Representation to Council, Local Development Plan, Main Issues Report

Historic Lothian Protection & Development Ltd – Land at East Fortune Hospital

The Site

The site comprises the former East Fortune Hospital located within the settlement of East Fortune, East Lothian. The site is 17.2 hectares in size and is long, linear and largely flat. The site is bounded to the north by the B1377. It is contained by the farmland associated with East Fortune airfield to the south and west. East Fortune Steading abuts the site to the north west and the eastern boundary of the site is contained by existing housing.

The site previously formed part of the East Fortune airfield when it was constructed as a base for fighter planes and in 1915 during World War I. It was then developed to house East Fortune Hospital in 1922 until it closed in 1997. Since then the since has been vacant.

The site contains 7 B listed buildings. These all formed part of the original station. The remainder of the buildings formed part of East Fortune Hospital and are not listed but are within the curtilage of the listed buildings. All of the buildings within the site are now in an advanced state of disrepair and dereliction and are known to contain asbestos which will require removal. Due to their continued vacancy, the site attracts anti-social and criminal behaviour and is a local eyesore.

East Fortune airfield to the south is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The site contains large areas of woodland and planting and some individual mature trees, all of which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

While the site’s location is rural, it is not isolated. There are a range of services and leisure and tourism uses in the vicinity of the site, making it an active part of East Lothian. These include the National Museum of Flight, East of Microlights, the Melville Motor Club which uses sections of the former runway for race track events, and the East Fortune Market which takes place every Sunday. Brand Leisure runs a caravan site to site’s immediate north at East Fortune Farm and the Flag Heritage Centre at also attracts visitors to the area.

The site is circa 2 miles from shops and services at and circa 2 miles from Drem which has a train station. It is 2 miles from Athelstaneford and the Primary School which serves East Fortune. Haddington and North Berwick are local employment centres in addition to which is accessible by rail from Drem.

Policy Context for Site

The site is currently covered by policy ENV12: Former East Fortune Hospital in the Adopted East Lothian Local Plan. This policy is highlighted as “Requiring Minor Review” in the Main Issues Report (Appendix 6) and Question 26 seeks views on this.

1

The terms of ENV12 are as follows:

“The Council supports the use of the former East Fortune Hospital for employment, leisure or tourism uses. All proposals should safeguard and secure the long-term maintenance of the Listed Buildings and their setting. A housing use will only be acceptable as enabling development to secure this and is further conditional upon:

1. satisfactory provision for the retention and long term maintenance of the 7 Listed Buildings; and

2. any housing being limited in number and size of units to that agreed with the Council on the basis of what is judged the minimum necessary by independent assessment to secure (1) above; and

3. availability of infrastructure, including education capacity”

Planning History

The site was subject to a series of planning applications throughout the 1990’s, none of which were granted planning consent. The most recent planning application was lodged by Historic Lothian Protection & Development in 2005 (ref 05/00357/OUT). This applied for outline planning consent for the development of 56 homes, 6 of which were to be affordable. The application proposed the retention of the listed buildings and a number of the unoccupied buildings on site. These, the application stated, would be subject to a subsequent planning application for their conversion at a later stage.

The application was recommended for approval by ’s planning officers. The Officer commented in his report that:

• At no time since 1998 has anyone sought of the Council planning permission for any employment, leisure or tourism use of the site. • The Council’s Policy & Projects Manager advises that there has been no interest in the site for any such uses. • Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to consider a residential development provided it can meet the remaining three conditions of policy ENV12.

However it was refused at Committee on 6th October 2009 on the following grounds 1:

a) That the enabling development would not meet the requirement of Policy ENV12 in that was not associated with a proposal for the site which envisages employment, leisure or tourism uses whilst safeguarding and securing long term maintenance of the listed buildings.

1 See Minute of Planning Committee 6 th October 2009 (Appendix A)

2

b) That a satisfactory enabling housing development would not be achievable in accordance with Part 5 of Policy DC1 by virtue of its proximity to a large area of dereliction with no immediate prospect of use of remedial action, with resultant implications for the amenity and security of residents.

The Planning Committee Convenor commented at the time that further housing could be approved for the site if it was part of a multi-faceted application which included a masterplan for the site.

The lack of interest in the site for uses other than residential, and the failure of an application to gain planning consent at Committee despite satisfying local authority officers, and the continued slide of the site into dereliction are all indicators that the terms of policy ENV12 require updating in order to facilitate development on the site.

MIR Response to Site

Circular 6/2013 requires planning authorities to monitor the impact of policies and proposals of the existing plan. A Monitoring Statement should take account of these impacts and form an evidence base of the plan (para 61). This informs the Main Issues Report which identifies where key change have occurred since the last plan.

