WEST LOTHIAN PLANNING COMMITTEE Report by Head Of

DATA LABEL: PUBLIC

WEST LOTHIAN PLANNING COMMITTEE

Report by Head of Planning, Economic Development & Regeneration

1 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

1.1 Planning permission in principle for residential development with access, landscaping, SUDS and associated infrastructure at Land south of Sibbalds Brae and 50M to the west of Falside Crescent, Bathgate

2 DETAILS

Reference no. 0636/P/18 Owner of site Mr D W Dalling Weslo Housing Management Applicant Hallam Land Ward & local Bathgate Management Ltd members Willie Boyle Harry Cartmill Charles Kennedy John McGinty Case officer Tony Irving Contact details 01506 282410 [email protected]

Reason for referral to West Lothian Planning Committee:

2.1 The proposal is classified as a major development that has been deemed by the council’s Head of Planning, Economic Development & Regeneration to be significantly contrary to the development plan.

2.2 There is a requirement under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, that in determining such proposals the applicant and those persons who have made representations on the application may appear before, and be heard by, a committee of the council. In accordance with the 1997 Act, the decision on an application of this type shall be discharged only by the full council and not by a committee of the council.

2.3 A subsequent report will be presented to West Lothian Council (Planning) in order that a decision on the application can be made.

3 RECOMMENDATION

3.1 It is recommended that West Lothian Planning Committee notes the contents of this report and the terms of representations made both at the notification stage on the application and by those, if any, appearing at the hearing, prior to West Lothian Council (Planning) being invited to make a decision on the application.

4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 This is an application for planning permission in principle for residential development on a 13.75 hectare greenfield site on the western edge of Bathgate and to the south of Sibbalds Brae (B708). It is bounded to the east by housing at Falside and also by Robertson Avenue local park and Little Boghead Nature Park. To the south and west is agricultural land and areas of woodland. Housing at Sandilands Gardens is also to the west. To the north on the opposite side of Sibbalds Brae is housing with agricultural land beyond.

4.2 The vehicular access to the site is from Sibbalds Brae utilising the access point that presently serves the houses at Sandilands Gardens. This is the access to the former Boghead House. There would be a need for some tree removal in order to form the new access road to serve the housing. The tree survey indicates 14 trees would be affected with further mitigation (non-dig construction methods) required to protect the root protection area of other trees.

4.3 Housing is proposed on only part the site, this being the field to the west of the housing at Falside. This field rises upwards some 7m in height from the north boundary at the access point at Sibbalds Brae to a high point in alignment with Falside Crescent. It thereafter falls downwards some 17m in height to the south east corner of the field adjacent to Robertson Avenue local park and Little Boghead Nature Park. This field is bounded to the west and south by watercourses. On the remaining parts of the application site to the west and south of these watercourses, the proposals include landscaping, paths, boardwalks, play provision and surface water attenuation/treatment basins.

4.4 While the application is in principle for residential development, a supporting planning statement and indicative masterplan describe:

• Residential development of up to 190 units • Provision of affordable housing (15%) • Open space • SuDS • Landscaping • Roads and associated infrastructure

4.5 The indicative masterplan has been revised during the processing of the application to remove housing and surface water drainage facilities from the 1:200 year flood zone.

4.6 In addition to the planning statement and indicative masterplan, the application is accompanied by:

(a) Pre-application consultation report (b) Design & access statement (c) Phase 1 site investigation report (d) Coal mining risk assessment 2

(e) Flood risk assessment (f) Drainage assessment (g) Transport assessment (h) Landscape and visual impact assessment (i) Tree survey (j) Extended phase 1 habitat survey (k) Water vole survey (l) Education report

Planning History

4.7 Planning permission in principle for residential development was refused on part of the present application site (the field on which housing is presently proposed) in November 2013 (0203/P/13). An appeal to Scottish Government against this decision was dismissed in August 2014.

4.8 The applicant made a submission to the Local Development Plan call for sites exercise for land on the west side of Bathgate (including the present application site) to be allocated for housing for up to 750 homes (site EOI-0127 in the LDP Main Issues Report). The council did not support the proposed housing allocation and the LDP Inquiry Reporter rejected the proposed allocation.

4.9 0233/PAC/18 Proposal of application notice for residential development. 0308/EIA/18 Environmental impact assessment screening opinion for a residential development with landscaping, SUDS and associated infrastructure.

5 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 A total of 61 representations were received, all objecting to the proposal. This includes objections from Friends of Little Boghead Nature Reserve, Sandiland Gardens Residents Association, Whiteside Farm Steading Residents Association and Bathgate Community Council.

5.2 The representations are summarised below. The full representations are available to view in the online application file and are attached to this report. The representation from Bathgate Community Council is summarised in section 6 of this report.

Comments Response The proposal does not accord with Agreed. The local plan does not allocate the site for the local development plan. housing and shows the site as within the countryside. The proposal would adversely affect The proposal would clearly involve development on the the amenity of the countryside on this urban fringe. western edge of Bathgate. There is inadequate education Agreed. Substantial new education infrastructure would provision to accommodate the be required to support the proposal. 3

development. The proposal would lead to traffic The council’s Roads & Transportation has no objection congestion and harm road safety. to the proposal subject to mitigation measures. The proposal will harm trees and The application is supported by a tree assessment, wildlife. habitat survey report and water vole survey report. There would be some loss of trees to form the site access off Sibbalds Brae. The habitat report found evidence of water vole to the east of the site. Suitable habitats for badger, otter, reptiles, hedgehog and a variety of bird species were also identified within and adjacent to the site. The habitat report recommends pre-works check of the site for these species. The habitat report concludes that no licences will be required to disturb European Protected Species. The water vole survey found the watercourse within the site was of relatively poor quality for water vole, due to a low abundance of grass, rush and sedge species suitable for foraging. It found four burrows along the bank of the watercourse approximately 50m to the east of the site but no evidence (latrines) to firmly establish them as belonging to water vole. The water vole survey recommends pre-works check for water vole and habitat enhancement measures. The survey also notes that the indicative masterplan shows a buffer of 20m between the watercourse and the extent of development. Planning permission for housing on A previous proposal for housing on the field that the site has previously been refused. housing is now proposed was refused.

6 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 The consultations are summarised below. The full consultations are contained in the application file.

Consultee Objection Comments Planning Response WLC No Details of the site junction onto Noted. A planning Transportation Sibbalds Brae are to be submitted condition and planning with any further application. obligation would secure this. Visibility splay of 4.5 by 70 metres onto Sibbalds Brae is required subject to satisfactory relocation of 30mph speed limit to the west of the site and introduction of traffic calming over the extended speed 4

Consultee Objection Comments Planning Response limit section.

A Stage 2 Road Safety Audit is required to support the submission of the junction design.

A pedestrian traffic island is required to the east of the site access and positioned relative to new bus stops.

Bus stops on Sibbalds Brae with kassel kerbing and shelters are required.

Contributions to A801 dualling are required. This is based on two way daily peak hour trips of 55 vehicles to the A801 (based on 190 residential units on the site). This equates to £79,090 (pre- indexation) on basis of £1438 (pre- indexation) per trip. WLC Housing No 15% affordable housing is required Noted. A planning in accordance with policy. obligation would secure this. WLC Flood Risk No The flood risk assessment is Noted. A planning Management competent. The recommendations condition would secure in the FRA should be complied this. with. The revised indicative layout plan shows footpaths, boardwalks & play provision in the 1:200 year flood zone. This should be avoided. The drainage assessment is acceptable. WLC No The submitted phase 1 site Noted. A planning Contaminated investigation is satisfactory. Further condition would secure Land Officer intrusive investigations are this. required.

WLC Education Yes The development is a windfall site Noted. Planning as it is not allocated for housing. 5

Consultee Objection Comments Planning Response Catchment schools are Windyknowe Primary, St Mary’s RC Primary, Armadale Academy and St Kentigern’s Academy.

Armadale Academy and Windyknowe Primary do not have capacity to accommodate the proposed housing development All existing capacity is required to deliver those sites already allocated in the LDP, many of which already benefit from existing planning consents.

The applicant’s position relies on the council’s 2015 Base School Forecasts (900 house completions per annum model) to show that capacity exists at Armadale Academy and that capacity pressures at Windyknowe are limited.

This position contradicts the applicant’s view that more development must come forward in West Lothian in excess of those sites allocated in the LDP. There are a significant number of sites allocated in the LDP for the Windyknowe and Armadale Academy catchment areas. The 900 house model assumes that only a proportion of these sites will come forward. Given the LDP assumes 25,000 houses to be built over the ten years of the plan period this is clearly in excess of the 900 per year modelling.

So to propose additional windfall site allocations on top of those sites allocated in the LDP it is clear

Consultee Objection Comments Planning Response that any education impact by the application must be based on the cumulative impact of the proposed development when combined with all the allocated sites in the LDP. Basing the education impact on an assumption that less than a third of allocated housing sites in the LDP will be constructed clearly undermines the nature of a plan led system and cannot be justified.

With regard to Windyknowe Primary, an extension to accommodate pupils from the proposed development would require an additional 2 to 4 classrooms and transfer of additional land to accommodate this.

With regard to Armadale Academy, an extension to accommodate pupils from the proposed development would require an additional 6 to 8 classrooms and transfer of additional land to accommodate this.

The council has no plans or funding to further extend Windyknowe Primary or Armadale Academy. Unless the applicant can demonstrate feasible and funded plans to deliver additional education capacity at these schools, including the required land for any extension(s), Education Planning will maintain an objection.

Contributions for RC secondary would also be required in accordance with policy. WLC No Conditions covering impact of Noted. A planning

Consultee Objection Comments Planning Response Environmental construction works should be condition would secure Health attached to any permission. this.

WLC Open No Robertson Avenue local park is Noted. A planning Space within 500m of the site. Little obligation would secure Boghead Nature Park is adjacent this. to the site.

Contributions are required as per the Residential Development Guide. These will be used to improve the local park and nature park to deal with the increased volume of residents. WLC Parks & No Acknowledge that some tree Noted. Woodland (Trees) removal is necessary to form the site access and note that only one beech tree is of particular interest. WLC Parks & No The development is adjacent to Noted. The proposal Woodland Little Boghead Nature Park, a would bring development (Ranger Service) Local Biodiversity Site. The close to the north-west development would cut off the last boundary of the nature open edge of the nature park. park. Contributions Although the application makes would be requested if reference to creating ‘corridors’ the proposal was to these look to be for access rather proceed. than wildlife, effectively turning the park into a wildlife island.

Should the development proceed, contributions should be sought to improve the path network within Little Boghead. This development would put extra pressure on greenspace in the area. West of Scotland No A programme of archaeological Noted. A planning Archaeology works is required. condition would secure Service this. SEPA No Remove objection on basis of Noted. revised indicative masterplan as all built development (including the SuDS basins) is now proposed to be sited outwith the functional floodplain and confirmation has 8

Consultee Objection Comments Planning Response also been provided that no land raising will be required within the functional floodplain.

Scottish Water No No objection. Noted.

Coal Authority No Agree with the recommendations Noted. A planning of the coal mining risk condition would secure assessment report that coal this. mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site. Bathgate Yes The site is not allocated for Noted. Community housing. It is not required to Council maintain an effective five year housing land supply. The site is within the countryside and there is no justification for housing on it. The site is part of the countryside belt and would prejudice its aims. Housing would add to strain on education infrastructure. There would be loss of trees. The site access would have an adverse impact on road safety.

7 PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT

7.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7.2 The development plan comprises of the Strategic Development Plan for Edinburgh and South East Scotland 2013 (SDP1) and the West Lothian Local Development Plan 2018 (LDP).

7.3 Relevant development plan policies are listed below.

Strategic Development Plan 2013 (SDP1)

Policy Assessment Conform

Policy 1A The Spatial Strategy: Development The site lies within the West Yes Locations Lothian SDA and is not identified as an area of restraint. LDP will direct further strategic development to strategic development areas (SDA). It lists West Lothian as a strategic development area. It further states any areas of restraint necessary as a result of environmental and infrastructure constraints are to be identified and justified in LDP. Policy 1B The Spatial Strategy: Development The site forms part of the locally No Principles designated countryside belt at Bathgate. The proposal would not LDP will ensure that there are no significant meet all the criteria for development adverse impacts on the integrity of in the countryside belt set out in international, national and local designations; LDP policy ENV7. on the integrity of international and national built or cultural heritage; have regard to the need to improve the quality of life in local communities; contribute to the response to climate change and have regard to the need for high quality design, energy efficiency and the use of sustainable building materials. Policy 5 Housing Land The site is not allocated for No housing in the LDP. The site is For the period from 2009 up to 2024, there is a not considered as being requirement for sufficient housing land to be necessary to meet the West allocated so as to enable 107,545 houses to Lothian housing land supply be built across the SESplan area, including on target. The council’s position is land which is currently committed for housing LDP allocates sufficient land to development. Of that total, the requirement for meet SESplan targets. the period 2009 to 2019 is for 74,835 houses. Supplementary guidance (SG) has been prepared to provide detailed information for each LDP area, both in the period 2009 to 2019 and in the period 2019 to 2024. The West Lothian requirement is to provide for 18,010 houses over the period 2009 to 2024. The majority of the requirement for West Lothian is to be met through sites allocated in the current local plan or through windfall 10

Policy Assessment Conform sites which have gained planning permission. Consistent with Scottish Planning Policy 2014 and with achieving sustainable development, priority in allocating new sites is to be given to brownfield sites within existing built up areas. Policy 6 Housing Land Flexibility The council’s position is that it has No an effective five year housing land Each planning authority in the SESplan area supply, therefore this policy does shall maintain a five year effective housing not trigger. land supply at all times. The scale of this supply shall derive from the housing requirements for each LDP area identified through the supplementary guidance provided for by Policy 5. For this purpose planning authorities may grant planning permission for the earlier development of sites which are allocated or phased for a later period in LDP. Policy 7 Maintaining a Five Year Housing Land The council’s position is that a five No Supply year effective housing supply is being maintained and therefore it Sites for greenfield housing development is not necessary to consider the proposals either within or outwith the criteria in which planning identified SDA may be allocated in the LDP permission can be granted in or granted planning permission to maintain a order to maintain a five year five years’ effective housing land supply, effective housing supply. subject to satisfying each of the following criteria: a. The development will be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area; b. the development will not undermine green belt objectives; and c. any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either committed or to be funded by the developer. Policy 8 Transportation PAN 75 recommended guidelines In part for the accessibility of housing to Local planning authorities will support public transport is less than 400m sustainable travel and that LDP will ensure, to bus services and up to 800m to amongst other objectives, that development rail services. In this instance, the likely to generate significant travel demand is railway station is some 2km away 11

Policy Assessment Conform directed to locations that support travel by from the site access at Sibbalds public transport, foot and cycle; ensure that Brae and the nearest bus stops new development minimises the generation of are some 250m from the site additional car traffic, relate density and type of entrance. development to public transport accessibility; ensure that the design and layout of new There is potential for bus stops to development demonstrably promotes non-car be provided closer to the site modes of travel; and consider the merits of entrance and thus meeting the protecting existing and potential traffic-free 400m distance for all houses within cycle and walking routes. the site. The distance to the rail station would remain a concern.

The site was discounted from being allocated in the LDP as it was considered there were other more appropriate and sustainable sites to support housing land requirements. Policy 9 Infrastructure There is not sufficient education No infrastructure to serve the LDP will provide policy guidance that will development. require sufficient infrastructure to be available, or its provision to be committed, before development can proceed. Policy 13 Other Countryside Designations A review of countryside belts was No undertaken to inform the LDP. LDP should review and justify additions or deletions to other countryside designations The proposal would not meet all fulfilling a similar function to those of the the criteria for development in the green belt as appropriate. countryside belt set out in LDP policy ENV7.

West Lothian Local Development Plan 2018

Policy Assessment Conform

DES1 Design Principles The proposal is for permission in In part principle and the site layout is only All development proposals will require to take indicative and thus the detailed account of and be integrated with the local design would be subject of a context and built form. Development further application. However, the proposals should have no significant adverse proposal would adversely impact impacts on the local community and where upon the countryside belt 12

appropriate, should include measures to allocation and to that extent does enhance the environment and be high quality not take account of local context in their design. and would to a degree have adverse impacts on the amenity of Development proposals which are poorly the local community. designed will not be supported.

