appellant or agent details agent details - wordpress.com 190 metres north of 3 harlaw gait, balerno...

$: Appellant or Agent Details Agent Details - WordPress.com 190 Metres North of 3 Harlaw Gait, Balerno S:\01 - PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT\00 - RESIDENTIAL\Edinburgh\Edinburgh, Balerno, Malleny$
Page 1 of 5

Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

Appeals cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted.

Thank you for completing this appeal form:

ONLINE REFERENCE 100005745-001

The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals will allocate an Appeal Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals about this appeal.

Appellant or Agent DetailsAre you an appellant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else actingon behalf of the applicant in connection with this appeal) Appellant Agent

Agent DetailsPlease enter Agent details

Company/Organisation:

Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

First Name: * Building Name:

Last Name: * Building Number:

Address 1Telephone Number: * (Street): *

Extension Number: Address 2:

Mobile Number: Town/City: *

Fax Number: Country: *

Postcode: *

Email Address: *

Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? *

Individual Organisation/Corporate entity

Strutt & Parker

John

Wright

5 St John Street

5

5 St John Street

01738567892

PH1 5SP

United Kingdom

Perth

[email protected]

Page 2 of 5

Appellant DetailsPlease enter Appellant details

Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: *

Other Title: Building Name:

First Name: * Building Number:

Address 1Last Name: * (Street): *

Company/Organisation Address 2:

Telephone Number: * Town/City: *

Extension Number: Country: *

Mobile Number: Postcode: *

Fax Number:

Email Address: *

Site Address DetailsPlanning Authority:

Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available):

Address 1:

Address 2:

Address 3:

Address 4:

Address 5:

Town/City/Settlement:

Post Code:

Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites

Northing Easting

Other

City of Edinburgh Council

None

Dalmeny House

EH30 9TQ

UK

666378

South Queensferry

316622

Rosebery Estates Partnership

Page 3 of 5

Description of ProposalPlease provide a description of your proposal. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended (with the agreement of the planning authority): *(Max 500 characters)

Type of ApplicationWhat type of application did you submit to the planning authority? *

Application for Planning Permission (including householder application – excluding application to work minerals).

Application for Certificate of Lawfulness.

Application for Listed Building Consent.

Application for Conservation Area Consent.

Application for Advertisement Consent.

Application for Prior Approval.

Application for Tree Works Consent.

Application for Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development.

Application for Planning Permission to work minerals.

What type of planning application was submitted to the planning authority? *

Application for Planning Permission.

Application for Planning Permission in principle.

A Further Application (including renewal of planning permission, modification, variation or removal of a planning condition etc).

Approval of matters specified in conditions.

What type of decision did you receive from the planning authority and are now appealing against? *

Refusal Notice.

Grant of permission with Conditions imposed.

No decision – deemed refusal (NB: This does not apply to Prior Approvals).

Statement of AppealYou must state in full, why you are appealing against the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider required to be taken into account in determining your appeal: * (Max 500 characters)

Note: you might not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account.

You will though be entitled to comment on (i) any additional matter which may be raised by the planning authority in its response to your appeal, or (ii) any representations the Scottish Government might receive from any other person or body.

Planning Permission in Principle for residential development associated infrastructure and engineering works.

See attached Appeal Statement.

Page 4 of 5

Have you raised any matters which were not before the planning authority at the time the decision Yes NoYou are appealing against was made? *

Please provide a list of all documents, materials and evidence which you have provided with your appeal and intend to rely on in support of your appeal, ensuring that all documents are clearly numbered: * (Max 500 characters)

Are you providing a separate statement of your Grounds of Appeal? * Yes No

If Yes then please be prepared to upload this when you reach the end of the form.

Application DetailsPlease provide details of the application and decision.

What is the application reference number? *

What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? *

What date was the decision or certificate issued by the planning authority? *

Appeals ProcedureThe person appointed to determine your appeal will decide upon the procedure to be used. However you should indicate whatprocedure you think is the most appropriate for the handling of the appeal.

Can this appeal continue to a conclusion in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties without and further procedures? * Yes No

In the event that the Scottish Government Reporter appointed to consider your appeal decides to inspect the appeal site, in your opinion:

Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No

Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No

If there are reasons why you think the Reporter would be unable to access and view the appeal site alone, please explain here. (Max 500 characters)

Other Appeals Submitted DetailsHave you or anyone else made any other related appeals to Scottish Ministers regarding this building and/or Yes NoSite?

See appendix list of attached Appeal Statement.

15/03850/PPP

01/02/2016

The field is used for grazing sheep and horses from time to time and therefore it would be appreciated if prior notice of any visit, requiring access to the site, could be prior notified. There is a public footpath around 3 sides of the site from which the site can be clearly seen.

20/08/2015

Page 5 of 5

Checklist – Appeal Against Planning Authority Decision Or Failure of Planning Authority To Give DecisionPlease complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. The Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals cannot start processing your appeal until it is valid.