Question 26 of the East Lothian MIR confirms that the Monitoring Statement indicates where and how it is intended to promote for the LDP a “minor review “ of existing local plan policies and the introduction of new policies, inviting comments on these.

In relation to Policy ENV12: East Fortune Hospital, the Monitoring Statement states:

“No planning applications for redevelopment of the site have been received for the site during the Local Plan period so the policy has not been applied. A site submission promoting the site for development has been received in the call for sites for the MIR.”

The Statement goes on:

“This policy remains relevant. The East Fortune site continues to require a planning policy to guide its future development including that of its recently reaffirmed listed buildings. Review to ensure the policy remains clear and reaffirms the need to ensure a long term future for the listed buildings.”

It is concluded that the policy should therefore be reviewed and amended.

Historic Lothian Protection & Development Ltd agrees with this approach. The failure of the site to be developed indicates that the policy is not providing developers with sufficient clarity or certainty regarding development at this location. Other local authorities such as Midlothian Council have taken far more positive approach to promoting enabling development to secure listed buildings (e.g. the allocation of land at Roslynlee Hospital, Penicuik for 120-300 homes).

3

It is also disappointing that East Lothian Council has failed to establish that policy ENV12 has indeed been applied in the Local Plan period. While the last application for the site was received in 2005, it was determined in 2009, with Policy ENV12 being a determining issue. Moreover, there are significant lessons to be learnt from the Committee’s deliberations of that planning application and its implications for policy ENV12.

Proposed Policy

The following are the grounds for revising policy ENV12:

a) Lack of demand for employment/tourism/leisure uses at this location b) The need for a holistic solution with additional housing. c) Clarity is required regarding the future use of the listed buildings. d) The need to recognise additional costs associated with the redevelopment of the site.

It is proposed that ENV12 should be modified as follows:

“As a means to support the protection and bringing back into use listed buildings on the site, residential development is supported at the former East Fortune Hospital. The listed structures are not suitable for residential use, however residential development will be acceptable on the remainder of the site to support their ongoing retention, reuse and maintenance.

The site can accommodate 50-200 homes. A masterplan will be required to establish an appropriate scale of development and how development will relate to the remaining structures and the landscape setting of the site.

Employment, leisure and tourism uses will also be supported within the site.

Development is further conditional upon:

1. Satisfactory provision for the retention and long term maintenance of the 7 Listed Buildings; and

2. The ability of the development to secure the demolition / conversion of remaining buildings on site / removal of asbestos / introduction of alternatives uses if proposed /appropriate planning obligations; and

3. Availability of infrastructure, including education capacity.”

4

Justification

a) Lack of demand for employment/tourism/leisure use

An Employment Land and Property Market Review for the East Fortune Hospital site was undertaken by Ryden in 2014 2. This was in order to establish market demand for the site for employment, leisure and tourism uses which are the preferred uses under the terms of the current policy. This report considers possible employment-generating opportunities within a residential-led development at East Fortune. The analysis focuses mainly but not exclusively upon the principal office and industrial employment sectors. Given the nature and location of the East Fortune site, the report also assesses other employment-generating land uses such as retailing, community uses, leisure and tourism facilities and creative industries.

The report concluded:

i. East Lothian’s economic development potential lies in the service requirements of the region itself and in opportunity sectors including tourism, energy, food & drink, life sciences and digital/ enabling technology.

ii. In strategic terms, economic development opportunities are directed towards a cluster/ corridor around the A1 trunk road. There is no strategic requirement to provide additional employment land elsewhere in East Lothian.

iii. East Fortune is in a tertiary market location outwith this strategic planning area. The East Fortune site has neither an urban catchment, nor a position on the strategic transport network that would allow it to serve a wider market area or target visitor markets.

iv. The only feasible solution to provision of employment-generating land uses at East Fortune is the possibility of re-using the existing listed buildings when these have been refurbished . These could potentially meet the very limited demand for light industrial / workshop units, craft/ creative industries, local shop and community hall opportunities. A potential additional use would be public access to one of the listed buildings, possibly with restoration to original interiors and provision of interpretative materials. This potential solution integrates the requirement to cross-fund retention of the listed building, with the desire to achieve a mix of land uses including an appropriate scale of employment-generating activity .

An earlier report was prepared by Knight Frank for our client in support of previous planning applications for residential development. This also concluded that the site would not attract the uses specified in Policy ENV12.