When assessing development proposals, the developer will be required to ensure that: a. there is no significant adverse impact on adjacent buildings or streetscape in terms of layout, scale, massing, design, external materials or amenity; b. there is no significant adverse impact on landscape character, built heritage, habitats or species including European sites, biodiversity and Protected Species nor on amenity as a result of light, noise, odours, dust or particulates; c. the proposed development is accessible for all, provides suitable access and parking, encourages active travel and has no adverse implications for public safety; d. the proposal includes appropriate integrated and accessible infrastructure, open space, green infrastructure and landscaping; e. sustainability issues are addressed through energy efficient design, layout, site orientation and building practices; f. the development does not result in any significant adverse impact on the water environment as required by the Water Framework Directive and related regulations and as appropriate, mitigation to minimise any adverse effects is provided; g. there are no significant adverse effects on air quality (particularly in and around Air Quality Management Areas), or on water or soil quality and, as appropriate, mitigation to minimise any adverse effects is provided; and h. risks to new development from unstable land resulting from past mining activities are fully assessed and, where necessary, mitigated prior to development.

Where appropriate, developers will be required to produce masterplans, design statements and design guides in support of their proposals.

Development proposals must also accord with other relevant policies and proposals in the development plan and with appropriate supplementary guidance HOU1 Allocated Housing Sites The site is not allocated for No housing. The sites listed in Appendix 2 of the Plan and shown on the Proposals Map are allocated as housing sites which contribute to meeting the LDP housing land requirements for the plan period to 2024, as required by the Strategic Development Plan (SDP1), and are compliant with the spatial strategy set out in this plan. Development of housing on these sites will be supported in principle and proposals shall have regard to and be in accordance with the ‘Residential Development Guide’. Where applicable, proposals must also accord with the specific development requirements identified in Appendix 2. To ensure that an effective 5 year supply of housing land is maintained at all times, proposals for uses other than housing, except for subsidiary ancillary uses which may be appropriate to provide in a residential area, will not be supported unless it can be demonstrated that: a. there is a constraint on the site and there is no reasonable prospect of it becoming available for housing development within the plan period; b. the alternative use facilitates regeneration or offers significant environmental, economic or community benefits that are considered to outweigh the need to maintain the intended housing use; and c. for proposed employment uses, there are no suitable, available allocated employment sites which could accommodate the development.

HOU2 Maintaining an Effective Housing Land The council maintains that it No Supply achieving the 5 year effective housing land supply in terms of The council is required to maintain a minimum both SDP1 and SDP2 of a 5 year effective housing land supply at all requirements. times throughout the lifetime of the plan. An annual audit of the housing land supply (agreed with housing providers) will monitor and review the land supply in accordance with SPP and the Strategic Development Plan. Where additional sites are needed to maintain a 5 year effective housing land supply, greenfield sites will be supported subject to the following criteria: a. The development will be in keeping with the character of the settlement and local area; b. Any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either committed or to be funded by the developer; c. The development will contribute to sustainable development; and d. The development is expected to deliver new housing within five years. HOU4 Affordable Housing The proposals include the required Yes 15% affordable provision. New market housing developments must provide affordable housing levels as set out in the table and in compliance with the terms of Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing. All affordable housing contributions shall be secured by Section 75 Agreements or Section 69 Agreements. 25% affordable provision will apply to master plan allocations in the previously identified Core Development Areas of Armadale, East Broxburn / Uphall / Winchburgh and Livingston and the Almond Valley (i.e. Calderwood, East Calder and Cleugh Brae, Mossend and Gavieside, West Livingston). INF1 Infrastructure Provision and Developer There is insufficient education No Obligations capacity at Windyknowe Primary and Armadale Academy to serve The council will seek developer obligations in the development and there is no accordance with Scottish Government Circular acceptable proposal from the

3/2012 (‘Planning Obligations and Good applicant to remedy this. Neighbour Agreements’), as interpreted by emerging case law and amended by If the development were to subsequent amendments and legislation, to proceed, a planning obligation mitigate the development’s individual or would be required to secure the cumulative impacts upon infrastructure, following contributions: including cross-boundary impacts. Any such • Extension to Windyknowe obligations will be concluded prior to the issue Primary of planning permission. • Extension to Armadale Where appropriate developer obligations have Academy been secured, planning permission will • Non-denominational normally be granted. In all cases, the council secondary school provision will consider the economic viability of • Affordable housing proposals alongside options of phasing or • Public art staging payments from developers. • Cemetery provision Development will not be permitted to • Active open space commence unless: • A801 dualling a. funding (including any contributions from developer obligations) for necessary infrastructure is fully committed and that infrastructure is capable of being delivered; or b. phasing to manage demand on infrastructure has been agreed; or c. in advance of all necessary infrastructure requirements being fully addressed, sufficient infrastructure is available in the interim to accommodate the development. Only where infrastructure constraints, identified by the council in conjunction with relevant authorities, cannot be overcome will there be a presumption against development. Infrastructure requirements are identified in Appendix 2 and further details will be provided in subsequent supplementary guidance and the Action Programme. Any related planning obligations will require to meet the policy and legal tests set out above. Proposed sites for new infrastructure are listed in Chapter 6. Note: Supplementary Guidance explaining how developer obligations will be implemented will be developed during the plan period. TRAN1 Transport Infrastructure The site is some 2km from the Yes railway station, well over the The council will co-operate with other agencies recommended 800m distance

in preparing investment programmes to which weighs against the proposal enhance the environment by active travel is terms of ensuring major housing infrastructure, public transport facilities, traffic developments are at sustainable and parking management in its towns and locations. It is however served by villages. bus provision. Development will only be permitted where transport impacts are acceptable. The transport assessment has This will be established where appropriate, been assessed by the council’s through a Transport Assessment which covers Roads & Transportation and all modes of transport and has been approved impacts on the road network are by the council. deemed to be acceptable subject Parking levels for development shall conform to mitigation works. to the council’s current adopted standards. Further guidance is found in the council’s draft Active Travel Plan (2015) which will be taken forward as Supplementary Guidance alongside the council’s draft Local Transport Strategy (refresh) (2016). Strategic transport infrastructure requirements are set out in Chapter 6 of the Local Development Plan. TRAN2 Development Contributions and New bus stops, pedestrian island Yes, if Associated Works crossing and relocated speed limit provided. are required. Contributions to A801 Developers will be required to provide or dualling are required. contribute towards, the provision of travel improvements including traffic and environmental management measures, measures to promote trips by sustainable modes including walking, cycling, public transport, car sharing, and road improvements where these would be justified as a result of new development or redevelopment. Travel plans and an associated monitoring framework will be required to support major new developments such as the previously identified Core Development Areas, strategic housing allocations and inward investment proposals. ENV2 Housing Development in the The site is within the countryside No Countryside and the exemption criteria are not met. Housing development in the countryside will only be permitted where: a. the proposal provides for the restoration of a

brownfield site where there is no realistic prospect of it being returned to agriculture or woodland use and the site has no significant natural heritage value in its current condition; or b. the proposal is for the replacement of an existing house in the countryside which is of a poor design or in a poor structural condition; or c. the proposal is for infill development within the curtilage of an existing building group or infilling of gaps between existing houses of a single plot width; or d. the proposal involves the conversion or rehabilitation of existing rural buildings which the council deems worthy of retention because of their architectural or historic merit; or e. the proposal is supported by the council’s lowland crofting policy. Where a proposal by virtue of its design, location and landscape setting makes an exceptional contribution to the appearance of countryside an exception to policy may be justified. Proposals should make the best use of resources, integrate with services and facilities and demonstrate the highest standards in design and environmental quality to protect and enhance the established landscape character. The detailed requirements of Supplementary Guidance on New Development in the Countryside and Lowland Crofting will apply. ENV7 Countryside Belts and Settlement The proposal is within the No Setting countryside belt that at this location separates Bathgate from The following areas as indicated generally on Armadale. the Proposals Map are designated as Countryside Belt: Livingston; Bathgate / The submitted landscape and Whitburn; Winchburgh / Broxburn; visual impact assessment East Calder / Kirknewton; and Linlithgow / concludes that the likely adverse Philpstoun and Bridgend landscape and visual effects likely The strategic purposes of Countryside Belts to arise as a result of the are to: maintain the separate identity and development are highly localised visual separation of settlements; protect the and are offset by the benefits and

landscape setting of settlements; promote significant enhancements for public access to green space for informal biodiversity, amenity and recreation; and enhance landscape and landscape character. wildlife habitat. Protection and enhancement of the landscape It is accepted that the development of these Countryside Belts will be sought and of the site would have limited encouraged as part of the Central Scotland visual impact from more distance Green Network and other opportunities, receptors such as the A801 due to through woodland planting and managed intervening topography and tree access. cover. However, from close Within designated Countryside Belts, receptors such as the adjacent development will not be permitted unless housing, Little Boghead Nature it can be demonstrated that the proposal Park and from paths and higher satisfies following criteria: land to the south, the visual impact a. a proposal is environmentally acceptable of the development on the urban and the criteria set out in the policies fringe and would be very evident. ENV 1 – ENV 6 of the Local Development The proposal would appear as a Plan can be met; substantial extension of the urban b. the proposal will not undermine any of the area that would see housing adjoin strategic purposes as set out above; the remaining woodland and policy c. the proposal will not give rise to visual or grounds associated with the former physical coalescence between settlements, Boghead House. sporadic development, or the expansion of existing clusters of houses (existing groups of The proposal would erode the houses in the countryside but not within a town countryside belt at this location or a village) by more than 20% of the number without justification, albeit there of houses within that group; and would still be some 650m from the d. there is a specific locational need which housing to the A801. cannot be met elsewhere and need for incursion into Countryside Belt can be The proposal fails criteria a, b and demonstrated. d. ENV8 Green Network The proposal would include Yes opportunities to enhance green The council will support proposals which help networks on this western edge of to deliver the green network as set out in the Bathgate through provision of Green Network Plan and Supplementary paths and habitat enhancements. Guidance. Where green network opportunities are relevant to a proposed development (as determined by the council in consultation with landowners and other stakeholders and detailed in adopted Supplementary Guidance), the development will be expected to contribute wholly, or in part, to their delivery. The priorities will be active travel (walking and cycling), vacant and derelict land,

disadvantaged areas, strategic road corridors, areas of development restraint, areas of landscape protection including Special Landscape Areas and Countryside Belts and also areas of significant change. New woodland planting should be planned and designed to meet the criteria set out in the Edinburgh and Lothians Forestry and Woodland Strategy (2012). New woodlands for community use and planting for bio fuels will be supported where there is landscape and design integration, biodiversity enhancement and multi-use benefits including, where appropriate, public recreational access particularly near to communities. ENV9 Woodland, Forestry, Trees and There would be a loss of some In part Hedgerows trees to form the site entrance off Sibbalds Brae. While this would a. there will be a presumption against have some localised negative development proposals which involve impacts, mitigation measures could the loss of, or damage to, woodland, groups of help in compensating for this. trees (including trees covered by Tree Preservation Order (TPO), areas defined as ancient or semi-natural woodland, veteran trees or areas forming part of designated and designed landscapes) and hedgerows, which have particular amenity, nature conservation, biodiversity, recreation, landscape, shelter belt, cultural, historical value or are of other importance; b. proposals that involve the removal of woodland will only be supported where it would achieve significant and clearly defined public benefits and the criteria for determining the acceptability or otherwise of any proposed woodland removal is set out in the Scotland’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy document; c. approval for woodland removal will be conditional on the undertaking of actions to ensure full delivery of the defined additional public benefits; d. planning conditions and agreements will be used to mitigate the environmental impacts

arising from development and developers will generally be expected to provide compensatory planting; e. where felling is permitted but woodland removal is not supported, conditions conducive to woodland regeneration will require to be maintained through adherence to good forestry practice as defined in the UK Forestry Standard; f. as an irreplaceable resource, it is unlikely that benefits can be demonstrated for removal of ancient woodland. Exceptions for ancient woodland will therefore not be considered; g. development which is likely to affect individual trees and groups of trees considered important for amenity or their cultural or historic interest should comply with Supplementary Guidance Protection and promotion of woodland, trees and hedges including the undertaking of a Tree Survey, indicating constraints and tree protection requirements including BS 5837:2012; h. the enhancement and management of existing woodland, trees and hedgerow will be encouraged and supported. Where retention of a woodland area is integral to a development proposal, developers will be required to prepare and implement an appropriate Management Plan; and i there will be a preference for the use of appropriate local native species in new and replacement planting schemes, or non-native species which are integral to local and/or historic landscape character. ENV11 Protection of the Water Environment / The site includes watercourses. Yes Coastline and Riparian Corridors The proposal includes incorporating these within open The council recognises the importance of the space areas with landscape and water environment in terms of its landscape, habitat enhancements. ecological, recreational and land drainage functions. Accordingly: a. there will be a general presumption against development which would have a detrimental effect on the integrity and water quality of aquatic and riparian ecosystems, or the

recreational amenity of the water environment, or which would lead to deterioration of the ecological status of any element of the water environment. Where appropriate, development proposals adjacent to a waterbody should comply with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Guidance on buffer strips adjacent to water bodies; b. there will be a general presumption against development which would have a detrimental effect on Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE); c. there will be a general presumption against any unnecessary engineering works in the water environment including new culverts, bridges, watercourses diversions, bank modifications or dams; d. opportunities to improve the water environment by opening out previously culverted water course, removing redundant water engineering installations, and restoring the natural course of watercourses should be exploited where possible; e. there is a presumption against proposals which would undermine, through intrusive development, the landscape character and amenity of river valleys and other significant water courses. Development within riparian corridors which impacts on the ecological and landscape integrity will not be permitted unless a specific need for the development can be demonstrated; f. the council will support the development of measures identified within the Forth Area River Basin Management Plan designed to improve the ecological status of the water environment and coastal areas; g. the water environment will be promoted as a recreational resource (subject to the requirements of Natura 2000 sites) with existing riparian access safeguarded and additional opportunities for ecological enhancement, access and recreation encouraged where compatible with nature

conservation objectives. h. there is a general presumption in favour of sustainable development and use of the marine environment in the marine area from mean high water springs (MHWS) where the proposals can satisfactorily demonstrate that they are compliant with the objectives and policies of the National Marine Plan (2015) and regional marine plans. This principle is applicable to all marine activity. ENV17 Species Protection and Enhancement Sufficient habitat surveys have Yes been submitted. Mitigation Development that would affect a species measures are recommended by protected by European or UK law will not be the surveys. permitted unless: a. there is an overriding public need and there is no satisfactory alternative; b. a species protection plan has been submitted, which is based on survey result, and which includes detail of the status of the protected species on site and the possible adverse impact of development; c. suitable mitigation is proposed and agreed; and d. if it is established that European protected species are present, the development is not detrimental to the maintenance of European protected species at a favourable conservation status. Planning Guidance on Planning for Nature: Development Management and Wildlife provides advice on policy context, key habitats and protected species in West Lothian, survey methods and timing, good design and mitigation measures and licensing requirements. ENV 32 Archaeology A programme of archaeological Yes works will be required as part of Development will not be permitted where it any permission. would have a significant adverse effect on an identified regionally or locally important archaeological or historic site or its setting unless it can be demonstrated that: a. the proposal has been sited and designed to minimise damage to items or sites of

archaeological and historic interest; and b. there is no alternative location for the proposal. Archaeological remains should be preserved in situ wherever possible. Where this is not possible, archaeological investigation and recording will be required and must be to the highest professional standards. These investigations will be carried out at the developer’s expense, before and/or during the implementation of the development to include archaeological excavation, recording, analysis and publication of findings. ENV 34 Art and Development Contributions toward public art will Yes be required or on-site provision will In accordance with the council’s Public Art be required. Strategy and related Supplementary Guidance, developers of major residential and public buildings will be required to fund or contribute to the cost of works of art appropriate to the setting and scale of their surrounding area. Artists will be invited to contribute to environmental designs at an early stage. The implementation of the M8 Art project on a site at Junction 3 and other suitable locations is promoted. NGR1a Low and Zero Carbon Generating This requirement can be met a Yes Technology detailed planning stage.