Are you submitting a supplementary statement with your grounds of appeal? * Yes No

If the appeal concerns approval of matters specified in conditions, or a Further Application to Submitted Not Applicablevary conditions – please attach a copy of the application, approved plans and decision noticefrom that earlier consent. *

Copy of Plans/Drawing * Yes No

Copy of planning authority decision notice (if no decision then this is deemed as a refusal). * Yes No No decision

A copy of original application form and if applicable include certificates relating to land ownership. * Yes No

Other documents, materials and evidence which you intend to rely on. * Yes No

The Report of Handling prepared by the planning authority in respect of your application,where one exists. * Yes No

Declare – Appeals against Refusals and other decisionsI/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an appeal to Scottish Ministers on the grounds stated.

Declaration Name: Mr John Wright

Declaration Date: 08/03/2016

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 47 OF THE

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997

AGAINST A DECISION OF THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING WORKS

LAND 190 METRES NORTH OF

3 HARLAW GAIT BALERNO

APPLICATION REF: 15/03850/PPP

APPEAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF:

LORD DALMENY

PREPARED BY:

STRUTT & PARKER

JOHN WRIGHT

10 MARCH 2016

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Policy Context

3. Housing Land Supply

4. Effectiveness of proposed housing site

5. Effect on Character of Balerno and surrounding area

6. Effect on the Green Belt

7. Loss of Agricultural Land

8. Effect on Nature Conservation and Biodiversity

9. Provision of Infrastructure

10. Grounds of Appeal

11. Conclusion

Appendices

Appendix A Planning Application Documents

Appendix B Consultation Responses from Statutory Consultees

Appendix C Committee Report on Planning Application

Appendix D Decision Notice

Appendix E Committee Report on Housing Land Audit 2015

Appendix F Balerno Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Appendix G SESplan 2013

Appendix H Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan 2006

Appendix I SESplan Supplementary Guidance (Housing Land) 2014

Appendix J SPP 2014

Appendix K Edinburgh Local Development Plan Proposed Plan 2

Appendix L PAN 2/2010 Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits

Appendix M Capital Coalition Motion

Appendix N Ecological Walkover Survey Update 2016

Appendix O Appeal Decisions (PPA 230-2140 & PPA 230-2152)

Land 190 Metres North of 3 Harlaw Gait, Balerno

S:\01 - PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT\00 - RESIDENTIAL\Edinburgh\Edinburgh, Balerno, Malleny Mills (L.Dalmeny)\3)

Appeal\AppealStatement-100316.docx

1. Introduction

1.1 The planning application sought Planning Permission in Principle for residential development on

a site at Harlaw Gait, Balerno. A site analysis and concept layout showing how a development

of 45 houses could be accommodated on site was submitted with the application. This appeal

sets out our grounds of appeal, and provides justification as to why the Councils reasons for

refusal should be overturned and Planning Permission in Principle granted.

1.2 Full details of the pre-application consultation steps, and consideration of the feedback is

provided in the Planning Supporting Statement, and Pre-Application Consultation Report

submitted with the application and are therefore not repeated here.

1.3 The application was registered (Ref: 15/03850/PPP) by the Council on the 16th

September 2015

with a target date for determination of 19th December 2015. The following documents were

submitted with the application:

� Location Plan. � Site Plan. � Topographic Survey. � Site Analysis and Concept Layout. � Transport Statement. � Tree Survey. � Drainage Strategy. � Ecological Walkover Survey. � EIA Screening Response. � Landscape & Greenbelt Review. � Services Report. � Archaeological Assessment. � Pre-Application Consultation Report and � Planning Supporting Statement.

Copies of the application documents considered by the Council and Committee Members are provided at Appendix A.

1.4 In the lead up to the target date for determination, and extension of time was agreed with the

Council to allow them to consider their position on housing land supply in light of recent appeal

decisions. We would like to draw the Reporters attention to the fact that there have been no

objections from any of the Statutory Consultees on this application (Appendix B).

1.5 At its meeting on Wednesday 27th January 2016, the Development Management Sub

Committee considered a Report by the Head of Planning & Transport (Appendix C) and

endorsed the recommendation to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:




1. The proposal is contrary to Policy E5 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan in relation

to Development in the Green Belt and Countryside Areas, as it constitutes a non-

conforming use within the designated Green Belt.

2. The proposal is contrary to Policy E7 of the Rural West Edinburgh Local plan in relation

to the Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land, as it would result in the permanent

loss of prime agricultural land.

3. The proposal is not supported by the Strategic Development Plan spatial strategy and is

contrary to SDP Policy 7.

4. The proposal is contrary to Policy ENV10 in the Second Proposed Plan LDP as it

constitutes a non-conforming use within the proposed Green Belt.

1.6 The Decision Notice (Appendix D) confirms these reasons unaltered, but also sets out the

reason why the Council made this decision. These expand slightly on the above reasons for

refusal, particularly in respect of the 3rd

reason for refusal. The Council state that the site lies

outwith the West Edinburgh Strategic Development Area (SDA) which makes it contrary to the

spatial strategy that seeks to prioritise brownfield land and land within identified SDAs.

