Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Farm... · 2015. 12. 15. · Application drawings:...

Planning and Environmental Appeals Division 4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX 557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

Planning and Environmental Appeals Division

Appeal: Notice of Intention

T: 01324 696 400 F: 01324 696 444 E: [email protected]

Notice of Intention For the reasons given below I am minded to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle subject to the conditions listed below, following the signing and registering or recording of a planning obligation under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, or some suitable alternative arrangement, covering the matters listed in paragraph 78. Reasoning 1. The site comprises 12.4 hectares of agricultural land, some at least of which is currently not in use, situated to the north of the A71 (Bankton Road) on the south-western side of Livingston. To the east it is bounded by a large area of mature woodland, known as The Wilderness, whilst to the north a further area of agricultural land separates it from the modern office development at The Alba Campus. Westwards there is more agricultural land extending to the incised valley of Limefield Glen, beyond which is the small settlement of Polbeth. 2. I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Having regard to the provisions of the development plan the main issues in this appeal are: (a) whether there is a shortfall in the five-year effective housing land supply; (b) whether this site could contribute towards meeting any such shortfall; (c) the impact of the development on the character of the surrounding area; and (d) whether there is adequate infrastructure provision to support the proposed development, in particular education facilities.

Notice of Intention by Michael Shiel, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers Planning appeal reference: PPA-400-2057 Site address: Land at Brotherton Farm, Livingston Appeal by Gladman Developments Limited and Mrs Ann Dow against the decision by

West Lothian Council. Application no. 0648/P/14 for planning permission in principle, dated 1 September 2014,

refused by notice dated 25 March 2015. The development proposed: a 12.4 hectares residential development and associated

roads, landscaping and other works. Application drawings: PPP001 – Location Plan; PPP002 – Site Plan; PPP003 – Illustrative

Masterplan Date of site visit by Reporter: 12 October 2015 Date of notice: 11 December 2015

PPA-400-2057

Planning and Environmental Appeals Division 4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR

DX557005 Falkirk www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Planning/Appeals abcdefghij abcde abc a

2

The development plan 3. The development plan for this area consists of the Strategic Development Plan for Edinburgh and South-east Scotland 2013 (SESplan) and the adopted West Lothian Local Plan 2009. In addition the SESplan Housing Land Supplementary Guidance has been adopted as part of the development plan by all the planning authorities within the SESplan area. SESplan 4. Policy 1A outlines the spatial strategy for the SESplan area and identifies a number of Strategic Development Areas (SDA), to where local development plans will direct strategic development, taking account of environmental and infrastructure constraints. The appeal site is within the West Lothian SDA. Whilst it is clearly not the case that all sites within the SDA are suitable for development, the location of this site is such that its development would not be in conflict with SESplan’s spatial strategy. 5. Although the council has cited policy 1B in its reason for refusal, as with the previous policy, it is directed primarily towards the objectives of local development plans rather than setting criteria for assessing proposals. The appeal site lies within the Livingston Countryside Belt, as designated in the current local plan, and I return to this issue below. 6. Policy 5 identifies a requirement for sufficient land to be allocated to enable 107,545 houses to be built across the SESplan area, of which the requirement for the period of 2009 to 2019 is 74,835. The adopted supplementary guidance referred to above distributes the housing land requirement between the various local development plan areas for two time periods (2009-2019 and 2019-2024). In the case of West Lothian, that requirement is identified as 11,420 houses for 2009-2019 and 6590 for 2019-2024. In approving the supplementary guidance in June 2014, Scottish Ministers modified it to remove a reference to the planning authorities basing their calculations of the five-year supply on the whole of the period 2009-2024. 7. Policy 6 requires each planning authority to maintain a five-year effective housing land supply at all times. This is a significant point of difference between the parties and is considered further below. The five-year effective housing land supply 8. The appellant’s position is that there is a shortfall of land for 4181 houses (47% of the requirement) for the period 2009-2019. This figure has been derived from the SESplan requirement for that period (11,420) reduced by 2440 to take account of completions from 2009-2014, leaving a residual figure of 8980 to be met between 2014 and 2019. Against this is set programming of effective housing land supply for that period of 4799 (from the 2014 Housing Land Audit), resulting in the deficit referred to above. 9. The council argues that there is a generous supply of housing land in West Lothian, and therefore no need to grant permission for more development on a currently unallocated site. It states that the established housing land supply in 2014 was sufficient for 22,315 houses. The slowdown in housing output since 2008/9 has primarily been because of the economic downturn, and not as a result of any constraints on housing land availability.

PPA-400-2057



3

Extensive progress has been made in recent years in delivering housing on allocated sites. The 2014 Housing Land Audit shows 4799 houses forecast to be built in the 2014-2019 period, with a further 8588 for the 2019-2024 period, and 978 under construction. There was thus a total effective housing land supply in West Lothian at 31 March 2014 of 14,362. The Housing Need and Demand Assessment (HNDA) that has been prepared for the Main Issues Report for SESplan 2 indicates that, using 2012-based household projections, there will be a 41% reduction in the housing requirement for West Lothian, with a much higher proportion of demand for social rented, rather than owner occupied, housing. It is suggested that the discrepancy in the council’s five-year land supply has been based on a grossly over-optimistic assessment of demand for owner-occupied housing 10. The council has noted an appeal decision in October 2013 relating to a site at Seafield Road, Blackburn (DPEA ref. PPA-400-2036), where the reporter, in dismissing the appeal, concluded that the supply of housing land in the West Lothian Local Plan was the maximum permitted by the superseded structure plan; that much of that supply remained available for development; and that the supply of housing land was not deficient. The council takes comfort from the fact that the reporter’s decision in that case was upheld by the Court of Session. 11. That decision was taken in the context of the circumstances pertaining at that time, before the SESplan supplementary guidance on housing land was issued, and before Scottish Planning Policy, setting out the government’s most up-to-date position on the housing land supply, was published. In a number of other recent decisions, the reporters have concluded that there was a substantial shortfall in the five-year effective housing land supply in West Lothian. Thus in August 2014, at Falside, Bathgate (DPEA ref. PPA-400-2044), the reporter found that a shortfall of 3676 units for the 2013-2018 period was a reasonable assessment of the SESplan implications. 12. More recently (in May 2015), at Clarendon Farm, Linlithgow (DPEA ref. PPA-400-2046), the reporter concluded that the appellant’s calculation of a shortfall in the five-year effective housing land supply of 5710 was a reasonable approach. A similar conclusion was reached by the reporter at Burghmuir A, Linlithgow (DPEA ref. PPA-400-2045) in June 2015. In both these cases the appeals were recalled by the Scottish Ministers for their own decision, and both were refused permission for various reasons. But the Ministers accepted the reporters’ conclusions, and it must therefore be assumed that they endorsed the conclusion that there was not at that time a five-year effective supply of housing land in West Lothian. 13. Whilst the council has noted these decisions, it considers that the theoretical position described in them differs from reality. In response to my request for further information, the council has drawn attention to the West Lothian Local Development Plan (WLLDP) Proposed Plan, which was published for consultation in October 2015, and which it considers is a material consideration in the determination of this appeal. Whilst it agrees with the appellant’s figures for the 2009-2019 housing land requirement and the number of completions between 2009 and 2013/14, it does not accept the rest of the analysis put forward by the appellant. The council’s alternative calculation is contained in the WLLDP. In this the SESplan target for 2009-2019 has been increased by a 10% generosity allowance to give an overall housing land supply target for that period of 12,562. From this is deducted the total supply from existing sources, including windfall sites and constrained sites coming forward, of 7433; leaving a target of 5119 to be met through new local