Proposals for all new buildings will be required to demonstrate that at least 10% of the current carbon emission reduction set by Scottish Building Standards will be met through the installation and operation of low and zero- carbon generating technologies. A statement will be required to be submitted demonstrating compliance with this requirement. The percentage will increase at the next review of the Local Development Plan This requirement will not apply to: Alterations and extensions to buildings; Change of use or conservation of buildings; Ancillary buildings that stand alone and cover less than 50 square metres;

Buildings which will not be heated or cooled, other than by heating provided solely for frost protection; Buildings which have an intended life of less than two years. NRG2 Solar Roof Capacity Requirements This requirement can be met at Yes detailed planning stage. All new residential, commercial and industrial buildings must have a minimum installed solar roof capacity requirement as follows: Residential properties – 70% of new dwellings within an application site must offer the main orientation as East-West with not more than 30 degrees deviation from south; Small commercial properties – new buildings must have a significant roof capable of accepting solar or PV cells; Large commercial properties – new development must have a significant roof capable of accepting solar or PV cells. Exceptions will be made in rare instances where it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable grid access or structural limitations prohibit the installation of solar power. Exceptions may also be made where it can be demonstrated that site physical characteristics make it particularly difficult to meet the capacity requirements. Roof top solar installations considered under this policy are to be used for the purposes of electricity generation and not for space heating or hot water heating unless it can be demonstrated that improved use of insulation or low carbon or district heating is not technically feasible or financially viable. Supplementary Guidance will be produced to indicate how the requirements for solar energy roofs will be assessed at planning application stage. EMG2 Flooding A flood risk assessment has been Yes submitted and is acceptable. The Development will specifically not be supported proposal has been revised to in: remove built development from a. locations identified as being at medium to within the 1:200 year flood zone. high flood risk, unless it accords with the flood

risk framework set out in SPP 2014; or b. where it would lead to an increase in the probability of flooding elsewhere. Developers will be required to submit a full Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for all developments deemed to be at risk of flooding from any source in medium to high risk areas and developments in low to medium risk areas identified in the risk framework (i.e. developments located in an area at the upper end of the probability scale, essential infrastructure and the most vulnerable land uses). The Flood Risk Assessment should be undertaken in accordance with the relevant and prevailing the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) technical guidance. To limit the impact of potential flood risk any development that is subsequently permitted in medium to high risk areas (that accords with the exceptions in the risk framework) or is located in adjacent low to medium risk areas must be built to a water resilient design. Development that is proposed in an area that is or will be behind a formal flood protection scheme must be an appropriate and acceptable land use for the location, designed to be resilient. Any such formal flood protection scheme must be designed to an appropriate standard. Developments will be assessed against the flood risk framework contained in SPP which sets out the types of development and locations where it is appropriate to develop. New development requiring new defences against coastal erosion or coastal flooding will not be supported except where there is clear justification for a departure from the general policy to avoid development in areas at risk. Appendices 1 & 2 (which respectively list employment and housing land allocations in the plan) identify those sites where there is a known requirement for a FRA, watercourse buffer strips and best practice SuDS treatment. The council nevertheless reserves the right to

require the preparation and submission of FRAs for other development sites which present over the plan period where deemed necessary. Guidance will be sought from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and other agencies as appropriate. Alterations and small-scale extensions to existing buildings are outwith the scope of this policy, provided that they would not have a significant effect on the storage capacity of the functional floodplain or local flooding problems. All proposals must comply with the terms of Supplementary Guidance on Flooding and Drainage. EMG3 Sustainable drainage A drainage assessment has been Yes submitted and is acceptable. Developers may be required to submit a Detailed designs will be prepared Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) to ensure at detailed planning stage. that surface water flows are properly taken into account in the design of a development. DIAs, proportionate to the development proposal and covering both surface and foul water, will be required for areas where drainage is already constrained or otherwise problematic, or if there would be off-site effects. With the exception of single houses, SuDS will be a required part of all proposed development as a means of treating/attenuating surface water and managing flow rates. Developers will be required to ensure that adequate land to accommodate SuDS is incorporated within development proposals and that housing densities take into account the physical space for effective SuDS. The design of the system should meet best current practice. It is expected that surface water drainage systems, including sustainable drainage systems, for most will be vested in Scottish Water as drainage authority and will, as a consequence, be designed and constructed in accord with the most up to date edition of Scottish Water’s Construction Standards and Vesting Conditions ‘Sewers for Scotland’ (3rd Edition) and at the same time

comply with the Scottish Environment Protection Agencies (SEPAs) Policy and Supporting Guidance on the provision of Waste Water Drainage in Settlements in promoting connection to the public sewerage system where possible. Where new development (or the change of use of land or buildings) impacts on existing drainage arrangements, the council may require these arrangements to be upgraded as a condition of planning approval in order to avoid detriment to the water environment. Where there are existing issues of capacity or flooding associated with combined drainage systems, and these would be exacerbated by proposed development, developers may be required to invest in off-site works to provide additional capacity or reduce loadings on such drainage systems. Private drainage systems for sewered areas will only be considered as a temporary measure where there is no capacity in the existing sewer system; Development relying on private sewage systems will only be permitted where there is no public system in the locality and where the council is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the impacts on the water environment and on public health. Developments involving private water supplies will only be permitted where there is no public supply in the locality and where the council is satisfied that there is sufficient water and that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the environment and public health. The council will support in principle the incorporation of water conservation measures in new developments, including rainwater harvesting and systems for the recycling of “greywater”. Regard should also be had to other Local Development Plan policies in relation to drainage in new developments, SuDS, flood risk and the treatment of watercourses and proposals will require to contribute to the

delivery of green infrastructure and the green network where this is considered appropriate. EMG6 Vacant, derelict and contaminated land. A phase 1 site investigation report Yes has been submitted and is The redevelopment of vacant and derelict land acceptable. Phase 2 investigations is supported in principle provided that the can follow at detailed planning proposal is compatible with other policies of stage. the Local Development Plan. The greening of vacant and derelict land is encouraged by this plan. A wide range of environmental measures to green and enhance vacant and derelict land will be promoted and supported. In addition, development of or exceeding 2 hectares on vacant and derelict land for sustainable drainage systems or allotments will be treated as national development and supported in principle. Where it is suspected by the council that a development site may be contaminated, the developer will be required to undertake a site investigation, to the satisfaction of the council. Where contamination is found, and prior to the granting of any planning permission, the developer must submit a programme of remedial works to be agreed with the council which should also address any adverse impact on controlled waters. The developer must appoint an accredited site investigator to identify the specifications and monitor compliance to the works. Appropriate planning conditions will be applied to secure the remedial works. Any proposal requiring remediation will require to accord with Supplementary Guidance entitled Development on Contaminated Land.

7.4 The council’s following supplementary guidance & planning guidance is a material consideration.

• Development in the Countryside • Residential Development Guide • Flood Risk & Drainage • Development on Contaminated Land • Health Impact Assessment 29

• West Lothian Active Travel Plan 2016-2021 • Planning for Education • Armadale Academy • Denominational Secondary Education Infrastructure • Affordable Housing • Public Art • Cemetery Provision • A801 Dualling

7.5 Other planning policy documents of relevance are

• Scottish Planning Policy 2014 • Creating Places 2013 • Designing Streets 2010 • Planning Advice Notes (PAN): PAN 33 Development of Contaminated Land PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems PAN 65 Planning and Open Space PAN 75 Planning for Transport PAN 77 Designing Safer Places PAN 78 Inclusive Design PAN 79 Water and Drainage PAN 83 Masterplanning PAN 2/2010 Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits PAN 2/2011 Planning and Archaeology

7.6 The second Strategic Development Plan for South East Scotland (SDP2) has now been through examination. On 20 July 2018 the report of examination into SDP2 was published and submitted to Scottish Ministers. As SDP2 has been though examination significant material weight can be afforded to it.

8 ASSESSMENT

8.1 The site is not allocated for housing in the LDP. It is identified as within the countryside and part of the countryside belt.

8.2 The site was the subject of a submission under the ‘call for sites’ exercise undertaken to inform the LDP. Consequently the council has determined that the site should be retained within the countryside belt and outwith the settlement envelope of Bathgate.

8.3 The proposal fails to meet the requirement for housing is the countryside set out in LDP policy ENV2.

8.4 However, the applicant maintains that the council is not achieving a five year effective housing land supply and thus SDP1 policy 7 and LDP policy HOU2 apply that would allow the site to be released for housing.

8.5 The council’s position is that there is a five year effective land supply. Housing Land Audit 2017 shows an effective housing land supply of 7177 units. If the five year housing land supply target is derived from SDP1, the target will be: (2 x 1142) + (3 x 1318) = 6238. This is based on two years span in the period 2009 – 2019 which equates to an annual housing land requirement of 1142 houses and three years span in the period 2019 – 2024 which equates to an annual housing land requirement of 1318 houses.

8.6 The applicant refers to the LDP Report of Examination that concluded the LDP fails to provide sufficient effective housing sites to meet the housing supply targets within the lifetime of the plan.

8.7 Despite the findings of the Reporters in the LDP Report of Examination that there is a deficiency in the five year effective housing land supply, they go on to suggest that that this is could be addressed following the approval of the second strategic development plan later this year. Indeed if the Reporters did not consider this to be the case it is assumed that they would have required the identification of even more land to meet the perceived shortfall. They didn't do so and dismissed land on the west side of Bathgate that included the application site and a significant number of other potential housing sites as well. It remains the council‘s position that there is sufficient land to meet the five year land requirement in West Lothian. The conflicting position results from a number of issues:

• There is no definitive means of calculating the effective five year land supply set out in planning legislation. • In early 2016 the Scottish Government issued Draft Planning Delivery Advice on Housing and Infrastructure. That document contained a proposed method for calculating the effective five year land supply. • When tested against the proposed methodology the council can demonstrated an effective five year land supply. • Unfortunately the draft advice has now been withdrawn and will not be finalised or replaced which means that there will be no definitive methodology for calculating the effective five year land supply for some time to come. • The net result of this is that Reporters are entitled to calculate the effective five year land supply in whatever way they wish. This is a matter which the council's Head of Planning, Economic Development & Regeneration has raised with the Scottish Government's Chief Planner.

8.8 There are other issues on this matter that apply:

• The assessment of the five year effective housing land supply is a comparison of anticipated demand for housing over the next five years with the expectations house completions over the next five years. 31

• House completions are influenced by the market as well as the availability of land. The council has argued that the slowdown in housebuilding rates is a result of economic factors rather than any shortage of land. • At the Wellhead Farm appeal the Reporter was persuaded that the demand for housing in West Lothian was around 2,000 per annum despite only around 700 houses being built per annum. • Even at the peak of the housing market in the pre recessionary period the average house completions were around 1,200 houses per annum – well below the reporter’s assessment of demand being for around 2,000 houses per annum. • The 2,000 houses per annum figure is derived from the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HoNDA) which informed the Strategic Development Plan (SDP). That HoNDA identified a housing demand in West Lothian of around 1,200 houses per annum. However, because that level of completions has not been achieved since the recession, the shortfall is rolled forward into the remaining years of the SDP with the result that the effective five year land requirement increases significantly year on year. • A revised HoNDA was prepared in 2016 in line with the revised nationally produced household projections. The revised HoNDA identified a housing need of around 700 houses per annum. This is consistent with current housebuilding rates. • Despite the revised HoNDA being signed off as “robust and credible” by the Scottish Government, Reporters consistently give little weight to the revised assessment of demand as the HoNDA figures have not yet been incorporated into the development plan. • That won’t happen until SDP2 is approved. The consequence is that the land supply in West Lothian is likely to be tested against an out of date assessment of housing demand for some time to come.

8.9 Subsequent to the submission of the application, the examination report for SDP2 was issued to Scottish Ministers. SDP2 has been informed by the revised HoNDA.

8.10 The modifications to SDP2 outlined by the Reporter state that the five year effective housing land supply is calculated ‘by multiplying the annual average housing supply targets (Table 5.1) by five, and fully accounting for any deficit or surplus in completions against the housing supply target in previous years. Any deficits arising must be added to the 5-year all-tenure housing supply target to ensure that the whole target is achieved by the end of the plan period’.

8.11 If the five year effective housing land supply target is derived from SDP2, the five year effective housing land supply position in West Lothian is further enhanced as a direct consequence of the housing land supply targets for West Lothian being significantly lower than those in SDP1.

8.12 It is thus concluded that a five year effective housing land supply is being maintained in West Lothian and thus SDP1 policy 7 and LDP policy HOU2 do not apply. It is further

concluded that a five year effective housing land supply is being maintained in terms of SDP2 requirements.

8.13 The site is within the countryside belt which at this location separates Bathgate from Armadale, protects the landscape setting of Bathgate and promotes access and green network improvements. Development of the site for housing would extend the urban fringe westwards up to the remaining woodland and policy grounds associated with the former Boghead House. The proposal would erode the countryside belt at this location without justification. The proposal fails criteria a, b and d of LDP policy ENV7.

8.14 Education infrastructure is a constraint to the development proceeding. There is insufficient capacity at Windyknowe Primary and at Armadale Academy to accommodate children that would arise from the proposed housing. Both schools would need to be extended and this would require funding and land. The council has no plans or funding to extend these schools. The required education infrastructure at these schools has no committed funding and it has not been shown by the applicant that the required infrastructure is capable of being delivered. The proposal is thus contrary to LDP policy INF1.

9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

9.1 This application for planning permission in principle at is significantly contrary to the development plan.

9.2 It is acknowledged that the issue of maintaining a five year effective housing land supply is a material consideration in the determination of this application. However, as set out above, the council’s position is that there is a five year effective housing land supply in West Lothian. SDP1 policy 7 and LDP policy HOU2 thus do not apply.

9.3 The site is located within the countryside as shown in the LDP. The proposal fails to meet the requirement for housing in the countryside set out in LDP policy ENV2.

9.4 The proposal would constitute an unjustified incursion into the countryside belt and fail criteria a, b and d of LDP policy ENV7.

9.5 There is insufficient education capacity at Windyknowe Primary and at Armadale Academy to serve the proposal. Extensions at both schools would be required and there is no committed funding for this, nor has the applicant demonstrated that extensions are capable of being delivered. The proposal is thus contrary to LDP policy INF1.

9.6 In summary, the application conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh the presumption against residential development at this location.

9.7 Members are asked to note the conflict with development plan policies when the application is reported to Full Council for a decision.

