that there are no similar allocations in other

settlements. It notes that the Reporter concludes

that there is nothing to stop policy HOUS4

achieving this level of affordable housing on site

H14 as it allows for provision in excess of 25%.

Whilst the recommendation to delete the reference

is accepted, the Council considers that the site

capacity should be reduced to 400 units to take

account of this and allow flexibility in the design

and layout of this sensitive site. This should still

achieve at least 100 affordable homes. If the

development brief to be prepared can accommodate

it, there may also be a case for including some

community facility provision within the site such as

one or more neighbourhood shops and/or a public

house.

PIM 17(i), PIM

17(ii), PIM

17(iii)

S. 34

Pg. 294


Site H11 Ashgrove, Loanhead

The Reporter recommends that site H11 Ashgrove, Loanhead

should be retained for housing development under proposal

HOUS1, with an indicative capacity for 170 houses, and shown

on the Proposals Map.

In accordance with the change proposed by the Council as a

Accept

Accept

The Council accepts the Reporter‟s conclusions that

a reduced capacity would allow for the landscaping

required to protect Straiton Pond Local Nature

Reserve and C-listed Ashgrove House.

This confirms the Council‟s stated position at the

PIM 15(i),

PIM 15(iii)

PIM 15(ii)

11

Post-Inquiry Modification (and considered by the Reporter at

the Inquiry), paragraph 3.2.22 should be modified by the

insertion of the words “consisting of significant structure

planting” after the words “landscape buffer” in the final

sentence of the paragraph.

Inquiry which was to progress this as a Post-Inquiry

Modification in order to resolve objections lodged

by Scottish Natural Heritage.

ESTABLISHED ECONOMIC LAND SUPPLY

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 35

Pg. 299

Established Economic Land Supply - Policy COMD1

Site e24 Gorton Road, Rosewell

The Reporter concludes that site e24 Gorton Road, Rosewell

needs to be jointly marketed if it is to be tested to see if it is

viable and, if no commitment to develop the site is achieved

during the lifetime of the MLP, the status of the site should be

reviewed and considered for potential housing development

(housing site H8 could be extended) during the next review of

the MLP. The potential of the steading and existing primary

school sites for economic use as put forward by the objector

should be tested in the next review of the MLP.


Accept

The Council has been involved in joint marketing

exercises in the past and considers this an effective

solution to the marketing and development of

economic sites. This recommendation will allow

the site to be marketed with the benefit of improved

access provided by the opening of the Bonnyrigg-

Dalkeith Distributor (Hopefield Section) due later

this year.

PIM 32(i)

S. 36

Pg. 307


Site e10 Thornybank Industrial Estate, Dalkeith

The Reporter recommends that a joint marketing exercise should

be undertaken with the owner of site e10 Thornybank Industrial

Estate. This may involve other agencies as appropriate. The

Reporter recommends that, in the event that no commitment for

business or general industrial development (or mixed use

development involving these uses) is secured through active

marketing, then the status of the site should be reviewed and its

possible allocation for housing development considered in the

next review of the MLP (or in advance, if circumstances dictate).

Accept

The Council has been involved in joint marketing

exercises in the past and considers this an effective

solution to the marketing and development of

economic sites. This recommendation will allow

the site to be marketed with the benefit of improved

access provided by the opening of the A68 Dalkeith

Northern Bypass in August 2008.

PIM 32(ii)

12


Furthermore, the Reporter comments that, in the next MLP

review, there is a need to address an anomaly between the

identification of industrial estates in totality in the established

land supply in policy COMD1 and Appendix 1B, and the fact

that only parts of the sites are available for development.

Accept

This issue was accepted by the Council during the

Inquiry and will be addressed in the next review of

the MLP. No action is required in relation to this

Plan.

None

STRATEGIC ECONOMIC LAND ALLOCATIONS

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 37

Pg. 316

Strategic Economic Sites (Proposal ECON1)

Site E2 Sheriffhall South

The Reporter recommends the retention of site E2 Sheriffhall

South as a strategic economic allocation under proposal ECON1.

However, he concludes that site E2 should retain its Green Belt

status. Commensurate changes to policy RP2 Protection of the

Green Belt, the supporting text and Proposals Map are also

proposed. The Reporter considers that this would ensure that

future development respects Green Belt objectives.

Further detail in relation to the above is provided:

(a) A sentence should be added to the end of paragraph 3.3.15

in similar terms to the following: “It is intended that the site

should remain in the Green Belt in order to ensure that the

layout of the development and provision of open space

respects Green Belt objectives and the character of the

surrounding area”.

(b) Sub-paragraph D of policy RP2 should include a reference

to proposal ECON1 as well as the policies referred to

therein, and the reference to Sheriffhall South should be

Accept

Accept

Accept

The Council notes that the Reporter regards site E2

Sheriffhall South as a crucial part of the Green Belt,

maintaining the separation between, and identity of,

the settlements of Shawfair/Danderhall and

Bonnyrigg/Eskbank. The Reporter considers that

the adjoining garden centre and commercial

development takes account of policy RP2

(Protection of the Green Belt) and considers that

there may be inconsistency in removing site E2

from the Green Belt whilst retaining the garden

centre in the Green Belt. Retention of this site in

the Green Belt should certainly assist in achieving a

high quality of economic development at this

location and will overcome concerns about pressure

for change of use of the land if it was to be removed

from the Green Belt through the MLP. The Council

accepts the Reporter‟s proposed amendments to the

MLP in this regard. The following detailed wording

is accepted as commensurate changes following on

from a decision to retain the economic allocation

PIM 21(i),

PIM 21(iii),

PIM 21(iv),

PIM 21(v),

PIM 21(vi)

13

removed from the penultimate sentence of paragraph 2.1.14,

with an additional sentence being inserted in similar terms

to the following: “However, sites designated for economic

development at Sheriffhall South (north of Dalkeith) and

Oatslie (by Roslin) have been retained in the Green Belt to

ensure that the development of these sites respects Green

Belt objectives” (see also Ref. 38 below).

The name of site E1 should be amended from Shawfair Park

East to Shawfair Park Extension.