PPA-400-2057



4

development plan allocations. Set against this are new allocations for the 2009-2019 period for 1496, leaving a shortfall of 3623. In contrast the figures for 2019-2024 show a surplus of 3656, giving an overall surplus of 33 for the whole period from 2009 to 2024. 14. Notwithstanding the large reserve of housing land in West Lothian, the 2014 Housing Land Audit identifies the number of houses likely to be completed between 2014 and 2019 as 4799; well below the SESplan housing requirement for that period, even allowing for more recent completions. It is quite clear from the Ministers’ modification of the SESplan supplementary guidance (paragraph 6 above) that they intend that planning authorities should meet their housing land requirements for each of the two periods, and should not join them to form a single target. Thus, the introduction of 8588 houses programmed for completion beyond the first five year period does not deal with the current position. 15. SESplan policy 6 requires the maintenance of a five-year effective housing land supply at all times. In this it follows paragraphs 110 and 119 of Scottish Planning Policy. Whilst I understand the council’s wish to meet its identified housing land targets through a plan-led process, the need to maintain a five-year effective housing land supply is a continuing and on-going requirement. The HNDA prepared for SESplan 2 will be part of the evidence base used in the preparation of that plan. However, the assessment of the current housing land supply situation must be based on the requirements of the present strategic development plan and its supplementary guidance. 16. The WLLDP is at an early stage, with consultation responses to the Proposed Plan now being received. The plan has still to go for examination, and it will be for the reporters carrying out that examination to reach their own conclusions on the adequacy of the housing land supply within that plan. For my part, however, I need to consider whether the council is maintaining a five-year effective housing land supply at all times. 17. On the basis of the available evidence, I conclude that there is currently a significant shortfall in the five-year supply. In Appendix H of its appeal submissions, the appellant has put forward a number of scenarios, based on different Housing Land Audits, but its fundamental position, as contained in its appeal statement, is that there is currently a shortfall of 4181 units, using the 2014 Housing Land Audit. I consider that to be a reasonable assessment of the position. The council’s own figures show a significant shortfall (3623) in the allocation of new sites in the period between 2009 and 2019 to meet the housing target for that period. 18. The council suggests that the appeal site would not contribute to meeting the shortfall as it is not an effective site because of infrastructure constraints. That is a matter to be considered in relation to SESplan policy 7. Because of the shortfall identified above that policy is engaged. It states that sites for greenfield housing development proposals, either within or outwith the identified SDAs, may be granted planning permission to maintain a five-year effective land supply, subject to satisfying each of three criteria. SESplan policy 7, criterion a. 19. This requires development to be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area. The appeal site is an area of agricultural land on the edge of the built-up area on the south-west side of Livingston. Any development of housing on a currently greenfield site will inevitably change the character of the site itself, but it is recognised in policy 7 that

PPA-400-2057



5

some development on greenfield sites may be needed to maintain a five-year effective housing land supply. The fact that this is a greenfield site, currently unallocated for development, does not, therefore, mean that it is precluded from being granted permission for housing as a matter of principle. 20. The character of much of the town of Livingston is one of discrete areas of development separated by a network of often very large open spaces and vegetation. This is well illustrated by the aerial photographs submitted. In this context I do not consider that development on the appeal site would go against the grain of the character of the settlement. The site is separated from the housing area at Adambrae to the east by the extensive woodland of The Wilderness. To the north it is separated by only a narrow strip of agricultural land from the office development at The Alba Campus, whilst to the south of the A71 is a large, low-density industrial estate. There is a belt of mature planting alongside the A71 which would help filter views of new development from that road. It is proposed to reinforce this screening with new planting and mounding. A line of mature trees runs across the centre of the site; along part of its western boundary on the driveway to Brotherton House; and there are also mature trees in the hedgerow on its northern boundary. 21. I consider that the site is capable of development in a discreet manner that, although it would inevitably change its character, would not be overly intrusive or visually detrimental to the character of the surrounding area. I accept that it would be separated from the nearest development to the east on the north side of the A71 by a wide belt of vegetation, but there is development directly to the south of it in the Brucefield Industrial Park. The council has pointed out that the visual impact of this area is softened by a tree belt alongside the A71 and I agree. But it would be possible to create the same degree of softening with mounding and new planting for the appeal site. Given the development to the south, and the office campus to the north, I do not accept the council’s view that this would be a detached “island” of development. 22. The council is particularly concerned that development on this site would lead to the coalescence of the settlements of Livingston and Polbeth. I understand to a degree the cause of this concern. An analysis carried out by the appellant (Appendix F of the appeal submissions) shows various distances between the development and Limefield Glen which effectively forms the eastern boundary of the settlement of Polbeth; the narrowest from the western boundary of the site being 354 metres. Along the A71 the distance from an existing house at the entrance to Brotherton Farm to the glen is 376 metres. Based on the indicative masterplan for the development of the site, submitted with the application, distances from the nearest houses would be over 500 metres. 23. I agree with the council that, compared to the present position to the north of the A71, where there is no development west of Adambrae for over one kilometre, this would result in a significant decrease in the distance between the two settlements. What is more, it would leave the remaining area of agricultural land between the appeal site and Polbeth vulnerable to pressure for further development. From the land ownership plan it would appear that the remaining land at Brotherton Farm would be of relatively limited extent, which may cast some doubt about the viability of continuing agricultural use. 24. I accept that the increased potential for coalescence between Livingston and Polbeth that would result from this proposed development is a negative factor that needs to be

