This blog entry today is only for those interested in our planning appeal. All other woodland lovers - don't bother reading this.
As I said before I like planning and now it is even appealing. I might change my mind on that in the next few weeks as Gerry and I work our way through the planning appeal system with the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA).
So far we have lodged our electronic documents which were pretty substantial. We actually took a trip to Falkirk to hand them in directly and have them checked. First hiccup thereafter when we read the e mails to ourselves and to Midlothian Council; we were responsible for handing over the same information to the council. I thought the DPEA would have done that. What if we gave slightly different information to both? Who would check? Told you, I was a Quality Assurance person and electronic documentation was a significant part of my job. However the main “corruption” I came across in electronic documents was no more than page numbering due to differences between PC’s settings for word processing. Margins, styles, headers and footers, even printer settings. All can affect the document. The content however should remain the same.
So now, 1 week on, the DPEA have not yet uploaded the files to their site but Midlothian Council completed the exercise yesterday. It’s all there you just have to work out which document you might want to read and that could be a challenge. Second last document is the one you will be after. But....if you want to check the referenced photograph in the text you will need to go to section 7 for the list of photographs, check the group name and then use trial and error to find the linked document with the photographs. I doubt there was an easier way to do this on our part and certainly nothing the council could do to make it any easier either – so don’t go moaning to them.Gerry and I prepared a detailed appeal document. Why wouldn’t we? After all that has been said about us we went to town so to speak. It’s all in there. We have some old photogrpahs which I'll blog next time for posterity. Its nice to see the old woodland ground and see the changes over 10 or more years.
So here are some of the documents from the appeal, but just beware, I have no idea if this blog site might corrupt the content. My QA experience didn’t stray into validating blog site reproductions of SOPs but I’m sure anyone with a real interest will want to check all the sites of the registered information just to be sure anyway. Compare and contrast is I think the term best used to describe the painful exercise.Appeal Dossier
Index
Planning Application 10/00694/DPP|Erection of timber decking with storage beneath, erection of boundary fence incorporating a bin store, works to stabilise banking, alterations to path, formation of woodland access steps, and erection of associated guard rails (retrospective)|RP9 The Water Tower Cemetery Road Dalkeith Midlothian EH22 3DL
| Section | Description |
| 1. | Letter refusing planning permission |
| 2. | Statement for a Householder Application for Planning Permission Reference No 10/00694/DPP |
| 3. | Support Statements by Policy Reference. 3.1 Midlothian Local Plan Policies RP6 and RP7 3.2 Midlothian Local Plan Policy RP9 3.3 Midlothian Local Plan Policies RP20 and RP22 |
| 4. | Matters Raised By Objectors (considered by the planning authority) |
| 5. 5 (a) | Planning Authority Report and Conditions. Corrections requested by applicants to report. |
| 6. | Development Time Line 1987 – 2011 for Property at Cemetery Road |
| 7. | Photographs |
| Appendix I | Correspondence with Planning Authority Regarding bank stabilisation |
| Appendix II | Water Tower Wood Management Plans 2000 and 2011 |
| Appendix III | Original Application Form For Retrospective Works |
| Appendix IV | Costs Claim |
| Appendix V | Site Plan |
Statement for a Householder Application for Planning Permission Reference No 10/00694/DPP
| Replacement Timber Decking with Store beneath |
| 1. History of Construction. |
| Foundations The foundations of this structure were positioned in Nov 2008. The ground foundation pads are the same as the adjacent house foundation pads, and were deliberately placed for validation purposes. Building Control were not familiar with the foundation system and this test was used to demonstrate the capabilities of the foundation pads prior to the house build. The pads are situated close to the stump of a large Ash tree which produces growth. The ability to dig and construct in and around tree roots was tested by the placement of the pads. The adjacent house was built very close to 3 mature trees and this fairly novel construction method was chosen to protect the tree roots. The test of the foundation pads and the eventual house build was successful and no trees have been impacted by the house build Uprights and Decking Having placed foundation pads in a test area it was decided to use this for the creation of a storage platform. Uprights and decking were added in Jan 2009 in readiness for use as a holding platform and storage area for materials reclaimed from the demolished gazebo and materials for the new house build. The site of this storage platform (let’s call it B) was immediately adjacent to an existing sitting out area/storage space (let’s call this A) Cladding under Decking During the house build project the stored materials on B were covered with tarpaulin. This elicited complaints as the bright blue tarpaulin and the materials stored under B could be viewed from the park. The sides of B were therefore then clad in seasoned timbers to reduce the visual impact. The tarpaulin was replaced with a dark green cover. This was around Nov 2009. Supports and Glazing At the end of the house build project another unsubstantiated complaint about tree felling resulted in a planning enforcement officer writing to say that B was time barred from the requirement for planning permission. This was a mistake by the planning officer who had confused A with B. On the receipt of this letter, A was demolished (it was in a poor state of repair) and timber supports and a low impact safety glass screen was added to B. These are consistent with the decking around the house. This was in May 2010. Hence storage platform B became a replacement for the previous sitting out area/store A and hence why planning permission was sought as retrospective. |
| Replacement Timber Decking with Store beneath cont’ |
| 2. Impact |
| Visibility B is no bigger than a garden shed and is much more pleasing to the eye than a garden shed. It is not separate to the house and its design links with the house presenting a unified appearance with the house. B and the house can be viewed from Ironmills Park at a distance of around 100 metres away and further afield at a very narrow angle, about 10 degrees. The item most visible from the park is the water tower. If someone is deliberately trying to view B on its own then a narrow wedge of the Park would need to be selected to seek out a full view. Even then it would only be in the months when the trees have no leaf cover as a large portion of B is essentially hidden from visibility at all other times. Tree planting in the area immediately below the structure will in time further reduce any potential visual impact, although the visual impact is not considered to be un desirable as B is not an unattractive addition to the landscape. Impact of Tennis Club Fence Behind B There is and always has been an impact from the fence behind B. This fence is corrugated metal and was clad with timber by the applicant in 2009. This has planning permission. At the planning committee meeting the fence at the tennis club was raised as if it was part of the application. It was stated that there were no trees in the area of the tennis club fence, which is not true. The tennis club fence is out with the control of the applicant but the timber cladding added with planning permission does hide the rusting metal behind it and mature trees next to the fence have all been retained. There has been judicial thinning of trees in this area which was fully approved by the council tree officer and was carried out to allow semi mature trees to develop fully i.e. consistent with regular woodland management. Statistics – Volume in comparison to associated house. Volume - B has a volume of around 1.3% of the volume of the approved house. Footprint – B has a footprint of around 8.6% of the footprint of the approved house. By comparison, the previous sitting out area/store A with a length of paving slabs, railway sleeper wall and burning box behind (all removed) would have occupied around 20%, hence there has been an overall reduction in ancillary structures, removing structures that were time barred for planning approval with a reduced and more woodland sympathetic single item. Planning Procedures The original application for these works was described by the applicant as “replacement of temporary store to permanent store with glass protection rail”. No decking was added to the original decked construction used for temporary storage despite the planning enforcement officer stating that decking was being added in the letter instructing that B was time barred for planning approval. Only a glazed screen and supports were added. |
Timber Decking with Store beneath cont’
| B is used in association with the adjacent house being located in the curtilage of the previous Gazebo and now dwelling house. It is used to store mainly the plastic planter covers used for tree and shrub protection of new planting on the slope below along with associated woodland maintenance tools. The top decking is used as an occasional sitting out from early evening onwards in the summer months, having a table and chairs and a small chiminea for recreational use. A group of singers from the Oxford Gargoyles company stood on the platform at a party last August. This activity has been used by complainers to attempt to state that this platform has some sort of business use and that the platform is being used for concerts. Whilst people are entitled to an opinion, it is clear to ourselves that the complaints about this platform have lurched from the sublime to the ridiculous. |
Photographs
A1, A2 and A3 - Previous sitting out area A and associated items. At construction in year 2000 and after.