10 ATTACHMENTS

• Location plans • Indicative site masterplan • Representations

Craig McCorriston Head of Planning, Economic Development & Regeneration Date: 21 November 2018

0 100 m 0636/P/18 - Land South Sibbalds Brae - West of Falside Crescent Bathgate

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO (c) Crown copyright and database right 2018. All rights reserved Ordnance Survey Licence Number WLC 100037194 The scaling of this drawing cannot be assured Revision Date Drn Ckd - - - -

EXISTING SPEED LIMIT

LOCATION Stone Wall 1.0m

Stone Retaining Wall Stone Wall 1.0m Post & Wire 1.2m 151.63m CONTINUATION LINE END OF SHARED CYCLEWAY / FOOTWAY Stone Wall 0.8m Stone Wall 1.0m 2.72m CYCLISTS DISMOUNT SIGN 5.93m

Post & Wire 1.2m Stone Wall 1.2m Stone Wall 1.0m SIBBALDS BRAE Stone Wall 1.2m

VISIBILITY SPLAY 4.5 x 70m SIBBALDS BRAE 3.56m Stone Retaining Wall Stone Wall 1.2m Stone Wall 1.4m Stone Retaining Wall Brick Post & Wire 1.2m 3.38m 1.3m VISIBILITY SPLAY 4.5 x 70m INDICATIVE RELOCATION CONTINUATION LINE 7.28m 20.27m 0.9m OF EXISTING SPEED LIMIT Retaining Wall26.17m Brick Wall Brick 1.3m 23.38m

Post & Wire 1.2m 4.52m 4.04m Stone Wall 1.4m DIAGRAM NO. 957 Brick Wall 1.5m

3.65m Stone Wall 1.0m Post & Wire 1.2m 25m 1 Stone Wall 1.4m 3.65m Stone Post & Wire Retaining Wall Wooden 1.1m 3.65m 1.0m EXISTING VERGE END OF INTENDED FOOTWAY 3m

Post & Wire 1.0m Proposed repositioning of the 30mph 2m 6m Existing lighting column to be relocated in verge at back of footway. Post & Wire Mesh 1.0m

Post & Wire 1.2m

Wooden 1.3m

Stone Retaining Wall

EXISTING MANOR WOOD ACCESS ROAD

Post & Wire 1.0m

Stone Retaining Wall

Post & Wire 1.2m

Post & Wire 2.0m

Hardhill Road Travelling Peoples Site

Stone Retaining Rough Grass Wall

2 Wooden 1.3m

Wooden 2.1m

Post & Wire 1.2m

Stone Wall 0.7m

Wooden 2.1m

Post Wire Mesh 1.2m

Residential Property

Post & Wire 1.0m

Post Wire Mesh 1.2m

Wooden 1.9m

Post Wire 1.1m Wooden 1.2m

Trees & Bushes

Water Level 19/02/13 14.29pm

Trees & Bushes 3

Post & Wire 1.2m

Post & Wire 0.9m 3

Post Wire Mesh 1.2m

Post & Wire Mesh 1.2m Post & Wire 0.9m

7 3

Wooden 1.3m

Water Level 11/02/13 14.00pm

Rough Grass

11 12 Water Level 12/02/13 14 11.43am Post & Wire 1.2m 2 Post & Wire Mesh 1.0m 4

Water Level 11/02/13 14.10pm Trees & Bushes

Post & Wire Mesh 1.2m 6 14

Metal Railing 1.2m

Chain link 1.2m

8 11 Water Level 15 16

Water Level

Rough 13 Grass 12 5 Post & Wire Mesh 1.0m 11

4 Water Level

Post & Wire Mesh 1.2m

Post Wire Mesh 1.1m

15 9

Post & Wire Mesh 1.2m

Water Level 05/02/13 11.30am 13 9 16

12 Post Wire Mesh 1.3m

Stone Wall 0.8m

Trees & Post & Wire Mesh 1.2m Bushes 7

Post & Wire Mesh 1.1m

Stone Wall 2.2m

Post & Wire Mesh 1.0m

Water Level 05/02/13 12.13pm

Stone Wall 0.8m

Water Level 15/02/13 11.38am INDICATIVE CAPACITY : 185 UNITS

Post & Wire Mesh 1.0m

Water Level 13/02/13 10.47am

Post & Wire Mesh 1.2m Water Level 15/02/13 11.02am

1 Single vehicular access point from Sibbalds Brae 9 Attenuation basin

Viewpoint eastward where long distance Project Primary 'loop' street 10 2 views are afforded of the distant hills Sibbalds Brae, N 3 Pedestrian priority axis 11 Existing planting Bathgate 4 Green / Blue corridor 12 Proposed planting Drawing Title Indicative Masterplan 5 Wildflower meadow 13 Boardwalk

6 Interpretive signage / art 14 Enhance existing hedgerow Date Scale Drawn by Check by 01.10.18 1:1,000@A1 CT MW Extensive area of accessible parkland 15 Boulders, timber stumps and logs as natural play areas 7 Project No Drawing No Revision Informal mown grass path 8 Wetland 16 28848 02 J

3ODQQLQJł0DVWHU3ODQQLQJ 8UEDQ'HVLJQł$UFKLWHFWXUHł /DQGVFDSH3ODQQLQJ 'HVLJQł(QYLURQPHQWDO3ODQQLQJł*UDSKLF &RPPXQLFDWLRQł3XEOLF(QJDJHPHQWł'HYHORSPHQW(FRQRPLFV

bartonwillmore.co.uk

Certificate FS 29637 Offices at Birmingham Bristol Cambridge Cardiff Ebbsfleet Edinburgh Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of HMSO. Crown Copyright Reserved. Licence No. 100019279. -???6LEEDOG¶V%UDH%DWKJDWH?$'ZJV 5HJLVWHUV?03ODQQLQJ?(+0UHY-0DVWHUSODQGZJ - A1 Glasgow Leeds London Manchester Newcastle Reading Southampton Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Application Summary Application Number: 0636/P/18 Address: Land To The South Of Sibbalds Brae Bathgate Proposal: Planning permission in principle for residential development with access, landscaping, SUDS and associated infrastructure Case Officer: Tony Irving

Customer Details Name: Mr ross mcivor Address: 68 falside crescent bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:A believe this is bad for the area as the local school doesn't have the space for pupils.a think also with these houses getting built would make an already busy school route more dangerous.I also don't believe we need more 3,4 and 5 bedroom houses that are not affordable in this area.I also object to building on the last few green belt area in Bathgate which would also near enough join Bathgate and armadale together.I also feel since building house behind boghead nature park the drainage has got worse making flooding risks.Living so close the impact on the environment would be bad as lots of different animal around proposed site Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss Deborah Wait Address: 68 Falside cresent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:It's not even worth talking about... it's an absolute joke. I do want people looking in to my back garden feel privacy will be invaded. Kids play around the scheme and with new roads and more cars it will cause carnage, mayhem and possibly fatal accidents.

Schools and doctors can't even cope with the amount of people living in bathgate as it is! Why add more houses and not bigger schools or doctors. It's bizarre.... if you ask me it's pointless. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Heather Vieira Address: 10 Whiteside Farm Lane Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:We live adjacent to the proposed development site and are writing to ask that West Lothian Council refuse this planning application from Hallam Land Management.

Herein are our comments and objections relating to this planning application:

As a resident of Whiteside Farm this development will lead to a loss of privacy and will certainly impact on the peaceful enjoyment of our home and gardens, these buildings will be overbearing. As already proven by the development of Plessey Estate this development will put yet further strain on a small private road leading to the Steading in respect of both cars and foot traffic exploring the area.

Whiteside is already a busy and congested area; this additional concentration of traffic and roadside parking along with pedestrians will cause traffic problems and create a safety hazard for other motorists.

We are also gravely concerned with the effect this development will have on the Little Boghead Nature Reserve which has already suffered in terms of drainage for the newts, birds and pond population that habitats there.

We also have major concerns with regards to the several species of wildlife that habitat the woods in the proposed development area such as deers, bats etc. Should you require any additional information, clarification of any comments made, or would like to arrange a visit to our home; do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr & Mrs Vieira Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Martin Rennie Address: 8 Whiteside Farm Lane Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:We would like to object to the proposed development. Even if the old argument about the area needing additional housing was accurate ( which I don't believe it is) why would any consideration be given to the destruction of greenbelt land which is scenic and gives homes to wildlife, flaura and fauna, all of which would be displaced. One only needs to look to locations in and around Bathgate that are derelict, unsightly and in some cases a significant danger to the public given the state of the land and derelict buildings on it. These eyesores are a disgrace to the area and resources should be provided to improve these areas before seeking to destroy areas of natural beauty. Furthermore, the area suffers significantly from lack of infrastructure in terms of traffic management and roads. Other services that are already burdened and not coping with current demands would be put at further risk of failing the public. Namely doctors, dentists, schools, nursery's, childcare and social care. Developers don't care when the destroy a community and walk off to the next planned construction, it is the local community that is left with the destruction caused. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss Amy Rae Address: 4 Whiteside Farm Lane Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The construction and building of a further residential development in Bathgate is quite simply unnecessary, and puts even more strain on an already over populated area without the amenities to provide, exacerbated further with Council cuts throughout the Authority. Having recently moved to the area, when trying to register with the local GP surgeries, of which there are three, only one surgery had spaces to give to myself and my husband, with both the other surgeries not accepting any new registrations.

Building on this land will be a death sentence for what little wildlife there is left in the area, and the impact on the residents, all of whom chose to live here because of the peaceful environment would be devastating.

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Greig Lumsden Address: 16 whiteside farm lane Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I wish to object. Firstly this development brings the town of Armadale and bathgate closer together, essentially getting rid of any boundary between the towns. 2. This site is a green field area, with evidence of water voles and otters. The site also has a collection of bats amongst other wildlife that would suffer as a result of yet more houses. 3. Yet another development will put huge strain on local schools, which are already maxed out and struggling to meet demand. 4. The roads that are already massively busy at this part of sibbalds brae and increasing the traffic will lead to more dangers for kids. 5. There are numerous brown field sites that should be built on before we tear up beautiful scenery. This site gets used by many people who go out walking to help ailments such as depression. Doctors are now telling people suffering depression to go out walking in the countryside and allowing more building work will take this beautiful area from them.

This is just a handful of reasons to stop the building, and I trust the council see sense to not grant permission. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Christine Falconer Address: 66 Falside Cres Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:As a Falside resident I strongly object to this development. There is not a strong enough infastructure to take this volume of houses.

All schools within the area already struggle and with the planned social housing development planned at the old Armadale brickworks this development would have a negative impact. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Pauline Collings Address: 51 Boghead Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I wholly object to any building on this site. Being at the bottom, main road end of this proposed development I see first hand the effects of traffic on the road. The proposed entry to the site is a dangerous choice as there is a blind corner on Sibbalds Brae and in my 12 years owning this property I have seen many overturned vehicles and accidents happen where the proposed entrance will be. My choice to purchase my property came from being born and bred in Falside and for the fact that I needn't worry that my cats have somewhere to roam. I know this is not a given right but it was a saleability factor for my property and should the building go ahead this will be removed.

With regards schools - Armadale Academy is almost at capacity with the new builds almost complete in Armadale adding to this makes no sense at all. The dentists have waiting lists for NHS patients and the doctors are almost full. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss Laura Butler Address: 11 Robertson Avenue Bathgate West Lothian

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I strongly disagree with this planning application, the increase of traffic on Sibbalds Brae would be ridiculous this road comes to a complete standstill as it is during the winter months, also there is a planning application in for 600 houses just a small distance away (brickworks site) all using the same road. This would increase the traffic significantly.

The schools already struggle with the amount of kids without an increase as do the doctors, both westerinch new builds and plessey new builds all come under Windyknowe primary school, also the increase in all the children over the years has changed the catchment areas of the high school making Windyknowe Primary a Bathgate School sent to Armadale Academy.

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Allan Stoddart Address: 5 whiteside farm lane bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Strong objection - this development is detrimental to the green belt of the town, it would also presents a negative visual impact on the current character of the local area. The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners. The proposed site is also resident to much wildlife including bats, water voles, mice etc. which should be preserved.

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Diane Parker Address: 54 Falside Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Falside is a lovely area of Bathgate and this field in particular is very picturesque being surrounded by some beautiful wooded areas, building here will have a hugely negative effect and completely ruin the area that so many locals love and appreciate. Falside has a community feel of its own and manages a great balance of being quite rural and yet within easy access of all the local towns, this will totally be gone. Bathgate historically has been defined by the different areas that make up our town and people are recognised by the area they were born and bred to, Falside, Whiteside, Birniehill, Belvedere and the list goes on and on. These communities within a community are being swallowed up and lost by these large developments and along with it people will lose their sense of community and identity. Falside is one of those communities and this field in particular and the surrounding area has been a playground to many a Falside "bairn", we are losing our green countryside every year and the generations to come will have nothing to see and appreciate the beauty of our area. Why do we have to destroy our countryside. I am so dismayed that this development company has started this again. All of the original objections are still very relevant: Roads are not able to accommodate more traffic, all it takes is a crash on the M8 and Hardhill Road is at a standstill for hours; Windyknowe Primary is at capacity; Doctors and Dentists are at capacity. The list goes on. Please leave our greenbelt land alone! Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Lisa Porter Address: 53 Boghead Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:1) Loss of green space and wildlife

2) Oversubscribed schooling at Windyknowe Primary and other schools within the Bathgate area including Bathgate Academy (Are there any future plans to build a new secondary school(s) to sustain the increased pupil levels?)

3) Lack of amenities e.g. play areas for influx of children

4) Danger of residual Decrease in house re-sale value to properties in the adjacent area

5) Concerns of environmental impact with regards to the close proximity to current housing and private land, also privacy for the adjacent houses with back gardens that will be over looked by the development/housing site.

6) Flood Contingency

7) Road infrastructure a) increase of traffic therefore an increase in noise and air pollution b) health and safety of local children due to the increased volume of traffic c) traffic lights at Hardhill/Glasgow road cannot sustain volume of traffic at busy periods when temporary lights are in place d) Sibbalds brae and Hardhill roads unsuitable for increased traffic - only 1 route available for Falside & Windyknowe areas to go in and out of Bathgate, Armadale and other areas e) safety concerns on the increased volume of traffic coming from Armadale into Bathgate on the Sibbalds brae road (this road is currently dangerous and several serious accidents have occurred previously, due to the speed limit and steep gradient sharp bends) f) Winter safety fears g) Speed limits should be reduced from: 40 to 30 on the Sibbalds brae road 30 to 20 on the Hardhill road for the safety of pedestrians especially at peak school times

8) Light pollution

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Kevin Falconer Address: 66 Falside Crescent Bathgate Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I object strongly to this as nothing has changed since the last request 5 years ago if anything our area struggles more now with the amount of residents and services not being able to meet the demand from the ever increasing population. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Tracy Bolan Address: 8 Robertson avenue Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I object to the development for the following reasons

1. The increased traffic onto hardhill road and sibbald's brae. The road is already struggling since the housing developments in Armadale. There have also been a few accidents on the road.

2. Insufficient school places for additional children. The local children have to go to Armadale academy.

3. Insufficient doctors and dentists. It's already difficult for people to register and registered patients find it difficult to get appointments.

4. Loss of green habitat. I want future residents and generations to have somewhere to play, walk rather than another housing estate.

5. Impact on wildlife at little boghead. I have seen reduction in wildlife since the plessey and railway was built. Wildlife are being squeezed into smaller pockets of land.

6. Flood risk. Since the plessey was built, the water drainage at Robertson ave is insufficient. The grass areas flood every time we get rain. The levels of water at the burn are getting higher each year. This development may add to it.

7. Increased noise at the pathway at Robertson ave. There has been increased anti social behaviour since the previous developments. This may be people staying or visiting. Examples include dog fouling, damage to property, harassment. More people will be likely to use this as a shortcut to town.

8. Disruption during the building. Works traffic, noise, pollution.

9. Many people bought their homes because they are not overlooked.

10. Since the previous applications, nothing has changed to convince me to support this development.

Tracy and Kevin Bolan Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Paul Green Address: 11 HARDHILL TERRACE, BATHGATE Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I strongly object to this planning application and my reasons being:

1. Our schools are already exceeding their teacher/pupil ratios, this proposed new housing estate will just increase this.

2. Our doctor surgeries and dental practices are also extremely over stretched, at times having to wait weeks to get an appointment.

3. My house is right next to Hardhill Road, so I have first hand experience that this has always been a very busy road and has issues with road users speeding on it. Even the introduction of speed calming measures to reduce this, are USELESS. Vehicles leaving Bathgate heading for Armadale as soon as they have gone over the last speed bump, their foot is down and speeding towards Armadale. The new proposed entrance is only approx 50metres from this speed bump and next to a bad bend on the road. Over the years there have been a number of road accidents next to the new proposed estate entrance and I can certainly see more accident happening here. This road is also busy when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids from the local school.

4. Developers are proposing long term Management of nearby woodlands. I have serious concerns that this would ever happen, as I know from experience of developers reneging from their promises. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss Lisa Gallagher Address: 13 Robertson Avenue Falside Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I feel very strongly against the work going ahead here. My partner and I bought this house two years ago on the grounds that there was going to be no other building work being done here. If planning was to go ahead this would cause a massive disruption to our quiet neighbourhood (solely the reason we moved here) and not to mention the mess and noise this would cause. We enjoy going for walks with our dog here which most of our neighbours enjoy doing too. We especially done want a T- Junction at our doorstep with hoards of traffic and chaos. There is soon going to be no ground left to build on! Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr DAVID MAIN Address: 33 OWEN STONE STREET BATHGATE

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:1. Bathgate already has committed housing land sites, in particular Easton Road; Wester Inch (various) and Standhill. Housing developments should be focused in sustainable locations where environmental impact is minimal. This would not be the case for this site.