PPA-400-2057



6

considered in the overall balance. However, south of that road, land is allocated in the present local plan for housing immediately to the west of the Brucefield Industrial Park. This will effectively extend development westwards to West Calder High School, which lies on the south-eastern edge of Polbeth. Although the school sits in extensive grounds, this allocation can be argued to already have resulted in coalescence between Livingston and Polbeth. The outline of the settlement boundary on the West Lothian Local Plan proposals map acknowledges this. In these circumstances, I consider that the council’s concerns about coalescence are somewhat overstated. I conclude that the potential risk of such coalescence does not outweigh the benefits of the proposed development in helping to meet the shortfall in the effective five-year housing land supply. 25. Overall, therefore, I consider that the appeal site could be developed in a manner that would not be out of keeping with the general settlement pattern of Livingston or be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not conflict with criterion a. of policy 7. SESplan policy 7, criterion b. 26. The site does not lie in the green belt and therefore this criterion is not directly applicable. It is within an area designated as the Livingston Countryside Belt in the current local plan, which is intended to prevent coalescence with other settlements. I have considered this issue above, but will return to it when looking at policies ENV 22 and ENV 23 of the local plan. SESplan policy 7, criterion c. 27. This states that any additional infrastructure required as a result of the proposed development is either committed or is funded by the developer. The council’s position is that this would not be an effective housing site because of education infrastructure constraints. 28. The appeal site lies within the catchment areas of four schools:

Bankton Primary School St Ninian’s RC Primary School The James Young High School St Margaret’s Academy

29. Of these, the council has confirmed that capacity/occupancy at the primary schools has not been a matter of concern and was not a reason for the refusal of permission. 30. The appellant has submitted that there is sufficient capacity at the non-denominational secondary school (The James Young High School) to accommodate the 26 children that are predicted to arise from this development between 2016 and 2020, without the need for any additional accommodation. The council, however, is concerned that there is already a known deficit of places at S1 across all Livingston secondary schools in school session 2020/21, based on children currently attending the associated primary schools. A pupil placement solution across these schools is likely to result in all four secondary schools running at 100% capacity for a three-year period starting in 2019/20. Any housing

PPA-400-2057



7

development in Livingston implemented before then would add to these placement pressures. 31. The council considers that, because of the mix of housing sizes proposed on this site, the child per house ratio would be higher than the average used by the council (and appellant) to predict pupil generation. As a result it submits that, assuming completions from 2016/17 to 2020/21, the development would result in an increase of 51 pupils at the James Young High School, with 7/8 pupils at S1 level each year. The council considers that, given the overall shortage of S1 places in 2020/21, there is little prospect of Livingston secondary schools being able to manage the additional pupils at S1 and above at that time. 32. I appreciate that the actual number of pupils generated by each individual housing site will vary with the nature of the development; some will generate more pupils than average and others less. The number of pupils within a new housing development is also likely to vary over the years. The use of an average pupil generation rate for the purpose of predicting future numbers is partly intended to deal with such fluctuations. Without a detailed assessment of the specific circumstances of a development (which is not possible for an application for permission in principle), I think that it is appropriate to use the council’s standard pupil generation ratios as the basis for calculating likely pupil numbers from this development. 33. The James Young High School has a capacity of 1210 pupils and the council’s forecasts indicate that the number on roll will change from 1094 in 2016 to 1015 in 2020 (these figures are in its Education Planning service’s consultation response of 13 November 2014). Its S1 intake limit is 220 and the figures contained in the council’s document WLC10 (Potential S1 Admissions - Table 2) predict that intake at this level would be 157 in 2016, rising to a peak of 161 in 2020 and then falling to 126 in 2024, based on its associated primary school catchment areas. 34. The same document indicates that for three secondary schools in Livingston - Deans, Inveralmond and The James Young - there would be a surplus of places from 2016 to 2024. The deficit predicted to occur in 2020 stems from the addition of the denominational secondary school to this calculation. I recognise that the figures in WLC10 do not take account of pupils from new residential developments. In a second consultation response of 12 March 2015, the Education Planning service states that it is likely that about 500 houses will be constructed in Livingston before 2020, generating some 20 secondary school pupils per year at S1. Assuming that these would all be non-denominational pupils, the evidence indicates that the additional pupils generated by the appeal proposal could be accommodated at The James Young High School, even at the “pinch point” in 2020. I appreciate that placement requests complicate the picture and that the council can only refuse such requests on certain statutory grounds. It seems to me that this is a wider issue that must affect all new housing developments, whether planned or windfall. I am not convinced that, on the available evidence, the additional non-denominational secondary school pupils generated by this development would significantly exacerbate any existing problems over placement requests that may currently exist. 35. The issue about an education infrastructure capacity constraint is more critical in the case of the denominational secondary school (St Margaret’s Academy). This school takes children from a very large catchment area, covering the entire eastern half of West Lothian. The council’s Education Planning service, in its consultation response to this application,

PPA-400-2057



8

provided forecasts to show that the 1100-capacity of St Margaret’s would be exceeded from 2015 onwards, based on houses predicted to be constructed. The council’s forecast is that the number on roll will continue to increase to 1218 in 2020 and 1305 in 2023, indicating that it would be operating significantly over-capacity by then, unless further action is taken. As this proposal would be a windfall site, until a decision is reached to increase secondary school capacity, the Education Planning service considers that options to support unplanned development in Livingston are not available. 36. The council’s supplementary planning guidance (SPG) on denominational secondary education infrastructure shows a number of scenarios for increasing the capacity of St Margaret’s to 1210 by 2016 and 1320 by 2018. Alternatively, if the first phase of a new denominational secondary school at Winchburgh were to come on stream before 2018, it would remove some of the pressure on St Margaret’s. The purpose of the SPG is to establish the basis for developer contributions towards new denominational secondary school capacity. The appellant argues that, using the council’s own methodology, this development is predicted to generate nine denominational secondary school pupils between 2016 and 2020, at a rate of about two per year. If the capacity of St Margaret’s is increased to 1210 and then 1320, there would be no shortage of spaces in those years. If denominational secondary school accommodation is not increased, either at St Margaret’s or Winchburgh, then the appellant submits that the council will be failing in its statutory duty as an education authority. 37. The council does not appear to dispute the annual rate of pupil generation used by the appellant, but suggests that there would be an overall increase of 11 denominational secondary school pupils from 2016/17 to 2020/21. It states that in 2012 a feasibility study was carried out to demonstrate how St Margaret’s could be extended within its existing site boundary, at an estimated cost of up to £5 million. New denominational school provision will ultimately be funded by developer contributions, and the council considers that it is improbable that the development industry will be able to initially fully fund all the £20 million of education investment requirements for the first phase of a new secondary school. Given the severe budgetary savings that the council must make over the next three years, it considers that it is essential to refuse new residential development where this is likely to exceed infrastructure capacity. 38. I recognise that education planning is a complex and difficult exercise, especially over such a large catchment area as that of St Margaret’s Academy. I agree with the council that its priority should be to plan for children from committed new housing developments (allocated sites and those already with planning permission). There will, however, always be a degree of uncertainty (for example, certain housing sites might not be developed at the rate predicted, the pupil generation rate from individual sites will vary, and placing requests will add a further complication). I am not convinced that the process can be fine-tuned to such an extent that the addition of 2-3 secondary pupils in any one year should represent a complete bar on all windfall developments. Nonetheless I appreciate the cumulative effect that a number of such developments could have, and that the matter of education capacity (at denominational secondary school level only) could be counted against this proposal. 39. The appellant has expressed its willingness to make an appropriate financial contribution towards the additional school capacity needed. Criterion c. of SESplan policy 7 requires that any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either