B1 Timber storage platform during house build.
C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 Replacement sitting out area/store B
Boundary Fence (Incorporating Bin Store)
| This stepped boundary fence was constructed to replace an existing stepped wooden fence of the same overall dimensions and made from the same material. However, the width of the fence timbers is different and deliberately so, in order to unify the boundary with the approved building’s timber cladding on the house. The wood on both the house and the fence is locally sourced Scots Pine. The fence has no direct impact on the park below and does not restrict the view of the park from the top of the steps as the same view may be taken at the end of the fence line. The bin store was never applied for and this was added to the application by the planning officer. The planning officer never advised the need to add the area of the fencing that was used to create a bin store until a complainer raised the issue. Complaints have suggested that this bin store is large enough to be a small garage which is clearly mis guided, especially when the power line cable stays cut through the centre. What was constructed when the fence was being replaced was a wooden extension to the fence to disguise the ugly power cable stays and to create a solid surface, part covered, which is now utilised to store bins, logs and garden essentials. More than half the structure has become a log store. It is not a small garage. In the history of the applications for a house build on this site the person complaining that it could be a small garage had stated in 1994 that any house build on the site would become car parking for the water tower restaurant. This highlights the extent of the hysterical angst. |
Photographs
D 1 and D2 old and new fences
Path Broadening (Works To Stabilise Bank)
| This is no more than path widening, carried out by triangulating between 2 existing tree stumps reusing seasoned recycled timbers from the previous gazebo. The triangulated section was then screened using more seasoned recycled wood cladding from the gazebo creating a ventilated and open structure with a vertical surface. The path widening is essential for the safe passage at a very narrow point, caused by the unauthorised run off from the adjoining tennis club. A timber guard rail is in place as the drop at that point is about 20m. There are no engineering works in this structure. There is no back-fill. It is a cosmetic screen designed specifically to lessen the impact of a scar in the woodland caused by the runoff from the adjoining tennis club over whom we have no control. This area was noted in the woodland management plan (2000) as being at risk due to erosion from water run-off and the lack of light preventing good undergrowth and ground cover. The path was becoming narrowed at this point. We have continued to try to resolve the root cause of the water erosion problem with the tennis club. We have felled two trees in order to get light into the area of erosion. It is evident this year that this course of action has been effective as the ground cover is almost complete. We envisage this will continue to aid the long term plans to enhance this area of the woodland. Midlothian Council sold the liability of the ground to the applicant who is now liable for its upkeep and this area of path erosion has existed for many years prior to the purchase of the ground. Had a maintenance programme not be undertaken it is highly likely that this path would have been lost isolating this ground for any future access of any kind and bringing risk to the tennis courts above. Midlothian Council made no efforts to address this problem and the ground sale was most likely a way to resolve the difficulty for the council to mitigate the risk to the public who used this path as a short cut in the past, even after the council erected fences and “danger” signs to prevent public access. |
Woodland Access Steps and Associated Guard Rails
| Steps have been constructed using waste wood materials from the deconstructed gazebo. They have been placed into the slope of the woodland bank for safe access. They are similar to steps put in by Midlothian Council in woodlands in Midlothian. These are minor works that are impossible to view in the months when the trees have full leaf cover. In the other months the steps in the ground cannot be seen apart from the odd raised edge, but the timber guard rails can be picked out. The top rail of the hand rail is due to be replaced with more attractive natural wooden poles instead of straight cut timbers. Further steps are required to complete these works and are indicated on the plan for retrospective application and have been included in this submission. The ground is difficult to access, especially for tree management. Steps simply cut into the soil suffice for a short time but more solid steps using natural materials will provide for access for some time. With woodland works of this nature it is easier to work with the land rather than plan exact works. Where tree stumps are available for fixings these are used, where there are flat areas these are traversed with simple boards. Where there is an area of steep slope more robust steps are used. Some are filled with wood chip, some are not. Once constructed the woodland soil and ground cover smothers the edges blurring the appearance of man-made steps. These steps have been assessed in the 2011 woodland management plan as being sympathetic to the woodland setting. |
Summary
This planning application came about from the need to capture elements that were replacements for similar elements that existed for 11 years on this site. The application was retrospective for good reason and not a deliberate ploy to build and then seek permission.
No councillors visited the applicants or the site prior to the planning committee meeting. Despite a campaign by a few local individuals to obtain letters of objection and to lobby every councillor in Midlothian, by letter, e mail and at surgery meetings; resulting in highly emotive issues regarding trees and the woodland being aired and reported that were factually incorrect.
The applicants believe that all of the items listed for planning approval would be acceptable in planning terms and were of a sufficiently high quality in design and materials that planning permission might have been expected to be considered under delegated powers. The application was scheduled for full committee.
The planning officer recommended approval. The decision of the planning committee was to refuse with a narrow vote of 8 against approval and 6 for approval. Two people declared an interest and did not vote.
The planning committee discussion and vote took around 35 minutes to complete. Major applications in Midlothian for housing developments often take much less time. (Mrs Goldwyre attends planning committee meetings now on a regular basis).
The refusal letter bears reference to planning policies which do not align with the discussion at the planning meeting. Two councillors who spoke at the meeting were both advised that the questions and statements that they were making were “not technically part of this application” and a councillor was advised by the chairman “I have given you an amount of leeway but this last (discussion) is a land issue” “It’s a separate thing altogether”.
One councillor substantially misled the meeting by the arguments centred on an issue of “bank stabilisation”. This may not be so surprising since the planning authority had amended the title of the application to include these words without our permission and with our concerns about using these words. So much so that Mr Goldwyre e mailed in January and wrote formally in confidence in February to the planning officer requesting these words be removed and if not, to make sure that anyone with an interest in determining the application be advised that this description of “bank stabilisation” was inaccurate. See appendix 1 which documents the history of these communications.
