Latest news with #DevelopmentManagementCommittee
Edinburgh Reporter
14 hours ago
- Business
- Edinburgh Reporter
Councillors reject holiday cabins for second time
Plans to create a holiday site on the fringe of the Pentland Hills have been thrown out for a second time this year Lucy Crombie lodged an application to build 20 wooden holiday lodges on a site known as the Paddocks. The area of open countryside borders Leyden Road, a narrow, winding rural road bounded by open farmland and woodlands which climbs from Kirknewton up to the main A70 road which skirts the Pentland Hills regional park. The same application was rejected by the Development Management Committee in January last year and an appeal later dismissed by the Local Review Body. One objector called for the council to refuse to decide on the latest filing of the proposals saying they had not changed since the council rejected the same plans last year. And a lawyer suggested the proposal may have come back 'to wear down' resistance. Planning officers said the applicant had now supplied supplementary reports which validated councillors hearing the plans again. The latest application attracted 22 objections including one from the local community council and a neighbour Juliet Bentley who lives in the B- listed Ormiston Castle immediately adjacent to the site. Ewan MacLeod of legal firm Shepherd and Wedderburn, acting as agents for Ms Bentley told councillors: 'Both we and our client are surprised that the application has been made to the council. It is identical in all material respects to [the previous] application. 'The application has clearly been submitted within the 5-year window and there has been no change in the development plan or in any other material consideration. The council must therefore consider whether to exercise its discretion to refuse to determine the application.' In its written objection the firm said, ' [the] applicant's failure to address the well-founded planning issues raised by local residents and the council's reasons for refusal, we submit that it would be irrational for the council to determine the application.' Mr MacLeod said that if the application was refused ' the applicant can appeal to Scottish ministers and an unelected Scottish Government official can then take a decision which may overturn the democratic will of this committee… If you decline to determine the application the applicant has no appeal.' He said such a decision would also save the council the expenses of defending its decision at an appeal. An agent for the applicant denied planner's criticism of the proposals being 'too urban' in appearance, saying that the cabins on the site occupied less than a third of the area. Suggestions that the site would be too visible on the landscape were also questioned. He added that his client was prepared to explore road widening and passing spaces outlined in concerns highlighted by the planners. Planners outlined their objections stating: 'The proposals for the holiday chalets at this location would create a sense of urbanisation within a countryside setting. The Roads Officer would require works to be undertaken in order to improve road safety, including access works, road widening works at five points on the public road and application of a speed limit, to support the proposals. 'Mitigation measures can potentially address road safety concerns (although it is unclear if this will require agreement with third party landowners in respect of road widening works)' Councillor Damian Doran-Timson asked planning officers what had changed in the plans since they were rejected by the LRB in August last year. Planning officer Gillian Cyphus said there had been a lack of information when the proposals had gone to the review body; the slight change now was that drainage reports had been made available. That was why planners had recommended the proposals come before councillors for determination, with the recommendation for refusal. Councillor Pauline Clark said: 'I think we should be encouraging tourists to come here. However, I do think access is a big problem. I think the lack of being able to walk to the train station is a problem. I don't know if paths are something that could be sorted. It's major stumbling block She defended the planning appeal procedures of the Scottish Government as democratic. Councillor Doran-Timson agreed with her objections: He said ' We need to do more for tourism and economic development has been a failure, but I think the amount of non-conformities we have with the application, not just the paths there's a number of different issues that have me going toward officers' recommendations.' He added: 'Unlike Councillor Clark I share Mr MacLeods concerns about the Scottish Reporter overturns in recent years in West Lothian.' Councillor Pauline Stafford said she had concerns about families with children walking the main road to Kirknewton. 'The nature of the site would encourage people to drive to and from it,' she added. Councillor Willie Boyle said: 'My concern is that this looks like a caravan holiday park rather than holiday cabins you see in rural areas.I think the design is wrong. Councillor Doran Timson's motion to refuse planning permission was backed by Willie Boyle. By Stuart Sommerville, Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
