The Water Tower

The Water Tower
The Water Tower at Dusk

Monday, December 24, 2018

Deja Vu

Recent events here at water tower wood are a sense of deja vu, or a sense of "been there before".

Having at last found out how to link a previous post, here is a link to a post on Nov 2010 when the community were being asked by the council, what to do to save money.
Midlothian Cuts and More Hamlet!


If you can't be bothered clicking the link and reading the whole post, this is the most relevant section.....as far as recent matters at water tower wood are concerned.


At community council on Monday 22nd I requested time to put forward my case from the public side of the meeting. It went like this.

"Having heard the passionate pleas from a very stressed Head of Midlothian for budget cuts, I want this community to be aware of the possible waste of money in dealing with petty issues regarding our house build this last year". I went on to explain the possible costs as above. I then cited a number of examples -


1. Checking the legality of a perceived Right of Way - twice in 1998 and again in 2009.  This had a cost. Quite a bit of paperwork was generated on this issue - not to mention the character assassination that followed when we were accused of closing the public footpath down to Ironmills. 


Then there is an earlier post in Oct 2010 that records some useful information I think the events of a couple of days ago may be related to.  Proof That Land Was Advertised For Sale worth a read if you think that somehow we came to acquire the land around 2 sides of the tennis court "illegally" or without any advertisement by the council. 


In 2010 it was clear that a so called community group which called itself the Eskbank Amenity Society, with a constitution that documented their desire to foster good community relations, felt the need to become legal-eagles with regards to water tower wood, and lobbied the council for infringement of no build burdens by myself. I'm sure that at the time the community group were exploring some degree of corruption on my part because they seemed very keen to find some legal impropriety. They didn't find any, because there was none to find. 

Below is an extract from an article from the internet, on land burdens. A no build burden is anything from a Wendy House to a power station. They cannot be unreasonably enforced. There are many papers documenting Scottish Land Burdens and you will need a law degree to be able to appreciate the scope and litigation surrounding burdens. 

I have read them because they are quite fascinating to someone with a scientific mind. 

The council should have read them. 

If you are interested I can send you more links to legal process around land burdens, it is a fascinating subject; maritime burdens are interesting, then there are burdens that precent people keeping hens and pigs, there may even be some that prevent folks putting out a washing line.

E mail me on susangoldwyre@gmail.com if you want to know any more. 

Scotland - Real burdens
The concept of restrictive covenants does not exist in this sense within the Scottish legal system. The Scottish equivalent is a real burden, which is a type of title condition. 
A real burden is an obligation on an owner of land (the owner of the 'burdened property') either to do something or to avoid doing something, for example not to build an extension. It will be enforceable by the owners of 'benefited properties' and the presence of a real burden can sometimes, but not always, be found by an examination of one's title deeds. The law here is very complex and legal advice should be sought when determining whether a real burden exists. 
Real burdens come in a variety of types, but are most commonly found in cases of plot subdivision or as 'community real burdens' where a developer has bought a large plot of land, built an estate on it, and then sold off the individual plots. Real burdens can be extinguished in a number of ways, including 
  • By agreement 
  • By the Lands Tribunal of Scotland 
  • By breach – if a) the owners of any benefited properties acquiesce by not objecting, or b) no-one has an interest to enforce the burden, or c) a number of years pass – this is called 'prescription'. 
Real burdens can be difficult to enforce. The main problem is that, while they are required to be registered on the title of the property which is burdened, there is no requirement for them to be registered on the title of the property benefiting. This means that a person can hold enforcement rights without realising it, and so will not take the necessary steps if the burdens come to be breached. There is a notification procedure if one wishes to get the agreement of one's neighbours to breach a community real burden. This involves notifying all the owners of properties within a given area of one's intentions.

Friday, December 21, 2018

Right of Way

Bit of a challenge at water tower wood today with a guy claiming a right of way along the top of the river bank, past our home. It wasn't a friendly intervention, not claimed in any spirit of wanting to walk it for interests sake, which I am always open to for anyone who might like to see the woodland and the views across the park. The train crossing the viaduct is also a sight to behold, I'm always willing to let people in to see this.