In accordance with the agreement between the Council and the

objector, the sentence in paragraph 3.3.14 stating: “It is intended

that site E1 will be accessed through the Todhills Business Park,

as an extension to it” should be amended to: “It is intended that

site E1 will be an extension to Shawfair Park and not developed

in advance of it. E1 will be accessed through Shawfair Park. Any

additional secondary means of access will be assessed by the

Council on its merits”.

Accept

Accept

site E2 in the Green Belt.

The Council accepts this Post Inquiry modification.

This reflects an agreement made between the

Council and the objector during the Inquiry

proceedings, as the basis for a conditional

withdrawal of an objection.

PIM 22(i)

PIM 22(iv)

PIM 22(ii)

S. 38

Pg. 325

Strategic Economic Sites (Proposal ECON1)

Site E7 Oatslie, By Roslin

The Reporter recommends the retention of site E7 Oatslie as a

strategic economic allocation under proposal ECON1. However,

he concludes that site E7 should retain its Green Belt status.

Commensurate changes to policy RP2 Protection of the Green

Belt, the supporting text and Proposals Map are also proposed.

The Reporter considers that this would ensure that future

development respects Green Belt objectives.

Further detail in relation to the above is provided:

(a) The second sentence of paragraph 3.3.20 should be replaced

by text in similar terms to the following: “The site is located

within the Green Belt, and it is intended that this position

Accept

Accept

The Council notes that the Reporter regards the

potential loss of Green Belt at site E7 Oatslie with

some concern and states that this should not be

regarded as a precedent for further development in

the area. It is separated from Roslin and surrounded

by farmland. Retention of the economic site in the

Green Belt would reinforce the need for careful

design in relation to layout and provision of open

space, and would reflect the position as regards the

retention of the neighbouring A701 sites for

biotechnology and knowledge-based industries in

the Green Belt. Retention of this site in the Green

Belt should certainly assist in achieving a high

PIM 21(ii),

PIM 21(iii),

PIM 21(iv),

PIM 21(vii)

14

should be maintained in order to ensure that the layout of

the development and provision of open space respects

Green Belt objectives and in particular reduces to a

minimum the impact of development on the landscape

setting of Roslin”.

(b) Sub-paragraph D of policy RP2 should include a reference

to proposal ECON1 as well as the policies referred to

therein, and the reference to Oatslie should be removed

from the penultimate sentence of paragraph 2.1.14, with an

additional sentence being inserted in similar terms to the

following: “However, sites designated for economic

development at Sheriffhall South (north of Dalkeith) and

Oatslie (by Roslin) have been retained in the Green Belt to

ensure that the development of these sites respects Green

Belt objectives” (see also Ref. 37 above).

Accept

quality of economic development at this location

and will overcome concerns about pressure for

change of use of the land if it was to be removed

from the Green Belt through the MLP. The Council

accepts the Reporter‟s proposed amendments to the

MLP in this regard.The following detailed wording

is accepted as commensurate changes following on

from a decision to retain the economic allocation

site E2 in the Green Belt.

S. 39

Pg. 332

Strategic Economic Sites (Proposal ECON1):

Site E6 Ashgrove, Loanhead

In accordance with the change proposed by the Council as a

Post-Inquiry Modification (and considered by the Reporter at

the Inquiry), paragraph 3.2.22 should be modified by the

insertion of the words “consisting of significant structure

planting” after the words “landscape buffer” in the final

sentence of the paragraph.

(Refer to Part B below also for related recommendation)

Accept

This confirms the Council‟s stated position at the

Inquiry which was to progress this as a Post-Inquiry

Modification in order to resolve objections lodged

by Scottish Natural Heritage. (Refer also to Ref. 34

above)

PIM 21(ii)

15

TOURIST ACCOMMODATION

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 46

Pg. 355

Tourist Accommodation – Policy ECON7

The Reporter recommends that policy ECON7 (Tourist

Accommodation) is amended to delete the second paragraph,

which offers support for hotels in business areas and at gateway

locations where specific criteria and circumstances are met.

However, this is qualified by a recommendation that the

supporting text should retain a reference to the Council‟s

objective of supporting hotels at key gateway locations including

those adjacent to the A720 City Bypass. He recommends

clarification that such proposals will only be considered

favourably in exceptional circumstances within countryside

locations, particularly in the Green Belt. In such cases, it will

require to be demonstrated that there is no suitable alternative

site within the urban envelope, that the proposal represents the

most sustainable location for such development, and that, where

relevant, the proposal does not undermine the objectives of the

Green Belt.

Not Accept

The Reporter‟s proposed amendments to the MLP

in this regard are not accepted for the following

reasons:

(a) SPP 1 The Planning System (para. 27) states

that it is “essential that policies provide clear

guidance to developers and the public on the

relevant planning issues affecting an area” and

“are expressed simply and unambiguously”. The

Council has endeavoured to make policy

ECON7 clear and unambiguous and the policy

would be less so, and considerably weaker, if

the Council‟s intentions with regard to hotel

proposals at key gateway locations were only to

be found in the supporting text. Similarly, it is

preferable for the policy approach to hotels in

business areas to be set out explicitly in this

development policy rather than rely on

interpretation of the resource protection policy

RP20 Development within the Built-Up Area

for this purpose;

(b) the Reporter has confirmed that policy ECON7

is consistent with the Structure Plan; and

(c) the criteria that the Reporter has suggested be

listed in para 3.3.31 (or 3.3.32 once Pre-Inquiry

Changes are applied) of the supporting text as

necessary to make development acceptable, are

in fact largely covered in para. 2 of policy

ECON7 itself (which lends them greater weight)

and supplemented in the aforesaid para. 3.3.31.

The latter could be adjusted to clarify the

Reporter‟s intent in this regard.

PIM 33

16

The Council has agreed that Post-Inquiry

Modifications should include some clarification in

the supporting text of the points raised.