PPA-400-2057



9

committed or to be funded by the developer. In the case of the proposed enlargement of St Margaret’s, the council will presumably be seeking contributions from all housing developers within the catchment area. The SPG states that, at 2010 prices, the cost of extending St Margaret’s to 1320 pupil capacity is £10.5 million, whilst the cost of a new secondary school is put at £36.5 million. As of March 2010, contributions received or expected were £3.1 million, leaving an outstanding amount of £43.9 million. The developer contribution rate was therefore calculated as £1983 per unit, based on a total of 23,000 residential units contributing towards that cost, of which 4424 were estimated to be on windfall sites. 40. In its most recent submission the council has argued that the SPG mechanism is inappropriate in this case because of the overall shortage of secondary school places in Livingston. Contributions from any development on the appeal site would not timeously fund a solution, as a school extension is needed before any of the houses could be occupied. Even if the council were to determine that St Margaret’s should be extended, the design, approval and construction of the extension would take two to three years. The council contends that, if it is obliged to proceed to extend St Margaret’s to facilitate secondary education provision for this unallocated site, it would prejudice the development plan-led core development area at Winchburgh, as well as other allocated sites such as Bangour Village Hospital and East Broxburn. I note, however, that in a response of 16 December 2014 in relation to a 120-house development on a windfall site at Dechmont (now at appeal under DPEA ref. PPA-400-2059), which is also within the catchment of St Margaret’s, the Education Planning service raised no objections subject to the necessary education contributions being made. 41. I consider that the council’s position in this regard is overstated. It is evident that, at its present capacity, St Margaret’s is, and will become increasingly, over-subscribed. That is an existing problem which must apply to existing committed developments within its catchment area. The Education Planning service’s response of 13 November 2014 indicates that 4885 houses were predicted to be built in the catchment area between 2014 and 2023. I presume that the council has sought or will be seeking a financial contribution from the developers for each of these houses towards denominational secondary school provision. The SPG indicates the very large sums required for this. As the council has suggested, it seems inconceivable that the development industry would be able to fully forward fund such provision. The council is therefore faced with an existing problem in respect of denominational secondary school accommodation, which it will have to address irrespective of whether or not permission is granted for residential development on this site. The scale of this development in terms of the number of denominational secondary school pupils generated would not significantly exacerbate the existing difficulties. It seems to me that, if the developer in this case were to make a financial contribution at the agreed rate, it would be making the appropriate contribution towards the necessary infrastructure, as required by criterion c. It is for the council to decide how to programme the provision of the necessary additional capacity, given the issues that already exist. 42. In these circumstances, I do not accept the council’s contention that, if permission were to be granted in this case, it would prejudice the implementation of existing plan-led developments. I do not believe that the current educational infrastructure constraints warrant an effective ban on all windfall housing developments, of which this would be one if permission is granted. Indeed, the council’s SPG assumes that potential windfall sites will make a contribution towards secondary school provision.

PPA-400-2057



10

43. A second educational matter raised by the council is not directly related to infrastructure capacity but to the extra cost of school transport that might arise as a result of the location of this site in relation to the schools which children from it may attend. 44. The entrance to the site lies at the following walking distances from its catchment schools (from Appendix B of the appeal statement):

Bankton Primary School – 1.61 miles St Ninian’s Primary School – 1.96 miles The James Young High School – 1.29 miles St Margaret’s Academy – 1.86 miles.

45. The council’s present policy on the provision of transport to schools is to provide free travel for pupils who live more than 1.5 miles from their designated catchment primary school or two miles from their designated catchment secondary school. In addition, any spare capacity on school buses can be made available to non-eligible pupils on a fare-paying basis. On the basis of this policy the provision of school transport would be required to both primary schools, whilst part of the site would be eligible for free school transport to St Margaret’s Academy. The council is concerned that this would involve it in substantial cost. In its Report of Handling the council suggests that this could involve annual revenue costs of £38,000 - £60,800 for the primary schools and £9500 for St Margaret’s. No indication is given as to how these costs were derived and they are disputed by the appellant. The annual cost of the contract service from Dedridge/Adambrae to Bankton and St Ninian’s primary schools is currently £23,372. 46. Both primary schools are a significant distance from this site; well beyond what one would expect children in their age range to walk on a regular basis. The distance to St Margaret’s Academy is also substantial. The provision of free school transport for eligible children would inevitably involve the council in additional costs. Whether it would require a completely new service, or could be achieved by amending existing school bus routes is a matter that would require further investigation. A further alternative, although not one that the council has used in the past, would be to issue bus passes for the commercial services that run past the site on the A71. 47. It is clear from the appellant’s analysis in Appendix B that the council already has to contract school buses to serve these schools. In the case of St Margaret’s Academy, given its very large catchment area, such services are likely to be extensive. It is probable that for allocated sites in the existing local plan (for example on the south side of the A71), and for sites that are eventually allocated in the emerging local development plan, further provision will need to be made. I acknowledge that this is likely to involve an increasing cost to the council, but I have not been advised of any relevant local planning policies that would serve to justify the refusal of planning permission for specific developments on the basis of this issue. 48. The council’s Report of Handling points out that Bellsquarry Primary School and West Calder High School are much closer to the appeal site than its present catchment schools, and that this might place significant placement pressure on them. This raises the question of whether the site could be placed in the catchment area of these schools and I sought further information from the council on this.