Re the right of way, I remember the conclusion written up by the Scottish Government reporter when our appeal was upheld in 2010. There is no right of way on our land and never has been.

There used to be a public short cut path, but it was never more than that.

Before we built our lovely home on the ground, the council had formally blocked access to this short cut path. I remember one time when our neighbours son cycled along the path and fell down the embankment. The fire service were called to rescue him.

So when someone comes onto your land, is that trespass in Scotland?
I found this useful article.

https://www.thompsons-scotland.co.uk/blog/33-main/2527-are-there-really-no-trespassing-laws-in-scotland
______________________________________________________

It is an oft-repeated myth that there are no trespassing laws in Scotland.  This is simply not true.  Trespass is a civil wrong, called a delict in Scots legal terminology.
The origins of civil trespassing laws in Scotland go back centuries.  A court decision from 1791 in the case of Livingstone v Earl of Breadalbane states that “…every man is the proprietor of his grounds, and entitled to the exclusive possession of them… No man can claim a road or passage through another man’s property… without a servitude… for amusement of any kind, however necessary for health…”
You may think that this ancient case does not bear much relevance to modern living, but a person’s right to the full exercise of their property is protected by Protocol 1, Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Although the court decision from 1791 is old, it accurately states the law.   
However, the waters were muddied by the introduction of what is commonly known as “the right to roam.”  Public access rights were created by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.  This Act provides the public the right to be on and cross most land and inland water in Scotland in a responsible manner.  However, public access rights do not apply to the following places: 
  • Houses, gardens and non-residential buildings and associated land
  • Land in which crops are growing
  • Land next to a school and used by the school
  • Sports or playing fields (where exercising access rights would interfere with their use)
  • Airfields, railways, quarries, construction sites and military bases
  • Visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry
For a more extensive list of places where public access rights do and do not apply, see the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
Where a member of the public accesses land which is not covered by public access rights, they are trespassing.  A court can therefore make an order to prevent trespassers from entering the land.  Breach of such a court order could become a criminal offence.  
However, land owners also have responsibilities.  If a member of the public is injured while exercising their public access rights, the land manager or owner could be liable for injuries sustained if they did not take adequate precautions to protect those on their land.
If you have concerns about trespassing, we recommend reading the Scottish Outdoor Access Code which provides guidance to landowners and members of the public. __________________________________________________________

Here is the evidence from the Scottish Government Reporter.

Extracted from this planning application 10/00694/DPP.


Decision by M J Culshaw, a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers
  • Planning appeal reference: PPA-290-2014
  • Site address: RP9 The Water Tower, Cemetery Road, Dalkeith, EH22 3DL
  • The development proposed: 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
J - APPEAL DECISION NOTICE (REPORTER'S FINDINGS)

Section 15.
15. The council have referred to the requirement of Policy RP9 that development within the river valley protection areas of the North Esk, South Esk and Tyne rivers should have a specific locational need. Since all these works are associated with a dwelling permitted by the council within the protected area it is difficult to see how the need for them could be more locationally specific. They clearly could not be carried out anywhere else. The policy further requires that locationally necessary development should not adversely impact on the landscape or conservation value of the valleys and I have concluded that it does not. It also requires that it should not impede potential public access opportunities, but since no public right of way is claimed and this is a dwelling curtilage where rights of access under the Land Reform Act 2003 do not apply no such opportunities exist, whatever may have been the case before the dwelling was built.




Couldn't do a blog post without some before and after photos. Took a wee while to find these but we start with Year 2000 when there was a garden gazebo on the site, then the sitooterie in 2010, followed by the latest change, the potting shed in 2018. 
We demolished the sitooterie and created a better path along the very steep edge of the gorge woodland. It looks much better now IMHO.








This is the path that the guy walked along yesterday. I love my path, I had to dig away a fair bit of the slope to help create it. That slope was an easy dig, the soil is akin to dust having been impacted by the blaise run off from years gone by from the tennis courts behind. Have taken the time to mulch and add planting to try to encourage root growth to aid stability.