TOWN CENTRES & RETAILING

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 48

Pg. 362

Straiton Retail Park - Policy SHOP4 The Reporter recommends that the retail policies and supporting

text should be modified in accordance with the terms of the

Council‟s Pre-Inquiry Changes numbered PIC31 to PIC34,

subject to:

(a) further modification of criterion A of policy SHOP4 by

adding at the end “or any other strategic town centres

outwith the Midlothian administrative area within the

catchment of the retail park”; and

(b) further modification of criterion B by replacing “the local

area” with “the expected catchment area of the proposed

development”.

Not Accept

Although the proposed addition to criterion A may

only bring into consideration Musselburgh, and

possibly Morningside/Bruntsfield and Nicolson

Street/Clerk Street, the catchment area of Straiton

could be defined by IKEA and Costco, both with a

catchment extending to the whole of southern and

eastern Scotland, particularly since IKEA decided

in 2007 against opening a store in Aberdeen. It is

likely to prove impossible to implement a policy

worded in this fashion, as the extent of the Straiton

catchment is not clearly defined. Furthermore, it

would be extremely difficult for the Council to

assess the availability or otherwise of sites outwith

its administrative area. Adding reference to “the

expected catchment area” at criterion B would go

beyond the requirements of the ELSP, which

specifically uses the term “local area” as carried

forward into the MLP. The Council has therefore

decided not to accept the Reporter‟s recommended

changes to the MLP in this regard.

None

17

COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 49

Pg. 369

Cemetery – Proposal COMF6

The Reporter recommends that proposal COMF6 should be

retained as existing, but paragraph 3.6.31 should be modified by

the replacement of the words “Lauder Road” with “Easthouses

Road”. The site at Lauder Road should be deleted from the

Proposals Map, and one of the two alternative sites at

Easthouses Road should be included on the Proposals Map.

Alternatively, in the event that the Council does not wish to

include either of these alternative sites, the existing text of

proposal COMF6 should be replaced with the following:

“Midlothian Council will seek to identity suitable cemetery land

for the communities now served by Dalkeith and Newbattle

Cemeteries during the life of this Local Plan”.

In the event that this alternative option is followed, the text of

paragraph 3.6.31 should be replaced with the following:

“It has not yet been possible to identify a suitable alternative site

that is likely to be realised during the life of the Local Plan.

Therefore, in order to meet future needs, the Council will seek to

identify a suitable site during the life of the Local Plan which

will be included in the next review of the Local Plan.”

In any event, the last sentence of paragraph 3.6.30 should be

deleted.

Accept

A site for this contentious proposal is proving

elusive, the adopted MLP having also failed to

secure a site. Alternative sites are few and far

between. It is less than satisfactory to await another

review of the MLP to identify a site when this is

unlikely to be able to identify any better

alternatives. However, any allocated site has to be

deliverable and it seems likely that the site at

Lauder Road would be difficult to secure due to an

unwilling landowner. Furthermore, there appears to

be sufficient capacity at present to allow the matter

to be addressed during preparation of the

forthcoming Local Development Plan for

Midlothian, or earlier should the need arise. On

balance, the Council accepts the Reporter‟s

suggestion to delete the Lauder Road site and insert

wording to state that the Council will seek to

identify a site during the lifetime of the MLP which

will be included in the next review of the MLP.

PIM 23(i),

PIM 23(ii),

PIM 23(iii),

PIM 23 (iv)

ENERGY

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 50

Pg. 376

Renewable Energy - Policies NRG1-2

The Reporter recommends that the energy section should be

modified in accordance with the Council‟s Pre-Inquiry Changes

numbered PIC53 and PIC54, together with the Council‟s

Accept

The Reporter has given the Council a clear

endorsement for the Landscape Capacity Study to

be given significant weight when considering

PIM 25

PIM 26

18

additional Pre-Inquiry amendments set out in Inquiry document

MCD321, subject to the following further modifications :

Note: The additional Pre-Inquiry amendments over and above

PICs 1-54 were not advertised for objection. Therefore they are

advertised as Post-Inquiry Modifications, however, some of

these have been amended by the Reporter.

Paragraph 3.7.2 should refer to SPP 6 and should summarise

development plan requirements. Reference to „draft SPP 6‟ and

„NPPG 6‟ should be replaced by „SPP 6‟ in paragraphs 3.7.3 and

3.7.5. Reference in paragraph 3.7.5 to the Landscape Capacity

Study having been commissioned in line with NPPG 6 and Draft

SPP 6 should be changed to state that the study was

commissioned to enhance the Council‟s understanding of

landscape capacity for wind energy development in Midlothian.

Paragraph 3.7.6 should be modified in similar terms to the

following:

“Although national guidance is supportive of wind energy

development, it accepts that this can only be where

environmental impacts can be addressed. The study found that

there is limited capacity in Midlothian for wind energy

development and that a policy focused on giving priority to

smaller “domestic” or “community” scale development in the

lowlands would be appropriate. The study provides information

on the potential cumulative impact…”.

Accept

Accept

proposals for wind energy but suggests some

amendments to the policy footnotes and supporting

text references to the study to ensure that the policy

framework complies fully with SPP 6. These

amendments are accepted. The Reporter‟s support

for the Council‟s stance regarding areas of search

for wind farm development is particularly welcome;

he states that “The Landscape Capacity Study

justifies the Council‟s intention not to identify

search areas for wind energy development in

Midlothian. The area is clearly too small, and has a

diversity of landscape character that makes the

identification of search areas impractical.” This

finding will be reflected in the MLP. His

recommendations regarding other policy changes -

to refer to the setting of the Pentland Hills Regional

Park and significant adverse effects - are accepted

as appropriate clarification of the policy.

The amendments proposed by the Reporter will

help ensure that the MLP is compliant with SPP 6

while still taking account of the findings of the

Landscape Capacity Study.

PIM 25 (i)

PIM 25 (ii)

PIM 25 (iii)

PIM 25 (iv)

PIM 25 (v)

PIM 25 (vi)

PIM 25 (vii)

PIM 25 (viii)

PIM 25 (iv)

PIM 25 (v)

PIM 25 (vi)

PIM 25 (vii)

PIM 25 (viii)

19

Paragraph 3.7.7 should be modified in similar terms to the

following:

“Forby that the study considers that there is limited capacity for

wind energy development in Midlothian, the Local Plan is

seeking to ensure…”.