Edinburgh Live
19 hours ago
- Business
- Edinburgh Live
Plans to create 'holiday village' near Edinburgh Pentland Hills refused by council
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Plans to create a holiday site on the fringe of the Pentland Hills have been thrown out for a second time this year Lucy Crombie lodged an application to build 20 wooden holiday lodges on a site known as the Paddocks. The area of open countryside borders Leyden Road, a narrow, winding rural road bounded by open farmland and woodlands which climbs from Kirknewton up to the main A70 road which skirts the Pentland Hills regional park. The same application was rejected by the Development Management Committee in January last year and an appeal later dismissed by the Local Review Body. One objector called for the council to refuse to decide on the latest filing of the proposals saying they had not changed since the council rejected the same plans last year. And a lawyer suggested the proposal may have come back "to wear down" resistance. Planning officers said the applicant had now supplied supplementary reports which validated councillors hearing the plans again. The latest application attracted 22 objections including one from the local community council and a neighbour Juliet Bentley who lives in the B- listed Ormiston Castle immediately adjacent to the site. (Image: West Lothian Council) Ewan MacLeod of legal firm Shepherd and Wedderburn, acting as agents for Ms Bentley told councillors: 'Both we and our client are surprised that the application has been made to the council. It is identical in all material respects to [the previous] application. 'The application has clearly been submitted within the 5 year window and there has been no change in the development plan or in any other material consideration. The council must therefore consider whether to exercise its discretion to refuse to determine the application.' In its written objection the firm said ' [the] applicant's failure to address the well-founded planning issues raised by local residents and the council's reasons for refusal, we submit that it would be irrational for the council to determine the application.' Mr MacLeod said that if the application was refused ' the applicant can appeal to Scottish ministers and an unelected Scottish Government official can then take a decision which may overturn the democratic will of this committee… If you decline to determine the application the applicant has no appeal.' He said such a decision would also save the council the expenses of defending its decision at an appeal. An agent for the applicant denied planner's criticism of the proposals being "too urban" in appearance, saying that the cabins on the site occupied less than a third of the area. Suggestions that the site would be too visible on the landscape were also questioned. He added that his client was prepared to explore road widening and passing spaces outlined in concerns highlighted by the planners. Planners outlined their objections stating: 'The proposals for the holiday chalets at this location would create a sense of urbanisation within a countryside setting. The Roads Officer would require works to be undertaken in order to improve road safety, including access works, road widening works at five points on the public road and application of a speed limit, to support the proposals. 'Mitigation measures can potentially address road safety concerns (although it is unclear if this will require agreement with third party landowners in respect of road widening works)' Councillor Damian Doran-Timson asked planning officers what had changed in the plans since they were rejected by the LRB in August last year. Planning officer Gillian Cyphus said there had been a lack of information when the proposals had gone to the review body; the slight change now was that drainage reports had been made available. That was why planners had recommended the proposals come before councillors for determination, with the recommendation for refusal. Councillor Pauline Clark said: 'I think we should be encouraging tourists to come here. However I do think access is a big problem. I think the lack of being able to walk to the train station is a problem. I don't know if paths are something that could be sorted. It's major stumbling block She defended the planning appeal procedures of the Scottish Government as democratic. Councillor Doran-Timson agreed with her objections: He said ' We need to do more for tourism and economic development has been a failure, but I think the amount of non conformities we have with the application, not just the paths there's a number of different issues that have me going toward officers' recommendations.' He added: 'Unlike Councillor Clark I share Mr MacLeods concerns about the Scottish Reporter overturns in recent years in West Lothian.' Councillor Pauline Stafford said she had concerns about families with children walking the main road to Kirknewton. 'The nature of the site would encourage people to drive to and from it,' she added. Councillor Willie Boyle said: 'My concern is that this looks like a caravan holiday park rather than holiday cabins you see in rural areas. I think the design is wrong. Councillor Doran Timson's motion to refuse planning permission was backed by Willie Boyle.