1.7 The Councils reasons for making this decision also rely upon a method, described in the

Housing Land Audit 2015 report to the Planning Committee (Appendix E), to assess the

housing land supply which supports the Councils position that there is considered to be a five

year effective housing land supply in the Council’s area at present.

2. Description of the site

2.1 The appeal site is described in detail in the Planning Supporting Statement submitted with the

application documents, and in the Committee Report, and is therefore not repeated here.

2.2 The only point of clarification that we would make is that, within the Committee Report, the

Council state that the application site lies within the Conservation Area (Appendix F). Whilst

part of the site area (within which there is no physical development proposed except for footpath

improvements and a surface water drainage outfall) extends in to the Conservation Area, the

area proposed for housing development is outwith the Conservation Area.

3. Policy Context

3.1 The development plan comprises the South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan 2013

(Appendix G - SDP / SESplan) and the Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan 2006 (Appendix H -

RWELP) together with subsequent alteration adopted in 2011. The SESplan Housing Land




Supplementary Guidance (Appendix I) was formally adopted as part of the development plan

by all planning authorities within the SESplan region in October 2014.

3.2 Scottish Planning Policy 2014 (Appendix J - SPP 2014) is a material consideration to which

significant weight should be given, and the Council has published the City of Edinburgh Council

Local Development Plan Proposed Plan 2 (Appendix K - currently at Examination) which will

replace the current adopted Local Plan in due course. It should be noted however, that the LDP

Examination Report has been subject to some delay and, having previously been anticipated on

27th February 2016; it is now not expected until 27

th March 2016 which may fall within the

“purdah” period in the lead up to the Scottish elections on 5th May 2016 potentially resulting in

further delay.

Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

3.3 The key policy within the RWELP is policy E5, which regulates development within the green

belt. Policies E1, E18 to E22 and TRA1 relating to sustainable transport and biodiversity, Policy

E7 relating to prime quality agricultural land and Policy E14 relating to designed landscapes are

also relevant. There are other Policies that may be applicable to the detailed stage of the

application which are not addressed in this document.

3.4 The RWELP was originally adopted in 2006 and predates SESplan, which has subsequently

been approved by Scottish Ministers, it is therefore necessary in the circumstances to give

significant weight in the assessment of the proposed development to the SDP. This is

particularly relevant to the provisions of Policies E5 and E7 of RWELP.

3.5 Policy E5 of the RWELP relates to Development in green belt and countryside areas and states

that to protect the landscape quality, rural character and amenity of the green belt and

countryside areas, development will not be permitted unless it falls within one of the stated

exceptions none of which are applicable to this development.

3.6 Policy E7 states that permission will not be given for development which would result in

irreversible damage to, or the permanent loss of, prime quality agricultural land.

Edinburgh Local Development Plan Proposed Plan 2

3.7 Proposed Plan 2 Policy ENV10 (which is subject to objection and therefore the Examination)

relates to Development in the green belt and countryside and states that development will only

be permitted where it meets a number of criteria, none of which are applicable to this

development.

3.8 Interestingly, there is not a policy in the emerging LDP that corresponds with RWELP Policy E7

resisting the loss of prime quality agricultural land.




SESplan Strategic Development Plan 2013

3.9 The spatial strategy for SESplan identifies 13 Strategic Development Areas (SDAs) which are

primary locations for growth and investment. In West Edinburgh, there is a single SDA based

around Edinburgh Airport, and the proposed development is therefore not located within an

SDA. However, this does not mean that proposed housing outwith SDAs, or on greenfield land,

should necessarily be refused planning permission as inferred by the Council and in this

context, the provisions of Policy 7 of SESplan need to be taken in to account. This has been

accepted in recent appeal decisions (Appendix O – PPA-230-2140) and we believe the Council

have applied a very narrow interpretation of this.

3.10 The SESplan Spatial Strategy indicates that “where possible” the distribution of further housing

will be focussed on brownfield land and across the 13 SDAs which have been identified in the

five sub-regional areas. It goes on to state that while the recent economic downturn has

affected delivery of and demand for housing, it is particularly important in supporting economic

growth and recovery to ensure that sufficient land is allocated and available for housing

development in the period up to 2024. We would highlight that around 19,000 of units of

demand generated by Edinburgh has already been distributed elsewhere in the SESplan area

(Appendix D - Para 3.22) making it imperative that a generous supply of land, based on the

reduced requirement is achieved.

3.11 Policy 5 requires sufficient land to be identified to build 107,545 homes across the SESplan

region in the period 2009 -2024, with 74,835 of these built by 2019. The accompanying

Supplementary Guidance confirms that, following an analysis of the opportunities and of

infrastructure and environmental capacities and constraints, 22,300 of these homes are to be

built within the City of Edinburgh in the period 2009 to 2019 and a further 7,210 in the period

2019 to 2024. Table 3.2 of the supplementary guidance provides for an additional allowance for

2,700 houses within SDAs, and for 2,500 houses outwith SDAs within the City of Edinburgh as a

whole. We do not believe that these allowances are precise figures, or caps, rather

approximate allowances.