In digging it out I exposed a pile of old bricks built as a chamber, probably an old cesspit/sewage tank in its day. 

No longer in use though. 



The brick structure was sitting directly above the historic landslip on this ground. I did blog about this previously in 2012. I can never work out how to do a link to a previous post so here is a copy/paste.

Planting season is here and once again I am hindered by something solid under the ground preventing access for new planting. This time I unearth an old field drain. It appears at the tennis club fence and then tracks underground a short way. It was full of soil but not carrying any water. Bone dry.




Interesting to see where this is. Above the area where the path was broadened a few years ago because the path at this corner was very narrow. Below the path is the section of the bank where there has clearly been land slip in the past. I suspect this old field drain may be part of the reason for the slip. Who knows.

Right now though the soil is dry and very easy to dig. Lots of crushed stone (blaise) in the soil which seems to aid drainage and I am told will be OK to support growth. Planting is Holly, Blackberry, Blackcurrant, Redcurrant, Horseradish, White strawberry (because the birds will not eat them!), Rhubarb and then some edge planting of ivy and fern to maintain the woodland feel. Its an area of the slope that has been bereft of plants other than self seeded grasses, weeds and a few wild flowers. The odd daffodil as well. This planting is to establish some edible woodland plants. Fingers crossed, the light levels are reasonable but it is North West facing.

The old drain pipe is now removed.

Susan Goldwyre
12th November 2012.


Update from my other half - "it can't be a field drain". There's no area to drain unless the tennis courts were cambered to that point or there was a herring bone drain system in place and there's no sign of that. More likely is that this was the septic pipe so maybe this is the pipe that served the septic tank that people tell us became blocked and took away a section of the hillside? Anyone got any more info?????


Water Tower Wood Land
Our water tower woodland ground of course was bought from the council, no doubt keen to offload the liability given they had attempted to block the short cut path, signed as "no access". But the signage and wire netting were often vandalised by those wishing to still walk here. 

Not dis-similar to the situation faced by the council again now. Since Ironmills Steps were blocked 5 years ago (opening for a short period before further landslip took place). The signage and fencing keeps being added to, in an attempt to stop people walking this ground. I still go there at times, accessing from my own ground and just to make sure the landslip isn't impacting on our ground. So far, so good. All looks well. 

At Ironmills Steps, there is still a water source to identify and the land is so damaged no weight bearing structures should be built onto it. A light weight set of steps may be possible I guess but that's up to the council. At the last Participation Group meeting the council agreed to add information boards to the site to let the public know what has happened and what is likely to happen next (if anything). 
I may start putting up information myself if we wait too much longer, I do get a tad fed up of people asking me what's happening to the steps and whether for not I worry about our house (I usually reply we are keen for a Musselburgh Post Code).

There are much worse things in life than bit of steep river bank landslip.

Causes of Landslip?

The historic landslip on our ground which still moves, albeit very very slowly, sits below the site of historic drainage infrastructure. 

The Lugton Road landslip was found to be partly caused by an enormous blocked drainage culvert. 

The Ironmills Steps sit directly below some very shoddy leaking drainage works exposed in recent years when the landslip here started. 

Landslip ; steep river banks - climate change - wet summers? Yes to all of these, but add drainage infrastructure or ignore at your peril.


Happy Xmas when it comes around, couple of days away. Hoping to catch up with all my lovely neighbours over New Year, despite the guy who walked the path saying all my neighbours hated me and I had been involved in Major, then maybe Minor, Corruption. 

Cheers
Susan










Sunday, October 21, 2018

Tree Works Autumn 2018. MC Land-slipped Ground


Just to record planned tree works for Autumn 2018. 

Eskbank and Ironmills Conservation Area
Woodland at RP9 Cottage, Dalkeith Water Tower, Cemetery Road, Dalkeith. EH22 3DL

Description
Permission is sought to prune one tree and fell one tree as detailed in the accompanying arboricultural consultant’s report from Donald Rodger dated 20 August 2018, and shown in the uploaded photographs, growing within the woodlands of the above property. The approximate location of the two trees is marked on the uploaded Annotated site plan.
T1: Lime: Pruning requested.
T2: Sycamore: Felling requested.