2.The Countryside Belt has an important role in providing separation between Bathgate and Armadale, it is already narrow and sensitive, providing an important North-South wildlife corridor and this development would have an unacceptable impact on landscape character and its fauna & flora in the naturalistic setting of this part of Bathgate. The allocation of housing on this site would bring Bathgate so much closer to the edge of the A801 and significantly reduce the gap, currently defined by the countryside belt, between the two towns. Once green space is built upon, there will be no return to that rural idyll. If this development progresses the western countryside setting of Bathgate would be significantly eroded and any new western boundary of the countryside belt would be a weak one. The integrity and appearance of this area of countryside must be preserved and should remain free from any development.

3. The site as part of the Countryside Belt is an important habitat for a range of wildlife, indeed the watercourse that bisects the site in a roughly east-west direction has recorded evidence of Water Vole (Arvicola terrestris); Otter (Lutra lutra) alongwith Water Shrew (Neomys fodiens). The watercourse links via other waterways to Little Boghead, Bathgate Water, Boghead Burn and the Bog Burn to create "water routes" for wildlife to expand their habitats into the countryside belt and vice versa to sites such as the Bogburn Flood Lagoons.

4. The site is recorded as both habitat and breeding site of Daubentons Bat (Myotis daubentonii) and the Common Pipistrelle Bat (Pipisterellus pipistrellus). All bat species found in Scotland are classed as European protected species. They receive full protection under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994.

5. The landscape of the site is very attractive and the trees and arboricultural features are indeed important to this part of Bathgate in that they date significantly (in some cases) when set against The Woodland Trust's definitions of Older and Ancient Woodlands. Old trees are so important in their mini-ecosystems which enhance the whole environmental area for wildlife. Built development, particularly on what is proposed, would constitute an urban decimation of many valuable trees. Indeed four of the mature trees have been assessed against the ancient woodland criteria, three of which were deemed to be Locally Notable and one as a Veteran. Another 14 trees, including Lime; Alder; Sycamore; Holly and Scots Pine of great importance would be under threat by this development.

6. The site is also important for many wild flowers including various marsh and spotted orchids & their hybrids which support varied insects & butterflies. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Laura Gibson Address: 55 Boghead Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I object to this proposed development.

There are a few reasons why I am opposed to this going ahead.

1. My house and the houses all the way up will be overlooked, we will loose our privacy and there will be a lot of disruption to our family and home if this development goes ahead, as the noise will affect our house and upset the dog.

2. The amount of houses proposed is just ridiculous as there is no way that the road can deal with another 600 cars possibly 1200, or 1800 cars coming and going on this road at peak times, as you know most households these days have more than one car.

3. There is also no way that the schools in the area can cope with the amount of new families that would be moving to this new development. We have not long moved into this area ourselves and my middle child is starting Armadale Academy after the holidays and I know that there was only 2 places available left for S1, so if all these proposed houses go ahead with all the new houses being built in Armadale also, the school will not be able to cope.

4. Wildlife, there is also lots of wildlife living in and around the proposed site, a lot of which will be disrupted if this goes ahead. We need to make sure that we are all doing it bot for the environment and protecting them so that future generations can experience them. There are records of water voles, newts and otters. I also know that the trees house bats and owls.

5. This green belt provides a border between Bathgate and Armadale, if we keep building in these spaces then there will be no separation of the two towns.

6. There are more suitable locations for building houses like the brickworks up the road that are an eyesore, and could be doing with the redevelopment. There is areas for developing in Bathgate already at Westerinch. Not the gorgeous green areas that are nice to look at and home to many animals and creatures.

7. The doctors and dental surgeries will not be able to cope with all these people. I know that sometimes I have had to wait a fortnight on an appointment this is going to make this wait longer. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Alan Gibson Address: 55 Boghead Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:My reasons for objecting are: 1. High number of proposed houses means higher density developmen and not in keeping with current area. Privacy of local residents will also be affected. 2. Other sites have been identified in LDP proposed plan that are better suited for development meaning there is no need to destroy green belt areas. Wester inch and Armadale already have areas better suited with suitable infrastructure already in place.Building on this area also reduces the boundary between Bathgate and Armadale increasing the chance of theses areas merging. 3. Nature reserve and local wildlife will be affected. Building work will affect drainage and increase chance of flooding. Nature reserve home to otter, vole, shrew, birds and plant life and development would severely impact their habitat. Woodland areas home to bats and owls, bats are particularly susceptible to changes in environment and habitat. There seems to be unnecessarily high number of trees being removed along boundary with Sandiland gardens as well. 4. Current infrastructure not suited to this development. Busy main road with a school crossing will be busier and more dangerous and current traffic calming measures aren't entirely effective. Residents in Sandiland gardens will have their access affected also. Having an extra 200+ cars leaving the site each day will also increase noise and pollution as well as the added traffic congestion at Sibbald Brae. 5. Local service already struggling. Windyknowe primary could not fit another 200 pupils and with extra housing being built in Armadale the academy won't have the necessary capacity. When our daughter applied for an S1 place at Armadale academy there was only an additional 2 places available. It can take 2 weeks to get a doctors appointment as it is and with some doctors and dentists unable to register new patients this development will only make this problem worse. I can see no positives in this development being granted permission to go ahead.

41, Dalling Avenue Bathgate West Lothian EH48 2SB 29th July 2018

Dear Sirs, 0636/P/18 Land to the south of Sibbalds Brae

Friends of Little Boghead Nature Reserve & Proposed development - Objection

The ‘Friends’ group was formed in order to promote and safeguard this important Bathgate reserve and over the last few years new have undertaken work with the help of £10,000 of funding from Tesco, the work of local volunteers and support from West Lothian Council.

The edge of the reserve has been extended and it now borders the field relating to the proposed development reference 0636/P/18 – Land to the South of Sibbalds Brae.

We would object to this development proceeding.

For example, we feel that closing off wildlife corridors and additional people putting extra pressure on greenspace in the area is taking away from the very reason that people like to go to Little Boghead – as an escape and to enjoy nature. It would also reduce health and wellbeing of the local community if the site becomes degraded from extra people

To give an idea of the work carried let us list the achievements –

Boundary extended and 700 trees planted. Several litter picks (takes place at regular intervals) and is ongoing. Paths upgraded. Boardwalk replaced. Pond clearance. Meadow area tidied and cut back and cleared and 2000 wildflower plugs planted. Timber pond-dipping platform with handrail and non-slip deck boards built. Composite aluminium map panel – an upgrade marking the opening of the reserve by Princess Ann. Four wooden welcome signs with logos and dragonfly motif. Three interpretation panels. Six Perch seats.

The signage and perch seats have been strategically placed and its ironic that one of the perch seats (located overlooking the field) will potentially be looking into a kitchen!

Last year school children from Windyknowe and St Mary’s primary school were entertained by West Lothian Ranger Service to woodland habitat and shelter building sessions. This year the Rangers led the local beavers group in a pond dipping session working towards their Environment badge.

In September 2017 we held a BBQ event for the community, beavers/cubs and volunteers to mark a new opening.

A general meeting held earlier this year set in place an idea to link the nature reserve with other ponds/walkways (a nature circuit) involving the Lagoons at Wester Inch and the old Easton pit.

Volunteers included Lothian volunteers, Community Council members, local children, nature enthusiasts and parents. The area is important to the community

We would also like to refer to the Water Vole study and Extended phase 1 survey report. I am a local resident and member of the friends of Little Boghead Nature Park, I am also a member of the Scottish Wildlife Trust being the convener for two local reserves Tailend Moss and Bogburn Flood Lagoons. I have been recording wildlife at Bogburn since 1991 and the Falside area since 2005 I also try and photograph local wildlife, my photographs can be seen on flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/bathgate_wildlife/ Sibbalds Brae, Bathgate Extended Phase 1 Survey Report 1.5 Disclaimer Faunal species are transient and can move between favoured habitats regularly throughout and between years. This survey provides a snapshot of field signs present in the survey area on one day in April 2018. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey was conducted outside of the flowering season for plants therefore it is possible that some species, including invasive non-native species, were missed. However it is not considered likely that this would alter the assessment of the habitats identified within the site. It should be noted that the desk study is limited by the reliability of third party information and the geographical availability of biological and/or ecological records and data. This emphasises the need to collate up-to-date, site-specific data based on field surveys by experienced surveyors. The absence of species from biological records cannot be taken to represent actual absence. Species distribution patterns should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect survey/reporting effort rather than actual distribution. My response to the Disclaimer As correctly stated the report is only a snapshot of ONE visit. I would like to fill in the gaps from my records.

LOCAL WILDLIFE recorded around the Falside area 2005 – 2018.

BIRDS - 84 species recorded of which 31 have bred in the area. MAMMALS – 14 species BUTTERFLIES – 14 species BUMBLEBEES – 6 species ODONATA – 10 species AMPHIBIANS – 4 species According to WEST LOTHIAN BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN 2005-2009 Of all the species I have recorded in the area. 6 are West Lothian Biodiversity priority species and 25 are local habitat indicator species.

KEY SPECIES

Water Vole is seen at Little Boghead Nature Park and along the water course. I would suggest that they are breeding in the area. Badger The set (NS 95803 67841) was active until a few years ago. Illegal activity has prevented the set being reused. BATS recorded at Little Boghead Nature Park and Sandilands Wood. (Recorded using Bat detector that identifies bat calls and geotags the location, time date) Soprano Pipistrelle bat Common Pipistrelle bat Brown Long-eared bat Daubenton’s bat Hedgehog - seen in Little Boghead Nature Park and surrounding gardens. video footage available. Otter - have visited Little Boghead and use the watercourse from Bathgate water, Video footage available Taken in July 2014 and July 2018

THE 25 HABITAT INDICATOR SPECIES INCLUDE

Amphibians 3 – Smooth Newt Common Frog Common Toad Birds 11 – Kestrel Skylark Bullfinch Reed Bunting Song Thrush Tree Sparrow Grey Partridge House Sparrow Fieldfare Swallow Invertebrates 5 – Common Blue Damselfly Large Red Damselfly Orange Tip Butterfly Common Hawker Dragonfly Flowering plants 4 – Ragged Robin Yellow Rattle Common Birdsfoot Trefoil Bluebell Trees – Pendunculate Oak, Beech

LITTLE BOGHEAD NATURE PARK PONDS & GRASSLAND SURVEY 2015 NOVEMBER 2015 Dr Alastair Sommerville.

This recent survey was not mentioned in the Sibbalds Brae Phase 1 survey report 2018 which is sad. The report shows the importance of this wildlife site in a local context. One of the highlights of photographing on the site was the discovery of a Blue Shieldbug The bug is found throughout the British Isles and it has been recorded from at least 12 Vice-counties in Scotland. However, looking at the records held by TWIC, those on the NBN Gateway and the specimens at the National Museums Scotland’s collections, there appears to be only 20 actual records! Within the TWIC area there are single records from Midlothian (Edinburgh), East Lothian, Berwickshire, Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Stirlingshire. This is the first record for West Lothian and the first one in this area since 1994. https://flic.kr/p/vpvELx The extension of Little Boghead Nature Park has been improved by the planting of more native trees (Alder Birch Oak and Rowan) The east bank has been seeded with a wildflower mix (Oxeye daisy, Knapweed and Yellow Rattle) and is now well established. I hope that the information on the wildlife seen in the Little Boghead /Falside shows that the area is important to the local community as a direct connection with nature and needs to be protected for future generations to enjoy. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bathgate_wildlife/albums/7215762380449962 7

Jim Easton

Friends of Little Boghead Nature Reserve

10, Sandilands Gardens Bathgate West Lothian EH48 2FL 30th July 2018

Dear Sirs Land at Sibbalds Brae – reference 0636/P/18

I refer to the above and advise that I write to you as chair of our residents association at Sandilands gardens.

Our development comprises of 10 houses and on behalf of our group, would object in the strongest terms to the above planning application.

I would draw your attention to the traffic at Sibbalds Brae at the B. the roadway is busy and awkward to negotiate. The traffic will become intolerable especially when you factor in the 500 units to allocated at the Bathville brickworks and the ongoing housing at Upper Bathville (and the school run!)

There has been a history of accidents at this stretch of road, which we demonstrated at the previous planning application. Since then I have a note of a series incident on 28 March 2016 with a driver losing control and causing damage to the wall at the gate cottage. We view this as our entrance and we took ownership of the insurance claim and rebuilding of the wall.

Coincidentally, on 28th July 2018 a serious accident took place at the entrance of our estate at Sibbalds Brae. Police and ambulance were in attendance and two taken to hospital. Car is a write off and transit van may be. This magnifies the safety issues on this road. The police in attendance described this stretch of road as a traffic/speed hotspot.

The entrance and the road leading up Sandilands Gardens was paid for by ourselves and if I refer to my legal documentation it clearly states that ‘all roadways once so constructed, the proprietors within the development shall be bound and obliged to maintain’ ….It has been used by the proprietors for 5/6 years now and we do not want it to be altered.

We would want to question/clarify the legality of the entrance.

In addition the proposal suggests we would need to drive into the new development and then back into our own. This will lead to additional traffic and also a new route being needed by refuse lorries. And, as a result of the additional wear and tear our roadway would require to be upgraded I would suggest to ‘adoptable’ standard by the developers.

At the community council meeting held on the 10th May it was suggested by the Hallam team that building would potentially take up to 5 years. ‘Shoehorning’ 190 houses into the field by way of the proposed entrance the work traffic etc. would be a nightmare for us and the wider area.

A number of our families have young children attending local primary schools and this proposal will add an increased element of risk with their daily walk to school.

We would not allow any transgression into our woodland.

The area in question is not allocated for housing and is a greenfield site and the schools have little or no capacity.

I sincerely hope that this application is firmly rejected.

Yours sincerely

John Macdonald

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Frances Keast Address: The Farm House, Whiteside Farm Lane, Bathgate, West Lothian EH48 2UL

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The Council quite rightly refused a similar application from the developer in 2013 and there has been no material change in circumstance which could possibly influence the Planning Department to change their decision to the contrary. In fact, more recent developments in Bathgate and Armadale - particularly planning consent for circa six hundred homes at the old brickworks site - make this area even more unsuitable for development.

As demonstrated by the recent informal 'exit poll' taken at the open day regarding the proposed development, public opinion is overwhelmingly against the loss of this precious Greenfield site in West Lothian - especially one which is home to a nature reserve and a wide variety of habitats for at-risk wildlife. The area is also prone to flooding and I take no comfort from the very limited proposals from the developer as to how this could possibly be managed when an existing floodplain on arable land is simply built over.

West Lothian Council has been extremely active in releasing land for new build homes - it is no exaggeration to say that many thousands of properties are currently under development - but this must not come at more cost to existing householders. Existing infrastructure is already creaking under the weight of an influx of residents to new builds in Bathgate and Armadale with a particular lack of educational space for children and a struggle to access GP and other NHS services. There is already a very real danger of coalescence between individual towns and villages in the county, this development would bring that into even sharper focus.

Furthermore, the access to the proposed site is already an accident blackspot with surrounding roads unable to cope with the existing volume of traffic. The proposed development would, of course, exacerbate the existing problems as well as massively increasing air and noise pollutants.

The proposed development falls squarely outside of the policies of the existing WLC Local Plan - in particular, it is situated in an Area of Special Landscape Control, and for these reasons alone, permission must be refused.

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss Lorna Bryce Address: 22 falside terrace Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The development will significantly impact on local wildlife. For years the area has been nurtured to encourage wildlife to thrive and this area, particularly little bog head, is now going to be trapped in a wall of housing estates.

Additionally, the benefits of the area (quiet, greenery etc) will quickly disappear as development starts therefore removing some of the key attributes that led me to live in this area.

At a time where cities are moving towards a concept of blue green corridors it seems like towns such as Bathgate are seeking to hide these features, with new developments having to host SUDS infrastructure instead of allowing areas to be in their natural state.