3.12 Policy 6 of SESplan states that each planning authority in the SESplan area shall maintain a 5

year effective land supply at all times. We believe that the HLA2015 confirms that this is not

being achieved, and the accompanying Report (discussed later in this report) indicates that

Proposed Plan 2 may still not achieve this.

3.13 Policy 7 of SESplan states that sites for greenfield housing development proposals, either within

or outwith SDAs may be allocated in LDPs or granted planning permission to maintain a 5 year

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.

Whilst SDAs and brownfield sites may be preferred, the policy does not rule out or preclude the

development of green belt and greenfield sites outwith SDAs in appropriate circumstances.

Scottish Planning Policy 2014 (SPP2014)

3.14 SPP2014 introduces a new policy principal which states a “presumption in favour of

development that contributes to sustainable development” sets out at Paragraph 29 a number of

principles to guide policies and decisions. From the Councils Committee Report (Appendix C -

Page 10) the Council acknowledge the contribution the site would make to the city’s economy

and housing land supply and aside from that we believe the other principals are shown to have

been met.

3.15 SPP (Paragraph 80) relates to the use of prime quality agricultural land and indicates that it may

be permissible to use good quality agricultural land where it is a component of the settlement

strategy, or necessary to meet an established need.

3.16 Under the heading “Maintaining a 5-Year Effective Land Supply”, SPP2014 (Paragraph 123)

states that “They (Local Authorities) should work with housing and infrastructure providers to

prepare an annual housing land audit as a tool to critically review and monitor the availability of

effective housing land, the progress of sites through the planning process, and housing

completions, to ensure a generous supply of land for house building is maintained and there is

always enough effective land for at least five years”.

3.17 Paragraph 125 goes on to state that “Planning authorities, developers, service providers and

other partners in housing provision should work together to ensure a continuing supply of

effective land and to deliver housing, taking a flexible and realistic approach”. However, where a

shortfall in the 5-year effective land supply emerges development plan policies for the supply of

housing land will not be considered up to date.

3.18 The purpose of the SPP is to set out national planning policies which reflect Scottish Ministers’

priorities for the operation of the planning system and for the development and use of land. The

Ministers have signalled that they see the delivery of housing as a national priority, and

therefore these statements should be afforded significant weight.




Planning Advice Note 2/2010: Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits (PAN 2/2010)

3.19 The appropriate approach and methodology for preparing a Housing Land Audit, which has

been the subject of significant research by the Scottish Government, is clearly set out in Section

2 of PAN 2/2010 (Appendix L). Whilst there is further emerging guidance on this issue, as

referred to in the Committee Report (Appendix B – page 7) this has only recently been

published in draft form for consultation and therefore the determination of this appeal should be

on the basis of adopted policy and guidance.

3.20 Paragraph 42 of the PAN states that “The Audit is to ensure that the forecasts for estimated

house completions over the five year period remain robust and realistic”.

3.21 Paragraph 45 sets out the two key functions of the audit, being; “to demonstrate the availability

of sufficient effective land to meet the requirement for a continuous five-year supply; and to

provide a snapshot of the amount of land available for the construction of housing at any

particular time”.

3.22 Paragraph 54 states that “The decisions and assumptions around effectiveness and

programming are crucial to the accuracy and usefulness of the data in the audit and therefore

merit careful consideration”.

3.23 Paragraph 56 states that “Programming of sites is an important element of the audit.

Programming is an indication of the expected annual completions on each site, taking account

of the lead in times, the ability of the site to be developed and the capacity of the local housing

market.”

3.24 Whilst Paragraph 57 acknowledges that programming is a less than scientific exercise, it goes

on to state that “…it is important that assumptions do not overestimate the likely completions, as

the audited effective supply forms the basis for the calculation of the additional housing land

requirement to be provided through the development plan.” and goes on to explain the

difficulties in over estimating the potential effective supply (reduced land supply, lack of flexibility

to respond to market fluctuations and other constraints etc.).

4. Housing Land Supply

4.1 Whilst the Councils position on housing land has changed since previous appeals in as much as

they have accepted that there are two time periods in SESplan which cannot be amalgamated

in to a single housing requirement, they have adopted a different methodology to that used in

preparing the agreed Housing Land Audit 2015 to assess the adequacy of the housing land

supply which we believe over-estimates the likely completions contrary to the agreed audit and

the guidance contained in PAN 2/2010.




4.2 The Council state on the decision notice (in their reasons for making the decision), and in the

committee report, that “using the method described in the Housing Land Audit 2015 report to the

Planning Committee meeting of 3rd

December to assess unconstrained land with support, there

is considered to be a five-year effective housing land supply in the Council’s area”. This is an

important element of the decision which merits detailed consideration.