PPA-400-2057



11

49. In its response, the council has stated that in 2012 it carried out a consultation about amending catchment boundaries between Bellsquarry and Parkhead Primary School in West Calder, and between West Calder and The James Young High Schools. Both the primary schools are feeder schools for West Calder High. The purpose of the consultation was to address the potential, through catchment area changes, to support residential development at Brucefield, the allocated site south of the A71, given the restriction on capacity at Parkhead Primary School. Primary school children from Brucefield will go to Bellsquarry, which may require to be extended, and my understanding is that there would be insufficient capacity to accommodate children from the appeal site, even if all placement requests from non-catchment children were refused. In the circumstances, there would appear to be no immediate prospect of non-denominational primary school children from this site being accommodated at the closest school. I agree with the council that there would likely be placement requests from this development for children to attend Bellsquarry, and the council would need to deal with them in accordance with the statutory requirements. The same might apply at secondary school level in relation to West Calder High School. I also note that there is a denominational primary school at Polbeth (St Mary’s) and it is unclear to me why children could not attend this school, rather than the more distant St Ninian’s. 50. This discussion of catchment areas is solely in the context of how far children from any development on the appeal site would need to travel to school. As things currently stand, the position is as indicated in paragraph 44 above. Given the distances involved, especially for primary school children, I think that it is likely that a proportion of children would travel to and from their catchment schools by private car. If such journeys were to be combined with other trips (for example, to and from work) they would not increase the overall traffic generation associated with this development. However, if they are single-purpose journeys, they would add to that traffic generation. The location of the site is such that it is on the edge of the catchment areas of both primary schools and the James Young High School. The catchment area for Bankton Primary School is particularly asymmetric, with the school at its far eastern end and this site on its western boundary. SESplan policy 8 51. I therefore acknowledge that the location of the site is not ideal in relation to travel to school. In its reasons for refusal the council refers to policy 8 in this connection, as well as the site’s remoteness from other facilities such as shops. That policy is directed towards the preparation of local development plans and sets out criteria that they must meet in relation to transportation. I agree with the appellant that it is not intended to apply directly to the consideration of individual planning applications. However, as also accepted by the appellant, it raises matters that do need consideration in terms of how the appeal site is located in terms of supporting travel by means other than the private car. 52. A Transportation Assessment submitted with the application indicates that there are four buses per hour on the A71 which travel to and from Livingston Town Centre. There are bus stops close to the site, although provision would need to be made for pedestrians crossing this busy main road. I consider that the site is therefore reasonably accessible by public transport. 53. There is a footway alongside the north side of the A71 to Polbeth where there is a local shop. A further remote footpath on the south side of that road runs westwards to West

PPA-400-2057



12

Calder High School and eastwards to Bellsquarry village, where it links in to a wider footpath network. There is no footway directly alongside the A71 east of the site, although an informal path runs through The Wilderness woodland to the Adamsbrae residential area. I consider that it would be undesirable to create a formal path, with surfacing and lighting, through this area. However, the appellant has put forward a proposal to form a new footway along the north side of the A71. This would be two metres wide, with a one metre- wide verge separating it from the road carriageway, and would link with an existing path that crosses beneath the A71 in an underpass. An alternative would be a pedestrian crossing of the A71 west of The Wilderness roundabout, linking to the existing footpath referred to above. The Transportation Assessment states that all footways in Livingston are also designated cycle ways, so segregated routes would be available to all destinations. 54. An analysis of walking and cycling catchment distances (Appendix D of the appellant’s submissions) indicates that access to a range of facilities would be available within 20 minutes walking or cycling time. I agree with the appellant that the character of Livingston is one of a more dispersed pattern of development. In this context I conclude that the location of the site, although not ideal for access by sustainable travel modes, is not unacceptable in this regard, particularly if improvements to pedestrian accessibility are undertaken as indicated above. As such, I do not consider that development of the site for housing would create any significant conflict with the aims of SESplan policy 8. SESplan policy 9 55. This policy is referred to by the council in its reasons for refusal in relation to the educational infrastructure issue. I have considered this matter in detail above. I consider that the provision of a financial contribution by the developer to help meet the required education capacity is consistent with the aims of policy 9 which, like the previous policy, is directed towards what should be included in local development plans. West Lothian Local Plan (WLLP) 56. This plan was adopted in 2009 and is, therefore, over five years old. Paragraph 33 of Scottish Planning Policy states that where a development plan is more than five years old the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration. Paragraph 125 further indicates that where a shortfall in the five-year effective housing land supply has emerged, development plan policies for the supply of housing land will not be considered up-to-date. I have identified such a shortfall in this case and therefore conclude that any policies in the WLLP that relate to the supply of housing land are out-of-date and should be given little weight in the determination of this appeal. 57. The council has cited a number of local plan policies in its reasons for refusal. Some, such as HOU 1 and HOU 2, directly relate to the supply of housing land and I consider that they should be afforded little weight in this case. They have, in effect, been superseded by the relevant policies in SESplan. 58. Of the others, policy ENV 12 relates to the West Lothian Local Biodiversity Action Plan and requires woodland planting and the sustainable management of existing woodlands and groups of trees for development proposals in the countryside which are acceptable in planning terms. The council’s reason for refusal, however, cites this policy in

PPA-400-2057



13

terms of a potential adverse effect on the adjoining The Wilderness woodland and its ecology. This woodland lies outwith the site boundary and is owned and managed by the Woodland Trust, which submitted no comments on this proposal. As the application is for permission in principle, issues relating to the layout of the development, the distance of houses from trees, new planting and the protection of existing trees can all be dealt with through the approval of matters specified in conditions. The council has presented no evidence to substantiate its assertion that development of this site would harm The Wilderness. Whilst it might lead to greater public usage of that area, the Woodland Trust has produced a management plan which specifically aims to encourage public access and enhance people’s enjoyment of the woodland, whilst safeguarding its public amenity and biodiversity action. There is no reason why development of the appeal site should conflict with those objectives. 59. Policy COM 2, also cited by the council, refers to proposals which would result in the loss of formal or informal open space and is also not relevant. The appeal site itself is farmland, and there is no suggestion that development would result in any loss of The Wilderness woodland. 60. Policy ENV 21 seeks to protect six Areas of Special Landscape Control in West Lothian. These are landscapes of character and local importance. In Livingston such an area includes The Wilderness. The council’s argument is that the appeal site is immediately adjacent to the Area of Special Landscape Control, which contributes to the setting of this part of Livingston, and its development would detract from the designation, which forms an effective landscape buffer between Polbeth and Livingston as well as a green corridor to the Almond Valley; and that the woodland would lose its rural setting and wildlife connectivity. 61. I have dealt with the issue of coalescence between Polbeth and Livingston above, where I have concluded that this development would significantly narrow the gap between the two settlements on the north side of the A71. The Wilderness would lose its rural setting on the west side, but it is already next to housing to the east. This development would not intrude into the woodland itself. In terms of maintaining a wildlife corridor to the Almond Valley, a narrow strip of former agricultural land would remain between the northern boundary of the site and The Alba Campus. No evidence has been submitted to show how effective the existing farmland is in providing a corridor for wildlife that may be of significance in The Wilderness. 62. The appellant has pointed out that the council has carried out a review of local landscape designations and The Wilderness has not been included within the candidate Special Landscape Areas, which are intended to be included in the emerging local development plan. Whilst that might be the case, I have to consider the situation as I find it. I note that the Livingston Area of Special Landscape Control comprises a number of small pockets and linear stretches of open space, of which The Wilderness is only one. Some of these areas are already within or run through the urban area. In these circumstances, I consider that, although the development would change the setting of The Wilderness, it would not undermine the reason for its inclusion as part of the Livingston Area of Special Landscape Control. I therefore conclude that it would not fundamentally conflict with policy ENV 21.