The roads around falside, particularly in school terms, are already too busy with dangerous parking. In winters condition entry and exit from the main road at sibbalds Braw is extremely dangerous. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss Kirstie Gibson Address: 55 Boghead Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I am opposing this development for many reasons, the foremost being the following: The proposed development has no positives. The development will negatively affect local schools, causing an influx of pupils applying to schools that are already full- do we really want to sacrifice children's education? Not only that, but it will also negatively affect local medical and dental practices- the NHS is already underfunded and in critical condition, and local practices are suffering greatly, there's no need to add to their stress. The local dental practice is already over- booked and at times you can't get appointments for weeks- we shouldn't have to sacrifice people's right to easy, accessible medical and dental care. The road leading into the proposed area for the development is simply too narrow and dangerous to handle what would be a much larger amount of vehicular activity on a daily basis- just recently there was a bad crash on that road. Do we want to sacrifice people's safety and accessibility to their homes? Especially when the Armadale Academy bus goes along that route twice a day? The proposed development will also cause large amounts of distress for those living in the houses next to the suggested area for the development- these are our homes, and we shouldn't be made uncomfortable in our homes. Aside from the negative effects on the local human residents, the development also has large negative effects on local animals and wildlife. The Boghead nature reserve would be largely affected by the development, causing stress for the local animals, and destruction to what little wildlife we have locally. There are very few places locally for children and families to enjoy the outdoors, and the proposed development would take away the last of what we have. Children today are more likely to be overweight and they are obsessed with digital media- a large contributor to these outcomes are the lack of spaces outdoors for the children to explore- do we want to contribute to the destruction of our planet? do we want to contribute to the increasing rates of child obesity? No, we don't want to sacrifice our children's education. No, we don't want to sacrifice our access to medical and dental care. No, we don't want to sacrifice people's safety and accessibility to their homes. No, we don't want to destroy our wildlife and planet. No, we don't want to contribute to child obesity. No, we don't want the negative effects of the proposed development. No, we don't support the development. No, we don't want it to go forward. No, we don't want the houses. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Julie Turnbull Address: Littlerigg Dunning Glen Dollar

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:A similar application was refused in 2013. There have been no material changes to the site since then and the reasons for that refusl remain the same.

Bathgate has, since that refusal, had several hundred additional homes built in other areas, with little addition to the infrastructure of the town. GP and other medical services and schools, nursery places etc are all stretched to the extreme.

In the refusal of the previous application, much was made of the danger of coalescence between individual towns and villages, this proposed development would certainly increase that concern.

The proposed access at the foot of Sibbald's Brae would just create a further danger to the community. Not just of RTCs but also increased noise and air pollution near the Primary School.

This is an Area of Special Landscape Control. There are many and varied species, flora and fauna which we cannot afford to lose. The Council has released numerous brownfield sites. The developers must surely be required to develop these first prior to ripping up valuable and irreplaceable countryside.

This application cannot be allowed for all of the above reasons and more. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Sarah McLachlan Address: 60 Falside Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I object to this planning application for residential housing for the following reasons: 1. Insufficient school places/building size. all the schools are full or near to full and could not absorb the expected number of children the estate would create. 2. There has been little regard for protected species of wildlife in the area such as water vole, crested newt, bats as well as other wildlife. The trees in the proposed area are protected. 3. Road alterations associated with this application are dangerous. Sibbalds Brae cannot take the volume of traffic required to service the proposed estate. A large opening will be created at the foot of Sibbalds Brae. Cars travelling from Armadale do so at some speed and wont be able to see the opening as they come down the Brae. When parents collect kids from school (Windyknowe) they park along Hardhilll road turning the road to 1 lane where cars must wait to allow cars to pass. Lorries also use this road frequently. 4. Drs surgeries, dentists and other amenities cannot handle the increase in patient numbers this estate will create. Police, fire already under pressure covering numbers already in area. 5. There will be an increase in flow of people using the Falside estate to get to Bathgate centre. Potential for crime to rise. My street, which is currently a cul de sac, will become a walk through again potential for damage to cars and obstructing use of my driveway. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Colin Mann Address: 7 Sandilands Gardens Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I wish to object to this planning application in the strongest terms. This is the second application of this type on this site in the last 5 years. The last application was rejected for very good reason, it then went to appeal and was rejected again. Nothing has changed and there is still no possible justification for a development of this nature on this site.

This is an area of extreme natural beauty with extensive wildlife. This is unusual for an area that is so close to a busy town centre such as Bathgate. This was one of the major attractions for us and many of our neighbours and is what makes Bathgate special. There has to be a limit to how many open, greenfield sites are developed otherwise the whole feel of the town will be destroyed.

It is clear that the local infrastructure will not be able to cope with so many new homes in such a small space. The access road onto Sibbalds Brae is dangerous at the best of times and the local schools are already at or near capacity. This application should be rejected. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Joanne Lumsden Address: 16 Whiteside Farm Lane Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Reasons for my objection:

There would be huge environmental impact if this site was to proceed. There are countless species of wildlife on and near the site at Little Boghead Nature Reserve, including European protected bats, water voles and otters.

Green space is crucial to mental health. The landscape of the proposed site is visually attractive with flora and fauna - it provides excellent walks for the local community to enjoy. Many of the trees on the site date significantly.

The location of this proposed site would impact boundaries, bringing Bathgate closer to Armadale. It is important that the towns remain separate and maintain their identities.

There are several other housing developments in Bathgate or possible brownfield sites in West Lothian - all with a much lesser impact on green space and the environment.

The existing infrastructure (from schools to GP services) of our town is already struggling from the growing population.

I have concerns around the access road to the proposed site, which is already an accident blackspot and struggles with the current level of traffic.

A similar application from the developer has been rejected in recent years and there has been no change in circumstance which should influence Planning to change their decision. Public opinion is still strongly against the loss of this important Greenfield site in Bathgate.

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Samantha Reid Address: 38 Falside Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:A similar proposal was submitted and rejected in 2013 - as there have been no significant changes I cannot see why this should be considered. I fully object with the reasons below: - Most of the people in and around Falside have moved here with a love of the scenery and very rare little piece of countryside. This would be destroyed by the proposed development. - This would have a devastating effect on the local wildlife, including bats, flora, fauna, otters etc. - The area is already over capacity for Schools, GPs and dentists. The proposed development would exasperate this and I cannot see how this is in any way fair to the local residents. - The proposed access at the bottom of Sibbalds Brae nothing short of makes me laugh and cringe. Having lived here for years I am very aware of the speed of the cars, the gradient of Sibbalds Brae, the reduced visibility and how extremely busy this road is - ESPECIALLY during school times. How this can even have been put forward as an option scares me. I refer to the Transport Assessment where it states "Whilst a layout has been provided, the specific arrangement is indicative and only for illustrative purposes". As well as this is full of "could's" - demonstrating a full and conclusive risk assessment has certainly not been done. - I know for a fact that access would end up being through Falside and anyone that has any knowledge of Falside knows that the worst thing about it is parking. You only have to take a drive around it to determine the extent of the issue. This would be further exasperated. - As I live so close to the field I feel that my area would be used for works access and parking and apart from that I do not want to live on a building site for years to come. - As per Friends Of Little Boghead a significant amount of money has been spent developing the local area and wildlife for it to be undone by this development is heart breaking. - Falside already struggles with flooding and the sewage that is has - as per the submitted documents the sewage is to join with ours. I am in no way confident that proper and appropriate drainage would be possible - this is a major concern. For all of the reasons above and many more - I fully and completely object to the proposed development as WLC cannot cope with the additional residents through GPs, dentists and school and it is an area of special landscape control.

Kind Regards, Sam Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Conor Dunnigan Address: 40 falside crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I strongly object to this project for multiple reasons. The land in question is interracial landscape control to protect the local flora and fauna that would be decimated by the proposed work. Additionally the development of this area would ruin the scenery and could devalue homes already in the area. The addition of so many homes and the families that would come with them would add even more strain to the local medical services which are already struggling to provide for all the residents of Bathgate and West Lothian. Also, the schools in the area are already at capacity of are very close to it. A relative of mine had great difficulty getting their child into one of the local schools and more families in the area would only exacerbate this problem. Moreover, I am greatly concerned about the increased levels of pollution years of construction work could bring to the area which would kill any remaining flora of fauna not destroyed by the construction. Pollution could become a very serious problem as the area is prone to flooding. Also, the plans indicate that the drainage systems of the new development are to be connected to existing drainage systems. This could be disastrous as the existing systems may not be able to handle the added strain. This could add to any pollution problems that arise due to the construction and use of this housing development. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Chris Reid Address: 38 Falside Crescent Bathagte

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I very strongly object to the proposed project for the following reasons. This local area is very prone to flooding and I am extremely concerned around this and sewage provided that the proposal put forward is for this to combined with existing. I am in no way confident that this would be supported and foresee this causing devastating and long lasting issues. As well as this the impact to the wildlife and scenery would be overwhelming and destructive. With the amount of wildlife and floral/fauna dependant on this I find this upsetting. On top of this, the amount of cars in Falside are already a major and serious concern - this project would only agitate and exasperate this. The proposal put forward is for the entrance to be at Sibbalds Brae, this is ridiculous due to the amount of fast moving traffic, including lorries and buses that come through here. There is also a school very close by, and again this is just going to add to congestion and parking issues. One of the major concerns that I have are around healthcare and schooling. I know for a fact that people already to struggle to get their kids into local schools and that local GPs are over capacity. It already takes over 3 weeks to get an appointment at the local GP. This would be a concern not only for the local people here already but for anyone that was to reside at the proposed development. Moreover, one of things that I love about where I live and one of the reasons that I indeed moved here was due to how close I am to a beautiful view and a little piece of countryside. This would be demolished as well as a part of my reasoning and contentment at living here. I am very concerned at the amount of people and traffic that would subsequently end up moving through an already busy housing development. These and more are the reasons that I very strongly feel this development should not go ahead as did not happen for the one put forward in 2013. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs evelyn dunnigasn Address: 40 falside crescent bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I am objecting to the planning permission for the following reasons, The flora and fauna would be decimated , I myself have frogs,toads,bats and hedgehogs in my garden these would disappear. This is a greenbelt area that the friends of little boghead have done great work to preserve and extend this with help from Tesco. Planning permission was denied in 2013 as far as I can see nothing has changed so why would this be considered again. From what I see on the plans the drainage is going to join on to existing drains, which are already struggling and the area can be prone to flooding. Our schools already are struggling to provide places for all the new children to the area and would not cope with more , the same goes for our gp surgeries and dentists, not to mention police and fire services. pollution would become an issue with even more traffic. The entrance at the bottom of Sibbalds brae is already a hazard this would be greatly increased with all the additional traffic. Parking in Falside is already an issue and this would become worse.

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss Suzanne Brady Address: 65 Windyknowe Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Bathgate has enough houses - building more will only put further strain on our schools, roads and doctors surgeries. The proposal is ludacris - the entrance to the development at the bottom of sibbalds brae ? How dangerous that is a serious risk to life. There has been nothing but fields since the houses in this area were built, why ruin that now? Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr William Dunnigan Address: 38 Falside Crescdent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I object to the proposed development as Bathgate in general with recent and future developments is in danger of becoming over stretched at Dr's Surgeries, Schooling and local amenities. Falside is an unique environment in West Lothian today with the local nature reserve and proximity to Bathgate town centre and with this development this would be destroyed as people would certainly use Falside as a gateway to the new development. Concerning access to the development at Sibbalds Brae which has recently seen multiple accidents concerning people and animals due to lack of range of vision while descending Sibbalds Brae and in my view it is impossible to make this junction safe with road signs, maybe proposed Bus Stops or traffic calming measures. As I live directly next to proposed development, a cycle path seems inadequate to provide protection from noise pollution and disturbance from the development. One of the main reasons that I purchased the house at the time I was informed by a local councillor that it was green belt land and would never be developed, and after the last planning application received a letter stating that this would remain so and the developer could apply again but would never receive permission and they were informed that this would be a waste of money but that they were free to do so. I fail to see what has changed since 2013 in receipt of this letter to grant planning permission now. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Janet Sinnet Address: 83 Falside crescent BATHGATE

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:School overcrowding,road infrastructure not meant for this type of traffic. This land was meant to be a green site. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Duncan SINNET Address: 83 Falside cres Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Our schools are already overcrowded. Our health centres are already bursting at the seams and taking on average 14 days to see a doctor. Our road system is already over congested. This site was considered as a green area to be preserved for a community nature area.

31 July 2018

Re: Planning Application 0636/P/18 - Land To The South Of Sibbalds Brae Bathgate Development Management Manager, West Lothian Council, Civic Centre, Howden South Road, Livingston, EH54 6FF

Dear Sirs,

With reference to the above planning application and on behalf of The Whiteside Farm Steading Residents’ Association, I would like to register our objections to its approval.

Since West Lothian Council has, on multiple previous occasions, refused planning permission for the area in question as well as for the surrounding land owned by the same party, we can see no reason for approval now. Previously, reasons given for refusal in reference to this site state that "The proposal is an unjustified intrusion into the countryside of this part of West Lothian, therefore the proposal is contrary to policy ENV3 of the approved Edinburgh and Lothian Structure Plan 2015 and policies C14 and C6 of the adopted Bathgate Area Local Plan insofar as the site is outwith any settlement envelope and lies within an area of countryside identified as the Bathgate/Whitburn countryside belt. For the same reasons, the proposal is contrary to policies ENV21, 22 and 23 and ENV31 of the adopted Finalised West Lothian Local Plan". Furthermore, the land in question is currently designated as an Area of Special Landscape Control (ASLC) and is part of the buffer between the towns of Bathgate & Armadale, factors which were explicitly cited in 2006 as reasons for refusal.

The following quotes are taken directly from the 2006 “Statement of Evidence” Council document in response to objections to the failure of a previous application with reference to Whiteside Farm as a whole and clearly demonstrate the unsuitability of the Farm for residential development and by extrapolation, the site in question here.

 “Allowing residential development in the countryside belt would undermine the integrity of the green space between the settlements of Bathgate and Armadale. It would encourage urban sprawl and introduce the risk of coalescence of the settlements. It would also be highly visible from the A801.” Indeed, the committed development of 600 homes at Armadale Brickworks would exacerbate this.  “…the allocation of land at Whiteside Farm cannot be justified in terms of Policy HOU 9 of the E&LSP or Policy HOU 8 of the E&LSP”  “residential development in the area would severely undermine the landscape quality in the ASLC as this designation together with the countryside belt provides an important landscape buffer and setting for the western side of Bathgate between the existing edge of the settlement and the A801.”  “it cannot be justified in terms of the environmental policies in the E&LSP (Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan), and in particular policies ENV 1 and ENV 3”  “There are no overriding benefits to the town arising from the site being developed, and there are no other material considerations which would support the allocation of the site for residential development”

Similar reasons were given for Council refusal of a later, 2013, application (0203/P/13) of the Falside site. This progressed as far as an appeal to the Reporter who entirely upheld the Council’s decision. Since all of the above arguments still hold today we see no justification for a different decision to be made now.