Criterion A of policy NRG1 (as revised) should be modified by

replacing “significantly affect” with “cause a significant adverse

effect upon” in the first line, and by inserting “Pentland Hills

Regional Park” after archaeological sites and before the text in

brackets.

Footnote 2 in policy NRG1 (as revised) should be modified by

the deletion of the following sentence:

“In the light of the conclusions of the study, the Council

considers it unlikely that proposals including turbines above

30m in height (height to blade tip) and/or more than 5 in number

together will be able to satisfy this criterion”

and by the deletion of the last 2 sentences of the footnote.

Policy NRG2 (as revised) should be modified by the deletion of

the following sentence:

“It is unlikely that turbines above 30m in height will be

supported by the Council”

and by the deletion of the last 2 sentences.

The Reporter left consideration of PAN84 and any revision to

policy NRG3 to the Council. Paragraphs 3.7.3, 3.7.8 and policy

NRG3 have been updated to reflect this position.

Appendix 7 should be deleted.

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

PIM 25 (ix)

PIM 25 (x)

PIM 26 (i)

PIM 26 (ii)

PIM 26 (iii)

PIM 26 (iv)

PIM 26 (v)

PIM 26 (vi)

PIM 25 (ii)

PIM 25 (xi)

PIM 26 (vii)

PIM 26 (viii)

PIM 26 (ix)

PIM 26 (x)

PIM 26 (xi)

PIM 25 (xii)

20

MINERALS

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 51

Pg. 392

Areas of Search for Surface Mineral Extraction - Policy

MIN1:

The Reporter recommends that the minerals section of the MLP

should be modified in accordance with the Council‟s Pre-Inquiry

Changes numbered PIC6 and PIC42, subject to the following

further modifications:

Text in similar terms to the following sentence should be added

to the second paragraph following the bullet points setting out

the areas of search in policy MIN1, before the sentence stating

that outwith the areas of current working and areas of search

there is a presumption against surface mineral extraction:

“The Council recognises that specific mineral working proposals

in exceptional circumstances may extend beyond the boundaries

of the areas of search for operational purposes, and the

acceptability of the use of any such land will be included within

the assessment referred to above”.

Text in similar terms to the following should be included at the

end of paragraph 3.9.13:

“Provision is made in policy MIN1 to allow specific mineral

working proposals in exceptional circumstances to extend

beyond the boundaries of the areas of search for operational

purposes".


Accept

Accept

Accept

The Reporter confirms the Council‟s position with

respect to PIC6 and PIC42. He recommends that the

areas of search for opencast mineral working under

policy MIN1, and shown on the Proposals Map,

should not be extended and no additional search

areas such as Chester‟s Wood should be included.

His proposed amendments to the policy and

supporting text regarding the boundaries of the

areas of search provide some operational flexibility

which is acceptable. This level of flexibility is not

contrary to the ELSP.

PIM 24(i)

PIM 24(ii)

21

IMPLEMENTATION

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 52

Pg. 406

Implementation policies – Policies IMP1-3:

The Reporter recommends that a statement containing the

following information should be made publicly available before

the MLP is adopted:

(a) the reasoning behind the extent to which the additional

essential infrastructure, or making good deficiencies in

existing facilities, is deemed to be required as a result of

the new housing development; and

(b) the expected overall cost and an apportionment of the cost

related in scale and kind to the individual housing sites

identified through proposals HOUS1 and HOUS2.

If this information cannot be provided, then the relevant bullet

points in policies IMP2 and IMP3 should be removed from the

policies. The existing SPG should be reviewed at the earliest

opportunity following the adoption of the MLP, incorporating

the information provided in the above statement.

The implementation section should be modified in accordance

with the Council‟s Pre-Inquiry Change numbered PIC44, subject

to the following further modifications:

An additional paragraph should be inserted after paragraph

3.12.14 in similar terms to the following:

“The Council has prepared a statement, which has been made

publicly available, setting out the basis for the proposed

developer contributions listed in policies IMP2 and IMP3 and

giving indicative costs related in scale and kind to the strategic

housing sites. The Council will review the existing

supplementary policy guidance on developer contributions at the

earliest opportunity following the adoption of the Local Plan”.

Accept in

part

Accept

The Council supports the early identification of

infrastructure requirements and facility provision

arising from new development, either allocated or

through windfall development. It acknowledges the

benefit of providing further clarification on the

nature and extent of the requirements listed in IMP2

and IMP3 as far as possible at this juncture and,

where practicable, the likely costs of such

provision. Accordingly, it agrees to prepare and

make publicly available, a statement to this effect

and to progress work on the review of SPG as soon

as possible following Plan adoption.

The Reporter‟s proposed amendments to the

supporting text of the implementation policies are

accepted.

None

PIM 27(i)

22

In Policy IMP1 and paragraph 3.2.29, there should be inserted

reference to the development briefs for the allocated housing

sites being prepared “by the Council in conjunction with

prospective developers”.

Accept The recommendation provides added clarity as to

how the proposed development briefs will be

prepared.

PIM 27(ii)

PIM 27(v)

DETAILED DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 53

Pg. 418

Development Guidelines – Policy DP2

The Reporter recommends that policy DP2 should be modified

in accordance with Pre-Inquiry Change numbered PIC47 subject

to the following additional modifications:

A distinction should continue to be drawn between the policies

and the supporting text of policy DP2, the former being

highlighted in shaded boxes as occurs in the adopted MLP.

With respect to the provision for maintenance of open space in

section 4c, guidelines should be provided in the supporting text

to define what is considered to be a reasonable “long-term”

period. This should be ascertained from existing published

sources or from the average period for maintenance used by

other local authorities.

The final paragraph relating to hours of sunlight in section 5b

should be modified in similar terms to the following: “...will

enjoy at least 3 hours of any available sunlight on 1 March”.

This additional text, and the paragraph above, should be part of

the supporting text. This is to take into account the possibility of

cloud cover.