PPA-400-2057



14

63. The appeal site is within the Livingston Countryside Belt, the aim of which is to prevent coalescence with other settlements. Paragraph 3.64 of the WLLP states that, as a development control policy, the designation is intended to protect agricultural land, forestry and land of natural heritage value from development. The council has referred to three policies relevant to this designation in its reasons for refusal. The first, ENV 22, seeks opportunities to protect and enhance the landscape of the Countryside Belt through woodland planting and managed access. I do not consider it relevant to this proposal. 64. Policy ENV 23, however, seeks to resist developments that would lead to coalescence between development, sporadic development, or the expansion of existing clusters of houses, for which there is no specific locational need. In addition policy ENV 31 restricts new development in the countryside except in certain specified circumstances. Although the appeal proposal would be contrary to both policies, I consider that they should be accorded little weight in this case. SESplan policy 7 makes clear that permission may be granted for new housing developments on greenfield sites where a shortfall in the effective five-year supply of housing land has been identified, as in this instance. Such developments are likely to breach local plan policies relating to development in the countryside beyond existing settlement boundaries. However, the fact that the WLLP is more than five years old diminishes the weight that should be given to such policies. Overall conclusions on the development plan 65. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development complies with SESplan, which contains the most up-to-date policies with regards to the housing land supply position. Although the proposal would be contrary to the policies in the local plan in relation to the supply and location of housing land I consider that they are out of date, and should carry little weight in the determination of this appeal. Insofar as the other local policies to which I have been referred remain relevant, the proposal would not conflict with them. Overall, therefore, I conclude that it accords with the development plan. Other material considerations Scottish Planning Policy 66. Reference has already been made to Scottish Planning Policy and, in particular to paragraphs 110 and 119, which requires the maintenance of at least a five-year supply of effective housing land at all times; 125, which states that a development plan will not be considered up-to-date where there is a shortfall in that supply; and 33, where it is indicated that, in such circumstances, the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration. I consider that these all provide support for the current proposal. Prematurity 67. Paragraph 34 of Scottish Planning Policy states that, where a plan is under review, it may be appropriate in some circumstances to consider whether granting planning permission would prejudice the emerging plan. It further states that such circumstances are only likely to apply where the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making

PPA-400-2057



15

process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new developments that are central to the emerging plan. 68. The council submits that the current proposal is premature, pending the consideration of the spatial strategy options in the emerging WLLDP. As indicated above, that plan has only recently been published for consultation and it is unlikely that it will be formally adopted until the latter half of 2016. I have some sympathy with the council’s general view that sites to meet the identified housing land requirement for the plan period should ideally be allocated through the local development plan. Against this, however, must be set the substantial shortfall in the five-year housing land supply which I have concluded exists. That supply is to be met at all times (my emphasis); it is a continuing requirement which needs to be addressed. I have concluded that the development of the appeal site would contribute to meeting the current shortfall. It is not of such a scale that it would have any significant impact on the spatial strategy of the WLLDP. I conclude therefore that, taking into account the advice in paragraph 34 of Scottish Planning Policy, it would not be premature to grant permission for the proposed development at this time. 69. The council has advised that the WLLDP continues to identify the appeal site as part of the Livingston Countryside Belt, a key purpose of which is to avoid coalescence between settlements. As previously indicated, the proposed plan will need to be examined in relation to the adequacy of its housing land allocations, but there is currently a significant shortfall in the effective five-year housing land supply. Consequently, there is a need to identify sites to help meet that shortfall, and I consider that the appeal site is appropriate for that purpose. For that reason, and given the relatively early stage of the WLLDP, I do not consider that it should be afforded any significant weight in the determination of this appeal. Sustainability 70. Scottish Planning Policy introduces a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development. The appellant has submitted an assessment of the development against the principles of sustainable development in paragraph 29 of Scottish Planning Policy. The council has not challenged that assessment. Insofar as they can be assessed at this stage of the proposal I find no reason to disagree with its conclusions; but further consideration will be needed at the detailed design stage. 71. I have already considered the sustainability of this site in relation to its accessibility by various means of travel in terms of SESplan policy 8 (paragraphs 51-54 above). There I acknowledge that the location of the site is not ideal in relation to travel to school. The Transportation Assessment concluded that the development would result in additional traffic generation of 114 vehicles in the morning peak, and 131 vehicles in the evening peak. This is equivalent to increases of 7-8% in the 2017 existing and committed flows on the A71 at The Wilderness Roundabout, from where access to the site would be taken. The council’s Transportation service raised no objection to the development in terms of its additional traffic generation on the road network, and the council has not included this issue amongst its reasons for refusal. 72. Two objections were received to this application, including one from the Bellsquarry Community Council. Both were concerned amongst other things about the increased traffic at the roundabout but, as indicated above, the council considers that this would be acceptable. The other matters raised in these objections have already been covered.

PPA-400-2057



16

73. I concluded in paragraph 54 above that, in the context of the somewhat dispersed pattern of settlement in Livingston, whilst the location of the site is not ideal for access by sustainable travel modes, it is not unacceptable in this regard, particularly if improvements to pedestrian accessibility are undertaken. Paragraph 33 of Scottish Planning Policy states that, where relevant development plan policies are out-of-date, account should be taken of any adverse impacts of new development proposals which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in Scottish Planning Policy. I consider that the drawbacks that the proposed development would experience in terms of its accessibility by sustainable means of transport do not outweigh the benefits to be derived from its development to help meet the substantial shortfall in the five-year effective housing land supply. Planning conditions and obligations 74. The council has proposed the imposition of nine conditions if permission in principle is to be granted. The appellant has commented on the proposed conditions. I have largely adopted the suggested conditions but with modifications to simplify them and avoid duplication, especially with regards to the drainage provisions. I have, however, also made modifications relating to the implementation of the landscaping proposals, acoustic barrier and pedestrian access. 75. The council has also stated that, before any permission is issued, it would wish the appellant to enter into a planning obligation covering the following matters:

a. Affordable housing – the appellant has proposed that 15% of the residential units on the site should be affordable housing. The council has raised no issue in respect of this percentage and wishes land capable of accommodating it to be transferred to it. In turn the appellant has suggested that the transfer should be, more generally, to a Registered Social Landlord, which could include the council, and that the value should be determined by the District Valuer in accordance with paragraph 19 of PAN 2/2010 – Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits. I consider that the latter requirement would be better covered by negotiation between the appellant and council, rather than being specified at this stage.