Further to the above, the following are counter indicative to allowing this proposal to proceed:

 As documented in the Phase 1 Desk Study submitted as part of this proposal, the Coal Authority Interactive Map indicates the site to be within a ‘Development High Risk Area’ with multiple past shallow mine workings/seams directly beneath the site. This adds unacceptable complications and risks to the use of the site for homes. There are many other suitable brownfield sites in the area which could accommodate 190 homes without the need to mitigate for such factors.  The Phase 1 Desk Study also indicates various pre-existing contamination risks, including asbestos and landfill/natural gas. Again, there are other suitable sites without such complications.  The conclusion that the site is at moderate risk of flooding is inconsistent with the experience of residents. The site is in an area routinely flooded in times of high rainfall. The Boghead Burn to the south of the site reaches its capacity on an annual basis and would be highly likely to overflow as a result of run- off if this highly permeable greenfield site is replaced by the hard surfaces of a housing development. This puts at risk properties and landscape to the south, including the Little Boghead nature reserve. It is far from conclusive that the suggested SUDS provision will remediate this.  There will be an inevitable increase in air pollution from a significant projected increase in road vehicles. Based on planned parking provisions, an anticipated estimate of 1½-2½ per household yields 300 to 500 additional vehicles either based in or regularly visiting the area. This is in addition to the unavoidable pollution from the associated construction project itself and from the excavation and delivery vehicles required to facilitate such a project. The duration of this project is expected to be measured in years but the negative impact it, alone, will have on the surrounding environment may well be permanent.  The applicant’s own submission also anticipates further chemical run-off, including, but not limited to road salts and domestic garden chemicals, to be directly caused by the proposed development. This further puts the surrounding environment, again including the nature park at Little Boghead, at significant risk.  Their submitted Habitat Survey shows clear evidence of water voles and otters in and around the site but fails to account for the additional presence of bats as well as the massive number of bird species found in the surrounding area. References, here, to the 2013 ecological survey are erroneous since this was demonstrated, at the time, to be woefully inadequate by experts. In addition to the expected small garden birds and carrion etc, residents of the Steading routinely spot rarer species such as woodpeckers and buzzards. All of these would be at risk if this development were to go ahead.  There are further potential risks to the local ecological balance by the introduction of and/or spread of non-native garden species and an increased number of domestic pets.  Also of note is the applicant’s admission of the potential for an increase in fly-tipping. This is of particular and direct concern to the residents of Whiteside Farm since Whiteside Farm Lane is routinely a victim of this. In addition to general litter from pedestrians, our road and its verges are regularly contaminated with dumped domestic and/or business waste, including large electrical appliances. This problem has increased significantly since the completion of the development at Plessey Road. The residents own Whiteside Farm Lane and are responsible for its maintenance. This means that it falls on us to properly dispose of fly-tipped waste at our own cost and inconvenience. Any development which poses a risk for this issue to be exacerbated is unacceptable.  Since the completion houses of the Plessey Road, the residents have also noticed a significant increase in pedestrians, including dog walkers, on our road. While we do not directly dispute their presence, many of them appear to be unaware that Whiteside Farm Lane is a road and not a footpath, putting their safety at risk. Although the residents typically drive with great care, we are not the only users of this road. Road is used by all manner of visiting vehicles from cars to HGVs. Not all of these are anticipating to encounter pedestrians and, often also their dogs, in the middle of the road. There have been reported incidents of near misses with pedestrians and dead pets recovered from the road. With the proposed

addition 190 new households directly on the current farm land we would expect footfall, and therefore risks of pedestrian injury, to increase proportionately.  Whiteside Farm, currently operated by a tenant farmer is, itself, at risk from this proposal. Permanent removal of such a large parcel of land from the farm is likely to compromise the viability of the farm as a going concern and lead inexorably towards similar applications for the remaining farm land. This would leave our Steading and access road isolated in the middle of a modern estate inconsistent with the existing architecture and lead to the loss of a local business which has been in operation for generations.

At the recent Bathgate Community Council meeting, Hallam were presented with many and varied arguments against this proposal. Their responses to the concerns of local representatives and residents were vague, inadequate and, sometimes, misleading. For example, claims of their commitment “to retaining the existing woodland and watercourses, along with future long-term management and protection” are, at best, misleading. They could give no adequate answer as to how they would achieve this and finally admitted that they do not plan to take responsibility for this and that it would be the residents of the development who would be liable for the costs and organisation of such. This does not constitute a commitment. The only concern that Hallam did not dispute was that this is proposal represents the first stage in a larger plan to attempt build housing on the entire Whiteside Farm site, removing forever the last remaining Countryside Belt between Bathgate and Armadale. This cannot be allowed either by stealth or otherwise. Their only solid argument in favour of this proposal is claims of a shortfall in housing in Bathgate supported their proposal, a claim unambiguously refuted by the local councillors present at the meeting.

In their Response to PAC Comments, Hallam are, again, misleading in their claim that “the proposed development is for a smaller land area of the previous ‘wider’ site that was proposed” when, in fact this proposal is for a site more than double the area of and significantly more units than the previous application.

 0203/P/13 : 6.7ha; 140 units,  0636/P/18 : 14ha; 190 units

In addition to the above, with local infrastructure already overstretched, numerous existing and recent housing developments with large numbers of unsold properties suggest there is neither the capacity nor need for further developments. In fact, it appears that the recent development at Plessey Road was limited to a vastly reduced number of units for these very reasons as well as environmental considerations of the nature Little Boghead reserve. Bathgate is rapidly becoming solely a commuter town to both Edinburgh & Glasgow and, as a consequence, is in severe danger of losing its identity. What was once a charming small town with its own distinctive character is turning into an homogenous Dormitory Town surrounded by large, soulless residential estates which serve its neighbouring cities. These proposals do little more than accelerate this process and are clearly an attempt by the land owner and developer to alter local planning strategies sufficiently to open the door for further development of the larger site on Whiteside Farm (see WLC Submission Reference E01-0127 previously included in the Local Development Plan "call for sites" process).

The applicant’s Pre-Application Consultation Report shows no support at the Public Exhibition for the development with the overwhelming majority stated as strongly opposed (Interestingly, results from an exit poll indicate a far larger attendance with an even more overwhelming percentage against). Indeed this document alone provides a more comprehensive objection against this development than any single commenter could provide. They claim to have demonstrated their fulfilment of an inclusive consultation approach with the local community and key stakeholders but clearly choose to ignore the results by ploughing on regardless of the overwhelming local opposition to their plans. Despite a pretence of community conscious objectives, the their repeated attempts to build on this site against overwhelming public opinion betray motives far more fiscal in nature. Surely the Council is duty bound to listen to its customers and voters rather than an outside party whose intentions are in direct opposition and whose goals are financial gain regardless of the impact on existing residents, amenities and services.

With the plethora of more suitable brownfield sites throughout West Lothian, we can see no reason to further spoil the beautiful countryside around Bathgate or to accelerate the coalescence of two neighbouring towns, both with strong and separate identities.

We, along with other residents in the surrounding area, are united in our opposition to this development, as we will be to any future plans for the areas surrounding Falside & Whiteside Farm, will use all available avenues to fight for the retention of the natural beauty of what little countryside belt we still have to the west of Bathgate. If it is in the council’s gift, we suggest a moratorium, or equivalent, on such applications on the whole Whiteside Farm since, whatever the decision on this proposal, Hallam clearly intend to continue with their plans to turn the entire farm around us over to housing.

Yours Sincerely

Ronnie Keast

The Farmhouse, Whiteside Farm Steading, Bathgate EH48 2UL From: Planning To: Irving, Tony Subject: FW: Objection for planning appllication 0636/P/18 South of Sibblads Brae Bathgate - [OFFICIAL] Date: 01 August 2018 11:58:03

DATA LABEL: OFFICIAL

From: Sent: 31 July 2018 23:08 To: Planning Subject: Objection for planning appllication 0636/P/18 South of Sibblads Brae Bathgate

20 Falside Cres BATHGATE West Lothian EH48 2DQ 30/07/18

Dear Sir/Madam We are writing to express our strong objection to the proposed planning permission application, (Ref no 0636/P/18) regarding land to the south of Sibbalds Brae/Falside area of Bathgate.

The proposed land is directly behind our home and if this was allowed to go ahead, it would have serious implications for our family and our neighbours. This is due to a number of factors, some of which follow.

With the proposed plans we would have no longer have any sunlight to the back and sides of our home at any time of day. We would also have no privacy any longer as developments will be directly looking into our house and no quietness as we do just now. We were under the impression when we bought our home, as were our neighbours that the field in question was a ‘green area’. So when houses were built at the other side of the field (Sandilands), we were rested that there would be some green area left within our area. Particularly more so since the huge development was created at the bottom of Falside/Plessy area.

It doesn’t make sense to have a nature reserve in this area (Little Boghead) when constant developers are chasing away all wildlife and building on every area of green space. I grew up in Falside and after getting married, we both worked hard to buy a house here to raise our family. Sadly, there is not many areas left in Bathgate with the countryside feel or even any open space to observe nature.

The area is quiet with a real community feeling in our estate but sadly will become very noisy/busy with increasing population, even more so than has happened with the recent Plessy development and everyone walking through the proposed thoroughfare/paths as happens via the bottom field with the latest development. This will be an increasing security risk with access to our estate from every angle. I will not feel secure to let my children out to play in the area around our house. And I’m pretty sure there is no money for increasing policing in the area with police services already on a tight government budget and overstretched.

The noise we experienced 24 hours a day (with the generators at night) when the Sandiland estate was being built at the opposite end of the field was bad enough and we were never so happy to see it gone. We had it all over again with the bottom Plessy estate particularly as I have to work nights. I cannot begin to imagine the impact we will face due to this planning application with the initial works, then forever with the new development right on our doorstep!

Another major impact on our children is the issue this will create with schooling. We have 3 children, 2 of whom attend Armadale Academy and our youngest Windyknowe Primary. This is already a long standing problem in Bathgate with children who live in Bathgate having to go to high school in Armadale due to the increased population in Bathgate therefore changed catchment areas in the past. Both Bathgate and Armadale have increased population dramatically in recent times since this previous planning application was rejected (and further developments planned), therefore will only have even more major impact on education. Windyknowe Primary is constantly oversubscribed due to vast amount of residential developments within the school area, there is no scope for extension to the school and already has issues with senior teaching staff having to cover 2 other schools due to staff shortages. An increase in students from this new development is most definitely not going to help this but create a crisis. When attending the open night about this application the developers had no solutions or ideas to aid this.

There will also be a dramatic increase in traffic in our area. You only have to look at how quickly the traffic builds up at the traffic lights in Glasgow road to see how much traffic passes through Sibbalds Brae at the minute or try crossing without the school crossing patrol. Again more issue for our children and the elderly in our community trying simply to cross the road. I am well aware of the concerns the school and the local police are constantly having with traffic problems in Hardhill Road. There are numerous accidents on Sibbalds Brae where the new developers want to create another hazard with access to the site at this very problem. This does not only happen in winter when the hill is treacherous but again only last week.

This will also have a major effect on health care, with community health centres and GP surgeries as well as waiting times and demands on specialist NHS appointments. We all know how hard it is to see a nurse or GP when required, the GP surgeries are on a rotational basis to new registrants with very very limited numbers who can even register. How difficult will it be if this further new development was allowed to go ahead. I myself work for our local NHS so know first hand how difficult this has become to provide a safe health service.

Lastly and very importantly we have grave concerns re the historic mining area within our estate. We in fact have 2 mine shafts within our garden, and another at the end of our terrace. The use of the digging machinery of such a vast area, drainage, foundations etc may disturb the many many years this land has been left natural/used for farming. So who then will be responsible if any of these shafts collapsed and the devastating impact this would have to our lives, our family and neighbours? These mine shafts were last inspected in January 2012, I was advised then they should be checked every year but sometimes takes a few years to get round to inspecting them all again but certainly has not been done in the lead up to this planning application.

After attending the open meeting recently re this application I was very upset that the same issues after previously having had this rejected has not changed and there was no interest by the presenting party to improve these issues or take the neighbouring concerns and local knowledge into consideration.

We are extremely concerned and upset by the above plans surrounding our home and our community and hope that you will seriously consider our views and that of our neighbours to not allow this to go ahead with the impact it will have on our lives.

Yours faithfully

Mr and Mrs L Macaulay

West Lothian Council - Data Labels:

OFFICIAL - Sensitive: Contains Personal or Business Sensitive Information for authorised personnel only OFFICIAL: Contains information for council staff only PUBLIC: All information has been approved for public disclosure NON-COUNCIL BUSINESS: Contains no business related or sensitive information

Link to Information Handling Procedure: http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/media/1597/Information-Handling- Procedure/pdf/infohandling1.pdf

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Samantha Rennie Address: 8 Whiteside Farm Lane Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Since moving to the area I have been amazed at how many various species of birds and bats I have identified as well as many other forms of wildlife including hedgehogs, toads and frogs. I even see the ocassional deer in the fields in front of my house. In a world where we are losing more and more species to the ever decreasing greenbelt, I think that any consideration to this development is madness. I agree entirely with other objections regarding increased risk of road deaths, the inability to get an appointment with your GP or dentist due to population size, families becoming stressed and anxious as they attempt to get kids into already oversized classes in undersized schools. All this combined with the destruction of natural beauty where there are so many unsightly structures and baron areas of land, I hope, would lead Councillors representing the interests of our community to vote to refuse permission to destroy our area and begin to plan to rebuild these derelict areas which are in dire need of rejuvenation. The only motivation for such destruction is profit to developers and stakeholders who hide behind the pretence of "there's a housing shortage". There's not a housing shortage, there is a financial incentive shortage for developers to look at developing run down areas as they could not sell the houses at inflated prices. I am all for community improvements but I am afraid this is neither a benefit or an improvement to this area. Therefore I strongly object to the planning application. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Ronnie Keast Address: The Farmhouse Whiteside Farm Steading Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:As a resident of Whiteside Farm Steading I wish to register my objection to this planning proposal. I note that a similar application was made in 2013 for a smaller, not larger as claimed, portion of this site and 50 fewer houses. This proposal was met with strong public and council opposition and refused on multiple grounds including its projected impact on local services and amenities. It is notable that, at the time of writing, the number, and content, of comments in objection to this proposal is consistent with this. Services such as health & education were, and are, seen to be unable to accommodate 140 new households, let alone 190. The bordering main road was, and is, considered already busy and verifiably dangerous. Proposals to extend the 30mph limit beyond the new site's expected entrance are viewed by the local residents as unlikely to have a measurable effect on this and will only serve to extend Bathgate's boundary even closer to Armadale. The prospect of this urban coalescence was notably also cited in the 2013 reasons for refusal. The inevitable damage to the surrounding ecology was also, and continues to be, deemed unacceptable. Not only is the site designated as greenfield and an Area of Special Landscape Control, it borders a mature nature reserve - Little Boghead - heavily used by the local community. This has been vastly improved since 2013 and is now maintained by local volunteers. Granting permission here carries far too many risks to the ecological balance of this reserve and would devalue entirely the efforts of those who maintain it. The work done to improve the reserve since the last application only serves to give greater weight to case against this development. Little Boghead aside, the wildlife on Whiteside Farm would be at risk by this proposed development. We see dozens of species of birds visiting our garden including numerous species of tits, finches & robins, breeding pairs of woodpeckers and buzzards. At the recent Bathgate Community Council (BCC) meeting and Public Exhibition (PE), the applicant made claims of a shortfall in housing in Bathgate yet testimony from local councillors indicates this to be untrue. Regardless, there are many, far more suitable, brownfield sites already available elsewhere which could be zoned for housing if needed. When questioned on their commitment to maintaining landscaped areas they admit to having no such fixed plans. Despite attending the PE, I was not given the opportunity to register a comment with them. Could this have been because it was obvious I was against this proposal? I did, however, register my objection to the proposal in the exit poll conducted by members of BCC which, I understand yielded a significantly higher number and proportion of objectors. I see no reason for any decision here other than to reject. In fact, in light of recent news of plans for nearly 2000 new homes on a Livingston site already so zoned, then arguments against this proposal increase daily. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr William Lobban Address: 6 Sandilands Gardens Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I object to the proposed development for the following reasons: 1. The development will impact on the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of residents in both Falside and Sandilands Gardens. 2. The effect on the environment this development would cause would be great. It will share a boundary and water course with Boghead nature reserve which boasts a wide array of wildlife. 3. The development is in contrary to the local development plan for the area. It has already been rejected multiple times for this reason. The proposed site is a Greenfield site and one of the last buffer zones between Bathgate and Armadale. There are plenty of Brownfield sites that could be developed. 4. The junction on Sibbalds Brae would prove extremely dangerous. This section of road is already tricky and considered by Police to be an accident hotspot. I have lived near the road for just over 4 years and have seen countless accidents. I feel there would be a great risk to cars and pedestrians if the development went ahead with the proposed access. The road is a School route to Windyknowe primary with kids walking it every day. 5. Local services are already nearing capacity and this development would put a great strain on Windyknowe Primary, local play parks and the medical centre.