With respect to the areas of improved quality in section 5e, the

first paragraph should be the policy element and the second

paragraph should be supporting text.

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

These recommendations largely accord with the

Council‟s position as outlined in the FMLP. The

proposed changes clarify the status of various parts

of the guidelines as either policy or supporting text,

and provide additional information for

interpretation of the guidelines.

PIM 29 (i-xvi)

PIM 30(i)

PIM 30(ii)

PIM 29(xvi)

23

S. 54(a)

Pg. 424

Protection of the Countryside – Policies RP1 and DP1

Section 1.1

The Reporter recommends that criterion A of policy RP1 should

be modified to read:

“A. it is required for the furtherance of agriculture...”.

In addition, the wording of the first sentence of section 1.1 of

policy DP1 should be modified in like terms.

Accept

The Council does not consider that amending

criterion A of policy RP1 and the first sentence of

policy DP1 to replace “essential” with “required” is

materially different and therefore accepts the

Reporter‟s recommendation.

PIM 2,

PIM 28(i)

S. 54(b)

Pg. 424

Development in the Countryside – Policy DP1 Section 1.1

The Reporter recommends that the second paragraph of section

1.1 of policy DP1 should be modified as follows:

“In approving the new house, the Council will require that it …

will be subject of an occupancy condition and/or a legal

agreement where necessary”

Accept

The proposed change relating to occupancy

conditions and legal agreements would create some

difficulties but would also give the Council more

flexibility in dealing with these issues provided that

care is taken in application of this policy. The

imposition of planning conditions can be less

effective than the use of legal agreements

particularly when there is a change in ownership;

planning conditions do not appear on the missives

of a property whereas S.75 agreements do, and

planning conditions can become time-barred from

enforcement action if a breach is not detected. The

Reporter suggests that the use of occupancy

conditions could be an alternative in some areas but

does not suggest that this should be the norm. The

Council therefore accepts the Reporter‟s

recommendation, subject to the addition of a

statement in section 1.1 of policy DP1 to read:

“It will generally be the case that a legal agreement

will be required.” This is in order to clarify the

Council‟s intentions whilst still allowing for the use

of planning conditions where more appropriate.

PIM 28(ii)

24

S. 54(c)

Pg. 424


The Reporter recommends that criterion b) of section 1.2 of

policy DP1 should be modified as follows:

“b) the new units are restricted to a maximum of 1 new unit per

3 existing units within the Local Plan period.”

Not Accept

The FMLP promotes a new approach whereby,

subject to certain criteria, it may be possible to

supplement clearly identifiable groupings of 5 or

more houses in close proximity with a maximum of

1 new house per 5 existing units within the Plan

period. This policy is seen as a departure from

previous practice and the MLP stipulates that SPG

will be prepared identifying house groups to which

this will apply to help to ensure appropriate

application of this new policy. Work is in progress

to determine the relevant groupings of housing

across Midlothian‟s countryside but excluding the

Green Belt where the policy does not apply.

The Council led evidence at the inquiry in relation

to this work on SPG, explaining that some

evaluation of the effect of the objector‟s proposed

change to this new policy had been undertaken,

which was misunderstood by the Reporter to mean

that the Council had changed its policy stance.

There was in fact no intent to suggest that there had

been a change in the Council‟s position; indeed,

this would have been an odd position for the

Council to adopt given that this is a new policy.

Given that this policy has yet to be tested on the

ground, it is considered that a precautionary

approach should be taken. There will be an

opportunity to review and, if appropriate, extend

the policy through the next review of the Local

Plan (commencing January 2009) once its full

impact can be ascertained. In this context, the

Council does not accept the Reporter‟s

recommendation, but has agreed that a textual

amendment be added to indicate that the success or

PIM 28(iv)

25

otherwise of this new policy will be reviewed

before consideration is given to widening its

application in future Local Plans, if appropriate.

S. 54(d)

Pg. 424


The Reporter recommends that, although regular access to public

transport is important, criterion c) of section 1.2 of policy DP1

should be modified by remove the reference to the frequency of

bus services.

Accept

There are sound reasons for the proposed change to

this criterion as ongoing work on the SPG relating

to this indicates that this specific requirement may

be too onerous and the criterion would be difficult

to implement. However, the Reporter agrees that

regular access to public transport is important; the

groups that this policy refers to will be identified in

the SPG allowing the Council to consider the public

transport issue in advance of applications being

submitted and thus giving clarity to developers.

PIM 28(iii)

S. 54(e)

Pg. 424


The Reporter recommends that in section 1.3, the reference to

“the building is capable of conversion without requiring any

alterations to its external appearance or any extensions other

than of a very minor nature” should be amended by removing

the word “very”.

(Refer to Part B below also for related recommendation)

Accept

The Council considers that his change will provide

for a little more flexibility when considering

proposals for the conversion of farm steadings.

PIM 28(v)

RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICIES

Report

Ref.


Accept

Reasons Mod. No.

S. 56

Pg. 433

Other Resource Protection Policies - RP9, RP12, RP13,

RP15, RP21, and RP25

The Reporter recommends that the Council should ensure that

the correct position is set out in paragraph 2.1.53 with respect to

the inclusion of wildlife sites and listed wildlife sites both in

Accept

The Council accepts the Reporter‟s

recommendation as justified to ensure that all

existing sites, and sites which are designated during

PIM 4(i),

PIM 4(ii)

26

Appendix 5 and on the Proposals Map. It should be made clear

that any such existing sites not listed in Appendix 5 and/or not

shown on the Proposals Map, and any such sites designated

during the lifetime of the MLP, would fall to be protected under

policy RP12. Otherwise there should be no modification to the

MLP with respect to these objections.


the lifetime of the MLP, would fall to be protected

under policy RP12.

S. 58

Pg. 439

Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings – Policies RP22 to

RP24 The Reporter recommends that an additional sentence be added

to paragraph 2.2.13, in similar terms to the following:

“Conservation area appraisals and any subsequent enhancement

schemes will be the subject of consultation with appropriate

organisations including community groups.”