The day after the application was refused, Mrs Goldwyre wrote to councillor Mr Craig Statham who led the comments about bank stabilisation. Mr Statham then e mailed the tree officer to ask her advice on the matter i.e. AFTER the planning meeting. It is clear that this councillor had not been advised as requested that bank stabilisation was not an accurate description of what was applied for. It is clear that this councillor did not understand the woodland management plan nor had he attempted to understand the plan, and after being misled by a title stating “bank stabilisation”, sought to take the appearance of some insignificant lengths of wood lying on the slope, a self seeded tree of some 4 feet growing at right angles on the top of the steepest part of the bank and 2 or 3 protective covers lying horizontally, as an indication that a bank had not been stabilised and to use this as an argument that the works being applied for were the cause of this perceived de stabilisation.
The planning officer has communicated with Mr Goldwyre since the planning meeting to advise that he did not act on the request of Mr Goldwyre in January and February, confirming that the councillors had not been advised.
The planning officer had made this statement in his communication to Mr Goldwyre
Gerry,
I have done that now. my apologies for the delay.
I have found the attached note which I came across. Also, I had initially taken it upon myself to change the description, but one of the objectors subsequently complained about the description being changed (see attached correspondence). I was later advised that it should revert back to its original registered description, which I then did.
The members were not directly advised of your concerns with the description. The report however does clearly explain what is proposed, as does your own supporting statement. As had been advised to you earlier, the description in the title was an attempt to simplify the description of the proposed works.
regards
Kingsley
From:KingsleyDrinkwater<Kingsley.Drinkwater@midlothian.gov.uk>To:susangoldwyre <susangoldwyre@yahoo.co.uk>Sent:Wed,16February,201111:53:50
This e mail sent to Mrs Goldwyre from the planning officer in response to another issue (complainants stating that the house did not have planning approval).
Subject: RE: Small Thing
Susan,
Thank you. I appreciate that all sorts of issues may be getting aired, but I am trying to focus simply on the few items that you have applied for in your planning application. I shall also be making it extremely clear as to what the works to the path are despite the arguable description in the title of the application.
Therefore, despite the professionals taking the view that their report would be understood despite the description in the title, this was not the case and what was considered to be de stabilisation of the bank was assumed to be due to the works being applied for.
2 months after the committee meeting, councillor Statham has visited the site on 14/6/11 to learn the facts of the steep bank topography and the issues with the lack of underground drainage at the adjacent tennis club ground (in an effort to pursue some action for the long term benefit). In asking Mr Statham on 14/6 what was actually applied for at the planning meeting on 12/4, Mr Statham was unable to remember what the planning application was actually for.
After councillor Statham spoke at the meeting, councillor Boyes then put forward issues relating to land ownership and conservation burdens set under the feudal system. These issues were aired not only once, but again, after being alerted by the chairman that they were not planning matters. These non-planning matters were aired for some 20 minutes out of a 35 minute planning meeting.
Mr Boyes told the committee meeting that the applicant “had been getting away with it for 10 years” but did not explain and had no justification for this comment. He was advised that works in the woodland had been overseen by the council’s tree officer who was described by the chairman as something of a “rotweiler” when it came to tree felling permissions. Mr Boyes stated he had met her twice and found her to more of a pussy cat, inferring that she lacked rigour in her professional capacity. Mr Boyes raised issues regarding tree works and the woodland appearance and its impact to the AGLV, he stated that land had been applied for engineering works when no such application was made and he stated that no fences, walls or buildings were to be built on the site to the west of the house (from a feu title restriction) when no such works were applied for and where the feu title restrictions are known not to be relevant to planning.
Mr Boyes peppered his reasoning to the committee in an incoherent manner with reference to planning policies RP9, RP20, RP22 but never providing constructive arguments to support any breach of the policies. He certainly never even attempted to explain the meaning of RP9 and raised no points relevant to non compliance with a specific locational need, clearly having no argument to put forward. His arguments were pinned to the idea that the applicants had been “getting away with not seeking planning approval for 10 years” and had been told “planning permission required, planning permission required” with no justification for making these remarks. We as applicants have renovated a water tower, upgraded a cemetery lodge cottage adding an extension to the most ugly flat box extension built by the council, built a gazebo, demolished a gazebo and built an award winning designer of the year Eco house – all with full planning permission. Why would we avoid applying for planning permission for garden items?
Complaints From External Parties
It is appreciated that the matters documented here may not be relevant to planning. However, in light of the committee meeting deviation from planning matters it is considered relevant to document some of the history of the complaints from external parties.
In the course of building a house many complaints were received from a few people mostly in the local area. The complaints began in earnest with concern over 6 small trees felled to move a power line when the tree removals were all legitimate and the works being carried out were for the long term common good. These tree removals were by Scottish Power but complainants wanted to believe they were the actions of the applicants or only made possible by the applicants because they had built a house. The complainants at this stage came to the Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council to voice their concerns and were given clear sight of approvals and were given no community council support to their concerns. They then teamed up with the local Amenity Society to mount a campaign to look for any possible justifiable reason to complain about the condition of the woodland and to hijack the woodland management as a reason to complain against any other works in the vicinity of the house on the application site which had full planning permission.
The complainants produced concerns about trees being cut down and loss of biodiversity, time and time again. One councillor stated “death by a thousand cuts” at the planning meeting restating the suggestion that trees had been felled to damage the woodland. Trees are an emotive subject and woodland management is not always understood. Mrs Goldwyre therefore set up a blog site at this time to document fact from fiction. http://watertowerwood.blogspot.com/
The Dalkeith Community Council did not object to this application nor the nearby house application which was approved. The Eskbank and Newbattle Community Council (ENCC) did not object to this application nor the nearby house application which was approved. As Mrs Goldwyre is a committee member of the ENCC it was considered not a good idea to press this community council for a view, however, the chair of the ENCC stated in an e mail;
Having undertaken a site visit and viewed the structures I doubt that there are any grounds for ENCC to object to your retrospective application.
The application exceeded (doubled) the target time of 56 days to assess any application and this may have been due to the actions of complainants who requested the following.
· Withdrawal of the application for the perceived complexity of the plan. It took some time to advise this complainant that a plan was not necessary.
· Withdrawal of the application was requested again, this time because the number of photographs and their water-markings were deemed by complainants as excessive and concealing. Despite the planning officer including his own photographs suitably annotated and able to be viewed with ease.
· The approved decking to the house was queried and an asked to be included in the application or submitted as another application in an attempt by a complainant to substantiate claims of “creeping development” when a few extra decking boards had been added to maintain the aesthetics of a house build which was designed to work with the land to primarily protect 3 mature trees on the site.
· Withdrawal and re submission were requested to show the history of the previous garden works on the site from 11 years ago as a “compare and contrast” exercise.
· The bin store was queried and the planning officer was asked to include this in the application despite not requesting this at the outset.
The planning authority went on to add the bin store to the application and to wrongly describe the path broadening works as bank stabilisation. A minor anomaly in the decking was approved as non-material.
The complainants appeared to us to want to take the place of the local authority in assessing the application i.e. acting as a pseudo planning authority, directing the planning department to make amendments in the hope of having the application withdrawn and re submitted to accord with their view of the planning system. The Amenity Society who complained is chaired by a retired planning employee of Edinburgh Council.
Some complainants went as far as to state that the house did not have planning permission when it was clear that it did. This statement appears on a planning web site for anyone to read and believe to be true. It seems to us to be potentially libellous.