2 Report is attached under separate cover as Appendix B

5

It is pointless and counterproductive for ENV12 to continue to seek employment, leisure and tourism led development on the site. If the site is to be a viable development site, which is the only way it can secure the restoration and retention of the listed buildings, the primary use of the site must be residential. If the Council wishes to see alternative uses, it must be made clear that these are to be ancillary. These can be standalone uses or if appropriate they could be accommodated within the listed buildings.

b) Need to provide a holistic solution with additional housing

The 2009 application for 50 private homes was based on what East Lothian Council assessed to be the minimum necessary to deliver the reuse of the listed buildings. By restricting development to the minimum necessary however, East Lothian Council limited the development of the site to such an extent that large areas of the site remained undeveloped.

It was the Planning Committee’s view in 2009 that it was not enough to address the listed buildings on the site. Instead, “further housing could be approved for the site if it was part of a multi-faceted application”.

East Fortune Hospital comprises a large and complex site that requires a holistic solution. There is large scale dereliction that need urgent attention. There is a cost inherent in the demolition of the former hospital buildings, particularly due to the presence of asbestos. A recent initial quote for this work was for over £350,000 and this is likely to rise once a detailed survey of the presence of asbestos is carried out.

Therefore, rather than the site’s redevelopment being driven solely by the need to retain the listed buildings, the starting point should be the need for a masterplan that that addresses all of the above complexities. A design led solution that responds to the unique challenges of the site should establish what an appropriate scale of development should be at East Fortune Hospital. A design led approach is fully in line with the SPP’s desire to see placemaking put to the fore of the planning system.

c) Need to address Committee concerns re clarity on future use of listed buildings

When determining application 05/00357/OUT, the Convenor of the Planning Committee asked the Director of Environment if the Local Plan Policy ENV12 could be interpreted as saying that housing, as an ‘enabling development’, could not only contribute to the retention and long term maintenance of the listed buildings but also enable the creation of employment, leisure or tourism uses on site. This wider interpretation of the role which housing could play at the site was confirmed by the Director of Environment as a reasonable interpretation of the current local plan policy.

The revised policy should make clear that the priority of enabling development is to secure the retention and long term maintenance of the buildings. It should not be a requirement to find an alternative use for them as the market for alternative uses is extremely limited. However, the policy should make clear that alternative uses are welcome on the site either as standalone uses or within the listed buildings.

6

d) Additional Costs to be covered by enabling development (demolition / asbestos / planning obligations)

As stated above, there are significant costs in relation to the removal of asbestos from the buildings on site and there is likely to be demolition costs in order to address the issue of widespread dereliction on site. In addition, there may be the need for planning obligations to ensure upgrade the local road network and ensure there is capacity for pupils arising from this development in the local schools. If a developer introduces alternative uses on the site, the development of these may also need to be cross funded.

These costs must be factored into the calculation of the minimum requirement for enabling development. As stated elsewhere however, the scale of development at East Fortune Hospital should be determined by a masterplan led approach that responds to the site rather than one solely based on a spreadsheet.

Assessment of Site in SEA

The site has been considered against the Council’s own site assessment criteria as used at the Call for Sites stage of the LDP. These are laid out under two distinct headings; ‘Suitability and Deliverability’ and ‘Potential Impacts of Development: SEA Criteria’. Our conclusions are set out below. Suitability and Deliverability of the Site

Location: the site is within a designated Countryside area, however East Fortune does comprise a small settlement with is housing adjacent to the site in addition to a number of businesses related to the airfield.

Accessibility: It is accepted that the site is in a rural location, however there is a train station within 2 miles of the site and other to be built at East Linton. The assessment does not mention the bus service (Prentice 121 service) that connects the site with Haddington and North Berwick and the railway station at Drem. There is also a school bus service provided by Prentice that passes the site. With an increase in population at East Fortune, the service may increase in frequency.

Exposure: East Lothian Council acknowledge the site is well sheltered.

Aspect: No dominant aspect.

Suitability for Proposed Use: The site is considered suitable for housing.

7

Fit with local/strategic policy objectives and direction: ELC states the site does not fit with strategic objectives. It is acknowledged that the site it not within the SDA. However SPP encourages rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable communities while protecting and enhancing environmental quality (paragraph 75). The redevelopment of this derelict site will make a considerable improvement to the environmental quality of the settlement. This will also have significant placemaking benefits for East Fortune in line with the policy principles and objectives of the SPP.

SPP paragraph 137 states that the planning system should enable positive change in the historic environment to ensure its future use. The site’s redevelopment is in line with this policy objective.