4.3 It is worthwhile when considering this element to bear in mind that a significant proportion of the

City of Edinburgh Councils housing land requirement has already been distributed amongst the

surrounding SESplan Authorities.

Planning Committee Report “Housing Land Audit 2015” 3rd

December 2015

4.4 The Report confirms (Appendix D - Para 3.2) that the Housing Land Audit 2015 (HLA2015)

includes Proposed Plan 1 sites, but excludes Proposed Plan 2 sites which are currently

undergoing examination. Arguably the examination will consider unresolved objections to all

sites in the Proposed Plan whether they are Proposed Plan 1 or Proposed Plan 2 sites and

therefore, the inclusion of Proposed Plan 1 sites could still be premature.

4.5 An example of where this might be relevant is in respect of the HSG20 Cammo (600 units) and

HSG31 Curriemuirend (100 units) allocations which are included in the HLA2015. When

approving the LDP for submission to Ministers for examination there was a Capital Coalition

Motion passed (Appendix M) which, at items 3(b) and 4 discussed these allocations and

supported the removal of HSG31 and the reduction in capacity of HSG20. Therefore, the

Councils assertion in the Committee Report on this application that the SESplan Supplementary

Guidance additional allowance for delivery outwith SDAs of 2,500 homes having been met,

particularly in respect of HSG31, is possibly no longer correct.

4.6 Paragraph 3.3 of the Committee Report accompanying the HLA2015 clearly states that “All of

the site details recorded in the HLA 2015, including the forward programme, were agreed as

reasonable with no disputed schedules”. What follows in the report would appear to directly

contradict this statement by applying different programming to that agreed in the HLA2015 to

support the Councils position that there is an effective 5 year land supply.

4.7 Whilst the commentary provided by the Council that accompanies the Audit is of interest, we

believe that it does not form part of the Audit itself, and that in line with PAN 2/2010 and SPP it

should be the Audit itself with the accompanying agreed forward programming which is relied

upon in assessing the adequacy of the 5-year housing land supply.

4.8 Having agreed the HLA2015 programming, the 5-year effective land supply at 31st March 2015

was 9,743 (Appendix D - Para 3.7) and we have no reason to dispute the agreed audit.




4.9 The Councils assessment of the housing land requirement over this period (Appendix D - Para

3.12) gives a 5-year requirement for the period 2015 – 2020 of 14,476, being a product of 4/5 of

the 2015-2019 requirement, and 1/5 of the 2019-2020 requirement, and we have no reason to

believe this is incorrect.

4.10 On this basis, there is only 67% of the requirement which leaves a 4,723 unit shortfall (Appendix

D - Para 3.13). Even when Proposed Plan 2 sites are included, and considered against the

requirement to 2024, only 87% of the requirement is achieved which still leaves a shortfall of

1,494 units. Whilst there may be some slight variation to these figures (to take account of the

Capital Coalition Motion etc.) we do not disagree with either of these conclusions which confirm

that there is a current and ongoing failure to maintain an effective 5 year land supply at all times

and that this is not rectified by the sites proposed for allocation in Proposed Plan 2.

4.11 The Council then outline their “alternative assessment” approach re-assessing the 5-year land

supply on the basis of what could, rather than will, be developed within five years.

Unfortunately, the method described in the report to Planning Committee is different to the

method used in the Housing Land Audit itself and is therefore not an approach which should be

used, or indeed supported.

4.12 The 2015 Housing Land Audit, and its future programming, has now been agreed between the

Council and Homes for Scotland. If the Council had concerns about, or disagreed with, the

programming for individual sites, this should have been picked up in the process and the Audit

not agreed/disputed. This was not done at the time, and therefore, to retrospectively apply

different programming assumptions to the supply would be contrary to PAN 2/2010 and SPP.

4.13 There is a section of the Council report which deals with the emerging Housing Need and

Demand Assessment (HNDA) for the SESplan area. Whilst we are of the view that this is not

relevant in this instance, given that we are seeking to address the current SESplan Housing

Requirement not the emerging SESplan 2 Housing Requirement which is as yet unknown, we

do note that (at Para 3.24) comparing the land programmed in HLA2015 (as should be the

case) to the most recent estimate of need and demand in the SESplan 2 HNDA still shows a

shortfall of 1,140units up to 2024.

4.14 Therefore, we are comfortable that when assessed, as it should be, against the HLA2015

programming, there is a shortfall in housing, now and in the event that Proposed Plan 2 sites

remain allocated and there is no further change to the plan, there still remains a shortfall. This

would appear to be supported and confirmed by the Council in the Conclusion of the Report

(Appendix D - Para 3.27).




4.15 Whilst the Council allude to this situation changing, and their ongoing work with the Government

on revised guidance, the legislation is clear that we need to determine planning applications

against the guidance in place at the time. The revised guidance referred to by the Council has

only recently been published for consultation and therefore should be afforded little weight in

determining this appeal.