Daily Record
21 hours ago
- General
- Daily Record
West Lothian lime trees in historic street saved from the chop
West Lothian Council's Development Management Committee was asked to decide on whether to support the TPO that was imposed in March. A row of lime trees in a historic West Lothian street have been protected by a Tree Preservation Order in a dispute of demand for felling. West Lothian Council's Development Management Committee was asked to decide on whether to support the TPO that was imposed in March. Without councillors backing the TPO would have lapsed in September which could have seen up to six of a line of 10 lime trees in Provost Road, Linlithgow, fall to the axe. A planning officer told the DMC: 'The site is located within the Linlithgow Palace & High Street Conservation Area, and as such, all proposed tree works within this area, first requires notification to be submitted to the council.' A tree works consent notification for the felling of six lime trees at 7 Provost Road, Linlithgow was received on the 13th February 2025. The notification was for the removal of the six trees in settlement of a legal action. A report to the DMC added: 'During assessment of the notification, a visual assessment of the trees was undertaken along with a Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) assessment. The TEMPO assessment was completed by the council's Arborist and it was determined that the trees subject to the notification, and an additional four others, were found to 'Definitely merit TPO', this was further supported by the visual assessment carried out. 'As a result of this, Tree Preservation Order (No. 1) 2025, 7 Provost Road, Linlithgow was made on the 27th March 2025. The order covers ten Common Limes which form part of a lime tree feature, at the heart of east Linlithgow's historic centre, requiring to be protected due to amenity and contribution to local landscape, which adds to the wooded character and setting of local paths, roads and public realm.' Legal action is ongoing and a separate issue to the confirmation of the TPO, the committee heard. Councillors heard there was one objection to the TPO from a neighbour who claimed that the trees were damaging property. The owners of the trees had applied to the council for a felling licence which prompted the move to the TPO. Councillors heard that the trees were in good condition 'were safe, and in good health despite previous pollard, and without major defect.' The report added: 'The avenue of limes at the site, is a landscape feature of the local neighbourhood, and forms part of the wooded character of this part of Linlithgow. The trees are highly visible from local footpaths, and roads as they take advantage of the rising gradient. 'The lime trees have been previously pollarded and crown lifted, with the epicormic growth managed. In general, Limes are long-lived trees and there is little evidence to suggest the previous works to the trees have been detrimental to the tree health and vitality. 'The objection received relates mostly to the ongoing court action between no.7 and 11 Provost Road. The court action is a separate legal matter that does not form part of the assessment when determining the notification on whether these trees were worthy of a TPO.' It concluded: 'It was considered expedient in the interests of amenity to make the TPO in order to protect these 10 lime trees. It is recommended that this TPO be confirmed without modifications.' The committee agreed to confirm the TPO with question or comment.
Edinburgh Live
2 days ago
- General
- Edinburgh Live
West Lothian lime trees in historic street saved from the chop
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info A row of lime trees in a historic West Lothian street have been protected by a Tree Preservation Order in a dispute of demand for felling. West Lothian Council's Development Management Committee was asked to decide on whether to support the TPO that was imposed in March. Without councillors backing the TPO would have lapsed in September which could have seen up to six of a line of 10 lime trees in Provost Road, Linlithgow, fall to the axe. READ MORE: West Lothian disabled veterans facing eviction 'must be offered new homes' A planning officer told the DMC: 'The site is located within the Linlithgow Palace & High Street Conservation Area, and as such, all proposed tree works within this area, first requires notification to be submitted to the council.' A tree works consent notification for the felling of six lime trees at 7 Provost Road, Linlithgow was received on the 13th February 2025. The notification was for the removal of the six trees in settlement of a legal action. A report to the DMC added: 'During assessment of the notification, a visual assessment of the trees was undertaken along with a Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) assessment. The TEMPO assessment was completed by the council's Arborist and it was determined that the trees subject to the notification, and an additional four others, were found to 'Definitely merit TPO', this was further supported by the visual assessment carried out. 'As a result of this, Tree Preservation Order (No. 1) 2025, 7 Provost Road, Linlithgow was made on the 27th March 2025. The order covers ten Common Limes which form part of a lime tree feature, at the heart of east Linlithgow's historic centre, requiring to be protected due to amenity and contribution to local landscape, which adds to the wooded character and setting of local paths, roads and public realm.' Legal action is ongoing and a separate issue to the confirmation of the TPO, the committee heard. Councillors heard there was one objection to the TPO from a neighbour who claimed that the trees were damaging property. The owners of the trees had applied to the council for a felling licence which prompted the move to the TPO. Councillors heard that the trees were in good condition 'were safe, and in good health despite previous pollard, and without major defect.' The report added: 'The avenue of limes at the site, is a landscape feature of the local neighbourhood, and forms part of the wooded character of this part of Linlithgow. The trees are highly visible from local footpaths, and roads as they take advantage of the rising gradient. 'The lime trees have been previously pollarded and crown lifted, with the epicormic growth managed. In general, Limes are long-lived trees and there is little evidence to suggest the previous works to the trees have been detrimental to the tree health and vitality. 'The objection received relates mostly to the ongoing court action between no.7 and 11 Provost Road. The court action is a separate legal matter that does not form part of the assessment when determining the notification on whether these trees were worthy of a TPO.' It concluded: 'It was considered expedient in the interests of amenity to make the TPO in order to protect these 10 lime trees. It is recommended that this TPO be confirmed without modifications.' The committee agreed to confirm the TPO with question or comment.