An FOI request to the council revealed communications regarding the ground and the applicant indicating that there had been local neighbourhood collusion where one neighbour’s daughter wrote to state that a previous house extension had been carried out without planning permission some years ago and this typified our actions. This slanderous accusation was then repeated by another complainant who was more than capable of checking this fact as a regular caller to the planning department for information.
Other organisations such as the Esk Valley Trust, who’s board member sits on the Amenity Society committee, turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to requests to see and hear another side of the argument after stating that the history of the site made “depressing reading”. The EVT have an interest in preserving the Esk Valley from development and so do we. They have never applied any reasoned argument for their objection to the structures applied for. Their view of the woodland is blinded by expectation of consistency with other parts of the Esk valley rather than what has always been on this site and what is being done to improve it. Despite a 1970’s photograph showing substantial bare areas with no trees at this time and well recognised facts about the condition of this land. Also with an understanding of woodland management themselves as an organisation who has taken over an area of woodland called Hewan Wood in Midlothian where they have planted trees, created steps into a steep bank and erected information boards. No planning permission has been sought for these activities.
The AGLV
There is a listed building in Ironmills Park, (the railway viaduct). This is in the AGLV to which Cllr Boyes referred to in his objections. On top of this stunningly attractive structure is about 100m of KEY CLAMP industrial galvanised steel handrail about 1.3m high. This handrail, put in without the luxury of planning permission, looks incongruous on such a stunning structure. It has no sympathy with its surroundings. It is hard to comprehend how Cllr Boyes, and other members who objected, find this galvanised steel handrail acceptable at the same time as a timber and glass handrail on our sitting out area/store is suggested as ruining the view from Ironmills Park.
There is also a plaque placed on the bridge to proudly proclaim that the bridge was renovated by Midlothian Council. It is indeed unfortunate that Cllr Boyes, a member of the council at the time it was put on, did not find this galvanised handrail offensive. Furthermore it is regrettable that consistency of approval given to the authority does not extend to other private householders gardens.
An aluminium and glass conservatory that is not particularly attractive has been added to the listed Grade B Mill house in Ironmills Park some years ago. This too can clearly be seen from the park at very close range.
It is also worthy of note that the gardens occupied by the householders in Ironmills Park were once in the sole use of the public. The ground having been sold to create these gardens.
Gerry and Susan Goldwyre 13th to 15th June 2011Appeal Dossier Section 3 Support Statements by Policy Reference
3.1 From the letter of refusal – the proposed development by its visibility in Ironmills Park / Adverse Impact on Scenic Qualities and Integrity of AGLV/Detrimental to Landscape Character Contrary to Policies RP6 and RP7
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP6 | Development will not be permitted where it may adversely affect the special scenic qualities and integrity of the Areas of Great Landscape Value AGLVs. The scale, siting, design, form, materials and impact on important landscape features are all aspects of a proposal that could have an adverse effect on the AGLV. These considerations will apply to developments either within or affecting the setting of areas designed as AGLVs. | Woodland Access Steps and associated guard rails | These are relatively minimal works considered to be sympathetic to a woodland setting and not to adversely affect any scenic qualities looking up from Ironmills Park below. They are typical of any managed woodland. Great care was taken by the applicants to look at the slope from the park before the works were considered and to assess the visual impact at the time and in stages over a long period of time over both winter and summer. Many photographs have been taken over the years and the applicant has a blog site to show photographic views, record the status of the woodland and keep the public informed. Year on year the limited impact of the steps and guard rails will lessen as the woodland planting matures. The steps and rails provide safe access into the woodland for both pleasure and maintenance purposes. They are sited to allow access to an area of the woodland that has been scarred for many years due to water run-off from the tennis club above. The steps and rails and the water run-off area have been assessed in a woodland management plan by Donald Rodger BSc(Hons)For, FICFor, FArborA, MIBiol, CBiol, CEnv Registered Consultant of the Arboricultural Association. See attached woodland management plan 2011. Extract from Plan The construction of internal woodland paths to permit access for future management has also been sensitively undertaken, using natural materials and construction methods which do not impact on the tree cover, or cause any soil disturbance or deterioration. The excess surface water run-off from the adjacent tennis court has resulted in a localised problem area. This has caused an area of soil erosion within a small gully, which has removed some of the ground vegetation and created a small gap in the canopy cover. Unless this drainage issue is remedied, this will always restrict levels of tree regeneration. Despite this, repeated planting efforts by the owners appear to be proving successful. |
Continued..
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP6 | | Woodland Access Steps and associated guard rails | Planting in the areas accessed by the steps has already been undertaken (2005) but more is anticipated. Any new planting requires maintenance until established e.g. re-fixing plant supports and covers, replacing plants that have not taken and surveying the area. These steps allow safe access for a period of maybe 10-20 years. Thereafter the steps will become overgrown by the woodland ground cover and if not used would be “consumed” by the woodland and decay into the ground over time. The steps are formed by heavy timber boards to retain the ground and the rails are square cut timbers on one side of the path. The surface is made up of wood and bark chippings. There are minimal non natural materials in the construction. There are some sections where the path levels out where timber boards are laid to the width of the path. The works have been carried out to work with the ground rather than to plan in advance. Taking a best route, dictated by the ground conditions and suitable area for any fixings. The straight timbers used as guard rails are due to be replaced by pole stage trees once these can be sourced. The woodlands under alternative ownership around the Ironmills Park are not managed and hence what is viewed as “different” in one area to another should not detract from the positive effect of woodland management in this area versus the non management of the remainder. It is well known that woodlands are laid bare at times in the interests of longer term betterment and this woodland management is an example of that. |
Photographs A1, A2, A3.