Accept

The proposed addition reflects the intentions and

current practice of the Council regarding

Conservation Area appraisals.

PIM 6

S. 59

Pg. 448

Open Space in Towns and Villages – Policy RP30

The Reporter recommends that the last paragraph of policy RP30

should be further modified from that proposed in Pre-Inquiry

Change numbered PIC8 in similar terms to the following:

“Proposals (with the exception of minor householder

applications) to develop areas of open space shall be

accompanied by information relating to quantity, quality,

function, use, accessibility and distribution of open space within

the vicinity of the site and/or local community, to demonstrate

that the provision of open space would not be adversely affected

by the proposed development.”

Accept

The Reporter‟s recommendation largely accords

with the Council‟s position as outlined in the

FMLP.

PIM 8

S. 65

Pg. 474

Nazareth House, Bonnyrigg – Policy RP4

The site at Nazareth House should not be designated as prime

agricultural land in the context of policy RP4, and this

designation should be removed from the Proposals Map.


Accept

The Reporter‟s recommendation is acceptable given

the current use of the Nazareth House site; in these

specific circumstances, the site is highly unlikely to

be used for agricultural purposes in the future. For

the purposes of consistency, the Prime agricultural

land designation will be removed also from the

adjoining grounds of Pittendreich House.

PIM 3

27

S. 70

Pg. 490

Howgate Village Boundary – Policies RP1 and RP20

The Reporter recommends that the land on the eastern side of the

A6094 at Howgate should not be included within the village

envelope or be identified for housing development. However,

the settlement boundary to the east of the village should be

modified on the Proposals Map to incorporate the established

garden ground of existing properties.

Accept

The Reporter‟s recommendation largely accords

with the Council‟s position. The change proposed

by the Reporter is of a minor nature, tidies the

village envelope and provides a logical boundary.

PIM 5

S. 72

Pg. 499

Torsonce Road, Eskbank – Policies RP12 and RP20

The Reporter recommends that no further policies for the

protection of the objection site should be included in the MLP.

The Council, in conjunction with SWT, other organisations and

the local community, should continue to examine the site with a

view to its potential identification as a local biodiversity site

during the lifetime of the MLP.

The Reporter recommends that the list of regionally and locally

important nature conservation sites in policy RP12 should be

amended to the extent that the 3rd

bullet point reads in similar

terms to the following:

“a Wildlife Site (SWT non-statutory wildlife site) or Local

Biodiversity Site”.

The Council should also consider the inclusion of an additional

sentence before the final sentence of paragraph 2.1.53 explaining

the provisions of the new system for selecting local biodiversity

sites.

Accept

Accept

Accept

This finding confirms the Council‟s position. The

Council is working in partnership with various

bodies to establish and maintain the new local

wildlife site system; although work has commenced

through the Lothian Wildlife Information Centre to

progress the Local Biodiversity Sites system, the

latter is not yet operational and the partnerships

required for the new system have yet to be fully

established

The Council will amend policy RP12; the proposed

change simply reflects the emerging changes to the

local wildlife site system.

The Council will amend the supporting text to

provide further explanation of the provisions of the

new system.

None

PIM 4(iii)

PIM 4(i),

PIM 4(ii)

28

S. 73

Pg. 505

Dalhousie Conservation Area - Proposal RP23

The Reporter supports the identification of the new Dalhousie

Conservation Area, but recommends the exclusion of the field

lying to the south east of the B6392 Bonnyrigg distributor road

and land around Dalhousie Mains. The purpose of Dalhousie

Conservation Area to secure the preservation and enhancement

of Dalhousie Castle Designed Landscape is sound. However,

there is insufficient justification at this time for the inclusion of

the 21-hectare agricultural field identified above, although this

could be included in the Conservation Area at a future date if it

emerges through a more detailed Conservation Area Appraisal

(the context for which is given in FMLP para 2.2.13).

Accept

The Council welcomes the Reporter‟s support for

the designation of this new Conservation Area and

accepts his recommendations regarding the

exclusion of the field to the south of Bonnyrigg; the

remaining area relates to the key heritage features.

It is noted that the agricultural field excluded at

present could be included in the Conservation Area

at a future date if this proposal emerges through the

Conservation Area Appraisal.

PIM 7

29

FINALISED MIDLOTHIAN LOCAL PLAN

REPORT OF THE INQUIRY

STATEMENT OF DECISIONS BY MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL

PART B Where Reporter supports the Council’s position, whether in the Finalised Midlothian Local Plan or in Pre-Inquiry Changes to the Plan as

advertised and taken into consideration by the Reporter

GREEN BELT STRATEGY

Report

Ref.

Recommendations/ Conclusions

S. 4

Pg. 36

Green Belt Strategy The Reporter recommends that no modification should be made regarding the Green Belt strategy.

WINDFALL HOUSING

Report

Ref.


S. 7

Pg. 66

Windfall Housing – Policy HOUS3

The Reporter recommends no modification should be made regarding this policy on windfall housing.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Report

Ref.


S. 8

Pg. 68

Affordable Housing – Policies HOUS4 and HOUS5

The Reporter recommends that there should be no modification to policy HOUS4 which should retain requirement for 25% affordable housing units.

(Refer to Part A above also for related recommendations)

Policy HOUS5 should be deleted, and related modifications to the supporting text should be made, in accordance with Pre-Inquiry Change numbered

PIC15.

30

LOW DENSITY RURAL HOUSING

Report

Ref.


S. 9

Pg. 77

Low Density Rural Housing – Policy HOUS6

The Reporter recommends that policy HOUS6 should be retained, subject to the modifications proposed by the Council under Pre-Inquiry Changes

numbered PIC16 to PIC19, and subject also to the modifications referred to in Part A above.

The sites referred to as Springfield, Wellington and Netherton should be retained under policy HOUS6 and shown on the Proposals Map.

In relation to the site at The Beeches, Leadburn, introduced prior to the Inquiry as a proposed Post-Inquiry Modification and considered by the Reporter as

such, the Reporter confirms that the site should be allocated under policy HOUS6 and shown on the Proposals Map (refer to Part A above).