Edinburgh Live
24-04-2025
- Edinburgh Live
Furious West Lothian home owner ordered to tear down fence protecting her home
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info A Livingston woman has vowed to fight on against an order by councillors to tear down a fence she put up to protect her garden. Dawn Gardner accused West Lothian Council's Development Management Committee of 'bullying' behaviour, and of ignoring a decision by Scottish ministers, which agreed the land belonged to her. Mrs Gardener partially won an appeal to the Scottish Government last year and had to retrospectively apply for new permission to keep the fence. She told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that the fence had been put up to stop persistent dog fouling and littering over the area of land beside her home. The corner site is in her title deeds and she has to maintain it, as did the previous owner of the house in Waverley Crescent. Before the fence was put up the land was frequently used as a shortcut by some, and the last straw for Mrs Gardner was seeing drunks urinating against a garden wall just feet from her back door. Mrs Gardner paid thousands of pounds to have the area fenced off to create more privacy around her home. While most of the fence is low enough to be allowed as permitted development one section is just a few inches above the height permitted. Council planning officers told a meeting of the DMC that, while they did not fully agree with the Scottish Government's Reporter's partial upholding of the appeal, they did recommend retrospective planning permission for the fence along with planning permission to build a double garage within the garden of the house be approved. Eliburn Community Council complained last year about the enclosure of open space and it reiterated that when Steve Egan appeared before the committee. He said: 'The community council's objection was to the loss of open space. Why have stated policies and not follow them. The officer's report is wholly silent on this.' An agent for Mrs Gardner said Mr Egan had an 'unhealthy obsession' with the issue of open space around Mrs Gardner's home, adding she had fenced in land she owned to protect her home against criminal behaviour. However, councillors did not not like the fence. Councillor George Paul said 'the quality of finish is very poor. I don't think it's very aesthetic to the area.' Councillor Pauline Stafford said: 'It appears that the fence is in breach of planning legislation; the height of the fence detracts from the streetscape which most other properties have quite an open aspect.' Chairing the meeting, Councillor Tony Boyle said the fence was ' really intrusive'. He added: 'I note there are no objections from neighbouring householders but that's beside the point.' Having sought clarification from planning and legal officers, the DMC agreed to grant permission for the garage but refused permission for the fence. After the meeting a furious Mrs Gardner told the LDRS: ' A new appeal goes in tomorrow.' She added: 'The councillors took no notice of what the Scottish ministers said. They didn't even listen to the planning officer.' Referring to the councillors she said: 'They were making really personal remarks. Some of the comments were very personal. There's nothing wrong with the fence. 'I thought it was bullying. There was not one decision based on fact; it was all personal opinion they didn't even look at what the ministers said. Mrs Gardner said she had the support of surrounding neighbours who have told her the fence is better than the unkempt open ground there previously. As for the objection, 'Eliburn Community council didn't even discuss it, it was never on their agenda,' she added.
