ITEM e 4 TABLED ITEM BIGE T BAILLIE

7 Castle Street John lnman Esq Edinburgh EH2 3AP Planning Strategy Manager Tef: +64 (01131 226 5341 Fax: *44 (0)131 226 2278 The City of Edinburgh Council OX ED15 Planning Department LP -2 Edinburgh 2 18-19 Market Street Edinburgh €HI 1BJ E-mail: info~~iggartbaillie.co.uk

Webslte: Our Ref: MAS/12542.3 www.blggartbailiie.co.uk

Dalmare House Dear Mr Inman 310 51. Vincent Street Glasgw G2 5QR fel: +44 @)I41 228 8M#3 OUR CLIENT: FSH EDINBURGH (AIRPORT) SERVICES LIMITED Fax: t44 (0)141 228 8310 RURAL WEST EDINBURGH LOCAL PLAN OX GW9 LP - 1 Glasgow 12 I refer to the telephone call from my client company's Mr Barry Kitcherside to

you yesterday afternoon at around 4,OOpm. A list of the names of tho Partners may be inspected Mr Kitcherside has asked me to reiterate his wish not to have to challenge during office hours at each of the addresses given the adoption of the RWELP, probably next year, as the only means of above securing the proper application of Flooding Policy to our clients' site at Eastfield Road, Edinburgh. As you will know, my client has lodged a Generic Objection to the RWELP, which Objection was put in evidence before the Local Plan Inquiry and articulated in written submissions by the learned Dean of Faculty, Mr Roy Martin Q.C. at the conclusion of the Local Plan Inquiry. Essentially, the Generic Objection is that it would be unlawful and contrary to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997,for The City of Edinburgh Council as Planning Authority to adopt a local plan for its area which covered only part of that area and provided a policy vacuum in respect of the area covered by the Interim Protocol adopted by the Planning Authority last year.

In order to obviate my client having to take that course of action, albeit reluctantly, Mr Kitcherside has requested that the Planning Committee due to meet on 3 November 2005 should defer consideration of the Flooding Authorised and regulated by the issue in section 3.16 of Report Number PC/044/05-06/CD until further Ftnrnclitl Sawices Authonty representations and discussions can be undertaken with planning officers.

I shall be grateful if you would take these matters into account in consulting with colleagues before the planning meeting on 3 November 2005.

Associated C%lces Athens Barcelona Brusvels Copenhagen Dublin Frankfurt Geneva Hamburg Helsinki Kid Lisbon Locarno London Los Angeier Louvarfi Accredited Planning Specia I ist Luxemburg Madrid msales@biggartbailtie,co Manohestar Milan uk New York adlo Paris SFodtholm Tallinn Tam c.c Andrew Holmes, Director of City Development, City of Edinburgh Tilburg Vienna Council, I Cockburn Street, Edinburgh, EHI -IBJ Warsaw Washington 01-11-05-smcgrel .Itr HUGH MARTIN PARTNERSHIP

CW/CJWOO/ZG 4.1

2 November 2005 18 ROTHESAY PLACE EDINBURGH EH3 7SQ Trevor Davies Esq BY HAND & E-MAIL Convenor of the Planning Committce TELEPHONE 0131 226 5123 City of Editiburgh Council FACSIMILE 0131 226 3042 City Chambers E Mait mail@hughinaninpartnership coni High Street Edinburgh EHI IYJ Web www.huglimanInpannership.com

Dear Councillor

INGLISTON: Land to the South of tlie Hiltori Hotel FSH Edinburgh (Airport) Services Ltd Rural West Ediiibnrgh Local Plan

On bchalf of FSE Edinburgh (Airport) Services Ltd I must register the strongest protest and objection to tlie recommendation contained in section 3.16 of the Report being presented to your committee on 3 Noveniber 2005. Forgive me for writing to you direct but this is a time sensitive niatter of some importance.