Details
T1: Lime: removal of epicormic growth at the base and reduction of side branches to the southern side crown to create a more balanced crown shape is requested.
T2: Sycamore: This semi-mature sycamore is growing in close proximity to an adjacent hornbeam tree and yew tree and understorey young beech tree. The removal of this tree is requested in order to allow the better development of the hornbeam and yew. Whilst semi mature and generally of good form and health, this tree is suppressed by neighbouring trees and its removal will assist the adjacent two semi mature trees to mature. The additional light that reaches the woodland floor due to the removal of this tree should provide an opportunity for the young beech in the understorey to mature and take up the space available.

The applicant intends to provide replacement planting of three smaller native understorey Hazel trees close to the location of the tree removal, which can be managed in the form of rotation coppice. The stump of the felled tree should be left in situ to assist the stability of the slope, and some of the felled wood could be stacked in safe locations within the woodland as a biodiversity resource and to protect the slope from water erosion.

It is recommended that permission is granted.
Lead Officer: Conservation and Environment 10 October 201818/00710/WTT; Eskbank and Ironmills CA
Conditions: WTT01; WTT02

Have purchased 6 Hazel from Alba trees pending these works. Have had the gift of many Hazel plants in the past from my neighbour and fellow Paths Team colleague, Ian Brown.
Hazel is a great, easy to look after, understorey plant.  

Hoping to get the tree cutter in December, maybe January. Depends on the weather.

Will stack the felled wood as described by the tree officer, adding to the existing pile on the slope that stops me falling into the river from a great height! Good that it protects the bank too.


page1image1165306256
The Lime tree at the back in this photo

page4image1164310768
_The Sycamore at the front in this photo. Hornbeam behind. Young Beech tree which will be left to mature. __

_____________________________________________________________



The adjacent land slipped council ground remains untouched after the works to soil nail. I did write to the council to suggest some planting and creation of wood piles (bioengineering techniques) but they are not keen given that they have hydro-seeded the banking and do not want to have it disturbed.

Here's the official correspondence for reference.


Hello Karin
I have a suggestion for the land slip area in-keeping with works identified by Ironside Fararr in their report. 
Bioengineering techniques for bank stabilisation.

IF suggested creation of facines on the slope made from timber piles. 
Similar to what I created at one time on the fence line.

Looking at the dying mature Ash tree at the top of the slope, I would suggest this is felled or coppiced 
and the branches are used to create barriers and facines. In the open land more planting wouldn't go amiss, 
it's bereft of tree roots and the dying Ash tree may mean even less tree root on the slope in the future, 
adding to the potential instability.
I'm sure Tote could fell the tree at no actual cost given he is a council employee, 
and the paths team could work on the slope following a suitable risk assessment and with supervision.

I am no expert but in my 20 years experience with an area of slip on the ground we purchased from the council,
 it continues to move slowly, suffers mud slides in very wet weather and the pockets of clay soil are hard as rock 
in places with an no expectation of long term stability. It's nigh on impossible to establish plant growth in these. 
I wouldn't build access steps or put any weight on our land slip ground, but I would do everything in my 
power to prevent further slip. All the advice I have ever received is to build fascines and plant small trees and
 shrubs for root growth. Rowan, Aspen, Willow have all taken and Cornus shrubs have done really well. 
Willow whips never worked (I think it is too dry), it needs to be a more established specimen and indeed 
I did plant one on the council ground and it has survived, unlike the whips that were planted. 

Kind regards

Karin Loch

Mon, Oct 8, 12:36 PM (13 days ago)
to meJustin
Dear Mrs Goldwyre,

Thank you for your email of the 4th October and my apologises I was on leave, or I would have 
responded earlier.