Appeal Dossier Section 2 Support Statements by Policy Reference
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP6 | Development will not be permitted where it may adversely affect the special scenic qualities and integrity of the Areas of Great Landscape Value AGLVs. The scale, siting, design, form, materials and impact on important landscape features are all aspects of a proposal that could have an adverse effect on the AGLV. These considerations will apply to developments either within or affecting the setting of areas designed as AGLVs. | Works To Stabilise Bank (Path Widening) | The applicant never applied to stabilise a bank. The bank is neither stabilised or destabilised by these works. The path has been gradually eroding long before ownership of the ground by the applicant. The applicant continues to seek means to eradicate the root cause of the erosion but this requires action by the adjoining tennis club. The works are path widening at a section of the crest of the embankment that is narrowed due to continual water run-off from the adjoining tennis court blaze surface which has no Sustainable Underground Drainage System (SUDS). To create a broadened path a simple support of recycled heavy timbers from the Gazebo were used to create a triangulated section, fixing to 2 existing tree stumps on the bank. A shuttered screen was then placed in front of these works to cover the works in a sympathetic manner. A single timber handrail has been erected along the edge of the path. The use of untreated seasoned timbers ensures that the works have minimal visual impact. The alternative to these works is at best unsafe access to the woodland beyond or loss of access altogether at the crest. In recent weeks it has been observed that a Beech stump is re-generating in the area, ivy is growing and typical woodland herb species have populated the area of the works. Woodland Clematis, Clematis vitalba, and woodland honeysuckle have been planted in the region of the works. Below the works, on the slope area now accessible from the steps; holly, beech, yew and willow have been planted in an area that never had limited ground cover before. Overall the timber screening is already much less noticeable. Great care was taken by the applicants to look at the shuttered screen from the Park to assess the visual impact at the time. There was little alternative to the screen shuttering and this area was always a blot on the landscape even before the shuttering. At one time a plastic pipe was placed from the tennis club as a drainage solution but this failed to resolve the problem and the pipe broke away. Constant soil movement may well continue to be a problem. The shuttering will fade and be covered by planting. The same cannot be said for the slope but it is hoped that the planting will take. One forestry commission advisor stated that no trees would survive in this area until the water run-off issue was resolved. Midlothian Council Building Standards and SEPA expressed no interest or offered any advice for means to improve this situation, despite being asked. |
Photographs I1, I2, L1, L2, L3
Appeal Dossier Section 2 Support Statements by Policy Reference
3.1 Visibility in Ironmills Park / Adverse Impact on Scenic Qualities and Integrity of AGLV/Detrimental to Landscape Character Contrary to Policies RP6 and RP7
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP6 | Development will not be permitted where it may adversely affect the special scenic qualities and integrity of the Areas of Great Landscape Value AGLVs. The scale, siting, design, form, materials and impact on important landscape features are all aspects of a proposal that could have an adverse effect on the AGLV. These considerations will apply to developments either within or affecting the setting of areas designed as AGLVs. | Boundary Fence and Bin Store | A fence was erected in this area 15 years previously by Midlothian Council when the short cut path through the grounds was closed off to the public. This fence was a post and wire fence with 2m high timber post and dark green latticed plastic coated wire. The applicant the erected a stepped timber fence in front (on applicants ground) of the post and wire fencing 10 years ago. Rubus cockburnanius and Clematis were planted and grew profusely spilling over the top of the fencing. No planning permission was sought. The boundary fence in this application replaces the similar stepped timber fence described above and it extends from the end of the stone boundary wall to a point just beyond the wooden electricity pylon and stays. The fence maintains the same degree of privacy afforded by the previous fence. The previous fence was not as solid as the proposed fence, as it had noticeable gaps between the vertical boards. The present fence utilises identical timber boards to those used on dwelling house and hence is a better design detail than the previous fence. The fence has a castellated design detail to mark the change of slope on the ground and the applicant contests the planning condition that this is not in keeping with the character of the area. The railway bridge and other walls and fences in the conservation area also have castellated details. The fence has no direct impact on the AGLV site as the site does not benefit from a direct view of the fence. |
Continued....
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP6 | | Boundary Fence and Bin Store | The bin store is attached to the fence and the applicant never applied for planning permission for this addition. The need for permission arose after the planning authority was alerted by a complainant that these works should be included and the works were added without the agreement of the applicant. The applicant however has no issue in agreeing to include these works but has resulted in more time, money and effort being applied to address it. The extension of the fencing to create a “bin store” was carried out to reduce the ugly impact of the Scottish Power plastic coated metal stay protective covers and to provide a more solid surface for screen planting. The area is used as a store. The Scottish Power pole and its stays were moved 2 years ago approx. 9 feet to the East closer to the boundary fence. This created an opportunity to maintain the under-line vegetation cut to be contiguous with the adjacent public steps to Ironmills Park negating the need for 2 separate open areas in close proximity. Also the vegetation under the line can be managed by the owners negating the need for the brutal scar that results from a 10 yearly cut by Scottish Power. Enclosing the stays with an extension of the fence was a clear design choice against screen planting which is not encouraged close to the power line and usually ineffectual. The view from the park of the extended fence around the store enclosing the stays is a view that is far more acceptable than a view of metal stays with yellow plastic protectors. The section facing the park provides a solid support for the woodland ground cover plants which have already taken hold. A wildlife hedge was established in this area in 2005 and will eventually blot out even more of the extended fence called a “bin-store”. The tree officer wrongly stated that this planting was new in her report in 2011 for this application. |
Appeal Dossier Section 3 Support Statements by Policy Reference
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP6 | Development will not be permitted where it may adversely affect the special scenic qualities and integrity of the Areas of Great Landscape Value AGLVs. The scale, siting, design, form, materials and impact on important landscape features are all aspects of a proposal that could have an adverse effect on the AGLV. These considerations will apply to developments either within or affecting the setting of areas designed as AGLVs. | Replacement Timber decking with store beneath | The structure is sited out-with the red line boundary of the host dwelling house however, it is on land that is immediately adjacent to the dwelling house boundary and is not separated from the dwelling by any natural or manmade feature. It is within the area that was described in the report submitted to the Planning Committee in respect of the 2006 planning application for the house as having been “clearly used in association with the gazebo and would form part of the extended garden space to the new house” to which the planning authority did not object. The deck is situated in an area of woodland but the application subjects have not resulted in the removal or disturbance to trees or hedges. The main structure is constructed of treated timber and clear glass. The steps up to the deck level are constructed from concrete slabs. It is not visible from Cemetery Road. It can be seen from Ironmills Park albeit at a distance of around 200 metres. It is seen against a back drop of the tennis courts the boundary of which comprises a wooden fence with a high mesh fence which is 7 metres high, supplemented with green nylon netting to contain tennis balls; this mesh fence forming a horizon feature when viewed from the north, including from Ironmills Park. The deck has been well designed to have minimal impact on the views into the site, utilising the same timber as the dwelling house, and clear toughened glass panels. It sits at a greater height partly due to the gradient of the slope and partly as a storage area has been created underneath to take advantage of the under building. The structure’s location is justified as being readily associated with the adjacent dwelling house, and by being located within a part of the previously recognised curtilage of the house/gazebo garden. The structure is used all year round for storage of essential woodland items such as a stock of plastic plant protectors. It is also used as an occasional sitting out area. The most typical use for sitting out is after the sun hits around 4pm and into the night time when bats, and later on owls, can be appreciated. |
Continued......
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP6 | Development will not be permitted where it may adversely affect the special scenic qualities and integrity of the Areas of Great Landscape Value AGLVs. The scale, siting, design, form, materials and impact on important landscape features are all aspects of a proposal that could have an adverse effect on the AGLV. These considerations will apply to developments either within or affecting the setting of areas designed as AGLVs. | Replacement timber decking with store beneath | The structure replaces a previous similar structure which became a covered safe environment for some woodland creatures and was used for identical purposes for 11 years. No planning permission was sought for the previous structure. The previous structure was slightly smaller and less raised with willow screen rather than glass. It was not atypical of similar sitting out areas in the conservation area which also did not have the benefit of planning permission. The woodland in this area has benefitted from clearance to increase light levels on the slope below where there is a need to encourage ground cover. This clearance work has increased the view of the structure and the same would have been true for the previous structure had it been retained. The woodland clearance works are a management measure and a substantial amount of planting has taken place and is being continued on the slope. This planting will in time screen the structure at the times when it is used as a sitting out area. In the winter months this structure will be visible to the park and this was the same for the previous structure. The structure is not used for sitting out at this time of the year. No planning permission was sought for the previous structure and the planning authority advised this was time barred by 2009 when works commenced on a house build. This “time bar” was also advised in writing (wrongly) by the planning authority for the structure in this application, prior to the addition of the glazed panels and supports |
Photographs K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, K6, K7, K8, K9, K10.