My client has since early 2001 contested the designation of the above site as fiinctional floodplain, conducted numerous discussions with all interestcd parties and submitted several representations on the matter, The recent Local Plan Inquiry was the first compreliensive opportunity to independently review all related policy matters and planniiig guidance. The Reporters’ subsequent recomniendation to remove the designatLon is of prime importance to the future of this key site. Therefore we cannot support the recommendation being presented to your committee which is to reject the Reporters’ findings.

We ask YQU therefore to consider the following points:

The site flooded in 2000 siiiiply because the bunds and back tlap valves installed in thc 1940s were not maintained. These nicascires were addressed and the site has not flooded since. The Reporters accepted this point,

0 We do not contest that the sitc is part of a flood plain, albeit one that has been created by protection measures downstream combined with increased discharge from upstream developnients in thc Gyle; but we do contest that it is ‘‘a functional floodplain”.

0 The site does not offer significant protection to the airport as suggested in the report or for that inalter any other landholding in the area, This was covered in great detail at the inquiry and confirmed that any theoretical loss of storage would not materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. ‘This ffict is acknowledged in tlic sunitnary table appended to the report.

0 We me advised that the Reporters’ recommendation in this respect should be considered as “matrers of fact” rather than planning judgemeiit; and that no reasonable local authority could conclude otherwise or consider rejecting the rccornmendation. D CAMERON WALKER B Arch (Hons) Dip Arch Conspw (H-WATT) RIM ARIAS H BSe Dip Arch (EDIN) RlBA ARIAS I SWART CAMPBELL D;pArch (GUS) hlCB MSAl CHRISTOPHERD J BROWNING BSc 6 Arch (Hons) {DUNOEF) JOHN PQRAHAM Dip Arch (Hans) RlOA PHILIP W LEIPER BSc (Hons) ILa. DIP DAVID M WILSON DID Arch (PLYMOVTH) RlBA ARIAS USTAIRW LINDSAY UHl~-mtd(~2.11.OS)flnaI The tiugh tJan n Pannoish’p Lam ‘ea He nd NO 146570 Rrgls%redOKte 12 HblC Sfreel El nburQh EH2 4DQ Page 2

02 November 2005

* The significance of this site in terms of watcr storage has been vastly overstated by the local authority and the advice froin officials is generally misguided and not in accordance with current national guidancc. hideed the flood risk assessments cavied out on behalf of EARL and '1'ramline 2 by TIE have established that the loss of storage in the area Is insignificant.

Essentially if the facts of the case were as straight forward as suggested in tlie report the local authority officials should have been able to convince the Reportcrs. hi this instance despite one and a half days of conycehensivc evidence and interrogation the local authority officials failed to do so completely, As you will appreciate, the purpose of an independent iiiquiry is to make a ruling when 1wo sides cannot reach agreement. In this case, the Reporter fotind in our favour and the Authority officials should be able to accept this.

We tlicrefore suggest that this recommendation from your officials should be rejected and you should accept the Reporters' reconxriendations or at the very least you should set aside and delay this decision to allow further discussion with your officials. Any other outcome will incvitably force my client to consider alternative mechanisms to secure the Reportcr's recommendations.

Yours sincerely

cc (by e-niail only) Planning Committee Meiiibers City of Edinburgh Council: Andrew Holmes City of Edinburgh Council: Jolm Inman

(by post and e-mail) FSH - Barry Kitcherside FSH - Korie Henderson FSH - Michael Margereson Biggat? Baillie - Martin Sales PWP - Neil Clarkson Ratho & District Community Council

BY Email The City of Edinburgh Council Paul Douglas Planning Committee 53 Station Road City Chambers Ratho Station High Street Newbridge Edinburgh Midlothian EHI EH28 8PT

2"dNovember 2005.

Dear John Sturt,

Please table this representation at tomorrow 's Planning Committee Meeting

Reporters Recommendations for Ratho Station / Newbridqe

We are writing to you to raise our concerns at the Reporters recommendations; Chapter 21: Housing Sites Assessment; to limit the support of house build allocation to 75, (50 at Hillwood Road, and 25 at Newbridge Nursery).