To implement facines as a bioengineering remediation measure for the land slip (Council side) 
at Ironmills Steps, we would require to identify and cap the source of the water, prior to installation. 
I agree that currently the bank may benefit by increasing the soil’s root mat, but every time the 
ground is broken to plant vegetation- it provides the potential for more erosion to occur. 
Less disruptive is scatter seeding, which I believe John and Justin actioned as a remediation 
measure in previous years.

Hopefully, we may gain more information on the water sources in the area from BGS in the future.

Kind Regards
Karin




Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Thoughts on the Water Testing




This is the source data for the results in the previous post. It states "The test results are not indicative of drainage water contamination" and "The sample results are not indicative of ground water or rain water due to the presence of Trihalomethanes".
I conclude that means it is Mains water. 

This was dated 2nd November 2016.

By mid 2017 I recollect much confusion with the investigation of the water. I did find the title deeds for the cemetery and there were signs of a land drain, or a culvert, on that deed plan. That prompted some digging and the cut away that is evident on the slope now. Water was found but no culvert or drain.

I began to lose the will by mid 2017 when no real plan or direction for finding and managing the water source was apparent, and the spurious smelly sample that was thought to indicate drainage water diverted attention. (No sampling plan, no protocol, no agreement, just a sample taken by a council officer and someone from SW from the outlet of the blue lay flat pipe that dangles into the ground. Hmmmm) . 2 days after the smelly sample was reported I took a syringe and needle and withdrew a crystal clear sample of water from the mid section of the lay flat pipe. 

The water runs on the hill side intermittently, where the second land slip took place, quite a distance from our home. It doesn't affect us, but I did try my best to help find the source. I felt for the council officer left in charge of this project, as he said, he is a horticulturist.

Now that the news has once more appeared that the steps may open, it reminds me of where I was in mid 2017 with this issue. Walk away from it and let it sort itself out was my thought at the time. 

I was pleased though when the community council suggested a Participation project and thought to myself that when everyone is as up to speed as I am with this water testing, then perhaps we can have some useful discussion. This has still to happen but the first meeting is planned for March. 

I don't think local people are up to speed yet, including the people who live in and around Ironmills. They hope that the steps may re open soon. Money has gone into bank stabilisation but there's no sign of works to fix new steps. Trouble is people don't have all the information, and nor do I. I was keen for an information board and I did at one time put up some information of my own onto a fence, for folks to read if they were interested. 

Let me summarise and point out a couple of bits of info that I gleaned from the test results in mid 2017 that perhaps will help folks realise why I will continue to press for an alternative access route and new bridge over the river. 

1. The source water is Mains water but no local water leaks were found. Sound tests were done twice by Scottish Water and no household has found any water leaks. I don't think there are any leaks at the tennis courts either. None of us has water pressure problems and the Mains supply pipes in Cemetery Road were very recently upgraded.

2. The testing in 2016 was signed by Robert C Beattie of the Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services at 4 Marine Esplanade, Edinburgh. Is that a water test lab? It must be I guess. I just don't know why it comes under bereavement services. 

3. The testing included a test for surfactants and they found 118 ppb (micro g per litre) of Lauryl Sulphate (LS). I remember looking into to this at the time. LS is found in shampoo and toothpaste, as well as industrial cleaning materials. It doesn't really fit with the source being Mains water. How can there be surfactant in Mains water? Why did they test for surfactant?

4. The water on the bank must be picking up Lauryl Sulphate from somewhere. Maybe a leak from the septic tank in the vicinity of the water? But the septic tank was 100% checked out for integrity so it can't be that. Also there would be tomatoes and nettles growing if the septic tank leaked (tomato seeds don't digest in the gut and the nitrogen causes nettles to flourish). The things you learn.

5. Where could LS come from? Well it is also used in embalming fluid. 

I have no idea if the graves that sit behind this water leak are providing a contamination to the water on the bank. I don't know how long it takes a cadaver to break down. It's not a nice thought. It's not something to research on the internet I think.

Bottom line though. The test results came from Scientific Bereavement and Registration Services and if the graves are a concern for contamination, what else might be in that water other than lauryl sulphate- that hasn't been tested for?