b. Education infrastructure – the council is seeking a contribution of £1983 per

residential unit (index-linked to first quarter 2010) towards the provision of denominational secondary school infrastructure. I consider that this would be appropriate and in accordance with the council’s SPG on this matter, as stated in paragraph 41 above.

c. School transport – the council is seeking a financial contribution from the developer

to offset the on-going revenue costs arising from the provision of school transport to serve this development. Whilst I understand the council’s reasons for this, I have been provided with no policy basis for seeking such a contribution or any indication that such contributions are required from all developers. Logically, such a contribution should be sought in respect of all new housing developments, whether allocated or windfall, where there will be an increased cost in providing school transport. In the absence of any indication that this is the case, I do not believe that it would be warranted as a one-off requirement in this case.

PPA-400-2057



17

d. Public art contribution – the council is seeking a contribution of £190 per residential unit (index linked to second quarter 2006) for public art, in accordance with its supplementary planning guidance on this matter and policy COM 11 of the WLLP. The appellant has indicated its willingness to make such a contribution.

e. Cemetery contribution – a contribution of £35 per residential unit (index linked to first

quarter 2006) is also sought, in accordance with its supplementary planning guidance on this matter and policy COM 9a of the WLLP. The appellant has indicated its willingness to make such a contribution.

f. Active open space - the council is seeking a contribution of £500 per residential unit

(index linked to second quarter 2002) towards active open space provision, in accordance with its supplementary planning guidance on residential development. The appellant has indicated its willingness to make such a contribution.

76. A further matter that may also need to be included in a planning obligation is the provision of a footway/cycle path on the north side of the A71 eastwards from The Wilderness roundabout as far as the existing underpass. I refer to this in paragraph 53 above, and I consider that further discussions will be needed between the appellant and the council as to whether such a link is needed and, if so, how it would be constructed and funded. For the avoidance of doubt, I should add that I do not consider that such a link would substitute for an improved pedestrian crossing of the A71 adjacent to the site, which is needed to provide access to the westbound bus stop. Overall conclusions 77. I concluded in paragraph 65 above that, whilst the proposed development would conflict with some policies in the current local plan, it would be in accord with the more up-to-date SESplan; and, taken overall, it would accord with the development plan. I also conclude that a number of material considerations support the proposal, particularly paragraph 33 of SPP. In helping to meet the shortfall in the effective five-year housing land supply, I consider that the development would contribute to sustainable development, and that any adverse impacts that I have identified would not significantly outweigh its wider benefits. There are no material considerations which would justify refusing to grant planning permission. I have considered all the other matters raised, but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions. 78. Before granting planning permission I consider that a planning obligation should be completed in order to provide the necessary contributions as indicated in paragraphs 75b, d, e and f above; as well as covering the provision of 15% of the houses as affordable units, as indicated in paragraph 75a and, if required, the new pathway along the A71 referred to in paragraph 76. 79. I will accordingly defer determination of this appeal for a period of four months to enable the relevant planning obligation (either an agreement with the planning authority or a unilateral obligation by the appellant under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 or some suitable alternative arrangement as may be agreed by the parties) to be completed and registered or recorded, as the case may be. If, by the end of the four months period, a copy of the relevant obligation with evidence of registration or recording has not been submitted to this office, I will review the situation.

PPA-400-2057



18

M D Shiel Principal Reporter Proposed conditions 1. No development granted under the terms of this planning permission in principle shall commence until plans and particulars of the under-noted matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with that approval. Applications for

approval of any such matters shall be made in accordance with the additional provisions and requirements of the further conditions set out in this permission in principle.

Matters for approval: a) the layout of the site showing any existing buildings and the position of all proposed buildings, roads (including classification of streets), footpaths and cycle routes (including safe routes to school), pedestrian and cycle crossings, car and cycle parking, servicing areas (including bin storage and recycling facilities), bus stops and shelters, and walls/fences/boundary enclosures; b) plans, sections and elevations of all buildings indicating the type and colour of all external materials; c) hard and soft landscaping details including the location of all trees to be retained and proposed new trees, hedges and shrubs; a schedule of plants to comprise species, plant size and proposed numbers/density; and a programme of implementation and subsequent maintenance; d) existing and proposed ground levels and proposed finished floor levels; e) surface water and drainage arrangements; f) details and specification of an acoustic barrier parallel to the A71 to protect the development from road traffic noise. Unless otherwise approved by the planning authority, the barrier shall have a minimum height of 2.8 metres; g) a comprehensive drainage assessment and strategy addressing the issues of foul, surface and ground water, including land drainage. It must identify the issues affecting the site pre-development and should outline the strategy post-development. The assessment shall generally comply with the document Drainage Assessment - A Guide for Scotland published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; and h) details and methods for any proposed opening to daylight of any culverts which run through the site.

Reason: in order to give full consideration to those details which have yet to be submitted, in accordance with section 59(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), in the interests of achieving a high standard of development. 2. No development shall take place within the development site, as outlined in red on

the approved plan number PPP002, until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the developer, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service and approved by the planning authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is

PPA-400-2057



19

fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the planning authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.

Reason: to ensure that archaeology on site is investigated and recorded in an appropriate manner. 3(a). Prior to any work beginning on site, a contaminated land site investigation and risk

assessment must be completed and a written report submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The site investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by suitably qualified, experienced and competent persons. The written report of the findings must include: (i) a Phase 2 report incorporating a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, and an updated conceptual model of the site; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to human health, property (existing and proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, the water environment, ecological systems, flora and fauna associated with the new development; and (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and a proposal for the preferred option. The investigation must be conducted in accordance with the Environment Agency's Contaminated Land Report 11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11. If it is concluded by the written report that remediation of the site is not required, and this is approved in writing by the planning authority, then conditions 3(b) and 3(c) can be disregarded.

3(b). Prior to any work beginning on site, a detailed Remediation Statement to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to all relevant and statutory receptors must be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The Remediation Statement must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The Remediation Statement must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land following development.

3(c). The approved Remediation Statement must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of any development other than that required to carry out the agreed remediation works. The planning authority must be given two weeks written notification of the commencement of the remediation works. Following completion of the measures identified in the approved Remediation Statement, a Verification Report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be prepared. The Verification Report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to commencement of the new use of the land.