Appeal Dossier Section 3 Support Statements by Policy Reference
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP7 | RP7 advises that development will not be permitted which may adversely affect the quality of the local landscape and that provision should be made to maintain local diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character and enhance landscape characteristics where improvement is required; | Woodland Access Steps and associated guard rails | See page 1 for RP6 The applicant considers that the access steps are a necessity in order to manage the woodlands for the future betterment of the area, especially in the area of the woodland where there is a gap due to run-off water from the tennis club above. From The Small Woods Association Studies show that managed woodlands (those that are not allowed to decay) are better for wildlife and biodiversity. The future of woodlands relies on effective management, just as a garden needs constant maintenance and care to thrive. Trees must be thinned to grow well and invasive species like bramble have to be managed so that they don't dominate other plants. Woodlands that have a reason to be managed, perhaps for timber, firewood, access or green woodworking, are more likely to be receive love and attention long into the future, and indeed those woodlands that we have today have survived precisely because they have had an economic value to the local community. |
Photographs A1, A2, A3, H2, L`1, L2, K2, K5, K9.
Appeal Dossier Section 3 Support Statements by Policy Reference
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP7 | RP7 advises that development will not be permitted which may adversely affect the quality of the local landscape and that provision should be made to maintain local diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character and enhance landscape characteristics where improvement is required; | Works To Stabilise Bank (Path Widening) | The applicant never applied to stabilise a bank. The bank is not stabilised by these works. The path has been gradually eroding long before ownership of the ground by the applicant. Looking at the condition of the woodland in this area in the 1970’s to date, this area of the bank has always suffered. Local elderly residents have reported the unsafe nature of this area in the past. See support letter from Dr Nancy Mclean, local area resident for over 40 years on the Midlothian Council Planning web site. The applicant continues to seek means to eradicate the root cause of the erosion but this requires action by the adjoining tennis club. The works are path widening at a section of the crest of the embankment. In recent weeks it has been observed that a Beech stump is re-generating in the area, ivy is growing and typical woodland herb species have populated the area of the works. Woodland Clematis, Clematis vitalba, and woodland honeysuckle have been planted to one side of the works. Overall the timber screening is already much less noticeable and the siting of these works is already helping to enhance the landscape characteristics in an area where improvement is required but where the applicant is restricted by the efforts of an adjoining tennis club. . |
Photographs I1, I2, L1, L2, L3, M7, M8.
Appeal Dossier Section 3 Support Statements by Policy Reference
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP7 | RP7 advises that development will not be permitted which may adversely affect the quality of the local landscape and that provision should be made to maintain local diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character and enhance landscape characteristics where improvement is required; | Boundary Fence and Bin Store | A fence was erected in this area 15 years previously by Midlothian Council when the short cut path through the grounds was closed off to the public. This fence was a post and wire fence with 2m high timber post and dark green latticed plastic coated wire mesh with a sign of red on white to indicate the danger and to state “Keep Out”. This fence was unattractive but utilitarian in keeping with typical Councils works in the area – see attached photographs of works in the adjacent cemetery stores. The applicant erected a stepped timber fence in front (on applicants ground) of the post and wire fencing 10 years ago. Rubus cockburnanius and Clematis were planted and grew profusely spilling over the top of the fencing. This timber fence softened the utilitarian Council fencing. Following the house build further improvements were made to the boundary fence to consolidate the previous works i.e. - The Council post and wire latticed fencing was removed. - The applicants own timber fencing was removed. - A replacement timber fence was constructed to complement the timbers of the house build and is of a better design than the previous timber fencing. - It now integrates a degree of consistency with the house cladding. The fence has a castellated design detail to mark the change of level on the ground,and the applicant contests the planning condition that this is not in keeping with the character of the area. The railway bridge and other walls and fences in the conservation area also have castellated details, see Photograph G. It is worthy of mention that the council’s fence on the viaduct is constructed with galvanised industrial steel grey wire fencing and there is 100m visible from 90% of the AGLV Ironmills Park The bin store is attached to the fence and the applicant never applied for planning permission for this addition. The need for permission arose after the planning authority was alerted by a complainant that these works should be included and the works were added without the agreement of the applicant. The applicant however has no issue in agreeing to include these works. The extension of the fencing to create a “bin store” was carried out to reduce the ugly impact of the Scottish Power plastic coated metal stay protective covers and to provide a more solid surface for screen planting. The area is used as a store. The Scottish Power pole and its stays were moved 2 years ago approx. 9 feet to the East closer to the boundary fence. This created an opportunity to maintain the under-line vegetation cut to be contiguous with the adjacent public steps to Ironmills Park negating the need for 2 separate open areas in close proximity. Enclosing the stays with an extension of the fence was a clear design choice against screen planting which is not encouraged close to the power line and usually ineffectual. All of these works to the power line and to enclose the stays have been carried out to enhance the landscape characteristics more for the benefit of the public than the applicant. These were costly works agreed by Scottish Power who did not have to move the line but agreed the benefits of the move with the applicant and with the council tree officer. The line move also provided the opportunity to upgrade the pole and the cabling, the latter being replaced with cabling of a higher insulation factor which reduces the width of future cuts under the line and hence further enhancing the landscape characteristics for many years to come. The applicants sought to have the line replaced with underground cabling to the houses in Ironmills Park but this was not acceptable to Scottish Power. The line does not provide power to the applicants’ home. |
Photographs
B1, B6 – original fencing by council
E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 – applicants previous fence
B1, B2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 – this application fence
B2, B5 – attached store
Appeal Dossier Section 3 Support Statements by Policy Reference
| Policy | Definition | Item | Support Statement |
| RP7 | RP7 advises that development will not be permitted which may adversely affect the quality of the local landscape and that provision should be made to maintain local diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character and enhance landscape characteristics where improvement is required; | Replacement timber decking with store beneath | The deck is situated in an area of woodland but the application subjects have not resulted in the removal or disturbance to trees or hedges. The main structure is constructed of treated timber and clear glass. The steps up to the deck level are constructed from concrete slabs. It is not visible from Cemetery Road. It can be seen from Ironmills Park albeit at a distance of around 200 metres. It is seen against a back drop of the tennis courts the boundary of which comprises a wooden fence with a high mesh fence above, supplemented with green nylon netting to contain tennis balls; this mesh fence forming a horizon feature when viewed from the north, including from Ironmills Park. The deck has been well designed to have minimal impact on the views into the site, utilising the same timber as the dwelling house, and clear toughened glass panels. It sits at a greater height partly due to the gradient of the slope and partly as a storage area has been created underneath to take advantage of the under building. The structure’s location is justified as being readily associated with the adjacent dwelling house, and by being located within a part of the previously recognised curtilage of the house/gazebo garden. The woodland in this area has benefitted from clearance to increase light levels on the slope below where there is a need to encourage ground cover. This clearance work has increased the view of the structure. The woodland clearance works are a management measure and a substantial amount of planting has taken place and is being continued on the slope. This planting will in time screen the structure and enhance the landscape characteristics in accordance with ongoing woodland management works. The structure does break up the view of the long length of fencing of the tennis club providing some relief from a long stretch of timber. The applicants took great care to assess the view of the structure from the park and considers that the structure does not jar in its setting. |
Photographs F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, G1, G2, G3.