Furthermore SESplan Policy 7 allows for housing outwith the SDA in order to maintain a 5 year housing land supply if the site is in keeping with the character of the settlement/area; does not undermine green belt objectives; and additional infrastructure can be committed to and funded by the developer. East Lothian currently is not maintaining an effective 5 year housing land supply. The site meets with the three criteria above, comprising brownfield development on a site that has previously accommodated an intensive use.

Physical infrastructure capacity: Waste water and road connections would form part of a detailed proposal for the site.

Service infrastructure capacity: East Lothian Council states that Athelstaneford Primary has very limited capacity and cannot expand and that North Berwick High School was also at capacity. However, prior to being refused planning permission at committee, draft heads of terms had been agreed whereby the applicant would make a planning obligation to mitigate impact on these schools. This therefore appears to be a constraint that can be overcome.

Deliverability/effectiveness: In terms of assessing the site’s effectiveness, agreement on the extent of enabling development that will be permissible is critical to establishing if this site is viable and deliverable. Therefore, we are not promoting this site for a residential allocation. However we are seeking an amended policy ensuring a positive policy framework for any emerging proposals.

Potential Impacts of Development: SEA Assessment Criteria

Biodiversity/Flora/Fauna: It is acknowledged that there is a Tree Preservation Order covering the site, however any development can be planned and carried out to ensure there is no loss or disturbance of habitat.

Population: The Council acknowledges that there would be a positive impact of the development on the local population due to the provision of affordable housing and, critically, the removal of buildings which currently blight the area.

Human Health: Given the proposed removal of asbestos from the site, there will be a considerable benefit to human health with the site’s redevelopment. A detail site investigation will ensure any sources of ground contamination are appropriately dealt with.

8

Soil: The Council makes the point that there would be some loss of prime agricultural land, however the majority of development will be taking place within the previously developed envelope of the site, i.e. on brownfield land.

Water: There is no risk of flooding on site and no related concerns.

Air: The Council states inhabitants will be heavily reliant on private car. However, given the close proximity of the train station at Drem, there is likely to be a modal split that reflects good commuter connections to North Berwick, Dunbar and Edinburgh in addition to a bus service that provides a school service and further onward connections.

Climatic Factors: The Council’s assessment of this aspect fails to take into account the largely brownfield nature of the site. The site is previously developed for what was a high intensity use (health care) which would have generated many more car journeys than a residential development. The Council’s preferred employment/leisure/tourism use could generate far more trips by car. Leaving the site as it is is not an option. Residential development will generate relatively low levels of car journeys in comparison to other uses and this will be mitigated by the nearby public transport connections that allow alternative sustainable transport modes to be utilised.

Material Assets: East Lothian Council correctly highlights the benefits of the reuse of existing buildings on the site which are listed and the use of brownfield land for development.

Cultural Heritage: it is duly recognised that the redevelopment of the site would provide for the restoration of listed building which have fallen into disrepair, therefore having a positive impact on cultural assets.

Landscape: The site has well established landscape boundaries and is well contained. Any development would be well screened from surrounding locations minimising the impacts of the redevelopment.

Overall, the site assessment contained in the Interim Environmental Report identifies that there are significant environmental and cultural benefits to the site’s redevelopment although it finds that the site is not well connected. Yet, considering nearby rail and existing bus connections and local housing and businesses, it cannot be considered to be isolated either. Furthermore it is a previously developed brownfield site. Given the significant improvement the site’s development would bring to the local area, there is a clear placemaking argument in favour of its development as well.

It is our view that the benefits of this site’s redevelopment clearly outweigh the disbenefits.

9

Summary Conclusions in response to Question 26:

• Policy ENV12 is not an effective planning policy and requires review and amendment.

• No employment, tourism or leisure use has come forward over the lifetime of the plan. The Council has acknowledged none are likely to.

• Ryden has identified that there may be small scale employment/tourism uses for the site, but that it should be clear within the policy that there is not a requirement to deliver these on site. Instead, the policy should simply welcome ancillary uses including employment, tourism and leisure.

• The retention and reuse of the listed buildings remains a priority, however the policy must acknowledge that residential led development is the only means of enabling this.

• The scale of development that is appropriate at East Fortune should be determined by a masterplan that can take into account the need for a holistic solution to issues such as the demolition/reuse of other buildings on site, the need to retain the listed buildings and the landscape setting of the site. This design led approach to regenerating a derelict brownfield site is aligned with the Scottish Government’s placemaking agenda.

• The policy should acknowledge that a ‘whole site’ solution is required that is enabled and delivered by residential led development.

• The proposed wording put forward in this submission should be adopted by East Lothian Council as a means of ensuring a positive policy framework is provided for the redevelopment of this site.

10