4.16 It should be borne in mind that around 19,000 of units of demand generated by Edinburgh have

been distributed elsewhere in the SESplan area (Appendix D - Para 3.22).

5. Effectiveness of the proposed housing site

5.1 Whilst we have dealt with infrastructure requirements of this development elsewhere in this

document, we have confirmed in our Planning Supporting Statement submitted with the

Planning Application (Appendix A) and in our representations to the emerging Local

Development Plan that, when considered against the tests set out in PAN 2/2010, the site is

both effective and deliverable within the next 2-3 years at a rate of approximately 30-35 units

per annum and therefore capable of contributing to the 5-year land supply. This rate of delivery

has been accepted elsewhere on appeal sites and is not seen as being unreasonable and could

result in the land being completely developed by 2019.

6. Effect on the character of Balerno and the local area

6.1 The Council have, in the Committee Report, voiced concern about the impact of this proposal

on the local landscape and as such the setting and character of the existing settlement of

Balerno. The Council have also indicated that the proposed development would have an

adverse impact on views to the south of the settlement. The Landscape and Green Belt Review

(Appendix A) submitted with the application considers this in detail, and the Site Analysis and

Concept Layout (Appendix A) shows how development could be arranged to minimise any

impact.

6.2 Whilst Balerno has a different, more rural, character than the rest of the wider urban area that it

forms part of, it has already been substantially extended by significant housing development

(particularly in the southern part of the settlement) and certainly well beyond what could be

described as a “small rural village”.

6.3 The relatively small scale of development proposed with its well screened boundaries means

that it would have a relatively limited effect on the character of the settlement as a whole. The

rural setting would remain despite the loss of one well screened field from the edge of the

settlement. A clear distinction can be drawn between the appeal site and the surrounding

agricultural land, due to the perimeter tree belts, to the extent that there would be no precedent




set for further development on this side of the settlement as a result of a planning permission

granted on this site.

6.4 The density of development would be in keeping with adjacent housing development, and there

would be no resultant coalescence of settlements, or a perception thereof, if permission were to

be granted for this proposal. Whilst the Council indicate in the Committee Report a density of 9

dwellings per hectare, and comment that this is extremely low, this is a product of the site area,

which is larger than required for the development to facilitate footpath improvements and a

surface water drainage outfall to the river. Based on the net developable area of approx.

2.85ha, a density of development of approx. 16 dwellings per hectare is achieved which is not in

any way out of keeping with the sites setting.

6.5 Whilst the site is identified as a candidate Special Landscape Area (cSLA), this designation has

not precluded other more significant developments such as that at Dreghorn Polo Fields. Given

the sites strong boundaries, and its location on the edge of this designation, we would not

expect this proposed development to have any significant adverse impact on the cSLA as a

whole.

6.6 In terms of the impact on views to the south of the settlement, we believe these would be limited

from the majority of the settlement given the sites location on the eastern boundary of the

settlement and relatively far north on that side, meaning that, from the vast majority of southern

viewpoints in the settlement, this proposed development would not feature at all. It would be

visible in glimpsed views to the south east from the northern part, and the historic core, of the

settlement, but this is a relatively small proportion of the overall settlement. We have addressed

this point in the supporting documents lodged with the application.

6.7 Similarly in terms of the impact on views from the Conservation Area to the wider countryside,

we have noted the Townscape Analysis plan (page 10) of the Conservation Area Character

Appraisal that there are no identified “vistas”, “glimpses” or “terminated views” identified towards

the application site. We have addressed this point in the supporting documents lodged with the

application.

7. Effect on the green belt

7.1 Reasons 1 & 4 of the Councils decision notice relate to the proposal comprising a non-

conforming use in the green belt and it, therefore, being contrary to Policy E5 of the RWELP,

and Policy ENV10 of the emerging LDP. Neither of these reasons for refusal, nor the Councils

reasons for making the decision or assessment of the proposal, raise any concern about harm

being caused to the green belt or the proposed development undermining its purpose.




7.2 We accept that, by virtue of the site lying within the current green belt, not being allocated for

residential development, and the nature of the proposal being for housing development which

does not fall within one of the exceptions of E5, or meet the criteria of ENV10, that the proposed

use would constitute a non-confirming use in the greenbelt. However, we believe that there are

strong reasons in this case for granting permission as a departure from this in the form of an

established need for housing that is not addressed by the emerging LDP and therefore we

believe that SESplan Policy 7 is relevant.

7.3 In terms of the effect of the proposed development on the green belt, it is important to first

consider the four purposes for the green belt around Edinburgh, set out in SESplan Policy 12 as

follows;

a) To maintain the identity and character of the city and neighbouring towns, and to prevent

coalescence;

b) To direct planned growth to the most appropriate locations and support regeneration;

c) To maintain landscape setting of the settlement; and

d) To provide opportunities for access to open space and the countryside.