Our core concern is the impact that these recommendations, if accepted by the Council, will have on Hillwood Primary School. This school will be under threat according to the announcement of the school review.

If extra housing is not to be permitted in Ratho Station it would appear likely that the Primary School would have to close. This would have a significant adverse impact on not only the pupils, staff and parents of Hillwood, but to the sustainability and regeneration of the villages and their sense of community as a whole.

We would advocate that the number of houses to be built should reflect that necessary for the regeneration of the villages' ability to sustain the number of pupils required to maintain stability at Hillwood Primary School.

The villages have become stagnant. Over the last twenty years there have been only ten homes built within the two villages. There was planning consent granted for the building of sixty homes in Ratho Station, fifteen years ago, on the same site that the Reporter now sees fit to recommend only fifty homes. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, these homes were never built.

I refer you to Chapter fifteen, paragraph fifteen (15.15) of the Reporters Report on Education Matters, where numeric forecasts are mentioned. We do not, at this time, advocate that the upper limits of the scenarios are accommodated but, certainly enough to sustain the viability of the Primary School and not necessarily to full capacity.

HiI Iwoodl Ratho & District Community Council

Hillwood has always operated on the basis of composite classes and has never been in a position to be considered as single stream with seven classes. The quality of education administered at Hillwood has never been in question due to composite classes and there is no compunction to change this set-up. However, should your statistics be proven wrong and there is any example of a future population increase,

the school has the space to accommodate this growth including any necessary additional building works.( See Education Matters 75.36)

We see that the Reporter has recommended that one hundred homes be built on the Freelands Road Site.(Housing Sites Assessment 21.78 (b).) This being a new Site that we can find no previous reference to and therefore have not had the opportunity to make comment. We question this. A further 80 homes on the Craigpark Site will ensure the stability of Ratho Primary School. Why has the same criteria not been administered by the Reporter in the case of Hillwood Primary? It would appear that double standards have been used when deliberating new home build allocation throughout the Ward.

We are also aware that the Council, West Lothian Council and the Scottish Executive are actively seeking an alternative location for the RHASS Showground. If there are plans to limit house building in Ratho Station to accommodate a re-located Showground, then we believe residents, representatives, ourselves (RDCC) and key stakeholders should be informed and consulted as a matter of urgency.

Bearing the aforementioned in mind, we would urge you to question the recommendations of the Reporter and put into place an acceptable compromise that will ensure the future of Hillwood Primary School and retain the sustainability, regeneration and identity of Ratho Station and Newbridge Villages.

Yours sincerely ,

Paul Douglas (RDCC Chair.)

CC. Margaret Smith MSP John Longstaff Cllr Trevor Davies Cllr RDCC Members Hillwood Primary School Ratho Station Residents Association RATHO STATION RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

By e.mail

City of Edinburgh Council Sheila Rutherford-McCallum Planning Committee Secretary City Chambers Ratho Station Residents Association EDINBURGH c/o 12 Hillwood Rise EH1 RATHO STATION EH28 8PZ

Dear Mr Andrew Holmes

Reference Reporters recommendations for Ratho Station

Can you please ensure that this document is presented to the planning committee meeting to morrow.

We are writing to you to advise that in light of recent representations by PPG with reference to development in Ratho Station, and articles in the local press today that we, Ratho Station Residents’ Association, stand by our original objections as placed before the reporter at the public inquiry.