VILLAGE HOUSING & BONNYRIGG

Report

Ref.


S. 10

Pg. 98

Housing Sites in Villages - Proposal HOUS2

Site Adjacent to Broomieknowe Golf Course, Bonnyrigg The Reporter recommends that this site should not be included for housing development under proposal HOUS2, and should not be removed from the

Green Belt.

S. 11

Pg. 105

Housing Sites in Villages - Proposal HOUS2

Site North of Melville Dykes Road, Bonnyrigg

The Reporter recommends that this site should not be included for housing development under proposal HOUS2, and should not be removed from the

Green Belt or the landscape/other designations affecting the site.

STRATEGIC HOUSING ALLOCATIONS – A7/A68/WAVERLEY LINE CORRIDOR

Report

Ref.


S. 12

Pg. 111


Site H7 Redheugh New Community

The Reporter recommends that site H7 Redheugh New Community should be retained for housing development under proposal

HOUS1, with an indicative capacity for 700 houses, and for economic development (site E5) under proposal ECON1 extending to

7 ha, and shown on the Proposals Map; and

31

Paragraph 3.2.18 should be modified in accordance with Pre-Inquiry Change numbered PIC12.

S. 13

Pg. 128


Gowkshill, Gorebridge

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site at Gowkshill should not be included for housing development under proposal HOUS1.

S. 15

Pg. 147


Newbattle Home Farm, Newtongrange

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site at Newbattle Home Farm, Newtongrange should not be included for housing

development under proposal HOUS1.

S. 17

Pg. 162


Stobs Farm, Gorebridge

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site at Stobs Farm, Gorebridge should not be included for housing development under proposal

HOUS1.

S. 18

Pg. 169


Site H1 Cowden Cleugh, Dalkeith

The Reporter recommends that site H1 Cowden Cleugh, Dalkeith should be retained for housing development under proposal HOUS1,

with an indicative capacity for 100 houses, and shown on the Proposals Map.

S. 20

Pg. 177


Site H3 Dalhousie Road, Eskbank

The Reporter recommends that site H3 Dalhousie Road, Eskbank should be retained for housing development under proposal HOUS1,

with an indicative capacity for 40 houses, and shown on the Proposals Map.

S. 22

Pg. 186


Hardengreen, Eskbank

The Reporter recommends that the site at Hardengreen, Eskbank (northern part) should be allocated for economic development under

proposal ECON1(part of site E3) in accordance with Pre-Inquiry Change numbered PIC21, and shown on the Proposals Map; and

supports the Council‟s position that the site at Hardengreen, Eskbank (southern part) should not be included for housing development under proposal

HOUS1, and should not be removed from the Green Belt.

S. 23

Pg. 193


Melville Road, Eskbank

32

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site at Melville Road, Eskbank (south of Elginhaugh Bridge) should not be

included for housing development under proposal HOUS1, and should not be included within the settlement boundary. He recommends

that no modification should be made to the provisions of policy RP9 with respect to this objection.

S. 24

Pg. 199


Site H8 Gorton Loan, Rosewell

The Reporter recommends that site H8 Gorton Loan, Rosewell should be retained for housing development under Proposal HOUS1, with an indicative

capacity for 125 houses.

S. 25

Pg. 204


Site H9 Gortonlee, Rosewell

The Reporter recommends that site H9 Gortonlee, Rosewell should be retained for housing development under proposal HOUS1, with an indicative

capacity for 50 houses.

S. 26

Pg. 211


Thornton Road, Rosewell

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the sites at Thornton Road, Rosewell (north and south) should not be included for housing development

under proposal HOUS1.

S. 27

Pg. 216


Rosedale, Rosewell

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site at Rosedale, Rosewell should not be included for housing development under proposal HOUS1,

and should not be included within the settlement boundary.

STRATEGIC HOUSING ALLOCATIONS – A701 CORRIDOR

Report

Ref.


S. 30

Pg. 243


Site H13 Penicuik Road, Roslin

The Reporter recommends that site H13 Penicuik Road, Roslin (north) should be retained for housing development under proposal HOUS1, with an

indicative capacity for 50 houses, and shown on the Proposals Map.

33

S. 31

Pg. 251


South of Penicuik Road, Roslin

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site to the south of Penicuik Road, Roslin should not be included for housing development under

proposal HOUS1, and should not be removed from the Green Belt.

S. 32

Pg. 258


Site H14 North West Penicuik

The Reporter recommends that site H14 North West Penicuik should be retained for housing development under proposal HOUS1, with an indicative

capacity for 450 houses, as proposed in Pre-Inquiry Change numbered PIC13. PIC13 amends the boundary of site H14 to incorporate the surrounding tree

belts and the route of the proposed link road. (Refer also to Part A above for amendment to remove reference to 150 Council houses)

S. 33

Pg. 281


Auchendinny

The Reporter supports the Council position that the site at Auchendinny should not be included for housing development under proposal HOUS1.

ESTABLISHED ECONOMIC LAND SUPPLY

Report

Ref.


S. 35

Pg. 299


Site e24 Gorton Road, Rosewell

The Reporter recommends that committed site e24 at Gorton Road, Rosewell should be retained as part of the established economic

land supply in Appendix 1B and under policy COMD1, and should continue to be shown as such on the Proposals Map. The proposed

alternative site to the south of Rosewell should not be allocated for economic development. (Refer to Part A above also for related

recommendations)

S. 36

Pg. 307


Site e10 Thornybank Industrial Estate

The Reporter recommends that the whole of committed site e10 at Thornybank Industrial Estate should be retained as part of the

established economic land supply in Appendix 1B and under policy COMD1, and should continue to be shown as such on the

Proposals Map. (Refer to Part A above also for related recommendations)

STRATEGIC ECONOMIC LAND ALLOCATIONS

Report

Ref.