7.4 In terms of the first of these, a development of the size proposed would not change the inherent

identity or character of either Balerno or the City of Edinburgh and would certainly not result in

coalescence or a perception thereof. We believe that the effect of a development of this scale

on this site would not adversely affect the identity of Balerno.

7.5 Regarding the second purpose, whilst the appeal proposal would not directly support

regeneration and, as it is not included as an allocated site in PP2, it would not constitute

planned growth. However, it would not undermine that objective, which is the requirement of

SESplan Policy 7, criterion b. Given the acknowledged and accepted shortfall in the 5-year land

supply (which is not rectified by PP2 sites), there is a necessity for additional sites to be found

and greenfield sites within the green belt outwith SDA’s are not precluded. This has been

reflected in a number of recent appeal decisions where the reporters (or Scottish Ministers)

have indicated their intention to grant permission for residential development of sites in the

greenbelt outwith SDAs (Appendix O – PPA-230-2140).

7.6 The third green belt purpose, to maintain the landscape setting of the settlement, and we have

addressed this point elsewhere in this report.

7.7 The final green belt purpose relates to providing opportunities for access to open space and the

countryside. The site has been in quasi agricultural use (equestrian not forming agriculture for

the purposes of planning) and therefore has not at any time provided any open space

opportunities. The proposed development will not inhibit access to the countryside, and in our

view will improve existing access to the countryside by virtue of the footpath improvements




proposed. There will also be open space provided as part of the development which would be

available for use by other residents of Balerno.

7.8 The Council have accepted and acknowledged that the site boundaries would be capable of

forming a new defensible green belt boundary. However, they indicate that the green belt

boundary is formed by the incised wooded valleys of the Water of Leith and the Bavelaw Burn.

This is not correct; both the Harlaw Gait and Bavelaw Gardens developments lie on the

opposite side of the Bavelaw Burn. Therefore, the green belt boundary in this location is

already formed west/south of the incised wooded valley referred to by the Council, and in light of

this, the appeal site would not represent an isolated encroachment in this direction and would

not result in any less defensible boundaries being formed.

8. Loss of Agricultural Land

8.1 We accept that the application site is identified as grade 3.1 agricultural land by the James

Hutton Institute and therefore constitutes prime quality land for the purposes of planning.

8.2 However, it is an isolated parcel of land which is difficult to access for arable farming purposes,

and due to its irregular shape and the change in levels across the site, and is therefore not in

active agricultural production, rather used for grazing sheep and horses. Strictly speaking,

equine uses do not fall within the definition of agriculture for the purposes of planning and

therefore the extent to which the land is used for agriculture is questionable.

8.3 In appeal decisions elsewhere around Edinburgh (Appendix O - PPA-230-2152 for example)

the Reporter considered 14.1ha of prime quality agricultural land to represent a “relatively small

area of prime agricultural land”. We would be very surprised if this parcel of land could be seen

in any different light to that.

9. Effect on Local Nature Conservation and Biodiversity

9.1 We have had the previous ecological walkover survey updated, and have enclosed (Appendix

N) a copy for the Reporters information. The update confirms that there has been no change to

the situation as previously reported and that, in the view of the Ecologist, a license should be

possible to obtain for the work shown on the Site Analysis and Concept Layout document

adjacent to the Badger Sett.

9.2 The loss of trees required to form an access to the site is unavoidable. The trees to be lost are

shown on the Site Analysis and Concept Layout document, and are considered in the Tree

Survey Report and comprise 1 x Category A tree, 6 x Category B trees and 2 x Category C




trees. The loss of these trees will be more than offset by the replacement planting proposed

through the site.

9.3 Otherwise, pre-commencement bat surveys, particularly of any trees to be lost, would be

required. Otters have been considered but are not considered to be adversely affected by this

proposed development.

10. Provision of Infrastructure

10.1 SESplan Policy 7 criterion c requires that any additional infrastructure required as a result of the

proposed development is either committed or is funded by the developer.

10.2 As part of the application documents we have submitted a Services Report which confirms that

there are electrical, telecoms, gas, foul water and water supply have capacity to cater for this

development. There are some improvements required to facilitate this, but these are at an

economic cost which the development can carry.

10.3 As part of our application submission documents, we submitted a Transport Statement, which

concludes that the predicted vehicle trip generation can be accommodated on the local road

network without significant impact on its operation. It has also concluded that given the existing

network of pedestrian and cycle routes adjacent to the development and public transport links

within walking distance (the whole site is within 400m of a bus stop), the site is ideally located to

provide a choice of travel modes to future residents. The overall conclusion has been that there

are no transport related reasons why permission should not be granted, and this has not been

disputed by the Council.