Yours sincerely

Sheila Rutherford-McCallum Secretary Ratho Station Residents Association Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 512 PM Subject: Reporter Recommendations - Ratho and Kirkliston

Please find the following message from Margaret Smith MSP, regarding the Reporter recommendations for Ratho and Kirkliston

Dear Trevor

Ratho Station and Kirkliston Housing Land Allocations I am writing to you to raise my urgent concerns at the Reporters recommendations to support the allocation of 760 houses in Kirkliston but not an allocation of up to 200 houses in Ratho Station. My primary concern is the impact these actions, if accepted by the Council, would have on local primary schools. Hillwood Primary would be under threat and a new second school would need to be built in Kirkliston. I appreciate that these are very live issues in Edinburgh following the announcement of the school review.

If the extra housing was not to go ahead in Ratho Station it seems likely that Hillwood Primary School would have to close. This would be a significant blow , not only to the pupils, staff and parents of Hillwood but to the village as a whole . It would impact badly on the sustainability and regeneration of the village and its sense of community.

I know that the Council takes this issue very seriously, as I do. I have previously met the Head of the Economic Development Department to try to encourage work into the regeneration of both Ratho Station and Newbridge and I very much welcome the study the Council has undertaken. I eagerly await the study's findings. Allowing further house building in Ratho Station would also link into the proposed Tram Line 2.

If a further 760 houses were to be built in Kirkliston it would change the character of the village and would upset the community cohesion which comes from having one village primary school. The existing school would probably need to run a number of composite classes and to operate between I and 2 streams.

I am obviously aware that we are currently waiting further work being done as part of the West Edinburgh Planning Framework but I don't accept that the thrust of the Framework to date was to turn Ratho Station and the other areas around the A8 into purely industrial areas. We must surely try to achieve the correct balance between economic growth; sustainability; delivery of housing (affordable and otherwise) and village regeneration ..

I am also aware that the Council, West Lothian Council and the Scottish Executive are currently looking for an alternative site for the Royal Highland Show. If the Council, and indeed the Scottish Executive, have plans to limit house building in Ratho Station to accommodate a re-located Showground then I believe local residents and representatives should be informed and consulted as a matter of urgency.

Bearing all of this in mind I would urge Councillors to delay a final decision until these various ongoing studies are completed. This would then allow residents, representatives, the Council and other key stakeholders to work together on the best way forward for Ratho Station, Kirkliston and Newbridge.

I would be happy to discuss this matter with you if that would be helpful.

Best wishes, Yours sincerely, Margaret Smith MSP MSP for Edinburgh West Kirkliston community Counci 1 Mrs Linda Smith, Secretary Mr JW Henderson, Chairman 4 I Dwidas Place 41 Maitland Rod Kirkliston Kirkliston EH29 9BJ EH29 Tel: 0131 333 5172 el: 0131 333 3309

Alan Henderson City of Edinburgh Head of Planning & Strategy 1 Cockburn Street Edinburgh EH1 1BB

I 28 October 2005 I ! _-,. --% . Dear Sir

Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

I am writing to you on behalf of the Kirkliston Community Council. The Community Council has previously expressed its concerns relating to the contents of the Draft Plan. Further concerns are now arising from the findings ofthe Public Enquiry.

The two main areas of plan that we strongly object to are in relation to Housing and School Provision.

Housing To build a Mer800 houses in Kirkliston would completely swap the existing village. Kirkliston is a close-knit community and the Community Council along with other organisations within the village are striving to keep it that way. We also do not have the public transport links to support such a large increase in potential travellers nor are there any job opportunities in the village.

School Provision We do not support the current plan to build a second school in the village. One of the strengths of the existing school is that pupils from all walks of life are open to attend. To build a new school, serving mainly the private sector would create a NorthiSouth divide withm the village. As the existing school was built with the capability for expansion we would urge you to investigate this fully before committing to a new building. Although we accept that the City of Edinburgh has a duty to identify areas for new housing developments, and that Kirkliston must take its fair share, what we cannot accept is the increase of 60% on the current housing stock. We also totally oppose the building of a second school in Kirkliston and have the general support of the community on this issue.

To conclude, we would greatly appreciate that the issues raised are given your consideration before a final decision is reached.

Linda Smith Secretary On behalf of Gkliston Community Council