Saturday, March 3, 2018

Water on Ironmills Slope


Midlothian Council and The Advertiser have recently reported on the continued closure of Ironmills Steps.

It's not a great bit of news really, it is basically inconclusive as to whether or not works might start soon to re instate the access with new steps on the land slipped slope.
It's a risk. 

Why is that?

Because despite expensive repair works there's still water running on the slope.

Why is that?

Because the water source can't be found.

Why is that?

Because the councils' investigation was cut short last year.

Why is that?

Because Scottish Water were initially helping out but a sample indicating the water might be drainage water led them to walk away from the problem.

Why is that?

Because SW would have been charged to recompense the council for the land slip costs had it been proven that the water was Mains water. The sight of a cruddy smelly sample led everyone to believe the source was a drain. Thing is - I can't replicate that sample and neither can the council....

So that's it. 5 Why's to get to root cause for the works to the steps not being done this year. Sad, isn't it.

The initial test results of the water on the bank did indicate it was Mains water. Due to the presence of Tri Halomethanes, a reaction between chlorine and organic matter indicating that the source water was chlorinated. Chlorine on its' own being unstable and breaks down, therefore can't be used as an indicator.

I have the data here.






Great shame that the testing stopped after this. Article in the Advertiser states "despite exhaustive tests it is still not clear.....". In my old laboratory this would never have been described as exhaustive tests. 

Trouble is it is all now too late to do anything with Scottish Water. Up side is that all the supply pipes in Cemetery Road were upgraded around 3 years ago, and all testing for any leakages has drawn a blank. So unless there is some other supply pipe that none of us know about, it's pretty difficult to find the source of this water.
It's interesting (well it is to me) to know why the supply pipes were upgraded 3 years ago. Shortly after the local tennis club installed a sprinkler system there was a reduction in water pressure. SW put a monitor on our supply and found it was dangerously low at times, basically in time with the sprinkler tank filling up. This created the need to upgrade the pipes to all in Cemetery Road. That was interesting for about 6 months whilst SW tried to claim it was a private supply. Imagine the costs (to all - including the tennis club). Fortunately we were able to prove SW had serviced the supplies here with hard evidence, and they changed their mind about it being a private supply. 

It's also interesting to know that approval of the planning application for the sprinkler system was completed before SW replied to their consultation. There should have been an impact assessment before approval according to their post decision correspondence. But that would have put the target date for planning approval out of compliance. So the planning officer approved w/o the SW consultation. Lucky tennis club.

Back to the steps. What would you do if you were the council.Take the risk whilst the water runs? 

I wouldn't. Hence it is my best advice that another route and new bridge is the only answer. That would be great if it is possible. We will be left with all the problems on the bank adjacent to us, but perhaps Mother Nature will sort it out. I really can't see any alternative given the amount of money that has already poured into stabilising the bank and the continued need for funds to make sure the land doesn't slip any farther. 

My e mail correspondence from 2017 re the water testing for background reading. It was particularly amusing to note that the councils' correspondence on this issue was titled Dalkeith Water Tower.
Why don't you take a shot at the 5 why's for this - Why did MC title the correspondence Dalkeith Water Tower?

Good, isn't it. You don't really need to do it 5 times for this one :-)














Sunday, February 11, 2018

Diary of Planning Events Part 3

This post is a follow on from 2 previous posts concerning planning matters at Cemetery Road from the adjacent Dalkeith Lawn Tennis Club

In 2014 there was an application by the club to retrospectively apply for pp for 2 layers of aqua coloured netting to their fence. This was a matter I had raised as a planning enquiry to which the council responded with a planning contravention notice.

In 2015 we received a planning contravention notice for a wood store that we constructed w/o pp in our woodland. No one can see our woodstore but we had to apply for retrospective permission none the less. 

Now in 2017/2018 the tennis club are applying again for retrospective pp for a third layer of netting to that approved in 2014. 

It may seem trivial to some, it certainly reads as a neighbours tit-for-tat planning debacle, but the screen netting is a significant concern to our home and property. If approved then for ever more, even if the club were to sell up, any developer could apply for a similar wall of light blocking material to our home. That's not good.

