First Letter of Support

This letter has been sent in to the Planning Department today. It is from Kirsty Towler who was the planning officer in Midlothian when we renovated the water tower. That wasn't a straightforward renovation with both MC and Historic Scotland included in approving the works. Hard to believe we are where we are now over development in our woodland garden. But I wonder, if we hadn't taken on the water tower, where would we all be today?

Kingsley Drinkwater
Senior Planning Officer
Midlothian Council
Planning, Development Management
Fairfield House
Dalkeith
EH22 1DN

Dear Mr Drinkwater
Planning application 10/00694/DPP
I am writing in support of the application of Gerry and Susan Goldwyre who are seeking planning permission for some decking with storage beneath, a fence with bin store, and works within the woods including steps and rails.

I have known the site for many years since 1986. I am very familiar with the area, the site history and I am fully aware of the works that have been carried out. None of the works which have been carried out are harmful or in any way detrimental to the character or appearance of the conservation area. They have no adverse impact upon amenity. At worst the works are neutral in effect. While the application may have been retrospective that fact does not make an inherently acceptable application unacceptable nor does it make unacceptable works acceptable simply because the works are there.

To my mind retrospective applications are very useful as they permit reasoned judgement of the scheme. The application seeks to retain what is there; any judgement must be less subjective than it may otherwise have been as it relies upon seeing the development.

The application concerns only a small number of relatively minor matters of very limited effect. The cottage has been approved and the formation of a garden is authorised. The cottage has given rise to a lot of good publicity for Midlothian Council. It will no doubt continue to do so, just as the Water Tower conversion brought great publicity for Midlothian.

It is not unreasonable to expect a boundary fence to be required to provide privacy while the hedge is growing within the site – the hedge is of course within the site and not outside as the misinformed objector states. The hedge will have no blocking effect on the path. The fence is wooden and untreated; it will silver in time and will be in harmony with the house. The bin store behind is not visible and not harmful in any way.

The works to stabilise the bank are necessary, as are the paths, steps and guard rails. Gerry and Susan Goldwyre have carried out an enormous amount of planting over the years they have owned the land. The land is in far better condition that it was before they acquired it. They are actively managing the woodland. No active management was previously undertaken.

The raised deck is small and made of glass and timber. It will in time become less visible as new planting takes hold in an area which has always been bare ground. They should be commended and not criticised. Their planting has been informed by professional advice and has been carried out with full agreement and knowledge of Midlothian Council’s Tree Officer. They have not removed trees other than in accordance with the woodland management plan, where they have been dead or where agreement had been obtained. They have not destroyed woodland but created it.

There has of course been erosion of the woodland. It is clear from the land owned by the Goldwyres that the discharge from the tennis court has eroded the bank and continues to do so. The impermeable surface gives rise to a problem on the bank as does the ineffectual foul sewage arrangement. The threat to the bank, its stability and the trees is clear for all to see.

I have been very conscious during the last few years of the rather hysterical and  ill-informed comments from objectors. The actual facts seem to be ignored by the objectors and they rely on surmise and innuendo. The Eskbank Amenity Society appears to have mounted a personalised and un-neighbourly campaign which deviates from planning policy. The campaign appears from my position to be motivated by malice rather than any other motive. The EAS appears to want to revisit an approved permission for a house that has already been granted and implemented. That cannot be done. The matter of the sale of the land is not a planning concern and it is wholly inappropriate for the EAS (or anyone else for that matter) to introduce such matters as the Society has previously done in a lengthy letter submitted to Midlothian Council last year. My personal view is that the EAS appears to have lost sight of the issues, has singularly failed to be objective and is apparently being used as a tool by post holders to mount a shabby smear campaign against
neighbours. It is of course only the planning matters that should be considered and only the merits of the proposals which form the current application.

Before the Council now are only those small matters which are the subject of the planning application. The Council is not considering creeping development along the bank of the river, it is considering some minor developments which elsewhere would be considered to be permitted development. The Council has approved fences in the Conservation Area previously; in fact the Council has approved some fences which are far more strident in terms of their effect. Decks have been approved elsewhere in the Conservation Area and as to path and steps the Council itself has formed such paths and steps elsewhere along the public rights of ways and paths within the Conservation Area.

The application should be approved.

To do otherwise would be unreasonable.

Yours sincerely


Kirsty E Towler
MA Hons., M Phil., Dip Urban Design, MRTPI