10.4 Through the consultation responses received during the processing of the application we are

aware of the following developer contributions being requested;

Mike Martin

Highlight




a) Transportation have sought a contribution of £103,322, which is broken down as follows:

a. £35,322 towards Gillespie Crossroads;

b. £45,000 towards Hermiston Park & Ride Extension;

c. £11,000 towards cycle parking at Curriehill Train Station extension;

d. £10,000 towards Bridge Rd/Lanark Rd traffic signals; and

e. £2,000 towards a traffic regulation order.

b) Education – have raised no objection to the proposal, subject to a financial contribution

being agreed towards the delivery of actions set out in the South West Edinburgh

Contribution Zone.

c) Affordable Housing – have sought a contribution of 25% of the total number of dwellings

to be affordable. They have not stipulated a preference for on-site provision or a

contribution towards off site provision and this would likely be subject to further

discussion at Matters Specified in Conditions stage.

In the event that the Reporter is minded to grant permission, we would request a short period of

time (perhaps 3 months) within which to confirm the education contributions and conclude a S75

Legal Agreement with the Council.

10.5 We have made our own enquiries of the GP Surgery capacity in the area and have been

informed that there is sufficient capacity for additional patients resulting from this development.

10.6 Therefore, we are content that any additional infrastructure required to accommodate the

proposed development is either committed or can be provided by the developer.

11. Material Considerations

11.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that, where making

any determination under the planning acts, regard is to be had to development plan. The

determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise.

11.2 The provisions of SPP 2014 have been discussed and addressed elsewhere in the document,

and we believe provide support for the proposed development.

11.3 Other recent appeal decisions have been discussed and addressed elsewhere in the document

and we believe provide support for the proposed development.

Mike Martin

Highlight




11.4 The impact of the proposed development on the setting of the adjacent Grade A Listed Building

and Designed Landscape has been demonstrated in the submission to be acceptable, and

deemed to be acceptable by the Council and Historic Scotland; therefore we believe that the

proposal will preserve the setting of these features.

11.5 We believe that the agreed HLA2015 is a material consideration of significant weight which has

not been given sufficient regard by the Council in reaching their decision on this application.

12. Grounds of Appeal

12.1 We set out below our grounds of appeal addressing the reasons for refusal stated by the

Council on the Decision Notice.

12.2 Reasons 1 & 4 relate to the Green Belt and, whilst we acknowledge this proposal would

represent a non-conforming use in the Green Belt, we believe that the site doesn’t make a

significant contribution to green belt objectives, that its loss is justified by the current and

ongoing failure in the 5 year land supply which is not addressed by the emerging LDP. We are

also content that, whilst not raised by the Council as an issue, there will be no detrimental

impact on the Green Belt objectives as a result of this proposed development.

12.3 Reason 2 relates to Prime Quality Agricultural Land and we believe that this area of land, in the

context of much larger areas of Prime Quality land within the green belt that have been

consented to meet the failure in the 5 year land supply, would be a negligible loss of an area

which is not in active agricultural production, the loss of which would not create a precedent for

any further loss in the future.

12.4 Reason 3 relates to the SDP Spatial Strategy, or SDP Policy 7 and states that the proposal is

not supported. The Council, in the Committee Report, accept that the site “would not undermine

the development strategy of the emerging Proposed LDP” (Appendix B – Page 9). It is our

view that the SDP Spatial Strategy (which has informed the LDP development strategy) does

not preclude housing development outwith SDAs on greenfield and indeed green belt sites and

that the Council have applied a very narrow interpretation of this in reaching their decision.

12.5 We are also of the view that the Councils assertion that they have identified sites for the full

Supplementary Guidance “additional allowance” is incorrect. We do not believe that the

allowance is not a cap or limit, and that in any case there is a failure in the 5 year land supply

that is not addressed by the emerging Proposed LDP the criteria of Policy 7 are relevant, and in

our view, allow for this development to proceed.

Mike Martin

Highlight




12.6 This site could comprise a valuable element of windfall housing (there is nothing to suggest that

windfall housing sites will only be on brownfield land, or that they must be within SDAs) which

can contribute to delivering short term housing numbers.

12.7 The HLA2015 confirms that the Council do not have an effective 5-year land supply, and the

Report accompanying that confirms that this is not addressed by Proposed Plan 2 sites.

13. Conclusion

13.1 We believe that this proposal is acceptable in principal given the current and ongoing failure in

the 5 year land supply within the Council area which is not addressed by the emerging LDP; that

granting consent now would not in any way undermine the emerging strategy of the plan; that

this site can deliver much needed early completions within the period of the plan within which

the failure is most severe; and that the impact of development has been shown to be

acceptable.

13.2 We believe that, subject to conditions relating to more detailed survey work, and the submission

of a Matters Specified in Condition application in due course, any residual matters can be

addressed satisfactorily at that stage.

13.3 We would therefore respectfully request the Reporter overturns the Councils refusal of

permission and grants planning permission in principal subject to conditions and a legal

agreement.

13.4 Should the Reporter require any further procedure or information, or require clarification of any

aspect of the development, we would be very happy to assist.

Mike Martin

Highlight

Mike Martin

Highlight