Appeal Dossier Section 3 Support Statements by Policy Reference
3.2 The proposed development is contrary to Midlothian Local Plan Policy RP9 as there has been no locational need substantiated, and the development has a detrimental impact upon the landscape and conservation values of the valley of the River North Esk.
| Policy | Statement | Item | Support Statement |
| RP9 | RP9 Protection of River Valleys requires development within the river valley protection areas of the Rivers North Esk, South Esk and Tyne to have a specific locational need for the development, and where this is established, development must demonstrate that it will not have an adverse impact either on the landscape and conservation value of the valleys or impede potential public access opportunities | All items | The items in this application are essential (path broadening, fence, steps) for the safety and privacy of the site and the sitting out area/store is an essential woodland tool store associated with the dwelling which has consent. Hence the locational need was established when the house was approved and as such, these additional structures expected to be erected within the curtilage of a dwelling house, do not require proof of locational need, taking into account the fact that consent for the primary element has previously been granted. The items do not have an impact on the landscape and conservation value as discussed for policies RP6 and RP7 above. There was no potential public access to be impeded since the site was blocked to public access by the previous owner, the council, and the site became land locked with the only access being afforded to the owner of the land i.e. the applicant. There has been no coherent material justification for the works being contrary to policy RP9. |
Photographs A1, B3, B4, C1, L1, L2, K3, K4, K9, M1, M6, M7.
Appeal Dossier Section 3 Support Statements by Policy Reference
3.3 The proposal is considered to be contrary to Midlothian Local Plan Policies RP20 and RP22, as the proposed development detracts from the character of the area, and in particular upon the character and appearance of the Eskbank and Ironmills Conservation Area
| Policy | Statement | Item | Support Statement |
| RP20 | Policy RP20 Development within the Built-up Area which advises that development will not be permitted where it is likely to detract materially from the existing character or amenity of the area; | All items | The works are in keeping with the character of the area being typical of woodland structures erected in woodlands in and around Midlothian by both private owners and the Council. The works do not detract materially from the character of the area because they are largely unseen and even when visible, are attractive. The visual amenity of the area has not been significantly changed by these works as the elements of these works that are visible from the park are sympathetic to the area in their design. Looking at the site from the park the view comprises the prominent water tower and the cottage at its foot. Then the power line and the house called RP9. Then there is the length of prominent fencing for the tennis club, the lower section having been clad in wood by the applicant 3 years ago with planning permission. The cladding on the sitting out area/store will eventually fade to silver grey and blend in more with the surrounds than they do at present. The steep sloped woodland has always been “patchy” due to 2 significant aspects on the site – the power line and an area where land slip looks to have taken place some years ago and where there is little mature tree cover. The latter is very evident on a photograph from the 1970’s. That this woodland looks different from the woodland around the park is not surprising given the above and the fact that this is the North facing slope. That woodland structures can be seen due to the patchy nature of the woodland cover is in itself not considered to be detrimental to the amenity but the patchy nature of the woodland slope is an issue that is being actively pursued for improvement by the applicant by; |
Continued,
| Policy | Statement | Item | Support Statement |
| RP20 | | | (a) Undertaking to manage the area under the power line without the need for complete swathe clearance every 10 years. Documented in the updated woodland management plan attached. (b) Regeneration of the water run-off area by gaining secure access, encouraging soil retention and planting with holly, beech, yew and willow. Actively seeking methods to assist the tennis club to establish a SUDS for the surface water. |
Photographs A1, A2, A3, B3, B4, B6, C1, D6, F5, G1, G2, H1, H2, I1, I2, K1, K3, K8, K9, M5.
Appeal Dossier Section 3 Support Statements by Policy Reference
3.3 The proposal is considered to be contrary to Midlothian Local Plan Policies RP20 and RP22, as the proposed development detracts from the character of the area, and in particular upon the character and appearance of the Eskbank and Ironmills Conservation Area
| Policy | Statement | Item | Support Statement |
RP22 | Policy RP22 Conservation Areas which advises that within or adjacent to a Conservation Area development will not be permitted which would have any adverse effect on its character and appearance | All Items | See support recorded for RP20 The works do not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area. They do not affect the setting of the Grade B listed water tower and have no adverse impact on the park below. |
Photographs M1, M2, M7.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Appeal Dossier Section 6. Overview of Area – Cemetery Road Property Development Time Line 1987 – 2011
This information is included to help put into perspective the planning history of the buildings and land at Cemetery Road, Dalkeith.