Reason: to ensure that the land is suitable for development. 4. The first application for the approval of matters specified by condition 1 shall include provision for amenity open space, recreation and play areas suitable for the population of the new houses, with a detailed breakdown of the timeframe for their delivery. Once approved, those recreation and play areas shall be provided in line

PPA-400-2057



20

with that timeframe. The submission shall include maintenance and management details for all open spaces and play areas. Reason: to ensure that there is an adequate level of recreation/play areas and facilities for the occupants of the proposed houses. 5. All existing trees, shrubs and hedges within the site, except those whose removal or thinning is authorised by the planning authority, shall be protected from damage

during construction work. Any trees, shrubs or hedges which are damaged by construction work shall be replaced in the next planting season by a species which shall be agreed in writing by the planning authority.

Reason: to ensure the retention of existing vegetation on the development site which contributes to the character and amenity of the area. 6. All new trees, hedges and shrubs approved under the terms of condition 1(c) shall be planted in accordance with the approved implementation programme. Thereafter, any such plants which fail to survive, for whatever reason, shall be replaced in accordance with the approved maintenance programme. Reason: to ensure that the landscaping of the site is completed to an appropriate standard, and has an adequate opportunity to become established. 7. The details of the proposed development to be submitted under the terms of condition 1 shall be in accordance with the latest version of the council's Residential Design Guide and “Designing Streets”. Reason: to ensure that the development accords with relevant council and government guidance. 8. The layout of the proposed development to be submitted under the terms of

condition 1(a) shall ensure that all residential premises shall be located at a sufficient distance from the A71 to meet the appropriate noise criteria in the Noise Assessment Report (January 2015) or such further noise modelling and assessment as may be undertaken and approved by the planning authority. Unless otherwise agreed by the planning authority, no residential premises shall be occupied until the acoustic barrier approved under the terms of condition 1(f) has been constructed.

Reason: to ensure that all residential premises are adequately protected from road traffic noise. 9. The drainage assessment and strategy to be submitted under the terms of condition 1(g) shall include the following provisions:

a) treatment and attenuation of the surface water on the site in accordance with a sustainable drainage scheme (SuDS) acceptable to the Scottish Environment

Protection Agency and Scottish Water, taking account of the requirements of the SUDWP/CIRIA Design Manual for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and any additional requirements of the council;

PPA-400-2057



21

b) that, unless otherwise agreed, the scheme must ensure that the 1:100 year post-development storm is attenuated to the values associated with the 1:2 year pre-development event with sufficient on-site storage for the critical event;

c) should the developer wish any above-ground system to be adopted, details of its construction, risk assessments and confirmation that the facility can be

accessed from a public road or that a servitude right of access is otherwise included in the title;

d) that, if a wetland or open water body is proposed for the treatment and

attenuation of surface water from the site, such proposals must be accompanied by a risk assessment and the inclusion of any engineering controls that may be required arising from it;

e) details of the timescale for the implementation and maintenance arrangements

for the facility; and f) details of any temporary abatement proposed until the permanent facilities are

implemented.

No work shall commence on site until such time as the planning authority has approved in writing the details of the permanent and temporary surface water treatment and attenuation facility, the maintenance arrangements and the timescale for implementation. Within two months of the permanent facility having been installed, a design certificate must be submitted to the planning authority by a chartered civil engineer confirming whether the facility has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings. If any remedial works are required, a timescale for implementation shall be agreed in writing with the council as planning authority. Due to the heavy local soils and the poor drainage characteristics, the developer must consider carefully techniques to minimise the risk of compacting sub-soils and damaging the structure of topsoils in both gardens and open space. When it is not possible to avoid the compaction of sub-soils such as in the immediate environs of the proposed structure, the developer must ensure that all debris is removed from site and that intensive methods of soil cultivation and de-compaction are employed prior to the spreading of topsoil.

Reason: to enable full consideration to be given to those details which have yet to be submitted, in the interests of visual and environmental amenity and to reduce the risk of flooding. 10. Unless otherwise agreed by the planning authority, no residential properties on the site shall be occupied until the following measures have been completed:

a) provision of pedestrian access to the existing bus stops on the A71 through the tree belt fronting that road;

b) provision of bus shelters on the A71 for both directions as agreed with the council; c) extension of the footway on the north-west side of the A71 Wilderness roundabout

into the development site to tie in with the west footway on the access road; and

PPA-400-2057



22

d) provision of improved pedestrian crossing facilities for the A71 in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority before development commences on the site.

Reason: to ensure the provision of adequate pedestrian access and public transport facilities to serve the site. 11. The following restrictions shall apply to the construction of the development:

hours of operation any work required to implement this planning permission that is audible within any adjacent noise sensitive receptor or its curtilage shall be carried out only between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 and 1300 on a Saturday and at no time on a Sunday, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority; site compound and soil storage areas/bunds the location and dimensions of any site compounds and soil storage areas/bunds shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to works starting on site; waste effective facilities for the storage of refuse, building debris and packaging shall be provided on site. These shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to works starting on site. The facilities shall be specifically designed to prevent refuse, building debris and packaging from being blown off site. Any debris blown or spilled from the site onto surrounding land shall be cleared on a weekly basis. For the purposes of this condition, it shall be assumed that refuse, debris and packaging on surrounding land has originated from the site if it is of the same or similar character to items used or present on the site. All waste material including rubble arising from the construction works hereby approved shall be deposited in a waste disposal site or recycling facility licensed for that purpose by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; wheel cleaning all construction vehicles leaving the site shall do so in a manner that does not cause the deposition of mud or other deleterious material on surrounding roads. Such steps shall include the cleaning of the wheels and undercarriage of each vehicle where necessary and the provision of road sweeping equipment; noise any plant or equipment associated with the construction works shall be suitably silenced, screened or enclosed to meet noise rating curve NR25 when measured within the nearest receptor between the hours of 2300 and 0700 and noise rating curve NR35 between the hours of 0700 and 2300; air quality there shall be no burning of any material on the site; dust measures to control the generation and release of nuisance dust shall be

PPA-400-2057



23

implemented. These shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to works starting on site; vibration where piling or other significant vibration sources are likely during construction that may be perceptible in other premises, measures shall be implemented to monitor the degree of vibration created and to demonstrate best practice. These shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to works starting on site; pollution prevention construction works associated with the development of the site must be carried out with due regard to the following Scottish Environment Protection Agency pollution prevention guidelines: • PPG 1: General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution. • PPG 5: Works In, Near or Liable to Affect Watercourses. • PPG 6: Working at Construction and Demolition Sites.

Reason: in the interest of visual and environmental amenity and to avoid disturbance to neighbouring residents resulting from construction activities.

Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Farm... · 2015. 12. 15. · Application drawings:...

Documents

Transcript of Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Farm... · 2015. 12. 15. · Application drawings:...