Our complaint. 

It's a long story. Too much to explain.





Gerry Goldwyre
Cemetery Lodge
Cemetery Road
Dalkeith
EH22 3DL
11th Feb 2018
Ref DLTC/46/ltr Planning


OBJECTION   Ref No. 17/00747/DPP
Letter of Objection
We are writing this additional letter of objection because additional time was granted after planning officer Laura Kinsey reviewed our concerns regarding;
(a) Omission of the application from the weekly list and (b) Changes on the portal to documents. The portal document previously described as “correspondence” was changed to “Supporting Statement” and dated Dec 22nd. Hence it was not reviewed as a supporting statement when we made our initial objection and it makes a substantial difference to the appreciation of what the application proposes.

The supporting statement indicates that the club wish to retain 3 layers of netting on the fence on our boundary. This presents an unacceptable impact onto our home and we have therefore sought independent advice for our objection.
The supporting statement does not concur with the e mail correspondence between the club representatives and ourselves. Leaving us to wonder exactly what is proposed and if the club representatives know what is proposed.

E mail correspondence

*******Removed pending replacement*******




Extract from above.
Hi Susan,

I’d just like to re-iterate what Clare (President) and I (Secretary) discussed with you and Gerry at our recent meeting. The Tennis Club are happy to remove the two layers of aqua screening and replace it with one layer of dark green which will be folded down at the end of the playing season. We felt it was necessary to continue with the planning application to ensure that we were within our rights to keep the dark green screening at all other times. We feel the darker screening is necessary to stop light in the late summer distracting play especially on courts one and two – it can be very distracting when trying to serve or hit a smash. I discussed all these points in our recent meeting with Graeme King.


Objection

What is in realty being proposed is a solid structure that is 7m high above our internal ground floor and higher than our bedroom window.

The application is to install, amongst other things, new netting and structures at the tennis courts on Cemetery Road. We now have the following comments.