S. 39 Strategic Economic Sites (Proposal ECON1):

34

Pg. 332 Site E6 Ashgrove, Loanhead

The Reporter recommends that site E6 Ashgrove, Loanhead should be retained under proposal ECON1, and should continue to be shown as such on the

Proposals Map. (Refer to Part A above also for related recommendation)

S. 40

Pg. 336


Site E3 Hardengreen, Eskbank

The Reporter recommends that site E3 Hardengreen, Eskbank should be retained under proposal ECON1, and should continue to be shown as such on the

Proposals Map, subject to its proposed extension to the south in accordance with Pre-Inquiry Change numbered PIC21.

S. 41

Pg. 338


Extension to Bilston Glen Industrial Estate

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site to the south of Bilston Glen Industrial Estate should be retained within the Green Belt and should

not be included as an extension to the industrial estate.

S. 42

Pg. 345


Easthouses

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site at Easthouses should not be included for economic developmentunder proposal ECON1.

COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT

Report

Ref.


S. 43

Pg. 348

Committed Development - Policy COMD1

The Reporter recommends that no modification should be made with respect to this policy on committed development.

OTHER ECONOMIC MATTERS

Report

Ref.


S. 44

Pg. 350

Strategic Economic Land – Proposal ECON1

The Reporter recommends that Pre-Inquiry Change numbered PIC23 should be incorporated into the plan.

35

S. 45

Pg. 352

Bush Estate – Proposal ECON2

The Reporter recommends that sites B1, B2, B3 and B4 at the Bush Estate should be retained under proposal ECON2, and shown as such on the Proposals

Map.

TRANSPORT

Report

Ref.


S. 47

Pg. 359

Transport – Policies TRAN1, TRAN4 and TRAN7

The Reporter recommends that paragraph 3.4.22 should be modified in accordance with Pre-Inquiry Change numbered PIC27, but

otherwise no modification should be made with respect to the objections to these policies.

MINERALS

Report

Ref.


S. 51

Pg. 392

Minerals – Policies MIN1, RP17 and RP18

The Reporter recommends that the areas of search for surface mineral working identified under Policy MIN1 and on the Proposals Map should not be

extended, and no additional areas of search should be included. (refer to Part A also for related recommendations)

RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICIES

Report

Ref.


S. 54(f)

Pg. 424

Development in the Countryside – Policies RP1 and DP1

The Reporter recommends that these policies should be amended by the inclusion of “or an alternative acceptable private water supply” as proposed by

Pre-Inquiry Changes numbered PIC18, PIC24 and PIC45.

(Refer to Part A above also for related recommendations)

S. 55

Pg. 431

Countryside and Green Belt – Policies RP1, RP2 and RP4 The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that no modifications to policies RP1, RP2 and RP4 or the Proposals Map should be made with respect to

these objections.

36

S. 56

Pg. 433

Other Resource Protection Policies – Policies RP9 to RP25

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that no modifications to policies RP9, RP12, RP13, RP15, RP21 and RP25 or the Proposals Map should be

made with respect to these objections.

(Refer to Part A above also for related recommendation)

S. 57

Pg. 437

Development within the Built-Up Area – Policy RP20

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that no modification to policies RP20 or the Proposals Map should be made with respect to these objections.

S. 60

Pg. 451

Community Hospital – Policy RP2

The Reporter recommends that the site of the Community Hospital at Bonnyrigg should continue to be identified under policy COMD1 and retained in the

Green Belt under policy RP2 and shown on the Proposals Map as such. This should be regarded as an exception to the normal situation that would apply in

relation to a development proposal on the edge of an existing settlement.

S. 61

Pg. 454

Land at Dalhousie, Bonnyrigg – Policy RP2

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that land at Dalhousie, to the east of Bonnyrigg, should be retained in the Green Belt under policy RP2, and

should be shown as such on the Proposals Map.

S. 62

Pg.458

Land at Hardengreen – Policy RP2

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that land at Hardengreen, to the south of Eskbank, should be retained in the Green Belt under policy RP2,

and should be shown as such on the Proposals Map.

S. 63

Pg. 462

Polton Industrial Estate – Policy RP2

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site at Poltonhall (the existing Polton Industrial Estate and the adjoining greenfield site) should not

be removed from the Green Belt, and should not be included within the settlement boundary.

S. 64

Pg. 469

Lugton/Bridgend - Policy RP2

The Reporter recommends that the village of Lugton should be retained as a settlement with a defined village envelope which should be excluded from the

Green Belt. The boundary of the Green Belt should not be modified in respect of this objection.

S. 65

Pg. 474

Nazareth House, Bonnyrigg – Policies RP2, RP6, RP22

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the site at Nazareth House should be included in the Green Belt in the context of policy RP2, and

designated as such on the Proposals Map, and should not be included in the settlement boundary. Similarly, the site should be included within the AGLV

designation under policy RP6, and designated as such on the Proposals Map. The site should be designated as an extension to the Lasswade & Kevock

Conservation Area in the context of policy RP22 and proposal RP23 (and paragraph 2.2.14) and designated as such on the Proposals Map. (Refer to Part A

for related recommendation)

37

S. 66

Pg. 481

Land East of A7, Eskbank – Policies RP1 and RP2

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that land to the east of the A7 at Eskbank should be retained within the Green Belt.

S. 67

Pg. 484

Land at A703 Bilston – Policy RP2

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the existing houses and their curtilages at Seafield Moor Road should be retained within the Green Belt.

S. 68

Pg. 486

Land at B7026 North of Auchendinny – Policy RP2

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that the land to the west of the B7026 should not be included within the Green Belt.

S. 69

Pg. 488

Land East of Loanhead Steading – Policy RP2

The Reporter supports the Council‟s position that land to the east of Loanhead Steading should be retained within the Green Belt.

DETAILED DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

Report

Ref.


S. 71

Pg. 499

Rosslynlee Hospital – Policy DP1

The Reporter recommends that policy DP1 should be modified in accordance with Pre-Inquiry Change numbered PIC46, but otherwise no modification

should be made with respect to this objection.

Documents

FINALISED MIDLOTHIAN LOCAL PLAN Council... · Finalised Midlothian Local Plan Statement of Decisions by Midlothian Council on the Report of the Inquiry June 2008 Planning Unit Strategic