In conclusion the plan is very poor considering the access, impact on local wildlife, urban sprawl, alternative sites available and the capacity of local services. I would urge the council, as they have done several times, to reject this proposal in its entirety. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Andrew Swift Address: 94 Falside Cres Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Objection (Full) Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Iain Straiton Address: 12b Falside Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment: With regard to the above planning application I would like to object in the strongest terms based on the following points,

1. We have no need for a further housing development in Bathgate in view of the ongoing developments at Wester inch village. In the current housing market there is adequate housing stock of all natures (ie flats/semi detached/ detached housing) available within this development. There is also no truth in Hallams statement that a shortage of housing stock exists in Bathgate which was confirmed by local councilors. 2. The knock on effects of the Wester inch development item has already put stress on Bathgates limited schooling and health resources. 3. The proposal makes the assumption that adequate schooling will be available to the extra children that the proposed development would bring however per education report carried out for the last planning application WIndeknowe primary will be over capacity and cannot be extended beyond 476 places. 4. The education report also advises that the likely solution would be that the Falside development would fall into the Armadale catchment area! How ridiculous is it to build a development that can't be serviced by the school that is on its' doorstep! This is an ill judged development proposal that is based on land use for revenue and not for genuine housing provision. 5. The proposed access road at the foot of Sibbalds Brae has seen several accidents and again is ill judged design issue. In fact there was a crash at the proposed entrance this weekend (29/7/18). Currently Bathgates road infrastructure is an absolute shambles with flow and congestion issues every day, the impact of further housing and the cars this will bring will do nothing for these issues or for pollution in the area. 6. The proposed site will also totally destroy what little green belt is left in Bathgate and will obviously have an impact on the areas wildlife. 7. Despite the claims in the drainage report I can report the proposed site does suffer from drainage issues. 8. Finally I would draw your attention to my own situation at 12b Falside crescent where (according to the plan) my outlook from our front windows would be the side of a house and a car parking area approx 20 feet away, this illustrates again the there has been no attention to detail and that this is nothing more than a speculative application for financial gain.

In summary this is an ill conceived housing proposal which is only looking to capitalise on what little spare land is left on this side of Bathgate. The area has insufficient educational ,health and infrastructure resources to support the extra population and will have an utterly negative and destructive enviromental impact and should therefore be rejected with no course to reconsideration.

Yours sincerely

Iain Straiton & Alison Mcfarlane 12b Falside Crescent

Sent from my iPad Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss Sarah Warner Address: 4 Sandilands Gardens Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I strongly object to this development. My reasons being; 1. My main concern is the proposed entry/exit of site onto Hardhill Road will be dangerous for that amount of traffic. The road is a very busy road with vehicles speeding down from Sibbalds Brae. The current exit has limited visibilty to the left as it is. There has been a number of crashes in this area the most recent being last Saturday 28/7/18. There is no way this road can withstand the amount of traffic this development will bring.

2. There is significant amounts of wildlife living in the green belt area. I myself have witnessed deer, badgers, foxes, owls, numerous other birds and bats. Where will these animals go if this land is built on? Some bats are also endangered and not to be moved from where they live.

3. The local school Windyknowe Primary has limited space, certainly not enough to house the forseen amount of children that will come with this development.

4. It is unsafe and unacceptable to expect my children to walk to and from school through a working building site which is what Harlam are proposing will happen as they will close our access to our houses and divert it through their building site. This could be for 5 years plus.

5. The land still has historic ruins on it which are part of Bathgates history. These will be lost for good.

6. The area they are proposing to build on becomes severly flooded several times a year. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Tracy Alston Address: 90 Falside Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location. WIdlife will suffer as it has recently with nearby building work. Local beauty destroyed, local facilities already fully utilised. Only yesterday there was a crash at Sibbalds. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss Catherine Darcy Address: 14 falside drive Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Objects Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Eileen Lander Address: 2 Sandilands Gardens Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:As already noted by other objectors, this will have a severe detrimental effect on wildlife in the area. We have a duty to conserve our wildlife whenever we can, and to risk what currently exists, especially with the efforts of the Nature Reserve, would be criminal.

The road is already dangerous, and local services, especially the Medical centre, already struggle to cope.

This is just an attempt at profit making with no thought to the affect on the communities that will suffer from it. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Robert Lander Address: 2 Sandilands Gardens Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Am concerned by the loss of greenfield amenity land and creeping urban infill between Bathgate and Armadale, especially as there are brownfield sites in the locality that might be better utilised.

This speculative development will inevitably put additional strain on local services and infrastructure, not to mention increased traffic flow. The proposed junction with Sibbalds Brae will be problematic and possibly dangerous.

Is this development actually needed? There is mention this week of 1,900 new homes to be built in Livingston which should reduce the strain on Bathgate where the station car park is already at capacity on weekdays.

This application should be rejected again. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Teresa Macdonald Address: 10 Sandilands Gardens Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I would like to register my objections to the plans by Hallam Land to develop the site off Sibbalds Brae for the following reasons:

Hallam Land are resubmitting plans for a development in an area for which the previously submitted plans which were rejected by West Lothian and then failed at appeal to the Scottish Government.

This area of Bathgate provides an area of countryside which effectively separates Bathgate from Armadale giving the town its unique identity. It is also a very beautiful area of Bathgate which along with the adjoining nature reserve of Little Boghead provides a diverse area of natural beauty and habitats for a wide range of wildlife. This should be a feature which Bathgate promotes as part of its regeneration programme.

Local services in Bathgate are already stretched. Practices at the health centre currently operate a rotating system to allow new patients to register. Local schools at either at capacity or almost at capacity.

Traffic on Hardhill Road and Sibbalds Brae is already a concern for residents of Falside, Sibbalds Brae and Windyknowe with traffic backing up from the lights at the junction of Hardhill Road and Glasgow Road when people are going to and from work and during the school run. The road towards the foot of Sibbalds Brae has been the site of at least two accidents in the past couple of years with people being taken to hospital in ambulances and damage to vehicles and residential property.

The pavements along both Hardhill Road and Sibbald's Brae are narrow in places and not pedestrian friendly. It can be very difficult to navigate a safe route along parts of these pavements when pushing a buggy or accompanying young children.

I believe that this plan would not serve the people of the local area or Bathgate and I find it extremely concerning that a large company with all its resources should seek to overturn a decision taken by West Lothian and which failed on its appeal. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Marlene Millar Address: 7, Falside Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I submit my objection to the proposal of the housing development planned Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mrs Michelle O'Loughlin Address: 1 Whiteside Farm Lane Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:As a current home owner residing in the vicinity of the proposed development I wish to register my objection to this planning proposal. The last application a number of years ago was met with strong public and council opposition and refused on multiple grounds including its projected impact on local services and amenities. Services such as health & education were, and are, seen to be unable to accommodate the proposed housing which is frankly an open door for an even greater number of houses. The bordering main road is considered already busy and would struggle with increased traffic, pedestrian or otherwise. Proposals to extend the 30mph limit beyond the new site's expected entrance are viewed by the local residents as unlikely to have a measurable effect on this and will only serve to extend Bathgate's boundary even closer to Armadale. We are in danger of blurring the distinct identities of Armadale and Bathgate and destroying our beautiful countryside. The likely damage to the surrounding countryside and associated wildlife was also, and continues to be a significant concern. Not only is the site designated as greenfield and an Area of Special Landscape Control, it borders a mature nature reserve - Little Boghead - heavily used by the local community. Granting permission here carries far too many risks to the ecological balance of this reserve. We must protect our countryside and request an end to the persistent attempts by Halley to destroy one of the last remaining areas of natural beauty. Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Miss lesley marr Address: 14 whiteside farm lane Bathagte

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Firstly there was a previous propose a few years ago which was rejected, there has been no changes since this was rejected.

I have massive concerns around the impact of wildlife in the area and its surroundings, there are many animals, birds and insects which are endangered and rare all of which are vital to our eco system.

This is green belt land which is used by the local community for walks and has many benefits to the our town. A studies published show access to green spaces boosts children's attentional resources, green spaces enables them to think more clearly and cope more effectively with life's stress. Trees, shrubs and turf remove smoke, dust and other pollutants from the air. One tree can remove 11KG of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually, equaling 11,000 miles of car emissions. The report suggests that it will enhance green space, i cannot understand how it will be enhanced with the building of luxury house. There are many brown field site which can be developed on within impacting this vital space.

This land being built on will only make services within the area more stretched including our local GPs, Schools, nurseries we are currently facing massive stretches to these services without extra housing being built. How will already over subscribe Primary and secondary school deal with the arrival of new students? It will also put more strain on public transport, trains and buses are already struggling with current demand in the area.

I also have concerns around the infrastructure, the roads are already struggling with the current footfall of traffic and the demand which this pose will cause greater congestion around a school area where there are obvious dangers. The road is self is known as a black spot for accidents and near misses.

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr andrew Bloomfield Address: 14 whiteside farm lane bathgate

Customer Details Name: Mr Neil Cameron Address: 12 Whiteside Farm Lane Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Neighbour Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:I note my objection to the proposed development. There is no change in circumstances from the previous application rejection.

There is already a strain on the local infrastructure such as schools, medical and dental appointments and travel congestion in the proposed development area. Knowing the access road, it is an accident hotspot and further traffic will only add to the problem.

Living locally, I know there is wildlife living in the proposed development area. I have seen deer and other wildlife on a regular basis.

The area is a green belt and any development will have a severe affect on the natural landscape, further removing more countryside from the Bathgate area. The field suggested for the development is farmland and could easily be better used as a tool provide education to school children regarding farm and rural life, rather than a development.

There is other brown belt areas which would be a better option for development.

Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18

Customer Details Name: Mr Mark McLachlan Address: 60 Falside Crescent Bathgate

Comment Details Commenter Type: Member of Public Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Yet again we face this questionable development, the community don't want it and I do not either. Nothing has changed in the last 5 years so I still have the same objections:

1. Education - no space in any schools, no chance of the many children from this new estate.being educated locally.

2. Infrastructure - Doctors full, Dentists full, hospitals overloaded.

3. Traffic - just witnessed another crash at the bottom of Sibbalds Brae on Saturday morning (28th July 2018) and they want a junction there! It's an absolute disgrace! There will be a fatality, I guarantee it.

4. Crime - increase in pedestrian access through Falside also brings extra criminal activity.

5. Wildlife - We already have several protected species down stream from the proposed development. This would spell trouble for them with all of the building work and associated debris being washed into the Little Boghead Nature Park.

6. Little Boghead - After spending £10k on the park it will be looking into even more back gardens, no areas for wildlife to use.

I am totally against this development, it should not be allowed for the reasons stated above.

Mark McLachlan.

From: Planning To: Subject: Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18 Date: 29 July 2018 10:38:25

Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.

Comments were submitted at 10:38 AM on 29 Jul 2018 from Mr David Mowbray.

Application Summary Address: Land To The South Of Sibbalds Brae Bathgate Planning permission in principle for residential Proposal: development with access, landscaping, SUDS and associated infrastructure Case Officer: Tony Irving Click for further information

Customer Details Name: Mr David Mowbray Email: Address: 29 Falside crescent Bathgate

Comments Details Commenter Member of Public Type: Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Reasons for comment: Comments: The proposal for the further development of this site would be terrible for the area.The infrastructure is already stretched to it's limit. The drains here are overloaded as is the school. You can't get moving in the mornings for the traffic on Hardhill road. Since the building of phase 1 the people of Falside have been under siege with gangs of youths drinking in the streets and damaging property, I had 14 of them at my door challenging my son to fight for no reason. This development is wanted by no one here other than those who stand to gain financially.Finally i would point out that I am a wildlife photographer and i have observed Red status wildlife species in this area including Otter. I strongly object to these plans. From: Planning To: Subject: Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18 Date: 29 July 2018 12:28:53

Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.

Comments were submitted at 12:28 PM on 29 Jul 2018 from Mr Michael Field.

Customer Details Name: Mr Michael Field Email: Address: 4 Sandilands Gardens Bathgate

Comments Details Commenter Member of Public Type: Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Reasons for comment: Comments: I do not feel the area can support the additinal housing.

Hardhill Road is already dangerously busy with regular incidents and accidents occuring at the incline to Sibbalds Brae.

The area is overcrowded with housing and this is very visible in and around Windyknowe Primary School with traffic overflowing onto Hardhill Road. From: Planning To: Subject: Comments for Planning Application 0636/P/18 Date: 29 July 2018 12:43:37

Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.

Comments were submitted at 12:43 PM on 29 Jul 2018 from Mr Chris Heron.

Customer Details Name: Mr Chris Heron Email: Address: 3 Sandilands Gardens Bathgate

Comments Details Commenter Neighbour Type: Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Reasons for comment: Comments: I wish to object to the application in the strongest terms. Since the last time the Council considered the same application a few years ago, there has been no material change to the concerns raised then. Indeed, if anything, the grounds for refusal have become stronger.

The first ground for objection is the lack of infrastructure, principally in the road system on Hardhill Road. This is caused by the significant amount of traffic in the area, particularly during the school term times. The recently constructed drop off area to the school has led to little improvement in the traffic situation. The construction of 500 new houses at the Bathville Brickworks will only exacerbate the congestion on Hardhill Road. The construction of even more houses which will rely on Hardhill Road will make an already intolerable situation worse.

Secondly, there are significant issues of safety to be considered. There have been numerous road traffic accidents on Sibbalds Brae and Hardhill Road. Of note, on 28 March 2016 a vehicle drove into the wall of the Gate House next to the entrance and exit of the proposed development. This caused significant damage to the wall and it was miraculous that no one was hurt. On 28 July 2018 there was a collision between two vehicles on Sibbalds Brae which led to both drivers requiring hospital treatment. Any increase in housing will lead inevitably to an increase in traffic. The planning application does nothing to address this safety issue; indeed, it will exacerbate such safety issues.

There are other issues which need to be considered. I have no doubt that others better placed than I will provide details about the impact of the proposed development will have on an already stretched Windy Knowe school and on the local environment such as Boghead Nature Reserve.

I wish to attend the planning hearing and make oral submissions against the development. From: Bathgate Community To: Irving, Tony Cc: Subject: Application 0636/P/18 Date: 25 July 2018 07:46:28

Good morning Tony

Bathgate Community Council would like to record their objection to planning application number 0636/P/18.

The application does not comply with the proposed West Lothian development plan policies as follows -

HOU1/2/3 The site is not allocated for housing nor is it required in order to maintain a five year effective housing supply. Nor is it in keeping with the area.

HOU8. The site has the potential to add considerable strain on healthcare and community facilities.

CDA1 It is not part of a core development area.

ENV1/2 The site is part of the country side belt and does not meet the criteria for allowing development in the countryside.

ENV7. The area in question is countryside adjoining Bathgate Armadale and Whitburn. When viewing the area from the A801 the countryside is green and and attractive. This proposal and especially the intended larger plan would alter this vista immeasurably. Further more it would contribute to coalescence between Bathgate and Armadale.

ENV10 Trees would need to be destroyed at the proposed entrance.

We would also like to make the following observations -

We know from speaking to parents whose children attend local schools that there is a very real concern. We would suggest that there is not sufficient capacity and infrastructure within local schools.

Little Boghead Nature reserve has been extended and now borders the proposed site. A great deal of work has been undertaken - work carried out by local volunteers which has added greatly to the area. Local groups and schoolchildren have benefited. We would suggest that the proposed development would have a negative impact on this area. At a recent meeting of 'The Friends of Little Boghead' it was felt that a network could be set up which would link green areas within and around Bathgate. There would be little point in this community led activity if developers were allowed to come in!

Substantial flooding was observed last winter within the field (just over the steel bridge) and we would refer to policy EMG2.

The proposed entrance at Sibbalds Brae/ Sandilands Gardens looks like an issue. The amount of traffic and the camber of the road would increase the potential for accidents especially during the 'school run'. Factor in the proposed new development at Former Brickworks Lower Bathville Armadale 500 units and this road becomes a rather dangerous problem. We invited representatives from Hallam and Barton Willmore to attend our community council meeting on 10th May in order that they could describe their proposal. We had asked some members of the public to attend and they represented areas around the field/area in question and various bodies interested in the area. There was absolutely no evidence of support.

At the pre application meeting held at the Regal we held an exit poll and noted that of the 67 who attended, 65 were were against the proposal.

We represent the local community and find it disturbing that in this age of community empowerment that the Planning and Environment Appeals Division should allow this to proceed so soon after the last attempt to develop. This is the fourth time in ten years (approx) one of which was a wind turbine close to the Steadings. The previous application in 2013 (ref 0203/P/13) did not proceed and we don't see any evidence to suggest that this recent attempt should be allowed to proceed.

Finally would draw your attention to planning application reference 0411/P/17. Hens Nest Road. This is a very similar application as the Sibbalds Brae application. The former application was rejected and for much the same reasons we would encourage WLC to do the same with the Sibbalds Brae application.

Kindest regards Ronnie MACLEOD Chair Bathgate Community Council