1.     The scope of the application is wholly unclear. It is not possible to determine exactly what is proposed. The description, the drawings and the ‘’supporting statement’’ all say different things. There are glaring omissions (such as no elevations for the proposed fence, its distance from neighboring property, and its impact on our neighboring property).
2.    There are contradictions (the number of layers of netting, its appearance, and the effect and impact of it). It is wholly unsound for Midlothian Council to consider this application without absolute clarification of what exactly is proposed. This application should not be determined until it is known exactly what is proposed and the effect of what is proposed can be judged properly. There should be no repeat of the previous retrospective approval where inadequate information was approved without appropriate consideration or conditions.
3.    A submitted drawing by the applicant repeats an incorrect assertion that the netting has been requested by a neighbour. This statement should be deleted, on the basis that it is wholly untrue.
4.    Of equal importance and note, is the failure to identify why this net screening is required at all. The fence (of robust enough material to stop balls) is to the north side of the court. It does not need additional netting to screen light as substantial light is north light. Not far away are the Council’s tennis court in King’s Park. Those courts do not have a similar dense netting treatment to their north/west side. In Midlothian, this type of added-on net treatment is not used at all as far as we are aware. Additionally, in research of tennis courts across the country, we could find no example of any court with a 4.8m high fence. It begs the question as to why is it needed here?  What is the justification for the netting? Why was the netting previously approved without adequate justification?  The addition of netting fundamentally transforms a ball proof fence from see through and subtle in the landscape, to solid and intrusive in the landscape. The case officer’s consideration in 2014 was not especially thorough in this respect and others. 
5.    The site is located in a conservation area, close to listed buildings and in a sensitive local natural landscape. The approval for bright aqua coloured netting in 2014 failed to take account of the fact that the netting could be seen over considerable distance. Not only is it visible from Ironmills Park it is visible from the train. The case officer did not appear to consider visibility from the footpath now train line, but nevertheless fully and unequivocally in the public domain. He considered that it was not out of character with the area because it was in place. That approach is both sloppy and flawed. It is - as a modern and synthetic material - visually intrusive and out of character with the conservation area and wider natural environment. It is inappropriate and visually harmful to the conservation area and to the natural environment. Simply because there was netting in place in 2014 (when the application was retrospective) did not mean it did not give rise to harm then. Now exactly the same applies.
6.    In assessing the current application, the case officer neighbours and the public must know exactly what is being proposed, in order to judge it. In this case it is not at all clear. Once the officer has established the materials, the colour, the appearance, the density and the number of layers, then the application can be fully considered, and the issues fully developed.  The fact that the applicant wishes to create a screen that obscures the sun, will result in this screen adopting the characteristics of a solid wall, and should be assessed as such.  It is incorrect to seek views now when information is clearly missing and the application deficient. With the information that is available online it is impossible for the neighbours, the Community Council or the wider public to judge the effect.
7.    The effect of the netting on the tennis club in planning terms will be neutral. The effect upon the wider landscape was noted by the Reporter (considering other matters within our residential plot) who commented on the effect of the fence in the wider context. The effect of the high fence would be negligible if the netting was removed.  Views would be through it. The fact that the Scottish Office Reporter mentioned it all was clearly because it did not sit especially comfortably in the landscape.
8.    The impact of the proposal on our amenity was not previously considered properly. Our house lies to the north and at a substantially lower level than the top of the fence. The huge extent of elevated applied netting stretches along the south boundary of our residential curtilage. Orientation matters, yet it apparently previously ignored in 2014. For information and to ensure that the case officer is reminded of the facts, our home was built within residential ground. The land was residential and was part of the curtilage of Cemetery Lodge. Indeed, the land predates the tennis courts. The amenity of our home is diminished by the existence of the netting due to its shading effect and that effect could far more seriously harmful and compounded depending on what is proposed as part of this application. However, neither the we or the planning case officer can judge the proposal, as it is not clear or evident what materials are to be used and how much light will be blocked. That cannot be established without samples of the material and a proper specification. The application may be partly retrospective, but it is unclear what part is retrospective. It would not be unreasonable to ask the applicant to prove there would be no impact or harm.
9.    The effect on Susan and I would be upon our established amenity and the light we enjoy in the garden and upon the amenity and light we enjoy in our upper floor bedroom, and the ground floor lounge living space. It cannot be right to potentially reduce our enjoyment of our property contrary to the Human Rights Act, Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of property. Local Planning Authorities must be fair in striking a balance between the interests of a property owner and another owner or in terms of the public interest.
10.  We are potentially exposed to an almost solid screen that will block light 365 days a year to accommodate a few hours of dappled sunshine onto one end of the tennis courts for a couple of hours on perhaps 20 days a year if the sun shines. A reasonable alternative may be to wear a cap with a visor when playing.
11.   The applicant states that there has always been netting on the club fence. Research has proved this is inaccurate, for two reasons. One former member recalls no netting what so ever in his playing days between 1994 and 1998. Additionally, tight weave plastic mesh was not produced until the 1960’s.
12. The applicant states that our potting shed blocks light to our property. When the sun moves across from the East to the West, the time of day when our potting shed could block light is when the sun is already behind trees at the back of our woodland. We have no loss of sunlight due to our potting shed. But the applicants comment only serves to demonstrate ignorance on light impact on our property, which is another reason why independent assessment of light impact should have been undertaken.
To make this point these photos show the sun trajectory on 11th Feb 2018 from our bedroom window. Between the hours of 1pm and 4pm.



Approx 1pm 11 Feb – the screen netting showing the previously approved aqua netting on the RHS and adjacent section on LHS showing the triple layered block.




Approx 4 pm 11th Feb showing the potting shed and the setting sun long before the potting shed could create shade. Screen netting is the previously approved aqua coloured netting only, the club President having removed the additional green layer on this section in a spirit of co-operation.

These matters set out here should be considered in full and prior to the determination of the application.


If approved it will set precedent for anyone to erect an effective solid wall 5m high on a neighbours property.

See Enc photos 1,2,3, and 4