| Year | Event |
| 1987 | Bid for derelict water tower being sold by Dalkeith Community Council (DCC). Unsuccessful. |
| 1988 | DCC approached directly to ask if still interested in purchasing tower as original owners had not obtained planning permission and not paid for purchase. |
| 1988-89 | Renovated water tower with planning consent and Historic Building permission for specific items i.e. windows and balcony. See picture B Purchased adjacent boarded up Cemetery Lodge Cottage (CLC) from Midlothian Council to use as an office and store. Required a great deal of work to dry out the building and make good after years of neglect. |
| 1990 | 2 awards, 1 Scottish, 1 National - best conversion of industrial building for the water tower, for house and for architect. |
| 1991 - 1994 | CLC sold to family member. Drying Green associated with CLC used at this time by all owners and included the building of a “gang hut” on the ground. No formally boundaries existed. Area very over grown with brambles and had been used by the council cemetery workers as a dumping ground for road salt and waste flowers from the cemetery. |
| 1994 | CLC owner moved on and CLC sold back to us. On back of BBC Masterchef win, applied to set up a small private fine dining business operating from part of CLC. Planning permission sought but not required as no change of use. Permission granted to operate facility on restricted basis. Still in operation today. Extension built above original flat roof extension of CLC with full planning permission. Changed from single storey to 2 storey. Enhanced the building w/o removing the original extension. |
| 1995 | Informal short cut path along side drying green land owned by us was closed off to public access by Midlothian Council. West boundary post and wire fence covered with high mesh fencing and warning sign which became vandalised. |
| Year | Event |
| 1998 | Applied for permission to erect Gazebo. Permission granted. On completion, 2 council officers requested to check the dimensions following a complaint from a local person. This check was completed and it was agreed the Gazebo had been erected in accordance with the plans. Requested to purchase more ground from the council and asked for the only flat-ish area of open ground that was available to the West. Council indicated it would sell but no immediate action was taken. Started to tidy up the ground beyond the drying green original boundary overgrown with weeds and brambles. Created a “bog area” to increase biodiversity. Planted raspberries. |
| 2000 | Council agreed to sell the ground requested but wanted to sell off a larger area, over 1 acre, to lose a liability. Purchase agreed with Estates Dept who charged additional fee for survey stating that a more detailed survey was required because complaints had been raised regarding a possible right-of-way and loss of the footpath for public appreciation of the view of the Pentlands from the path. Detailed survey carried out by council. The ground was eventually sold and vast majority of the ground was steep sloping woodland down to the river and an area bordering a railway walk and tennis club where public access was possible but not easy. Ground was to be maintained as woodland, trees lopped rather than felled where possible with no formal landscaping and to remain un-built upon. By this stage the flat-ish area of ground already had a slabbed path, a wooden sitting out area/store, and a screen of railway sleepers in front of a metal furnace used to burn garden rubbish. No comment was made on these “structures” at this time by the council and no complaints were ever made from the public. It was seen by at least 12 council officers. None of whom expressed any concern. Woodland Management Plan commissioned and approved with council. Plan included means to make safe boundaries with natural means such as wood piles. Some intrusions into the ground by vandals resulted in fire damage in small patches of the woodland and evidence of drug substance abuse was found. Police contacted and “Police Aware” tape and vigilance stopped this intrusion. Land sale included right of access for fishing, tennis club drains and Scottish Power (SP). SP carried out cut of trees under the power line with agreement of owners in accordance with way leave. First stage discussions held with SP regarding options for tree management under power lines to reduce impact of cut. No resolution found. |
Year | Event |
| 2000 -2007 | The gazebo and grounds were enjoyed as a party place for friends and family. The immediate grounds in the vicinity of the Gazebo were planted with woodland type planting attempting to merge the original drying green garden seamlessly to the woodland in a sympathetic manner. Some non natives were introduced into a very small area of the woodland – mainly Bamboo to soften areas of fencing. Planning permission was sought for a house in 2004/2005 whilst we were travelling for a year. This application took almost a year to be determined. Permission was refused and the appeal upheld the council’s decision. The principal to build was not ruled out, only the mass of building and its impact was not agreed. In 2004 with the abolition of feudal tenure the feu superior enforced the legal burdens on the woodland from the point of the build of the Gazebo to the West and down to the river i.e. the burdens were not enforced on any land occupied by the Gazebo which was stated to be on land owned by ourselves. |
| 2007 | Planning permission was being sought for a house build to replace the Gazebo. It was possible that we might ask to build on land which was sold as woodland and contacted the council Estates Dept for a meeting. A price was discussed should the option to use 20 m2 of ground be requested. The Estates officer viewed the ground and stated that the outdoor wooden structure/store should have had planning permission but it did not matter since it would now be time barred. He also stated that he had no interest in the land value for the structure which was not a building. This meeting was documented. |
| 2008 | Planning discussions commenced for a house build, taking on board the reporters views in 2005 for the previous more “exotic” plans. Planning permission was granted. Objectors commended the overall design but were compelled to object because of emerging policy RP9. Disabled access regulations led to an amended plan, this was granted non-material change permission. On determining the best site for the foundation pads to protect tree roots to the maximum possible, the position of the house was moved farther to the East, negating the need to ask for 20m2 of woodland ground. The new position was granted non-material planning approval. |
| Year | Event |
| 2008- 2009 | A temporary platform with Planning approval was erected to the West of the wooden sitting out area/store to store materials from gazebo which were largely re-used as part of the Eco credentials of the build project. Attempts to secure alternative storage facilities from the council unused cemetery outbuildings fell through after 6 months of discussion when it became known that this store contained asbestos. The temporary platform was constructed using the same foundation pads to be used for the house build and this exercise was to validate the ability to use these pads and how best to dig the holes for each pad. House build commenced. The temporary platform was viewed by planning officials during site visits. One visit by an enforcement officer in response to complaints of tree felling which were not upheld, noted the platform as an aside and a letter was issued by the enforcement officer to confirm there were no enforcement issues relevant and that the platform was time barred for planning. The original sitting out area/store suffered badly over the winter and its appearance was poor. It was decided to remove this platform in preference for the temporary platform as a direct replacement. The temporary platform was clad with glass and posts to match the house build and retrospective permission was to be applied for. Planning officer advised that we should capture all elements associated with the house build along with this request to replace the sitting out area/store, such as the steps cut into the woodland slope for access and an area of path broadening. These latter items were never anticipated as requiring planning permission. A replacement fence was also noted as requiring planning permission when the planning officer surveyed the entire site for all possible items requiring permission. The bin store attached to the fence was not requested to be included. |
| Year | Event |
| May 2010 | House build completed. |
| May- Nov 2010 | Many attempts were made to start the process of planning approval for permission for a fence (replacement), a sitting out area/store (replacement) and the steps and path widening. After a hectic house build, press articles of commendation for the build, a cancelled holiday and a family death, Mrs Goldwyre started the application in earnest and consulted with Mr Drinkwater and his work colleagues as to what was required. No plans were required because the application was retrospective. The retrospective application was put on hold. By early December the retrospective application was completed by Mr Goldwyre with direct input from Mr Drinkwater and Erica Pryde of the planning department. |
| Year | Event |
| Dec 2010 – date | The application raised substantial complaint largely not relevant to the application and often centred on the appearance of the woodland, from a few people. From the scrutiny of the planning files by objectors, the following were raised with the applicants by the planning department; - An area of additional decking (four boards) on the house deck was raised as creeping development and then asked to be included in the application. The planning department then approved as a non material variation and signed off the house build “as seen”. This was agreed by the applicants. - A bin store attached to the fence was noted in the scrutiny of the plans by an objector and the planning department amended the title for the application to include this store. The bin store had NOT been noted by the Midlothian Council planning officer when the application was initially submitted. - The path broadening works were noted by an objector (who is an engineer) to be engineering works and bank stabilisation. Although the application made was for path broadening, the planning department insisted in describing this as bank stabilisation. This was protested against by phone, email and letter. - The complicated plan submitted with the application and the photographs were considered unworkable by an objector and the application was requested to be withdrawn. No action was taken. - The application was due to be heard Feb 2011 but was delayed to March, probably due to the above. The March deadline was then missed when the planning authority check revealed that they had not carried out the statutory neighbourhood notification. At the last possible date for complaint the local Green Party were lobbied and made an objection which they then withdrew on learning the true facts. The application was not considered as a delegated matter because the council stated there was a financial interest which has not been fully explained. The application was destined for committee in March 2011 when it was noted that Neighbourhood Notification had not been carried out by the council. A further complaint was registered from the Green Party stating objection to retrospective application in principal and abuse to the woodland. This was withdrawn after the chair of the Green Party viewed the area directly. He had been contacted by the Eskbank Amenity Society and told there was a very short time to complain and had complained on the belief that what he had been told was true. |
| The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Department and at committee on April 12th. The vote from the SNP group of councillors appears to be a block vote against the application although it is illegal to block vote. It is however unfortunate that an entire party overlook and cast aside the opinion of professional planners without having carried out a site visit. |
